Summer
2002
|
|
Summer
2002 |
 |
 By
Richard EkmanA myth about faculty members at CIC colleges and universities is that, while they are effective and dedicated teachers, they are not productive scholars. On some campuses, the strong emphasis on teaching does overshadow scholarly work, but the myth may explain why many faculty members do not submit applications to major fellowship competitions; and in the headquarters of the fellowship competitions, it offers a handy explanation for why most awards are to faculty members at research universities. An opportunity to test this misconception arose recently when CIC announced a new seminar, cosponsored by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. All CIC chief academic officers were encouraged to nominate historians to a seminar at Columbia University on the historiography of slavery, led by David Brion Davis, the retired Yale professor who is perhaps the world expert on the subject. For those accepted, all expenses of participation were covered. Eligibility was limited to faculty members at CIC member colleges and universities. (Click here for an account of the seminar, which was held June 2-7.) The nomination process allowed deans to put forth candidates on the multiple grounds of scholarly promise, teaching, and institutional service. By covering all costs and limiting eligibility to CIC members, one of our goals was to eliminate the most common arguments that some faculty members use to persuade themselves it is not worth the effort to apply. We received 79 nominations from CIC colleges and 32 were accepted. Half came from assistant professors, 22 percent from associate professors, and 28 percent from full professors. Institutions in the South accounted for more than one-third of the nominations, including nine from historically black colleges and universities. The largest numbers of nominations came from Pennsylvania (8), Texas (7), New York (7), Tennessee (6), Ohio (6), Virginia (5), and South Carolina (4)-not all states that are home to large numbers of independent colleges and universities. Several states with large numbers of CIC members accounted for small numbers of nominations. More than 80 percent of the deans and/or nominees said that they hoped the seminar experience would lead to strengthened teaching. One-third said they hoped to use what they learned to develop new courses or special campus programs. About a third (36 percent) said they hoped the seminar would advance their own research or writing. Fully one-third of the nominees now serve as department chairs or in other positions of institutional responsibility, including one chair of the faculty, one dean, and one president. The letters of nomination frequently cited the nominee's role in leading curricular reform, chairing a department, or”—given the subject of the seminar—carrying major responsibility for a campus program in race relations. In addition to enhanced teaching as the main reason for wishing to participate, a large number of those nominated also listed impressive records as scholars. Sixteen of 22 full professor nominees have published a book, ten within the past five years. Thirteen have more than one book, and 12 publish an article on average at least once a year. Of the associate professors, more than half have published a book. These include some highly significant publications-a book nominated by Oxford University Press for the Pulitzer Prize in Biography, and winners of the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Award, New York State's Kerr Prize, and the Conference on Latin American History's Prize (for an article in the prestigious Journal of Interdisciplinary History). The individuals in the nominee pool have not been very well supported with grants and fellowships. Their achievements are all the more impressive for having been made while carrying full workloads on campus. Only seven professors mentioned any support from external sources (including the Virginia Historical Society, NEH, Lilly, Fulbright, and Pew). Associate professor nominees were only slightly more successful: nine of 17 associate professor nominees mentioned outside support (Mellon, Fulbright, James Wilson James, NEH, Rockefeller Archives Travel Grant, and a Gilder Lehrman Institute fellowship). Only 12 of the 39 full and associate professors appear to have received multiple awards of external support throughout their careers. Nor have home institutions of nominees provided much support for travel, research fellowships, or teaching improvement grants. Only seven out of 39 nominated professors and associate professors mentioned any kind of special institutional support. How representative is this group of nominees of all faculty members at smaller institutions? My view is that it is reasonably representative. The procedures and selection criteria for this seminar would not have skewed the pool by leading many potential nominees to conclude it was not worth the trouble to apply or that they could not be competitive. American history is taught at every American college. The typical history department in a small college has only one or two U.S. historians on the faculty and they are routinely expected to teach a wide array of subjects. Teaching loads are heavy and opportunities for sabbaticals, travel, and research support are few. Only some colleges are located near major libraries and archives. Several lessons are suggested by this quick analysis. The first is that teaching and research, far from being opposites, tend to be mutually reinforcing in the lives of many faculty members. According to the nominators, many of the individuals were notable in both arenas. The second is that colleges should try to support faculty development because it does produce results in both scholarly achievement and in fulfillment of such institutional objectives as improved teaching and program development. The third is that foundations, government agencies, and fellowship organizations should recognize that excellent work is being done by a large number of faculty members at institutions that do not offer much financial support for faculty members' scholarly or curricular projects. And if the PhD "glut" of the past generation has led many superbly prepared PhDs to accept jobs in institutions that cannot offer much support, more support will likely make these faculty members even more effective teachers, leaders of major programs and curriculum development, and producers of high quality scholarship. At least a few would surely produce work that is equal to the work of former graduate school colleagues who have had the benefit over the years of frequent institutional and external support. The Gilder Lehrman Institute and CIC are both very pleased with the results of the seminar, and intend to offer additional seminars in the future. I hope that other funders will grasp the importance of nurturing high-quality work by doing more to support faculty members of CIC colleges and universities. A few already have (see, for example, the article on page 13, which describes the dramatic increase in the number of Fulbright winners drawn from CIC faculty ranks). And I hope that the myth about the roles of teaching and research in the professional lives of faculty members at smaller institutions will soon disappear. Independent |
