|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN THE past several years faculty members have begun to recognize that powerful forces are causing profound changes within the academy. Across the country universities, public and private, are facing significant transformations in the way they operate. Restructuring, accountability, mandated changes in curriculum, and the redefinition of university missions are only some of the external pressures that will alter the lives of faculty members and department chairs. Most of our understanding about these global changes is still anecdotal. Those of us who experienced the painful restructuring process two or three years ago are just now coming to understand the new university structure, but a few are beginning to describe it.
J. Hillis Miller calls our new university model “the transnational university” and considers it a natural consequence of the breakdown of the cold war. “The university is changing from being an educational state apparatus, in Althusser's term, or more benignly, a place of critical and innovative thinking, into being one site among many others, perhaps an increasingly less important site, for the production and transfer of globally exchanged information” (7). Under the system he describes, departments of national literatures do not fare well. Alan E. Guskin, at Antioch College, has emphasized that not just the university but also the role of faculty members is being restructured. What does that mean? He and others predict that the new university will be evaluated through the measurement of student learning—assessment and accountability come to mind here. Student-success outcomes is a buzzword among proponents of assessment goals and finding ways to measure student success is part of the task of assessment committees. But it is important to remember the effect of assessment goals. At state-supported universities, for example, money will follow the schools that show the best assessment outcomes. And under this system the criteria for the success of universities become very different from the model we now have. Now universities are measured by the success and quality of their faculty members and by their resources. This usually means that faculty members are evaluated primarily on their commitment and their contributions to the profession through research and publication. Teaching clearly comes second. But if student learning receives the emphasis, then student-learning growth, not faculty instruction, is given priority. The quality of entering students is not as important as the growth and quality of exiting students. Faculty involvement with students is deemed crucial. Under this system will the faculty-reward system need to change? I think the answer to that question is absolutely. And this debate is already under way. These are only two views of what is happening in the academy and what it means for us—language department faculty members and chairs.
So how should chairs respond to these forces? 1 I think they have to become what I term hands-on department chairs. Hands-on chairs have to be proactive in every way. They must become actively involved in collegial and university politics and must pay attention to the political situation beyond the university. They have to anticipate how external as well as internal forces will affect their departments. And they have to imagine how these changes will shape languages on their campuses in the future.
The first major task facing a chair in a changing environment is to resist the temptation of negativity toward new proposals. The naysayers will want to take over the debate. But we can't let them, because the stakes are too high. We must focus on change, not loss. In the coming years our profession will inevitably need to let go of some cherished beliefs. The trick is to understand our refocused environment as thoroughly as possible and reshape our missions within it. Entrenched and defensive attitudes will be unproductive. Make no mistake, we are experiencing radical change, but it is not all bad. We may not be able to stop the transformation of the university, but we can certainly shape our role within it. Remaining flexible and open in our thinking will allow us to refocus our departmental activities advantageously.
So where should you begin as a hands-on chair? Begin in your own department.
Engage in departmental planning. As a first step, departmental faculty members should create a strong plan for the department's future. The department needs to define its role before outsiders do. Clear and well-defined goals that fall within the mission of the college and university will help position the department.
Ensure good teaching. Utilize as many techniques as possible to increase emphasis on teaching and learning. Learn how to describe to administrators and to others the teaching mission of the department. Set up faculty demonstration workshops, for example. Reevaluate the curriculum to ensure that it is in line with the department's new mission.
Emphasize collegiality within the department. Find ways to minimize disruptive forces. Resolve any splits within the department—literature versus language teaching, for example. Find ways for faculty members to collaborate.
Think creatively. Think of imaginative ways to secure long-term success, not just short-term survival.
Next, turn outward toward the university community.
Become a part of any restructuring process. Find out everything you can about the university power flow and budgeting process. Serve on restructuring committees. Look to other schools for models of change.
Identify any allies across campus. Seek out partners from international programs, the study-abroad office, business or engineering schools, or other programs that have begun to focus on the importance of language study.
Be informed about university statistics. Use your department statistics to your best advantage. In the change process, the university will use your departmental statistics to find ways to make cuts in the name of efficiency.
And, finally, go into the public relations business. Promote your department. Make sure you demonstrate how its mission fits into the college and university mission. Improve communication with colleagues and administrators across campus, the board of trustees, and any outside advisory groups. Set up your own external advisory committee as well as a student advisory group. Gain visibility on campus. For example, publish a history of the department. Nominate qualified faculty members for awards. Create outreach programs. Start a newsletter for graduates and members of the university community.
My suggestions are not exhaustive by any means, but I hope they provide some possible starting points. It may be several years before we can effectively characterize how the university is being transformed. But we cannot wait until then to take steps if our departments are to flourish over the next years. Even before we truly understand the changes affecting higher education, we will need to respond aggressively. If we get diverted in the debate, we will lose ground. We cannot afford not to act.
The author is Associate Professor of German and Women's Studies and former Head of the Department of Languages at Clemson University. This article is based on her presentation at the 1996 MLA convention in Washington, DC.
1 Many of the following ideas came from “Institutional Change: New Structures, New Strictures?,” a discussion group at the 1996 ADFL Summer Seminar in San Diego. I am indebted to all participants for helping me clarify issues concerning this topic. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my cochair, Carolyn Richmond.
Guskin, Alan E. “Facing the Future: The Change Process in Restructuring Universities.” Change July-Aug. 1996: 27–37.
———.“Reducing the Costs and Enhancing Student Learning: The University Challenge of the 1990s.” Change July-Aug. 1994: 23–29.
Miller, J. Hillis. “Literary Study in the Transnational University.” Profession 1996. New York: MLA, 1996. 6–14.
© 1997 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
