RECOMMENDATIONS

English academics need to consider, as individuals and as departments, how the teaching/research dichotomy can be broken down and replaced with a more holistic, realistic, and practical conceptualisation of what makes a first-rate scholar or academic.

Despite the "confusion concerning the concept of scholarship . . . this concept is important in current discourses about the changing nature of academic work in highlighting aspects of professionalism which are valued" (Brew, 1 999, p. 1 ). If English academics want teaching to be valued more highly (as Part 4.2 . 1 clearly shows they do) they need to address the confusion about scholarship and discard out-dated, narrow conceptions of it simply as research-based activity. A reconfigured multi-dimensional notion of scholarship, if implemented in practice, would offer a means of broaching, and hopefully bridging the divide between teaching and research, by valuing all the roles an academic undertakes. Such a notion would ensure equity that doesn't currently exist between teaching and research, and demand accountability in respect to these roles from the individual scholars themselves, from their departments, from their disciplines, and from their universities. Boyer's "scholarship" would become, in Brew's words, "the

glue holding teaching and research together" (Brew, 1 999, p. 2).

What might this new notion of scholarship look like in practice, and how might New Zealand English academics work their way towards such a reconceptualisation?

4.5.1 D iscussion

Perhaps the most significant step English academics in New Zealand could take towards valuing teaching more highly is to engage in discussion and reflection about the role of the scholar in English. As Martin and Ramsden ( 1 992) state, it is not simply a matter of aiming to improve teaching, but of changing the way English academics conceptualise their roles - including teaching, research, service and administration. As Sue Johnston (1 997) suggests,

As long as teaching and research are seen as competitors in terms of their status in universities, teacher development activities will remain in a tenuous position in the minds of faculty. The situation tends to be seen as 'either-or', that is, commitment is given either to teaching or to research and there are few incentives to find an appropriate balance between these two components of faculty work . . . . A reconceptualisation of the faculty role [is required] . . . . When not competing for time, teaching and research can be seen as complementary, with a commitment to good teaching and quality research both essential elements ofbeing a first-rate faculty member (Johnston, 1 997, pp. 33-34).

Discussion needs to occur far more regularly, not only between departments - a session at the next triennial conference of English departments could be devoted to

"Reconceptualising scholarship in English" or "Valuing the scholarship of teaching in English" - but also within departments and between individuals. All English departments should consider following Totara's example by engaging in weekly staff meetings and occasional coffee mornings. Departments and individuals might also consider establishing regular discussion groups at which critical reflection could take place. However, Brookfield (1995) prefaces a similar suggestion with the following

caveat:

While conversation can foster values of diversity, democracy, and openness, it can also marginalise and close down certain groups and perspectives . . . . Putting teachers together in a room and suggesting that they talk about what they do will not necessarily increase the amount of critical reflection in the world. Conversation is truly critical and self-aware only when participants approach it with certain inclinations and predispositions . . . . They must know that no person or ideology will be allowed to dominate, and that all voices will be heard and respected. This means creating ground rules for conversation (Brookfield, 1 995, pp. 142-143).

To this end, Brookfield makes a number of suggestions which could provide impetus for critical reflection on the scholarly role among English department colleagues. These include:

• The use of critical incidents that happen in the classroom as discussion starting points

• Circular response discussion exercises, where everyone is given set times to speak and respond, and

• Discussions where, at each session, each group member takes on a different role - for example, problem-, dilemma- or theme-poser; reflective analyst; the devil's advocate; the theme spotter; or the umpire (Brookfield, 1 995, p. 1 53).

Most importantly, HoDs need to realise that useful and inspirational discussion on teaching will only happen in an department where there exists an environment of trust and a "culture of affirmation" (L). Ramsden ( 1 998) argues that "genuine learning requires an atmosphere of trust and an absence of fear; in these circumstances academics, like their students, take risks, improve, and do remarkable things" (p. 268). It is these remarkable things that HoDs should then focus on in order to build on and develop that trust. As Angelo ( 1 999) states, we need to "start with success" (p. 1 0) before tackling the problems. He suggests that HoDs

take time to highlight what academic staff are doing well, and to share successful strategies. Encouraging academic staff to provide examples of successful teaching allows them to present their best "face," and demonstrates that each is an intelligent, capable person with ideas to contribute to the good of the whole (Angelo, 1 999, p. 5).

If the formality and structure of organised discussion groups is daunting or off-putting, or seems too time-consuming, English academics might consider establishing e-mail discussion groups, or building a network of colleagues from other departments or universities in order to simply chat about teaching. Such informal gatherings may well develop into more critical and in-depth reflection.

4.5.2 Peer review

Such networks can also provide interested, sympathetic and critically aware colleagues capable of reviewing an English academic's classroom practice. As mentioned in some depth earlier in Part 4.2.2, English academics are wary of peer review, but should, given the stack of literature on its advantages (Boyer et al., 1 994; Brookfield, 1 995 ; Ramsden,

1 992 etc ), be more open to it.

4.5.3 and foru ms/conferences

Once departments have established a culture where discussion and peer review are commonplace and valued - or perhaps even before they have done so - English academics might consider organising and participating in Teaching and Learning Forums, Seminars, or Conferences either within their departments or in conjunction with other university departments. Such conferences would offer a forum at which irn10vative teaching projects and incidents could be showcased and research on teaching could be presented. A conference like this is run annually by the Business School at Nottingham Trent University in the UK (Smith & Pybus, 1 999), and English departments in New Zealand would do well to follow such an example.

4.5.4 on

Out of such forums could emerge published research on teaching in English, of which there is a paucity in New Zealand at present, as in the UK: "So very little university research time has been given over to researching higher education teaching in the UK"

(Smith & Webster, 1 997, p. 1 03). Partly this is because university promotion practices do not readily recognise publications on teaching as significant research:

Institutional policies with respect to pedagogical scholarship also need to change. Weaver's ( 1 986) survey of approximately 1 3 5 US college and universities documents that faculty writing about teaching is definitely not encouraged at 67 percent of those institutions, as reported by deans of social science and liberal arts (Weimer, 1 997, p. 60).

Partly, also, it is because academics themselves feel they do not know enough to write on teaching, despite their being experts on their subj ect and teaching it daily:

The lack of effective, initial training in teaching means that most lecturers lack the background which could provide both a language through which to discuss any problems, and the self-confidence to think critically about their ways of teaching . . . . It is one of the paradoxes of higher education that faculty, who rely extensively on research findings within their own discipline, are reluctant to even consider the research on teaching. The lack of professional training in teaching does make them defensive towards such suggestions about improvement, and the claim that the research is unrealistic is such a reaction, at least in part (Entwistle, 1 998b, pp. 1 03, 1 07).

Rowland (1 996) provides a perfect example of this kind of attitude:

In a humanities subj ect a head of department said that such research was not something to which he felt members of his department could usefully contribute. It was something for educationalists:

No I don't think we would regard ourselves as qualified to do so. I could certainly give some ideas as to what I thought teaching was about . . . but if I were to write about teaching I would really feel that I ought to have studied teaching and know a bit more about teaching than I do (Rowland, 1 996, p.

1 6).

By publishing about teaching in English, English academics will teach themselves about teaching and bring discussion about teaching in English into a public domain where critical reflection ca..."l _{tmly occur a.11d where} a culture can develop which values the scholarship of teaching.

In such a departmental culture, the use of teaching portfolios would seem both more worthwhile and more rewarding than English academics currently believe them to be. There is now a rich body of literature on the use of teaching portfolios in higher education (see Ramsden et al., 1 995; Baker, 1 995; Courts & Mclnemey, 1 993 ; Seldin, 1 997; and Shore et al., 1 99 1 ) but I would like to zero in on Brookfield's ( 1 995)

suggestion that academics implement what he calls a "critical reflection portfolio", as described above in Section 4.3 : Teaching practices.

Critical reflection on teaching needs to happen from an individual standpoint, among peers, and with students, and support must come from the top (from HoDs, as well as university administrators and policy makers) if such critical reflection is to be worth an English academic's time and energy (Brookfield, 1995; Wright, 1 998). Entwistle (1 998b) describes why such support is necessary:

The attitudes of senior faculty, and particularly those of the Departmental Head, are very influential in developing the teaching ethos. Those attitudes will affect the reward system which operates within the department, and the way resources are distributed. Departmental staff receive clear signals about what activities "count", and the effort they put into teaching is controlled in that way by the academic managers (Entwistle, 1998b, p. 1 02).

These recommendations have been directed at individual English academics and all could be implemented inexpensively, though they would all be time-consuming, of course. Many other ideas raised during the course of this research would require even more time, more money and, most significantly, more institutional support.

4.5.6 backed initiatives

These more expensive, transformative changes could include the appointment of a special person within each English department, or at least within each College or Faculty of Humanities (and Social Sciences), who would be responsible for focussed and discipline-specific teaching and learning development - for running training programmes, facilitating discussion, organising seminars, encouraging peer- and self­ assessment, co-ordinating part-time tutors, and liaising with the TLC. Institutional change could also come in the following forms:

• More substantial and accessible grants for teaching development,

• Sabbaticals and overseas leave dedicated to the development of teaching,

• Promotion policies and practices which take more account of teaching activities and

achievements,

• The establishment of Teaching and Learning Committees at a senior level, • The appointment of a Pro-, Assistant-, or Deputy-Vice Chancellor for Teaching,

• The introduction (in universities which do not already have them) of substantial and

competitive teaching awards and medals to match existing research ones

• The dissemination of information on teaching through regular publications and the

organisation of university-wide Good Practice Days and Teaching and Learning Conferences

• The provision of accessible, effective and appropriate initial training, and the expectation of long-term, ongoing professional development in teaching.

Perhaps if more academics received more initial training, and more effective training in teaching, their understanding would result in ongoing attention to teaching and to a higher value being accorded to teaching by the entire university system. To this end, Part Five looks at the PhD in English as a potential training ground for future English academics.

PART FIVE

5.1 PURPOSE/CONCEPTIONS OF THE PhD PROGRAMME

As long as ago as the 1 870s, when the introduction of the PhD was first being considered in England, its nature and purpose were ambiguously conceived. Many conceived of it solely as a research degree; others argued that a "doctor" was originally a teacher and the modem qualification should thus involve some form of teacher training. "Many very learned men", declared A. C. Ramsay, "and many excellent Professors, are not remarkable for independent personal research in any particular branch of science . . . and they should not be deprived of the honour of the degree" (Simpson, 1 983, p. 47). Similar arguments were heard across the Atlantic. For example, Don Cameron Alien (1 968) records that a graduate student in the late 1 800s presented a paper at a Graduate Club national meeting on "Specialized Scholarship versus Preparation for Teaching as a Basis for Graduate Study". And a few years later, in 1 903, William J ames questioned the efficacy of the PhD as an academic' s entrance ticket to university teaching: "Will anyone pretend for a moment. . . that the doctor's degree is a guarantee that its professor will be successful as a teacher?" (cited in Ziolkowski, 1 990, p. 1 78). Evidently few felt prepared to tackle such a question then, and fewer still, especially in New Zealand, would do so today.

The majority of academics, particularly in English in New Zealand, understand and accept the PhD as a research degree, designed to enable candidates to prove their competence in producing an original piece of sustained and innovative research. Departmental graduate handbooks and university Calendars all tend to describe the PhD in the same kinds of terms:

In the words of the University Calendar, a PhD thesis 'demonstrates the candidate's ability to carry out independent research' and must also be 'a significant contribution to the knowledge or understanding of a field of study.' As well as intelligence and research aptitude, the degree requires considerable dedication and tenacity on the candidate's part. Though most university teachers have a PhD, the degree does not automatically lead to a university position. The primary reason for embarking on a PhD should be your own commitment to a particular research interest (Graduate English, VUW handbook, 1998, p. 30).

A brief look at many of the guides available to prospective and enrolled PhD students, reveals a clear focus on research. For example, Philips and Pugh's How to Get a PhD (1 994) identifies the PhD as "primarily a research training exercise to get you from being a mere beginner in research to the level of a full professional" (p. 50). Similarly,

Phillida Salmon's Achieving a PhD: Ten students ' experience ( 1 992) zeroes in on research as the key, and, in many cases, only purpose of the PhD programme. Very few guides offer tips on how to incorporate teaching practice into the PhD experience, or recognise that teaching may constitute a significant component of a potential academic's training, despite recent and resounding calls for its inclusion.

Admittedly, the two examples above are from British books. Attitudes vary somewhat in the United States; for example, the purpose of the PhD programme is defined thus by

the University of Southwestern Louisiana:

The department is committed to training its graduate students for success in the profession. Doctoral students are prepared for careers in university-level teaching and research . . . . In addition to lecture courses and seminars, colloquia and tutorials bring together faculty members and students to discuss literary issues, teaching strategies and theory, and such professional concerns as placement and publication (Peterson 's, 1 996, p. 787).

Peterson 's graduate programs in the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences ( 1 996) exposes a similar purpose at many other US institutions. Indeed, evidence of placement of doctorands in university jobs is often provided as proof of the success of a department's PhD programme: for example, the Catholic University of America's entry records that three doctorates were awarded in 1 994, followed in parentheses by "1 00% entered university teaching or research" (p. 686). Despite these claims that the PhD provides broad training for a future as a university teacher and researcher in the US, even there many still conceive of it first and foremost as a research degree. Ziolkowski ( 1 990) sums up the prevailing attitude:

The Ph.D., as it was imported into the United States from Germany during the heyday of positivism, was neither a teaching certificate (as James pointed out) nor a cachet of culture (as Babbit stressed). It was essentially a badge of research competence in the sciences . . . . For this reason, the worries about the degree have come principally from the humanists - not from the scientists and engineers, who have been generally quite content (p. 1 9 1).

Some of the worries that Ziolkowski and many others identify relate to the lack of teaching experience offered by PhD programmes. If, as many people have suggested (Allen, 1 968; Henkel and Kogan, 1 993 ; Simpson, 1 983), the PhD is the sine qua non for university teaching and research, it would seem logical to offer some sort of preparation for teaching, as well as for research, in the requirements leading to the degree. Indeed, Morton Winston (1 992) identifies a need to "redefine graduate education as primarily

preparation for future college teachers, and not solely as preparation for future disciplinary researchers" (p. 60). But this is not happening widely, and certainly not in New Zealand.

What is happening in PhD programmes in English? The following section looks first at the UK and then at North America. Then, the current study's findings with respect to the New Zealand PhD in English are outlined. The section ends with recommendations concerning the future of the PhD in English in New Zealand.

5.1.1 The UK PhD in

Based on a German model, the UK PhD has strongly influenced the NZ PhD. As in New Zealand, UK PhD students must write an original thesis and defend it orally before at least three examiners. Little else is formally expected in either country. A study by Becher et al. ( 1 994), based on six years of research with 80 staff and 55 graduate students in six different disciplines, sums up the attitudes towards the PhD in the UK:

Overwhelmingly, the assumptions were that the doctorate was a preparation for an academic career and centred on research . . . ; that academic careers would continue to be driven by research; and that the fundamental requirement for teaching in higher education was to be an active researcher and scholar . . . . The majority of academics, and not only those in the humanities, were more likely to see the process of achieving a doctorate in terms of the doctorand becoming a member of a disciplinary culture, one of whose distinguishing characteristics was individualism (Becher et al., 1 994, p. 55).

Two New Zealand HoDs expressed concerns in interviews about the British PhD's inflated reputation, with one stating that while their department once took "inferior