In this entry, I continue my reading log of Scholarship Reconsidered, by Ernest Boyer and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. I'll cover Chapter 4 ("The Creativity Contract") and Chapter 5 ("The Campuses: Diversity with Dignity") in one session. In a nutshell, these chapters advocate for maximum flexibility in "what counts" as scholarship over a teacher's career and in different types of college campuses....

In "The Creativity Contract," Boyer builds on his point that "most professors do not think of themselves simply as reseachers" and that for 70% of them, teaching is their primary interest (43). This conflict has major implications for faculty morale. He asserts that broad definitions of scholarship must be acknowledged by administrators in order "to counter burnout or stagnation" by professors (44). In a surprisingly "touchy-feely" move, Boyer speaks of the professorial career in terms of "seasons" where interests shift over time, and faculty in their "generative" phases late in their careers begin to reach for "new priorities, a larger sense of caring, a desire to reach out, share, and belong" (45). But Boyer's also concerned for junior faculty and newly minted PhDs. He notes the high pressure on new faculty to acheive publication at the cost of the quality of their teaching and service, and implies that this sets them up for considerable personal strain. High productivity sacrifices the quality of their work. Remarkably, over 50% of new faculty surveyed claim "I hardly ever get time to give a piece of work the attention it deserves" (45).

Tracking how the pressure to produce unidimensional research in their field puts unique strains on faculty throughout their lifetime, Boyer argues for a flexible career path that allows for multiple forms of scholarship and moments of renewal. He advocates for "creativity contracts" -- basically, 3- or 5-year plans that outline professional goals, possibly shifting from one scholarly focus to another, which faculty arrange and reflect upon with their supervisors. The degree of evaluation needs to be broad, individualized, and continuous. "Diversity, not uniformity, is the key" (51).

In the next chapter, "The Campuses: Diversity with Dignity," Boyer examines the implications of his proposed model on institutions, rather than individuals. The problem, he believes, is that too many campuses are imitating one another rather than embracing their uniqueness -- and that most adopt a notion of scholarship that is defined by research universities to their own peril. He looks at ways in which different types of campuses -- research/doctoral universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, and comprehensive colleges -- can become better structured by balancing their definitions of scholarship and creatively accomodating the scholarships of discovery, integration, application and teaching. Interestingly, he cites a study by Kenneth Ruscio which discusses liberal arts colleges as historically being centers of teaching and integrative studies, since "the work of academics in small colleges is, in fact, more horizontal reaching across disciplines and bringing together ideas from a variety of sources" (59). Yet they still hold themselves up to the standards of large research universities, even though they don't have the facilities to conduct such research. He concludes with a call to arms:

Let's have campuses where the scholarship of teaching is a central mission. Let's have colleges and universities that promote integrative studies as an exciting mission through a core curriculum, through interdisciplinary seminars, and through team teaching. (64)

UNSTRUCTURED RESPONSE:
I was struck by how well our own campus at Seton Hill U allows for diversity of research and seeks to validate shifts in faculty needs over time. For example, Lee McClain, my colleague in the English department, has gone from being a Medievalist to a Pop Culture Critic to a Magazine journalist over the course of her career and our school has rewarded and supported her needs a great deal (and has written about this experience recently in The Chronicle). Our dean is a strong advocate for the "scholarship of teaching" and has arranged for bimonthly "teaching/learning forums" where faculty and staff discuss given topics. She also endorses the use of "creativity contracts" in the shape of "faculty development plans" which are vehicles for faculty to design a future trajectory of growth (say, writing a book) and outline the needs they might have along the way for that growth to be supported (say, a research budget). Not all faculty act on this opportunity (they would probably cry "no time!"), but I'm still impressed with how well my campus addresses Boyer's call for creativity and flexibility.

Boyer's discussion of stagnancy and faculty burnout is interesting to me. It reminds me that "heavy workload" is not always the culprit for burnout; also at fault are faulty time management skills and the fact that sometimes careers just "plateau" as work gets repetitive and laborious because nothing seems to change. These problems can happen on any job.

Time management for teachers is difficult subject to address in any depth here, especially given the diversity in people's teaching loads. But sometimes all it takes is calendaring and keeping a good to do list. If your life is completely disorganized and you've got papers stacked around your desk from three years ago, I recommend David Allen's book Getting Things Done as a starting point.

Career planners talk about three kinds of "plateaus" -- job, company, and life plateaus -- all three of which are interrelated. You become "plateaued" when things get too predictable and there is no risk or challenge. But the worker/teacher has to take action to generate the change; they have to be willing to take risks and welcome challenges. The "publish or perish" system provides its own challenges, but writing for publication is more complicated than just striving to surpass an obstacle (e.g., to not be rejected); it also requires pushing one's self to study in uncharted territory and write something new. That "something new" could very well be the scholarship of teaching. Boyer is asking school administrators to reconsider scholarship as an avenue for faculty to take such action and reinvigorate their community in the process.

You can ping this entry by using .