FYI - an interesting little discussion.
Nicola
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Monday, 26 November 2001 5:38 PM
To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Definitions of the title "professor"
Friends,
Robert DeFillippi, Edryce Reynolds, and Gray Southon
all raise valuable points.
My post was not a normative statement of what the title
"professor" should mean. It was a descriptive statement
of what the title means, and an argument for care in
definitions.
Robert states, importantly, that service and professional
leadership are important criteria for promotion. This is
so in most places, as I believe it should be.
It is worth noting that in some European universities,
evaluation is made by an external committee. When this is
so, it is difficult to incorporate criteria such as teaching or
service, and depending on the construction of the
committee, it is even difficult to gain a full assessment of
broader professional contributions. In those cases, it
can often happen that evaluation is based primarily on
review of research.
Some British universities (and perhaps others) address the
problem by using BOTH an internal committee (as in the
United States) AND an external committee. In one evaluation
I recently saw, the charge to the committee specifically
requests an evaluation five criteria: 1) research and
publishing, 2) teaching, 3) leadership and service within
the university, 4) leadership and service within the field,
and 5) professional leadership and service.
The university states that promotion is based on outstanding
performance in 3 of the 5 criteria and good performance in
the rest.
It's clear in this case that the university must seek a
balanced and well informed committee.
Edryce: no need to say "uncle." I absolutely agree -- think
I said it twice -- that teaching is vital to our mission. I
simply pointed out that if you ask for a global definition,
others might argue a different case than we do.
Gray, I'd suggest reading my notes again. I did not
prescribe. I described.
It is possible to describe a culture that practices a
custom (blood sacrifices, "funny car" races, debates in
parliament, racing against a herd of bulls) without
arguing for the custom itself.
I did not state that "Teaching is only what you do
until you get recognized in your research."
I stated that there are different models of the professorate.
No university model designates as professor those for
whom teaching is the PRIMARY activity. All models of
professor of which I am aware require a balanced range
of characteristics and attributes, with a high level of
performance on several.
Because the university is by definition a research centered
institution, and since professors lead departments, this generally
means that research is an important criterion.
This involves many nuances. There are three kinds of research,
basic, applied, and clinical, and the kind of research for
which the professor's title may be awarded depends in great
part on the nature of the field or discipline and the specific
school or university involved.
Those who are not research active and those who cannot
conduct original research of some kind are probably
unequipped to properly evaluate research findings and
they are not qualified to supervise research students.
One of the central roles of the full professors in every
university know to me involves developing curriculum,
deciding on curriculum issues, and choosing among
curriculum alternatives.
One must be able to interpret research findings to
develop curriculum and select appropriately among
alternative choices -- as contrasted with teaching courses
within a developed curriculum. This implies that one must
be a researcher to fulfill the full range of professorial
responsibilities.
By definition a professor must be able to supervise research
students and vote on advancement to candidacy or degree
awards for graduate students.
Again, this implies that a professor must be able to conduct
research and to teach research skills.
There are colleges that are restricted to undergraduate students,
and colleges of applied studies in technical or practical
fields. In these colleges, it is possible to become a full
professor based on teaching or teaching and service alone.
These are not universities. These schools typically award
undergraduate degrees, vocational diplomas, or degrees in
professional practice but no research degrees.
It seemed to me that this thread involved the definition of
the title "professor" as it is used in universities.
Teaching and service are important. In the university,
teaching and service form a constellation with research.
Research is the factor that distinguishes universities
from other kinds of schools. Since a professor who cannot
work in the research context cannot fulfill the requirements
of the position, appointing a professor without research skills
is also a disservice to students and to the larger community.
I do not argue that "Teaching is only what you do
until you get recognized in your research."
I do assert that a university would properly question
bestowing the title professor on those whose primary emphasis
is teaching without an equal emphasis on research or service.
Best regards,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Technology and Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University