Notes on: Arday, J. (2022b) 'More
to prove and more to lose': race, racism and
precarious employment in higher education. British
Journal of Sociology of Education. 43 (4):
513 – 33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2022.2074375
Dave Harris
[The abstract says this uses a CRT framework and
explores the experiences of staff of colour. 18
participants across 10 universities, focus groups,
three key themes, limitations, recommendations for
future practices. For me, it has several problems,
however. Unlike some of the sources cited
here,especially Benach et al. and Ferrie,
Arday does not examine the ambiguities in the term
'precarious employment' which, among other things,
clearly affect attempts to measure 'it'.
Those studies also recommend a longitudinal
multimethodological study as the best way to
proceed and it is not at all clear why Arday has
chosen a small qualitative study instead. he does
end by suggesting more quantitative analysis might
be needed,but he does not much develop consider
even the basics like whether race is more
important in determining casualised status than
gender. Ableism is not discussed, although the UCU
Report he cites does so, odd given his other
interests. Social class has long vanished as a
separate variable of course. His respondents will
probably have strong opinions already, as a
further problem with what Ferrie calls
'self-report' data, which in her case often
affects the recording of pathological effects like
unhappiness, insecurity, sometimes even
illness and depression as well.
Any Tory spokesperson could point out the obvious
omission of any claimed 'positive' effects of
precarious employment too -- some people claim to
like its flexibility and this possibility might
have been allowed for at least.
Still on the political front, how on earth does a
CRT stance line up with the methods and policy
recommendations in this study? A paragraph on CRT
ends with saying that counterstories are crucial
-- see below -- but are not used. Liberal policies
seem to be recommended at the end -- monitoring,
proper clarification etc. And all to strengthen
'rights' for Black university employees!]
Precarious employment is increasing especially
after the pandemic and this has brought rising
levels of in work poverty [lots of references].
There are limits on levelling up and a fall in
international competition, lack of social security
protections, public health issues, declines in
psychological and physical health [very expert
summary], childcare.
This is about the impact of the gig economy in HE
especially looking at staff of colour, it draws on
CRT and thematic analysis [!] It argues that
systemic racism plays an integral part in existing
cultures. The study 'emanates' from the
marginalised voices of 18 black, Asian and
minority ethnic members of staff across the
Russell group and post 19 institutions.
Eradicating precarity means promoting
egalitarianism and eliminating exploitation [well,
it leaves standard 'Fordist' forms of
exploitation].
CRT is explained via Delgarno and
Stephancic, Dixson and Rousseau Solorzano
and Yosso define it in education. Further
references include Collins on centrality and
intersectionality, race as a social context,
whiteness as property the value of experiential
knowledge, the difficulties of recognising racism
and the need to include in research and
intersectionality. Whiteness as property is
developed to become associated 'with other
abstract concepts such as time, creativity or
education' [according to Mensah and Jackson 2018].
Neutrality, objectivity, colourblindness and
meritocracy are all to be challenged because they
'maintain the value of whiteness. Counter
storytelling is important [why not use it then?].
A UCU report suggests that one third of all
academics are on fixed term contracts, one half of
teaching-only academics, two thirds for
research-only academics, 30% of HEIs use zero hour
contracts, lots of hourly paid and casualisation
which reinforces insecurity, UCU goes on to list
struggles to pay household bills, to build
careers, and to experience emotional and practical
consequences, which links with more general
studies. It is difficult for staff to resist.
Russell group institutions were the worst
offenders according to UCU so 'elitism may be a
factor serving to reinforce patterns' (516). Apart
from that there are correlations with age, gender
and race, and women are particularly likely to be
negatively impacted.
HESA data reinforces effective gender. barriers
Qualitative studies do as well [a string of these,
getting a bit repetitive again, 517] there
is 'positive research exploring race',
especially in disaggregating data, although there
is some UCU data suggesting that numbers are
concerning.
[Back to general arguments about whiteness]
'standard work arrangements have historically been
reserved for white people and men… White
supremacy' (517), so the high number of BAME
[still] in non-standard work arrangements 'can be
seen as a reinforcement of white supremacy and the
systematic dehumanisation of people of colour… The
concept of whiteness as property'. More research
is required.
[Then some repetition again from Kalleberg and
Vallas 2018 which does a lot of work]. They ask
for disaggregated data especially to disaggregate
attributes of precariousness. Hence the need to
unpack 'the individual experiences of BAME staff
[unlike most of his own work]. Implications for
this study?
[Very similar but abbreviated preamble, small
numbers e.g. mixed heritage 4, Asian or Asian
British three. 'The majority' were on precarious
contracts. Claims to have done thematic analysis
on 'latent themes 'updated Clarke and Brown,
citing Hylton 2012 for what a CRT framework is. He
is particularly interested in 'the sociocultural
contexts and structural conditions that underpin
individual accounts… Such as social
constructionism, whiteness as property and the
centrality of race'. 'Within a CRT framework, [?]
thematic analysis can: "allow the researcher to
study the power relations informing reality and to
engage in emancipatory investigations that value
the voices of the oppressed populations (Kiger and
Varpio 2020,2)" (519). So he familiarises himself
with the data, developed a coding frame and then
identifies key themes, iteratively of course. He
says the design and analytic process were
invariably shaped by disciplinary knowledge and
epistemology and his positionality.
He is a Black male academic and has been on
several precarious contracts in HE although not
when he was conducting this research. He gained
practical and theoretical understanding and
personal understanding and this provoked
disorientation and anxiety. He was both insider
and outsider. He was inevitably subjective and had
researcher bias, but this was mitigated through
the power of storytelling [?] and a recognition in
CRT that identity shaped research and is part of
the life of the researcher. He attempted to
maintain the status as a reflexive researcher.
Each participant completed self-administered
anonymous questionnaires [very familiar prose, but
not stored in ballot boxes this time, rather
'submitted virtually' 520]. The usual monitoring
information and comments about racism to develop
focus group and interview schedules. They had to
document at least one experience of racism linked
to employment. Then they had individual
semistructured interviews and unstructured focus
groups and the results drew on excerpts from the
two focus group discussions each of two hours .
All voices are included. All sessions were audio
recorded and transcribed verbatim again, written
notes, flipcharts facilitating a reflexive
process. Each one encouraged to express their
views [that is mostly same old same old on 520].
Candid conversations were sought [but were they
gained?. A four-part topic discussion guide was
developed and led by the researcher: '(1) what
has/have been your experience (s) of working on
precarious contracts? (2) what role has
race/racism played in your experience (s) of
working on precarious contracts? [Assumes that
they have any] (3) what has been the impact of
precarious work on your career progression and
trajectory? (4) what other impacts (if any) of
precarious work have you experienced?
Three themes are identified and sub themes:
systemic racism with three sub themes —
exploitation, dehumanisation and gendered racism;
job insecurity — financial insecurity, lack of
worklife balance, mental health and transience;
lack of career progression [apparently no sub
themes]. These are 'discussed against the existing
research landscape'
Systemic racism was a strong theme, lots of
feelings of exploitation and dehumanisation,
indeed clarity 'is experienced as a form of
institutional racism' (521) [them or you?], Racism
essential and whiteness as property and normative.
There is an unwillingness to name the contours of
racism and how it influences employment practices.
One quote make these points -- a person complains
of being on the same pay grade for seven years
compared to her white colleagues, from which she
concludes that racism underpins almost everything
The sub theme of exploitation showed a sense that
individuals at the top profited from the labour of
their ethnic minority workforce — one quote showed
this that temporary contracts kept black people
'"on the Plantation"', 'ahistorical, pervasive and
potentially dramatic component to their
experiences' (522). Part-time staff are expected
to do preparation and more work generally, two
quotes indicated. These experiences 'were directly
connected to experiences of racism, which 'speaks
to the body of research' [citing the TUC]. This
means that 'exploitation is interwoven into
university structures as their business models
depend on it'.
The sub theme of dehumanisation reveals itself in
feelings of distinction between them and us, [one
quote] feeling like second-class citizens, feeling
replaceable, being demoralised.
The sub theme of gendered racism appears as well,
unsurprisingly because 'white people, often male,
have a history of instituting and maintaining
hierarchies to rank themselves at the top' (523).
It is 'unsurprising that female staff of colour
did not feel they were seen as equivalent'
[another quote referring back to the Runnymede
trust and its phrase 'snowy peaks' of white men at
the top of universities. Oh – and the first
reference to A and M 2018]
Theme 2 job insecurity illustrated by a very brief
quote. Sub theme one about financial insecurity
again agrees with the UCU survey and is backed by
a quote and the feeling of being trapped.
Insecurity is described again together with a lack
of knowledge of rights. Sub theme two referred to
a lack of work – life balance, again illustrated
with a short and banal quote, the need to take on
other jobs and to sacrifice time with the family
again bringing problems of mental health, sub
theme three — same pattern short quotes referring
to depression and anxiety, again with an
insistence that these interact with immigrant and
ethnic minority status. Sub theme four mentions
transience, which can mean 'migrating to new
cities' [same with lots of lecturers] which can
produce a sense of displacement and leaving behind
families and home. 'Patterns of enforced movement
have been shown to deepen racial dominance' [what
in all circumstances?].
Theme three lack of career progression means a lot
of repetition about the problems of making
progress, attending interviews, the difficulty of
building up experience and a strong CV, being
forced to move — short brief quotes, all pretty
obvious.
The conclusion claims to draw on 'thematic
analysis underpinned by a CRT conceptual
framework'. It summarises the themes and sub
themes and to offer 'detangling discriminatory
elements' [sic]. Limitations include the
specificity of the participant group, although
marginalised voices were brought to the fore. He
should have done triangulation though [with what
or whom?], and it is important not to 'engender
the erasure of particularities spanning the
intersection' (528). At least, 'themes pointed
towards existence of discriminatory and
exploitative cultures within the Academy… Linked
to both racism and precarious employment, each
often appearing to interact and compound the
other, also seemingly moderated by gender'.
However, we need to 'exercise caution when
interpreting these findings, as quantitative
exploration would be required to better discern
causality, or to understand the interactive or
mediating nature of the factors seemingly at play'
[what a strange thing for a CRT enthusiast to say]
[Implications and recommendations]. POC experience
racism in the form of precarious employment
especially for WOC. Educators and policymakers
have to understand this and define and standardise
rights and benefits. They should reduce anxiety
and confusion. Longer term they need to move away
from the business model that devalues and
dehumanises professionals as disposable.
Precarious employment is still 'a significant
failing of the Academy'. Universities should
follow initiatives such as the Advance HE's Race
Equality Charter, and should consider abolishing
precarious employment, or at least: define it and
give advice, monitor it, consider early career
researchers who are often black and WOC, address
the snowy peaks, remember that casualisation
produces impacts on motivation and well-being and
may affect the building of a valued and stable
workforce [what liberal shit]
|
|