“Contingent” is the catch-all term that has come to connote faculty on college campuses who do not occupy traditional tenure-track lines. In some respects, the term is useful because it highlights connections and similarities among non-tenure-track faculty who otherwise appear to be a diverse group that straddles a varied set of contractual arrangements. Some fit the historic “adjunct” model: professionals with other sources of income who teach a course or two a year; but many use their “contingent” teaching as a sole source of income. Several of those “contingents” have long-term yet temporary contracts at a sole institution; far more teach multiple courses on a semester-by-semester basis at a single campus or are “roving” professors patching together a living teaching multiple courses at two or more institutions (Coalition on the Academic Workforce 2012). “Contingent” is useful then as a term to describe structures—contracts that embody varied levels of precarity but have in common that they lack the security of tenure.

What is not so useful about the term “contingent” is that its ubiquitous and routinized use means that we do not find the term jarring. Ironically, it conceals and thereby allows us to overlook the insecurity and poor conditions that it entails. To be “contingent” is to be subject to chance, something that exists only if certain circumstances prevail. When we use “contingent” as a descriptor, we generally are describing a position and, as such, it is not a personal slight. Yet, the nature of contingency is certainly a slight to those academics that lack job security regardless of their job performance. Additionally, contingent faculty often are slighted by poor working conditions and a lack of consideration and respect from tenured colleagues.

Although contingent faculty positions are not a new phenomenon, their ranks have been expanding as colleges cut costs and employ a more flexible workforce. What is somewhat new is that contingency as a status—one that is grossly unfair to the majority of its occupants and that undermines the profession—is gaining attention in academia and beyond. Under the presidency of Dr. Jennifer Hochschild (2015–2016) and with the direction and support of executive director Steven Rathgeb Smith, the American Political Science Association (APSA) created a status committee to explore issues related to contingent faculty and to assess how the association might best serve them. This set of articles is one outgrowth of the committee’s work. It draws attention to the problem of contingency in our own discipline and sparks conversation about possible strategies to ameliorate its effects. The articles are short—they are intended to provoke thought rather than offer complete answers. The Contingent Status Committee is happy to receive any responses that these contributions inspire.

The articles consider both organizational- and individual-level responses to the problems that contingency presents. The opening piece explores possibilities that APSA, as the professional body of the discipline, might contemplate. The contribution by Elliott-Negri discusses the potential of unions to empower contingent academics. He illustrates that whereas unionization is almost always helpful, the structure of bargaining units and the approaches that unions adopt are critical to how successful they are in improving working conditions for contingents. Andy Battle provides historical context for one university’s wavering commitment to universal public higher education. Vincent Tirelli and Julia Lau explore the formation and ongoing efforts of the Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor (COCAL) to advocate for improved conditions for academics in non-tenure-track positions. As a labor organization less formal than a union, COCAL arguably benefits from a grassroots focus and flexible structure driven by contingents themselves. As the Lau article illustrates, these benefits come at the cost of organizational resources. Veronica Czastkiewicz and Jennapher Lunde Seefeldt present a proposal—created at the ASPA Annual Meeting Hackathon in 2018—for a set of minimum standards for the contingent employment of political scientists. The idea is to have the proposal reviewed, revised, and adopted by APSA; insights and input are welcomed through the Contingent Status Committee.

Catherine Guisan’s article makes a provocative argument for the reframing of contingency as a matter of diversity. She observes that tenure-track colleagues and academic institutions often are attentive to concerns about diversity while also viewing increasing contingent employment as less urgent. If contingency is incorporated as a matter of diversity, she suggests, increased resources and focus might follow. Isaac Kamola’s contribution is important because it outlines strategies that academics in contingent positions might adopt to empower themselves. His ideas work even absent more encompassing institutional and organization changes. David Green’s accounting of the situation of contingent academics in Japan illustrates how societal forces beyond the realm of academia press upon and, in this case, improve the prospects of temporary workers. However, we should not rely on this. Our hope is that this collection will prompt changes, whether large or small, undertaken by our associations and organizations or by each of us individually as we think about how our actions impact the contingents among us.