A query...

Tue Oct 24 17:21:45 UTC 2006

Good points, Herb. Tho I still think there's a lot of unnecessary 
carping about the Evil System and how it screws up enterprising/creative 
young folks. When you're looking for boogy men (or conspiracies), you 
will surely find them. And in a highly competitive market, paranoia is 
not exactly unnatural. On the particular point, one way of handling 
pedagogical/research tools is to list them in the "service-to the-field" 
category, and then to weight that category higher.

On what seems to be the/a larger issue, I'm not sure Alex referred to 
the article I just read in the *New Yorker* (Oct. 23rd  issue, p. 82-86) 
on the social dynamics of research universities (& their history; a book 
review by Anthony Grafton). There are some uncomfortable questions 
raised there too. But why is it that, as I read  through such "exposE" 
articles, they always sound to me like sour grapes? From, primarily, the 
humanities? We all know the many unpleasant aspects of academe. But have 
you tried the business world, or "public service", recently? And the 
bitching seems to always ignore the fact that many of us are really, 
honestly, entranced with discovering more and more about our--admittedly 
somewhat parochial--corner of the universe. For every three power-hungry 
academic infighters I know, I know maybe one honest scholar/scientist 
who is impatient for discovery, for understanding, for enlarging our 
joint sphere of coherence. And I know how much I owe those guys for my 
own intellectual growth (such as is is...). So, is 25% such a bad ratio? 
On what baseline?

Best,  TG

================

Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:

>Like many of us, I've served on and chaired Promotion and Tenure
>Committees at several levels in my university.  The tenure implications
>of this discussion strikes me as analogous, at least in their effects,
>to the technology debates of the late 80s and early 90s, when many
>faculty members were, for the first time, creating computer-based tools
>for various of their classes and research projects.  A similar case was
>made then for the necessity of this work, its relationship to
>scholarship, and the need to reward it in the P&T process.  I worked
>with colleagues at a number of universities at the time to explore ways
>of doing this, and I finally had to report that unless a major activity
>could be made to look like peer-reviewed scholarship it would not only
>not help a junior faculty member towards tenure but would actually do
>harm.  I saw a number of promising junior faculty members fail to win
>tenure because they chose to devote time to developing pedagogical and
>research applications.  In a few, later, cases, they did this against
>the advice of their mentors and senior colleagues and so are to that
>extent responsible for the consequences themselves.  We can't ask junior
>colleagues like Claire to risk their tenure by breaking new ground in
>areas that their colleagues in other fields don't understand as
>recognized scholarship.  Those of us who are terminally promoted can
>take those risks and break that ground for our younger colleagues, and
>it's a responsibility that we have.
>
>Herb Stahlke
>Ball State University
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu
>[mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Andrew
>Koontz-Garboden
>Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 12:10 PM
>To: Daniel L. Everett
>Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A query...
>
>I wonder, Dan, what you have to say about the tenure point made by
>Claire.  Assuming the goal is to achieve the best possible
>documentation of a language, then we'd definitely like people who have
>invested tons of time and energy in them to get promoted.  If the
>kinds of activities you outline actually undermine this goal, then it
>seems to me that one can't actually argue in favor of them providing
>the best documentation of a language, since these activities would
>ultimately lead to the academic demise of young scholars.
>
>Of course, one can say that what needs to be done is to get tenure
>committees to consider these kinds of activities.  In the short term,
>though, this doesn't seem like much of a solution---if Claire does
>what you suggest, odds are really good she won't get tenure, no?  And
>that would be a very bad thing for the documentation of Bardi...
>
>Or, perhaps the solution is for young scholars simply not to work on
>endangered languages or to do fieldwork at all?  I don't like that
>"solution" either...
>
>Andrew
>
>--
>Andrew Koontz-Garboden
>Department of Linguistics
>Margaret Jacks Hall, Bldg. 460
>Stanford University
>Stanford, CA 94305-2150
>
>andrewkg at csli.stanford.edu
>http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~andrewkg/
>
>
>On 10/24/06, Daniel L. Everett <dlevere at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>  
>
>>By the way, these points are all part of my field work manual in
>>progress for CUP.
>>
>>If anyone would like to see a .pdf file of the ms let me know.
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>>On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Daniel L. Everett wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Claire's objections are not unreasonable. Everyone of us who does
>>>fieldwork knows that it horrendously complicates our jobs to do
>>>this kind of archiving and data processing.
>>>
>>>But I still believe that what I have (vaguely) suggested should be
>>>a goal, a very important one. People in the sciences cannot fail to
>>>document data precisely in a way that any third-party could check
>>>it simply because it is too hard and time-consuming. These are
>>>certainly factors to consider in preparing for field research or
>>>deciding whether one is cut out for that. But they are not
>>>decisive. And, sure, this makes linguistics much more expensive.
>>>But one reason that linguistics grants are lower is because we have
>>>given less service in the past by not doing these things.
>>>Linguistics research, especially grammars, should involve teams,
>>>not individuals only, and need to have higher budgets. I would
>>>rather see fewer languages studied and grants more competitive if
>>>it comes to that.
>>>
>>>It is not part of linguistics culture to do this. I am saying that
>>>perhaps it should be. It won't be of course unless field
>>>researchers begin to reconceive their task. Why do we write
>>>grammars? If there isn't documentation that future generations can
>>>use, then we have provided a much-inferior service. Money,
>>>personnel, and level of difficulty cannot be excuses for poorer
>>>science.
>>>
>>>I have always used them as excuses, however! So I am not claiming
>>>to have any moral high ground in this. I have been doing field
>>>research for 30 years, every year (and every year I wonder why I am
>>>still putting up with bugs, mud, humidity, and accusations that I
>>>am with the CIA). This 'quality control' movement in language
>>>documentation is relatively recent. Many of us haven't been trained
>>>for it. But in my last grants I was able to get enough money to
>>>hire postdocs and PhD students who can do all the stuff in this
>>>regard that I haven't learned to do well. I think that we need to
>>>take up the challenge.
>>>
>>>I have always found that the money is there if the case is made
>>>      
>>>
>well.
>  
>
>>>Dan
>>>
>>>On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Claire Bowern wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>Solutions to this kind of thing include peer-review (I believe
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>that
>  
>
>>>>>it fails a lot, but it is still vital), making data available, and
>>>>>replication of results. In today's fieldwork, for example, I would
>>>>>like to see every fieldworker (with appropriate permissions from
>>>>>native speakers, governments, etc.) make their data available
>>>>>on-line, field notes, sound files, etc. To do this, future grants
>>>>>would need to have funds for digitization of data and storage of
>>>>>data, following guidelines that are now becoming standard in the
>>>>>field.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Dear all,
>>>>Three points on why I don't think this is a blanket good idea:
>>>>
>>>>. Some grant organisations don't allow data processing as a grant
>>>>expense. ELDP grants, for example, do not allow funds to be
>>>>disbursed for things like paying someone to get files ready for
>>>>digital archiving or metadata documentation, so I have to do it.
>>>>That obviously puts a limit on what can be done. And of course,
>>>>web-storage and archiving aren't the same thing, and both need
>>>>        
>>>>
>doing.
>  
>
>>>>. Applying for such funds would put the grant totals through the
>>>>roof. Not only are linguistics grants usually smaller than physics
>>>>grants, etc, the pool of available money is much smaller. If more
>>>>people apply for bigger grants which include a large digitization
>>>>component (on top of other expenses) we're soon going to have to
>>>>choose between recording the last speakers of undescribed language
>>>>Xish and putting materials of Yish on the web.
>>>>
>>>>. Such work is incredibly time-consuming, even when the materials
>>>>are recorded digitally in the first place. To put it bluntly - I
>>>>can't spend time creating a Bardi online digital archive, even
>>>>assuming I got speakers' permission (which I don't think they'd
>>>>give), because a) it would take time away from doing things that
>>>>the Bardi community can access; b) it would hurt my tenure
>>>>chances, because it would take time away from doing work that
>>>>counts in tenure cases (and I already spend as much time as I
>>>>think is wise on point (a)); c) I have a heap of things that I
>>>>want to write about on the language, and I'd rather do that than
>>>>let someone else do it because I've spent my time making data
>>>>available. After all, that sort of work is the main reason I'm an
>>>>academic linguist.
>>>>
>>>>Even the "permissions" aspect Dan mentions is not a minor issue.
>>>>How do you get informed consent for putting language materials on
>>>>the web from people who've never used a computer?
>>>>
>>>>I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, just wanting to urge some
>>>>caution.
>>>>
>>>>Claire
>>>>
>>>>-----------------
>>>>Dr Claire Bowern
>>>>Department of Linguistics
>>>>Rice University
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>**********************
>>>Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics & Anthropology and
>>>      
>>>
>Chair,
>  
>
>>>Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures
>>>Campus Box 4300
>>>Illinois State University
>>>Normal, Illinois 61790-4300
>>>OFFICE: 309-438-3604
>>>FAX: 309-438-8038
>>>Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp
>>>Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/
>>>Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>Honorary Professor of Linguistics
>>>University of Manchester
>>>Manchester, UK
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>**********************
>>Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics & Anthropology and Chair,
>>Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures
>>Campus Box 4300
>>Illinois State University
>>Normal, Illinois 61790-4300
>>OFFICE: 309-438-3604
>>FAX: 309-438-8038
>>Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp
>>Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/
>>Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/
>>
>>and
>>
>>Honorary Professor of Linguistics
>>University of Manchester
>>Manchester, UK
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>