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

Re: your mail

Again Bill Balthrop makes some good points on trying to get forensics some
credit (personal disclaimer... I am currently employed at a teaching
college that does not require publishing for tenure, teaching and service
are.  Moreover the President of this school is an ex debater who will tell
anyone who will listen that the most important decision he made as an
undergrad was to debate.  I get all of the support and release time I need
and debate counts heavily towards promotions.)  

However I have also been at research oriented schools where debate was
clasified as teaching and weighed accordingly.  Yeah your a great teacher
where are your pubs?

Many research schools both large and small don't count teaching as much
more than a disqualifier, while publications get you the big T.  

What do you and others think of counting forensics towards research rather
than teaching?  If it is legit in teaching (as well as for some art profs)
why is it not legit for debate/forensics?

Mike
CC Debate

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Virgil Balthrop wrote:

> 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