Leo Kahane, Academic Invention & Innovation
This is the third year that our department has been gifted with the presence of Leo Kahane. He is a fantastic teacher, a great colleague, a man whose love for his family is obvious, and, overall, a very positive presence on campus. But because he is a visiting member of the faculty, our time with Leo is rapidly coming to a close. He'll be returning to California, to Cal. State, Hayward. And that makes very little sense to me. At least it makes no sense that we should just let him leave without trying to "steal" him from Cal. State.
I sort of wish that, at least in this one area of academic culture, there was a little of the opportunism that prevails in the corporate environment (both for-profit and not-for-profit). If I'd had the opportunity to work with someone like Leo when I was director of education for the Urban League of Portland, Oregon or when I was CEO of Thunder & Visions, Inc. I would have made every effort to get Leo to stay with us on a permanent (to the extent corporate life is every permanent) basis. This does not, however, fit the academic culture. Such is rarely the case with a visiting member of the faculty, no matter how extraordinary he or she happens to be.
For the most part, academia is structured in a way that makes sense. It is an institution from which new ideas flow, the site of rethinking theories and facts, of creating the raw material for new ways of achieving social objectives or critiquing those objectives. The more independent academics are, the less they are subject to coercion from other institutions, the more likely they will be creative in this process of rethinking and inventing theories and facts (facts are invented by taking selected aspects of the raw material of reality --- often aspects that have been ignored, at least in the constructed combination --- and giving these aspects distinct shape and meaning).
However, the way we deal with visiting faculty members isn't the only way academia is slightly dysfunctional. Indeed, one aspect of academic processes clearly does not fit into the notion of creating an environment that maximizes intellectual innovativeness and invention. It is the hiring process for new academics. We hire our own colleagues and we generally do this within departments (little claustrophobic collections of already somewhat like-minded faculty members). The problem with small collections of academics, clustered within departments, hiring other academics to join them in their little clusters is that it can tend towards mediocrity. The tendency is to make hires in such a way as to validate existing departmental faculty. In other words, look for people who look like you. And try to avoid hiring people who might make you look mediocre. Back when I was on the "job market," many moons ago, I was warned not to make my presentations too good or "you won't get hired." "No one wants to hire someone who will be perceived as a better teacher than they are." Similarly with research there is a tendency to look for people who do similar research, and certainly who use similar methodology, ontology, and epistemology to oneself. If we are to make academia a more vibrant site of idea formation, then what we really need is for the opposite tendency to prevail --- to seek out individuals who are very different from oneself, in methodology, ontology, and epistemology (if not also in their enculturation --- which influences how we do theory and practice). Intellectual diversity (of the most radical variety) really would be the best approach to populating academic departments. Sometimes we get it right by accident. Occasionally by design. (In our most recent hire, our department was certainly conscious of the diversity issue and, in the end, made an excellent choice.) Often if we get it right it is because of external pressures (outside of our departments, although internal to the academic institution) or because of joint appointments. But mostly we tend to seek mediocrity. The departments that are most likely to break out of this mold are ones that are already so diverse that no single paradigmatic framework dominates thinking and hiring.
Having said all of this, sometimes you simply find an individual (even if by the accident of visiting positions) who is such a great teacher and person that you should just hire him or her. Some will say, but this might very well contradict the desire to create intellectual diversity. Oh well. Life is nothing if not full of contradictions.
I sort of wish that, at least in this one area of academic culture, there was a little of the opportunism that prevails in the corporate environment (both for-profit and not-for-profit). If I'd had the opportunity to work with someone like Leo when I was director of education for the Urban League of Portland, Oregon or when I was CEO of Thunder & Visions, Inc. I would have made every effort to get Leo to stay with us on a permanent (to the extent corporate life is every permanent) basis. This does not, however, fit the academic culture. Such is rarely the case with a visiting member of the faculty, no matter how extraordinary he or she happens to be.
For the most part, academia is structured in a way that makes sense. It is an institution from which new ideas flow, the site of rethinking theories and facts, of creating the raw material for new ways of achieving social objectives or critiquing those objectives. The more independent academics are, the less they are subject to coercion from other institutions, the more likely they will be creative in this process of rethinking and inventing theories and facts (facts are invented by taking selected aspects of the raw material of reality --- often aspects that have been ignored, at least in the constructed combination --- and giving these aspects distinct shape and meaning).
However, the way we deal with visiting faculty members isn't the only way academia is slightly dysfunctional. Indeed, one aspect of academic processes clearly does not fit into the notion of creating an environment that maximizes intellectual innovativeness and invention. It is the hiring process for new academics. We hire our own colleagues and we generally do this within departments (little claustrophobic collections of already somewhat like-minded faculty members). The problem with small collections of academics, clustered within departments, hiring other academics to join them in their little clusters is that it can tend towards mediocrity. The tendency is to make hires in such a way as to validate existing departmental faculty. In other words, look for people who look like you. And try to avoid hiring people who might make you look mediocre. Back when I was on the "job market," many moons ago, I was warned not to make my presentations too good or "you won't get hired." "No one wants to hire someone who will be perceived as a better teacher than they are." Similarly with research there is a tendency to look for people who do similar research, and certainly who use similar methodology, ontology, and epistemology to oneself. If we are to make academia a more vibrant site of idea formation, then what we really need is for the opposite tendency to prevail --- to seek out individuals who are very different from oneself, in methodology, ontology, and epistemology (if not also in their enculturation --- which influences how we do theory and practice). Intellectual diversity (of the most radical variety) really would be the best approach to populating academic departments. Sometimes we get it right by accident. Occasionally by design. (In our most recent hire, our department was certainly conscious of the diversity issue and, in the end, made an excellent choice.) Often if we get it right it is because of external pressures (outside of our departments, although internal to the academic institution) or because of joint appointments. But mostly we tend to seek mediocrity. The departments that are most likely to break out of this mold are ones that are already so diverse that no single paradigmatic framework dominates thinking and hiring.
Having said all of this, sometimes you simply find an individual (even if by the accident of visiting positions) who is such a great teacher and person that you should just hire him or her. Some will say, but this might very well contradict the desire to create intellectual diversity. Oh well. Life is nothing if not full of contradictions.
posted by Satya | 7:37 AM
<< Home