Invited presentation about University Studies at the 1999 meeting of the Association for Higher Education:  The union of the mathematician with the poet, fervor with measure, passion with correctness, this surely is the ideal. (William James) . . . . The twenty-five year history of the University of Tennessee\u27s University Studies Program illustrates . . 

Burstein, Al

Greenberg, Neil

English

University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Trace

University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleTrace: Tennessee Research and CreativeExchangeUniversity Studies Interdisciplinary Publications University Studies1-1999Against the Grain: The Natural History of an Inter-disciplinary Faculty Development ProgramAl BursteinUniversity of Tennessee - KnoxvilleNeil GreenbergUniversity of Tennessee - KnoxvilleFollow this and additional works at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_ustudiespubsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Studies at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in University Studies Interdisciplinary Publications by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and CreativeExchange. For more information, please contact trace@utk.edu.Recommended CitationBurstein, Al and Greenberg, Neil, "Against the Grain: The Natural History of an Inter-disciplinary Faculty Development Program"(1999). University Studies Interdisciplinary Publications.http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_ustudiespubs/8Against the Grain: The Natural History of an Inter-disciplinary Faculty DevelopmentProgram.Al Burstein and Neil GreenbergUniversity of TennesseeUniversity Studies ProgramThe union of the mathematicianwith the poet, fervor with measure,passion with correctness,this surely is the ideal.(William James)The twenty-five year history of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville's University StudiesProgram illustrates the spontaneous, bottom up emergence of a very active and cost effectiveprogram. It is, in a manner of speaking, a guerrilla program in that it lives off the land, managingto survive and thrive without the usual perquisites of staff and space.The session will consist of an historical account of the program over its twenty-five years ofexistence and will offer admittedly tentative conclusions about the nature of the program'ssuccesses and failures, and the ways in which the program's character and organization hascontributed to those.More specifically, the presentation will describe five major program activities: COLLOQUIES: ongoing meetings of faculty from different disciplines to pursue aninterdisciplinary topic of common interest CENTRIPETALS: a monthly luncheon discussion series for the entire campus devoted tointerdisciplinary topics UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES: Development of team-taught interdisciplinary coursesSeventh AAHE Conference on Faculty Roles & RewardsJanuary 21-24, 1999 San Diego, CA"The Academic Calling: Changing Commitmentsand Complexities" UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES: Development of team-taught interdisciplinary courses CONFERENCES and SPEAKERS: Sponsorship of distinguished visiting speakers andinterdisciplinary conferencesTwo threads tie these diverse activities together. The first is a belief in the notion that interdisciplinary involvement can play a uniquelyimportant role in the development of a scholar; the second is that the purpose of the program is not to use money to lure faculty intounwelcome activities, but to provide resources that facilitate faculty in endeavors that theywish to pursue.The presentation will conclude with an invitation for discussion about the "exportability" of theprogram and with some speculations about its future on our campus.Against the Grain,25 Years of Transdisciplinary Faculty Development:The University Studies Program at UTKFaculty development is one of those phrases that frequent use has worn smooth. Its meaningseems more and more assumed, less and less accessible to examination. Buried deep within thenotion is an ambiguity about whether the goal ought to be that of fitting the individual to theinstitution or facilitating the individual's self-realization and vagueness about effective means forachieving the selected goal.We will argue for faculty development as a means of facilitating the growth of individual faculty andfor the importance in that regard of encouraging collegial relationships that reach acrossdisciplinary lines. This is not a matter of institutionalizing an academic "perk:" To the extent thatthe purpose of higher education is to serve the goal of self-actualization — the fullest realization ofhuman potential — as opposed to vocational training, in students it must be modeled by thefaculty. This cannot occur in an atmosphere of isolation or stultifying boundaries. Finally, we willoffer the University Studies program at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville as exemplifying thepracticality and utility of these views.It should be recognized that these views seem at odds with what is current and emerging in theacademy. That recognition is embodied in the paper's title. There are two major challenges to theacademy. That recognition is embodied in the paper's title. There are two major challenges to theviews proposed here. Each, as has already been hinted, is rooted in the ambiguities anduncertainties of a University’s mission. The first is the degree to which academic advancementdepends upon individual achievement in a specialist field; the second is the increasing use of part-time piece workers as teachers in higher education.Despite the claims of writers like Edward O. Wilson and Jared Diamond, who see humanknowledge as a convergent process, the intellectual project, shared by the Renaissance and theEnlightenment, of producing an internally integrated body of knowledge assimilable by anindividual mind has collapsed. Even though the ironies of the post-modern skeptics seem to bereceding in popularity, the brute facts of high tech natural science research, the failure of thesocial sciences to evolve a dominant theory, and the fraying of the literary canon have yielded theendlessly branching academic tree familiar to us. Among the consequences for the university havebeen increasing uncertainty on the core elements of a general education and a campus populatedby increasingly specialized colleges, departments and programs. In the contemporary communityof scholars it is increasingly difficult for the intellectual merits of a particular classics scholar to beweighed against those of a particular physicist or sociologist, unless one resorts to the universalcoinage of attracting external funding or makes the flawed assumption that all lines on anycurriculum vitae weigh the same. This situation is exacerbated by the contraction, after decades ofexpansion, of public financial support for higher education. With necessarily self-interesteddepartments competing for shrinking resources, promotion and tenure have become increasinglydependant on reputation among similar specialists on other campuses (and thereforedisinterested) as opposed to competing campus colleagues with unshared specialist skills. The roleof offers of employment from other campuses -- offers almost entirely generated on the basis ofspecialist publication, in garnering promotion and, even in an austere fiscal climate, raises -- isalso clear, if less often made explicit.Hence the image of the university as a community of scholars engaged in intellectual colloquyrecedes in favor of the image of individual specialists, motivated to write for a specialist audienceelsewhere, talking to campus colleagues, if they talk to them at all, about parking problems. DavidDamrosch argues that what perpetuates this situation is the nature of graduate training, focusedon the doctoral dissertation as the product of isolated and individual effort, unfruitfully isolatedfrom the role played by colloquy in intellectual vigor and excitement. The recent award of a halfmillion dollar grant by the Pew Charitable Trusts to Jody Nyquist, at the Washington University forthe evaluation of doctoral training reflects similar concerns (APA Monitor, 1/99, p. 10).Be that as it may, the dominance of the academic as specialist is clear, and it also seems thatintellectual alienation from campus colleagues has been fed by the recent and continuingcontraction of resources for higher education and the socio-political structure of the campus.Damrosch and Nyquist are looking at the shape of doctoral training, not at the structure of thecampus, though the two would appear necessarily related. Perhaps the most radical attack on thecampus, though the two would appear necessarily related. Perhaps the most radical attack on thestructure of the university is the emergence of for-profit campuses on which teachers are hired aspieceworkers rather than as members of an arguably fictitious community of scholars. Suchinstitutions, basically education factories or markets, selling courses to individual students orcorporations, employing teachers as workers to deliver a standardized product are currentlyproliferating. Even on what might be called traditional campuses, more and more teaching is beingdone by graduate student or non-tenure track piece workers producing credit hours at low costwhile tenured faculty teach fewer courses and increasingly focus on research, publication andgrant procurement. Thus a divide develops, not just between scholarly specialists, but between thepiece work and full-time faculty.All this seems a long way from John Henry Newman's idea of a university centered on thecultivation of intellect, the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. That idea seems more quaintthan relevant to the current reality of universities with multiple goals of general education,vocational training, highly specialized applied and basic research beset by the painful realities ofdiminished funding. The grimmest thought is that the growth by opportunistic accretion of themultiversity has reached its limit and that, lacking a heart, the golem is reeling toward collapse.Our argument is that, despite all we have seen and said, the university does have a heart, and thatheart is precisely the goal Newman articulated. Many of the multiple functions that themultiversity performs could be carried out, and carried out well elsewhere, as educational factoriesand research institutes demonstrate. For Newman what is essential to the university is the pursuitof knowledge for its own sake, but not specialized knowledge in isolation. What constitutes theuniversity is the community of scholars discoursing across specializations. Note his description,"An assemblage of learned men, zealous for their own sciences, and rivals of each other, arebrought…to adjust together the claims and relations of their respective subjects…. They learn torespect, to consult, to aid each other. Thus is created a pure and clear atmosphere of thought….Ahabit of mind is formed which lasts throughout life, of which the attributes are, freedom,equitableness, calmness, moderation, and wisdom…a philosophical habit" (p 76 U of Notre DamePress 1982). We are arguing from Newman that a valuable, even precious aspect of facultydevelopment is cultivating colloquy by individuals across disciplines, that in that cultivation wenourish the heart of the university.To summarize and simplify, Newman argues that the essence of a university is bringing togetherthe fullest possible range of specialist scholars and facilitating colloquy. He argues that where thisis done perspective and reflection enrich the work of each and create an inimitable learningclimate benefitting both faculty and students.In what follows we will describe how these lofty goals are being pursued on a small but significantscale on our campus.The name of the program is University Studies. It came into being twenty-five years ago when asociologist in a course lecture attended by some engineering students called into question thecontributions of technology to civilization. After class, one of the engineering students saidbasically, "You wouldn't say that if one of our faculty were here." The professor accepted thechallenge and a couple of joint classes ensued. From that chance exchange and the conversationsthat followed the notion evolved of developing a team-taught interdisciplinary series of coursesexploring the issue of technology and society with the first course focused on the impact of theautomobile on American society. The team teaching the first course was a dozen strong andincluded a wide range of fields. Because of its interdisciplinary nature the course was assigned anon-departmental title: University Studies 3010. The course involved large weekly lectures andsmall discussion groups; the faculty involved received no extra compensation for their involvement.The team teaching the course came to enjoy the interdisciplinary exchange in their planningsessions, and their meetings became an end in itself; the group came to call its meetings theColloquy on Technology and Society.In the years that followed, other faculty colloquies emerged: The Appalachian Forum, TheInterdisciplinary Colloquy on Rhetoric, The Diversity Colloquy, and more recently, colloquies onPsychoanalysis and the Humanities, Critical Thinking, Creativity and Evolution. University Studiesbecame not just the title of a course but a program of facilitating interdisciplinary faculty colloquy.Thus the colloquies have become the distinguishing feature of a University Studies program whichfacilitates the meetings of each of the groups, providing small funding for duplicating costs,support for an occasional visiting speaker, and the like. The colloquies vary in size from a halfdozen to thirty faculty and in their level of activity. The mother colloquy, Technology and Society,is currently inactive; the others meet on an ongoing basis to pursue their various interests. It iscrucial to keep in mind that the colloquies arise spontaneously; they are welcomed by the programbut not planned by it. The mechanism for initiating a new colloquy is simple. A group of facultynotifies the program chair of their intent to begin meeting and of the nature of support that themeeting would entail. Information about current colloquies is disseminated on campus via a webbased brochure.As might be expected in an educational institution, the University Studies program achievedinstitutional life, as it were, by offering a course that belonged nowhere else in the university. Overthe years, the program has offered many other courses, often serving as a kind of laboratory orstudio for the development of interdisciplinary offerings to students. Most such courses have beenthe product of one of the colloquies; sometime they are offered only once or twice. Such was thecase with courses titled Ethics and the Professions, Critical Thinking and Narrative Knowledge.Other courses have acquired a life of their own and are offered regularly: Art and Organism;Technology and Society; Aids and Society, and War and Remembrance. Because these courses arenot required by any departmental constituency, but arise out of faculty interest in teaching them,the program's stance is to avoid establishing a pay scale for them; rather the question is, "In whatthe program's stance is to avoid establishing a pay scale for them; rather the question is, "In whatway can University Studies help make the course you want to offer possible?" Sometimes thatinvolves extra-service pay; sometimes funding a graduate assistant; sometimes transferring fundsto a department; sometimes simply footing the bill for duplicating costs. The net result of theprogram's providing a mechanism for offering courses the faculty want to teach is that the cost percredit hour is the lowest at the university…but the courses meet no extrinsic university need otherthan encouraging interdisciplinary conversation. The mechanism for offering new courses issimple. They are offered as "special topics" courses after approval by the program chair.Information about current courses is disseminated on campus via fliers, the university time tableand the web based program brochure.A third important activity sponsored by the program is the monthly luncheon series at whichdistinguished faculty present on some topic of interest to an interdisciplinary audience.Attendance is by advance subscription; the audience buys its own lunch. Attendance varies fromthirty to over a hundred, depending on the topic and the presenter. The series, now in itssixteenth year, is called Centripetals. Lunch is served promptly at noon; the speaker is introducedpromptly at 12:30 and speaks until exactly1PM, leaving twenty minutes for question andcomment, which is often quite spirited.The University Studies program also joins with other elements on the campus in supportingvisitors and conferences of interdisciplinary interest. It cosponsored a series of three conferenceson Values in Higher Education, contributes to a yearly conference on Rhetoric, and each yearcontributes to the support of perhaps a half dozen visiting speakers. The program has becomeknown as a resource to which faculty can turn for easily obtained but modest support for anyinterdisciplinary effort.Finally, the program organizes a yearly two-day retreat at an off-campus university facility. Allfaculty who are involved in any aspect of the program are welcome. Typically twenty to forty facultyattend. At the retreat the year's activities are reviewed and plans made for the coming year. Anaward of $5000 for contributions to interdisciplinary scholarship is made, and the previous year'sawardee reads a paper. The meeting is marked by a high level of fellowship and exchange, oftenlong into the night.The total program budget is less than $40,000; The only administrative expense is part-timesecretarial support provided by the Academic Affairs Office.In a way, the University Studies program is at constant risk, especially in times of financialexigency. Many department chairs regard the program as a frivolity dissipating the energies offaculty that could be more profitably be invested in departmental affairs. Paradoxically, theprogram could only exist because departmental specialization fails to provide the excitement andstimulation of close intellectual engagement with fellow faculty who challenge one's assumptions.Perhaps the best evidence for the program's effectiveness is that it continues to thrive, even in anPerhaps the best evidence for the program's effectiveness is that it continues to thrive, even in anaustere fiscal climate. It continues to thrive because the faculty who participate in it are vocal intheir enthusiasm, because it has acquired the reputation of being productive and valuable byhighly placed campus administrators, and because it is cheap.THE UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAMTHE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE440 COMMUNICATIONS BUILDINGKNOXVILLE, TN, 37996-0349423-974-9915http://web.utk.edu/~unistudy/Email: ngreenbe@utk.edu

Against the Grain: The Natural History of an Inter-disciplinary Faculty Development Program

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&amp;context=utk_ustudiespubs

Against the Grain: The Natural History of an Inter-disciplinary Faculty Development Program

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Trace