Still thinking about research and teaching

In my recent post on what the hell I'm going to do with myself now, I articulated probably for the first time the gap between what I enjoy - research/writing - and what I value - teaching - and noted that for someone who wants to write, I haven't done very much of it. And then I was reading a recent post by the Bittersweet Girl, in which she notes, "For essentially my entire academic career, teaching has taken a second place to research/writing/publishing."

I had one of those kind of wow, people sure are different! experiences reading that: teaching has taken a second place to research/writing/publishing. Really? Gosh. How does that work?

This not remotely intended to criticize Bittersweet Girl. Her explanation makes perfect sense:

Originally this was due to my immaturity, back in the days when I idolized my famous professors and dreamt of joining their ranks as an international celebrity academic. They seemed to treat teaching as a minor distraction to the truly important work of their minds, and I followed their lead.

More recently, my focus on R/W/P has been driven by necessity and abject fear. Tenure hangs over my head like a knife and, despite some pretty words about the importance of teaching, everyone knows that tenure at MidState U. is determined by one’s publishing record.

She describes the priorities of academia, especially in graduate education, perfectly. Of course research is more important than teaching. Of course research is what gets you jobs, tenure, promotions.

But it was just funny to read her statement because I, and I think many of my colleagues throughout my academic career, have always struggled with the opposite - research takes second place to teaching.

I came to grad school from a small liberal arts college in which we students were the precious special flowers to whose nurture the institution was dedicated, and when I idolized my professors, it was as teachers, because that was how I knew them - I had very little sense of their research activities. So that probably predisposed me to put teaching ahead of research.

When I got to grad school, I and virtually all the other students were funded through teaching assistantships - there were fellowships floating around, but usually for no more than a term or a year at a time. Hence, almost everyone taught. And since teaching so much probably slowed our progress, the more we taught, the longer we took, which meant the more we taught. I'm glad to have had that experience (hell, I'm glad to have had the funding!), but I know that right from the very beginning, it was difficult sometimes to make research our absolute top priority.

After all, things like Ph.D. exams or prospectus defenses only happened (ideally) once, and could even be rescheduled if necessary, but we had to get up and confront a room full of students at a set time, usually four times a week. We were all teaching courses for the first time - and sure, the professor chose the material, wrote the syllabus, and delivered the lectures,  but there's still a lot to prep when you're going to spend an hour+ at a time talking to students about that stuff, at least, when you've never done it before and in fact may never have studied the subject in question before. Teaching for the first time is stressful and takes a lot of energy. And when you're grading for someone else, you get that grading done on their schedule, not your own.

Moreover, my grad program, while big (HUGE!) and research-y, actually did a pretty decent job in training us to be teachers. This was probably as much because grad students taught so many students that it was easier to give them some training and help them be competent than to deal with dissatisfied or woefully prepared students, as because of any philosophical inclination, but the result was a cohort of grad students who largely took teaching seriously and tried to do it well. We all taught a lot, and we all talked about it a lot. In fact, among ourselves we probably talked more explicitly about how to teach than how to do research (we discussed research a lot, too, but as a department, we discussed research results, not so much the research process).

This wasn't necessarily because we valued teaching over research, mind you, but just because failures in teaching seemed to have much more immediate consequences than failures in research! Getting your advisor's criticism on a chapter draft could suck, but it was a very different kind of suckage than finding yourself in the middle of a classroom in revolt or coping with a storm of grade challenges, or even watching the seconds tick by agonizingly slowly on a day when no one in class - NO ONE - was willing to say anything.

We were also all very well aware (because the dept told us) that we were not at an Ivy League school, and that since there were far more teaching schools than elite research institutions out there, we'd better be able to teach/talk intelligently about teaching, in order to get a job. So we put a fair amount of energy into the teaching sphere.

(I could even wax all psychological and postulate that an identification with teaching is a pretty natural response to being in grad school - that in a context where you're a student, and thus not a full, independent adult, for so long, and where it often feels like one person - your advisor - holds your very future in their hands - it's not surprising that one's sense of self becomes invested in the one arena in which you actually are an authority figure and over which you do actually have some control. But that would be wild speculation.)

So the point is, my graduate program emphasized teaching in a lot of ways, and I remember it being very early in graduate school when my colleagues and I started commenting to each other on the all-encompassing nature of teaching, and how it was so easy to put everything else aside in favor of teaching prep, because other people depended on our preparation for teaching, whereas the research only mattered to ourselves.

And this certainly didn't change when I started working full-time. The people who hired me as a full-time adjunct didn't care particularly about my research; the ~120 students I taught each semester that year certainly didn't. My two tenure-track positions were both in teaching institutions, and while both had research expectations (though Former College's were much higher than Rural Utopia's), again the constant refrain from faculty was how teaching took up all of one's time, was the thing that couldn't be pushed aside, and how the difficulty was to make time for the research. Because after all, teaching was why we were there.

Now, none of these things are actually  incompatible with what the Bittersweet Girl said. It depends on how you define "take second place." What's most important to you - what you prioritize, what you value - does not have to be what takes up most of your day. There can be a difference between practice - the amount of daily grind spent on teaching - and priority - the importance placed on it.

But it was still just interesting to see, in black and white, the idea that teaching takes second place to research, and to realize that I'd probably never have articulated my work life in that way. Research has always taken second place to teaching, because teaching is about other people, and research is just about me. (Don't think that means I'm suggesting I'm some altruistic saint and people who prioritize research are selfish bastards; that's not at all what I mean. It's just easier for me to be accountable to others than it is to be accountable to myself. It's why I'm much better at writing conference papers than articles - if I commit to standing up in front of a group of strangers, damn straight I'm going to write something. If it's just me sitting in my office - eh. I find the short-term consequences of not working on my teaching much more painful than the short-term consequences of not working on my research, and as for the long-term consequences of the latter - well, I'm not very good at thinking in the long term.) What I do, what I spend my time on, becomes what I prioritize, even if it's not actually what I value more.

All this makes me wonder how things might have been different if I had gone to grad school where activities matched priorities - where grad students didn't teach, or at least, not nearly as much. I'm not saying that my grad experience is the only reason I've ended up with this mentality, but I think it's one reason. In any case, Bittersweet Girl's post helped me figure out some more reasons why I haven't actually put my money where my mouth is.

Comments

[phd me]

Wow. You articulated so many of my thoughts and questions on the teaching and research conundrum. Research (and publication) is by far the most important part of my position but teaching is immediate; as you aptly pointed out, the students need me NOW, the data will happily sit on my desk for another few weeks. The ideas of being responsible to other people, of dealing with short-term consequences - yes, so true.

Interestingly, though, my grad experience was the opposite of yours. We grad students wanted to teach but had few opportunities to get into the classroom; we fought to get positions as unfunded TAs (no kidding). So, the majority of student funding came through research projects or administrative duties. Research was highly valued and highly stressed but the research you found yourself doing to pay the bills often had little to do with your own interests - so the classroom was the space to engage with things that matched your interests.

[Matt Gabriele]

Sucks to think about, but we really are a product of our training, aren't we? This could lead me to say some things but I'm not anonymous, so I won't... :-)

[Anastasia]

"because teaching is about other people, and research is just about me."

totally with you on this. also, of course, on your statement that this is not a slam on research oriented folks.

that said, I'm pretty good about keeping teaching in reasonable perspective--better than some of my peers, I think. I mean in terms of not letting prep completely take over my life. I'm totally cool with winging it. Now TA'ing, that's another story. It's pretty easy for me to satisfy myself when it comes to teaching prep. If I'm working with someone else, as a TA. I go insane.

[Ancarett]

Honestly, teaching ought to be a higher priority for a lot of academics. This term I pulled together some new research for a conference presentation early in October and then another entirely new research topic turned into a chapter for early December. My teaching really suffered -- not the in-class activity but all the marking. So I'm still trying to play catch-up and my students are waiting unreasonably long for their marks. *sigh*

But then, I'm quite happy at a teaching institution because I do love my classroom time as well as the broader range of subjects than is usually available to any one professor in a research-oriented department.

[michelle]

I find the parenthetical a compelling thought because that did not apply to me. I was a non-trad for the B.A., and then I went full-time and all regular-like for the M.A. U do think it was a liberating experience for me, though, and I know once I was into the classroom to teach, I didn't want to leave it.

[Otto Pohl]

It has been my experience that US universities even big state one do not care at all about research and writing. They only care about teaching experience. I had two published books and several peer reviewed journal articles and still did not get a single interview out of hundreds of applications in the US. Now that I have taught a semester overseas I am quite sure that the stated need for teaching experience is merely a way of keeping out unwanted applicants. Teaching is not hard at all and "the no teaching experience" is really just an excuse for excluding people on the basis of ideological or personal reasons.

[Another medieval professor]

I completely disagree to Otto's post above. I've had plenty of experience on search committees, at research and teaching universities, and there's one rule that applies: research counts for at research universities and teaching factors more at teaching universities. If you're not getting interviews with your publication record, then a number of things could be happening. Maybe you're not exactly what the committee is looking for (maybe they want someone who does France, Ireland, England and you specialize in German history) but they don't specify that in the job ad. Or, there's a lot of competition for jobs--maybe they think you're overqualified? If you come with a lot of publications for an entry-level assistant professor position, then they wonder if you'll stay? Will you leave for greener pastures? Will you want to be promoted almost immediately because of your research record?
At campuses where there are teaching loads of 3/3 or more, they will expect teaching experience. Our experience with European applicants has been that very few have teaching experience and those who do are accustomed to teaching in a vastly different environment than a US college classroom. US students are not at the same level as British students in their first year of college. For my freshman survey course, if you assigned a 10 page research paper, the majority of students would fail because they have no inkling of how to do this. Sad, but true. So, teaching experience does matter a great deal, but we can't hire someone who is going into a classroom without knowledge of how to teach a course effectively for our level of students.
And I have to seriously disagree with the statement that teaching is easy. I have seen many failures in the classroom, and I have heard many students comment on lousy professors. It seems if teaching was so easy, this would not be the case.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

I completely agree with Another medieval professor. Not getting interviews/jobs when one has many publications does not mean that universities only value teaching and don't value research; valuing research is NOT the same as ignoring every other aspect of a candidate's application and ONLY looking at their research record. It means that research is necessary, but not sufficient. And especially in glutted subfields, there are going to be a depressingly large number of candidates who have excellent research records AND great teaching experience. Moreover, being a good research candidate is not necessarily about quantity of publications.

And no, teaching isn't easy. Some students/types of classes are easier to teach than others, of course, but teaching isn't easy. There are a few people out there for whom it comes naturally, maybe, but that doesn't mean it's easy, any more than the fact that someone double-jointed can put their foot behind their head means doing so is objectively easy.

[Academic vixen]

New Kid- You articulated perfectly how I feel. Thanks for doing that. Having my feelings put perfectly into words gives me the same feeling of release as taking off too tight clothing!

[Belle]

I agree with all but Otto, and esp. with you NK. For me, it's not just that research is about me, but that it takes multiples of terms to do the research, and yet more to write. And then, if you're really working it, you push it to the market. So the process is long and teaching is NOW. I love teaching, but in my grad programs teaching was considered an unwelcome and unrewarding distraction from the 'real' academic job of research/writing/publishing. In fact, one place thought about rewarding grad student teaching excellence with a semester of not teaching.

So far in my career, research has been done here and there, very short intense spurts. The routine is teaching, dept work, committee work. I told my Provost, when he was exhorting me to take on an admin job, that I was already giving 125%. He really thought we could do 4/4, committees, admin and research. I simply don't have the intellectual energy to do all that, and the TCA is all immediate and requiring near future completion or incremental reports. So for me, the research gets done when I find the time, energy and interest.

I have discussed this with peers & colleagues at my SLAC, and they feel much the same.

As for jobs, it was my experience in teaching in different environments and my willingness to be flexible that got me my job.

[Ancrene Wiseass]

Research has always taken second place to teaching, because teaching is about other people, and research is just about me.

Yup. Me too.

[Otto Pohl]

Well I found teaching much easier than working in a coffee shop or digging ditches, two of my previous jobs. It seems in the US ditch digging is the only job a person can get with a British Ph.D. in history.

I taught three political science classes of 15 students each last semester and got very good evaluations. So the claim that I see repeated above that people that were not TAs in American universities are "incapable of ever teaching" is in fact a lie. It is a lie I believe that is maintained in order to discriminate against candidates on ideological and other less savory grounds. None of my students spoke English as a native language and very few of them had problems with the 10 page research paper I assigned. I remain unconvinced that conditions in the US are that much different than in Kyrgyzstan.

[The Bittersweet Girl]

I am totally honored to have been the catalyst for this thoughtful post. And, thanks for not taking me to task for putting research first and neglecting my teaching -- trust me, I scold myself plenty. Although, I'd like to clarify that my statement that "research comes before teaching" did not refer to where my time was spent, per se, but to where my mind was. I've been mentally preoccupied (read: bogged down in mind and spirit) by a seemingly endless writing project and, as a result, I did not put very much energy into my teaching. Thanks for engaging in the conversation.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Otto -

1) because US universities are concerned about whether someone without teaching experience can in fact teach, does not mean that a person without experience can't teach, simply that there is no evidence one way or the other. No one has EVER suggested that someone without teaching experience is incapable of EVER teaching (I don't know where your quotation marks come from as no one has made that statement) - just that when faced with two candidates otherwise equal, when one has teaching experience and the other doesn't, the teaching experience will tip the balance. Moreover, I do know people who have had no teaching experience who have got tenure-track jobs in the US. There are many reasons why people do or don't get jobs.

2) three classes of 15 students is a VERY light teaching load. Teach 100-200 students in a semester and then weigh in on whether teaching isn't hard (though I will grant you that it is not as hard as digging ditches. In fact the comparison with ditch-digging raises the question of whether saying that teaching is easy means that it does not require effort or whether it means it's not hard to do well. Those are completely different things. Research is easy compared to coal-mining but that doesn't mean it's not hard).

3) I'd suggest that conditions in Kyrgyzstan are in fact entirely different from conditions in the US. First, because it's Kyrgyzstan, which last I checked was EXTREMELY different from the US, and teaching is very culturally specific. But also because at all of the institutions where I've taught, which now totals five, first year students (with some exceptions, of course) would struggle with a 10-page research paper (depending on how the assignment was structured). (I realize you may not have been teaching first-year students, but that was the original example.) Moreover, teaching conditions within the US vary wildly, and what works in one setting with one group of students may not work in another setting with different students. So which set of US conditions is Kyrgyzstan like?

Bittersweet Girl - honestly, I admire your ability to put the research first! Even though I realize that when it's a question of obsessing over a project that won't get done, it's not always a happy mental space.

[mimi]

Hm. In Canada, there are national graduate fellowships that specifically PRECLUDE you from teaching when you hold them. My Big Research University where I got my PhD had this sort of vibe like you should teach a section of first year English maybe once during your PhD, for flavour, but that anyone who could get enough funding to get out of the obligation, was well advised to do so.

The faculty there, actually, voted their load down from 2-3 to 2-2 during my time there, which effectively meant that sections of first year courses taught by grad students mushroomed from a cap of 35 students to a cap of 45, and that profs rarely rarely taught first year ever again.

That gave a pretty clear idea about priorities to just about everyone. Research: important. Teaching: burden for peons.

[amy]

Great post. I'm not defending Otto, but I think he might be on to something in terms of the perception of teaching. In my experience, people think that teaching is easy... I know plenty of mediocre students who plan to be teachers (granted I'm talking K-12 teachers). Isn't there a saying, "People who can do, people who can't teach"? If Otto has just had an easy semester teaching motivated students, his perceptions have been confirmed. But I'd wager that if he were to teach in a US community college with 5 classes (3 preps) in which only about 50% of the students were truly prepared to do the work and only about 25% of those even wanted to do the work... he'd change his tune pretty quickly.

I love teaching, not because it's easy... but for the opposite reason. I used to feel the same way about research. I think NK is right. In many ways, our grad program set us up to be teachers... not researchers.

[The Cranky Professor]

In my experience on hiring committees a publication record makes for EASIER sorting than a strong teaching record - we can actually tell how well the candidate matches the advertisement (or our - sad to say all too frequent - unadvertised preferences inside subfields). Teaching is harder to evaluate from the outside.