Teaching, Research and Service When Everything is Miscellaneous and Everybody is Coming
Ed. Research, Ed. Tech., blogging May 9th, 2008
Today is the deadline to submit my annual review. August 20 is my deadline for submitting my tenure portfolio. I will write about how I’ve played the game and published in peer-reviewed journals and done service by sitting and chairing various committees…blah, blah, blah. But, I also intend to make the case that the time I’ve spent this year blogging, twittering, networking, etc. should “count” for tenure consideration. Ernest Boyer wrote about the “Scholarship of Application” (and, BTW, Western Carolina University formally adopted Boyer’s ideas into their tenure criteria last year). Others, including Richard Lerner, have written about “Outreach Scholarship.” These ideas certainly blur the distinction between the academic holy trinity (teaching, research, service).
Well, Boyer, Lerner et al. never contemplated the read/write Web or RSS or online social networking. So the question I’m pondering is how might we conceptualize the role of higher education faculty where everything is miscellaneous and everybody is coming?
I’d appreciate any help you can offer as I ponder…
Tags: Boyer, scholarship, tenure, Web 2.0
Jon,
I’m quite interested in exploring how blogging (and perhaps other forms of networked exchange)can be conceptualized as an academic publishing platform. To be quite honest I think we are a long ways off from being able to make a strong case here. Norms for establishing what is valued in these networked spaces is not at all clear. I think taking the “scholarship reconsidered” approach is a compelling one. I offered a presentation to some doc students in the School of Social Work here on the intersection of technology and scholarship and how the R/W web is altering the playing field. There was some real interest, but some strong skepticism from faculty in attendance as well. I raised the question of whether social work scholarship should be for the public good and openly published…lets say that the jury is still way out on that one.
I think that part of the issue is this: How and where does the conversation about networked communication and scholarship take place in the academy? And, importantly the local one you happen to be a member of? Is it a university wide issue? I think so. Yet, it seems at this point at least, that individual faculty members have to argue the case with limited local precedent. Is local important? Who starts the conversation? How does it get validated?
In any event, I’d be interested in exploring how we might work to move this conversation forward at VCU. What do you think about getting together a few folks and doing a podcast about the issues as a way to get rolling? Let me know if you think this would be of interest and helpful.
This reminds me of the Schank/Jona white paper you linked to. If K12 teachers could become more like “camp counselors”, what should university faculty become?
I think the future of university faculty is to lead their students through -doing-. All students study the concepts and facts and building blocks on their own time. In class, students actively apply the concepts towards solving problems. Students can memorize without the professor, but application is more likely to need help.
Right now, it often seems like the opposite. A professor lectures about a topic, then students leave the class and write a paper or do math problems where they try to apply the concept.
@Jon - In making your case for time spent blogging, etc., consider your previous cases made for educational conversations over coffee or lunch. Have you made these cases before? If not then, why now? This is a similar exchange, although the access to a wider variety of opinions is obvious. Just playing devil’s advocate as I’m sure you will find a challenge. Personally, my experience is those coffee conversations have directed my educational style and understanding much more than any formal class. I just wish I would have thought, as you did, of making it a more concrete description of what I do and who I am. Best of luck.
With all due respect, Marshall, the “conversations” that I argue should properly be considered somewhere at the intersection of teaching and scholarship are VERY, VERY different than discussions over coffee or lunch. First of all, these are very public conversations; they arguably represent the purest form of “peer review” (a standard to which the professoriate aspires). If I write, tweet or comment something that doesn’t resonate and/or seems inaccurate to my “peers,” they will correct me. Believe me, I’ve already been there in my short time in this “space.” Second, these conversations are multi-dimensional and include an aesthetic component. They might be part of what’s been referred to as the scholarship of engagement. I have often found myself more reluctant to post/comment/tweet out of fear of being rejected than I do in sending off an academic article for peer-review in a paper-based journal. And, this is not a bad thing. It advances my learning, and hopefully that of others; that’s exactly why I think this stuff should “count.”
And, Dave, yes, I think there’s a LOT of overlap between this post and the Schank/Jona article (there is some coherence to my thinking…sometimes). And, if you think this post meshes with that one, check out my most recent post about disruptive innovation…I’m on a roll!