Skip to content

The NACBS Blog

Thanks to all those who have shown interest in the NACBS 2011 Annual Meeting, to be held in Denver, Colorado, from November 18 to 20.  The Call
for Papers is available at http://www.nacbs.org/conference.htm.

The link to the electronic submissions site will soon be posted to the NACBS Website.  However, those who wish to access further instructions can consult the site beginning now.  For detailed submissions instructions and for access to the submissions system, please go to http://nacbsproposal.fiu.edu.

We look forward to considering your submissions for single papers, three-person panels, and four-person roundtables or panels.  If you have questions or if you wish to make a submission that deviates from these formats, please contact the Program Chair, Lara Kriegel, at nacbsprogram@gmail.com.

The deadline for submissions is Tuesday, March 15, 2011.

0 Comments Read full post »

While much time and attention has been devoted recently to scrutinizing the government’s proposals on fees and teaching funding, important changes have already been implemented to the way in which our research funding is spent – and although some science blogs and spokespeople have raised the alarm, humanities scholars have almost totally overlooked this issue.

As we know, arts and humanities research funding has been ring-fenced – or at least ‘flat-cashed’ – along with science research funding, and this achievement has been hailed by the leaderships of the AHRC and the British Academy as a vindication of their canny strategy of piggybacking onto public support for science research.  However, there are costs as well as benefits of this strategy.  In a recent statement by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) on ‘The Allocation of Science and Research Funding, 2011/12-2014/15’ (December 2010), BIS now tells us how this ring-fenced research funding is to be spent.  That’s right, it tells us how it is to be spent.

One of the highlights of the BIS statement is its ‘clarification’ – i.e. its re-writing, or some would say its neutering – of the ‘Haldane Principle’, the convention accepted by government since 1918 that (to quote the BIS statement’s version) ‘decisions on individual research proposals are best taken by researchers themselves through peer review’.  Now, as the historian of science David Edgerton has argued, it was never as simple as that, and the Haldane Principle has been shown to be highly flexible for some time.  The last government, for example, found it easy to bribe the AHRC and the British Academy with extra funds if these bodies responded to the government agenda by themselves reserving some of their research funds for government priorities.  In this way we have had a growing number of ‘directed programmes’ in which the funders channelled research money to intellectual priorities that obviously originated with government, such as ‘social cohesion’ and ‘social inclusion’;  we have also had the ‘impact agenda’ by which funders agreed to require from funding recipients demonstrations of economic (and, if we were lucky, social and cultural) impact again on criteria originating from government.

But it did still matter that the Haldane Principle was there to be respected.  Successive leaderships of the AHRC have told us repeatedly that the directed programmes were just icing on the cake, releasing more funding for ‘responsive’ programmes, where the choice of projects to be funded was determined purely by peer review.

As of now, this is no longer the case.  In its latest document BIS restates its support for the Haldane Principle but also offers a ‘further clarification’, based on consultation with ‘senior figures’.  This clarification establishes the new principle – perhaps it should be the Cable Principle? – that government can and should set ‘key national strategic priorities’ which should guide the research funders ‘without crowding out other areas of their missions’.  Peer review remains supreme in deciding which specific proposals best address these priorities, but the priorities now can and will come from government.

What does this mean in practice?  The BIS document specifies this in certain cases with devastating clarity.  The AHRC for example ‘will direct’ – is this a prediction or an order? – ‘a significant part of its funding into six strategic areas…communities and big society;  civic values and active citizenship, including ethics in public life;  creative and digital economy;  cultural heritage;  language-based disciplines;  and interdisciplinary collaborations with a range of STEM subjects’.  Those are, says BIS, ‘the highest priorities in arts and humanities’.  Thanks for letting us know.  In certain respects instructions to the British Academy have been still more specific.  The Academy’s support for individuals is supposed to complement the research councils’ support for team projects, but the Academy has been told summarily to abandon its small research grants (which have probably been the best value-for-money grants government has ever funded for humanities research, but – obviously their fatal flaw –  purely ‘responsive’ to individuals’ own choice of research topics).  Instead, the Academy has been told to focus on postdoctoral awards, both early and mid-career, ‘that contribute to national priorities’.  In another piece of fancy prosaic footwork, BIS tells us that ‘The Academy expects a majority of Postdoctoral Fellowship awards to be linked to challenges such as these.’  I don’t think the Academy’s ‘expectation’ was a spontaneous one.  And what happened to the stipulation that national priorities should not crowd out other missions?

Now of course in a democracy we want government to have powers to direct research according to priorities chosen by the electorate.  As the BIS document says, lots of important research decisions necessarily involve government input – they decide how much money is allocated overall, and some allocations are so large (e.g. for the most expensive scientific research establishments) that surely government must have some say in them.  As the document further says, government departments can and do commission their own research.  But in a democracy we also want our universities to be insulated from undue government pressure – we want universities to be centres of free enquiry, diverse, critical and independent.  The Haldane Principle did establish some crucial arm’s-length independence for academic research which has been in part responsible for the extraordinary degree of freedom fostered in British academic culture in the postwar period – which has made it the global competitor that it still is, just about, today, and also has been the source of much novelty and creativity that no government department can plan for (as one would expect Conservative governments to recognize).  We ought not to give it up without a fight.

One reason why there has been no fight is also made clear in the BIS document.  The only spokespeople we have had for the humanities – the British Academy and the AHRC – are now so completely enmeshed in the government apparatus that they no longer have any independent voice.  So far as I can tell, no-one in either of these bodies has consulted or spoken out on the issue of the Haldane Principle;  presumably some must have been among the ‘senior figures’ consulted, but all of this consultation now takes place behind closed doors, and is deeply compromised by the carrots and sticks at the government’s disposal.  Similarly, although the BIS document says that ‘in making strategic decisions on the funding of research’ it is important that government ‘take account of advice from a wide variety of expert sources, including academia and industry, both nationally and internationally’ – if this happened in making the strategic decisions now laid out for us for the next 5 years, I missed it, and I certainly missed any public discussion emanating from the British Academy on what these national priorities should be.  The BIS document calls the British Academy ‘an important source of authoritative, impartial advice’.  Does anyone believe this description any longer?  Clearly we need a truly independent voice for the humanities that is not beholden to government in any way.

Postscript:  the BIS document also notes, with some evident regret, that HEFCE (and thus the QR funding it distributes via the RAE/REF) is not subject to its ‘national priorities’ because the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act prohibits government from attaching ‘terms and conditions on grants to HEFCE’ with reference to particular programmes of research.  Should we expect in pending legislation reorganizing HEFCE a ‘clarification’ of that prohibition too?

Peter Mandler
Dr. Mandler is Professor of Modern Cultural History at Gonville and Caius College at Cambridge University.  He is the Vice President of the Royal Historical Society.

0 Comments Read full post »

January
13
2011

Reviews in History - New Reviews for December

Posted by dannymillum under Announcement | Tags: Reviews in History | 0 Comments

The following reviews of possible interest to readers were published in December in the Institute of Historical Research's e-journal Reviews in History (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews).

Firstly, Gary Magee and Andrew Thompson’s ‘Empire and Globalisation: Networks of People, Goods and Capital in the British World’, c.1850–1914, is reviewed by Stuart Ward.

Elizabeth Tilley’s discusses ‘The Punch Brotherhood: Table Talk and Print Culture in Mid-Victorian London’ by Patrick Leary.

Two major new digital resources, ‘The Illustrated London News Historical Archive, 1842–2003’  and ‘London Lives 1690–1800’, are also reviewed, by Peter Sinnema and Ben Heller respectively.

From the field of medieval history we have a review by Mark Hagger of an accessible and engaging book on the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, Ann Williams’ ‘The World Before Domesday: The English Aristocracy 900–1066’.

‘Arthur Tudor, Prince of Wales: Life, Death and Commemoration’, an edited collection produced by Steven Gunn and Linda Monckton, is recommended as a richly detailed monograph by Simon Lambe.

Turning to the Victorian era, we have Richard Gaunt’s ‘Sir Robert Peel: the Life and Legacy’. Our reviewer Robert Saunders believes that this book will serve as a useful introduction to one of Britain’s most enigmatic political figures.

Elsewhere Daniel Spence recommends a work which uses individual testimonies to bring out the broader issues surrounding Africans in the Second World War, ‘Fighting for Britain: African Soldiers in the Second World War’ by David Killingray.

And finally, the IHR’s very own Matt Phillpott praises an important addition to the debate concerning early modernity and modernity, in his review of Phil Withington’s ‘Society in Early Modern England: The Vernacular Origins of Some Powerful Ideas’.

As always, all comments or suggestions should be sent to danny.millum@sas.ac.uk.

0 Comments Read full post »

January
6
2011

NACBS Reception at AHA, 8 January 2011

Posted by jaskelly under Announcement, Conferences, NACBS | 0 Comments

I am writing to remind members of the North American Conference on British Studies that the organization will host a reception at this weekend's Annual Meeting of the AHA in Boston.

The reception will occur from 5:30-7:00 p.m. on Saturday, January 8th in the Provincetown Room at the Marriott Boston Copley Place.

If you are attending the AHA, please do make an effort to come by the NACBS reception. I look forward to seeing many of you there.

Best wishes,
Paul Deslandes
Associate Executive Secretary, NACBS

--
Paul Deslandes
Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Department of History
University of Vermont
Wheeler House
133 South Prospect St.
Burlington, VT 05405

e-mail: paul.deslandes@uvm.edu
Phone: (802)656-3535
Fax: (802)656-8794

0 Comments Read full post »

CALL FOR PAPERS
Midwest Conference on British Studies 57th Annual Meeting
November 4-6, 2011, Terre Haute, IN

The Midwest Conference on British Studies is proud to announce that its fifty-seventh annual meeting will be hosted by Indiana State University in Terre Haute, IN.

The MWCBS seeks papers from scholars in all fields of British Studies, broadly defined to include those who study England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and Britain's empire. We welcome scholars from the broad spectrum of disciplines, including but not limited to history, literature, political science, gender studies and art history. Proposals for complete sessions are preferred, although proposals for individual papers will be considered. Especially welcome are roundtables and panels that:

  • offer cross-disciplinary perspectives on topics in British Studies
  • discuss collaborative or innovative learning techniques in the British Studies classroom
  • situate the arts, letters, and sciences in a British cultural context
  • examine representations of British and imperial/Commonwealth national identities
  • consider Anglo-American relations, past and present
  • examine new trends in British Studies
  • assess a major work or body of work by a scholar

The MWCBS welcomes papers presented by advanced graduate students and will award the Walter L. Arnstein Prize at its plenary luncheon for the best graduate student paper(s) given at the conference.

Proposals should include a 200-word abstract for each paper and a brief, 1-page c.v. for each participant, including chairs and commentators. For full panels, please include a brief 200-word preview of the panel as a whole. Please place the panel proposal, and its accompanying paper proposals and vitas in one file. Please make certain that all contact information, particularly email addresses are correct and current. All proposals should be submitted online by April 15, 2011, to the Program Committee Chair, Lia Paradis at lia.paradis@sru.edu.

Visit the MWCBS website at http://mwcbs.edublogs.org/.

MWCBS Program Committee:  Lia Paradis, Chair, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania; Gene Beiriger, DePaul University; Lori Campbell, University of Pittsburgh; Essaka Joshua, University of Notre Dame; Chris Otter, Ohio State University; Anne Rodrick, Wofford College.

0 Comments Read full post »

We need a Public Commission of Enquiry on the future of higher education
Michael Collins, 25 November 2010

It is clear from the scale of yesterday’s largely peaceful demonstrations and occupations across Britain that there is an enormous amount of concern amongst young people – school children and university students – over the future of higher education. They are not alone.

There is a growing sense of unease in academic circles about what the Browne report’s plans to increase undergraduate tuition fees by almost six thousand pounds per year will mean. More specifically, how will a marketised ‘supply and demand’ model for arts and humanities funding really function in practice?  The proposed withdrawal of the teaching grant for arts and humanities and the replacement of this lost revenue with a user fee would have devastating effects leading to the loss of jobs, institutions and expertise that would not be recovered once they had been cut.

Education and research institutions cannot be set up, shut down and restarted according to the vagaries of market demand. British universities do not benefit from the enormous endowments of American institutions, which can help them adapt to change. With so much uncertainty about future employment prospects and economic conditions, student numbers will ebb and flow. How can university vice-chancellors, deans of faculties and heads of departments plan their research and teaching on such shifting ground? Higher education needs much greater stability and continuity, and the long-term consequences of ill-conceived change could be immensely damaging.

As many of us have argued, it is essential to restate the wider social, intellectual, moral and political values of the arts and humanities, as well as point out the falsity of any division between arts and humanities on the one side and supposedly economically valuable sciences on the other. In short, we must recognise that humanities matter, just as we have acknowledged that ‘science is vital’. However, as well as making these wider arguments the immediate political context in which this government is proposing to implement reforms in higher education remains a central problem.

In its response to the Browne report the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) – a respected independent think tank – has pointed out that “in cash terms the proposals will increase public expenditure through this parliament and into the next”. This is a very obvious fact that is too frequently ignored. The fee that students pay is not ‘up front’, but has to be funded by the government. They will effectively be given a loan to purchase a higher education product. The income stream from repayments – which is supposed to form the long term basis for higher education funding – will not come back to the treasury for many years to come.

This completely demolishes the argument that current changes to higher education funding are concurrent with a deficit reduction strategy in the spirit of “we are all in this together”. The changes will mean a real terms increase in government spending, and hence can only be explained by reference to the coalition’s ideological commitment to market-led reforms, regardless of the cost to the public purse. Regrettably, government ministers have repeatedly made rhetorical links between increasing tuition fees and deficit reduction, and the media has too frequently allowed this fallacy to inform its reporting and its lines of questioning.

Under present circumstances the government must think again about seeking to push through reforms which may do very substantial damage to our higher education sector. There is no economic case to be made that these reforms are part of an urgent solution to reducing Britain’s budget deficit. Given the promises made by coalition partners at the 2010 general election, there is also no political mandate for change. There is widespread fear, anger and confusion.

An alternative idea is to draw back from reform based on the Browne report and opt for a Public Commission. This may be politically difficult, but will become more palatable if opposition to the coalition’s plans is increased from all sides. It is unfortunate that public money has already been spent on producing a report into this matter, but Browne is a wholly inadequate basis on which to move forward. It is also clear that all three major political parties need to take more time to re-think their positions on higher education funding.

The government should therefore set up a Public Commission to examine the function and funding of higher education from first principles. Only such a move could produce the kind of consensus required to make reform deliverable and place the future of UK higher education on a sustainable footing.

Michael Collins is lecturer in twentieth century British history at UCL.

Michael Collins writes in a purely personal capacity and his views in no way reflect those of UCL.

This article is published by Michael Collins, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.

BISI Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the NACBS or its affiliates.  For information on our editorial policies, see http://nacbs.edublogs.org/bisi-editorials/.

0 Comments Read full post »

November
24
2010

BISI Editorials

Posted by jaskelly | 0 Comments

About BISI Editorials

BISI Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the NACBS or its affiliates.  Our aim is to host a space for debate and agreement in which users are able to participate.

Registered readers are invited to comment on any article, providing they read and abide by our community standards and participation guidelines (see below). Comments are post-moderated but in order to keep the standard of debate as high as possible our moderators will intervene swiftly if users contravene the guidelines.

If you have an editorial that you would like to publish, please e-mail  it to Jason M. Kelly at jaskelly@iupui.edu.  While all submissions will be considered,  publication will depend upon space, content, and relevance.  Not all submissions will receive a reply.

Editorial Guidelines

BISI accepts opinion articles on any topic related to British and Irish Studies. The suggested length is 750 words, but submissions of any length will be considered. We ask that all submissions be sent exclusively to BISI. Typically, we will not consider articles that have already been published in print or online. Submissions may be sent to Jason M. Kelly at jaskelly@iupui.edu.

Please note that e-mailed articles should be pasted or typed into the body of the message; please do not send attachments.

We read all submissions promptly and will contact you within five business days if we are going to publish your article. If you have not heard from us within five business days, please assume that we will not be able to publish your article. Given the volume of submissions we receive, we regret that we are unable to call or email in the event an article has been rejected.

Participation and Moderation Guidelines

The BISI editorial standards are a slightly modified version of the Guardian.co.uk Community  Standards and Participation Guidelines (http://www.guardian.co.uk/community-standards).

1. We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated. The key to maintaining BISI as an inviting space is to focus on intelligent discussion of topics.

2. For the sake of robust debate, we will distinguish between constructive, focused argument and smear tactics.

3. We understand that people often feel strongly about issues debated on the site, but we will consider removing any content that others might find extremely offensive or threatening. Please respect other people's views and beliefs and consider your impact on others when making your contribution.

4. We reserve the right to redirect or curtail conversations which descend into flame-wars based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations. We don't want to stop people discussing topics they are enthusiastic about, but we do ask users to find ways of sharing their views that do not feel divisive, threatening or toxic to others.

5. We will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of hate-speech, or contributions that could be interpreted as such. We recognise the difference between criticising a particular government, organisation, community or belief and attacking people on the basis of their race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age.

6. We will remove any content that may put us in legal jeopardy, such as potentially libellous or defamatory postings, or material posted in potential breach of copyright.

7. We will remove any posts that are obviously commercial or otherwise spam-like. Our aim is that this site should provide a space for people to interact with our content and each other, and we actively discourage commercial entities passing themselves off as individuals, in order to post advertising material or links. This may also apply to people or organisations who frequently post propaganda or external links without adding substantively to the quality of the discussion on BISI.

8. Keep it relevant. We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you post something which is unrelated to the original topic ("off-topic") then it may be removed, in order to keep the thread on track. This also applies to queries or comments about moderation, which should not be posted as comments.

9. Be aware that you may be misunderstood, so try to be clear about what you are saying, and expect that people may understand your contribution differently than you intended. Remember that text isn't always a great medium for conversation: tone of voice (sarcasm, humour and so on) doesn't always come across when using words on a screen.

10. The platform is ours, but the conversation belongs to everybody. We want this to be a welcoming space for intelligent discussion, and we expect participants to help us achieve this by notifying us of potential problems and helping each other to keep conversations inviting and appropriate. If you spot something problematic in community interaction areas, please report it. When we all take responsibility for maintaining an appropriate and constructive environment, the debate itself is improved and everyone benefits.

0 Comments Read full post »

November
19
2010

CFP: NACBS 2011

Posted by jaskelly under Announcement, Conferences | Tags: cfp, Conferences, NACBS, nacbs 2011, North American Conference on British Studies, wcbs | 0 Comments

NACBS/WCBS 2011CALL FOR PAPERS
NORTH AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON BRITISH STUDIES

ANNUAL MEETING
DENVER, COLORADO
NOVEMBER 18-20, 2011

The NACBS and its Western affiliate, the WCBS, seek participation by scholars in all areas of British Studies for the 2011 meeting. We solicit proposals for panels on Britain, the British Empire and the British world. Our interests range from the medieval to the modern. We welcome participation by scholars across the humanities and social sciences.

We invite panel proposals addressing selected themes, methodology, and pedagogy, as well as roundtable discussions of topical and thematic interest, including conversations among authors of recent books and reflections on landmark scholarship. North American scholars, international scholars and Ph.D. students are all encouraged to submit proposals for consideration.

Strong preference will be given to complete panel or roundtable proposals that consider a common theme. Panels typically include three papers and a comment; roundtables customarily have four presentations. Individual paper proposals will also be considered in rare cases. We urge those with single paper submissions to search for additional panelists on lists such as H-Albion or at venues such as the NACBS Facebook page. Applicants may also write to the Program Chair for suggestions (nacbsprogram@gmail.com).

All scholars working in the field of British Studies are encouraged to apply for the 2011 conference, though we especially welcome papers from those who did not appear on the 2010 program. Panels that include both emerging and established scholars are especially encouraged, as are submissions with broad chronological focus and interdisciplinary breadth. We welcome the participation of junior scholars and Ph.D. candidates beyond the qualifying stage. To enable intellectual interchange, we ask applicants to compose panels that feature participation from a range of institutions. No participant will be permitted to take part in more than one session except in exceptional circumstances cleared by the Program Committee, and no more than one proposal will be considered from each applicant.

All submissions must be received by March 15, 2011.
For details, directions and online submission procedures, see www.nacbs.org/conference.html.

Please send questions about panel requirements
and suggestions about program development to
Lara Kriegel, NACBS Program Chair
History and English Departments, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
nacbsprogram@gmail.com

0 Comments Read full post »

November
9
2010

Reviews in History - New Reviews for October

Posted by dannymillum under Announcement | Tags: Reviews in History | 0 Comments

The following reviews of possible interest to followers of the Intelligencer were published in October in the Institute of Historical Research’s e-journal Reviews in History (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews).

Our featured review (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/971) this month is Leonard Schwarz’s take on Julie Flavell’s 'When London Was Capital of America', set at a time when people on both sides of the Atlantic viewed the city as their capital.

A very different London is the setting for Frank Mort’s 'Capital Affairs: London and the Making of the Permissive Society', in which the city serves as an urban prism bringing into focus changes in personal and sexual lives taking place in this period. Read Nigel Rapport’s review here (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/968).

Then we have two very different books on injury and woundedness. The first, 'Containing Trauma: Nursing Work in the First World War' by Christine Hallett, deals with this from the perspective of nurses in the Great War (the review by Anne Crowther can be found here (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/972)).Meanwhile the second, Sarah Covington’s 'Wounds, Flesh, and Metaphor in Seventeenth-Century England', set three hundred years earlier, is concerned instead with wounds as metaphors. It’s reviewed for us (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/974) by Victoria Sparey.

We also have a discussion (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/976) between Greg Smith and Drew Gray of the latter’s 'Crime, Prosecution and Social Relations: The Summary Courts of the City of London in the Late Eighteenth Century', which our reviewer found a fresh and welcome contribution to our understanding of the role of law in 18th-century London.

Then Joseph Monteyne takes on (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/978) 'Printed Images in Early Modern Britain: Essays in Interpretation', an impressive new edited volume which ranges across a number of disciplinary boundaries.

Next Sally Sokoloff finds a new book on POW families casts light on a hitherto neglected field, as she reviews (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/981) 'War and Welfare: British Prisoner of War Families, 1939-45' by Barbara Hately-Broad.

Lastly this month on the book front Vic Gammon is slightly disappointed (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/980) by a new book on the historical and cultural study of popular song, Robin Ganev’s 'Songs of Protest, Songs of Love: Popular Ballads in Eighteenth-Century Britain'.

The first of two digital resources covered this month is the online appearance of that venerable institution 'Mass Observation, and Mass Observation Online' is both enjoyed and recommended (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/969) by our reviewer Nick Hubble. Then we have the 'London Transport Museum Film Collection Online', which our reviewer Barbara Schmucki (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/982) recommends as a collection of films which is both an invaluable source and immensely entertaining.

A list of all our British and Irish history reviews can be found here: http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/subject/geographical-area/britain-and-ireland

As always, all comments or suggestions should be sent to danny.millum@sas.ac.uk.

0 Comments Read full post »

October
14
2010

Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW) Survey

Posted by jaskelly under Announcement | Tags: ACLS, CAW, Coalition on the Academic Workforce | 0 Comments

The ACLS is backing this multi-disciplinary survey of non-tenure-line faculty.  The survey, for all fields, collects data on working conditions from all those who teach off the tenure track (including graduate students).

The Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW) invites all members of the contingent academic workforce in U.S. colleges and universities to participate in this survey. The survey inquires about course assignments, salaries, benefits, and general working conditions as members of the contingent academic workforce experience them at the institutional level. We invite participation from all instructional and research staff members employed off the tenure track, including faculty members employed either full- or part-time, graduate students remunerated as teaching assistants or employed in other roles, and researchers and post-doctoral fellows.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VNNNRVS

0 Comments Read full post »

Categories


2016
2016 annual meeting
AFIHR
AHA
Announcement
Award
BISI
BISI,
Blog
blog post
Brexit
British and Irish Studies Intelligencer
Call for Editors
CFP
conference
conference, NACBS 2014
Conferences
Digital Humanities
Editorials
endorsement
executive director
Grants and Awards
h-albion
IHR
Interview
JBS
Jobs
MACBS
meeting minutes
member news
MWCBS
my NACBS
MyNACBS
NACBS
NACBS Membership Offers
NECBS
new book
Obituaries
obituary
op-ed
pedagogy
photographs
Pre-dissertation award
Priya Satia
Prize
prizes
publication
reception
Regionals
SCBS
Seminar
Teaching
Test
test category
Trump
walter d love prize

 

Affiliated Organisations