MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771077400 · doi:10.1353/esc.2017.0003

Teach First, Research Questions Later: Understanding the Role of the College Teacher-Scholar

2017· article· en· W2771077400 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Brenna Clarke Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish studies in Canada · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionSociologyConversationHigher educationScholarshipPublic relationsPedagogyPolitical scienceLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teach First, Research Questions Later: Understanding the Role of the College Teacher-Scholar Brenna Clarke Gray (bio) We are at a crossroads in the profession wherein we can either find a way to support teaching-focused academics in remaining part of the scholarly conversation or risk losing recent doctoral graduates from our community. This short paper is a bit of a meditation on why that is and what comes next. I’m a community college instructor working at Douglas College in Metro Vancouver. We’re the largest public college in the province and the fourth-largest postsecondary institution, period. I don’t have an academic rank, much of a travel budget, graduate students, or access to sabbaticals, but I do have a stable income with benefits, a reliable (if reliably large) teaching load, and an institution that tells me they would like me to be doing research, as long as I don’t need much of anything to make that happen. This is the position in which teacher-scholars in the community college sector find ourselves: we are teachers by trade and researchers by training, and increasingly we are looking to make both roles work. This is often seen as a more natural fit in so-called applied research fields, like health sciences and community services, but with increasing numbers of humanities PhDs finding work at community colleges, it’s an issue for those of us with an academic or “pure” research focus, too. [End Page 13] Community colleges are one of the few places still seeing substantial growth and opportunity for employment of new PhDs. Recent numbers show that as many as half of all postsecondary students in Canada are now attending colleges, and colleges across the country are hiring full-time faculty in larger numbers than universities. Anecdotally, I arrived at Douglas College in 2010, and since then we’ve hired eleven new faculty members in the English department alone: most doctorate holders, most continuing to pursue their research agendas, albeit off the sides of their desks. We must prioritize support for these early-career researchers in maintaining research agendas, lest we lose a large number of new, highly engaged voices from the discipline. Permanent, tenured, research-focused jobs are, we all know, few and far between and greying quickly. Considering those positions the gold standard for PhD bearers—even those who want to stay in the postsecondary sector—is not a recipe for a vital future for literary studies in this country. We need to do a better job of understanding the pressures on teaching-stream faculty and supporting their desire to do research, be it applied or “pure.” Teaching remains the primary duty of all community college faculty, but as part of a larger community of postsecondary educators, it’s worth thinking about how we talk about these jobs and the people in them. For examples of the kind of language we use to describe college-sector employment, it’s worth looking closely at Linda Muzzin’s 2010 sshrc-funded findings into the working conditions in community colleges for Academic Matters, the journal of ocufa; it’s a thorough and thoughtful article that also typifies the kind of language common to these examinations, steeped in a sense of incredulity that people could be satisfied by teaching-centred work (Muzzin). This incredulity should not be surprising, when as an industry we refer to sections and semesters off from teaching as “release,” a reprieve from prison for our good behaviour. And in advice for new PhD graduates, college teaching is usually listed as an option after adjuncting; being in a university offers status so compelling to academics that we advise new graduates to pursue contingent, precarious, underpaid labour in a university over permanent, well-compensated work in the college sector. I remember being at Congress 2009 and telling a past professor with whom I had worked closely that I was seriously considering a career in the college sector. His response? “You don’t have to settle, you know. You’re good enough for a real job.” I think we can’t be surprised at this attitude when we consider the devaluation of teaching in our institutions as...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish studies in CanadaSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207