![]()
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Professoriate, Collegiality, and Academic Culture
Outsiders to academic culture read or see images of professors portrayed in books and on screen. Whether they recall the shy, beloved, inspiring Mr. Chips or the scholarly but engrossed, absent-minded professor, they see stereotypes and linear tasks rather than the complicated, overlapping roles of a typical member of the collegium. On the fringes, we hear of the occasional eccentric, weird, mad scientist attempting to create a deadly virus that will destroy an entire society or his or her persistent counterpart who strives to devise the antidote to it. Media coverage depicted the professor for whom the stress of academic life became so overwhelming that she killed and wounded colleagues whom she believed blocked her tenure. An award-winning movie based on the life of John Nash illustrated the academic world of an asocial, disillusioned, obsessive, although Nobel Prize winning, professor (Howard, 2001). Professor Higgins used his fictional skills to illustrate how tutoring affects teaching and learning outcomes on a student, Eliza Doolittle. These familiar examples span the gamut of faculty stereotypes, but few truly or totally depict academic reality.
For those of us with years of experience in academe, we see and perhaps embody a few eccentric characteristics, but mostly we tend to be hard-working members of staff who prepare and teach interesting classes, advise and supervise graduate and undergraduate students, engage in cutting-edge research, publish in scholarly and practitioner journals, and serve on committees both at the institutional level and in our professional fields. Occasionally, we encounter colleagues who have become deadwood, others who are obviously disengaged from their departments, and others likely to leave the institution seeking a better fit elsewhere. We work with a few pompous colleagues as well as the self-promoters who tend to pad their accomplishments or overstate their significance. We tolerate a few cynical colleagues who strike down good ideas because they did not work when others suggested those ideas 20 years ago. Even a prima donna or two may demand star billing, an office with a window, and a better parking space. But largely, we characterize ourselves as a collection of committed educators who enjoy being part of a true community of scholars. Sometimes we are fortunate to achieve that community feeling but unfortunately not always and not for extended periods of time. Our desire to be collegial may take a back seat to our individual preoccupation with tenure and promotion. And, we find ourselves currently competing for scarce resources that with each passing year become even scarcer.
All stereotypes aside, faculty perform a multiplicity of complicated roles. That list, in no particular order, includes professor/teacher, researcher, advisor, evaluator, committee member and/or chair, quasi-administrator, writer, editor, reader, thesis/dissertation supervisor, curriculum planner, presenter, discussant, author, change agent, intellectual, ethicist, monitor, learner, reviewer, examiner, and gate-keeper. Note that this list does not take into consideration those in the hard sciences and hard applied sciences who experiment, discover, and oversee labs. Nor does it include all of the professoriate who has had to move beyond chalk and erasers to master the technical aspects of instructional delivery in a state-of-the-art classroom or in an online format. Because of the diversity associated with the faculty role and its expectations and obligations, the role will become more, rather than less, complex in the future. It is no wonder that faculty stresses and challenges affect faculty culture and collegiality (Buckholdt & Miller, 2009). So, let's address these situations in order that we may cope with scarcer resources, hectic schedules, extreme personalities, odd policies, and the often overwhelming expectations for success.
FACULTY ROLE OBLIGATIONS
Edward Shils (1997) considered faculty to have several obligations during an academic appointment. Their first and most basic obligation rested on knowing and sustaining their field/discipline within academe. To fulfill that obligation meant making the proper academic appointments of highly capable junior and senior scholars. It should be the cherished role of faculty to search for, vet, interview, and recommend to the chair and/or dean new faculty members to the department. Populating that pool of prospective candidates means that graduate faculty must carefully instruct, mentor, advise, and guide graduate students and their research. Responsibility for the next generation of scholars remains an awesome task for seasoned faculty.
Shils (1997) maintained that the second faculty obligation to the university and the collegium is the search for truth. Truth is obtained through teaching the truth to students and striving for truth through faculty research and publication. Searching for the truth through new discovery characterizes the âlife of the mind,â or the academic life. Shils cautioned faculty to never lose sight of this second obligation and also reminded faculty of their ethical duties as professionals. He cautioned, however, that resources, politics, students, and stakeholder scrutiny in academe has changed. As such, Shils opined that âthe self-confidence of the academic profession in its devotion to its calling has falteredâ (p. 7). He offered several reasons: the separation of faculty grouped into academic departments on campus and as members of academic and professional societies associated with their disciplines or fields off campus. Too often faculty loyalty lies within their discipline/field rather than their institution (Gouldner, 1958). We evidence this when we consider that each professor owns the means of production at his or her institution through the acquisition of expert knowledge in a particular field. This forces faculty to uphold ethical standards that Shils confirmed is faculty's third obligation. Faculty must maintain high ethical standards through âthe pursuit and transmission of advanced knowledgeâ and through the âconduct affected by the real or presumed possession of such knowledgeâ (p. 9). How faculty must do this, that is the degree to which they practice collegiality, affects the functioning of the collegium and the prevailing academic culture.
COLLEGIALITY, COLLEGIAL CULTURE, AND THE COLLEGIUM
Although Orlans (2002) contended that collegiality seemed too vague to characterize, Bennett (1998) defined the term earlier as âparticipation in the academic life of an institution,â which ârequires intellectual reciprocity with colleagues and ⌠an openness beyond the collegiumâ (p. 125). By nature, the collegium is relational, committed, connected, associational, and functional. The collegium is faculty's intellectual sanctuary. Ideally, collegiality flourishes where colleagues interact, treat one another with respect, and exchange intellectual thoughts (Diamond, 2002). Collective effort must be forthcoming from departmental members if the organization is to move forward. Faculty must prove to be good citizens with regard to accepting responsibility for departmental, college, and university tasks, using their expertise to propose solutions to problems, continually striving for environmental improvement, and representing the institution and their profession well (Diamond, 2002). Without collective effort coupled with more faculty tendency toward personal isolation and insulation, the schoolhouse door swings open to dysfunction, disengagement, fragmentation, pomposity, incivility, alienation, and eventual destruction of the true collegium. Bennett added that balancing isolation with community appears necessary for a relational collegium to flourish.
Bennett (1998) referred to interaction and discourse as the means to facilitate a relational collegium. Because peer review is a defining aspect of the collegium, it should be embraced to advance a healthy organization, especially considering that power is unevenly distributed throughout the collegium. Bennett advocated that âacceptance and critical judgment require interest in the work of others, and that in turn, means knowledge of, and a modicum of care for, the well-being and growth of othersâ (p. 33). However, the collegial culture places emphasis on âpowerful competition and striving for prestige and dominanceâ (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008, p. 33). Bergquist and Pawlak's notion of the collegial culture is not depicted in a typical campus organizational chart because autonomy and academic freedom form the normative structure of the collegial culture, not lines and positions. As a result, Campbell (2000) reminded us that âthe folkways that reinforce ingrained practice in the academic ivory tower are tenaciously held and zealously protectedâ (p. 161) regardless of what they are.
Faculty departments have been labeled nation-states by Bennett (1998) and powerful fiefdoms by Bergquist and Pawlak (2008). Institutions, generally, and departments, specifically, determine the extent to which teaching, research, or service takes precedent. Expectations for tenure and promotion could differ from one department to another despite the common document by which all faculty in an institution abides. For instance the collegium espouses collaboration among its members but expects faculty to develop personal research agendas and publish articles as sole authorships (Knight, 2010).
Outsiders to academe may describe the collegium as homogeneous and homosocial, but it is more like a heterocosm. Because departmental faculty is grouped by discipline and field, the members tend to be homogeneous. This may flow from the fact that faculty, through the practice of homosocial reproduction, hire their own colleagues and tend to interview and extend invitations to persons whom they believe are like them, fit into their existing departmental culture, and perhaps have similar research interests. The collegium on the one hand mirrors and reproduces itself while on the other hand it opposes actions associated with it (i.e., heterocosm). Ironically, the collegium often reproduces the very features it purports to oppose because of its conservative nature (Damrosch, 1995).
Academic values associated with the collegial culture seem to be overshadowed by corporate values and market strategies. Of late, business and corporate models run more of higher education than collegial values once did. Some faculty shifted sides to become more entrepreneurial. Washburn (2005) expanded her argument by saying, âIt appears that money has blinded most universities to this rather obvious inconsistency in commercial versus academic aimsâ (p. 161). In job-shop fashion, the university, she anticipates, will do anything for money, prestige, visibility, and/or viability. And, unfortunately, she contended that some faculty and administrations have succumbed to this mentality and, as a result, the collegium has become something that it probably once reviled. While the current collegium may not be the collegium of old, it does need to anticipate change and deal accordingly. Pendulums continue to swing and the collegium must continue to adapt.
At odds with the collegium is the entrepreneurial-focused, administratively powered managerial culture (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). For this culture, accountability, strategic planning, efficiency, and fiscal responsibility reigns sovereign. Balance and creative tension between management/administration and the collegial culture means the academic department, school, or college must remain functional. Imbalance between the two cultures leads to a dysfunctional environment and the concomitant rise of a political or advocacy culture formed to address faculty disenfranchisement. The last thing an administration desires is the contempt of the faculty because it implemented new policies that infringe on the time that faculty have to devote to research and teaching (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008; Senge, 1990). Cahn (1994) wrote, because âthe proper role of faculty members is to guide the learning process, their authority to do so must be respected and protectedâ (p. 38). However, savvy faculty leaders can masterfully thwart any managerial plan laid out by their department head or dean that infringes on their comfortable collegial culture (Burgan, 2006) which may not always be productive for the organization.
Because the academy tends toward conservatism, it typically resists change. Questioning the status quo signals a move toward progress. However, some faculty remain silent and allow outdated methods or informal mores to perpetuate. The worst the senior faculty can do is âhide and obscureâ the reality of the organization and culture from incumbents as well as novices (Bennett, 1998, p. 33). Acts of hiding and obscuring force resistance to new ideas, especially those introduced by the newer members to the collegium. Poor socialization and enculturation into a department may hinder a true community of scholars from forming. Resulting isolation and individuation promote self-aggrandizement that runs counter to the tenets of the collegium (Cahn, 1994; Cipriano, 2011; Palmer, 1998). Awareness of these trends is important for those preparing to enter academe as well as those mentoring them.
Virtual and entrepreneurial growth allows the university a competitive advantage with business, industry, and other institutions. While administrators view the online option as a cost-effective strategy in the long term, some faculty believe that online delivery challenges the traditional collegium and value of the institution. Intangible or virtual campuses, some believe, dissolve the traditions, values, and symbols associated with the tangible campus and erode the conservative collegial culture (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008; Burgan, 2006). Faculty may feel that this is yet another example of what Campbell (2000) referred to as marketing for the cash cow. Faculty challenge the educational benefits of online delivery on the basis that the use of adjunct and part-time faculty shows the medium to be more cost-effective rather than emphasizing excellence and quality of instructional delivery. Other faculty would argue that online delivery when done correctly can be as good as or better than what students receive from the tangible classroom. All this speaks to the nature of the collegium and the effort to preserve the collegial culture and its community of scholars.
PARADOXES AND IRONIES WITHIN THE COLLEGIUM
Douglas (1986) wrote about the irony associated with institutions of higher education. She said, âInstitutions create shadowed places in which nothing can be seen and no questions askedâ but, ironically, these same institutions âmake other areas show finely discriminated detail, which is closely scrutinized and orderedâ (p. 69). Lang (2005) referred to âundercurrents of departmental intrigue,â which extends Douglas' notion of a purposefully hidden nature of academe (p. 109). Paradoxically, the search for knowledge and the quest for new discovery associated with the collegium run counter to this picture of academe and the hope that openness always prevails.
Although we presume the collegium to be a collectivity, Bennett (2000) argued the contrary. Collegiums should be aggregates bound by covenant not contract. That covenant becomes the means by which peers both offer civil critique and, likewise, listen and process information. Like a church body, the academy members come blessed with diverse gifts by which they contribute to the whole body, and ideally, support its functioning. As a collective and because faculty members are agents both of change and continuity, the whole is greater than any one member alone can claim. Inevitably, the collective sustains fluidity and growth to remain dynamic as opposed to static; covenants facilitate this better than contracts, Bennett contended.
Palmer (1998) noticed that faculty conceal aspects of themselves from one another. To avoid what Palmer referred to as live encounters, faculty may hide behind their credentials, academic specialties, research prowess, and their perceived power in the academy. Openly challenging peers appears to be one thing faculty avoid. Faculty tend to maintain social distance. Faculty tend not to speak out against anyone. As a result faculty may allow poor habits to form, to solidify, or to become engrained, preferring to remain silent, indifferent, or aloof (Bennett, 1998; Washburn, 2005). This runs counter to faculty's searching for and speaking the truth.
Burton Clark (1987, p. 140) realized that faculty working in their departments appear only to strive for âsymbolic integration.â They are together as a corporate body physically but often are leading isolated lives moving from classroom to classroom, lab to lab, laptop to laptop, and often researching in a specialty shared by no one else in their department. What may resemble corporate culture or a collegium is merely a façade for the more engrained subcultures and silos. Furthermore, conferences and association meetings create forums for fellow scholars to present their research and to receive critique in a language only they seem to understand (Bennett, 1998). Academe further separates itself from the outside world and in most instances from one another. In some departments the subcultures may not speak the same language or, if they do, will not always be listening or on speaking terms!
The collegium tends to perpetuate the status quo and current climate regardless of how well it functions. Tasked to pursue, discover, and uncover the truth, faculty can inadvertently as well as purposefully stifle, evade, overlook, and ignore issues, observations, and encounters within academe. Engaging in both sets of behaviors affects the role faculty play; that is, professors, researchers, committee members, and disciplinary professionals. More importantly, it shapes how faculty socialize and mentor the next generation of graduate students who enter their professorial ranks (Slevin, 1993). Academic socialization and enculturation tend to be as to fit the âspiritâ of the situation as much as the reality of it.
Shils (1997) acknowledged that academe may be âin danger of discreditâ (p. 10). The two basic faculty privilegesâacademic freedom and autonomyâmay be the reasons because of the challenges they engender from inside and outside stakeholders in higher education. These two academic privileges come with obligations, accountability, fiduciary responsibility, and codes of ethics that must be addressed (Barrow & Keeney, 2006). In fact, academic freedom endues faculty to be morally obliged to uphold the academic freedom of their colleagues (De George, 2003). De George added that our academic forefathers encouraged academic freedom not to protect individual members of the academy but rather to protect society by encouraging the academy's search for truth and its subsequent dissemination.
Another reason for the âdanger of discreditâ may be that some faculty members have âlost their zeal and ⌠fall short of the [professional] standards which they know ought to prevailâ (Shils, 1997, p. 12). Increasing that zeal, raising morale, and enhancing faculty engagement should be of utmost concern to faculty and those who develop faculty and administrate faculty affairs.
As faculties grow larger, they splinter into specialty groups, compete for scarcer resources, and often tend to isolate themselves. Of late, we have witnessed a decrease in tenure track positions and more online offerings, which concomitantly decrease perceived opportunities for intellectual collectivities and communities of scholars on campus. Reybold (2008) acknowledged an integrity crisis among faculty in higher education: falsified job applications; poor faculty preparation for classroom lectures; rubber-stamped, ungraded term papers; breeched confidentiality; and fabricated research data. Evidence of exploitation, workplace harassment, discrimination, and intolerance increases in academe rather than decreases (Namie & N...
