Earlier this year The Blue Review at Boise State University published a study about the work habits of what it playfully dubbed “Homo academicus.” The published article that outlined the findings was called “The Long, Lonely Job of Homo academicus.” “Long” referred to what all academics will recognize as the schedule that never ends–grading on the weekends, writing at night, etc. The “lonely” attribution, however, was less obvious.
The study found that academics spent the majority of their time (57%) working alone. Some of this is probably a function of when and where they do their work–in other words, it’s linked to the “long.” Working nights and weekends means working outside the office, which is more likely to mean working alone. Some of it, however, I would argue, is a choice. But I’m not sure it’s always a good one.
Faculty are an unusually autonomous work force. We talk about “my research,” “my students,” and “my classes.” In many fields (like mine), single-authored work is the norm. So I’m not sure “lonely” is the right word. I think we choose and even treasure our isolation.
But at what cost? I want to propose two alternatives to working alone. The first is a modest proposal: what if we created opportunities to work in the same space on similar projects? I’m thinking here of the model some universities have employed of Dissertation Boot Camps. They create a structured schedule and space with minimal distractions. Snacks and writing consultants are often offered as well. But a key component is “peer motivation and support” (see this description of one offered at Stanford). I know that many of us have employed writing groups in and since graduate school to move our projects along. I’m wondering, however, is this model might be brought to bear on other facets of academic life. What about a syllabus-writing boot camp? Or grant proposal boot camp? I think both would benefit from “peer motivation and support.” But I also like to imagine the conversations that would take place. Conversations about what types of assignments we use. What our policy for late assignments is. How we structure the pace of work during the semester. How many books we assign and why.
My second proposal follows from the first, but is less modest, yet critical, I believe, to the future of higher education. Two books I’ve read this summer, Jose Bowen’s Teaching Naked and Robert Zemsky’s Checklist for Change, both argue persuasively that the future of higher education is dependent upon thinking differently about the curriculum and teaching. We need to break out of a “my classes” mindset and work across the university to design new curricular models and new approaches to pedagogy. In different ways and to different ends, each contends that we–whether defined as individual faculty or departments–have become too isolated and defensive. But the old models and structures for higher education need re-evaluation in light of current pressures about accountability and value. Those conversations are doomed to fail, however, unless we agree to spend less time being “lonely” and more time being collaborative.
Don’t misunderstand. There will always be a time and a place for the solitary work of the teacher and scholar. I treasure those times and have often used them to productive ends. But I also think I need to be more self-reflective about when that model is appropriate and when it isn’t. Where are the places and moments when we would benefit from thinking less about “my” and more about “our” students, curriculum, and pedagogy?
Tales Told Out of School 