Martha Kein
Dr. Zamora
English 5002
7 March 2016
Introduction to Under Construction: Working at the Intersection of
Composition Theory, Research, and Practice
The book Under Construction shows the field of Composition to be growing and changing. It highlights and discusses changes in higher education, politics, economics, technology, and student demographics. Composition studies is not yet an entirely legitimate field in the scheme of Humanities and English Departments, and has yet to embrace a unifying theory. Articles and essays address varied and current issues in the field.
Part 1 of the book is called "The Research/Theory/Practice Relationship."
What do compositionists know? is a question that underscores much of the work in this section as authors focus on the relationship between scholarship and teaching practices in the field. The concensus seems to be that the field focuses on theory instead of work, with no concrete plans for change or remediation.
Chapter 1 by Christopher Ferry: Theory, Research, Practice, Work
Ferry begins and ends his essay with Frier's theory of praxis. He discusses the interaction between reflection and action that results in the transformation of the world. He calls it the labor of helping each other become more fully human. Without action, reflection is just thoughts or verbalism. Without thought, action is just activism or misguided and/or emotional reaction. Frier beleives that both thought and action must be ever present to effect change. Ferry agrees, and wants to examine the nature of compositionists' "work" in academia through this lens.
Paying attention to the professional literature in composition would lead one to believe that compositionists are researchers, and that they research to create theory. Work, the actual teaching of composition, is removed from this creation of theory and knowledge, and is a separate endeavor, and not highly valued.
Creating scientific knowledge is important, but so is classroom knowledge. Creating theory without taking classroom practice into account is the equivalent of reflection without action. This, according to Frier's theory and Ferry's opinion, constitutes unbalanced praxis. Ferry blames much of this unbalance on academic institutions creating heirarchy, power, and privilege for their elite.
The academy bases success on scholarship, not teaching. Ferry believes that in composition, we focus too much on theory, at the expense of the teachers and students. Theory is created by scholars, while practitioner knowledge is called "lore." Those who work, teach, and do are not considered experts; they are just doers. Researchers think about, create knowledge and theory, theorize about doing. Ferry cites Harkin, who claims we have it backwards: "We should work up from lore, not down from theory."
The gap between scientific knowledge makers and teachers has a long history. As universities gained importance, the faculty put more emphasis and importance on discovering "truth" than doing actual work. So scientifically minded scholars placed low value on undergraduate teachers. Departments became ivory towers cut off from the real world. Publish or perish; make knowledge, or be useless, were the guiding principles of distinguished departments at elite universities.
Knowledge making is professional and sets scholars apart for the teaching working-class. Many academics don't do actual "work." Little is written about teaching in classrooms with students because it is considered "unprofessional." This maintains a safe distance and heirarchy for the "professional class" who are privileged in the university and gain power and prestige. Workers are considered less knowledgeable, less valuable, less important. The professor as teacher is devalued, while the scholar who does little work but theorizing is elevated in status.
Ferry suggests that lore from the working class and theory from the professional class should be joined to create praxis. He cites Frier again, pointing to the Christian roots of his theory of praxis. Frier's theory comes from theology and refers to the Christian principles of faith in action. One who believes will act on that belief. Therefore, "belief generates the praxis." He uses the examples of rebirth and Easter to describe how a compositionist should experience teaching in thought and action. The instructor must die to his or her own assumptions and be reborn anew with each semester and each new group of students. This will marry theory and practice to elevate all: scholars, teachers, and students. Instead, Ferry refers to the "service ghetto of composition teaching" and mourns the plight of adjuncts, graduate students, and literature scholars who must teach first year writing. He advocates for the classroom to be acknowledged as culture in progress. He wants to break down institutional and classroom power struggles.
Students should understand writing not as just assignments, but as part of being human, "reading the word and the world." If this occurred, students and teachers could speak for themselves in professional environments, rather than being spoken about.
Chapter 2 by Peter Vandenberg: Composing Composition Studies:
Scholarly Publication and the Practice of Discipline
Vandenberg takes up Ferry's argument and expands upon it. He starts by explaining the history of why Rhetoric and Composition was looked down upon as a field.
In the mid-1800's, American universities emulated German universities. Researchers had more clout than teachers; they were considered scholars, not workers. And scholars published for each other, not for the uneducated. When student population increased, universities had to hire an increased number of instructors to meet demand for classes. These instructors were not scholars, they were teachers. There was not a viable path to becoming a scholar once one was a teacher. Further, it could take 20 years to become a faculty member, and teachers could not support themselves on a teaching stipend alone without another job. In fact, "some professors were so notoriously poor that they had to take handouts from their mentors." Administrators took advantage of this. They increased their status and took money from patrons to research and further their studies, careers, and fame. The workers continued to make a pittance. Professors are considered productive if they publish, and unproductive if they don't. Unfortunately, teaching has nothing to do with productivity or success in academia.
The 19th century industrial management model that was working across Europe and the US in factories was applied also to academia: students are the materials, teachers are workers, superiors and administrators plan, manage, and profit from the arrangement.
One hundred years later, Composition is a growing and evolving field. It is becoming an acknowledged profession and field. However, the situation has not changed much from centuries past. Being in composition means
either publishing research
or teaching. Those who research also teach, but usually they teach much less, and only because the department requires it. This serves to inflate those who are scholars and debase those who teach in the eyes of the university. "Researchers have created a professional-client relationship with teachers of first year writing."
In composition, specifically, the field is still struggling with literature for institutional legitimacy. And so, composition has followed in the shameful footsteps of those departments in the academy that focus on research and relegate the dirty job of teaching to others.
In a political power move, academic scholars appropriated Composition as a field, although they had no right to. What knowledge did they actually hold? In truth, it is the practitioners who hold the knowledge of what theories work, why, and how. But publishing academics have to justify their existance and superiority in some way, and degrading and belittling the teacher is one way. Another way is to point out that they aren't following a standard career path, implying their path is sub-standard. Further, they can be degraded because they don't write, or even read, the scholarly research, which leaves them out of the conversation. The assumption is that the teacher is bad and the researcher will come in with theory and research and help move the floundering teacher into better practices. The assumption is that teachers who don't produce research, or at least participate by reading it, are doing more harm than good.
Non publishing teachers are economically disadvantaged. They are regarded as temps and amateurs, ranked and rated only by those thought to have less knowledge than themselves, the students. They work with no benefits, merit pay, or opportunities for promotion. Publishing authors define the discourse and the objectives in the field.
Vandenberg's conclusion: the field is heirarchical based on class and privilege. The publishing professional is the ideal of excellence, anything less is contemptible. Writing teachers are not employed to produce text, but to teach multiple sections of first year writing. Vandenberg calls for the end of the division of labor and academics building their professional success on the backs of writing teachers.
Response to Chapters 1 and 2
Both Ferry and Vandenberg hope to change the power structure in English departments and academia in general and gives provocative reasons for doing so. They challenge the status quo and call for change. However, neither offers any concrete strategies to follow for accomplishing these goals. They argue the case, but stop once they feel the audience is convinced. They effectively leave the plan of action to us.
These harsh theories may be true, but perhaps the "establishment" isn't entirely to blame. Practitioners in a field should participate in professional development and stay abreast of the conversations and innovations in their fields. If you act like a worker, you will be treated like one.
Personally, I don't feel that I am mistreated as an adjunct. When I want to participate in department affairs, workshops, and projects, I have not had a problem (except once). I feel valued and appreciated. I don't make much money, but I work only 6 hours a week in class, with another estimated 6 hours in planning and grading. And this for only 30 weeks of the year, not 50. I make my own schedule, choose which days, times and classes I'd like to teach, and have autonomy in my own classroom. When I want a semester off, I take it with no consequences. Self-direction, low time commitment, and flexibility are all crucial to my enjoyment of teaching at university.
There was one instance where I wanted to participate on a project, and the Lead wouldn't let me, saying that it wasn't fair that I should work since there was no budget to pay me. In hindsight, I now suspect he'd read Ferry and/or Vandenberg. Unfortunately, by looking at the situation through his own lens of "fairness," he excluded me from a project that I considered developmentally significant for me. I was willing to participate voluntarily, but was denied the opportunity in the interest of "fairness." Further, it is my understanding that the project struggled because it was lacking staff.
The only barrier I have had to my advancement is ObamaCare. Because of the new rules, part time employees cannot work on campus more than 3 days a week, or the school would have to offer them benefits. This limits the amount of classes an adjunct can teach. So all adjuncts got their hours/days cut. Before, I could teach Mon/Wed and Tues/Thurs. Now, that's not possible, so even more than before, part timers need to piece together a living at many different schools. Added difficulties include travel time and administrative compliance at multiple schools. If I had to pay my bills from my adjunct's salary, I would be in bad shape. (There was a story of a math adjunct at Essex who was living in his car in the campus parking deck. Whether it was true or not doesn't matter. It was plausible, and all the adjuncts I knew believed it.)
Based on chapters 1 and 2 in the book Under Contruction, there is room for improvement in both politics and personnel issues at universities. However, because there are plenty of workers willing to adjunct, and plenty of professors willing to hire them to work while they theorize and publish, I don't see a change happening soon. There is no clear path to increased salary or career advancement for the university's teachers, yet there are always enough adjuncts to fill the ranks. What is the incentive for the elite professors or the university administration to improve the situation for teachers? Without incentive, action is unlikely.
Questions
1. In light of the information in Chapters 1 and 2, would teaching at a university be right for you? Under what circumstances?
2. How do you feel a change could be instituted? Where would the impetus for change come from?
3. Are Ferry and Vandenberg looking through their privileged lens at this "problem?"
4. In what other jobs do workers have no merit pay, no benefits, and no opportunities for promotion? How do the qualifications for those jobs compare with the qualifications required for university professors?
Resources
Farris, Christine, and Chris M. Anson (Eds). Under Construction: Working at the Intersection of Composition Theory, Research, and Practice. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 1998.
Ferry, Christopher. “Theory, Research, Practice, Work”. Under Construction. Ed. CHRISTINE FARRIS and CHRIS M. ANSON. University Press of Colorado, 1998. 11–18. Web.
Vandenberg, Peter. “Composing Composition Studies: Scholarly Publication and the Practice of Discipline”. Under Construction. Ed. CHRISTINE FARRIS and CHRIS M. ANSON. University Press of Colorado, 1998. 19–29. Web.
