The embarrassingly trivial tenure and promotion guidelines used within our school are finally being revised. In the past, the categories were simplistic and vague. If there was a benefit to this (writing as a faculty member) those ambiguities were not used to evil effect. But they could have been. This Wednesday, all 27 pages of the newly drafted guidelines were placed before members of our department for discussion. To paraphrase Taylor Mali, it was the best time we’d spent together since Christmas. The conversation was honest, respectful and varied. The document served as an object to direct our comments. What then ricocheted around the room was quite revealing.
For one, the energy of the conversation demonstrated the substantial need many had in voicing their notions about “the academy” and what it stands for. That many spoke, novice and veteran, was an indication that several are struggling with these notions. This was a rare opportunity to be heard. What was intriguing was how an otherwise mundane department meeting "degenerated" into such a revealing and useful conversation. Beyond its rarity, it is not the first time where a dull document opened doors to deliberations that were not anticipated but ended up revealing a great deal. I don’t typically view my department as rich in quick thinkers even though they are warm and nurturing teachers and advisors. Nevertheless, and I don’t want to be misunderstood as labeling my peers as dull, the discussion brought to mind this excerpt from John Dewey’s How We Think:
Just as students in an undergraduate non-majors physics class can be seen as in the process of becoming, I have been wondering about newbies to the academy. How can we describe what is expected at the outset from those who will pursue promotion six or so years into the future? Beyond the end products, what ought to take place along the way — what do we expect or hope for among this who plan to become tenured faculty in an education department? The corollary is to exit those who choose not to use the academy as we feel they should. Added to this, what are the various ways we might allow people to become, including those who are not living in the same world or coming to the work along the same path as me? Whether a person is referencing their students as they work quizzes about muon travels or considering how to specify what it means to become a professional academician (or educator) it seems that having high ambitions combined with considerations of differences is both a challenging and a refreshing way to contemplate the growth of others.
For one, the energy of the conversation demonstrated the substantial need many had in voicing their notions about “the academy” and what it stands for. That many spoke, novice and veteran, was an indication that several are struggling with these notions. This was a rare opportunity to be heard. What was intriguing was how an otherwise mundane department meeting "degenerated" into such a revealing and useful conversation. Beyond its rarity, it is not the first time where a dull document opened doors to deliberations that were not anticipated but ended up revealing a great deal. I don’t typically view my department as rich in quick thinkers even though they are warm and nurturing teachers and advisors. Nevertheless, and I don’t want to be misunderstood as labeling my peers as dull, the discussion brought to mind this excerpt from John Dewey’s How We Think:
As the metaphor of dull and bright implies, some minds are impervious, or else they absorb passively. Everything presented is lost in a drab monotony that gives nothing back. But others reflect, or give back in varied lights, all that strikes upon them. The dull make no response; the bright flash back the fact with a changed quality. An inert or stupid mind requires a heavy jolt or an intense shock to move it to suggestion; the bright mind is quick, is alert to react with interpretation and suggestion of consequences to follow.In trying to lighten the load in my file drawers at home, the previous weekend I disposed of the just-found personal statement I submitted when I went up for associate professor almost fifteen years ago. My recollection was similar to what I read before the document went into the bin. Then I made the case that my research was not necessarily all along the same path but still showed some purposefulness even though others could misconstrue it as wandering. At the recent department meeting, I found myself taking exception to a young scholar who was advocating that a quality tenure dossier ought to show a clear research trajectory. I don’t fault his perspective because that was his training and he has done a very admirable job following that path. While it worked well for him, and I have been a clear beneficiary of his scholarship as has the field, I was reluctant to endorse that as THE sign of being worthy of associate status.
Just as students in an undergraduate non-majors physics class can be seen as in the process of becoming, I have been wondering about newbies to the academy. How can we describe what is expected at the outset from those who will pursue promotion six or so years into the future? Beyond the end products, what ought to take place along the way — what do we expect or hope for among this who plan to become tenured faculty in an education department? The corollary is to exit those who choose not to use the academy as we feel they should. Added to this, what are the various ways we might allow people to become, including those who are not living in the same world or coming to the work along the same path as me? Whether a person is referencing their students as they work quizzes about muon travels or considering how to specify what it means to become a professional academician (or educator) it seems that having high ambitions combined with considerations of differences is both a challenging and a refreshing way to contemplate the growth of others.
