Excellent piece. Thank you both for writing this. I hope UNC and other universities seriously considers your proposal and begin to implement some of these ideas in the near future. For myself, a job-seeking Ph.D. exploring academic and nonacademic options, a career in academic administration sounds like a tempting alternative to a tenure-track teaching job.

However, assuming I would be even competitive enough to receive an offer for an admin position is another issue entirely. So many well qualified Ph.D.s that I know have been applying, in vain, for admin positions over the past year and have yet to find the right fit. I think the initial difficulty of seguing into the administrative side of things is an important point to address as well, since so many of us are genuinely interested in remaining within and contributing to academe in one form or another.

I do know that if it were possible to attain administrator-scholar status, and actually receive a moderate level of support and recognition for continuing my scholarly activities while still in an administrative role, I would quite willingly commit to the administrative path for the long term and start my job search now.

The mission of the academy is to discover and disseminate knowledge. Everything else is support. The faculty complete the mission and the staff (administrators) provide the support. There is nothing wrong with being a supporter; I did that for over 20 years.

This piece sounds like a backdoor into the mission end of the academy.

I, too, think this is a great piece and a wonderful idea. Such an identified, suported group of administrator scholars might go a long way in briging the stupid, unproductive chasm between faculty and administrators--as well as provide an identifiable, qualified group of advisors for students wanting to do dissertations that apply theory to administrative and educaltional policy issues. In fact, it would be great if all administrators could be included in such a group, based on their scholarship and work with students. Now, let's sit back and watch all the knee-jerk (or just jerk) reactions from folks who think no administrator at any level has ever done anything to qualify for such a status. I hope I'm wrong about the reaction, because this really is a great idea!

Wel, guess what? While I was writing #3, a knee-jerker crowded ahead of me. I guess my pessimism is justified. OK, I'll just hope that the jerks are in the minority.

Wow, #2 really is on the ball ... if this were 1955. As an administrator, I once was involved in a student conduct hearing in which the faculty rep (young asst. chemistry prof) who did not appear to have much experience in social settings, simply hijacked the hearing with a "boys will be boys" lecture. And a truly "teachable moment" was lost on a young male student badly in need of one. I learned then that faculty need to stick to their areas of expertise in the classroom and lab - and leave the real work of helping students develop into mature young adults to the counselors and administrators who can see beyond the developmentally stunted overly-indulged self-glorified faculty perspective.

I also appreciate this article and am strongly in favor of the proposed ideas. I have been on both sides - a staff member continuing to do research and some teaching with the support of my unit (but not with no support/incentives/recognition) at the higher levels and now as a faculty member.

The big issue with dmchron's conception of the academy is that it rigidly defines the mission of different categories of employees, and perpetuates a class-based version of academia where the faculty are the elite, and the staff are their servants. But it all depends on whether you see the staff/administrators as helping to serve the mission of the university, or as serving the faculty. If you agree with the former, then of course staff/administrators can contribute to the mission to "discover and disseminate knowledge".

If I ever develop the attitude that the staff are my servants and that I should be pampered, or that research of staff/administrators with PhDs is not worth paying attention to, my former boss is supposed to come slap some sense into my head. I hope she never has to.

It has nothing to do with being a servant or being elite. The university has certain tasks that need to be done. You were hired to do those important tasks. If you are busy doing the work of a faculty member, than who will be doing the administrative work? Will we have to hire yet another admistrator-scholar to do the work for which you were hired?

the question that pops into my mind is, are you an adminstrator-scholar, or an administrator who is a scholar? the difference is critical. if you were hired to be an administrator, any scholarship you do during the work day, while valuable as scholarship, necessarily means you are not doing the administrative job you are paid to do. you two i'm sure are very diligent and honest and would not engage in time theft, but at my university there are cases of administrators who do scholarship basically using their paid positions as postdocs to do their research. that is, they get paid to do x work they do not do, while doing their own academic research. a sweet gig, but essentially theft.

another side to this is that, at my school at least, there are many administrators whose contracts call for them to teach 1-2 classes a term, for which they do not get paid adjunct rates. while other administrators, some of whom teach during the day, do get paid adjunct rates. these latter people needless to say are favored within the university. but the former are subject to gross exploitation as their classes are over and above their supposedly 40 hr weeks. this is a big issue for faculty as there is no faculty oversight really of either of these categories, as we basically have no control over them. our already weak status in the university gets weaker.

so to sum -- administrator-scholars, perhaps a good idea if implemented ideally, though probably subject to exploitation by upper levels of administration. administrators who are scholars doing scholarship on company time, a really bad idea for everyone.

This is an important initiatve, which has larger implications and potential to benefit than even the authors suggest. Consider the non-quantified assertion that "there are too many administrators". Few, even among administration would disagree. What if we could reduce the bureacracy a bit and expand the work of administrators to respond to #8's concern? Trim the fat without trimming the jobs. Then administrators as a body would be contributing in meaningful ways to the mission of the academy. As we see from the flimsy responses of dmchron and summers_off and the well-stated comment on teachable moments from #5 (also highlighting the insufficiency of some faculty) faculty needs help and administrators should be able to provide that as long as we can clear out some of the senseless bureaucracy from their calendars.

I think a major disconnect is career administrators who wish to be considered part of the faculty, holding faculty rank, yet not standing for promotion and tenure (after all their job is to serve in some administrative capacity, not a faculty role). It is hard to see how such an individual could ever be effective in a position where they govern a promotion and tenure decision. It's one thing to come up through the faculty ranks and move into an administrative role, and something quite different to start out in an administrative role to begin with. It's probably possible to manage something one doesn't understand, but more typically such managers are expensive place holders more likely to hinder an organization's function than move it forward.

I also wonder just how much of the scholarship of a so-called administrator-scholar is in the category of how to be a successful administrator. While that may have value (at least to other administrators), I don't think it is scholarship with the same kind of expectations as for faculty.

While I appreciate the viewpoint expressed regarding administrators who teach as adjunct faculty, presumably on their own time, I might note that full time faculty typically cannot do so without explicit permission and perhaps a warning that it could jeopardize their standing.

While I appreciate the subject of the article, which (I believe) puts on exhibit two incredibly smart and intelligent Ph.D.'s who have been fortunate enough to secure a pathway to two great careers in higher education, the article itself is simply an attempt to open up a proverbial doorway to faculty status for administrators who did not-- for a variety of reasons-- pursue the traditional path of tenure-track to tenured faculty status. (I write this as an administrator who also did not pursue this traditional path either.) Instead of arguing for 'administrator-scholar' status that is on par with faculty members, why do the authors not simply embrace their roles as administrators and use it as a platform to support and contribute to the academy precisely as you are doing? My sense is that the article demonstrates much of the anxiety that we have seen written in the Chronicle regarding graduate students in the humanities who are unable to obtain tenure-track faculty posts. (Possessing faculty status at a university as a tenure-track or tenured faculty member should not define the depth and breadth of your personal and intellectual identity much less your Ph.D. in a humanities-related field. The article seeks even more affirmation for work that is already valuable. Perhaps this is because it seeks it from the very faculty within the academy that the authors do not have status within, which in the end, is the problem.) I would much rather see the article embrace the fact that in many ways the authors have applied their humanistic degrees in the office of academic administrators and are contributing in very meaningful ways to the academy. As an administrator who took a similar path, I still--when the opportunity presents itself-- write, teach, and have the opportunity to speak but my occupation is that of an academic administrator which I thoroughly embrace. I do not think that the university should create a separate status for me or recognize me in the manner that they recognize its faculty whose occupation is that of a tenure-track or tenured faculty member. I suspect that the authors will eventually come to discover that if their administrative roles are truly part and parcel of a larger vocational calling that they appear to have been successful in thus far, they will be recognized and regarded as academic administrators within the academy, which should be satisfaction enough. (It is for me.) Sine pudore.

To #11 above; "Why do the authors not simply embrace their roles as administrators and use it as a platform to support and contribute to the academy precisely as you are doing?"

I can't answer for the authors, of course, but it seems clear that their particular contributions to the academy are currently not valued, rewarded, or encouraged. Personal edification is one thing, but if an administrator with a Ph.D. publishes an award-winning scholarly book on X subject, in addition to maintaining a full-time staff position, then he or she should, at the very least, get some props for doing so. Yes, Ph.D.s can and do contribute to the academy in many different important, non-traditional ways, but it would be great if the split between admin/faculty types could be bridged in some exceptional cases.

I like Woolf's take on the article/comments. It all boils down to the same old thing: administrators support, faculty disseminate. End of story, right?
http://phd-onthefence.blogspot.com/2010/10/administrator-scholars-do-they-have.html

The authors of this piece obviously have thought carefully about this problem and while I am sympathetic with their plight and appreciate their suggestions I doubt the wisdom of creating more university infrastructure to accommodate administrator/scholars. The problems they address are a function of the different cultures of faculty and administration. After 14 years as a faculty member at two very differnt universities I was appointed to a deanship. I soon discovered that I was not happy with being an administrator, not least because the time demands cut into my research. After four years as a dean I managed to extricate myself and return to teaching and research. My administrative experience taught me a great deal about the importance of administration, to appreciate really good administrators, to try to help bad administrators become better, and to change the cultural divide between faculty and administration. I later became an administrator of a research center, while gave me more freedom to pursue my own research and to help others do the same. I continue to try to build greater understanding and trust between the cultures because I believe that is the fundamental problem.

@ Frenchgirl: You write that it is clear that "their particular contributions to the academy are currently not valued, rewarded, or encouraged." However, this is what my comment speaks to. As administrators, however you wish to slice it, we are not paid for scholarly work. You would grant exceptions for administrators who have won a scholarly award for a book. But I am sure that there are very few administrators who works full time in administrative positions akin to the authors of this article and have produced a book that peers within an academic discipline have reviewed as award winning. (And I think that this would prove to be quite a high bar even for faculty members much less administrators like the authors who are arguing to conflate the two occupations.) I have written or edited several books while in administration and it is difficult enough to get the work done let alone winning a scholarly award. I am not sure if the authors of this article would even qualify based upon what they have listed here as their scholarly contributions. So I am not sure if your remarks would support their cause or even my own very much.

@fewgardens. "You would grant exceptions for administrators who have won a scholarly award for a book."
Actually, I was just using the award-winning book as an extreme example. What's more realistic is an administrator who has published one or more books on the side with an internationally respected academic press, say Hopkins, UNC, or Yale, but who is unable to offer guidance to grad students in any official capacity or be considered by the university as an "expert" is his or her particular academic field. This is a shame, in my opinion, given that there are only so many tenure-track lines opening up these days, esp. for humanities folks, and more and more talented scholars are taking on support staff roles within academe. Whether you're disseminating knowledge in the classroom or supporting the university in some other capacity, I don't see why you can't also contribute to the university's research mission.

@frenchgirl...I see your point. However, I think you still raise the stakes a bit with your example. (But once again, it would depend upon the university.) All the same, I see your point. Nonetheless, I am not sure what rationale could be provided to universities to grant more benefits akin to faculty status--the authors are already "adjunct"--when the authors are paid well with 12 month salaries with benefits. It would be like having your cake and eating it too...Again, I do empathize with the issues raised in the piece and your points. And frankly, I think--I dare say--it the more masterful accomplishment to serve as these kind of philosopher-pragmatists (ie scholar-administrators) in the present-day university. For alas, when the smoke clears some 20-30 years from now and the wider public truly becomes aware of the many issues confronting academe--particularly within the humanistic disciplines--it will be higher education personnel like the authors here who will likely be the strongest exemplars for serviceable scholarship that the public and students truly deserves.

I wonder if the negative tone of some of the posts is due to what is perceived as the "back door" nature of this new type of appointment--like the sort of "turf war" poster #2 discusses? This reminds me of the many forum discussions of spousal hires, and the perilous roads of resentment the person hired can face while navigating among hostile faculty who think he doesn't deserve to be there.

There are great ideas in this article, and I wish the authors well.

test

yeah, an adminstrative class of employees have served us so well in other fields.... has anyone here heard of neoliberalism? Adminstrators are there to handle the resistance to the financialization of higher education (from a structural standpoint). They are beholden to the interests of capital not labor.

seems

There seems to be a tone in this article and the responses that being an administrator is something lesser than being faculty.

Let us consider the administrator-scholar concept, where the administrator-scholar is afforded the opportunity to research, write, publish, and attend conferences, etc., in the extreme. By looking at an extreme case if no problems are found then there will not be a problem in less extreme cases.

The VP for facilities and the VP for finance are away. They may be presenting papers, coordinating with research colleagues, studying something in their respective scholarly pursuits, which may or may not have anything to do with facilities and finance.

While they are gone one day in the dead of winter the students arrive for their early class, as do the professors, those who are not away. The campus is dark. The lights are out. You see, no one paid the electric bill. The power was cut off. So, classes are cancelled, too cold outside to have them there. But, there is no electricity so there is no heat, the water pipes freeze. All the computers will not work. It is pay day - no one gets paid. There is no communication, no phones. No refrigeration - food spoils.

At the university hospital the life support systems stop working - people die. Wait what about back-up systems, generators and such. Well the administrator-scholars responsible for ordering, installing and testing the back-up systems were too busy with scholarship to order and install the materials needed. What about batteries, all dead, replacements not ordered, too busy.

But wait. There should be policies and procedures to ensure such things do not happen. Sure, who is suppose to write these policies and procedures - the administrator-scholar - and they did not?

Is this ridiculous - yes, could it happen - yes. There are consequences to very action. Lesser actions will result in lesser consequences. Sometimes a collection of lesser actions congeal into larger consequences. The question is, can you live with the consequences.

Administrators are important people. Much of their work is taken for granted. Did the light go on last time you were in your office or classroom? Administrators make the place run. But, they have to spend their time doing their job. They are not less important than the faculty, and many institutions recognize this with the appropriate recognitions and compensation. Furthermore, there are some of us who like to administer.

Sorry about spliting it all up. The site would not accept some special characters, like -- and '

In excess, adminstrative roles cause deflated or stagnant incomes for the labor (professorate) while the inflating management's bottom line. All we have to do is look that the financial services industry for evidence. This type of adminstrative parsing is ingenious (where the conversation drifts into an all or none debate).

No one is saying administrators equals "bad" or "less than" until you put into a competitive context of a saturated movement to reduce costs and increase profits at some of our largest institutions while spewing the innovation, efficiency and assessment rhetoric of the corporate state. btw, we have seen how well this model has performed, have we (financial crises, outsourcing of labor while capital remains employed, and systemic fraud?)....

Sell the coveting of excessive adminstrative brio elsewhere;

Wow I am massively proud of my two colleagues and friends for writing this piece! What is left out is that at least in our case, the administration is more racially diverse than the current faculty. So, if the university did decide ( and I too have suggested this to our administrators) we could get more people of color in front of our students, where they would provide role models, mentors, and experts in certain aspects of culture that are currently lacking! It would be a win/win!

I would have to ask who wants to create this new corps of administrative scholars and why. The backbone of the university is the collegial governance system, with faculty supposedly in charge of creating and yes policing the curriculum, the hiring and promotion of those qualified to work in those disciplines, and establishing best practices for teaching and research in those disciplines. This is because they are charged with being the subject experts in their fields. Administrators are supposed to be in the position of supporting that mission, which is supposed to be central to the university's mission. Faculty aren't merely pieceworkers or workerbees who work for administrators, unlike the reality in the corporate world. This isn't because faculty are intrinsically unfair or unappreciative of the efforts of administrators; it is because this is how accreditation is maintained and judged. The problem arises when administrators begin to see themselves as having the same or even a greater role in the university and its work as managing the faculty, protecting the students from the faculty, coercing the faculty to do what legislators want the university to do, etc, external to the judgments of those hired because of their disciplinary expertise in the first place--the faculty. Career university dministrators tend not to be hired by the same processes as faculty, and they are not subject to the same disciplinary oversight. Their loyalty is not to the professions and the institutions but to the administration that hired them. This does not mean that they intrinsically lack intregrity. But without tenure they are much more vulnerable to the pressures of legislatures, regional politicians and norms, and institutional entropy. Faculty should resist the blurring of these boundaries; to do otherwise is to invite what has happened at so many universities today--the infantalization of the professoriate, the coercion of the professoriate to toe a corporate line and agree to policies contrary to best practices in the disciplines and the academies, all in the name of granting the appearance of integrity. The result is the micromanaging of departments and budget cuts that affect only academic affairs while administrations enjoy bloated salaries and staffs.