Your project is most interesting and I write to encourage and support its full expression. As a colleague who has devoted considerable time and attention to the public good mission of higher education, I think your book could be enhanced considerably by reference to the extensive body of work that addresses faculty work and the public (or more accurately, common) good. There are many scholars who have written on this aspect of the work of faculty, notably Ira Harkavy and Matthew Hartley at Penn, John Saltmarsh at UMass Boston, Bob Brongle and Julie Hatcher at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Gene Rice at AAC&U, and so on. With others, Bringle, for example, edited an excellent volume on the ‘university as citizen” that could serve as a foundation for the argument on generosity. In particular, I would draw your attention to the more recent work of Genevieve Shaker, associate professor at Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. Her edited book on Faculty Work and the Public Good: Philanthropy, Engagement, and Academic Professionalism contains a number of relevant essays by prominent scholars. I have been privileged to work with her on several other relevant projects, including two white papers commissioned by the TIAA Institute: “The Public Good, Productivity and Purpose: New Economic Models for Higher Education” and “The Public Good, Productivity, and Faculty Work: Individual Effort and Social Value.” She also edited a special volume of Higher Education Research Communication on Higher Education,Community Engagement, and the Global Public Good, which contains a number of relevant essays by scholars form the US and abroad. There is considerable overlap between your project and Shaker’s work which I think you will find adds depth and breadth to the argument you are advancing regarding generosity and the work of faculty. I hope you might find these suggestions of use. Best wishes for your book and the ideas you are stimulating.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
15 January 2020 at 4:14 pm
This chapter makes me think about scholarly conferences in the humanities—a forum where we gather as a discourse community to speak in a specialized language that you argue we can and should use with one another. But I’ve always marveled at the way humanists (particularly English professors) read aloud “papers” written in recondite prose, usually at a fast clip to stay nominally close to their time limits. My colleagues in the sciences and social sciences are astounded that we tolerate such dry, inaccessible styles of oral delivery. We would never get away with doing so in the classroom, so why do we subject each other to it? It may be that our most sophisticated arguments about literary language depend on very precise, complex language to express them. But sometimes that specialized language seems more a form of self-protection and a marker of prestige than a mode of effective communication.
In this chapter, you talk about scholars code switching to communicate their ideas to various publics in writing. What if we also reimagined the scholarly conference as a forum in which we speak not only to each other but also seek to reach broader publics who reside in the cities where we typically gather?
There are other good models for sharing scholarship, from David Earle’s now defunct 1925 Virtual Newstand, to Amanda Visconti’s now archived Infinite Ulysses (http://infiniteulysses.com/), to William Maxwell’s FBEyes digital archives http://digital.wustl.edu/fbeyes/.
When we as scholars think beyond the print formats of the scholarly monograph, article, or conference paper, we may be able to more readily imagine and realize forms of knowledge sharing that various publics will want to engage with and participate in.
See in context
24 February 2019 at 10:25 am
This is tragic. One description of the way of being of a scholar is gravitation toward questions that are (a) important, and (b) really hard, such that resolution is just maybe within our grasp. If that’s true, then both audacity and humility are essential. It seems t me that this is the way of being we should be cultivating in our students (not just graduate students).
I might add with regard to public engagement that it’s generally not the case that a public expects neat answers to hard questions. A public does expect, of an institution it’s supporting, that its concerns and aspirations are reflected in the questions we pose.
24 February 2019 at 9:54 am
“A proper valuation of public engagement in scholarly life, however, will require a systemic rethinking of the role that prestige plays in the academic reward system…”
The same can be said about the determinants of institutional prestige.
“It is, however, crucial to a renewed understanding of the relationship between the university and the public good.”
23 February 2019 at 2:25 pm
A related concern is that status – individual and institutional – can be dissociated from the benefits we bring to students and to publics. For individuals, this occurs because this benefits are almost always accomplished communally. For institutions, it occurs because competition is too often on terms that aren’t tied to our public purposes.
31 March 2018 at 5:30 pm
I love this opening, not least because it echoes an experience I had leading a number of former students (who were now college students) in a summer reading seminar. One of them found “three critiques” of the text instead of appreciating it for what it was. One of the “critiques” was that the author didn’t follow a particular thread of thought to its logical conclusion, even though such deeper investigation there would have lost the the author’s intended audience (given the academic journal in which it appeared). Basically, the author “hadn’t been academically honest” by not pursuing that logical end, even though the author’s audience wouldn’t have been interested nor was it central to his thesis. My former student attends a university where critical thinking is the supreme virtue, a form of thinking I sometimes term “weaponized critical thinking.” That is, a flaw must always be found; and any disagreement must be because of a logical error or unseen bias, not disagreement by any other means.
I do think there’s a place for critiquing a lack of exploration of what Howard Gardner describes as ‘rhetorical brinkmanship’. That is “Instead of stating the unpalatable, the authors lead readers to a point where they are likely to draw a certain conclusion on their own.” (Intelligence Reframed, p. 9) That certainly would be open to the critique of a lack of intellectual honesty. But in this essay we were discussing, the thread my student wanted investigated further would have been of little interest or use to its intended audience, which I would note was not us. So my student’s critique, while in the remotest of senses true since I suppose the author could have written more, “frankly…missed the point.” Merciless takedowns is an equally apt description.
Regardless, I think the personal narrative to open is powerful, particularly as taken from a teaching experience with graduate students. I came back to comment on this opening after reading all the way through because this vignette helpfully shaped my consideration of your argument.
31 March 2018 at 4:37 pm
Love the Audrey Watters shoutout. Her indefatigable work is invaluable.
29 March 2018 at 3:32 pm
[Where I am asking for generosity then—for giving it away—it is from those who are fully credited and compensated, those who can therefore afford to be generous:]
So I’ll bring up Govier again here, as she is a great example of this generosity. The forthcoming second edition of Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation will be available online for free via Windsor Studies in Argumentation. She had to go through some serious hoops to reclaim the copyright from the original publisher. My copy cost of the original edition cost over $100. It was worth it for my research, but my goodness that took a chunk out of my research budget. And that’s one of the most cited books in argumentation theory and informal logic. Her willingness to offer that work up, not just as a cheaper version but for free, is incredible.
I should also note that the journal Informal Logic also provides its resources for free. As an independent researcher, that journal’s openness has been invaluable. Of even greater benefit, I’ve been able to introduce some of its articles to high school students encountering academic writing for the first time, something they relish. Oh, and that journal is also an offshoot of University of Windsor.
Those aside, I truly love this sentiment here and in the rest of this paragraph.
29 March 2018 at 2:05 pm
Thank you for this! It is an enormous help. I’ll very much look forward to reading her work.
29 March 2018 at 12:54 pm
Certainly! I realize you don’t have endless time for research, so here are my suggestions:
Reasonable Responses: The Thought of Trudy Govier
–This one as introduction to her overall thought. It’s a lighter read.
The Philosophy of Argument by Trudy Govier
–from its intro by philosopher J. Anthony Blair, “More than any philosopher I know she is open to the merits of criticisms of her favored views, and she sympathetically gleans illumination from ‘opposing’ positions that others would have overlooked in the rush to refutation. The Socratic honesty, humility, and tenacity of these essays makes reading them a particular pleasure and inspiration.”
I think you’ll struggle to find a spirit more kindred than hers in the project you’re undertaking! Not to say she’s a perfect representative of generous thinking, but she’s certainly an excellent example of the human attempt towards such thinking, particularly as a top scholar in her field.
28 March 2018 at 7:10 am
Oh absolutely! This is not a local issue, at all. I’m going to be thinking a good bit in revision about how to balance the specificity of my own community of practice with the larger groups (researchers; intellectuals; humans) of which it is clearly part.
Website content © Generous Thinking 2020. All rights reserved.
Enter the destination URL
Or link to existing content