[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: your mail

Well, I said I would "shut up," but here goes......

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Michael R. Dickman wrote:

> Gotta jump in on this one!
> 
> One area within our profession that puts in hours about equal to forensics
> is theatre.  The hours needed to set up and run a show are huge! So how do
> Theatre prof's get tenure?  I don't knkow the specifice at UNC but at
> several schools that I have worked at a deal has been set up where a play
> production counts towards publication.  Each school has its own deal but
> it works something like this.  Directing a play = one publication, having
> a significant role, ie lighting director , costumer etc. counts for some
> fraction of a publication.  At these same instititutions, debate coach
> counts for nada, zip, zero.  
> 
> It seems like the document that Dr. Balthrup points to could be used to
> work out a deal like many of our theatre friends have worked out if you
> have a sympatheic chair and dean and provost and president.  All those
> with this depth of support please raise your hand...yeah thats what I
> thought.
> 
> Mike
> CC Debate
> 

I don't dispute that support like that is difficult to find.  Still, much
can be done even at the departmental level and even some at the college
level.  I wonder, however, if we've been taking the right persuasive
strategy.  Rather than identifying the problem, what solutions or
suggestions have been offered?  The basic purpose of the Quail
Roost Document, and I suspect of the CEDA document (although I haven't
seen it as I indicated in my first post) was to provide some PROFESSIONAL
support for directors to make the case with their administration.  It was
also thought that, if endorese by AFA (as it has been, from what I
understand), the document would have some credibility to help make the
case.

I would also urge debate coaches to check the "Official ACA Guidelines"
published by the Association for Communication Administration.  This lists
"workload equivalency guidelines" and has a whole set for Forensics,
Debate and Dramatics regarding release time.  The Quail Roost document is
more helpful overall, but this is additional supporting evidence to make
an argument to a chair.

Another thing that can be done regarding assessment of forensics for
promotion and tenure is for the Chair to ask for outside assessment of the
director's work in debate/IE *as teaching.*  When we evaluated our current
DoF for reappointment and for promotion and tenure, we asked individuals
in the forensic community who would have observed her at tournaments for
their assessment.  We asked four or five people to comment on the DoF as a
teacher, as she taught her own students as well as those to whom she
delivered critiques as a judge.  This allowed some assessment, imperfect
as it is, of the educational/pedagogical work of the DoF and allowed us to
go beyond won-loss records.  This is much more consistent with the mission
statement of our university and our department.

So, does support exist everywhere and at all levels?  Of course not,
although it varies enormously from school to school.  But I also think
DoF's have not used all there is to use in making *constructive* arguments
and suggestions rather than in identifying the obstacles.  As an
administrator, I not only want to know the problem, I want to know your
solutions.  The Quail Roost document, and probably the CEDA document on
promotion and tenure, are resources that I suspect are not being used to
their potential.

Bill Balthrop
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page