Recently, members of the UW Oshkosh College of Letters and Science engaged in an email list discussion about issues related to questions dealing with how to define and reward "scholarship." The discussion began when one member of the discussion list forwarded a copy of an essay by Professor Stanley Fish of the Univerity of Illinois. I responded by forwarding a copy an essay by Professor Clement Price of Rutgers University. Another document relevant to discussion below is a memo from Chancellor Wells and Provost Miller to all faculty regarding the creation of a task force to study a proposed "Faculty Compact." These documents provoked a fair amount of discussion, some of it contentious, but almost all of it helping to reveal the diverse ways in which faculty frame the meaning of what it means to be a "scholar" and what should or should not be considered "scholarship." --Tony Palmeri
The only name I mention in the messages is my own. Everyone else is referred to by initials. The entire exchange can be read via scrolling down this page, or by clicking each individual link below:
MKM wrote:
UW Oshkosh Faculty Compact
The definition of what constitutes acceptable modes of scholarship will be determined by the departments and their respective academic and professional disciplines.
My position on the scholarship of engagement is simple: If the work in question is a logical extension of a disciplinary project -- your research focuses on the reading process and you decide to test a theory by trying it out in a third-grade classroom -- it is certainly scholarship and belongs on your CV. If you mix them up and try for an account of a poem that will help a favored candidate or advance a political cause (unlikely but possible scenarios), you will only be pretending to practice literary criticism, and you will be exploiting for partisan purposes the discipline in whose name you supposedly act.
Apparently, whether "engaged scholarship" is truly an acceptable mode of scholarship is a departmental and discipline decision here at UWO. My guess is, the English Department will decide it's not (at least for their poets!), and that seems like a reasonable position for them to take. I would hope that they will be similarly accepting of my department's and discipline's decision, if we decide that some political engagement linked to our research activity (e.g. Ike Brannon's analysis of gasoline retail price maintenance, or (for our discipline) membership on the Council of Economic Advisors) is indeed scholarly activity.
My values on the KM - Tony Palmeri - other faculty debate are simple. Public service is not public scholarship. Both are valued activities and have their purpose and place. Scholarship implies (to me) a public domain airing of one's activities and a making sense of what one has done in a scholarly way. So if Tony continues his tv show (which I often watch and like) I would consider his efforts public service. If Tony decides to write a book putting his tv show and efforts within a historical or other context and writes a "scholarly" book, now he has done some scholarly work. And if Tony decides to collect data on the impact of his show on viewers, their attitudes, commitment to voting, and so forth, this is a different type of scholarship.
But I think we make a serious error in judgment if we as academicians confuse service with scholarship. Effort in no way equates to rigorous thinking or knowledgeable thinking.
My final thought is that scholarship based on service or community efforts is extremely difficult scholarship to do, often times extensive, costly in time and dollars. Isn't the history of such scholarship the basis for "land grant institutions (e.g., Madison, Michigan State)? One didn't simply go help farmers plant their fields and harvest their crops. One assessed a variety of field conditions, seeds, and so forth (Analysis of Variance as a statistical technique came from this work) and reached scientific conclusions, and then presented these conclusions in public domain forums.
One value of a university is that it has faculty with a wide variety of interests and with a wide variety of opportunities to be a faculty member as they define it. So some can do service, some scholarship, and some both. And we can go back and forth depending on where we find ourselves in our lives, our careers, and what interests us in our local, national, and international communities. How lucky we are.
-BP
Friends,
I think BP raises some excellent points. It provokes me into asking a couple of questions, open to any person's response.
"Public service is not public scholarship," so therefore public scholarship is not public service...which suggests to me (taken slightly figuratively) that the role of scholarship requires a bit more grounding so as not to fall prey to the anti-intellectualism that leads "public" discussions of education at several levels (at least since Bennett was 'running' the Dept. of Education). How do we frame our scholarship more soundly in/to that context?
Second, BP suggests this (though the simplification is all my fault):
Scholarship=public domain airing of one's activities; making sense of them in a scholarly way
TV show=public service
Written Book on TV show + historical (or other context(s)) in a scholarly way=Scholarship
Two things strike me (assuming Barry does not). First, as a Media person, I am struck by the association of scholarship with graphocentrism. How do these media include or exclude scholarship? Is scholarly TV possible? (This might well be another piscatorial position.)
(How do fields with clinical practices ground this relationship?)
Second, how do we define "scholarly" without using the term scholarly? How would we define that for a "lay" audience?
-R.B
BP wrote:
"My values on the MKM - Palmeri - other faculty debate are simple. Public service is not public scholarship. Both are valued activities and have their purpose and place. Scholarship implies (to me) a public domain airing of one's activities and a making sense of what one has done in a scholarly way."
To which MKM responds:
While I generally agree with BP, that there is a distinction between scholarship and service (I've always considered my terms on the Council as at most service, if that), I must again stress that where the line gets drawn is a departmental and discipline decision. It may make no sense whatsoever to count English professors' political engagement as scholarship. It mayor may not make some sense to so interpret Psychology professors' engagement. And it may make a lot of sense to deem Economics professors' activities in affecting legislation as scholarly. The nature of the field should dictate what is and isn't "scholarship."
After all, if Alan Greenspan were to retire soon, and if he subsequently applied for a position here, should we turn him down because he hasn't published anything "scholarly" in the past 10 years?
One thing that has always concerned me about positions on the scholarship/teaching/service debate such as that espoused by Dr. Fish, and to a lesser extent the position taken by BP (I can't be too critical of BP because after all he did admit to liking "Commentary" (:-)), is that I'm not sure what the positions(s) would have us do with Socrates. Huh?
I hope someone in the Philosophy Department will correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that Socrates never wrote anything. He spent lots of time in conversations that challenged assumptions, served a social and political gadfly function, and irritated the heck out of the "establishment" of his time. Was Socrates a "scholar?" I heard there was teacher around at the time named Perlmanius who said "I would consider Socrates' efforts public service. If Socrates decides to write a book putting his dialogues and efforts within a historical or other context and writes a 'scholarly' book, now he has done some scholarly work. And if Socrates decides to collect data on the impact of his dialogues on participants, their attitudes, commitment to truth seeking, and so forth, this is a different type of scholarship."
Now I would never be obnoxious enough to compare a campus television show to a Socratic dialogue. On the other hand, I think RB raises a very important point about how a text-bias may be seeping in to our discussion of "scholarship." It is my understanding that much of what we know about Socrates comes from Plato, who put his ideas in writing. Was Plato doing scholarship? Why? Because he wrote about what Socrates actually _did_? Because other "scholars" have given the stamp of approval to Plato?
The problem of Socrates is one of the reasons why I think Professor Fish is swimming in shallow waters. Socrates was surely doing a kind of "public intellectual" political activism, and he certainly was one of the guiding forces behind the creation of the Academy. Yet Fish's model would succeed in banning Socrates from the Academy _unless_ he met the "scholarly" requirements that I think BP summarized quite well. The essay I forwarded by Professor Price, on the other hand, seems to me to be looking for a way to allow the universities to continue to serve a meaningful Socratic function without devaluing other types of intellectual work.
At 12:46 PM 4/12/02 -0500, Tony Palmeri wrote:
"One thing that has always concerned me about positions on the scholarship/teaching/service debate such as that espoused by Dr. Fish, and to a lesser extent the position taken by Barry Perlman (I can't be too critical of Barry because after all he did admit to liking "Commentary" (:-)), is that I'm not sure what the positions(s) would have us do with Socrates."
To which TGL responded:
Irrespective of my views on scholarship vs. service, I have to point out that this seems to me a most specious argument. I'm not trained in the social sciences, but it seems to me that anyone's work has to be judged within the context of their culture, society, etc. To evaluate Socrates by our standards surely violates some fundamental precepts of sociology, doesn't it? Cultural relativism or some such?
This argument about as germane as the humor essay pointing out why no modern university would grant God tenure ("He only had one publication ... does not show up for class ... ") In point of fact, if Socrates were magically whisked to modern academe, we would probably seek a psychiatric consultation for the ol' duffer. He would not fit in well at all. His assumptions are not ours, and vice versa. He is a product of his time as we are a product of ours.
I think the two viewpoints in this discussion can build strong persuasive cases without resorting to silliness like this.
Tony uses the example of Socrates, who some of us may still find relevant, in the context of "service" or "scholarship." But couldn't what Socrates was doing be characterized by something--Teaching (which we, in our wisdom, distinguish from either service or scholarship).
Perhaps there's another way of looking at Socrates' career. He didn't publish, and look what happened to him.
DJ
I was just discussing these e-mail conversations with a first year faculty member and we both came to the same conclusion.
We concluded that life after tenure must be pretty good because neither one of us have any time to read these!!!
TS and an unnamed colleague.
TS
Tony Palmeri wrote:
"One thing that has always concerned me about positions on the scholarship/teaching/service debate such as that espoused by Dr. Fish, and to a lesser extent the position taken by Barry Perlman (I can't be too critical of BP because after all he did admit to liking "Commentary" (:-)), is that I'm not sure what the positions(s) would have us do with Socrates."
To which TGL replied:
"Irrespective of my views on scholarship vs. service, I have to point out that this seems to me a most specious argument. I'm not trained in the social sciences, but it seems to me that anyone's work has to be judged within the context of their culture, society, etc. To evaluate Socrates by our standards surely violates some fundamental precepts of sociology, doesn't it?"
To which MKM responds:
Here's an update on Tony's example, that surely doesn't violate any fundamental precepts of sociology: Were Martin Luther King still alive today, with no publications, retired from his ministry, applying for a position with tenure in Religious Studies, would we hire him, or turn him down because all he did was just service?
MKM wrote:
"Here's an update on Tony's example, that surely doesn't violate any fundamental precepts of sociology: Were Martin Luther King still alive today, with no publications, retired from his ministry, applying for a position with tenure in Religious Studies, would we hire him, or turn him down because all he did was just service?"
To which TGL responds:
I'll leave that to the folks in RS -- I can see good arguments both ways. We definitely would not hire his analog in biology in our department, though. (Not that I'm sure what an analagous career in biology would be ...)
MKM wrote:
"Here's an update on Tony's example, that surely doesn't violate any fundamental precepts of sociology: Were Martin Luther King still alive today, with no publications, retired from his ministry, applying for a position with tenure in Religious Studies, would we hire him, or turn him down because all he did was just service?"
To which TGL responded:
"I'll leave that to the folks in RS -- I can see good arguments both ways. We definitely would not hire his analog in biology in our department, though. (Not that I'm sure what an analagous career in biology would be ...)"
To which NB responds:
How about Jacques Cousteau?
The biology analog might be Dr. Isaac Asimov, a biologist who left the professoriate (Boston College?) for a writing career. He ultimately wrote over 400 books. Many of these works were science fiction but quite a few were non-fiction. His science related books, articles and speeches have undoubtedly produced more interest, research and funding for science (including biology) than anything that is likely to come out of Tom's department. None of this work was peer reviewed or basic research. The university and his department took him back and basked in his notoriety after he had achieved international acclaim.
The more difficult case would have to be made for professors who are not public figures and much less famous. There should be a place at the university for less notorious faculty whose strengths are in the fields of applied research and community service. We could tenure such people as research faculty or place them in Centers rather than regular departments. My brother held such a position at U. Kent State even though he now has a more conventional position a U. Louisville. Even Madison does this (witness how UWM dealt with the stem cell researcher).
The need for community support, budget considerations and external funding will force this position on institutions of higher education even if many of us don't like the idea. There has to be some new source of support for universities and the liberal arts if the federal government, state legislatures and taxpayers are increasingly unwilling to foot the bill. All disciplines eventually benefit from such scholarship just as they did all the defense spending that circulated through the universities during the Cold War.
My point is that our campus model for expected faculty activities is much too narrow. We should become much more open to a wider view of just what constitutes scholarship. Even the big flagship campuses we pretend to emulate are doing it.
JS
At 12:46 PM 4/12/02 -0500, Tony Palmeri wrote:
"One thing that has always concerned me about positions on the scholarship/teaching/service debate such as that espoused by Dr. Fish, and to a lesser extent the position taken by BP (I can't be too critical of BP because after all he did admit to liking "Commentary" (:-)), is that I'm not sure what the positions(s) would have us do with Socrates."
To which TGL responded:
"Irrespective of my views on scholarship vs. service, I have to point out that this seems to me a most specious argument. I'm not trained in the social sciences, but it seems to me that anyone's work has to be judged within the context of their culture, society, etc. To evaluate Socrates by our standards surely violates some fundamental precepts of sociology, doesn't it? Cultural relativism or some such?"
"This argument about as germane as the humor essay pointing out why no modern university would grant God tenure ("He only had one publication ... does not show up for class ... ") In point of fact, if Socrates were magically whisked to modern academe, we would probably seek a psychiatric consultation for the ol' duffer. He would not fit in well at all. His assumptions are not ours, and vice versa. He is a product of his time as we are a product of ours."
"I think the two viewpoints in this discussion can build strong persuasive cases without resorting to silliness like this."
To which LC Responds:
Although my comments do not speak directly to the issue, as a philosopher I feel the need to defend Socrates.
With all respect to Professor TGL, I am not sure why we need an "updated example" ... His response to what he regards as "a specious argument" presupposes that Cultural Relativism is itself universally true and applicable in every domain of inquiry. We are asked to believe that Socrates "would not fit in well," that "his assumptions are not ours," and that "he is a product of his time as we are a product of ours."
I am not sure how to understand such remarks, though we often encounter them. I can think of two ways to understand them, one of which makes such claims trivially true, and irrelevant. We might, for example, think that Socrates' assumption that togas are in style (or some such) one that is merely a product of his time, and not ours. This is trivially true (as far as I can tell), and irrelevant.
But the other way of understanding them, the only way I can see relevant to the discussion, makes Tony's point, and DJ's, and MKM's, a very good one. "In point of fact," Socrates' "assumptions" were these: that open dialogue is important to education, that logical and rational discourse is a powerful means to clarifying complicated issues, that moral and political beliefs should always be subject to rational reassessment, that respectful argumentation through the active exchange of ideas benefits all involved, that having (to use Tony's words) "a social and political gadfly" around was beneficial to everyone. These were not merely his assumptions, they were his convictions: he was executed for them. So was Dr.King.
If Socrates' "assumptions are not ours," then perhaps we should consider changing ours. I am inclined to think, however, that Socrates' assumptions are ours, and that confusion about this occurs when labels like "relativism" become popular, and inappropriately overused.
Tony,
Why did Socrates tirelessly question his fellow citizens? According to his defense speech at his trial as recorded by Plato,Socrates learned that the Oracle at Delphi (a priestess acting as a medium or channel for the god Apollo) had announced that there was no one in Greece wiser than Socrates. Socrates claims to be skeptical. The Oracle's declaration strikes him as contrary to fact since his fellow Athenians claim to know all sorts of things that Socrates knows he doesn't know. What could Apollo have meant? So Socrates sets out to question or survey his fellow citizens in an effort to find out what the god really meant and to learn the wisdom of all the wise Athenians. Indeed the Grube translation of Plato's APOLOGY has Socrates also setting out to refute the Oracle by demonstrating that many Athenians are wiser than Socrates. Socrates gains new knowledge; he makes the discovery by his remorseless questioning that his fellow citizens really do not know what they claim to know. Only Socrates knows his own ignorance. He finds that the politicians, poets, and other literary people are the worst frauds. He says the craftsmen really know something--their crafts, their arts. Probably today Socrates would find the most knowledge in voc-technical schools, not in colleges and universities, certainly not in governments. Socrates, then, would have been a scholar: he investigated; he gained new knowledge. Did he publish? He wrote no books; but he not only talked in public, he talked to and with the public. I once gave a lecture over public radio on the weasel words "spirit" and "spirituality"; it was considered publication and copywrited. Fortunately we can still read Plato--real distance learning.
A word of warning. Scholarship or service or whatever you want to call it can be dangerous, even deadly. Socrates finally so irritated his peers that they couldn't stand it any more and put him to death This scenario has been repeated down the centuries to our own day and doubtless will be repeated in the future. One of Plato's eternal Ideas.
Apparently Dr. TGL believes cognitive relativism is true. If it is true, we are free to believe it false or that, say, Vitalism is true.
-JB
LC wrote:
"With all respect to Professor TGL, I am not sure why we need an "updated example" ... His response to what he regards as 'a specious argument' presupposes that Cultural Relativism is itself universally true and applicable in every domain of inquiry. We are asked to believe that Socrates 'would not fit in well,' that 'his assumptions are not ours,' and that 'he is a product of his time as we are a product of ours.'"
To which TGL responds:
Well, I'm obviously getting out of my depth here, and the wise strategy would be to just clam up. But I will stand by my main point, that it is specious -- "setting up a straw man," if you will -- to attempt to evaluate Socrates' potential *as an employee of this university*. I have all proper respect for the man and his accomplishments. But I think it is inappropriate to try to judge whether he would make a good faculty member today.
Let us draw an analogy with the concept of "fitness" in evolutionary biology. A "fit" organism is one that survives and leaves offspring. It has succeeded in meeting whatever challenges comes its way. Fitness is not an absolute; it relates to the organisms environment. A mahogany tree is well adapted to (i.e., quite fit in) wet tropical forest; its fitness would be markedly less in Wisconsin. The blue whale survives long and reproduces well in the ocean's depths; it would experience a catastrophic decline in fitness in central Algeria.
Socrates may well have had an exceptional mind, a stunning intellect, grand ambition, and keen insight. But as a faculty member here, now, it may not be enough. It's difficult to say with any confidence.
MKM wrote:
"Here's an update on Tony's example, that surely doesn't violate any fundamental precepts of sociology: Were Martin Luther King still alive today, with no publications, retired from his ministry, applying for a position with tenure in Religious Studies, would we hire him, or turn him down because all he did was just service?"
To Which CH responds:
This example is still not a fair one, because even if the entire faculty unanimously agreed that recent peer-reviewed research was an absolute requirement for tenure, we would probably agree to make an exception in Dr. King's case. Universities with research requirements much more narrow and rigorous than ours make such exceptions all the time (except they usually make them for people who are actually living).
Assuming that neither Dr. King nor Socrates nor Alan Greenspan is going to be applying for tenure at UW Oshkosh any time soon, how do we deal with the mere mortals who are?
Rather than attempt to answer that question, let me point out something. The discussion on this list has been largely centered on whether or how it would be okay to *broaden* notions of scholarship. But my worry, which I'm sure is shared by others, is that a new emphasis on "Engaged Scholarship" will do exactly the opposite. (Funny how an "emphasis" usually gets implemented as a "requirement.")
I have some serious reservations about expanding the notion of scholarship to whatever each department, program, or individual faculty member wants it to be. But I'm much *more* concerned about the possibility of replacing whatever notions of scholarship are currently operative here with one that requires that everyone's work fit an administrator's, a committee's, or some faculty cabal's notion of "engagement."
BTW, TS, if I have any more time after being tenured than I did before, I must have misplaced it somewhere. For me, at least, some of these discussions are pretty important, so I take time to follow them. Besides, it's a way to procrastinate before I tackle item no. 24 on today's "Things To Do" list.
TGL wrote:
"I'll leave that to the folks in RS -- I can see good arguments both ways. We definitely would not hire his analog in biology in our department, though. (Not that I'm sure what an analagous career in biology would be ...)"
To which NB responded:
"How about Jacques Cousteau?"
To which TGL responds:
I'll leave aside the potential contentious question of whether his career would be analagous to MLK's or not. Would we hire him? Probably not, to be honest. (Aside from the fact we have no marine biology/oceanography component whatsoever.) In the sciences, we pretty much cleave to a model of scholarship that emphasizes peer-reviewed publication. I don't believe Cousteau did much of that. But then, that's our department, and I believe that was the original point of this thread, wasn't it? -- that departments can best decide what model of scholarship best fits their disciplines?
I suppose that when you get down to brass tacks, anything that generates and disseminates knowledge or understanding should count as scholarship. "Service" is that part of scholarship that is not your primary job responsibility, or does not serve your primary clientele.
CH wrote:
"Assuming that neither Dr. King nor Socrates nor Alan Greenspan is going to be applying for tenure at UW Oshkosh any time soon, how do we deal with the mere mortals who are?"
To which TGL responds:
And that was exactly my point. These arguments are very pretty, but not likely to happen in this reality.
CH wrote:
"I have some serious reservations about expanding the notion of scholarship to whatever each department, program, or individual faculty member wants it to be. But I'm much *more* concerned about the possibility of replacing whatever notions of scholarship are currently operative here with one that requires that everyone's work fit an administrator's, a committee's, or some faculty cabal's notion of 'engagement.'"
To which MKM responds:
CH makes a valid point here, which is why I've repeatedly referred not just to the department but to the discipline as well as the arbiter of what is and isn't scholarship. In CH's field, English, to the best of my knowledge there are no real precedents for counting public involvement as scholarship. If that is indeed the case, requiring "engagement" should be seen as absurd. ("The Concept of the 'Bubbler' in 20th Century Fox Valley Literature"???)
In my discipline, in contrast, engagement is closer to the norm than the exception. Economists move from government to academia regularly, and frequently testify before legislative bodies on economic issues. Can you name a prominent economist who wasn't involved in public policy?
All in all, I cannot disagree with the wording in the proposed Faculty Compact, statement #5. If we hold our committees/administrators/etc. to that statement, doesn't that address CH's concerns as well as mine?
5. The Faculty Compact will recognize that different modes of scholarship are
appropriate for different departments and disciplines. The definition of what
constitutes acceptable modes of scholarship will be determined by the departments
and their respective academic and professional disciplines.
RB wrote:
"Second, how do we define 'scholarly' without using the term scholarly? How would we define that for a 'lay' audience?"
To which EL responds:
A great question.
It may be useful first just to begin with the dictionary, following the trail of the words that are used to define "scholar," "scholarly," or "scholarship." Your trail might look a bit different from mine depending on the dictionaries we use and the words we decide to trace. Thus:
one who has done advanced study in a special field; a learned person; of, characteristic of, or suitable to learned persons; academic; the character, qualities, activity or attainments of a scholar; a fund of knowledge and learning characteristic of the advanced scholar in a specialized field of study or investigation.
"study": a state of contemplation; application of the mental faculties to the acquisition of knowledge; such application in a particular field or to a special subject; a careful examination or analysis of a phenomenon, development or question; the published report of such a study (we would add, creative work based on such study).
"advanced": far on in time or course; beyond others in progress or ideas, greatly developed beyond an initial stage.
"field": an area or division of an activity.
"know," "knowledge": to perceive directly, have direct cognition of; to have understanding of; to recognize the nature of; to recognize as being the same as something previously known; to be aware of the truth or factuality of. facts or ideas acquired by study, investigation, observation or experience.
"learned," "learning": knowledge acquired through formal, often advanced schooling; erudition.
"academic": associated with an academy or school, esp. of higher learning (academic freedom to teach or to learn without interference, as by government officials.
"erudition": extensive knowledge acquired chiefly from books; profound, recondite.
"profound": deep.
"recondite": relating to or dealing with something little known or obscure.
I think that "erudition" is the only one of these words that is really centered on the written word.
The term "scholarly and creative activity" in our Handbook clearly covers work in all of the arts and in popular culture and allows for creative combinations of work as well.
I also think that the general public wants some people to take on the task of doing good scholarship, just as they want a surgeon, a dentist, a lawyer, and so on, who is highly skilled and knowledgeable in the field that intersects with their lives. In Wisconsin, true to "the Wisconsin idea," I think people expect these resources to be in their back yard--not just at Madison, where the scholars may not be accessible. Thus, the scholar/teacher model that has been developing on this campus seems to be exactly the right one for the laymen we serve!
The central related question in a comprehensive university is how a faculty (or shared governance structure) decides who has sufficient knowledge and teaching skill to hold a tenured position--that is, to say in the sixth year of an appointment who will be able to transmit ideas appropriate to their time thirty years from now. The standard that has developed since the 30s is peer-evaluation of research or creative work. While one's peers can certainly be wrong about the value of one's knowledge (the early response to Emily Dickinson's poetry is the stunning example from my field), it does not follow that the standard itself is bad in most cases. The standard of self-evaluation given in Glasser, Huber and Maeroff, Scholarship Assessed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997, 35-36, is certainly not sufficient. In the absence of a viable alternative to the present system of evaluation, we would not be wise to abandon it.
Cheers, EL
EL wrote:
"The central related question in a comprehensive university is how a faculty (or shared governance structure) decides who has sufficient knowledge and teaching skill to hold a tenured position--that is, to say in the sixth year of an appointment who will be able to transmit ideas appropriate to their time thirty years from now. The standard that has developed since the 30s is peer-evaluation of research or creative work. While one's peers can certainly be wrong about the value of one's knowledge (the early response to Emily Dickinson's poetry is the stunning example from my field), it does not follow that the standard itself is bad in most cases. The standard of self-evaluation given in Glasser, Huber and Maeroff, Scholarship Assessed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997, 35-36, is certainly not sufficient. In the absence of a viable alternative to the present system of evaluation, we would not be wise to abandon it."
To which Tony Palmeri responds:
The Glasser, et al evaluation criteria mentioned above are:
Scholarship Assessed: An Evaluation of the Professoriate (authors: Charles E. Glassick, Mary Taylor Huber, Gene I. Maeroff, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2000).
These evaluation criteria were discussed briefly at a Faculty College held in January called "The Engaged University: The Ideas of Ernest Boyer." I have placed a copy of my extemporaneous remarks at the event on-line: http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/palmeri/onboyer.htm. Private feedback or responses to the list would be appreciated.
I don't believe that Glasser, et al or Boyer (or anyone on this campus, for that matter) are recommending an abandonment of the peer review system (even though one could make a good argument that the abuses in that system are much worse than suggested by EL). Rather, Boyer and others have been looking for a way to reward faculty activities that are vital to the functioning of a campus (especially the teaching and service mission of a campus) yet do not lend themselves readily to traditional peer review. The fact that we need to have email pleas sent to us urging participation in some pretty important committees ought to tell us something about our reward structure.
Does that mean that sitting on the Faculty Committee ought to count the same as publishing a peer reviewed article? Of course not. But it does mean that we could make sitting on such committees much more meaningful for members and useful for the campus if we allowed faculty sitting on them to apply their scholarly abilities to a committee task and know that their efforts will count for more than "mere service." For example, Alice Kyburg just forwarded a message to this list saying that the Faculty Committee will be an important committee next year because discussion of the COLS bylaws will be coming up. Suppose a Social Scientist on the committee decided to construct a survey designed to assess current knowledge of the bylaws and attitudes toward them. From the survey results s/he is able to compose a report to the committee indicating what kinds of bylaws revisions are needed, will be tolerated, etc. based on the current level of knowledge/attitude.
I think most of us would agree that such a survey and report would be valuable. But with our current reward system, why would a committee member take on such a time consuming task? Why would we demand that the committee member get the survey instrument published before we as a campus community can acknowledge the scholarly nature and value of what was done? I think showing that we value such projects, by allowing them to be thought of as more than "mere service," would go a long way toward getting more faculty involved in important campus activities. A department, college committee, or some other reviewer ought to be able to apply the Glasser or some other criteria and determine if what the committee member did was "scholarly."
My problem with the Glasser, et al evaluation criteria is that however well-intentioned, the criteria reinforce one of the worst parts of our current system: the massive, two-foot thick renewal/tenure/promotion file (sometimes accompanied by 3 or 4 additional boxes of materials) that take the "cross every t, dot every i" phenomenon to unhealthy extremes. Throw in that hidden criterion of "collegiality," and whether we are dealing with the traditional peer review model or Glasser we (meaning academia in general, not just UW Oshkosh) have managed to create a system that too often ends up wasting the talents of the people within it.
-Tony Palmeri
Tony makes a number of points in his post, but I want to focus on one of them in response. Tony writes:
"I don't believe that Glasser, et al or Boyer (or anyone on this campus, for that matter) are recommending an abandonment of the peer review system (even though one could make a good argument that the abuses in that system are much worse than suggested by Estella). Rather, Boyer and others have been looking for a way to reward faculty activities that are vital to the functioning of a campus (especially the teaching and service mission of a campus) yet do not lend themselves readily to traditional peer review. The fact that we need to have email pleas sent to us urging participation in some pretty important committees ought to tell us something about our reward structure."
I think Tony has collapsed two different kinds of service into one here, even though Boyer makes a clear distinction between them. Boyer distinguishes between "citizenship" activities and the scholarly/service activities he calls "the scholarship of application." Boyer writes (on p. 22), "Clearly, a sharp distinction must be drawn between *citizenship* activities [his emphasis] and projects that relate to scholarship itself. To be sure, there are meritorious social and civic functions to be performed, and faculty should be appropriately recognized for such work. But all too frequently, service means not doing scholarship but doing good. To be considered *scholarship* [again, his emphasis], service activities must be tied directly to one's special field of knowledge and relate to, and flow directly out of, this professional activity. Such service is serious, demanding work, requiring the rigor--and the accountability--traditionally associated with research activities." Though I completely agree with Tony that service activities are more meaningful to faculty members when they can bring their intellectual passion and expertise to those activities, and that at times a rigorous scholarly project can, in fact, serve the university, I still see "citizenship" service activities as being distinctly different than the "scholarship of application." Citizenship service (committee work, among other things), is, no doubt, important work, work that in Boyer's words ought to be "appropriately recognized." And conversations about award systems for that kind of work do take place, at least at one level, in departments, where merit criteria are established. But I agree with Boyer on this point. Regardless of how important it is, citizenship service is rarely scholarly work. And even though it's important, most folks don't really believe it is *as* crucial to the intellectual life of a university as teaching/scholarship/creative activities are--though in specific instances it can be--and this is why it is not valued as highly or recognized as often.
Finally--and this is no longer completely in response to Tony's post--I think it is possible to argue for a revised reward system for citizenship service activities, and even for a higher profile for local, applied scholarship, without seeking to radically redirect the intellectual mission and values of the university and its commitment to supporting the scholarly activities of its faculty. Dire predictions posted to this discussion list about a need for a radical shift in direction do not ring true to me. While the _Oshkosh Northwestern_ is hardly the unified voice of the Fox Valley, its recent editorial praising the scholarly work of a number of our faculty (the traditional scholarship Boyer terms the "scholarship of discovery") provides at least some local evidence that this work, and its tie to our teaching, is perceived as valuable in the broader community.
-RR
RR Wrote:
"Tony makes a number of points in his post, but I want to focus on one of them in response. Tony writes:
'I don't believe that Glasser, et al or Boyer (or anyone on this campus, for that matter) are recommending an abandonment of the peer review system (even though one could make a good argument that the abuses in that system are much worse than suggested by Estella). Rather, Boyer and others have been looking for a way to reward faculty activities that are vital to the functioning of a campus (especially the teaching and service mission of a campus) yet do not lend themselves readily to traditional peer review. The fact that we need to have email pleas sent to us urging participation in some pretty important committees ought to tell us something about our reward structure.'"
"I think Tony has collapsed two different kinds of service into one here, even though Boyer makes a clear distinction between them. Boyer distinguishes between "citizenship" activities and the scholarly/service activities he calls "the scholarship of application." Boyer writes (on p. 22), "Clearly, a sharp distinction must be drawn between *citizenship* activities [his emphasis] and projects that relate to scholarship itself. To be sure, there are meritorious social and civic functions to be performed, and faculty should be appropriately recognized for such work. But all too frequently, service means not doing scholarship but doing good. To be considered *scholarship* [again, his emphasis], service activities must be tied directly to one's special field of knowledge and relate to, and flow directly out of, this professional activity. Such service is serious, demanding work, requiring the rigor--and the accountability--traditionally associated with research activities." Though I completely agree with Tony that service activities are more meaningful to faculty members when they can bring their intellectual passion and expertise to those activities, and that at times a rigorous scholarly project can, in fact, serve the university, I still see "citizenship" service activities as being distinctly different than the "scholarship of application." Citizenship service (committee work, among other things), is, no doubt, important work, work that in Boyer's words ought to be "appropriately recognized." And conversations about award systems for that kind of work do take place, at least at one level, in departments, where merit criteria are established. But I agree with Boyer on this point. Regardless of how important it is, citizenship service is rarely scholarly work. And even though it's important, most folks don't really believe it is *as* crucial to the intellectual life of a university as teaching/scholarship/creative activities are--though in specific instances it can be--and this is why it is not valued as highly or recognized as often."
To which Tony Palmeri responds:
I want to quote the paragraph in Boyer that comes BEFORE the quote cited by RR:
"Colleges and universities have recently rejected service as serious scholarship, partly because its meaning is so vague and often disconnected from the serious intellectual work. As used today, service in the academy covers an almost endless number of campus activities--sitting on committees, advising student clubs, or performing departmental chores. The definition blurs still more as activities beyond the campus are included--participation in town councils, youth clubs, and the like. It is not unusual for almost any worthy project to be dumped into the amorphous category called 'service."
Then follows the quote that RR cited:
"Clearly, a sharp distinction must be drawn between *citizenship* activities [his emphasis] and projects that relate to scholarship itself. To be sure, there are meritorious social and civic functions to be performed, and faculty should be appropriately recognized for such work. But all too frequently, service means not doing scholarship but doing good. To be considered *scholarship* [again, his emphasis], service activities must be tied directly to one's special field of knowledge and relate to, and flow directly out of, this professional activity. Such service is serious, demanding work, requiring the rigor--and the accountability--traditionally associated with research activities."
The example I gave in the previous post was of a Social Scientist developing a survey instrument to test knowledge of and attitudes about the COLS bylaws, along with preparation of a report to be used to inform Committee decisions. The person I am describing is doing more than "sitting on the committee." I also wrote that "A department, college committee, or some other reviewer ought to be able to apply the Glasser or some other criteria and determine if what the committee member did was "scholarly." The reviewer(s) ought to be able to determine if the social scientist "did scholarship" or merely "did good."
I agree with RR that "citizenship service is rarely scholarly work." The issue is whether in the example I've given, the scholar has moved "beyond mere citizenship." Note that when Boyer says of scholarly service work that "such service work is serious, demanding work, requiring the rigor--and the accountability--traditionally associated with research activities"--he stops short of concluding that "and it must go through the traditional peer review process before we can call it scholarship or scholarly activity."