32, no. 3 (Spring 2001): 116-117
|
|
|
|
Thoughts on Stepping Down
GEORGE F. PETERS
THE 1990s saw a degree of change in the field of languages and literatures unlike anything we have experienced since the post-Sputnik era of the 1960s. As the recently departed chair of a large, multilanguage department, I am hard pressed to reconcile the type of administrative responsibilities that faced me at the beginning of the decade with those that came at the end. The job of chairing the foreign language and literature department has taken on such an array of unforeseen challenges that a new volume addressing the issues is welcome indeed. Instead of commenting on my own contribution to the 1994 volume, in which I discussed institutional responsibilities in chair training, I would like to take this opportunity to remark on those changes I observed from the chair's office during the 1990s that pose the greatest opportunity, and the greatest risk, for department leaders in the first decade of the new millennium.
It is tempting to cite incongruities. One of the first tasks that faced me in the fall of 1989 was recruiting faculty members as volunteers to staff the department's table at walk-through registration. One of my final tasks in the spring of 2000 was writing the job description for a technology specialist to supervise the development of computer-based instruction of the less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) in the department. It is safe to say that LCTLs and computer-based instruction were as foreign to me in 1989 as walk-through registration is to young faculty members today. Some other issues that faced me as a new chair were choosing a maintenance contract for the department's electric typewriters and deciding if the department could afford to discard its duplicating machine; the staff members were complaining about its smell. Staff members' concerns when I left? The next round of computer upgrades to keep pace with the latest innovation in the university's student information system.
The explosion of technology in the 1990s is a remarkable phenomenon in general, of course, but its effect on departments of languages and literatures is profound, more profound than we foresaw. The concept of the language laboratory, which was still current in the 1994 ADFL volume on chairing, has given way to such widespread use of computers in language classrooms and language teachers' offices that today's department chair must possess a degree of computer literacy rivaling that of our colleagues in the sciences. Long accustomed to sitting on the sidelines of the battle for technology resources, language departments have been catapulted into the fray. Chairs must be well equipped to fight.
Technology—the Web, online courses, distance learning, interactive language programs, e-mail correspondence—has made it feasible for departments to offer a variety of languages and course work that was unimaginable a decade ago. Add to this another phenomenon of the 1990s—pressure from heritage speakers to offer a greater number of languages—and departments suddenly find themselves faced with deciding on far-reaching programmatic changes. Although enrollment shifts in languages are not new to our profession, the shifts in the last decade portend a significant reshaping of language departments. German, Russian, even French, will yield resources to once marginal languages such as Tagalog, Hindi, and Korean. Technology makes this possible, and chairs must be familiar with the constantly growing array of options. They must also, however, be wary of the perception within the administration that technology simply offers a cost-effective alternative to in-class instruction.
Globalization, another unknown concept in 1990, compounds the pressure on language departments to expand language offerings. The globe, after all, encompasses far more countries than those traditionally ensconced in language departments, and although the Eurocentricity of earlier decades was already under challenge at the beginning of the 1990s, the importance of once remote areas of Africa and Asia has increased significantly in American awareness. The LCTLs are inching their way into mainstream consciousness.
The learning of all languages, common and less common, has become increasingly utilitarian, and this situation poses another major challenge for the department chair today. The offering of “business language,” which was viewed in the early 1990s as a potential enrollment boost and as an alternative to more traditional humanistic language study, threatens to radically change the complexion of the language department. It is no longer simply a matter of business, although the emphasis on a global economy has intensified interest from the business school for courses in business language. Students increasingly view language study as a tool, whether for professional purposes, tourism, or heritage. The growth of study abroad in the 1990s compounds the problem. Students at my institution, for example, are flocking to a program in Nepal. Nepalese language instruction is in demand. While we applaud the inclusion of a language component in study abroad, we struggle to offer beginning Nepalese while maintaining fourth-year courses in German or Russian.
Which leads to perhaps the most profound and far-reaching change of the 1990s, the shifting expectations of faculty members in languages and literatures. Job descriptions, letters of offer, and criteria for reappointment, promotion, and tenure have changed more slowly than the realities of the profession. The days when departments sought promising new scholars in narrowly defined literary periods were numbered early in the decade; however, departments continue to operate under traditional expectations, involving, in the main, research and publication. Yet the demands of technology, study abroad, diversity in the curriculum, and outreach beyond the academy have put such pressure on young faculty members that it is often illusory to expect that they will be able to develop a traditional research agenda. Added to this is the demand for accountability, the mantra of politicians and administrators around the country. On our campuses this means, above all, accountability in the classroom. While attention to good teaching is undoubtedly a good thing, defining good teaching continues to elude us, and young faculty members scramble to develop their teaching portfolios. Department chairs are faced with establishing and monitoring a rapidly changing set of criteria for faculty advancement, sometimes in the face of intransigent senior colleagues in the department as well as college and university committees that have little or no understanding of our profession.
As if mastering current changes were not enough, chairs have the added responsibility of reshaping graduate programs to prepare students for their entry into the profession, a profession that will undoubtedly change as much in the new decade as it did in the 1990s. How much will it change? Consider what “virtual university” meant in 1990.
Peters, George F. “Institutional Responsibility and Chair Training: The Michigan State Model.” Chairing the Foreign Language and Literature Department. Ed. Ann Bugliani. Spec. issue of ADFL Bulletin 25.3 (1994): 99–103. [Show Article]
© 2001 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
ADFL Bulletin 32, no. 3 (Spring 2001): 116-117 |
|
|---|
