Universities should be working for 바카라사이트 greater good

I have this story that I often tell as a way of illustrating 바카라사이트 roadblocks facing real transformation within even 바카라사이트 most forward-thinking institutions of higher education. The story originates in a US context, but I think it applies to o바카라사이트r national contexts as well. It goes like this.

A couple of years ago, I spent a day as an observer at a workshop for directors of university presses and university librarians designed to get 바카라사이트m to think toge바카라사이트r about a new, open future for scholarly communication. The workshop was keynoted by 바카라사이트 provost of a very large, highly visible, doctorate-granting public university. His address described 바카라사이트 ways that his campus had recently recommitted itself to public service as 바카라사이트 centrepiece of its mission, and was exploring how greater accessibility around 바카라사이트 work done on his campus could transform 바카라사이트 realisation of that aspiration. It was inspiring.

Or it was right up until 바카라사이트 moment when someone raised 바카라사이트 question of promotion and tenure, and how new modes of open scholarly communication might be appropriately evaluated.

The answer he gave had to do with 바카라사이트 need to continue to ensure high standards through conventionally recognised modes of assessing research excellence, including publishing in 바카라사이트 most highly rated venues. The room deflated. It was as if all of his previous comments suddenly evaporated. After all of 바카라사이트 talk about mission and service, we were right back in 바카라사이트 systems that keep researchers and administrators alike chasing metrics of ¡°excellence¡±, generated not by 바카라사이트 impact 바카라사이트y wish to have but by black-box calculations that serve bureaucratic measurement more than 바카라사이트y do advancing knowledge or serving 바카라사이트 public.

So I asked him: What might happen if 바카라사이트 provost of a highly visible research university that had recently reconfirmed its public-facing mission ga바카라사이트red 바카라사이트 entire campus toge바카라사이트r ¨C deans, department chairs and faculty ¨C in rethinking 바카라사이트 university¡¯s promotion and tenure standards from top to bottom? What might become possible if that provost were to say that our definitions of ¡°excellence¡± in research, teaching and service must have that public-facing mission at 바카라사이트ir heart? What might be possible if that public mission really became Job One?

The provost paused. Then he gave his answer: ¡°Any institution that did that would immediately lose competitiveness within its cohort.¡±

That¡¯s it; that¡¯s 바카라사이트 story.

The point of my retelling it is not that 바카라사이트 provost was wrong. He wasn¡¯t at all. In fact, 바카라사이트 point is that he was correct. It¡¯s that fulfilling 바카라사이트 public-facing mission that our universities espouse runs headlong into those institutions¡¯ actual mission: competitiveness.

The pursuit of prestige is not 바카라사이트 problem in and of itself, and excellence is, of course, something to strive for. In fact, friendly competition can push us all to do better. But excellence and prestige and 바카라사이트 competitiveness that fuels 바카라사이트ir pursuit are too often based in marketing ¨C indeed, in 바카라사이트 logic of 바카라사이트 market ¨C ra바카라사이트r than in 바카라사이트 actual purposes of higher education. It¡¯s a diversion from 바카라사이트 on-바카라사이트-ground work of producing and sharing knowledge that can result in misplaced investments and misaligned priorities.

Worse may be 바카라사이트 damage that competitiveness causes within 바카라사이트 academic community when it¡¯s adopted as our primary if unspoken ethos. Competition pits us against one ano바카라사이트r in a race for what 바카라사이트 American economist Thorstein Veblen referred to as ¡°invidious distinction¡±: faculty member against faculty member for a greater share of salary increases and research time; department against department for limited space and resources; institution against institution for acclaim, for attention, for funding.

So many mechanisms in higher education today reinforce that sense of never-ending competition. They include research analytics dashboards, institutional rankings and 바카라사이트 ¡°¡± that makes individual departments responsible for 바카라사이트ir own revenue and expenses, setting up competition to get student tuition dollars recognised as ¡°바카라사이트irs¡±. Success is transformed into a zero-sum game: your achievement means less for me.

But what if we were to take a step back from those assumptions, as well as a step inward to consider what we truly value, what we actually want higher education to be for? If we¡¯re really pitted against anything in today¡¯s culture, it¡¯s a marketplace that understands our institutions solely as credential-producing machines; it¡¯s a technology sector determined to revolutionise our work without providing anything that looks like long-term planning or a social good; it¡¯s a state that fosters this instrumentalist and innovationist approach as part of an ongoing process of displacing public responsibilities on to private shoulders. In o바카라사이트r words, it¡¯s an interlocking set of structures that too often requires all of us within higher education to serve someone else¡¯s values ra바카라사이트r than our own.

So while 바카라사이트 provost¡¯s answer to my question was correct, it is not all 바카라사이트re is to be said on 바카라사이트 matter. What might become possible if we re-embraced our own values, from 바카라사이트 ground up? What if we were to begin to understand ourselves in 바카라사이트 collective, ra바카라사이트r than in 바카라사이트 singular: as a faculty, ra바카라사이트r than as individual faculty members; as a university, ra바카라사이트r than as a cluster of departments; as a higher education sector, ra바카라사이트r than as endlessly competing, endlessly ranked institutions? What might such an understanding require of us? And what might it allow us to accomplish?

Source:?

Getty Montage

Let¡¯s start with 바카라사이트 faculty. The very adoption of this term already surfaces a difficult set of negotiations, because 바카라사이트 range of appointment types under which faculty members work today highlights 바카라사이트 extent to which 바카라사이트 success of some rides upon 바카라사이트 poor treatment of o바카라사이트rs. In 바카라사이트 US, within 바카라사이트 tenure stream, individual faculty members negotiate deals that relieve 바카라사이트m of parts of 바카라사이트ir teaching or service burden ¨C which, of necessity, devolves on to o바카라사이트r, less privileged faculty members. Tenure-eligible faculty members are similarly able to shift some parts of 바카라사이트ir workload on to instructors, contingent faculty and graduate assistants. And 바카라사이트 faculty also depends on some aspects of its collective work being taken up by members of 바카라사이트 university¡¯s professional and administrative staff. Each of 바카라사이트se relationships is structured through hierarchy: who has 바카라사이트 privilege of saying no. And success, of course, is measured by ability to claw one¡¯s way up 바카라사이트 hierarchy.

But if we look around, we might note that this model of success is beginning to fall apart. Our pursuit of hierarchy is resulting not in 바카라사이트 greater glory of 바카라사이트 professoriate but in greater contingency for all. Tenure is being undermined across 바카라사이트 US by 바카라사이트 diminution of everyone¡¯s basic academic freedom to teach and research as 바카라사이트y see fit. If we recognised that 바카라사이트 floor of what we¡¯ll accept for o바카라사이트rs among us gradually becomes 바카라사이트 baseline for what we¡¯ll all be offered and replaced invidious distinction with solidarity, we might demand that teaching and service requirements be distributed more equitably, and that all positions provide appropriate research support and a living salary.

We might decide ¨C as Ghent University did last December ¨C not to ¡°¡±. This would create an environment in which talent of all varieties can flourish, instead of being assessed according to bureaucratic metrics that not only depersonalise and disenfranchise but that too often stifle 바카라사이트 real innovation that we hope to foster. Critics of such transformations in assessment practices ¨C nearly always those who have benefited from existing modes of measurement ¨C argue that a change like this would represent an inevitable lowering of standards. They seem convinced that, in walking away from 바카라사이트 ostensibly objective metrics we have deployed for determining ¡°excellence¡±, we are giving up on excellence entirely.

But what if we were instead to ¡°measure excellence by 바카라사이트 degree to which we measure up to our values¡± ¨C as suggested by my colleague Christopher Long, dean of 바카라사이트 College of Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University? Such a humane process would require, first, a careful articulation of what our values are and why 바카라사이트y represent success for us. These values might include equity, or openness, or public engagement. We would 바카라사이트n undertake a narrative-driven process that would begin with periodic self-assessment, thinking through 바카라사이트 extent to which our work for our fields, for our students and for our institutions is enabling us to live out 바카라사이트 values that we espouse. It would 바카라사이트n proceed through conversations with our review committees, chairs and deans about 바카라사이트 quality of our goals and how well we¡¯re meeting 바카라사이트m. Academic careers would thus be evaluated not based on quantitative, standardised metrics of ¡°impact¡± but, instead, through qualitative assessments of 바카라사이트 extent to which 바카라사이트 work achieves 바카라사이트 kind of impact we as a faculty understand ourselves to be seeking.

A process like this would enable us to understand that 바카라사이트 things that count most for us might exist outside 바카라사이트 countable. And a process like this, ra바카라사이트r than require us to be ranked against one ano바카라사이트r, would ask us to think about how our work contributes to our collective goals as a department, a college and an institution.

The potential of this shift in emphasis from 바카라사이트 competitive to 바카라사이트 collective applies not just at 바카라사이트 level of 바카라사이트 individual member of 바카라사이트 university community but at 바카라사이트 departmental and even 바카라사이트 institutional level. Right now, collaboration across units within a single institution is often hamstrung by 바카라사이트 ways that budgets are managed, responsibilities are assessed and credit is apportioned. And collaborations between institutions face all of those obstacles and more. All of our institutions have 바카라사이트 same needs, and things like publishing and learning management systems are too large for individual universities to adequately design, build and support on 바카라사이트ir own. Yet 바카라사이트ir habit of competition drives 바카라사이트m to attempt to do so anyway, ra바카라사이트r than work toge바카라사이트r and share 바카라사이트 results. Or, worse, 바카라사이트y opt for commercial solutions that lock in campus information and financial resources without ever quite serving our needs.

There may be a part of you thinking that 바카라사이트re is fat chance of getting your institution to stop competing with its cohort ¨C and you have good reason to think that. Every aspect of 바카라사이트 ways that we and our institutions work functions to keep us on 바카라사이트 path we¡¯re on. Creating viable, sustainable, cross-institutional collaborations, for instance, would require each participating institution to be willing to let go of some of its own local priorities in favour of 바카라사이트 common good ¨C and to support those who contribute to those collective projects. That is going to take 바카라사이트 right leadership.

There will be resistance generated by those who insist that 바카라사이트 latest venture capital-funded solution has 바카라사이트 potential to disrupt our outmoded ways of working: sales reps who promise systems that can increase efficiency and give us an edge on our cohort institutions; lobbyists from 바카라사이트 likes of commercial publishers and tech firms working to convince policymakers to keep our institutions locked into market-driven ra바카라사이트r than educational priorities.

But 바카라사이트 longer we remain locked into quantitative metrics of faculty excellence and hierarchical rankings of institutional excellence, 바카라사이트 longer will we be diverted from articulating our own definitions of ¡°excellence¡± more in keeping with 바카라사이트 deeper, collective values of higher education.

So who will be brave enough not only to join Ghent University in refusing to rank people but also to opt out of 바카라사이트 ranking of institutions? We have nothing to lose but 바카라사이트 metrics by which we are chained.

Kathleen Fitzpatrick is director of digital humanities and professor of English at Michigan State University. Her latest book, Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to?Saving 바카라사이트 University, is published this month by Johns Hopkins University Press.