The Paradox of the Small Liberal Arts

& Sciences University: 

Between Teaching and Publishing

John D. Wingard

Anthropology

Presented at the

Faculty Retreat Program

January, 28, 2003

Forms of Knowledge and Pedagogy

and the Future of Liberal Arts at SSU

The Paradox of the Small Liberal Arts & Sciences University: 

Between Teaching and Publishing

---

Publish or teach?Both of course, but how much of each?We know that research, which leads to publications, and the process of writing papers for publication all enhance our teaching.One of the things that students respond to most enthusiastically in the classroom is when the instructor is able to link his or her own experiences into the discussion topic.

Less discussed, but also true, is that teaching benefits research.In preparing lectures and talking to students, we are often forced to strip down our high-minded ideas into consumable bits.In the process, trees that had gotten lost in the forest suddenly reappear in a new light.Also, students often ask questions about our research, that sometimes in their seeming naivete, force us to reconsider our ideas in new ways.

Here lies the paradox.We all recognize the mutual relationship between teaching, research, and publishing.Despite their complementarity, however, they also compete for the same scarce resource: time.Writing grant proposals takes time, conducting research takes time, writing papers for publication, preparing lectures, advising and counseling students all take time.The more time we devote to one, the less time we have to devote to the others. 

We all, at times, like to believe we are supermen and superwomen who can do it all.And most of us can point to a special individual or two that we have crossed paths with that somehow seemed to be able to do, if not all, at least most of it.But just as every playground basketball player dreams of being Michael Jordan or Shaquille O=Neill, alas, we can=t all be super profs. 

For most of us that means not being able to research and publish as much as we would like, nor to spend as much time preparing our lectures and working with students as we would like.But where is the balance?And not only do we have to balance between these competing demands for our time and energy, we must also balance it against service to our departments, schools, the university, the community, and dare I say it, our personal lives.Yes, somewhere in there we must fit attention to spouses, children, home, neighborhood and so on.

Despite these conflicts, we are continually tempted to fall back on our vision of ourselves as super profs and think that somehow, we should be able to do it all.And the desire to do this is driven by our desire to reap the kudos of our profession. 

We desire praise from our students and to see our name in print:teaching and publishing.One problem is, the kudos from teaching are often intangible and momentary, whereas the kudos from publishing are physical and permanent.The best teachers at the University are generally not known beyond the boundaries of the campus.

So the paradox rears its head.As a liberal arts institution, we place great value on teaching and working with students.The most tangible criteria for success, however, is research and publication.And we struggle to maintain the appropriate balance.

If left to our own proclivities, most of us would find that balance.Unfortunately, external forces intervene to muddle the process.

For junior faculty working toward tenure, a key external force is the RTP committee.The critical balance between teaching, service, research, and publishing is not defined by the individual researcher/teacher, but by the RTP committee, who, regardless of how many reassuring words are uttered, never truly manages to convince us that they are as benign as they would have us believe.

The question that permanently burrows its way into the psyche of every untenured faculty member is AHow many publications do I need to get tenure?@And even though we are told that there is no magic number, that it depends on a number of factors, etc, etc.,these only serve to increase the level of uncertainty and anxiety.So the paradox raises it head: should I be working on that grant proposal, or that paper that has been gathering dust in my mind, or the lecture for my class tomorrow?And one is always looking over their shoulder to see how and what other members of the cohort are doing.

Another external force, one that impacts not only untenured faculty, but the faculty at large, is changes at the University level.As government support dwindles, grants, with their attendant overhead dollars, look ever more enticing to administrators.Consequently,a sometimes not so subtle message comes down from above putting more emphasis on research and publications.

Publication records and grant-getting success go hand in hand.I have never had to submit my teaching evaluations when applying for a grant.But showing evidence, through publications, of relevant research, is a huge plus.Administrators are not oblivious to this fact and so put more pressure on faculty to publish.

Administrators also know that the University=s public reputation is key to attracting students.As the price of higher education increases, expect parents to pay closer attention to the reputation of the institutions where they spend their money.

For better or worse, the public reputation of an institution hinges more on the research and publication record of the faculty than on the quality of teaching.This reflects the common assumption that a good researcher is also a good teacher although most of know the two are only weakly correlated.

When the emphasis shifts in the direction of research and publishing, other changes follow: both for faculty and for students.Depending on how they are handled, the changes can be positive or profoundly negative.

Over the course of 3 to 5 years, the provost went from telling new faculty that Athe University sees teaching, research and service as a three-legged stool: each mutually dependent on the other two@ to telling them that Aresearch is key, teaching and service follow from research.@

This, in and of itself, was not a bad thing.The way it was handled though, created significant problems.Time, as I stated earlier, is a finite resource.It does not increase in proportion to the demands that are made on us.

The problems that arose at my previous university grew largely out of the situation that was created when increased expectations for research and publications were not matched either by increased resources to accomplish them, nor in a reduction in other demands and expectations.

In short, the faculty was expected to do more of everything and the situation deteriorated rapidly thereafter.

Rather than the administration taking responsibility for the situation, the load was passed to the faculty.The inability to accomplish more of everything was not a seen as a reflection that too much was expected, but as evidence that the faculty was not worthy; was not up to the task.If you can=t do the job, we=ll find someone who will.

Even though members of the faculty grumbled, two factors emerged to blunt their response: a sincere dedication to their profession and a refusal to admit failure.As research and publishing expectations increased, their was a diligent attempt to make sure teaching did not suffer.The only way to do this however, was to steal time and energy from somewhere else.Initially, that somewhere else was personal time: evenings and weekends.This was not Afree time@ as we sometimes like to refer to it.Stealing this time had real consequences.But professional integrity took precedence.And failure to do so could mean denial of tenure or promotion.

The second factor is one that has been seen at all levels of the workforce: workers take personal responsibility for the short comings of the enterprise, even when it is obvious the problems lie with management.When factories close their doors and move operations offshore, workers often blame their own lack of productivity for the move, even when productivity levels had been steadily rising.Likewise, the inability to meet the demands of the administration are seen by faculty members themselves as failures on their part, not as evidence that they had been given an impossible task to perform.

To survive and avoid failure, faculty stole time from their personal lives, until that reached unacceptably low levels, and then, inevitably, began to steal time from other tasks.While classroom time remained constant, time spent preparing lectures declined.

A second, more striking example, occurred to one of my colleagues, we=ll call him Peter, in another department.Peter had just received the annual Outstanding Teaching Award.

At the reception following the awards ceremony, the provost walked up to Peter and said AI hope you know, that=s not going to help you get tenure.@As Dave Barry would say: I=m not making this up.

The situation when I left, makes faculty morale at Sonoma seem like a spring break party.Faculty burnout and attrition were high, relationships between members of the faculty were deteriorating, and relationships between faculty and administration...well let me just say thisBwhen the above mentioned provost accepted a job at another university, the local campus paper wrote an article mentioning how many people had been at the airport to see him off.The take on campus was that they had only gone to make sure he actually got on the plane.

The point is, even though we, at Sonoma, put a great deal of emphasis on teaching, the ability to maintain these high standards are not guaranteed.The insidious part of the process is that, teaching standards may be threatened by seemingly rising standards in other areas, i.e., standards of research and publishing.

The question of publish or teach goes beyond a simple discussion of the mutual benefits they bring to each other.One must also address the qualitative differences between the two in terms of measuring faculty success.The indicators of teaching success are often intangible, and certainly local.And they are harder to demonstrate from the perspective of the institution.

Indicators of publishing success, however, are both physical and more public.The tangible rewards of publishing accrue to both the person doing it, but also to the institution more generally.Given that publications are only the end product of grants and research, they also come to represent economic benefits for the University

Given the economic benefits, it is tempting for administrators to exploit faculty by pressing them to get more grants and do more research, and then relying on the faculty=s professional integrity to maintain high teaching and service standards, thus avoiding the full costs of their decisions.

The ability to maintain high standards only comes about through increased efforts on the part of the faculty...levels of effort certainly not sustainable over any length of time.Faculty inevitably respond by lowering their teaching standards in the face of the new demands, or if unable to accept this outcome, leave.In the end, teaching loses.

The long term damage to the university can be considerable.People truly interested in teaching apply elsewhere.As news of low faculty morale spreads, the overall quality of applicants declines.Positions are filled, but not at the same high standards as before.

To prevent this outcome, there must be a clear recognition of the trade-offs.And these trade offs must be explicitly dealt with up front.The most damaging situation arises fromAincrementalism,@like the proverbial frog in the pot, if we wait until the water is already boiling to make changes, it is too late.Resources must be shifted simultaneously with shifting expectations and responsibilities.If research and publication demands are increased, resources mus also be increased and / or teaching and service demands must be commensurably reduced in order to maintain quality.

Teach or publish:we can, and should do both, but a sustainable balance must be maintained and the allocation of resources must reflect this balance if we hope to maintain our high standards in all areas.