The Academic Profession: The
Research Obligation
Tommy
Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP, EPC
Professor
and Chair
Department
of Exercise Physiology
The
College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
Introduction
Before discussing the importance
of doing research and publishing one’s work, I will present a brief sketch
of what it means to publish from a writer’s point of view. For many
aspiring writers, to write is usually not enough. Most writers expect
to publish and to do so in the “major” journals. Thus, just any publication
is not enough! The article must appear in an important peer-reviewed
publication. It is assumed of course that both the article and the
publication merit the treatment given it. Similarly, it is assumed
that such publications are prerequisite for professional development in
one’s field.
A Publication is a Publication
What is the truth? What really
matters? It may be that the creation of a novel idea and the motive
for publishing a manuscript will be found to be more important than tracing
the footsteps of how the majority of the authors think about the process.
Perhaps, a new milestone will be reached in thinking when exercise physiologists
agree, “a publication is a publication”. Actually, this idea
isn’t all that new but seldom discussed among academic exercise physiologists.
The "impact factor" (i.e., the identification of the best journals versus
the least important) is generally maintained as the definition of importance,
and there appears to be very little room for a different way to think.
This is indeed unfortunate with inevitable consequence of grouping published
articles that are assumed to be the cream of the crop. Like the little
boy who couldn’t run as fast as the man, his running therefore is said
to be less important. Is this true?
The diversification of research ideas
that fancy the imagination and interest of some but not others bathes in
the same cortex and body of all humans. Because an idea reaches equilibrium
with one’s motivation and eventually punctuates the day with effort, yet
fails to do so in someone else is a mystery, not a problem. It may
have been the researcher’s past history in sports or an undergraduate degree
that expanded one’s interest. The point is, ideas survive as markers
of supplemented information and experiences throughout one’s life.
Surely, the reader is familiar with past experiences having a tremendous
potential for constructing today’s reality. But, perhaps, what is
not well understood is the pre-occupation with the notion that all research
should follow the evolutionary steps of established researchers.
To illustrate the point, as a faculty
member at one institution, I was told that if you really want to be a leader
in the field you must do one and only one type of research. The only
thing I could think of in response to the comment is boring, and I believe
it is still true today. In general, the idea sounds good but to program
the mind in just one-way to do research and to publish is narrow in scope
and thinking. Indeed, the purpose of my research for nearly 20+ years
has been to evaluate my interests without playing the odds that a manuscript
is more or less favorable to the journal editors. Because my interests
are varied, and given that I have the laboratory resources to engage in
a comprehensive profile of dependent variables, the shape of my work bears
directly on what is of interest to me not what is publishable. Naturally,
there will those who disagree with my interpretation and, yes, those who
now regret that their efforts were so singularly focused.
A publication is a publication
just as a ball is a ball regardless of the size, color, texture and so
forth. The differences however, do not distract from the definition
that something is a ball versus something else is a brick. Because
this rather basic logic is capable of helping a person understand the conditions
and reasons for publishing, it is enough to understand that “writers write”.
What is the point of publishing a manuscript when no one cares about playing
with the smallest ball when bigger is better. It is quite evident
that the major concern of most readers is to get something from what they
have read. The privilege to read the article takes precedent over
the journal in which it was published. It is important to understand
this reasoning in order to drive home the notion that writers write first
and publish second.
Writers write and publish where possible
to insure that their work gets published. The idea that there is
only one journal or just a few good journals in which to publish one’s
work doesn’t make sense. What is read, valued, and put to the test
in common sense ways is directly linked to the quality of the work.
Peer-review journals are important for obvious reasons, but even a good
number of the reviewers are not the quality of many manuscripts that are
rejected. Publishing only in the highly regarded journals often has
some hidden meaning, even though just thinking about publishing in less
regarded journals is said to either bother some writers or force them into
a much larger view of publishing. What matters is that the message
in the article is well integrated, well-intentioned, and written to register
with the reader.
All that is needed is a willingness
to do research, and then it boils down to finding a publisher. The
idea that the less fortunate or the inexperienced researcher is forced
to publish in inferior journals is an upside-down way of thinking.
Obviously, not all journals are equal or even that all researchers are
equal. The reality is that there is no reason to expect equality
across journal publications or even among college teachers as researchers.
There is also no reason not to expect a quality article in a less well-known
journal. Hence, publishing is reserved for writers who understand
these points of view and who are willing to publish their work where possible
despite the narrow and one-sided thinking that important work is published
only in select journals. The spirit of communication is the only
logical self-imposed reason for transforming an idea into a manuscript.
Straight Thinking About College
Research
According to the book,
The Academic
Ethic by Edward Shils (1),
the university teacher is expected to do research. There is also
the expectation, if not, the obligation to teach. Clearly, some teachers
will do more research than teaching and others will do more teaching.
The issue however is that the college teacher is expected to do both.
Those who argue against doing both usually work in a “teaching institution”
versus a “research institution”. The problem with such thinking and
the often times nebulous division between the two is that both institutions
hire college teachers, and the faculty from both refer to themselves as
college teachers.
Another problem is that such thinking
actually works against the very assumption that all college-university
teachers are equal in the eyes of the public and, therefore, engage in
the same business. If the university teacher is expected to do research
for promotion and/or tenure and the college teacher is not required to
do so, then the argument itself promotes a distinction between the two
groups of teachers that certainly can’t be viewed as positive. The
obligation of those who teach, regardless of whether in a college or a
university, do so to discover, promote, and publish new ideas and information.
The increase in knowledge is directly related to understanding the value
of research findings and the application to new ways of thinking about
concepts and ideas.
When the college teacher is excused
from doing original research, the teacher is without question held to a
different standard. Perhaps, the standard would be best defined as
consistent with high school teaching or a teacher at a community college.
It should go without saying that this distinction is not meant to define
differences in who is the best teacher at a specific subject level.
Instead, it is clear that high school comes before attending a community
college that often sets the stage for more advanced work at the college
and/or university level. The implication is not that every teacher
must be highly active in research, but instead urged to publish in order
to contribute to the growth of knowledge.
To state that the college teacher
cannot teach and do research in the same semester or academic year is simply
not true. All types of work, including research requires a commitment.
If the teacher is not willing to commit time and effort to doing research,
it is no excuse to conclude that research should not be required of the
teacher. There are simply too many examples where college teachers
do both teaching and research, and they do both very well. Hence,
to do less is to accept less, and to argue for less doesn’t make it right.
There is no reason to believe that the teacher who does teach and does
research is any less of a teacher than the teacher who teaches only.
In principle, since both teaching
and research are important in a college or university, doing one because
it is a “scheduled event” and not doing the other because it requires “finding
time to collect data and write a manuscript” is less than the professional
service expected of members of the academic profession. To promote
a colleague from associate professor to full professor or, regardless of
the rank, to a tenured position without holding the candidate responsible
for doing research is an act of disregard for an explicit historical perspective
of the value of research in much the same way as clinical skills are recognized
as a requirement for maintaining professional credentials among clinicians.
Therefore, if the decision is to
not expect the candidate to do research, then the obvious danger is the
tenure of colleagues who fail to represent the very best within the academic
profession. University teachers owe an obligation to the institution
and to the profession to uphold the highest standards to advance the good
name of the college among other colleges. This latter point is another
reason why it is important, and the truth is administrators and college
teachers know the rules of advancement within the academic profession.
Again, this is the one vital distinction between the high school teacher
or the community college teacher and the college teacher who is expected
to do research in order to contribute to fundamental knowledge. It
also follows that it is not reasonable to argue that there is not enough
time to do research, or that a college teacher must have a semester break
to write a manuscript or a book. The college teacher has time to
do research if the teacher should want to find the time. It is always
easier to say that “there isn’t enough time” and, of course, anyone
can appear to be too busy. Not having the time is indeed an excuse
not a reality for not doing research.
The truth is the college teacher
has grown to expect that they have control over their job requirements
more so than is usually allowed for other professionals. Arriving
at work at 10:00 am and leaving at 3:30 pm is common place for many college
teachers. To a great extent, they expect control over when they arrive
on campus, and when they teach. So, when they conclude that there
isn’t time to do research, they expect the administration to accept it
as a truth. However, the devotion of college teachers to “their time
and space” has, in all likelihood, grown out of proportion to the reality
of the job.
The seriousness of the college teacher’s
determined effort to dictate responsibilities to the administration supports
the general acceptance of being overworked. Naturally, the transmission
of knowledge takes time and preparation. The irony is, if teaching
is about the pursuit and transmission of truth, many college teachers knowingly
present (as a way to demonstrate control over what they do) erroneous and
baseless beliefs to the administration. Those who fail to speak up
and thus encourage by default a false account of “so little time to do
research” are no less culpable than those who deliberately present a false
account before their colleagues.
In sum, while a great deal of being
a college teacher is about teaching; it seems terribly unfortunate that
the teacher would work so hard to knowingly disconnect from one of the
most fundamentally important foundations of critical, reflective thinking.
When viewed objectively, in the teacher’s effort to display control, the
very act of the teacher’s ability to do research languishes and fades.
Thus, the quality of teaching is influenced by the argument and, in the
end, the college teacher is in danger of being disvalued and discredited.
However, college teachers who do research understand that not doing research
isn’t an option. Their faith in the process is directly related to
the willingness to perceive positive results. So, in between classes
and after the last class of the day and during weekends, they respond to
the need to design studies, collect data, and write. Instead of fear
of failure and rejection, they think positive and make the personal choice
of a point of view that creates reality. They are the college teachers
who do research, and more than not they do it without recognition or financial
incentive. Urging them stop or cut back for fear of not completing
other responsibilities doesn’t work. The college teacher who teaches
and does research is generally very well organized. There isn’t any
question that the work will get done. The question is, “How does
the researcher exist within the liberal arts college with faculty who state
that teaching is so important that research isn’t part of the faculty agenda?”
“We are teachers” they say which seems to imply that the researcher is
not a teacher or, at least, not a very good teacher. It is a strange
way of thinking and, often times, a language of its own. Broken friendships
and fences between departments are common fallouts of the mis-communications.
Academic and professional circumstances prevail where thinking is founded
more in one’s emotions than in critical analysis.
The Crux of the Problem
The crux of the problem has to do
with standards at a particular institution. Whether it is worth the
battle to uphold the traditional views of promotion and/or tenure is a
study in itself. What appears easier is to give in to the growing
reality of an alternate thinking that unless compensated by release time,
course reduction, financial incentive, and so forth, there is every reason
in the world to argue against research. After all, they say “I was
hired to teach research methods or physical therapy courses. I was
not hired for my skills (or even interest) in research.” You have
love the commitment in teachers who simply refuse to do research, even
when they teach research courses for their particular majors. Talk
about crooked thinking and the notion of having entered into a narrow way
of thinking.
But what about the researcher who
works in an academic environment where research isn’t forbidden but not
encouraged either? Well, as noted in a variety of professions, the
system plays itself according to whatever is important at the time.
It is a method of allowing less to be done if it doesn’t reflect negatively
on the institution. On the other hand, the researcher who is also
a teacher isn’t generally stopped from adhering to a particular agenda.
At any rate, this is true assuming that the research doesn’t get in the
way of the agenda that is important at the time. Clearly, it is a
matter of balance where usually the teaching agenda wins out in liberal
arts institutions and, therefore, in a way it is a minor miracle that research
surfaces from such institutions.
The seemingly disharmonious schools
of thought aren’t completely bad. They do allow for individual differences;
some college teachers will desire to teacher more than do research and
some will want to do research more than teach. The liberal arts institution
is somewhat a unique place for both, although there are important ethical
questions. One such question becomes a problem when one group of
teachers dictate behavior and/or opportunity to another group, such as
teaching is “the” only thing that is valued here at this college.
This thinking is often unseen but, nonetheless, very real and entirely
negative, especially when teachers argue that doing research along with
a daily dose of teaching is too much.
Engulfed by years of academic training,
there is a certain predictable potentiality for research. This is
probably an important reason why some college teachers look forward to
increased awareness through research. It also has to do with the
recognized benefits of research in critical thinking and communicating
ideas. Those who do research expect a well-sharpened wit about how
they think and the approach they take in teaching students. They possess
a certain control over new ideas that may have just been realized last
week or last month that even the latest text can’t match. Frequently,
students interpret the use of research findings in class as a blessing
when the power and mechanics of the research process are demonstrated in
thinking more clearly.
To the college teacher who does research,
be thankful. There is an impulse within you that urges you on.
This may be “the” reason why those who don’t do research argue against
it. Without the impulse for research and its influence on how teachers
think, it is hard to catch the vision of what they don’t understand.
In addition, those who argue for teaching only may very well remain changeless.
Without transformation, which is not the researcher’s responsibility, the
commitment to research and the inspiration to learn from one’s actual hands
and experiences remain undeveloped. Similarly, the non-researcher
fails to understand that while reading research findings is helpful, it
is not the same as having produced the findings as a researcher.
The power of reflection and the transformation in thinking that results
from doing research are almost indescribable feelings of elation and joyousness
that is hard to realize in the classroom.
The Passkey
As awkward as it sounds, to be frank,
college teachers understand the effort it takes in getting the doctorate
degree. They also understand that it is the "passkey" to college
teaching in most institutions. Of course, it is not true across all
institutions, although it should be. Coming to this understanding
may not be easy and, yet intuitively it is obvious. Where the meticulous
history and appreciation of the doctorate are overlooked or put aside,
faculty are often fragmented in professional thinking and academic training.
Because of these differences, the institution is limited in its accountability
to the students if not the entire public sector. Mysteriously hidden
views make their subtle touch and influence during promotion and/or tenure
meetings and, when all things are considered, the outcome is usually less
than that which should reflect professionalism and service to the institution.
In fact, it is quite discouraging
to witness the carving of the institution’s history in such meetings.
The outcome is usually an interpretation of "assumed" facts that now become
"the" way to do things. Where research was considered important for
promotion, now it placed on the back burner. Rules get twisted, replaced,
and overlooked when pushed aside by strong opinions and beliefs that often
times fail to add up to the right path towards professionalism. Instead
of wanting to share in the bloodiest of battles, the inner whisperings
of the college teacher to put the foot forward is done so with great caution
-- “Don’t get involved.” If they want to tenure the person
without the first evidence of research, let them.” And, yet in the
same breathe, the teacher hears the words just unlocked from somewhere
in the mind saying, “It is no skin off the backs of the college teachers
who do research, is it?” Intuition is important because the answer
to the last question is that it does matter. The researcher has the
uncanny feeling that the niche is teaching, not the unfolding of new ideas
inferred from statistical analyses.
So, why care or think twice when
the faculty doesn’t care about research? For whatever it is worth,
the college teacher is educated to care in communicating the highest standards
of professionalism. Part of the communication is the unbounded belief
in increased intelligence and a better life through objective thinking
resulting from impressions generated through research. The symphony
of what teachers do in the college classroom is a melody of scripted educational
moments in reflection and hands-on experiences that defines the teacher
and the environment as a college institution. The unseen presence
of the effects of research is acted out in all kinds of ways. Research
is well intentioned and important. If the college teacher forgets
this point, the spirit of the passkey will have been merely a gesture only
and not the real thing.
The Reality and Value of Research
The reaction of college teachers
who must reconstruct their daily activities to incorporate research is
a mixed bag of emotions. A few will get with the program and actually
become intrigued by the process. But, most teachers will say very little.
They know that unless someone is standing directly in front of them saying
“do this and do that”, they have no intention of doing research.
The reaction of still others, a very few in number but very vocal about
the insensitivity of the suggestion, is even more interesting. Their
critical faculties break down under the onslaught of requirements and promises
of merit pay and increase in salary. Generally, these teachers have
little knowledge of the research process. Imagine the surprise of
the administrators when they have to find a real researcher to elaborate
on how research is undertaken, the potentially inappropriate and mindless
application of the wrong statistical methods, and what it means to think
scientifically.
Doing research and publishing a research
manuscript requires a state of mind that gives purpose to the work.
Those who understand it either create reasons to avoid doing it or they
are driven by it. The truth is that research is not absolutely necessary
to teach but when done together, there is a balance in thinking and an
examination of ideas that does not occur without it. Research puts
a feeling of power and critical judgment in the hands of those who are
directed by it. Perhaps, in this way, it can be said that research
and publishing are pressures unto themselves that provide their own constructive
feedback.
The reality is that research is not
work, but a labor of love for many college teachers. It is less about
the number of publications per year, career advancement, and personal and
private issues and more about investing in the research itself and even
much more about the sharing of information with students and others.
It is about believing in research, and having the tenacity and courage
to act, especially when seeing opportunities others do not see. You
have to have tenacity and when critics say it can’t be done, do it anyway.
If a colleague next door says that’s the dumbest idea for a research project,
do it anyway. Or, if your administrator says that the research idea
is not publishable, do it anyway. The reality of research is that
it is design to find the unknown, so don’t allow negative evaluations or
comments to stop learning how to think differently from the crowd.
Concluding Thought
Imagine yourself a college teacher
looking back from some point 10 years from now. What do you judge
the most important thing that happened? Was it teaching three courses
per semester? Or the creation of new knowledge that has been published
and, perhaps, is now reported in a college text in your area of work?
Or is it the integration of your research findings with classroom lectures,
or the published work by your students as a direct influence of your position
in the college? My guess is that it will be the search for wholeness,
whereby an increased awareness of research and teaching are interconnected
and necessary for sharing an inner growth that leads to wisdom, compassion,
and a responsibility for our own lives and for influencing the public.
References
1. Shils, Edward.
(1983). The Academic Ethic. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.