Old Dogs Can Learn New Tricks: Taking Scholarship to the Streets
By Glen Williams
In 1994 Western States' Convention adopted the theme "Taking It
To The Streets" which emphasized the "need for communication professionals
to study social problems and to devise methods for taking the dialogue .
. .to audiences we don't usually reach" (p. 3). In the keynote address,
Ernest Boyer amplified the theme. After noting the various problems plaguing
America, he observed that higher education has the knowledge, talent, and
presence to help address these problems. Boyer envisioned the differences
we could make but noted, as he did in 1991, that we must give scholarship
a new paradigm if we are to unleash our talents and redirect our energies
where they can make a difference. Our panel revisits this theme.
The term rogue denotes, among other things, one who is "mischievous"
or of "inferior biological variation." The natural world, though,
illustrates that a bit of roqueness is desirable. Harms that can befall
us if we, as scholars, isolate ourselves from other populations. In the
insular world of academe we become pure-bred but, as with any pure-bred
stock, eventually jeopardize our hardiness. We need a little "mischief"
to broaden the gene pool from time to time and to give us some street smarts
(i.e., real world applications). Departmental walls isolate from within,
and campus boundaries isolate us from the outside. Granted, attempts are
made to traverse the walls and the periphery and perhaps even to allow the
intrusion of outsiders, but we remain hesitant and cautious, and obviously
we should. We need to preserve the best of our lineage but can improve upon
our stock by mingling with outsiders. And we are not the sole beneficiaries
of these interactions, they can benefit others as well--other scholars and
the greater community.
Clearly, an expanded view of scholarship could prove beneficial to all.
In what follows I will examine definitions of scholarship, the outcomes
of a broader conception of scholarship, as well as some qualifications to
consider about embracing and pursuing a broadened view.
The Scholar and the Scholarly Imperative
In recent years scholars have begun to examine and evaluate the view of
scholarship that governs higher education in America. Those who have addressed
the subject define "scholar" as more than a "learned person,"
one who has undertaken "advanced study," or one who is an "academic";
its meaning also includes ethical and contractual dimensions. In a collection
of published lectures about higher education, Wayne Booth (1988) observes
that "society has agreed to reward its practitioners with academic
positions" (p. 51). He surveys the history of scholarship, noting that
in some instances the supporting society is "small" and "clearly
defined"--for example "the monastery that supported . . . medieval
monks and nuns." "More often" though, he observes, support
comes from a society that is "poorly defined" and no better example
than "twentieth-century America," where there exists "a larger
proportion of paid scholars . . . than any other culture in history"
(p. 50). Whether the funding is public or private, Booth notes that scholars
must earn their keep; for the support to continue they must produce.
What we produce and how we go about it has largely been left up to us
to determine. Whereas some societies restrict the work of their scholars,
Booth (1988) observes that in America scholars face relatively few constraints
and are largely left to self-regulation; they are trusted by those who supply
the funding (see p. 50). Even in such a relaxed climate, though, there remain
some basic expectations--expectations that involve more than producing research.
Booth explains: "Whether society quite knows what it wants . . . it
pays us to be scholar-teachers" and "what it really seeks . .
. is to keep the rational habits passionately alive in the world."
He concludes: "Only if we do that job well, by the way we think, the
way we teach, and the way we write, can we claim that we have honored the
society that we are in and the society that is in us" (p. 74).
We have performed satisfactorily with research but less well with teaching.
As a result, in recent years America's trust of its academic community has
eroded and, as Mark Buechler (1996), a research writer at the Indiana Education
Policy Center observes, rightly or wrongly the public's trust "continues
to plummet" due to actual and perceived neglect of undergraduate education.
Boyer's Prognosis and Prescription
Not only has there been increasing public awareness and concern, scholars
likewise have criticized the current state of higher education. Most notably,
Boyer (1991) examined current practices in academe and found that the emphasis
upon research dominating higher education does neglect teaching, discourages
community service, and--ironically--compromises the quality of research.
After exploring the flaws in the present system Boyer suggested a corrective
that will help academics to excel with research and with teaching and to
meet their accountability to society. According to Boyer, "What we
urgently need today is a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar--a
recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis,
through practice, and through teaching" (p.24).
Boyer (1991, pp. 15-16) explains the shortcomings of the prevailing hierarchical
conception of scholarship that views "basic research" as the "first
and most essential form of scholarly activity." In this view scholars
are "academics who conduct research, publish, and then perhaps convey
their knowledge to students or apply what they have learned. The latter
functions grow out of scholarship, they are not considered to be apart of
it." Boyer challenges the view, arguing that "knowledge is not
necessarily developed in such a linear manner. The arrow of causality can,
and frequently does, point in both directions. Theory surely leads to practice.
But practice also leads to theory. And teaching, at its best, shapes both
research and practice." In this manner, Boyer insists upon "amore
comprehensive, more dynamic understanding of scholarship."
Resistance
Although Boyer offers a compelling vision, there is inherent resistance.
Scholars, after all, usually engage what Booth (1988) describes as "sustained
private inquiry" (p. 51) and, thus distanced from the greater community,
often limit discussions of the findings or ideas to others similarly engaged,
i.e., specialists in the area. Neither Boyer (1991) nor Booth deny the importance
of specialization but both express concerns about a tendency towards intellectual
isolationism. According to Booth, "Our increasing specialization seems
to have led to decreasing interest in addressing our results to non-specialists"
and, as a result, "much of what we publish now is both boring and unintelligible."
Booth contends: "No doubt many of our new problems deserve to be discussed
with specialists in specialists' language. But most of our important work
deserves also to be translated into a language that will, by its very nature,
teach the public that we are serious and that what we do can be important
to more than a priestly cult" (p. 58).
In our own field we have seen resistance to addressing non-specialists.
In the area of public address, Martin J. Medhurst notes that an overemphasis
on theory seems partially to blame. Medhurst (1989) acknowledges the usefulness
of theory but believes it is "a mistake to insist that every study
in public address search for over-arching explanations of how public communication
functions.'" He contends that one reason why scholarship in public
address has suffered is due to a focus on "general principles rather
than specific applications." He prescribes: "It is now time to
take what we know (which is substantial) and apply it to problems, situations,
texts, and artifacts that can be more fully understood, appreciated, interpreted,
analyzed, or explained through application of rhetorical methodologies"
(p. 33).
This same fixation with theory, Medhurst notes, also impedes our interactions
with scholars in other disciplines. Medhurst takes on public address scholars
who would confine scholarship in public address to "the building and
refining of rhetorical or communication theory" and who worry about
those who seem "'more interested in carrying on scholarly dialogue
with American historians'" or "'cultural analysts . . . than with
. . .colleagues in the field of speech communication.'" Medhurst counters:
"If our scholarship really makes a difference is it not only natural
that some people trained in the field will become known for their scholarship
rather than for their training?" He lists several who have, including
Robert Gunderson, asking if Professor Gunderson "hurt himself or the
field of Speech Communication by consorting with American historians or
editing the Journal of American History?" For Medhurst the answer is
"obviously not"(p. 32). By expanding our dialogue, applying what
we think we know, and acquainting students and the public with the value
or our work, we only stand to gain.
Working the Streets: The Outcomes of a Broader View
Boyer (1991; 1994) is right: We do have the resources, talent, and knowledge
to make significant contributions. And a discipline that studies human communication
can be broadly applied. Several scholars in our field have taken their findings
and expertise beyond departmental boundaries and beyond the walls of academe,
with good results. For example, in health communication Professor Richard
Street has helped the medical community to heighten awareness of breast
cancer. As a part of these efforts Street helped author an interactive CD-ROM,
"Options for Better Breast Care," that is educational, instructional,
and empathetic. The work won the 1995 New Media INVISION Silver Medal Award
for a CD-ROM education program.
On another front, Professor David Dollar at Southwest Missouri State
University has assisted law enforcement by helping to arm them with effective
communication skills. Dollar understands that basic interpersonal and intercultural
communication skills can protect officers and offenders alike. Texas ranger
Mark Helton underscores the importance this training; Helton has worn a
badge for fifteen years and credits never having to fire his gun with knowing
how to "talk" with offenders. Professor Tarla Peterson, Texas
A&M University, also illustrates the contributions we can make. Professor
Peterson has functioned as a liaison between environmentalists, ranchers,
commerce, industry, and state agencies to help them work past their disagreements.
In South Texas she and her team of scholars got these groups sitting down
together and listening to and talking with one another.
Obviously we can make a number of contributions. Scholars of organizational
communication are needed to keep America productive, on the cutting edge,
and marked by a wholesome and fair working environment. Scholars of political
communication, rhetoric and public address, and intercultural communication
can help America influence the thinking and policies of other nations and
to build productive and peaceful relations. In these ways and more, our
scholarship is vital These involvement's can prove valuable to the community
and to ourselves. Not only do we serve the greater community but we can
foster healthy relations with the public and other scholars as well as provide
good visibility for our field. We also can test what we think we know via
application or conduct other types of research. In this manner, community
service can be mutually beneficial. In addition to serving the greater community,
we must not overlook that part of our community that comes to campus, an
area to which I now turn.
Teaching and Scholarship
To do a better job with teaching requires a twofold approach. For one, we
need to appreciate teaching in the manner Boyer prescribes. For another,
we need to give parity to research in communication education. To begin,
we must acknowledge that teaching, when done with rigor, is a scholarly
endeavor. Preparation for teaching can be considered scholarly. While preparing,
the teacher likely will review relevant literature and may reflect upon
any issues and controversies in the literature and the implications of a
particular stance. The teacher also likely will generate examples to explain
concepts, contemplate how what is covered applies to the lives of students,
and devise illustrations, discussion questions, exercises, assignments,
and exam items that promote a mastery of the material. These are not idle
activities; they can bolster the teacher's own understanding of the subject
being taught and prompt new thoughts and discoveries--some of which may
suggest the basis for a scholarly paper or study.
What transpires in the classroom also can impact scholarship. Teaching
is an opportunity to engage those assembled in the classroom and, as Jo
Sprague (1992) observes, test theory and ideas. Having students grapple
with and explain and critique material makes for an exciting and stimulating
class for students and teacher alike. Comments and observations in class
or in a composition can yield new insights or provocative questions, and
the wording a student may use might suggest a fresh and valuable perspective.
Such activity mirrors Boyer's (1991) description of effective teaching as
"not only transmitting knowledge, but transforming and extending it
as well" (p.24). In this environment all can be transformed--students,
instructors, and the material being contemplated. Clearly, teaching can
stimulate and inspire. When scholars are encouraged to teach, their research
and output can benefit from the thoroughness good teaching requires. Teaching,
though, has not been recognized as integral to scholarly output. Output,
alone, has received the emphasis. To fixate on quantity, Booth and Boyer
both contend, subverts the quality of what is produced. Booth (1996) laments
the current "game" in academe that requires the "young scholar"
to "produce instantly that book or article that should in fact have
five more years of gestation" (p. 62). Boyer (1991) notes that this
gestation can be assisted via teaching, a statement that no doubt rings
true to any scholar/teacher. Teachers who research the subjects they teach
see firsthand the reciprocal nature of learning and teaching that Boyer
emphasizes and insists must be acknowledged and factored into the ruling
conception of scholarship. John Rodden (1993) echoes this perspective and
urges the academic community to value and respect, "equally,"
scholarship "in whatever form it may take, from the innovative new
course to the well-crafted lecture to the simulating journal article"(p.
134).
Scholarship and Pedagogical Publication
Teaching can be a scholarly activity. Likewise, materials produced for teaching
can be considered scholarly. As Steve Chaffee (1996), Chair of the Department
of Communication at Stanford University observes, "Research isn't limited
to journal articles, of course. It can show up in textbooks." And this
quality is especially true in terms of today's texts, the best of which
undergo extensive review. In addition to satisfying peers who review the
work, authors must compete with top scholars who are authoring even the
most basic texts, and they must incorporate the relevant literature as well
as stay on top of instructional methods and technology and the latest resources
for researching in the library or on the Internet.
Teaching or producing quality pedagogical materials requires scholarly
maturity. As Nyquist and Sprague (1992) explain, one is "socialized"
when he or she acquires the expertise to interact capably with other experts
and becomes "post socialized" when she or he is "able to
translate and communicate even the most specialized knowledge to others
outside the field and make complex concepts clear to learners new to the
discipline" (p.109). In Boyer's (1991) assessment, "writing a
textbook . . . can be a significant intellectual endeavor" (p. 35).
In short, teaching and authoring pedagogical materials, when pursued
with scholarly rigor, can yield good outcomes for students, teaching, and
the material that is being taught. In addition, quality teaching is vital
to the well-being of our discipline. As Booth notes, "Future support
will depend . . . more on what we do in the classroom than on what we publish.
What the senator remembers about his [or her] teachers . . . will affect
his [or her] vote much more strongly than and suspect scholarly title he
happens to stumble upon in a busy day" (p. 57). Given that quality
teaching is vital, we must do a good job with instruction as well as equip
any we place in the classroom to do a respectable job. Research in communication
education and instructor training and development will assist these efforts,
an area to which I now turn.
Parity for Communication Education
Perhaps you have read Kurt Wiesenfeld's diatribe against undergraduate apathy
in a June issue of Newsweek. Wiesenfeld, a physicist who teaches at Georgia
Tech, is appalled by what he describes as students' "indifference toward
grades as an indication of personal effort and performance" (p. 16).
Wiesenfeld acknowledges that our society is "saturated with surface
values" and that in this climate the "love of knowledge for its
own sake does sound eccentric." Yet he insists that it is right to
"blame students for reflecting the superficial values saturating our
society," and he warns: "These guys had better take themselves
seriously now, because our country will be forced to take them seriously
later." Students do have accountability, but they are not entirely
to blame; we must own part of the problem. How "seriously," for
example does the academic community take undergraduate education? Do we
not seem to regard it as "superficial?" We have heard the clamourings
of students, parents, the public and journalists about universities neglecting
their undergraduates and merely paying lip service to education. Granted,
many of these occurrences may be isolated, but they are widespread enough
to warrant genuine concerns that institutions of higher learning have turned
their backs on the people. People are understandably outraged when they
expect an instructor who has expertise and who can effectively communicate
the material being studied and instead find they have paid for an untrained
novice or someone who can barely speak the language. People likewise have
a right to be upset when the professor neglects the students, something
my nephew experienced this past semester in basic composition class when
the professor (a full professor) did not provide a syllabus, rarely showed
up to teach (and when present never kept them for more than half the hour),
and at the end of the semester told students to submit whatever they had
written that semester.
Whether it is an untrained novice, an unintelligible instructor, or an
uncaring professor of rank, the student and society are shortchanged. Not
only are the people robbed via tuition and via tax dollars but via the good
that springs from the learning. And what value does this neglect place on
education? What message does this neglect send students? What implications
does this present if we believe education to be the cornerstone of democracy?
Negligent professors (and incompetent professors--I would hope!) are the
exception, not the rule. More often we face complaints about novice instructors
who are ill prepared, and in these instances the department and the school
can be considered negligent. Programs that rely on inexperienced instructors
have the obligation to see that they are prepared. Proper preparation requires
initial training sessions and a program to nurture ongoing development (See
Nyquist & Sprague, 1992;Williams, 1995). The success of these programs,
in turn, depend on research that assists these endeavors. For this reason
we need to give parity to research in communication education and research
in TA training and development. In addition to research, training and development
requires time and expertise that surpasses what any faculty member can be
expected to have if she or he is supposed to take on the role in addition
to other duties. An adequate job requires release time and the development
of specific materials. My own belief is that any program that utilizes novice
instructors needs to devote one faculty line--in full or in part--to directing
the course and overseeing the training and development of instructors. The
faculty member also could produce research that provides insights into the
training and development of instructors, research that not only would bolster
performance in speech communication but throughout academe.
And parity for communication education, in general, also is important.
As Sprague (1993) notes: "How enriched both our teaching and theorizing
would be if all scholars agreed to contribute to the literature of this
area [communication education] from time to time, to read it often and to
respond to it as critically as they would to work in their own areas of
specialization" (p. 114). Such activity would refine our knowledge
of the subject plus provide insights and strategies to help all of us make
our teaching more meaningful to our students and to ourselves.
Forging Ahead
Thus far I have contemplated the thoughts of scholars who conclude that
in addition to producing quality research we must improve service to the
greater community and improve undergraduate instruction. These scholars
would have us to recognize how service and teaching can be scholarly endeavors
and can assist our research, and how we need to reward them accordingly.
Should we proceed as they recommend, a few assurances can help point the
way as well as subdue concerns.
Assurance #1: Broadening what we recognize as scholarly does not mean
compromising standards.
Research would remain a central enterprise and we would need to continue
to perform well with it in order to meet our debt to society and, depending
on our appointment, our accountability to our program. As Chaffee (1996)
explains, professors who have accepted a position in which they are expected
to research have an "obligation" to do so. Chaffee simplifies
the matter: "It is unethical to take money for something that you then
do not do." Furthermore, he notes, colleagues who do not produce research
do not deserve "a raise or promotion to tenure" and any who have
accepted tenure who then "go dormant insofar as research is concerned
. . . ought to feel ashamed." In this view, scholarly pursuits are
not undertaken for self-enhancement; promotion and tenure are a by-product
of one's research.
Assurance #2: Broadening our conceptions of what is scholarly does
not demand less from would-be scholars.
Research would remain central to one's credentials as a scholar. As Boyer
(1991) emphasized, "every scholar must . . . demonstrate the capacity
to do original research, study a serious intellectual problem, and present
to colleagues the results"--a capacity that is demonstrated in a dissertation
or "a comparable piece of creative work" (p. 27). As the scholar
continues to produce research, service and teaching would not weaken it
but, on the contrary, could strengthen it.
Assurance #3: Our identity will remain intact.
A unique perspective requires specialization, internal dialogue, and an
appreciation of theory and theory building. For this reason, a number of
works would continue to display a theoretical bent to ensure that the strength
and specific contributions of our field remain recognizable. While some
publications would probe the theoretical realm others, written in a more
accessible form, would examine the dynamics within a particular case, allowing
theory to operate quietly in the background as we established a communication
perspective about what was being studied.
Assurance #4: The scholarly landscape will remain recognizable and
respectable.
As a result of assurance #3, what we currently recognize as scholarly research
would not disappear or receive less recognition; such works simply would
not be overemphasized, as they now often appear to be, to the detriment
of other, needed research (see Sprague, 1993). We simply would give parity
to other research and activity that is undertaken with scholarly rigor,
including applying what we think we know in service to the community, as
well as conducting research in communication education and instructor training
and development, and producing research-based pedagogical materials. As
a result, the quality of these publications could only improve and more
scholars likely would find such pursuits attractive. Ironically, as it now
stands, large programs that rely on teaching assistants seem most prone
to snub the research that would assist those efforts. And it is these programs,
given the numbers and talent involved, that might be best positioned to
yield important insights and data.
To give parity to research in communication education, research in training
and development, and quality pedagogical materials is to recognize that
these tasks cannot be taken lightly. What we do in the classroom and what
we present in textbooks not only educate the masses and acquaint them with
the merits of our discipline, but they also provide the foundation for those
who will pursue graduate study. Need we remind ourselves that every level
of education is important to society and each is interlocked? Need we a
reminder that just as we depend upon high schools to prepare students for
college we must nurture the knowledge, ability, and insights required for
our students to perform well in a career or in a graduate program? Research
and graduate education both are vital to our national interests and well-being,
but so is the general education of our citizenry. Most of our students will
stop with the undergraduate degree; we need to offer a quality education
at the undergraduate level. We need to give parity to undergraduate education
and to the research that would help to improve undergraduate education,
i.e., research in communication education and instructor/TA training and
development.
Assurance #5: Engaging the popular audience does not cheapen our work
or our standing
In addition to producing scholarly works, works that apply what we think
we know, and works to enhance education, we might also showcase our work
in popular publications. There is some precedent for doing so. Radio and
television stations and newspapers often call upon our professors to size
up a campaign or a debate or to shed light on the meaning of a national
holiday that commemorates a leader, such as the Reverend Martin Luther King.
Rather than wait for the phone to ring we might, when warranted, submit
a brief article to a popular magazine or newspaper. In these instances we
might produce dual works, one for a scholarly journal and its nonacademic
counterpart for a popular outlet. For example, in my study of leadership
in the basic course (Williams, 1995), I found an article in a business magazine
assessing the value of mission statements whose author (Krohe, 1995) doubts
their efficacy because "no one can prove that mission statements have
a direct effect on the bottom line" (p. 18). Someone needs to point
out that the author's judgment, however, rests on mission statements that
are handed down from above, and his focus on external results ignores internal
functions. It could be clarified that external effects likely are difficult
to link to a mission statement, but internal effects may be more discernible
and reason enough to devise a mission statement, especially if it is established
collaboratively (see Williams, 1995; Weyer, 1994; Covey, 1990).
When we encounter such misconceptions, faulty reasoning, or invalid information,
might we have the ability and sense of audience to reply effectively? On
these occasions might we provide valuable insights? To author a piece for
a popular publication will display our involvement, expertise, and real
world applications and our desire to serve the greater community. This is
not to advocate, of course, that these publications comprise the main thrust
of one's publication nor be awarded undue prestige, but if done with scholarly
rigor and in conjunction with other scholarly activity they might count
for something.
Assurance #6: Broadening our conception of what is scholarly could
be good for the soul.
Broadening our conception of what is scholarly would require some humbleness.
We know that our talent and knowledge can be put to good use, and an enthusiasm
to serve merits praise. At the same time, though, we cannot assume that
we know it all. As Lessl (1989) noted, one's expertise is not infallible,
and as Foucalt (1980) suggested, we can learn from a variety of voices.
We have the responsibility to search out the various voices, process them
open-mindedly yet critically, and acknowledge them(when appropriate) in
our discourse. Scholars who grossly misunderstand, underestimate, or fail
to appreciate the greater community cannot benefit the greater community.
This is akin to Thomas Paine's (1776/1967) insistence that representatives
cannot afford to become insulated from their constituents (see p. 71). Academics
need to know people outside of academe. I recall a professor who did not
understand the people whom he thought needed to be enlightened. "We
are the intelligentsia," he told me, and "our mission is to enlighten
'the people.'" His idea of the common person, though, seemed severely
limited; whenever he made reference to the average citizen he would refer
to the custodian of the building. This professor needed a larger sampling;
he needed to get out some and really interact with people. In a much-cited
passage, Kenneth Burke (1941/1957) describes the drama of life as an "'unending
conversation'" (p. 94) with many participants. But the prevailing view
of scholarship seems to have restricted the participation. Might we listen
and encourage participation--not exclude? Perhaps it would be healthy to
adopt a credo akin to the Quakers' conception of everyone being equipped
with an inner light. We might, as our panelists may show, learn something
from bikers, micro-broadcasters, students with disabilities, and citizens
concerned about diversity.
Conclusion
A number of impressive scholars have contemplated what it means to be a
scholar and what obligations it entails. They criticize the current emphasis
in academe where application and teaching are deemed second rate activities,
not as acts that contribute to what we know. They would have us acknowledge
that it is not by research alone that we discover, test and refine what
we know, but we also can do so via application as we attempt to serve the
greater community and via teaching when we take teaching seriously. They
emphasize that research, teaching, and service each are important and interrelated,
and none should be emphasized to the detriment of the other.
Their collective vision merits widespread attention. With this model
of scholarship in operation, everyone wins. With the current emphasis, we
all lose. Not only does research actually suffer as well as the service
we could provide, but the limited view of scholarship also produces disparity
in our educational system. Buechler (1996) and his associates at Indiana
University's Center for Educational Policy find it terribly ironic that
we require extensive teacher training and certification for grades K through
12 but standards are incredibly lax for those who teach the "13th grade"
and beyond. Perhaps the lack of seriousness which we afford undergraduate
education is partly responsible for the indifference and apathy that Wiesenfeld
finds alarming. I share Wiesenfeld's alarm; indifference and apathy troubles
me. I want students, parents, legislators, society at large and academics
in particular to be concerned about undergraduate education and also about
service to the community. And I desire them to be angry and loud when the
transgressions are great. Perhaps it is time that we got mad, too, about
the disparity. As a friend's grandmother used to assert (wisdom, no doubt
shared by Webb's biker buddies): "It's better to be pissed off than
pissed on." If we don't take action, we're liable to get soaked, and
we'll deserve it. And more than faculty governance is as stake; as Booth
(1988) portends: "The scholar who is paid for her [or his] scholarship
must either find ways to teach its value to the world--whether the world
consists of students or senators--or be prepared for the day in which California's
Proposition 13 will be remembered as a mere hint of the drought to come"
(p. 58).
To cut to the chase: The real rogues are those who perpetuate the narrow
vision of scholarship that would keep us kenneled within the confines of
our departments and the walls of academe. They are old dogs who must learn
new tricks, be it taking to the streets or to the classroom. How we define
scholarship has weighty consequences for ourselves and our nation. It determines
our conduct as well as the vitality of our research, teaching, and service,
each of which keeps America on the upswing and the scholarly community well-bred,
fed, and thriving.
References
Booth, W.C. (1988). The vocation of a teacher: Rhetorical occasions, 1967-1988.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press
Boyer, E.L. (1994). Making Academics Relevant. Keynote address to the
sixty-fifth annual meeting of the Western States Communication Association.
San Jose, CA.
Boyer, E.L. (1991). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Buechler, M. (1996). Research writer at the Indiana Education Policy
Center at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Personal interview. 12 December
1996.
Burke, K. (1957). The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic
action. New York, NY: Random House. (Original work published 1941).
Chaffee, S. (1996). Personal communication via e-mail. 6 December 1996.
Covey, S.R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring
the character ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings:
1972-1977. Colin Gordon, et.al., (Trans.). Colin Gordon (Ed.).New York:
Pantheon, 1980, pp. 50-51.
Krohe, J. (1995). Do you really need a mission statement? Across the
Board (July/August), 16-20.
Lessl, T.M. (1989). The priestly voice. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
75,183-197.
Medhurst, M.J. (1989). Public address and significant scholarship: Four
challenges to the rhetorical renaissance. In M.C. Leff & F.J. Kauffeld,
Texts in context: Critical dialogues on significant episodes in American
political rhetoric. (pp. 29-42) Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
Nyquist, J.D., & Sprague, J. (1992). Developmental stages of TAs.
In J.D. Nyquist & D.H. Wulff (Eds.), Preparing teaching assistants for
instructional roles: Supervising TAs in communication (pp. 100-113).Annandale,
VA: Speech Communication Association.
[Paine, T.] (1967). Common sense. In M.D. Conway (Ed.), The writings
of Thomas Paine, vol. 1. (pp. 67-120) New York: AMS Press, Inc. (Original
work published 1776).
Rodden, J. (1993). Field of Dreams. Western Journal of Communication,
57, 111-138.
Sprague, J. (1992). The challenges of TA supervision: Viewpoint of a
course supervisor. In Preparing teaching assistants for instructional roles:
Supervising TAs in communication (pp. 2-15). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication
Association.
Sprague, J. (1993). Retrieving the research agenda for communication
education: Asking the pedagogical questions that are "embarrassments
to theory." Communication Education, 42, 106-120.
Western States Communication Association (1994). WSCA Convention Program
1994.
Weyer, M.V. (1994). Mission improvable. Management Today (September),
66-68.
Wiesenfeld, K. (1996). Making the grade: Many students wheedle for a
degree as if it were a freebie T shirt. Newsweek (June 17), 16.
Williams, G. (1995). TA training beyond the first week: A leadership
perspective. Basic Communication Course Annual, 7, 59-82.