Changing Faculty Roles and Responsibilities: Expanding the Skill Set of Faculty Perspective From a Graduate Dean

Transcription

1 QUEST, , 55, DEPAUW 2003 National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education Changing Faculty Roles and Responsibilities: Expanding the Skill Set of Faculty Perspective From a Graduate Dean Karen P. DePauw The roles and responsibilities of faculty in higher education continue to evolve. Although research and teaching have been perceived to be top priority, the skill set for faculty has expanded. Kennedy (1997) observed that academic freedom is widely shared value but that academic duty is mysterious. He identified the following as key components of academic duty: to teach, to mentor, to serve the university, to discover, to publish, to tell the truth, to reach beyond the walls, and even to change. As the context for higher education changes, preparing the future faculty becomes one of the most important responsibilities facing higher education today. National initiatives call for re-envisioning the doctoral degree, and the discipline of KPE must answer the call. Universities are among the longest surviving institutions in the world. To date, higher education has withstood the test of time. But significant societal shifts (e.g., economic, demographic, global interdependence, information technology) have contributed to national calls for academic reform in higher education. Higher education must change in order to continue to survive and thrive in this rapidly changing societal context. Today, colleges and universities are challenged to meet the needs for access to quality education as well as the need for lifelong learning among an increasingly more diverse student population. To meet this challenge, universities must (a) provide lifelong learning opportunities, not just for the year old undergraduate student; (b) understand the connectivity of technology and learning and advance knowledge through technology; (c) progress from the teaching paradigm to a learning paradigm; (d) promote universities as learning institutions; and (e) accept the university s role in social responsibility and leadership (Duderstadt, 2000). Karen P. DePauw is Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Dean of the Graduate School, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hall 100, Blacksburg, VA kpdepauw@vt.edu. 18

2 PREPARING THE FUTURE PROFESSORIATE 19 Universities must experiment with new paradigms and move beyond the paradigm of the traditional research university. This historical view included the following: (a) classroom-based pedagogy in a residential campus environment; (b) undergraduate education in a four-year, 120-credit-hour curriculum involving lecture, seminar, and laboratory courses in specific majors; (c) student experience augmented by an array of extracurricular activities; (d) graduate education in academic disciplines and professional schools; and (e) faculty members active primarily in research and scholarship (Duderstadt, 2000, p. 278). Although this traditional perspective might be considered inadequate to describe much of higher education today, the remnants are clearly present in our research universities today. We find remnants in university requirements, departmental and disciplines-based curricula, requirements for tenure and promotion, predominant teaching methodologies, and perceptions of alternative instructional approach. From this historical context, Duderstadt (2000) encourages us to consider the possible futures and educational visions of the university beyond the year 2000, including the following types of institutions: (a) the world university, (b) the diverse university, (c) the creative university, (d) the divisionless university, (e) the cyberspace university, (f) the adult university, (g) the university college, (h) the lifelong university, (i) the ubiquitous university, and (j) the laboratory university (p. 278). In considering the possible futures, the higher education enterprise must be reenvisioned to become more learner centered, affordable, interactive and collaborative, diverse, and intelligent and adaptive. Given the longevity and traditional history of research universities, the challenge to change higher education is significant. Universities for the 21 st century must be willing to dance with change. To dance with change, universities must balance relentless demands and dreams of society, be viable and stable, be philosophically and historically grounded, meaningful and practical, and be interactive, responsive, and proactive. Although various actions and responses are possible, the issue of the changing faculty roles and responsibilities will become one of the most important tasks to implementing positive change in the academy. As these roles and responsibilities change and the skill set of the faculty is expanded, doctoral education and the preparation of the future professorate must change. Indeed, the next generation of faculty is being educated in doctoral programs in U.S. universities today. In 1997, the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) President, Jules LaPidus, identified what he called the daunting responsibilities of faculty. LaPidus asked the graduate deans and graduate schools to examine existing emphases within doctoral programs and their relationship to the actual responsibilities of faculty. He argued that doctoral students were prepared to do the following in descending order of difficulty: Teach the most advanced courses. Do research. Get financial support for research. Direct graduate student research. Get financial support for students. Advise graduate students. Mentor graduate students. Teach one s subject to undergraduate students.

3 20 DEPAUW Advise and mentor undergraduate students. Bring scholarship to bear on all of the above. Bring scholarship to bear on the administrative and service roles as faculty members. In the late 20 th century, national calls for academic reform of universities led to specific challenges to the ways in which doctoral (PhD) education has been traditionally conducted. The perspectives of doctoral students were investigated by Golde and Dore (2001). A major finding of the study is that the training that doctoral students received is not what they want, nor does it prepare them for the jobs they take. It would follow that programs for preparing the future faculty should prepare doctoral students with a broader understanding of the range of faculty roles as well as for the reality of life outside research universities. Research universities are a small minority of the institutions of higher education, but their influence is enormous, particularly in the preparation of PhDs. If changing is to happen, this is where it begins (Kennedy, 1997, p. 58). Four national initiatives have emerged in recent years to address this call to change: Preparing the Future Faculty (PFF), Re-envisioning the PhD, Toward a More Responsive PhD, and the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate. The PFF program was the first of these to be initiated and has achieved success in promoting change in doctoral programs. (Note: The PFF program is discussed in more detail in other articles in this issue of Quest.) After the initial success of the PFF program at the University of Washington, Nyquist and her colleagues received funding by the Pew Charitable Trusts in 1998 for the program entitled Re-envisioning the PhD. Among its many activities, this program identified promising practices and concerns about doctoral education. Conflicting views and shared concerns about doctoral education emerged as a result of a national conference attended by selected members of the university community with representation across the institutional types, graduate students, and representatives of the business communities and private enterprise. The conflicting views of the PhD degree are graphically represented in Table 1. Although not all agree about the particulars of the PhD degree, they did identify some shared concerns about existing doctoral education. Among the shared concerns were the following: Shortening the time to degree; determining its essence Developing more diversity among recipients Increasing exposure to technology Preparing far wider variety of professional options Making interdisciplinary work an integral part of doctoral education, and Incorporating understanding of global economy and environment (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000). The two more recent additions to the national agenda for reform of the doctorate are programs entitled Toward a More Responsive PhD and the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate. The Responsive PhD program, funded by the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation, promotes the adoption of new paradigms (interdisciplinary, scholarly, citizenship), new practices (professional development, pedagogical training), and new people (diverse populations, diversifying the American intellect).

4 PREPARING THE FUTURE PROFESSORIATE 21 Table 1 Conflicting Views of Doctoral Education Purpose of Doctoral Education PhD is a research certification. PhD prepares students as academics. Enrollment PhD programs need to be very selective. Need to decrease number of PhDs. U.S. students should be privileged. Training Best preparation is apprenticeship. Funding practices work well. Current model attracts the best and the brightest. PhD requires broader professional preparation. PhD prepares students for a variety of career options. PhD programs should admit all qualified applicants. Need to increase the number of PhDs. International students should be encouraged. Other types of mentoring are needed. Funding practices need to change. Current model discourages the best and the brightest. Reprinted with permission from the University of Washington, Center for Instructional Development and Research (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000). The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, funded by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2002), focuses on the preparation of doctoral students as stewards of the disciplines. As stewards of the disciplines, the future faculty members are responsible for (a) generating new knowledge and defending knowledge claims against challenges and criticism, (b) conserving the most important ideas and findings that are legacy of post and current work, and (c) transforming knowledge, generated and conserved, into powerful pedagogies of engagement, understanding, and application. These nationally funded initiatives represent a growing trend toward examining and revising doctoral education with a focus on the preparation of the future professorate. Many other efforts in preparing future faculty are underway at universities throughout the U.S. All of these seek to address the issue of the future roles and responsibilities of faculty,that is, faculty work or academic duty. Kennedy (1997) observed that academic freedom is widely shared value but that academic duty that ought to count for as much is mysterious. According to Kennedy (1997), academic duty includes at least the following: To teach To mentor To serve the university To discover To publish To tell the truth To reach beyond the walls To change

5 22 DEPAUW Critics might argue that priority should be given to some of these responsibilities over others (e.g., research), that some of these really don t matter much (e.g., professional service), that most go unrewarded or unrecognized by the university, that faculty already understand these responsibilities (e.g. to tell the truth), and that some aren t necessary to consider (e.g., to change). I would argue that we have yet to fully embrace the concepts underlying these responsibilities and thus, it is virtually impossible in this short article to do justice to each of these duties. A brief summary is shown in Table 2. See Kennedy (1997) for detailed discussions of academic duty. Viewing academic duty as a whole provides an opportunity to deconstruct our existing notions of faculty work and consider the complexity roles and responsibilities of faculty. This is necessary for the future of higher education. It could be argued that faculty already perform many, if not all, of these duties and more not identified by Kennedy (1997). But are these included as key components of doctoral degrees? A central part of academic duty is to prepare Table 2 Academy Duty of Faculty (adapted from Kennedy, 1997) Responsibility Key aspects To Teach Teaching matters, respecting diverse learning styles, evaluating performance, understanding and using pedagogy, transitioning to learning paradigm To Mentor Peer mentors, junior colleagues, collaboration among colleagues, building sense of community, multiple mentors To Serve the University Outreach to community groups, service to industry and practitioners, making academic community relevant to state and region, service within university community, professional service To Discover Scholarship of discovery, knowledge, and application; extramural funding; civility in scholarly discourse; human subjects and animal rights; research and scholarship To Publish Disseminate scholarly endeavors through publication, presentation, performance, quality, ownership issues, copyright, patent, intellectual property To Tell the Truth Academic integrity, issues of misconduct in science, ethics, conflicts of interest, research design, and analysis To Reach Beyond the Walls Technology transfer, intellectual property, commitment to professional and academic/disciplinary associations To Change Challenge professional and personal assumptions, interdisciplinary work, empowering and igniting social change, meaningfulness of work and connections to real world, leadership

6 PREPARING THE FUTURE PROFESSORIATE 23 students realistically for productive and rewarding lives. This can only truly be accomplished when the full range of academic duty of faculty is realized and institutionalized in our colleges and universities. The roles and responsibilities (i.e., academic duty) should serve as a foundation for doctoral education and the preparation of the future faculty. The doctoral students surveyed have indicated that the current training doesn t provide them with what they need or want. Their voices and the national call for academic reform of the PhD indicate that we must reenvision our doctoral programs. Due to the significant role of the research university in offering PhD degrees, the research university must embrace change and lead institutional transformation. If lasting institutional reform is to be achieved, it will require changes in graduate education, with greater emphasis upon the integration of disciplines and their application to societal issues (Duderstadt, 2001). Just as higher education seeks to examine its role in preparing the future faculty, so must professionals in kinesiology and physical education (KPE). To do so requires us to acknowledge and understand the changing nature of society as well as the evolving university context: the changing demographic landscape, the shift toward global interdependence, the impact of technological advances, the transition from teaching paradigm to learning paradigm, and acceptance of our social responsibility and leadership for change. The undergraduate students have changed and will continue to change. The graduate students and those who will become the next generation of faculty are different than the current faculty. The preparation of the future faculty rests in the hands of the current faculty and to be effective in preparing the next generation, the faculty must be willing to embrace change as well. Although Kennedy s (1997, p. 58) statement that if changing is to happen, this is where it begins was made in reference to research universities, this same statement can be applied directly to the faculty at the research universities. I would argue that KPE professionals should take advantage of the opportunity to prepare the future faculty and to move away from the vestiges of the traditional paradigm of doctoral education. Our future as a discipline rests on our ability to train the future professorate who can thrive in a 21 st century university. The university of the 21 st century will be more interdisciplinary in nature. By the nature of our discipline, our body of knowledge is already interdisciplinary. We engage in interdisciplinary scholarship (e.g., exercise physiology, sport sociology). We are well positioned to promote the mind-body connection often missing in higher education but reemerging. Historically, we have and should continue to blend the theoretical and the practical (e.g., pedagogy, sport psychology). The results of our scholarship, teaching, and professional service are beneficial and meaningful to society. We should no longer follow the footsteps of traditional doctoral education, but rather, we should revisit the essence of our discipline to reenvision our PhD programs. Perhaps, then, we can take the lead in transformation of higher education for we are trained to dance with change. Dare we be agents of social change and institutional transformation? References Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (2002). Overview of the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Online. Available:

7 24 DEPAUW Duderstadt, J.J. ( July - August, 2001). The challenges and hazards of leading the university transformations demanded by a learning society. Newsline, p. 7. Golde, C.M. & Dore, T.M. (2001). At Cross Purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education ( Philadelphia, PA: The Pew Charitable Trusts. Kennedy, D. (1997). Academy duty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. LaPidus, J. (1997). Doctoral education: Preparing for the future. Washington, DC: CGS. Nyquist, J.D, & Woodford, B.J. (2000). Re-envisioning the PhD: What concerns do we have? Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for Instructional Development.