Adam Phillips

Introduction

The job market for the field of Writing Studies has undergone a seismic shift in recent years, led by an overall change to hiring practices within American institutions of higher education and the reverberations of the pandemic. As a recent graduate of a large, R1 university, the job market has always appeared to be a form of gatekeeping mechanism for the field, rife with uncertainty and—at times—ambiguity. Fortunately, I had a mentor who prepared me for the job market without giving me false hope or expectations. However, not all graduate students have this kind of mentorship. Furthermore, if there had been more accurate and complete data available at the time I enrolled in my doctoral program, I may have made different choices regarding my specializations and research trajectories. But there were also aspects of this process that empirical, quantitative data would have illuminated more distinctly. For instance, it would have been useful to know the total number of tenure-track jobs that were available versus Writing Studies graduates, which could have shown the competitiveness of the market more sharply. The field lacks an in-depth, data-driven repository that provides a more nuanced understanding of the market from year to year.

Data about Writing Studies, such as the total jobs available and the number of tenure-track (TT) and non-tenure-track (NTT) positions, has implications for future scholars and the field, as it would provide scholars with a more thorough understanding of the contemporary landscape of the field. Organizations like the National Census of Writing (NCW) use data within our field in order to “provide a data-based landscape of writing instruction at two- and four-year public and not-for-profit institutions of higher education in the United States.” The use of data to map the field in a variety of ways has also been suggested by scholars such as Derek Mueller. Mueller argues for “distant” and “thin” treatments of data in the field that “foster… incomplete but nevertheless vital glimpses of an interconnected disciplinary domain focused on relationships that define and cohere widespread scholarly activity” (3). Job market data carries implications for the field that may be better highlighted using this thin and distant methodology Mueller forwards. As well, Kate Pantelides and Mueller argue that “what big data methodologies offer us [are] opportunities for distant reading that provide us views we aren’t otherwise able to glimpse. Further avenues for research accompany such glimpses” (191). Information such as the total jobs in the field and the degrees awarded point to the need for the field to chronicle the job market more thoroughly, which could in turn lead to new avenues of exploration and an increase in sustainability for Writing Studies. More importantly, though, thin and distant reading of job market data is especially helpful in understanding the historical context and contemporary landscape of the field, allowing us to reflect upon and revise practices based upon what we have done and what we could do more effectively. Without understanding and paying attention to the market trends within the field, we may make miscalculations that have a lasting impact.

This paper discusses the job market for Writing Studies during the 2021–2022 academic year—the year that I first went on the market—in order to highlight market trends within the field. First, I begin with a review of literature to help set up context for the data presented, specifically focusing on literature about the Writing Studies job market and the data we have, calls within the field for more data on the job market, and studies that have been conducted. I then move into discussing the methods for collection and analysis of the data, culminating in a presentation of the findings and their implications for Writing Studies graduates and the field. This discussion raises questions about the sustainability of Writing Studies PhDs and programs, such as: should we limit the PhD programs in existence? Should we limit student enrollment even when the funding is available? These questions lead to suggestions for the field to consider before moving forward. Lastly, I close with directions for future research into the job market within the field. With a more nuanced approach to researching the job market within Writing Studies, I hope to expose contemporary trends in the job market that affect the field but also provide guidance to early career scholar-teachers^[1] of what to expect when anticipating the onerous academic job search process

Literature Review

The field of Writing Studies emerged as early as the late 19^th century at Harvard (Crowley; Berlin) and began burgeoning into an academic field through the 1960’s and 1970’s (Berlin 121), but it was not until recently that Writing Studies was recognized as a field of study by national organizations within higher education. I should note here that I am using “Writing Studies” to describe the field of scholars who identify as scholars of composition, rhetoric, composition and rhetoric, or technical and professional communication (TPC), many of whom reside in Departments of English (or related humanities departments). When I refer to field-wide, I am referring to research that provides insights at the field or disciplinary level. As Louise Wetherbee Phelps and John M. Ackerman point out, it was not until 2010 that the National Research Council (NRC) acknowledged Writing Studies as a research field and codified it within their taxonomy. One such area of interest within the field that has been underreported and under-documented has been the academic job market.

What Data We Have

One source that compiles useful job market data for Writing Studies scholars is the Modern Language Association’s Job Information List (MLA JIL), which was once the dominant avenue for exploration of the Writing Studies job market. The MLA JIL (changed to simply Job List in 2018) provides a report for each year that visualizes the data from past years, although it usually lags by a few years (as of writing this, the most recent report is for the 2018–2019 job market). These reports provide measurements and a variety of metrics for the Writing Studies jobs listed, such as TT or NTT and specializations within the field drawn from the NRC codes. These reports and the MLA Job List (JL) help to add transparency for early career scholar-teachers but are in many ways incomplete since their sole focus is not Writing Studies.

In addition to the data from the MLA JIL/JL and reports, Jim Ridolfo is one of the few scholars within the field who has worked to make the Writing Studies job market more transparent. His website Rhet Map: Mapping Rhetoric and Composition works to make visible the variety of Writing Studies jobs available each year to early career scholar-teachers throughout not just the United States but also Canada, Europe, and Asia. The data Ridolfo uses comes from a variety of sources, such as the MLA JIL/JL and submissions from university search committees, and although his methods for collection are not fully elucidated on the platform, it is arguably the most complete Writing Studies job market data available. In fact, “about ten percent of listings on rhetmap.org did not appear on the MLA JIL” (Ridolfo). Using GIS mapping, Ridolfo has created an interactive platform that Writing Studies job seekers can navigate easily, revealing the geographical location of jobs, academic rank for each job posting, as well as the posting date. Ridolfo began his project with the 2012–2013 job market season, and the data stays readily available for users to parse. Along with keeping a history of the Writing Studies job market, his platform also allows users to download data for their own uses, such as record keeping and research.

Calls For More Data

Gail Stygall forewarns Writing Studies scholars that “we lack hard information about the overall picture of employment in our field” (375). Other scholars also call for meticulous documentation of the field to preserve it and measure its progress. The Visibility Project, a project designed to gain national acknowledgement of Writing Studies as a field began in 2008 and culminated in 2010 with recognition from the NRC’s taxonomy of research disciplines (Ackerman and Phelps 199). Phelps and Ackerman argue that “[a]cross the profession, independent of institutional records and assessment, we need through professional organizations to gather, compile, analyze, and represent (graphically as well as verbally) the information we want to know about the field” (207). However, Stygall’s and Phelps and Ackerman’s calls seem to have gone unheeded in many ways, leading to a lack of research about the contemporary status of the Writing Studies job market and emerging trends.

Studies on the Writing Studies Job Market

In Stygall’s discussion of the Writing Studies job market, she analyses job listings from 1994–1998, revealing a few key observations: 1) there were a surplus of jobs in Writing Studies compared to graduates; 2) senior positions for Writing Studies scholars began to “emerge and expand”; and 3) Writing Studies as a field of specialization began to develop (375–6). In her research, Stygall finds that the overall market for Writing Studies graduates at the time was strong due to “demand still exceed[ing] the supply” (387). However, she warns about the practice of hiring contingent labor for composition courses and its potential to reduce “our good fortune” within the field (387). She concludes that we need to be our own shepherds by documenting the job market accurately within Writing Studies in ways that make visible the invisible for not only graduate students but also for the field. Not doing so, she warns, would do a disservice to graduate students and the field as a whole.

Two studies in particular try to document the field using Ridolfo’s data and/or the MLA JIL/JL to create a more transparent view of the Writing Studies job market. Christine M. LaVecchia, Janine Morris, Carla Sarr, and Jim Ridolfo summarize the 2012–2013 job market season, highlighting the geographical location of jobs posted, the type of institution the jobs reside within (two-year vs. four-year), the academic rank (used loosely to include administrative jobs such as deans and WPAs), and descriptive job title descriptions (such as English, writing, creative writing, humanities, literature, etc.). The authors provide valuable insights for the Writing Studies job market at the time, leading to the continuation of data collection. Similarly, Kathryn McClain and Jennifer Murray analyze the job postings on Rhet Map from 2013–2016, documenting the types of courses taught, course assignments, qualifications (digital technology emphasis vs. Writing Studies degree), and tenurability. The authors’ focus on early career scholar-teachers and the job hunt shows that about “52–56% of the total job listings during this three year period” were the “most accessible to new-to-the-market PhDs” (10), although they refrain from dissuading prospective applicants from ignoring the excluded job listings. Their conclusion points to the applicants’ need for skills, such as a combination of literature and composition, backed by fluency in “digital technologies and teaching pedagogies” (10). Through use of the available data, these studies reveal the skills that hiring committees were seeking for their Writing Studies job candidates as well as the variety of jobs available.

In the Writing Studies subfield of TPC, there has always already been a movement to document the field. On her website, Lisa Melonçon tracks the job market for TPC by collecting data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Digest of Education Statistics, finding that for the 2017–2018 job market there was a surplus of TPC graduates compared to available jobs and that there were approximately the same number of TT and NTT jobs advertised. Claire Lauer tracks trends with the use of technology and technological jargon within TPC from 1990–2011 in order to explicate the values of the subfield and how they have changed through the years.

Although only a few scholars have answered Stygall’s and Phelps and Ackerman’s calls for transparency within the Writing Studies job market, other scholars focus on the market in a variety of novel ways. Zarah Moeggenberg identifies the need for job market mentoring and suggests more professionalization of potential candidates, including scaffolding the creation of required materials^[2] throughout graduate school, mock interviews, early planning for prospective candidates, and reflecting on current mentoring practices. In Reaching the Profession: The Locations of the Rhetoric and Composition Job Market, Caroline Dadas advises both committees and candidates to critically examine the choices they make during the job search, and in Interview Practices as Accessibility: The Academic Job Market, Dadas argues for “more generous interview practices that take into account the various ways in which candidates might be disadvantaged by rigid structures.” Jennifer Sano-Franchini encourages hiring committees to consider current practices and revise them to account for the emotional aspect of the job search, creating more humane hiring practices. And lastly, Kathryn Johnson Gindlesparger reflects on TT and NTT administrative positions for early career scholar-teachers and the advantages and disadvantages of these positions.

These various scholars enrich our understanding of the Writing Studies job market in a variety of ways, and this study seeks to follow in their footsteps by looking more closely at the contemporary Writing Studies job market, specifically at the total jobs available for the 2021–2022 job market versus new PhD graduates, availability of TT and NTT jobs as well as the corresponding institution-size demographics, and regional availability of these jobs. Using the MLA JIL/JL and Ridolfo’s Rhet Map data, this study seeks to provide a data-driven, contemporary understanding of the job market in Writing Studies, documenting the field and comparing it to previous years in order to elicit undocumented current trends. Doing so provides much-needed information for both the field as well as early career Writing Studies scholar-teachers but may also lead to difficult questions about the future of Writing Studies. Without real-time data, we risk becoming complacent and risk the very future of the field. With seismic shifts occurring more frequently in the field, such as the advent of Generative AI (GAI) technologies, Writing Studies must pay more attention to job market trends in order to remain responsive to changes in higher education. However, based on real-time data, we will also be faced with difficult decisions that will inevitably have an impact on the field.

Methods

To answer Stygall’s and Phelps and Ackerman’s calls for more transparency within the Writing Studies job market, I developed a plan to compile all the job ads from the WPA-listserv (WPA-L) into a coded dataset for analysis. Collecting data in this way would have provided me the ability to code the listings in granular detail, such as coding for job materials requested and specializations targeted. However, one thing that I was not expecting was the lack of access to some of the older job ads for the 2021–2022 job market. Once I set out to parse the job ads into a spreadsheet, I soon realized that many of the older ads were taken down and inaccessible, which forced me to revise my research approach and, instead, use the data available from Jim Ridolfo’s Rhet Map coupled with data from other sources, such as the MLA JIL/JL, to highlight what nuances I could. This method made the analysis of data more in line with Mueller’s thin and distant approach to research instead of providing a granular analysis.

Undoubtedly, the thin and distant approach combined with Ridolfo’s data has its limitations, though. One such limitation is the inability to access many of the job descriptions posted from previous years through the links provided. These descriptions could allow for a more refined, granular analysis of the positions posted in terms of specializations sought as well as other details of interest. Another limitation is that although Rhet Map claims to have the most complete listings for Writing Studies jobs, postings are still omitted at times—likely because in order to get a job posting listed on Rhet Map, you have to either post to the MLA JIL/JL or submit it directly to the site; however, Google searches and reading the WPA-L revealed a few omitted listings in the data. Omissions such as this, however, are inevitable because there is no centralized repository for this type of data within the field. Lastly, job listings from other countries (other than Canada) are excluded. I made this choice in order to keep the focus on Writing Studies in western universities because most graduates in Writing Studies programs within the United States seek employment within the country. Including only western universities is another limitation of the study, as the data only apply to the United States and parts of Canada. This study, then, focuses predominantly on North American universities. These limitations are, however, mitigated by employing the research methodology that Derek Mueller forwards: distant and thin analysis. These data, though not as granular as I had originally hoped, can be used to identify general trends and areas of interest to prospective Writing Studies scholars and job seekers, producing actionable knowledge about the contemporary state of the field and historical trends.

The data available on Rhet Map for 2021–2022 came in a spreadsheet with codes assigned to features such as TT or NTT as well as the date posted, although I did have to add duplicate listings for cluster hires. If Rhet Map listed a job ad once that was hiring three TT positions, I included the listing three times to increase the accuracy of the total job data. I also tried to maintain this accurate accounting for NTT positions listed, although I was unable to account for cluster hires within ads that were ambiguous regarding how many positions were available. The rest of the data, however, needed additional coding to aggregate it effectively and provide a more nuanced understanding of the job market.

Category	Coded Information
University Size(Carnegie Classification System)	R1—Doctoral University with Very High Research Activity
	R2—Doctoral University with High Research Activity
	D/PU—Doctoral/Professional Universities
	M1—Larger Master’s Colleges and Universities
	M2—Medium Master’s Colleges and Universities
	M3—Smaller Master’s Colleges and Universities
	B—Baccalaureate Programs
	A—Associates Programs
	NR—Not Ranked
Geographical Region	Pacific
	Mountain
	West North Central
	East North Central
	East South Central
	West South Central
	South Atlantic
	Middle Atlantic
	New England
	Canada
Rank of Position	Assistant Professor
	Associate Professor
	Full Professor
	Assistant or Associate Professor
	Associate or Full Professor
	Visiting Professor
	Instructor/Lecturer/Teacher
	Post-Doctoral
	Open

The need to properly contextualize the Rhet Map data led me to code it in several additional ways, such as coding each job posting using the Carnegie Classification system, which ranks universities by their research activity (Table 1). Additionally, I also coded each listing by rank of position, which helped reveal if the position came with tenure granted or was tenure-track. Lastly, I coded each by region within the United States and Canada based upon the methods of LaVecchia et al. (Table 2). These various codes allowed for parsing and visualizing the data in a variety of ways, adding more depth to my analysis and providing more nuance to our understanding of the contemporary trends in the Writing Studies job market.

Region	States in Region	Total Job Ads
South Atlantic (SA)	West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Washington DC, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida	50
Middle Atlantic (MA)	New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey	43
East North Central (ENC)	Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana	32
East South Central (ESC)	Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama	26
Mountain (M)	Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico	22
Pacific (P)	Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California	21
West South Central (WSC)	Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana	20
New England (NE)	Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island	17
West North Central (WNC)	North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri	11
Canada (CAN)	All Canadian provinces and territories	3

In addition to coding the data in a variety of new ways, I also pulled the data of the total jobs available for each job market year (2012 to present) from Rhet Map. The total-job data allowed me to make observations and inferences about the Writing Studies job market over multiple years, leading to a more credible understanding of trends within the field. In addition to total job data, I used data from the MLA JIL/JL Report for 2018–2019 and McClain and Murray’s review of the Rhet Map data from 2013–2016. These additional data sources provided me with an understanding of the total number of TT jobs offered from 2013 to 2019 (excluding 2017).

Lastly, inspired by Stygall and drawn from Melonçon’s methods, I located data from the NCES’s Digest of Education Statistics that accounts for doctoral degrees conferred within four fields pertinent to the Writing Studies job market: 1) TPC, 2) R/C, 3) R/C and Writing Studies (WS), and 4) Speech Communication and Rhetoric (Table 3). I collected degree data for three-year intervals: 2011–2012, 2015–2016, and 2019–2020, to see any trends with the number of awarded degrees. This sampling method allowed me to infer the approximate number of new Writing Studies PhDs potentially seeking academic employment during the 2021–2022 job market.

Field of study	Doctoral degrees
	2011–2012	2015–2016	2019–2020
Professional, technical, business, and scientific writing (CIP 23.1303)	28	31	29
Rhetoric and composition (CIP 23.1304)	91	103	92
Rhetoric and composition/writing studies, other (CIP 23.1399)	5	11	10
Speech communication and rhetoric (CIP 09.0101)	240	267	263
Grand Total	364	412	394

Knowing the total number of graduates on average per year is significant and, when combined with data from the Doctoral Consortium in Rhetoric and Composition, which lists 81 different writing programs (Rhet Map lists 91 programs),^[3] we can estimate that each program graduates around 4.5 PhDs per year. Knowing this information allows me to better understand the current state of the field in terms of the number of potential job seekers versus job availability, which can be seen as a metric for competitiveness.

These additional steps in collecting data extend the previous work of Ridolfo and others and provide a richer, more nuanced understanding of the contemporary state of the Writing Studies job market. The Rhet Map data was enhanced by the additional data that I collected, and this allowed me to calculate the average total number of jobs open to early career scholar-teachers within Writing Studies as well as identify throughout a span of approximately ten years how the market has been trending. I also compared the data collected from the NCES of total Writing Studies graduates over a ten-year span to the total-job data I collected in order to understand what the academic employment outlook looks like to early career scholar-teachers The data also allowed me to identify trends in TT and NTT jobs for a variety of Carnegie classified university sizes and TT and NTT jobs for different regions of the United States. I then used Microsoft Excel to parse and group the data by the previously mentioned points of interest. Once analyzed, the data revealed a variety of trends within the Writing Studies job market.

Results and Discussion

The variety of data collected allows for a better understanding of some concerning trends for the Writing Studies job market over the years and provides up-to-date information regarding one of the most recent job seasons. This research focuses on four data points of use to early career scholar-teachers and mentors: 1) the total number of jobs for the 2021–2022 job market and total number of jobs through the years (2012–2022), 2) the total of TT and NTT jobs listed and rank of jobs posted, 3) the number of jobs listed for all eight Carnegie Classifications as well as unranked universities parsed by TT or NTT, and 4) the total number of jobs for each Carnegie Classification parsed by both region and TT or NTT. This research into the Writing Studies job market helps to provide tangible data and identifiable trends, but more importantly, it provides the field with a glimpse into the current state of Writing Studies and troubling trends that need to be addressed within the field.

Total Jobs

Although the job market for Writing Studies graduates in the late 20^th century was robust, the landscape has changed over the decades, shifting from the surplus that Stygall notes in 2000 to a deficit. Data show that there has been a downward trend in available academic positions for early career Writing Studies scholar-teachers over the past decade (Figure 1). The data reveal a strong job market from 2012–2018, averaging 288 jobs with a peak of 328 in the 2014–2015 job market. However, throughout 2019–2022, there were an average of 200 jobs per year, a significant drop. The 2021–2022 job market listed 245 jobs for Writing Studies graduates, although the data from Ridolfo’s Rhet Map does include eight jobs tagged as “Literature” and ten jobs tagged as Associate or Full Professor, both typically out of the reach of new Writing Studies graduates. This brings the adjusted total of Writing Studies jobs for early career scholar-teachers closer to 227. It is also important to note that although there were 227 jobs, it is highly probable that a portion of these jobs went to graduates from previous years or more established early career scholar-teachers.

The reduction in available academic positions for Writing Studies graduates over the years has been precipitous compared to PhDs awarded, revealing the overproduction of PhDs in the field. Using an approach inspired by Stygall’s method for identifying the total number of Writing Studies graduates and drawn from Melonçon, the total number of Writing Studies PhDs awarded throughout 2011–2020 averaged a total of 390 degrees conferred per year versus 227 available jobs for early career Writing Studies scholar-teachers (Table 3). There is a limitation to using these data, though, as the degrees conferred do not necessarily mean that all these graduates transition into academia or seek TT or NTT positions. However, the difference is staggeringly large, revealing a potential surplus of 169 graduates for the 2021–2022 job market, supporting what Melonçon finds to be the case in her study of TPC as well as what economists David Colander and Daisy Zhuo find studying the English PhD job market in 2015. These totals reveal that we have clearly moved from a surplus of FT Writing Studies jobs to a deficit. These numbers also do not figure in established Writing Studies PhDs on the job market, so the job deficit could potentially be more extensive year-to-year than the data reveal.

The total number of jobs for the 2021–2022 Writing Studies job market (227 after excluding jobs early career scholar-teachers are typically ineligible for) also includes a pandemic surplus (Doctoral Consortium). Many universities experienced hiring freezes during the COVID-19 pandemic, evidenced by the total jobs (152) available for the 2020–2021 job market. From 2016 to 2020, there were an average of 237 jobs posted each year, so the reduction in jobs during the pandemic potentially increased the total open positions for the 2021–2022 job market, which is concerning since it is well below the average from 2016 to 2020. For comparison, Rhet Map included 207 total jobs for the 2022–2023 job market, showing a significant 12.5% decrease in jobs from previous years. Although potentially exacerbated by the pandemic, the Writing Studies job market is undoubtedly on the decline.

Tenure and Rank

The data from this research also reveal that of the 245 jobs listed on Rhet Map, there were 116 TT and 129 NTT jobs. 53% of the jobs listed are NTT positions while 47% are TT. Of these positions, a variety of faculty ranks are advertised within the job ads. Of these ranks, Teaching Professor has the largest number (109), which is not a surprise as most NTT positions are teaching positions. The next largest totals are the rank of Assistant Professor (85)—a tenure-earning position, Visiting Professor (12), Post-Doctoral (11), Assistant or Associate (11), Open Rank (7), Full Professor (6), Associate Professor (3), and Full or Associate Professor (1). These data—after excluding administrative positions (chairs and deans), literature positions, and those positions of higher rank—show that early career scholar-teachers are eligible for 93% of the total jobs listed on Rhet Map.

The data show, however, that there is a decline in available TT positions for early career Writing Studies scholar-teachers. Part of being informed about the Writing Studies job market includes knowing whether the position you apply for is TT or NTT. Both McClain and Murray and the MLA Job List, 2018–2019 find significantly more tenure-track than non-tenure-track jobs, with the MLA report noting 101 TT versus 84 NTT positions in Writing Studies (Lusin). However, data from the 2021–2022 job market reveals a different picture. McClain and Murray find that the number of TT positions from 2014–2016 slowly decreased in number (from 118 in 2014 to 109 in 2016), noting a “downward projection for tenure track positions [in Writing Studies]” (10). The data from my research support McClain and Murray’s assertion, displaying a continued downward trend in TT jobs but builds upon this by revealing a growing number of NTT jobs.

These trends within Writing Studies reinforce a growing focus among scholars in the field: departments forgo hiring TT faculty in favor of NTT positions due to the amount of writing classes that need to be taught, since NTT faculty primarily teach. These positions have been historically regarded as less prestigious and, therefore, less deserving of resources and pay within the field because of their teaching emphasis. As Seth Kahn notes, the field has historically devalued teaching—placing more value on research—yet we claim to be a teaching field, a statement supported by Carrie Leverenz. Recently, however, a growing number of scholars in the field shed light on the material inequalities of NTT faculty compared to their TT counterparts. This attention to differences between TT and NTT roles has seemingly improved the material working conditions for some NTT faculty but not all. However, my own positionality as a NTT faculty member at an R1 institution and autoethnographic observations provide one datapoint within the vast continuum of job opportunities, and—therefore—further data are necessary to understand the details of the spectrum of NTT positions on a larger scale.

Although the field is transitioning to more FT NTT positions that typically have higher teaching assignment requirements, as well as lower pay compared to TT positions, there are some advantageous features of these positions for some early career scholar-teachers. FT NTT positions often come with medical and retirement benefits and some may come with funds for professionalization, benefits not often extended to other part-time NTT faculty. The CCCC Position Statement on Working Conditions for Non-Tenure-Track Writing Faculty argues that NTT faculty should receive funding for travel as well as health insurance, retirement benefits, and other benefits awarded to TT faculty, and Mahli Mechenbier, Laura Wilson, and Melonçon find that most NTT positions do come with benefits (41); however, many do not offer professionalization funding (47). So, many FT NTT positions do come with several of the same benefits awarded to TT positions, although the scope of total benefits vary from institution to institution.

In addition, NTT positions typically require minimal or no research requirements, allowing faculty to pursue endeavors focused on refining and improving their pedagogies. Mechenbier et al. find that the majority of FT NTT positions value research as worth 10% or less of the total when applied to evaluation criteria (51), meaning that although FT NTT may be expected to conduct some research-based activities, such as attending or presenting at conferences, it is not required or expected to be their predominant focus. Also, service expectations were typically below 10% for the majority of survey respondents (52). So, although FT NTT positions carry with them large teaching assignment requirements, typically they have minimal or no research and service expectations.

Carnegie Classification

Another interesting data point that early career scholar-teachers should be aware of is the size of the universities they apply to in terms of research and institutional diversity, so I employed the Carnegie Classification System to categorize the variety of university sizes that posted job ads for the 2021–2022 Writing Studies job market. As noted above, I categorized universities using the system but altered it slightly to make it more appropriate for prospective candidates (e.g., I did not separate Baccalaureate Colleges into distinct categories). I tallied the total job ads for each university ranking and included how many of those job ads were for TT and NTT jobs.

The data reveal that jobs at R1 universities were most abundant, with 107 job ads posted (Figure 2). M1 universities had the second most job ads (41), followed by R2 universities (38) and then BA universities (27). The data also reveal that of the R1 jobs, 64% were NTT. The only other Carnegie Rank that had more NTT job ads than TT was M1 universities (21 NTT; 20 TT). M3 universities had an equal amount of NTT and TT job postings (2 NTT; 2 TT), and all other categories (R2, D/PU, M2, BA, A, and NR) had more TT job ads posted than NTT.

It is unsurprising that R1 universities, which typically enroll large numbers of students in first-year and TPC writing programs, employ a significant number of NTT faculty. Research faculty with TT jobs typically have fewer teaching assignments, leading to the need for departments to staff the many sections of writing courses on a budget. Although there are many FT NTT positions, and many more in recent years, some of these roles are staffed by adjunct labor, a practice that has become commonplace within Writing Studies and other service fields but brings with it many concerns about exploitation, ethics, and equity. One positive takeaway from these data are that the heavy reliance on NTT labor is not as pervasive at smaller Carnegie classified universities. Outside of R1 schools, the remainder of Writing Studies programs have an almost equal split of TT and NTT positions advertised, or they lean more toward TT positions.

Tenure-Track and Non-Tenure-Track Jobs by Region and Institution Size

Finally, I parsed the data to show a combination of factors of potential interest to early career scholar-teachers. I compared the geographic regions for each job ad with their Carnegie Classification Rank and listed the total TT and NTT job ads posted, which provided a richer, more nuanced look at the 2021–2022 job market. The data help reveal the location of positions, the size of the universities advertising these positions, the total number of jobs, and the total number of TT and NTT jobs by region within these categories (see Tables 4 and 5). Canada only had three jobs posted, and they were all TT. The data show that the greatest number of TT jobs are in the South Atlantic states (26), while the greatest number of NTT jobs are in both the South Atlantic and Middle Atlantic states (24 each). The lowest number of TT jobs are in the New England states while the lowest number of NTT jobs were in the West North Central states. Finally, the data reveals that South Atlantic states slightly favored TT jobs over NTT while the New England states heavily favored NTT jobs (14) to TT jobs (3). The most R1/TT jobs (9) are in the West South Central states while the fewest are in both the New England and Pacific states (0). The most R1/NTT jobs (17) are in the South Atlantic states while the fewest are in the West North Central States (1).

	CAN	ENC	ESC	M	MA	NE	P	SA	WNC	WSC	Total
R1	–	5	8	3	6	–	–	6	2	9	39
R2	–	3	2	1	3	–	2	7	1	2	21
D/PU	–	2	1	–	–	–	1	–	1	1	6
M1	–	2	2	–	7	–	2	6	1	–	20
M2	–	–	1	–	–	–	1	1	–	1	4
M3	–	1	–	–	–	–	–	1	–	–	2
BA	–	1	–	3	3	3	–	5	1		16
A	–	–	–	1	–	–	3	–	–	–	4
NR	3	–	–	–	–	–	1	–	–	–	4
Total	3	14	14	8	19	3	10	26	6	13	116

	CAN	ENC	ESC	M	MA	NE	P	SA	WNC	WSC	Total
R1	–	9	9	8	10	5	5	17	1	4	68
R2	–	3	2	1	3	3	1	2	1	1	17
D/PU	–	–	1	–	–	1	2	–	–	–	4
M1	–	2	–	3	7	3	–	3	3	–	21
M2	–	1	–	–	–	–	1	–	–	–	2
M3	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	–	1	2
BA	–	2	–	2	3	2	2	–	–	–	11
A	–	1	–	–	1	–	–	–	–	1	3
NR	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	–	–	1
Total	0	18	12	14	24	14	11	24	5	7	129

The data reveal that early career Writing Studies scholar-teachers have a greater chance of procuring an academic job at R1 universities—especially east of the Mississippi River—based on the sheer volume of jobs posted but were more likely to get a TT job at a smaller university. So, although it seems that Writing Studies in general has moved toward more FT NTT positions, smaller universities seem to have not bought into this trend as much, hiring on average more TT faculty than NTT. So, there is still a market for more TT positions, especially in smaller universities, but these smaller universities have fewer open positions overall when compared to the sheer volume of job ads for R1 universities.

These data reveal significant regional variability in job availability within the field of Writing Studies, with some regions, such as the South Atlantic states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida), offering a higher concentration of academic positions while others present limited opportunities, such as the West North Central states (North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa).

Data of these kind provide a snapshot of the current Writing Studies job market, specifically as it relates to job availability, TT and NTT jobs available at institutions of varied sizes, and regional differences in TT and NTT positions advertised. They also allow scholars in the field to better understand the job market’s trajectory for early career scholar-teachers, providing information that could shape advising and mentoring for Writing Studies graduate degree programs within North America.

Implications and Suggestions for the Field of Writing Studies

Stygall notes that there was a surplus of jobs in 2000, claiming, “The market for PhDs in rhetoric and composition is good: Demand still exceeds supply. But we must be cautious about simply accepting our good fortune” (387). She warns about the eroding of TT lines across the university system, acknowledging the precariousness of higher education employment and the shift toward contingent faculty positions. She recommends the “need to maintain our own databank and analysis” (388) in order to do justice for graduate students. At the end of the century, the field of Writing Studies was in a strong state and growing, but data from this study and the 2021–2022 job market suggests that the market has changed in a few ways: There is now a deficit in the total number of available jobs versus a surplus of Writing Studies PhD graduates and more FT NTT positions compared to TT positions. This section, then, offers recommendations for the field of Writing Studies that have the potential to address these seismic shifts within the field. I also provide future avenues of exploration and research for the job market that are necessary for averting a potential job crisis.

Need for a More Complete Centralized Writing Studies Job Database

One thing that this research has made abundantly clear is that the field of Writing Studies has a need for more granular data about the job market within a centralized repository that monitors and highlights trends within the field of Writing Studies. Ridolfo’s Rhet Map is a great start to this idea and provides useful metrics for tracking the field, but it could provide a richer, more nuanced analysis of the job market and the trends that appear across the data sets. As shown by the additional methods my research employed, repositories like Rhet Map could include metrics such as PhDs awarded each year and regional locations in order to enrich their data and its utility for tracking the field. Including more granular data for repositories like Rhet Map would allow scholars to monitor potential concerns, such as the move toward more NTT jobs and potential oversaturation of PhDs in the field.

The variety of trends and seismic shifts within the field has the potential to drastically change Writing Studies. Similar to the Process Movement or the Social Turn, we have yet to understand how developments like GAI and large language models will affect the job market in the future. Without a centralized repository tracking trends and changes to the field in a timely manner, we risk becoming complacent and missing critical junctures that demand a swift response. This trend toward NTT positions is just one potential area of concern. A central repository would inevitably allow us to become more responsive to changes and track patterns in real time.

A central repository would also allow other scholars to draw attention to problematic trends in the field. Without a centralized location housing job market data, scholars may not be aware of shifts in the market, creating complacency or unintentional ignorance. Renewed attention to the field’s job market would allow advisors and mentors to stay abreast of developments in the field that affect prospective graduates and early career scholar-teachers seeking employment. The more visible we can make these trends in real time the more responsive leaders of the field can be at addressing them, encouraging a proactive approach that would ensure the field remains current on job market shifts.

Move Toward NTT Positions

These results mean that early career Writing Studies scholar-teachers seeking a job in higher education can now expect to see an increase in NTT positions posted, positions that come with—at times—questionable job security. For example, Mechenbier et al. analyze data from a survey of 313 NTT faculty and find that “the predominant amount of [NTT] contracts are one year” (30). However, the authors also find that since “[t]he majority of faculty, 67%, report being employed at the same location for four or more years… contingent faculty are, in effect, permanent faculty” (35–36). These short-term contracts can lead to anxiety, though, even if most of these positions do come with some semblance of job security. This approach to faculty staffing is potentially troubling in a number of ways.

One aspect of FT NTT positions that is concerning is the lower pay when compared to TT faculty, especially in a field that “values” teaching. Kahn identifies a hesitation within Writing Studies to discuss compensation for NTT faculty but sheds light on the contradiction of the field’s values, specifically in terms of teaching within the field. Satirically he says, “Yes, teaching matters, but no, we’d prefer not to pay people very well to do it” (595). FT NTT positions typically require faculty to teach more classes than TT faculty for less pay overall. The CCCC Statement on Working Conditions for Non-Tenure-Track Writing Faculty suggests a maximum of three courses per term, but Mechenbier et al. find that the majority of FT NTT positions require a four-course-assignment per term, at times leading to feelings of exploitation (33). They also find that the average pay for FT NTT faculty was $40,000 to $45,000 per year but there are some positions that were over and under this pay range. The economic uncertainty of these FT NTT positions could lead to feelings of anxiety, especially with the potential of student loan debt looming. Some NTT faculty find themselves in the precarious position of having to seek out additional employment opportunities in order to supplement their wages. Although this could lead to an uneven work-life balance, even more troubling is this sense of devaluation when compared to research positions, which are often TT.

NTT positions also have another major drawback: their lack of academic freedom and shared governance. NTT faculty are often excluded from participating in departmental and institutional decision-making processes that affect their working conditions, curriculum, and assessment. Moreover, NTT faculty may face greater risks of censorship, retaliation, or dismissal if they express dissenting opinions or challenge the status quo. Without the protection of tenure, NTT faculty may feel compelled to conform to the expectations and preferences of their administrators, colleagues, and students, even if they disagree with them or have pedagogical reasons to deviate from them. This can stifle their creativity, innovation, and critical engagement with their teaching and service roles.

However, the decision to accept a NTT over a TT job relies less on the value Writing Studies places on these positions and more on what each early career scholar-teacher values. Not all prospective candidates want to conduct research or produce scholarship for the field, characteristics of most TT positions. Instead, many scholar-teachers of various experiences want to simply teach students how to write and communicate more effectively, viewing research as informing their pedagogy or secondary to their primary responsibilities. As well, many within the field want to be(come) administrators of writing programs so that they can elicit change within their institutions, not so they can conduct more research, and as Johnson Gindlesparger notes, administrative roles often leave little time for early career scholar-teachers to conduct research. For early career scholar-teachers, NTT positions could be beneficial in a few ways. These positions value teaching and service roles and often do not require any research activity. NTT positions also allow scholars to focus more intently on the pedagogical aspects of their jobs, potentially allowing them more time for reflection and revisions of their teaching approaches. This does not necessarily mean that NTT faculty have more time, but it means they can prioritize teaching over research instead of trying to balance both.

It is no secret that TT positions come with a clock that is tied to a research agenda. Failure to produce enough research in the tenure window often leads to nonrenewal of contracts. Due to this pressure, many early career scholar-teachers find themselves dedicating copious amounts of time in order to conduct original research and produce publications. At times, this can interfere with their work-life balance, forcing TT scholars to sacrifice one or the other. NTT positions can potentially alleviate this issue in a number of ways. Since there is no research requirement typically, NTT positions can allow for a healthier balance, especially for scholars with young children that require care. For example, due to my NTT position at an R1 university, I have been able to provide daycare for my children, allowing me to experience and fully participate in family life with less outside pressure from my job. Although not every university would be as accommodating as mine has been, the flexibility that my NTT position offers allows for additional freedoms that a TT position simply could not, such as alleviating the pressure to conduct research and publish for the sake of maintaining employment and being granted tenure status. Granted, my own experiences as a NTT faculty member at a large, unionized R1 university that provides benefits and job security may have given me “rose-colored lenses” and obstructed my view of the realities of other NTT positions. Could I have accomplished this sense of balance by teaching less and doing more research? Possibly, but the stressors of “publish or perish” culture do not affect me as much as my TT colleagues, leading to—arguably—a better work-life balance.

While my experience with NTT positions may appear more favorable than that of others, the market realities indicate that many scholars will inevitably secure NTT roles—even if they prefer TT positions. Nonetheless, early career scholar-teachers should not dismiss NTT positions outright, as they often provide benefits and freedoms different from those in TT roles—even if job security is less certain. Moreover, exploring opportunities in related fields like Digital Humanities and Communication Studies can broaden career prospects.

While this research does not offer any definitive solutions to the issue of NTT labor in Writing Studies, it does highlight the need for more awareness and advocacy within the field. As scholar-teachers who value writing as a mode of inquiry and social action, we should also value the labor conditions and professional development of colleagues who teach writing, regardless of their rank or status. NTT positions can offer some benefits and opportunities for early career scholar-teachers, but they also come with challenges and risks that can affect their career trajectories and personal lives. Ultimately, NTT positions across the country come with a lot of variability. Therefore, Writing Studies scholars should fight to ensure that NTT positions are fair, equitable, and secure, and that NTT faculty are respected and supported as vital members of the academic community.

The Health of the Field

If there are more NTT than TT positions in Writing Studies, as the data suggest, what happens to the innovative and field-advancing research that defines the field’s disciplinarity in higher education? This is an earnest question for the field to ponder. How does this shift affect the field and its practical applications in higher education or the workplace? Without a research requirement, would NTT faculty lose sight of new developments in Writing Studies? This is particularly worrisome considering the dramatic changes we have and will continue to witness with the recent rise of GAI. If NTT scholars disregard current advances, institutions that dominantly rely on NTT faculty may encounter pedagogical inertia, impacting students and the field as a whole. These questions are beyond the purview of this research; however, the field needs to consider the implications of this shift to labor practices, not just for the job market but also for our ability to create and disseminate new knowledge about writing as well as the pedagogical implications of this shift, else the health of the field could be in danger.

This rise in NTT positions has significant implications for job security and satisfaction among faculty members. Unlike TT positions, NTT roles often come with limited job security, offering short-term contracts without the long-term stability that tenure provides. This precariousness can lead to increased stress and job dissatisfaction as faculty members face uncertain employment prospects and lack of career advancement opportunities. Additionally, NTT positions typically come with heavier teaching loads and fewer resources for research and professional development, which can further diminish job satisfaction. The reliance on NTT roles might also impact the overall quality of education, as faculty in these positions may have less time and support to engage in innovative teaching and research. Consequently, this trend raises concerns about the sustainability of academic careers in Writing Studies and highlights the need for institutional policies that provide better support and recognition for NTT faculty.

In light of these trends, another concern includes how we prepare graduate students for the contemporary job market. If research ceases to be a critical component of the majority of jobs within the field, how do we prepare students to take on these roles? One potential solution is to ask PhD students early in their studies to consider which role they anticipate will be more advantageous to their career and life aspirations. Some early career scholar-teachers value and enjoy teaching more than research, and vice versa, so asking students to consider this when entering graduate programs could better prepare them for their graduate studies as well as the job market. Doing so would also better position mentors and dissertation committees to cater to each student’s needs and would make graduate school and the job market much more transparent to prospective students. However, many students only develop a passion for research after becoming faculty members, so conducting more longitudinal studies on graduate students and the evolution of their career aspirations over time would help the field to understand how we could better mentor graduates early on in their careers.

Based on these data, graduate programs and mentors must take an active role in shaping the future of early career scholar-teachers. By understanding market trends, mentors can actively prepare graduates and early career scholar-teachers for the variety of decisions they have to make when applying for TT and NTT positions. The disparity in TT and NTT positions necessitates a strategic approach for job seekers, who may need to consider geographic mobility to enhance their employment prospects. The regional variability of positions implies that graduate programs need to offer versatile training that prepares students for diverse teaching and research environments, thereby increasing their adaptability and competitiveness across various geographical job markets. Moreover, understanding regional trends can also help inform the development of targeted initiatives to address workforce gaps and promote equity in job distribution within the field.

Based on the data from this study, one thing is certain: the field is at a potentially critical juncture right now in terms of its viability. With the overproduction of PhDs in Writing Studies compared to the available jobs, we have some important decisions to make. As James Porter states in his interview with Laurie Gries, “Some programs—and they know who they are—are overproducing PhDs, and that is always a bad idea for the health of any field.” Take the field of Literature, for instance. There is a glut of PhDs in the field and not enough academic jobs. This oversupply of qualified candidates has led to intense competition for available jobs, with many candidates facing multiple years of adjunct or visiting roles before securing more stable full-time positions (TT or NTT), if they secure one at all. If Writing Studies continues to produce more PhDs than open positions, will the field suffer the same fate? It is possible, but we should not wait to find out the answer. The field needs to take the initiative in this critical juncture, lest we find ourselves in the same situation as our colleagues in Literature. This may lead to tough decisions, such as pausing program admission, which recently happened at one R1 institution, but ignoring the data or pretending that the field and available FT jobs are as stable as they once were would be detrimental to the field and to early career scholar-teachers.

Conclusion

A key takeaway from this research is that mentors and scholars must stay current with market trends so that they can offer the best advice to early career academics. Since Stygall’s late-20th-century observations, the Writing Studies job market has shifted toward overproducing PhDs and increasing reliance on contingent and NTT labor, especially at larger R1 universities. So, what does the future hold for Writing Studies? Should the field and PhD-granting institutions consider limiting enrollment to address the overproduction of PhDs? How might such limits affect program interest or research output? As the job market continues to evolve, real-time data is essential for both leaders and students to adjust effectively. To safeguard the value and sustainability of Writing Studies degrees, we need reliable, timely job market data to inform decision-making. Establishing a centralized repository that tracks positions across various institution types would help prevent degree devaluation and guide informed, data-driven choices about our direction.

Future research should investigate questions such as: What are the broader implications of this shift to NTT positions? How might limiting graduate program enrollment influence research activity and program appeal? Why do regional disparities—like the high concentration of TT jobs in the South Atlantic—exist? Additional studies should also consider the specialized areas advertised in job ads (e.g., digital rhetoric, GAI, TPC, research methods) to inform early career scholars about marketable expertise. A closer examination of hiring practices and required application materials may lead to more transparent and ethical recruitment, while analyses segmented by institution type (Community Colleges, four-year universities, PhD versus MA granting schools) would further illuminate both historical and emerging trends in the Writing Studies job market. Addressing these issues transparently will help align our field’s values with its future direction.

In conclusion, the future of Writing Studies depends on our collective ability to understand and adapt to the evolving job market. Data-driven insights and transparent practices are essential for guiding institutional decisions, preparing mentors for their roles as stewards of the discipline, and the career planning of early career scholar-teachers. By investing in a centralized repository and preparing graduates for the full spectrum of academic positions, we can ensure that our field remains relevant and sustainable. Ultimately, fostering informed decision making and responsive strategies to shifts in the job market will empower us to address contemporary challenges, support our graduates, and uphold the integrity of Writing Studies for years to come.

Notes

[1] I prefer this term to junior scholars due to its more inclusive nature.

[2] Documents such as teaching philosophy, research statement, administrative philosophy, cover letters, and other materials typically required when applying for academic jobs.

[3] Two of those programs are possibly inactive now and one university paused its PhD admissions until Fall of 2025.