Tag Archives: Academia

Discliplinary disrespect

Posted on by
1

In the past few months, there has been a seeming up-tick in mocking other disciplines or sub-fields of our disciplines (or even Geography, as a whole), and even suggestions to cut entire programs. One of the more obnoxious and recent being, of course, the piece, The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations, in the Chronicle of Higher Ed last month that lead to the firing of a staff blog writer.

Earlier this year, Stephen Johnston, the past president of the GAC, a current professor and “head” of at the School of Earth and Ocean Science  at Victoria wrote an article for Geolog (the newsletter of the Geological Association of Canada) titled, Get Rid of Geography Departments, in which he states:

We need to get rid of Geography departments. If I had my way I would get rid of Geography as a field of study. I would get it out of our high schools, out of the universities, and out of the public eye. And I would remove funding for Geography departments as individual entities.

What ensued was a rather heated debate about the worth of Geography and it’s role, particularly within the area of climate change. Namely, that Geography may as well and roll over into the earth sciences.

Then, just recently, the House of Representatives voted to eliminate National Science Foundation funding for Political Science research on that grounds that it is “meritless.” This came on the heels of Rep. Jeff Flake trying to cut NSF funding by $1 billion. When he lost that battle, he singled out Political Science – an area study that doles out a measly $11 million a year.

On a post about the rising number of PhDs having to rely on food stamps for survival, someone rather blithely made the comment, “Well, getting a PhD in Medieval Studies is just plain irresponsible.” I’ve heard similar attacks on “16th Century French Literature” and on the humanities and social sciences more generally.

I disagree with all of this on several counts, but let’s start with the most basic – namely, that we have got to stop picking on each other. In this increasingly polarizing political and social climate (not to mention economic – but we’ll get to that in another post), academics need to use those critical thinking skills that we’re so fond of touting, and recognize that we only hurt all of us with this kind of vitriol. I have used the work of scholars of the “16th Century French Literature” to help students understand the erasure of women in histories of conflict and revolution so that they can come to understand that women have been and certainly still are important actors in politics and in war.  Without literature, many women would have disappeared completely. I have used scholarly work of Medieval History to trace the rupture in charity and philanthropy that has lead to the pervasive arguments about “deserving” and “undeserving poor,” particularly in the context of the New World and the (misguided) American pride in their generosity. We all have used the work of others in fields that seem so far afield from our own to come to understand how we are today. And as Gaytri Spivak reminded Geographers at the latest AAG’s, our disciplinary approach is particular to each of our fields. No matter how interdisciplinary we any of us become, there is an ontological and epistemological groundedness to our work that defies total understanding from those outside our field (my parents still ask me, worriedly, what a person does with a PhD in Geography).

The difficulty is actually with how we value education. A recent Op-Ed in the NYT by Frank Bruni, The Imperiled Promise of College, points to recent data that suggests that students holding degrees in philosophy, humanities, history, anthropology, zoology, and art history are the most likely to be un- or under-employed in the U.S. right now. His solution, an echo of sentiments rattling through Congress and across the media, is that students need to get so-called practical degrees like science and engineering. These are degrees that get jobs. And then they can pay back those pesky loans.

But what does it say about a country that values the ability to perform in particularly instrumental ways over the ability to think creatively, critically, or thoughtfully about the worth of the existence of all of us? I’m not saying that the sciences disallow this, i’m saying that there is so much worth in being able to do this freely and well. And if the real question (as so many people seem to imply) is the student loan issue – why isn’t education free? What is wrong with a culture that prizes the worth of an education for its own value, not for its ultimate contribution to GDP?

Living in Seattle, it’s inevitable that i have many friends in the IT / software / gaming / online / everything-to-do-with-compters field. When i describe the courses i teach, i’m often asked to send my students to them for interviews. Their biggest complaint with people with the “right” degrees? The new hires are incapable of independent and critical thought. One program manager at Microsoft said new hires with Computer Science degrees require two-years of hand-holding to get them to the point of thinking for themselves. The learning curve is huge.

Let me be clear: this is not a slight against CS or any other program of study.

What i’m saying is that we need to take a step back and a step down before we go bashing other disciplines or sub-fields. We need to reconsider what it is that we value in the world. We need to take a class outside our discipline, go to a lecture that doesn’t sound that interesting, chat with a professor who might be able to point you in the right direction about some obscure and tiny piece of your own work. But most importantly, we need to support each other. We need to acknowledge that, even when we can’t personally see the worth of a field, that it has an intrinsic worth that is far beyond ourselves.

We academics like to complain about the neoliberalization of the academy, but i am far more worried about the neoliberalization of individuals. When we instrumentalize each other, our education, and other departments, we become the instruments of destruction for each other.

l.e.a.d.e.r-ship

Posted on by
Reply

I was recently treated to a very protracted Multi-Directional Leadership talk by Dr. James Anthony of the University of Washington. His assertion was that “anyone can be a leader” – you are not necessarily born a leader, you become one. I eyed him a bit warily at this… i make a great leader of keeping dishes clean at dinner parties. I am a great leader in baking and cooking too much when i’m nervous (just ask the slightly plumper cohort of Vicky Lawson’s 2008 writing seminar). Here is what i took away:

L-isten to what is being said, what is not being said
E-ncourage: what conditions can you create to encourage success?
A-dapt: how do you handle change?
D-istribute: what can you delegate? to whom? how can you let others lead?
E-valuate: create a culture of assessment and evaluation – what’s working, what’s not?
R-ally: how do you recognize and motivate others?

We were then asked to work with partners to find our two strongest leadership qualities, a mutual quality, and a quality we could work on. Unhesitatingly, i chose listen and encourage for strong. My partner and i could not find a mutual one – for which i was rather pleased because that means we’d make a great team. And my weakest is distribute. I only tell these because as i sat there, i realized that i had unwittingly  pegged myself as the caring, warm, listening, attentive, feminine leader (see comment above about cooking and washing dishes as coping mechanisms).

It is not unknown that women who exhibit “feminine” qualities are less likely to be taken seriously as leaders and even will have a harder time being hired, as Gabriella Montell’s article in The Chronicle of Higher Ed tells.

According to a new study published in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Psychology, letters that describe candidates in “communal” or cooperative terms—e.g., “agreeable,” “helpful,” “nurturing,”—are less highly regarded by search committees (hat tip: The Juggle) than are active terms. And, of course, the cooperative terms are most often used to describe female candidates, while active terms—like “confident,” “aggressive,” and “independent”—which are more highly regarded by search committees, are typically reserved for male candidates, the researchers at Rice University and the University of Houston found in their examination of 624 recommendation letters for 194 applicants for eight university faculty jobs.

I raised my hand in the workshop. I couldn’t help myself. I know he wasn’t prepared or that anyone else in the room had even thought about the gendering of leadership. Maybe i knew i should keep my mouth shut. These leadership qualities, the ones i have, i pointed out, are a veritable death knell to my entire career. How do we have these qualities without being pegged as too “female,” without losing our job prospects?

Suffice to say, he didn’t have an answer. His response was something to do with needing to work on some strengths in some work places and others in others. Each place will require a different set of leadership skills.

Yes, correct – but graduate school and the academy require the two that i have most strongly, pretty much through the entirety of my career (if i’m going to be at all supportive of my colleagues and students), and certainly requires all the others (if i’m ever going to lead research teams, deal with the ever increasing cuts to higher ed, etc.). So what good is that advice?

What good are any leadership skills if i can’t get a job? What is frustrating about this is that we women are still hearing about all the things that we do “wrong” and yet are not being given any tools to do them “right.” Wait – no – that’s the wrong approach to take. We are begin taught to be leaders who are comfortable in our skills sets, but the leadership is not being taught / asked to recognize the worth of those qualities.

So what i was left with was a bad taste for this l.e.a.d.e.r. rubric. Apparently it was written for men – or women who want to go into more “feminized” work places where things like Listening and Encouraging are taken as worthwhile leadership qualities. It simply reinscribed a whole set of assumptions about leadership even as it purported to encompass all forms. I’m not saying that the rubric is wrong per se, so much as i question its completeness. As with any subject, nibbling things down into neat little compartments without problematizing them for their shortcomings is misleading, at best, and detrimental at worst.

Mentor Memo – When things go terribly wrong

Posted on by
Reply

I took a course put together for GO-MAP ambassadors at the University of Washington this past quarter. One of our assignments was to write a Mentor Memo to help other grad students through the trials and tribulations of graduate school. I’ll admit, i stumbled blindly into graduate school ad have been surprised, shocked and completely un-prepared for this process. My mother completed high school at 16 and my father earned his degree(s) at night while holding down a full time job and raising two children. Their lives are markedly different, and their understanding of education is incredibly flavored by their drive toward bettering not just their lives, but the lives of their family, so this process has been a fascinating journey of accident and surprise.

I began writing my dissertation proposal in the Fall of 2009. Just as i was finishing my first NSF grant proposal (to be submitted by January 15), the earthquake happened in Haiti. I froze. It took another six months to completely re-configure my dissertation proposal. I then spent the following year applying for funding – and was turned down 8 times. I am now on my 3rd iteration, and although it is nothing like my first proposal, it is something that i happy with and really excited to pursue.

When we were given the assignment, it was a no brainer for me: What to do when things go terribly wrong. There is no instruction manual. My own advisor, Katharyne Mitchell was poised to go to China to do her field research, just when Tianamen Square happened. Another colleague had to contend with civil war breaking out in her research site, just as her NSF approval came through. She had to write in a contingency plan. It happens – experiments fail, research sites become unstable, natural disasters happen. This is what i turned in:

When things go terribly wrong

Events happen. Very big events happen. Just like life, research plans don’t always pan out exactly as you expect. Your research site may become inaccessible due to a civil war breaking out, or a major natural disaster. Or your research project may simply not work, or an experiment might fail. These obstacles are an integral part of being a researcher, and while they can be very disappointing, they can also be great learning opportunities, if you let them.

Don’t panic!

It’s okay to be upset. In fact, it’s natural to be disappointed when your carefully laid plans, sometimes of several years, don’t pan out quite like you’d prepared. But don’t panic! Take a few days to recuperate from the shock, then get back to work. Oftentimes, what emerges from the wreckage is equally, if not more, exciting and viable than your original plan.

Don’t put yourself in harm’s way

It may be tempting to try to move ahead with a research project, even if the research site has become unstable or the project dangerous.  Remember, this is just the beginning of your research career! You will have plenty of opportunity to revisit your project or to come up with new ones. It is not worth putting yourself in harm’s way for your first project – no matter how married to it you are.

Get back on track

Because your research plans or degree trajectory might be tied to funding or time restrictions, it is important to regroup and get back to work quickly.

  • Talk to your advisor as soon as possible about the conundrum – he or she will have been through something similar before and can help you lay out a plan of action for moving forward
  • Immediately set about figuring out what can be salvaged – while a research site or project may no longer be viable, other forms of research might be able to help answer at least part of your original research question
  • Create a timeline for when your new project proposal will materialize – give it to your adviser so that he or she can help you stay on track

Don’t try to rush

Although you might be on a timeline that requires quick action and planning, don’t jump into the next project out of desperation. You will be working on your new project for at least another year, if not for another 10 years – so be sure you are passionate about it! Remember, the degree is not just an end goal – it and your research are a stepping stone into your future.

Lean on your friends and colleagues

As graduate students, we often work (and work through things) alone. Don’t feel like you have to do this alone! Turn to your friends and colleagues as you work through your new project proposal. They will have invaluable insights and suggestions. They will already know your interest areas and will not be as emotionally invested in your project as you are – often times giving them a much clearer sense of how to being to think about moving forward.

They will also be able to offer the kind of sympathy that can only come from those who are working toward the same kinds of goals. Being part of a graduate community is being a part of both the triumphs and the difficulties, and sharing the load will make the recovery that much easier.

 

Diversity and the academy

Posted on by
Reply

Our department had a Climate and Diversity Retreat today. A few things on what that is, first:

As neoliberal restructuring continues to erode the academy, and particularly, as the academy (in the U.S.) continues to whiten at extraordinary rates through the erasure of loan and grant programs that target traditionally underrepresented minority populations, the need to address the growing exclusionary processes of the academy is becoming more and more urgent. Our department created a group that began as a Diversity Committee. The drive came, at the outset, to “grow diversity”, but as we spoke, we realized that “diversity” has begun to lose its purchase through its overuse.

What is diversity?

There is a danger in trying to “fix” diversity issues that it becomes a project of categorical program. How many people of color / women / underrepresented minorities / non-traditional students are there in a given department / school / university? The danger in this is that there is room to stop at the numbers and not really problematize the very structural issues that are creating the need to even begin to think in categories.

As a group, we decided that the important issue was first to understand the ways in which we can, inadvertently, be exclusionary. So what can be done about this? We (well, really, Suzanne Davies Withers, very much!) set about trying to find out if there was a program or a group on campus that could help us address this as a department. It turns out that there is not a model for this kind of deep self-reflexivity within the academy. So we set about trying to figure this out, with the incredible support of multiple people and departments across campus.

What struck me, in some of our conversations about the fear of trying to address these issues as a department was: If not us, then whom? Radical geography, particularly, has liked to think of itself as a kind of vanguard – a discipline that can and does tackle the very large and often uncomfortable issues of exclusion. So how do we bring that home?

We have worked for two months to really put together a meeting to begin to open this door. Today was our first all-department meeting.

We invited grad students and faculty to come together to being the discussion, and they came. We put people into groups randomly by having people choose a candy (from the faculty or the student bowl) that we laid out according to how many people responded. We ended up with 10 groups of 3-4 people.

The meeting was opened with a talk by Vicky Lawson introducing the very nature of the meeting, comments by Judy Howard, the Divisional Dean of Social Sciences at the UW, and the very talented mediation and introduction to the exercises with Theresa M. Ronquillo.  We began with a short writing exercise: Reflect on an experience in your life where you were aware of whiteness or white privilege. How did it affect you?

After 10 minutes of writing, we were brought back to our small groups to discuss along the lines of three questions:

  • How did you feel about this question?
  • To the extent you feel comfortable, share your experiences or, at least, how it affected you.
  • What might we learn from this conversation that we can bring to our practice as critical geographers and at the department (teaching, advising, and interactions with each other)?

We were given 30 minutes to really talk in our groups and then brought it back for 15 minutes to share the “a-ha” moment of the experience.

What was fascinating was the utter intensity with which everyone tackled the writing experience, the quiet politeness with which the small group discussions took form, and the smooth transition into academic and generalizable frames we ended. It was so wonderful to get to be part of a group project that really opened the door to some tough questions that we often discuss amongst ourselves into an open forum.

I have never been prouder of being part of the UW Geography program as i was today.

That sounds silly. I realize that. But a few things come to mind. #1: It is very easy, as academics, to spend our time investigating, analyzing and dissecting what happens “out there” – it is much more difficult to turn that magnifying glass on ourselves. I was utterly unprepared (even though i was highly prepared, through my involvement with the Committee) to address the issue of Whiteness in my life. I was surprised by my own responses and reactions. The complexity of ‘race’ and ethnicity, i realized, is much more deeply rooted in the past than i expected, and is having a much larger impact on my present than i was willing to admit until the very moment of truth. #2: That most of our department showed up, and really Showed Up, astounded me! The organizers (all of us) were nervous wreaks. We had had several weeks to prepare fort the worst: no one showing up, people feeling attacked or confronted, the possibility of difficult moments arising, etc. But there we were – nearly 40 of us, quietly participating in what was admittedly (not just by us, but by all of the people we reached out to for help and guidance and support) a very difficult task. And #3: the total maturity with which it was approached. By everyone. Even in the most difficult groups. Even after all was said and done.

One thing i’ve learned in the last few weeks, as i’ve finally found my voice, as it were, within the realm of the academy and in activism, is that we all come to everything everywhere exactly as we are. We always, at all times, have to be cognizant of the fact that what is important is that we are showing up. It may not be exactly where we want everyone to be in the exact moment that we want them to be there – but less than judging people for where they are not, we have a responsibility to recognize and respect where people are. And in that, i am forever and most deeply grateful for the willingness that people have to show up.

But more than that, people showed up ready to participate. Regardless of the shortcomings, regardless of the misgivings, there we were, as a group, prepared to tackle one of the most difficult tasks of being academics. It really is a privilege to be in such a beautifully present group of people and such an earnest and committed group of academics.

Academia and the allure of beauty

Posted on by
Reply

It’s very easy to get caught up in our respective areas of darkness – the weight of neoliberal restructuring of capital flows, the constraints and functions of the nation-state, the difficulties and presuppositions of development programs, the utter devastation of economic pressures on ecological fragility, the struggle between humanism and post-humanism as we ache to find the moment of nebulous and clouded truth that begins to get at the totality, complexity and utter unknowability of all that is this world.

But i sometimes wonder where the room is for the utter gorgeousness of all that is …