[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: your mail
I received a very thoughtful backchannel from Scott and we've begun an
intersting and, hopefully, productive exchange. I grant much of what
Scott says, but believe that what is expressed here still begs the
ultimate question: What are an individual debate coach's goals and are
they consistent with those of the department and institution?
Things work out well these coincide and things can become sticky when they
don't. What I like about the Quail Roost document is that it discusses
both the responsibilities of debate coaches to participate in a complete
professional life *dependent on the mission of the department and school*
AS WELL AS identifying the responsibilities of the department and
department chair to the director of forensics. It is a two way street.
At a Research I institution, we do expect publications from all our
faculty. BUT we don't count number of publications per se because that
says nothing about the quality of work necessarily. It is better, I
believe, for a faculty member to produce one or two really fine,
thoughtful, and influential pieces rather than five or six articles just
to produce five or six articles "for tenure." When we have faculty who
are engaged in very time-consuming activities (like forensics,
performance, film production), we have to be reasonable and accept that
the number of publications won't be as extensive as someone who "just"
teaches. Still, they do have to share the knowledge generated through
their activities and do so in ways that demonstrate excellence.
But if a department says, we want a debate program that provides
opportunities for lots of students and focuses on public debates, the
director has to meet those expectations. Alternatively, if the department
says we want that and a nationally competitive program and IE and
development of graduate assistants and professional service in AFA, CEDA,
NDT, NFA or whatever...then the department needs to be reasonable about
what it demands in other ways and what support it offers to meet those
demands. How much release/equivalency time is given? Are research
assistants provided? Are debate/IE assistants funded and supported?
All of these are issues that have to be considered and presented/discussed
explicitly by both directors and administrators.
Some other comments are included in Scott's post:
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 mgremillion@selu.edu wrote:
> 25 Jun 1997 12:20:02 CDT@
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:47:42 -0500 (CDT)
> Subject: Re: BAlthrop's Comments on Coaching
> To: CEDA-L@Cornell.edu
> Message-id: <01IKHLGX1GV690OCVL@selu.edu>
> Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
> Well, first the publish or perish world created by universities
> does nedneed some serious re-evaluation. Counting publications are easy
> ways to evaluate the work of professors. I will certainly jump through
> the hoops to meet that requirement. However, I still feel that Directors
> of Forensics are doing "double-duty" to meet those standards of
> publication. Dr. Balthrop is quite correct that it is the nature of the
> tenure and promotion process to support those who get published. But I
> think he underestimates the time trade-off inherent in active forensic
> coaching.
I don't undersestmate the time trade-off since I've been thre
and I see it daily. Counting publications doesn't evaluate
faculty work except by one standard that I've already addressed.
I also think I said that the process supports those who get
published, but that quality is key and quantity depends on a
number of considerations.
> A researcher (I've been one, really) spends all of her time and
> effort producing a product for publication. I've pulled the 72 hour/ 20
> pots of coffee stints to finish a project for publication. I know that
> many of my colleagues have done the same. But that entire weekend is
> effort expended toward publication of a journal article or a book. An
> active debate coach (Been that too) must hop in a van on Thursday
> afternoon, drive all night, then judge rounds all weekend long, then
> drive back home early Monday or Tuesday morning. The result? Maybe a
> trophy if your kids did not drop "T" in the final round.
Mine usually did.
>While that is
> nice, all of that time, anywhere from 72 to 140 hours for just ONE
>WEEKEND, does not lead to publicationSo, while it serves some
>educational and competitive purpose, actively coaching will not support
>a person's publication aspirations. In order for me to compete with
>others in my field (rhetoric), I must therefore pull a double-shiftI
>must not only travel on theweekends, but then spend my nights working on
>my publications. If, on the other hand, I simply do research I would
>recieve just as much (probably more) points toward tenure than coaching
>and publishing. The time trade-off between the two is is simply too
>much.
Actively coaching *versus* writing won't support publications.
But these need not necessarily be mutually exclusive activities.
I accept that the number of publications may be less than your
colleagues and I accept that you may not be able to travel as
much as some of your other colleagues, but these need not be
absolutely competitive with one anotyher.
I would hope that your institution accepts that you have different
responsibilities and expectatoins than some of your colleagues,
and you don't get "more points" for more publications so long as
you are meeting your other obligations. Still, if it is one of
your obligations to publish, you may have to adjust your travel
schedule to arrive at some kind of balance. I think it is here
that the discussion about how many tournaments coaches/students
attend becomes relevant...whether that is by organizatoinal
fiat or by the director's choice.
> Pay--The same issue of hours devoted to coaching commensurate with
> pay is the same as above. Debate coaches sacrifice their weeks and
weekends > for the same pay a someone who puts in ONLY 60 hours a week. I
say only because > many coaches spend 30 hours a week meeting their
teaching responsibilities, > 8 to 15hours DRIVING to a tournament, 72
hours at the tournament, and then another 8 to 15 hours driving back. Dr.
Balthrop, when am I supposed to do the research? What other professors put
in this much time? Not Cancer researchers, but > Professors in the field
of Communication, which put in this much time? > Like I said at the
beginning of this post, I am in no trouble > whatsoever as far as tenure
and promotion. However, I believe I echo many > people's complaint that
coaching does place a professor in an untenable > situation. Many of our
most brilliant scholars in the field of Communication > are former debate
coaches. But that is the rub. They are FORMER debate coaches. > They had
to quit forensics in order to really progress in theri field. > Doin'
fine in Louisiana, but thinkin' about the future. > Scott M. Elliott,
Ph.D. >
I think Scott is correct that most who "move up" in the field
are folks who've made specific choices. They have decided that
writing and teaching more are most important at this point in
their lives than attending more tournaments; they have decided
that administration offers more rewards than travelling and
coaching actively; they have decided that family and personal
priorities are more attractive than spending weekends in Columbia,
SC. I do believe it virtually impossible to be an administrator,
for instance, and to teach/coach full time. Some have done it
in the past, but I believe the demands of both have increased to
the point where it is extraordinarily difficult.
The problem I see with claiming that "our administrators don't understand
what we do" and "we can't meet the same publishg demands as our
colleagues" is that these often become one where debate coaches do their
own things and ignore the needs and expectations of their chairs and
colleagues. I also think that, often, "we can't meet the same publishing
demands as our colleagues" becomes "I can't publish" or "I won't get
tenure anyway so why should I bother." Therein lies destruction and poor
choice. Such arguments fail to address the concerns and point of view of
the audience comprised of administrators and colleagues.
So, I'm delighted that Scott is "doing well in Louisiana" and hope he
continues to do so. I also hope that lots of other coaches are also
prospering. I am concerned, however, that placing coaching and publishing
in a dichotomous position is done only to the detriment of forensics. We
will not win this argument, nor should we. Responsibilities lie on both
sides and with both sides.
Sorry for the length of this post.
Balthrop
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page