[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'm snipping much of Mike's post except for the part I want to respond to.

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

> Again Bill Balthrop makes some good points on trying to get forensics so
> 
> 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
> 


Well, that is an option that was used at one research institution and is
included in the Quail Roost Document:  The document identifes various
activities in research, teaching, and service and how those might be
measured by outcome.  Among research, two are identified:

	i.	Reserch in debate theory, practice, and pedagogy.

	ii.	Debate coaching viewed as performance.  This perspective
		sees debate as a creative activity, somewhat along the 
		lines of other artistic and performance-based research
		programs within the academy.  The assumption expressed
		by those attending this conference [Quail Roost], however,
		is that even a performance-centered debate program will	
		still have some written component in order to qualify
		as scholarly research.

Again, this will depend on the institution but it is an argument that can
certainly be made.  But, it is an argument and it is one that must be made
with presumption against it in most instances, I suspect.
	
	

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