Mosaic of Scholarship, Professional Experience Needed

Newspaper Research Journal, Fall 2004 by Izard, Ralph, Morgan, Arlene

Journalists and academics must work together, but for this to occur, it is important that promotion and tenure evaluation be based on criteria that go beyond emphasis on peer-reviewed scholarly work.

Pardon the cliche, but mass communication educators and professionals are in the same boat, and a hole in either end poses problems for all.

That's why many stress-although others ignore-the need to work together, for example, on important sponsorship of training programs, special opportunities for students and young professionals, visits to media offices and classrooms, cooperative research projects on issues of practical importance, jointly written articles and projects that lend double-barrelled expertise-both academic and professional-to the common good.

The goal is to harness the strengths of both sides of the equation. Academics have time to study, analyze and experiment with new approaches. Professionals have the day-to-day practical and professional experience that guides analysis of their own industry. How can we do without both of these?

But, however valuable and important such cooperation is, the process is hindered by a deep-rooted problem in that on some campuses faculty receive no rewards when they direct their teaching, research and service to professional ends. Evaluation that is based on a restrictive diet of publication in peerreviewed journals creates an atmosphere that is inhospitable to efforts of those who want to join forces with their professional colleagues.

Professionals must not assume that this is an academic problem that doesn't affect them. It hinders meaningful cooperation on common issues and, in fact, nourishes the very ivory-tower atmosphere of which many are critical. It can force an other-directedness that influences what goes on in the classroom and, ultimately, the kind of graduates who seek employment in the industry.

Scholarly and professional excellence must be the accepted goals. It seems common sense that, in the words of Bob Mong, president and editor of The Dallas Morning News:

The goal (in a professional school) is to blend scholars and professionals-to create a mosaic, with each piece contributing a coherent part of the whole.

One case of "Constructive Dialogue"

Mong speaks from experience as a leader in a recent case at the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University. As chair of the school's Board of Visitors, he was among those who worked with the school and university administrators to forge an evaluative atmosphere that accommodates both scholarly and professional excellence by faculty members.

The situation occurred when the board, a national body of 25 successful professionals and educators in a variety of disciplines, took note that the university's Graduate Council, without warning, demoted or removed five mass communication faculty members from graduate faculty status. One of these was the occupant of an endowed chair who, as founder of the Washington Post Writers Group, supervised eight projects that won Pulitzer Prizes.

The board criticized the fact that the action was taken without acknowledgment of such professional credentials, and it challenged what it perceived to be an unwise and unproductive system that focused almost exclusively on the number of peer-reviewed journal articles submitted by faculty members.

With the school's guidance, a board subcommittee prepared a "white paper" stressing that faculty evaluation must be based on both academic and professional criteria. Board members met with top university administrators, accepted some suggestions and then prepared a summary memorandum of understanding that was signed by Chancellor Mark Emtnert and then-Provost Dan Fogel, now president of the University of Vermont.

This document now is distributed to those outside the Manship School who participate in the evaluation process. The intent is to inform evaluators who are not familiar with expectations placed on professional program faculty and to propose that their evaluations be based on those requirements rather than those of the evaluators' own disciplines. The first test of this document-a promotion and tenure decision of a faculty member who offered strong professional service as well as important, but not numerous, research articles-was successful.

In forging this agreement, the board made two important statements: first, that an outside professional advisory body may contribute to the success of a journalism/mass communication program; second, that faculty work must achieve scholarly excellence and, at the same time, contribute to problemsolving for the media and media-related industries.

Mong said:

We jumped into the middle of this case because it seemed an honest misunderstanding between academic values versus practical journalistic training. The board of visitors knows that its expertise-which is extensive-can influence policy at the school. This interactive and constructive relationship goes both ways. The school asks a lot of us, and we, in turn, have very high expectations for the school. From my experience, that is an exceptionally rare and positive quality for a board of visitors to enjoy.