[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
No Subject

Message-Id: <l03010d16afd9d4319deb@[134.124.176.23]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:57:33 -0600
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
From: Tom Preston <scprest@umslvma.umsl.edu>
Subject: tenure, directing forensics, and some aesthetic distance from
 "Daddy Communication" (or "Nanny Communication") please.

I believe that Balthrop best summarized the discussion by saying that
standards for tenure and forensic coaching depend on the institution at
which you coach/direct.  I believe that all posts (Scott's, Ken's, etc.)
have vivified this discussion, and should make us to continue the
discussion of the issues I gather from the Quail Roost conference.

First, I can give two examples of how debate program mission statements and
tenure criteria should vary from institution to institution, then I would
like to throw out some random thoughts both to spur discussion and for the
cathartic effect of what "the poem does for the poet," to steal once again
from Kenneth Burke.

The first type example is our institution--not the same type place as a
main state university as my dear alma mater far away in Chapel Hill, but
the type of school where many forensics programs exist--a university that,
to its supporters, looks at itself as an "up and coming" research
institution, and to its detractors as a "wannabe" research institution.
Such is often the case of "universities of (state) at (town)" througout the
nation. With a few exceptions, for the most part, these universities are
not necessarily ranked among the nation's elite, but seek to move up to a
higher status.  Because publications are so countable and measurable across
disciplines, that means these universities tend to stress publication on
the part of the faculty.  One's trying to count anything except publishing
for tenure in this culture is considered "effrontery"--which is how I like
it for myself even as I realize it may be wrong for others.  Thus, to
survive at institutions such as this, a DOF needs to learn to delegate--to
grad assistants, to assistant coaches, to advanced students throught
directed readings when allowed--some of the time consuming tasks in order
to gain the rank and clout needed to continue the program.  A DOF who plays
more of a "general manager" than a "coach" role tends to flourish more at
these places, and those who like to write should seek such positions.  That
doesn't mean that the DOF can neglect the program--but he or she must be
able to delegate effectively so that sufficient time is given to writing.

The one thing a DOF can do in this situation is define a major part of
his/her research as argumentation research.  Once so defined, not only do
the faculty view the program as a research lab that fits into the mission
of the university, but the research published in forensics journals as well
as communication journals such as QJS count.  This was essential in my own,
successful tenure and promotion case, especially since by far most of my
publications have come out since tenure. The best thing my predecessor Don
Shields did at UM-St. Louis was to redefine the DOF position as a research
position, and the forensics program as one which generates research. Trying
to count "forensics pedagogy" or "winning a tournament" as research had
been futile in light of the mission of our university. Thank goodness those
before me saw the handwriting on the wall.

The big advantage to this is that there is less pressure to win, and I'd
rather have pressure over something I can control (the letters that go onto
the pages of research reports as I type), than what I cannot control (the
performances of the students, which coaches can help, but which may in fact
never take place if, say, spurrious personal problems prevent a student
from competing).

I know of another type example--the institutions where it only takes an MA
(plus lots of blood, sweat,tears, and ultimate success) to get tenured as a
DOF, and as we all know several of the most respected and revered in speech
and debate coaching fill such positions.  As well, some of these dof's
require a ph.d., but the emphasis is on teaching effectiveness, in class
and in the forensics competitive arena.   Usually, these will be found at
"[town]-State" or "[compass point] [name of state] State" universities and
colleges whose mission is generally to teach, as well as the non-Ivy league
private schools,such as the Jesuit institutions, who must have good PR with
their students in order to maintain the enrollment necessary for
institutional solvency year after year. The DOF position in this situation
becomes a true coach position, with students often using the name "coach"
to refer to such directors. The drawback is that usually such are required
to teach more courses, but there is less pressure to publish--these are
judged more on the success and approval of their students, given the travel
resources offered.  For those who fancy the DOF as a coach in the tradition
of Knute Rockne rather than a gm type position, these positions offer more
satisfaction than those at research institutions.

What these two, diverse instances reinforce is something that I'll take
even a step beyond what Balthrop says--the debate program's mission
statement should go beyond the department, and fit moreover within the
mission of the University. Even in my position at a University of [name of
state] at [town], I encourage students to show the trophies and stress
their efforts and accomplishments, as well as on-campus service, when they
ask the SGA for money.  But when with my faculty colleagues across campus,
I continue to define our program in terms of research generated--again,
because we wannabe like UCLA, the queen of the
university-of-[state]-at-[town]s.

Here are some more random thoughts, some for cathartic affect, and some to
spur some more discussion:

Although the notion that a mission ought to be adapted to a university is a
good one, I don't particularly like the notion, evidently supported at the
Quail Roost Conference, that the mission ought necessarily be tied as
closely to the communication department as the recommendations suggested.
Here's why:

1.  In very few cases are debaters or student speakers solely from
communication departments--they come from the whole university.  Thus,
although the DOF's scholarly, teaching, and service work should be assessed
on whatever criteria by a communication department when the DOF is a
communication dept. employee, the mission of the program itself must be
defined in broader terms, especially if SGA or other sources help fund the
program.  Here, for example, SGA funds most of our travel, the scholarship
budget is the gross revenue of our hosted events, supplements from the
honors college, plus "whatever you can raise, Tom", and we're looking at
moving the practicum in forensics into the extension division so that after
extension has shaved off their 20 per cent of the fees, the remainder
generated by enrollment in that practicum can go to forensics travel.  In
this case, not only does our mission have to be subservient to the
communication unit, but moreover, to the entire university--especially the
other hands that feed us. If I am still here and have met my goal of
promotion to full professor (which will mean a more local program in the
intervening years), only a broad, multidisciplinary program-mission will
justify our ultimate goal of either an outside endownment, direct funding
from the Chancellor's office, or some other means of weaning ourselves from
the smaller department.

2.  Certainly, department chairs* can play a major role in promoting
forensics.  Yet structurally, when communication department chairs have a
major hand in the travel budget process for the debate program, they have
no choice but to view the scene in terms of a limited pie. Balthrop's post
is a case in point--even though he is a former DOF, the chair position
evidently forces him to choose between debate funding and graduate
assistance and similar resources for among "the other 400 students of the
department." From my informal conversations with many chairs of departments
which house debate programs, his thankless dilemma is almost universal
among those in similar positions.

This situation is much worse where the debate program exists in one of
those notorious "theatre and speech" departments, with theatre ominously
named first.  Here, debate usually and interp especially is pitted against
theatre as the "parts" vie for limited resources.  At one
position-interview visit around a decade ago, I was, as a finalist for a
DOF position, told that "You'll start out with $8,000.00 for a travel
budget, but we want you to fly to all of the tournaments, and if I have to
replace the parkay floor in the theatre lobby [which was huge], I'll take
it out of the debate budget." I was then told, "your team will have a nice
big office," and then shown a boiler room with vomit-colored pipes
everywhere, symbolically enough, beneath the stage at the theatre complex.
That's how the chair, a theatre director, was trying to convince me to take
the position at what was otherwise a prestigious university in a nice city,
with a nice salary. At that same visit, when I spoke of how debate could
increase the size of a budget pie, a junior theatre lecturer brusquely
informed me that the theatre faculty would "resist any attempts to bring in
money solely for debate." Needless to say, I ordered the most expensive
items on the menu at the remainder of the restaurants to which I was taken,
ordered several movies at the hotel, and then withdrew from the position
candidacy as soon as my fingers hit the phone keys to dial--collect--upon
my return to St. Louis.

The problem is not with the chairs involved--they were only doing their
jobs.  It was with programs defined as "within a department", doomed to
have their budgets compared to smaller items and pitted against both
intradepartmental colleagues and concerns irrelevant to the rationale of
whether to furnish the funding necessary to meet the needs of the forensics
program. I'm sure some of you know many similar stories--the script repeats
itself over and over again-- only the times, places, and faces change.

As well, when debate budgets are lumped into a communication department's
expense and equipment (E&E) budget, that's trouble for the communication
department as well as the debate program.  Because to a dean the
department's budget looks bloated when compared to other departments whose
budgets don't include a line item for debate, animosity is promoted not
only between the communication department and other departments, but
between the department and debate as debate becomes the whipping boy for
perceived department excess.

When viewed as representing a whole university, however, the debate program
is viewed, correctly, as that which generates good publicity that can
attract the very students needed to support the classes in theatre and the
other parts of the department.  In other words, interests are seen as
complimentary, not competing.  Forensics programs then can be compared more
appropriately--to like programs at other universities, or to the larger
funding priorities in publicizing favorably the university.  Here as in
other places, when those making decisions are persuaded to view the program
correctly in this fashion, increases in funding, justly, occur.  In this
context, forensics budgets look relatively small.  Such a view is more
conducive to justifying increases in debate support. In fact, the most
successful programs of which I know get both direct scholarships and direct
funding from chancellor's offices and university relations offices who view
the programs as publicity and revenue generators rather than those which
gobble up too much of a department's limited "pie." Neither chair nor dean
has the chance to worry what "might have been" for other areas of the
department--the task is lifted from them, enabling them to focus on other
business!

3.  Communication departments funding lecturer-coaches often pile on extra
duties that make it difficult to coach--ask Al Madrid about directing the
"Communication Internship Program" at UMSL, and his answer will more than
thoroughly support my point here!

4.  In reality, some of the most creative and successful debate programs
are not housed in communication departments, but rather in philosophy or
political science departments!  Some are housed as student activities
within the student affairs office, with their coaches being required only
to coach!  Thus, any departmental part of the mission statement must be
related to those departments rather than merely communication.  As well, I
know of one non-communication department housed program where grad students
from ANY arts and science department may be assigned to help with
forensics.  What a practical idea--graduate students from any field,
widening the pool beyond merely those who desire to continue a
communication degree.

5.  Success has been found even in "theatre and speech" departments where
the DOF sold the program effectively to U. Relations, and U. Relations or
the Chancellor began to fund directly the program, eliminating the "middle
person" of the dean and chair who tend to think in smaller terms.

That having been said, although I see the relationship between the debate
program and communication as being somewhat more independent and/or
Byzantine than the attendees at Quail Roost, I still see the need to the
debate program to advocate its home department, as well as the need for the
home department to assist and promote the debate program.  But if the
debate program is promoting ONLY the department, and the department is the
SOLE requester and provider of travel funds, then the whole endeavor
becomes somewhat limited as smaller resources come from a smaller world.

On a more constructive note, programs should utilize their university
relations when possible as a way to gain permission to raise funds, as long
as time allows, for various activities.  This not only helps the program
become self-reliant, but reflects positively on both host department and
university.

I'm torn--I like the department I'm in, and enjoy my research in rhetoric
and intercultural communication as well as my argumentation and ballot
analysis research strands.  However, had I defined the debate program
SOLELY in terms of the department, although my career would be alive and
maybe even further along, the program would be fighting for its life.
Others are in different situations, and programs and communication
departments can and should help each other, but under no circumstances
should a mission be defined solely in terms of one department--as long as
debate involves all majors, it represents the whole university!

On a larger level, I'm beginning to question, a la Molefi K. Asante, the
whole Eurocentric balkanization of knowledge among disciplines.  It seems
like there is a whole lot of crossover between poli sci, philosophy,
athropology, sociology, and communication.  I don't know or understand the
alternative to the current structure, but some restructuring of these tiny
units--one of in which our debate programs usually reside--might help not
only alleviate the pidgeonholing effect of debate's being bound to Nanny or
Pappy Department, but help students gain a more integrated and
perspective-oriented view of human relations in their broader educational
experience.  I dunno--that one's probably for another listserve.

I do know the research demanded of our debate students crosses these
disciplinary boundaries--SE Asia will certainly involve economics,
politics, sociology, many anthopological and cultural issues, business, all
sciences as well as holistic approaches to knowledge and culture that
challenge the whole Eurocentric division of disciplines. More than one
discipline, in any case, is at work here. The same holds for most of the
policy topics debated over the years.

Finally, I want to echo that programs can serve the entire university
through publicity, to justify entire university support.  You don't have to
be a national champion to accomplish this--here at UMSL, the Chancellor
trots out our interpers every time she wants to promote our performing arts
complex fundraising efforts.  Although we are are not a "national circuit"
school by any means, participating and learning in the activity alone
enables our performers to impress others to the point that they are invited
back again and again.

Overall, then, my position, which is open and changeable, is to view our
programs in terms of the university's overall mission, and as the debate
programs support majors from the whole campus, the whole campus should fund
the program.  This spreads out the burden to all departments, but without
any department seeing it as a deduction from their budget. Some departments
(as some where I've visited on interviews before, including one who since
did an "end-around" to avoid the speech-theatre conflict since) will
actively resist this, but where there's a will, there's a way.

Good luck to all in finding the formula correct for your program! As
vibrant as the activity continues to be, we all need to continue to hang
together and hang tough.

Tom

*sofas are more comfortable, however
Prev by Date: South Carolina
Next by Date: test
Prev by thread: Re: your mail
Next by thread: No Subject
Index(es):
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page