Academic Minimalism

My tenure as Chair is coming to a close. I still have more than 10 months before I can regain my regular faculty status but I can definitely see the light at the end of the tunnel. I’ve learned a lot of things as Chair, many of them are things I never wanted to learn and now can’t “unlearn.” I suppose it will make me a better faculty member as a whole but it has definitely dampened my view of academia.

One of the major struggles I have had as a Chair is applying principles of minimalism. There are tremendous pressures in academia to not only always do more of what you already do but to also take on new initiatives. The way these pressures play themselves out in the faculty role is frequently written about on academic blogs. Faculty never feel they have enough time for any leg on the tripod stool of the academy (teaching, research, and service) no less time for themselves outside of academia. Both internal and external expectations of giving time to students, completing scholarly products and providing meaningful service to the department, school, institution, and to your field continually increase over the course of your career.

We hear less about expectations of expansion from administrators, particularly Department Chairs (or Department Heads – as they are sometimes called). This lack is attributable to a number of factors. A major factor is the complete and total lack of time Chairs have for any type of reflective thinking and writing. It is amazing how quickly and how completely your energy is taken up handling other people’s problems. Of course, that is the nature of the job you are taking on but it is still surprising when it so completely wipes out everything else. Another factor for many academics in administration is that your story is no longer your own to tell. You are privy to insider information and using that information as evidence or examples on public blogs is just not okay.

Like most things in middle management, expectations of expansion come from above and below. Soon after becoming Chair, you understand the rules of the game in a much more upfront and personal way. Higher-ups in the food chain have to care about numbers. Like everything else in a capitalistic society, there is a need for continual growth. This means serving more students (enrollment, enrollment, enrollment) with fewer resources. The quest (and obtainment) of more students means more services for students, which require more resources. The harder times are and the leaner budgets need to be, the more likely the faculty role will be suggested to pick up the slack on new initiatives. Chairs spend a great deal of their time trying to protect their faculty from these “add-ons” and, when unsuccessful, trying to distribute the additional work in an egalitarian fashion.

Rewards follow growth but those rewards never actually equal the growth obtained (and often come years late). Many years ago (way before I was Chair), my department made a decision to “right-size” our workload. Our majors were growing at a rate we could not sustain without additional resources and resources were nowhere to be found.  We ended one program, significantly revised another, and developed secondary application criteria that allowed us to control the number of students entering our major. I was in charge of the committee that developed the plan and facilitated faculty discussion on whether we should implement it. I believed it was the right thing to do and so did the majority of the faculty. I still believe it was the right thing to do but, as Chair, I have seen how it has affected our position in the institution.

There is always an expectation of more. No one is impressed with a department that just meets its metrics, even if it does it really well. “More” can be more students in your programs, more student credit hour production (more students in your classes), more degree programs, more certificate or add-on programs or minors or it can be some combination of the above. “More” can be more programs that achieve high rankings within your discipline. “More” can be the number of research dollars your faculty brings in. “More” can be press releases about the good work your faculty/students/programs do in the community. “More” can be awards and accommodations your programs/students/faculty receive. “More” is usually all of that and so much more.

Expectations of expansion also come up to Chairs from their faculty. While I know “dead wood” faculty exist, in my experience they are a very small minority. The majority of faculty really do want to have the best programs. They really do want to do the best by their students. They really want to grow their own research agendas and help other faculty grow (hopefully collaboratory) research agendas. What this means is that when you assign faculty to committee work that requires them to assess a program and make recommendations for its improvement, most of the time you are going to get really great ideas that require a big effort to implement. Our training is really useful for identifying problems and suggesting creative solutions. We are good at it. Unfortunately, most of us are not as good at actually seeing these ideas through to a successful fruition. And if we are good at it, we are continually asked to do it. Eventually, we get tired and, if we have enough privilege, out-right refuse or “opt-out” in meetings.

Faculty push expectations of expansion up to the level of the Chair even when you don’t assign them to committee work. Brilliant faculty come up with brilliant ideas on their own. Some of these ideas pertain to their own research agenda and they see ways of connecting their research activities to the department’s infrastructure through special initiatives and/or through revising or developing new programs or courses. Some of these ideas are developed because they recognize a problem and want to help fix it. Some of these ideas develop when they recognize an opportunity and are itching to take it.  While these faculty members are often willing to do the work they think it will take to make this idea a reality, in reality, they can’t do all of the work. The amount of work is often more than they anticipate because they have not been exposed to the multiple bureaucratic levels it takes to get even one thing accomplished in academia. The work also tends to require expertise from different types of university employees (including administrative staff) that are already overburdened. Often faculty members are willing to help get an idea started but underestimate the amount of work that will need to occur in an ongoing fashion. Once an initiative is up and running both full-time faculty and full-time administrators hold the belief that it will run itself. Chairs know that it will not.

I hope I can use the knowledge I’ve obtained as Chair for the good of my department when I’m back in my regular faculty role. I hope I can share my experiences with the faculty and the new Chair (whomever that may be) in a way that helps us make informed decisions on which efforts we are willing to take on as a department. I hope I can remember to remain quiet if my input is not helpful.

I’m also hoping I can take what I’ve learned and apply it to my own work as a faculty member. My time as Chair has forced me to limit my research time to one project. While it has been frustratingly slow work, I know this project better than any of my others. The products are already much richer than my usual fare. I hope I can continue in this vein.