The Academy

I remember the semester I was taking a graduate course in communication. We were supposed to read the winning papers from some prize that was given. I decided that the way the winners were determined was by who had the most unreadable, un-understandable, obfuscated paper.

That was my first strong memory of academic writing.

You can see why I might be intrigued by the Wall Street Journal having Helen Sword’s article on stylish academic writing.

Sword discusses typical prose:

Awash in muddy syntax and obscure vocabulary, such sentences recall the bureaucratic blather that George Orwell once likened to the defensive response of a “cuttlefish squirting out ink.”

I think we all have written that kind of rhetoric, while striving for academic style. I know I have.

For example: A paper I wrote back in graduate school for Dr. Jim Berlin came back with the notation that my writing was too simplistic. (I liked 9-word sentences back then, but had adapted to 14-15 words in sentences for graduate school.) I was furious, annoyed, and unsure what to do. So I wrote 90-word sentences. This he gave back with the word “gobbledy-gook” written on it. He didn’t even grade my ideas, just my writing. (At least, that is what I thought he was grading. Others made As in a seemingly effortless manner, which left me incredibly frustrated.)

Sword argues that academics are not considering their audience.

I am not sure that I agree with that.

I think many of us are trying to write the prose that we are reading, without, perhaps, understanding exactly what it is that makes it worth reading. The number of words in sentences and/or the number of words we have to look up, we can figure out, so we begin to write like that.

Sword gives three practices of stylish academic writers:
1. Authoritative, yet conversational, voice (which reminds me of an Advanced Composition unit I taught years ago)
2. Concrete writing, “anchoring abstract ideas in the physical world”
3. Attention to the details of the craft of writing, using “verb-driven, carefully structured and clutter-free” writing

Sword gives examples of stodgy and stylish for each of her practices.

I think it is an interesting article, worth the read.

They are Daniel Pink’s ideas of what can’t be outsourced.

I was reading an article online and saw someone else in agreement:

Having this curse means that a writer or professor often assumes knowledge the reader or student does not have. More important, the writer or teacher usually forgets that the reader or student is struggling to learn the material for the first time, which often was long ago for the teacher.

“It’s hard to know what it is like for someone else not to know something that you know,” Mr. Pinker said. “It’s the chief driver of bad writing and, I would argue, bad teaching.”

This quote is from the CHE’s “Harvard Seeks to Jolt University Teaching.”

But today it rings particularly true for me, not because I don’t remember what it was like not to know things, at least not the particular things we were talking about in our graduate meeting, but because I DO remember them.

The professors were discussing the difficulty the students have with separating their beliefs from their readings. The students seem to expect the readings in literature, particularly, but also in rhetoric, to be light and sunny and bright. Of course literature is not that way by default (timeless = tragic, because what is funny changes and what is sad stays the same). Then there is also the idea that the students don’t see any benefit in looking at criticisms which presuppose as true basic propositions that the students don’t believe either. The profs, who are all good people and genuinely concerned for their students, seemed somewhat at a loss to know how to guide their students to a scholarly critique rather than a personal bias critique.

I listened for 45 minutes and then I needed to go, but I did want to explain, at least a bit, where I see our students coming from. I remember being those students. I remember it very well.

I remember thinking my literature professors must either be sadists or misanthropes, since nothing we read was ever light, cheery, or even relatable. I couldn’t see myself in the readings and, honestly, I didn’t want to because they were so depressing. I know other folks have talked about being alienated because they weren’t seeing themselves in the readings, but I wasn’t feeling alienated. I was feeling depressed.

Undergraduate students particularly are dealing with the emotional tides that aren’t quite as regular as the ocean, but are certainly equally large and overwhelming. When you are in the middle of an emotional tsunami, the last thing you want is one more “Girl was raped. Life sucked. Became a prostitute to support herself. Saw her love. Died.” Hello! I don’t want to hear that is what life is all about. (Ever hear of “art imitates life”? Perish the thought.)

Though I didn’t have this issue, sometimes I think some professors are so focused on getting students to see some point–always relevant–that they don’t understand that by reiterating the point over and over they are isolating the students from the point by making the students feel attacked and resistant. I’m not even in the classes I’m talking about and I have felt that way from the discussions I have heard.

I remember being so frustrated with rhetorical theory because the foundations were beliefs that I totally disagreed with, yet the theories seemed to work out in a way that I thought was reasonably correct. I could not believe that a foundation flaw would not destroy the entire theory because I thought of the first step, as the first idea, just like a building foundation or perhaps as the first step in a math problem. If you mess that up, nothing will go right. Yet, I could clearly see that these theories were foundationally problematic and yet useful.

Now, apparently, I was ahead of some, since they simply refuse to listen to anything they don’t believe in. But I can totally understand how they might think that there is no point in this particularly brand of criticism because it comes from a moralistically faulty place. What they don’t know, what I didn’t know, is that theories don’t have to be right to say things we need to know and think about. Especially not literary theories. Because the things that they say may be reasonable or may not be reasonable, but the fact that they are saying them means they need to be considered. Now, if, after consideration a student says, “This is understandable, but wrong.” That’s okay. I can deal with that. I think the other professors can too. They are seeing students say, “This is wrong so I am not even going to try to understand it.” And the profs don’t get it. But I do. I do. I remember why I said those things. I remember feeling those things. I remember being frustrated and confused, in my own discipline, in the field I thought was most useful and most important, because theories couldn’t say something useful if they were wrong, could they?

So I said that. And I left.

Yeah. At two of the last three meetings I’ve been at, I have not left the impression of a team player. Yet at both of them I was trying to be a team player. At the first, to be inclusive for the new faculty members, who are fewer in number than we are. At the last, to be inclusive for the students, and to remind the professors that, while they might never have thought that way and they might not understand how a thinking person can think that way, I remember.

Perhaps I should not have talked at all during the meeting. Since I didn’t stay because of my class I have no idea what anyone thought and if they got what I was trying to say or if I just made them more defensive.

There wasn’t anyone in the meeting whom I know well enough to go to and say, “This is what I meant. Did that come out?”

Maybe I should schedule a meeting with the chair…

Harvard’s President Emeritus has some thoughts on that topic.

1. Education will be more about how to process and use information and less about imparting it. This is a consequence of both the proliferation of knowledge — and how much of it any student can truly absorb — and changes in technology. Before the printing press, scholars might have had to memorize “The Canterbury Tales” to have continuing access to them. This seems a bit ludicrous to us today. But in a world where the entire Library of Congress will soon be accessible on a mobile device with search procedures that are vastly better than any card catalog, factual mastery will become less and less important.

Point 2 is on collaboration.
Point 3 covers technology.
Point 4 discusses why active learning is on the rise.
Point 5 is on globalization.
Point 6 is on analysis of data.

Note that there is nothing here on reading, writing, or memorizing. Do we still need these things? Yes. Our students need to be able to read to access that information from the Library of Congress. Our students need to be able to write to collaborate permanently. Our students need to perhaps not memorize, but to understand concepts and be able to apply them, which sometimes requires memorization.

Overall I would say that the author is correct.

And I would also say that my university is on track for teaching our students all of these things.

In live blogging this conference, I am following the conventions for conference blogging.

Presiding: Sara Steger, Univ. of Georgia

Speakers: Brian Croxall, Emory Univ.; Julia H. Flanders, Brown Univ.; Matthew Jockers, Stanford Univ.; Shana Kimball, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Bethany Nowviskie, Univ. of Virginia; Lisa Spiro, National Inst. for Tech. in Liberal Education

Session Description:

This roundtable brings together various perspectives on alternative academic careers from professionals in digital humanities centers, libraries, publishing, and humanities labs. Speakers will discuss how and whether digital humanities is especially suited to fostering non-tenure-track positions and how that translates to the role of alt-ac in digital humanities and the academy.

And the computer goes down. Okay, projector on the fritz…

5 Qs and 3 As about Alt-Ac
Brian Croxall, Emory University

received rejection notice: “We received more than 900 applications for the positions…”

Taught a class in Digital Humanities.

What’s the relationship between digital humanities and alt-ac?
Stanley Fish wrote for NYT
tedunderwood.wordpress.com responded on December 27, 2011
isn’t actually “the next thing in literary studies”

Is alt-ac the future of digital humanities?
No. Not really. There are tt positions for DH.
pursuit of tenure will not be the same, will be alt, even when on tt

Alt-ac is most likely track for Digital Humanities.
Cannot be shorthand for contract labor, casualized labor. We need to be looking to other portions of the university for helping us think about these career paths.

Is digital humanities the future of alt-ac?
No.
Many ways to get your alt on that don’t require university…

Key lesson: Intellectual labor in getting things done. In accomplishing real work of university.

How should the MLA deal with the rise of alt-ac?

Can the MLA shift its purpose from representing those who teach and research modern languages to those who study or studied the modern languages?

The digital is something that is happening to the humanities.
The alt-ac is something that is happening to the university.

www.briancroxall.net
Talk is live at his website.

Julia H. Flanders, Brown University
Funding sources
DH

grant-based funding model means strategic hiring

Conceptualizing staff as oriented around and created for some projects works for the DH funding, but not so well for the security of the staff.

Necessity of framing as “projects” with outcomes that must be framed as separate units.
Makes the background research harder to fund.
Early investment in expertise is much harder to fund as project.

Distinctive about my job at Women Writers’ Project. Externally funded for two decades. Unusual length of funding. But jobs are more likely to be funded by grants.

Is alt-ac future of DH?
To some extent it is, from an institutional aspect. University likes it.
“Affordable” is code for young.

Is DH particularly suited to alt-ac careers?
Yes. Dovetails with other work that is hospitable in these ways: library, museum, etc. Jobs reinforced by collaborative work between universities and para-academic organizations.

Is this a good thing?
Good for institutions– cheap, flexible labor force.
Not so good for that labor force all the time.
Where the value of alt-ac lies and for whom is worth unpacking in more detail.

Matthew Jockers, Stanford University
“My name is Matt and I’ve been in Digital Humanities for 14 years.” (AA joke)

not one of the more senior member of our community
macro-scale observations, though

evolving role of alt-ac DH specialist

As a grad student, I did not aspire to a position as an alt-ac. Trained as a lit scholar. There was not an obvious alternative career path–except barista. Graduation: 1 tt job for every 3 applicants.

Because of my technical skills, I found a job that meant teaching a few classes and heading a group to help students. Along the way I was given the opportunity for professional development, paid for by my university. Had a decent salary.

Moved to a far more exciting alt-ac position, after 3 years. Allowed me to continue teaching, do research. Best part was I could introduce the rest of the faculty to Digital Humanities. An exciting thing to be part of this evolution.

alt-ac role as agent of change. Straddle lines between faculty and staff. Often bilingual translators. In unique position to advocate for institution change.

As the English department’s DH guy, I had a unique position. In early part of the century, I was doing a lot of teaching. … Workshops for our faculty.
Text analysis, HTML, etc.

Fruits of this labor can be found most prominently in the Literary Lab I co-direct. My job was to bring DH to the Stanford English Department.

Foundation of the lab is not an end point. Inundated with requests to get involved. Work of the lab has come to dominate my alt-ac position.

Eleven years of alt-ac’ing at Stanford, I have never once gotten up dreading going to work.
!!!

What is exciting right now is the abundance of opportunities.

This is a good time to be involved in humanities computing. Dark days of marginalization are over. Seeds bloomed into “thousand flowers of our DH conference last year, where we had a flower theme.”

Shana Kimball
working in the publishing division of the University of Michigan library
Now MPublishing.
intended to build mode of digital publishing
4-person shop in early 2000s but now includes UMPress and copy center.
Work involves digital humanities

Academic book publisher, preserver of scholarly works, convener of campus communications about scholarly communication…
co-director of MPublishing
Days when I am more engaged:
recruiting scholars
nurturing collaborations
raising awareness of MPublishing on campus
planning outreach programs
developing new publishing initiatives
writing proposals for funding

How fortunate I feel to be involved in this job.
Work with people committed to re-creating meaning of scholarly publishing.

We have degrees in library science, law, foreign languages, etc…
Many of us are not PhDs. Think of alternative academic career paths as well.

Had you asked me six years ago, I would not have thought of this job.
Stumbled off the tt after graduate school experience; quit grad school before graduation.

HS prof suggested “feminist literary theorist”

“Can only see as far as your headlights, but can make the whole trip that way.” –Doctorow

Read CHE “Beyond the Ivory Tower.”
Thought about publishing more and more.

Started setting up informational interviews with folks in scholarly publishing.

Landed a ft position in the library’s publishing division.
Filling in for a colleague who got a Fullbright. Kind of an internship.

Boss let me take classes and go to conferences and learn a new field. All these experiences that were helping me make my way. My exp as a PhD grad student, I was uniquely situated to translate from one side (faculty) to the other (publishing).

This is not how one does alt-ac. It’s just how I did it.

Can we imagine how these skills can be nurtured in graduate studies?
How can we better prepare grad students?

Incentives for grad students to learn digital making or doing
Have them run grad journals
Requiring education about contemporary scholarly communication

Fitzpatrick’s Planned Obsolescence should be required reading.

Want to see more internships and professional mentoring.

Due to human difficulties, I was not able to finish blogging this session.

99%’s Best of 2011 Posts

Also their 10 Books to Gift the Geeky Creative. I might look their for my own Christmas present from eldest son.

Also their How to Adapt to New Job Responsibilities:

Spending more time on these activities could lead to a significant increase in the benefits you receive.

Casting Out 9s Experiments in Digital Grading
He ends with:

So I continue to experiment with digital grading because it has a lot of benefits over old-fashioned paper grading. The one thing I have not figured out is how to make tests digital. We can make assessments on Blackboard that can be taken and graded online, but (1) I don’t like locking in my assessments in to a proprietary format, (2) Blackboard doesn’t do mathematical notation well, and (3) I’m not a fan of CMS’s generally. So for now the tests and final exams are still on paper.

Blogging Your Research is Not a Recipe for Disaster

If we agree that science writing is valuable to society, scientists should share the same responsibility as journalists to provide comment and information in a clear and balanced way. Despite some examples to the contrary, there’s an awful lot of science writing on the web – about established results, preliminary findings or work in progress – that aims to do just that. The widespread coverage of the Opera neutrino results, much of which was excellent, is a great recent example. But it’s important not to ignore the exceptions, and figure out how to deal with them.

The view that scientists who write about their work online are somehow trying to subvert the scientific process is unfairly narrow. The web offers great potential for a rich and vibrant scientific debate reaching beyond the research community. We should work towards maximising that potential rather than rein it in.

Kate Clancy’s The Place of Science Blogging in Academia
Obviously I’m not in science, but I figure at least some of this must apply to us in the Humanities as well.

The Many Problems of Online Education:

Students already have access to great books, complete libraries, masterpieces of art, and classical music online, but for the overwhelming majority technology is used and valued for entertainment and social networking. All the information available at their fingertips is worthless if they lack judgment and the ability to use it appropriately. And there is no evidence that online instruction is changing students’ behavior.

Academhack’s Thoughts on Emerging Media and Higher Education. It’s from back in 2010, but may still be relevant.

Let’s be honest, at any given session you are lucky if you get over 50 people, assuming the panel at which the paper was read was well attended maybe 100 people actually heard the paper given. But, the real influence of Brian’s paper can’t be measured this way. The real influence should be measured by how many people read his paper, who didn’t attend the MLA. According to Brian, views to his blog jumped 200-300% in the two days following his post; even being conservative one could guess that over 2000 people performed more than a cursory glance at his paper (the numbers here are fuzzy and hard to track but I certainly think this is in the neighborhood). And Brian tells me that in total since the convention he is probably close to 5,000 views. 5000 people, that is half the size of the convention.

I’ve been reading and writing about generational poverty in the classroom for years. I grew up in poverty, though my parents had not been in poverty (as generational poverty is defined). So I read Joanne Jacobs’ title with interest: Poverty Isn’t Just About Money

I’m reading Christensen and Eyring’s The Innovative University right now. I’ve been reading it for a week. If you knew me, you would know that means it is incredibly dense. I read quickly and having taken a week to digest a book, and still to be reading it, means there is a lot there.

I’m almost to page 400, and still have some to go, but the take-away I’ve seen as most important so far is probably one I have already learned at other colleges:
Choose a single direction to go in.

A university may be innovative, but it can’t be innovative in multiple directions at the same time. Raising research standards for faculty and lowering student selectivity is a poor choice.

But most universities want to go up the Carnegie ladder. That’s the goal, the dream, the purpose.

Going up the Carnegie ladder, though, may mean leaving behind some essential DNA (as the authors put it). If, for instance, the university has been primarily a teaching university, and what people mention when they talk about it are their experiences with the different faculty, then moving to a scholarship-focused university is going to mean leaving behind the essential DNA.

I read recently a professor talking about the 40-hour work week. What does that look like?

At a teaching-focused university it means 12 hours of classes, 5-12 hours of office hours, with additional time on email outside of office hours to respond to student inquiries. Grading and preparing may take more than office hours, especially if students are being engaged during office hours. For a new professor, perhaps 5-12 hours more at home. For a more established professor, rarely teaching a new course and simply adding to the courses they already know, perhaps 2-6.

So, for a new professor, 36 hours for teaching, office hours, grading, and preparation.

Then there is service. A new professor has four hours left. Service, in terms of requirements of the department and college for meetings, often eat up much of that time. I think I’ve had almost two hours of meetings every other week this semester. Some weeks it was more.

And meetings aren’t my entire service load. I have a group I sponsor and a graduate student I mentor. Neither of these is egregious. This week I have spent eight hours on the group and two on the grad student. Throughout the rest of the semester I have spent about sixteen hours on the group, perhaps 20, and another six on the grad student. Thirty-six hours over a 16-week semester is a bit more than 2 hours a week.

I have service to the profession as well. That took two weekend days and a few hours, plus attending a conference for four days, after having spent about forty hours (in the spring) working. So, really, that’s not too bad either. Maybe 40 hours this semester, so a bit more than 2 hours a week again.

I’m also required service to the community. I do that in a non-standard way and I really need to standardize it. It takes about 30 minutes 5x a week.

Then there is scholarship. This blog may (or may not) count as scholarship. Usually I would hope so, but out of the last few weeks, maybe not.

I am revising my dissertation for publication. I hope to finish that in the next week.

I have a revise and resubmit for a review (yes, a review) that I need to do. But it requires some work (maybe 20 hours) and I haven’t got time for that just yet.

I also have two reviews that are overdue, which I committed to writing. I need to write them.

Oh, and I have three preps for next semester, two of them are brand new to me. One is using a new edition of a book.

So my holiday is chock-full of work that won’t get put into anyone’s consideration, since it’s not during the semester. But I’ve already spent sixty hours on the dissertation and read both the books for review… If I continue that for the next three weeks, I’ll be working 70 hours a week on scholarship during my “break.”

I also have a grant proposal to write.

And two papers for national conferences.

My focus during the semester is on my students, as it should be. And I work hard to add quality and practicality to the work we do in class.

I’m not sure that four weeks of 70-hour work weeks is going to help get me ready for next semester in terms of energy gains, but it’s what I need to do to keep up with the scholarship focus.

And I’m a single person, maybe more or less efficient than another. But I’m an example of what it means to try to keep two very different plates spinning on the same stick.

Multiple me by an entire university and it explains why I’ve seen the wheels come off the bus at other schools.

So one thing… one focus… What one thing should a university focus on? What one thing should a professor focus on?

I think the answer to that is: the thing they do best.

I was going to start with “When Readings Collide” but that may not be where I want your mind to go. Then I thought “Reading Intersections” but while that is true, it isn’t really relevant to the topic.

I found two articles on the same day (not that they were written on the same day, but that I found them on one day) that were clearly related. The two articles are StayOutofSchool.com’s It’s about Our Values, Stupid and Siobhan Curious’ Why Do I Have to Learn This?

StayOutofSchool.com says:

News Flash! Education is about preparation for living. It’s about WHAT … YOU DO ALL DAY. Education is about why you bother to get … out of bed, how you choose to spend your time, what you value, and how you interact with the world. It’s reflected in how you treat others—people you know and people you don’t. It’s reflected in what you have to offer the world, in the quality of work you do. It’s also reflected in the puzzling and ubiquitous choice to subsist on a diet of ramen or BigMacs and own a 62” television with a full cable package instead of investing in nutritious food and a library card.

Classroom as Microcosm says:

If you believe that college is a threshing machine, separating wheat from chaff (Theory 1), then grades, at least passing ones, are what matters, so that when you graduate, you will be seen as wheat, not chaff, in the larger world. If you believe that college is a place to accumulate knowledge that will serve you in all aspects of your life and self, (Theory 2), then learning is what matters, regardless of the grades attached to it.

These theories are not compatible. Learning requires risks, frustrations, even failures. ”Good grades,” more often than not, require a lot of memorization, or at least an understanding of what the teacher wants and a willingness to try to produce it. A desire for good grades can be detrimental to actual learning.

The two authors both begin their posts referring to other authors’ works. I haven’t read either of the other authors’ writings.

But I find it both encouraging and scary that we are talking about this in such numbers that I am finding them…

It is encouraging because thinking through what we believe and what the implications of those beliefs are is important for living a life of integrity.

It is scary because if we have to talk about what college education is for, then we don’t know.

I am also concerned because I don’t think that students tend to think of their education this way. I think they consider that a college degree is only useful insomuch as it enables them to get a job they can work at for forty years. Wouldn’t spending this four years finding out what they enjoy, applying it to their work preparation, and learning about other things (which would help them think outside the box at work) be useful, even if they were only coming to college to get a job?

“You must become indispensable to thrive in the new economy. The best ways to do that are to be remarkable, insightful, an artist, someone bearing gifts. To lead. The worst way is to conform and become a cog in a giant system.”
–Linchpin by Seth Godwin

Right now English teachers are still indispensable.

We teach the writing classes. But that is changing. At my last SLAC, the business departments and the social sciences departments took over the writing classes for their majors. At my current SLAC, the English department is considering handing those over to the major departments because those departments are squawking so much about the classes. (Don’t do it!)

How can you personally become indispensable where you are? (Don’t do that if you are an adjunct. Find someone who will pay for the milk, rather than cutting you up for steak a piece at a time.)