editorially speaking -
-
-
Chemistry and Education: The Role of the Department Academic institutions of higher education are a mosaic of departmental interests by administrative necessity. Except in special circumstances where an overt institutionalwide effort is made, most students'educational experience might be described as a "sum of the parts" with little else added. Little is usually done to help students integrate the knowledge they acquire from different sources. Special programs and curricula a t some institutions, which have been consciously designed to provide a degree of educational whesion, are the exception rather than the rule. In this ambiance, the department is the natural focus of the academic process as it is expressed in a specific discipline. Thus, chemistry departments deal with teaching chemistry; student "needs" in mathematics, physics, communication skills, e t ~are . satisfied by prerequisite courses drawn from other departments. The department is the key organizational unit, primarily because it defines faculty expectations in its hiring practices. These expectations are in turn reinforced through a reward system established by the administration in concert with the faculty. Thus, the roles of teaching and research in the department are defined by the departmental faculty, and, it follows that the attendant rewards flow from the department's perception of a faculty member's performance in those roles, among others. The role for research in a department's "life" can be perceived at either of two extremes: a process that develops people (students)or one that moves the discipline forward. It is, of course, possible to do both, but frequently there are neither sufficient faculty who approach research with a balanced view nor adequate resources available to achieve both goals for the number of students involved. Most departments seek their own expression of the nature of research unfettered by administration concerns, if any exist. Circumstances oReu make it possible (some would say desirable) for a department faculty to focus its research effort strongly on moving the discipline forward; all too often the development of students, if it is wnsidered a t all, is an accidental result. That departments are the natural focus of disciplines may be important for the advancement of the discipline, but it does not necessarily facilitate the education of the general student, i.e., the nonmajor, or, indeed the major. And, in a democracy, the "average citizen" comes from the pool of general students, not from the pool of students educated as scientists. It is true that some chemistry majors will become leaders, but the majority of our leaders will comes from other (nonscience) disciplines and, in a demoeracy, numbers count when issues are subjected to the political process and come before the voting public. From a broad perspective, there are too few good generalists in the world today, and those that do exist would not necessarily find a happy home in a modem college or university department. Indeed, the subject-oriented rigor currently demanded for advancement within a department quite possibly may not be attained by anyone who is concerned with the education of the general student, as opposed to the education of a discipline-oriented student. If indeed individual teachers who both have the necessary breadth to help nonscience majors understand the nature of science and exhibit a genuine interest in teaching these students cannot find a home within a department, then departments have a responsibility to work together to dis-
cover ways to address this crucial problem. There is no choice. This must be done for the future good of our society. Departments (which represent disciplines)will have to eneaee " " in activities that seem to be contrarv to the basic tenants that underlie the administrative structures of most institutions of higher education. Eneaeement in such activities by indivi&als or departmen& k l l be perceived by some as vielding to the ever-erowine number of critics who charge that institutions of higher education are, in effect, privileged havens of waste. Even advocates of the current iystekwho may also be sympathetic with shifting the balance between teaching and research may be wary of change of any kind in a ciimate permeated bybudget crises of all sorts; these people may hope, or indeed believe, that lanses in "facultv iitiienshi~" are the exceotion and not the r d e . Perhaps s;ch advocates do not wan: to fmd out that lapses in departmental academic citizenship have bewme the norm. Ample evidence is available to refute the protectionist position. Most institutions of higher education have come to subscribe to the value system that rewards research, which by necessity is an entrepreneurial activity that deemphasizes the teachine-learning function. Institutional and drpartmentul statureisenhanced by aattract~ngdlstlnmlihcd names. where "d~stineuishedrvoicallv " irnollcs . a Kigh degree of scholarly stanzing. A tmWiealarrangement desiened to attract (or keep) a distineuished scholar commoniy involves "protecting;' that indihdual from the standard day-to-day teaching responsibilities. Formal responsibilities for teaching organized classes (often a t the undergraduate level) are shifted to less distinguished faculty and in some situations to individual research students. Since research can be construed as a form of teaching, extra research equipment is frequently made available for "distinguished faculty" using funds earmarked for teachine eauioment. All such arranwments produce a net drain on [he resources ostensibb made available bv the institution for more traditional teaching purposes. &though these kinds of arrangements are made a t a departmental level, they are clearly made with the consent of the faculty and with the approval of the administration. Over the years, such arrangements have caused the value system to shift steadily away from teaching and toward research a t a wide spectrum of postsecondary educational institutions, some bf which have no hope of producing significant research results. ~ r i t i c s o fhigher education have apparently begun to ~erceivethat resources that colleees obtained through fee flnd tuition increases during theU1980's were not zways invested in wavs that enhanced the aualitv of the academic enterprise as experienced by the st"dents. The resources that are now really necessary may well have to come from within-by back adminis&ative activities and perceived departmental "excesses". This process may actually force fac;lty and administrators to address the idsues that have caused the deterioration of core academic values associated with teaching. That's the good news. The bad news is that a lot people-students, young faculty who were hired with the expectation of starting a research career, and the relatively small fraction of older faculty who have devoted their academic lives to teaching-may be hurt. JJL ~
-
Volume 69
Number 10 October 1992
777
