Legal Commentary

I haven't yet read the piece that Rick discusses below; I'm looking forward to it.  But, Rick, I want to ask you:  If one believes your second proposition, the adage that "the problem is, it's the same third," does that necessarily mean one buys the first proposition -- that more engaged scholars will also be more engaged teachers?

I do believe it's often the same third that excels across the whole range of activities, although putting it in that waggish way is perhaps a little unfair; the number is definitely higher than that for some faculties, and some of those people outside the "one-third" are either doing a great job along one or two of the axes or a fair-to-good job along all three.  And I do tend to echo the proposition that more engaged scholars make for more engaged teachers, and vice versa. 

But lately I've been wondering whether we, or at least I, have not become a little reflexive in assuming that this is true.  Is it necessarily the case?  Aren't there also plenty of people who are engaged scholars but disengaged teachers, or highly engaged teachers who don't write much if at all?  Can we really say that being a good or energetic scholar conduces to good teaching or vice versa?  Before accepting what has become something of an academic's bromide, I think we should give it a dip in the proverbial acid bath. 

It is possible that there is correlation but no causation here. It is even more possible that both qualities -- energetic teaching and energetic scholarship -- are siblings, children of the same causal parent, rather than being in a causal relationship with each other.  A person who is engaged, energetic, and committed to her job in general may also be committed and engaged as both a teacher and a scholar. Maybe she finds ways of making those two things symbiotic -- indeed, maybe she is the kind of person who creates and exploits many synergies in many areas of her professional and personal life -- but the root cause is the sense of energy she brings to all her commitments rather than any relationship between teaching and scholarship. 

Don't get me wrong: I am deeply committed to both teaching and scholarship; I love both aspects of my job; and in my case, I believe each has been helpful in advancing the other.  But if I'm the kind of person who is apt to get the most out of my job (occasional bouts of blogging or computer Solitaire or surgery notwithstanding), I would think that, wouldn't I?  I am just not sure that we should placidly accept the proposition that more energetic teachers are more energetic scholars, or vice versa, because one has something to do with the other.  They may have little or nothing to do with each other; and it would be useful to keep that in mind, so that we can properly value people who are engaged along some lines but not others and leave it at that, or think more creatively about ways to get them involved in the aspects of their academic responsibilities that they are less keen on.  What's more, come tenure and promotion time, perhaps we should not assume that junior faculty who seem engaged along one line of their job are necessarily going to be, or remain, engaged across every aspect of the job.