I think its unlikely the adjunct model is sustainable. There is already starting to be significant blowback, unionization efforts, etc. and once the cost of adjuncts goes up the incentive to use them goes down. The status quo might persist, but I doubt it will get significantly worse. Research expectations are often minimal at institutions without graduate programs - I think these are the institutions where things are a lot more "up in the air." Its an incredible arbitrary distinction to think that practice-oriented classes would be more likely to be taught by adjuncts. At present, I think the opposite is true since I think most clinical programs want their core curriculum handled by folks that have been more thoroughly vetted (at least this is the case at institutions I'm familiar with). Psychology departments are also far more than just clinical, so they can't really be looked at separately.
There likely will be a shift towards online or distributed learning coursework at the undergraduate level. At the very least, technology will be better harnessed to facilitate education. Research seems to be following income disparity and the "middle-class" of researchers are getting eaten alive right now. Harvard/Stanford/etc. are still forging ahead just fine, but with the current funding climate, it is becoming extraordinarily difficult for mid-tier institutions to grow and thrive. Unless it turns around (some indications it is starting to), you will probably see growing disparity in what is out there. The main change I'm expecting to see is increased collaboration inside the university (interdisciplinary departments) and outside the university (collaborations with industry - however defined). Boundaries between disciplines are outrageously blurry once you get past a certain level. A clinical psychologist and a molecular biologist (/economist/sociologist/cardiologist/whatever else you can think of) might be doing similar work and competing with one another. That's going to lead to massive reorganization in the long run.
