Disruptive Methodologies in Academia – Take 2
In the previous installment, I discussed the potential benefits of moving from expert thinking to a design thinking model for curricular review and defining the learning outcomes we are aspiring to provide students with. At some level, the same benefits could be obtained from intentionally applying design thinking to research and creative processes in academia. Researchers and creative scholars should favor risk taking in developing innovation. In fact, I’ll argue that during the mid-20th Century that design thinking approach was formalized and institutionalized, but then lost somewhat in recent decades.
In the natural sciences at least, the entire policy and institutional infrastructure for fundamental research (NIH, NSF) was built in the few years following World War II to ensure just such risk taking, understanding that the rewards would benefit our entire society. The organization of scientific research programs was placed under the control of independent scientists with the widely adopted view that “basic research is essential in genuine advances in three essential parts of American life: defense, industry, and health” (D. Wilson. Science. 1991). By then, the notion of independence of faculty, had already been codified by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, who from 1915 until 1940 had formulated a statement of principles on academic freedom and academic tenure. The 1970 interpretive comments of these principles are still valid today and extraordinarily simple:
- “Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition”.
- “Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights”.
- “Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society”.
My comment that research (and creative activities in the humanities) may have lost some of their design thinking intentionality stems, in part, from how tenure has evolved in the past decades. Tenure is “a means to certain ends”, not an end in itself. Yet, through the adjunctification of modern academia, because of budgetary constraints of declining public funding (see recent report from State Higher Education Executive Officers Association), the tenure status has moved from a standard to recruit and retain talented scholars that would develop new knowledge and teach new generations, to a pedestal of exceptionality. Because tenure has become a “hard-to-get” end, I’ll argue that some of the risk taking from the creative process has been shaved off during the tenure-track mandatory review period. Compounding the issues of increased competition for Agency/Foundation funding, departments compete internally for resources (new tenure lines, research-related return indirect funds, etc), leading faculty to not stray away from their field as their work needs to add value (and resources) to the organizational structure around that field.
Many efforts are underway in leading universities to break disciplinary research silos and spur innovation through explicit incentives that show how institutions value cross-boundary, design thinking approaches. Texas A&M University is one such place and is rewarding faculty that build bridges and think collaboratively. I’ll argue that an additional silent revolution has happened at A&M for the past 6 years that has broken some linear thinking in the teaching arena. The university’s commitment and recognized value of its professional track faculty offered a solution to the adjunctification we have, like most universities in the nation, been subject to. The recognition of Academic Professional Track professors (instructional, of practice, clinical, executive) has, in my opinion, reinstated the teaching profession to the same level of value assigned to the research-intensive professorate However, although the value of the professorate is equal (with the same professional ladders from Assistant through Full), the workload distribution on three dimensions is not, with some teaching predominantly with service responsibilities, while others engage in research with the addition of teaching and service. On the Galveston Campus, APT professors are similarly valued in that they receive long-term contracts as they are promoted to Associate Professor (3 years) and Full Professor (5 years). Hence, we are reconnecting with the academic principles of the early 20th century in that beyond a probationary period, and independent of track, professors are offered 1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and 2) a sufficient degree of economic security. As we adapted the professorate to the budget constraints of the 21st century, we reused old, tried and true principles of best practice in support of an end use: how do we promote innovation in the classroom and the creative space? This is the essence of circular thinking.
Now, how can we use the more diverse 21st century professorate to accelerate the curricular review that needs to meet the rapidly evolving needs of society? Can we design a modern university that matches what Friedman assumes it does?