next »

[nowohnow]

I am on the second year of the tt at a R1 and I'm finding that I'm not really teaching in my field, or at least that I'm not teaching the texts (which for me are interdisciplinary) that I actually write about (and thus mostly care about). Instead, in the five classes I've taught thus far, 4 of them have been generalist/survey classes. If I tried to teach the works I mostly care about in those classes, the courses would be too narrow for the intended course descriptions.  In the next two semesters, I'm going to be teach four more such generalist classes for undergrads and for grad students that I feel take me away from my main desired fields. 

I figure I can try to be more firm when it comes to department scheduling so that I'm not getting (on a 2-2 load) all survey classes and no seminars. I plan to try to beg for at least one seminar a semester next time around but that doesn't help in the now--or for the next year since I'm locked into the big survey classes through then.

So how have other people in the humanities managed this task? I feel like I'm reading novels and watching films that I kind of care about but I'm already getting sick of spending so much time away from the things that I want/need to write about in order to get tenure.  I've been thinking that maybe it's just that my "teaching materials and texts" are going to have little overlap with my "research materials and texts." 

Does that sound right to those of you in humanities departments? Does it feel like you are sneaking in a text you write about but mostly doing related or very loosely related things in the classroom? In that case, does it really take YEARS to develop a proficiency and rhythm with those non-research related texts that you happen to teach? Because each semester I have to reread and that is boring me to tears but it seems even more time-consuming to add new non-research works.

I think this lack of overlap is one of the reasons I'm really not liking teaching at this early point in my career. I'd just rather be reading and writing...

[oseph]

I don't teach much in my immediate area of research, and yes, it takes a lot of time to prep a new class...BUT I enjoy it most of the time, because I am getting to revisit the material that got me interested in my field in the first place.  And of course now I can see so much more in that material than I did back in undergrad.

The days when I feel down about teaching material only marginally-related to my research are the days when I'm feeling down and depressed about my writing progress.  In other words, how I feel about the teaching is a product of how I'm doing with my research.  Research good?  Then I'm happy to teach far afield - gives me new perspectives, and I see how everything is connected, as well as being happy that I get to do something different.  Research bad?  Then I feel pressed to focus on my writing and annoyed that I have to be "distracted" with the teaching. 

I don't know if that's the case with you, but it helped once I realized it.  Then again, I have been pleasantly surprised how much I do get to teach courses at least marginally related to my research, especially when compared with my peers at other institutions.  But maybe I just am seeing more of a connection than they are.

[glowdart]

I'm lucky because I teach a couple of classes which pass through my research field during their survey of the discipline.  But no, the majority of what I teach has nothing to do with my research.  I have colleagues who have not taught their research field in decades.

I'm trying to develop new research streams out of my classes, but I'm mid-stream in a couple of projects which have nothing to do with our curriculum.  Even those developing streams are just going to be passing moments in survey classes, though.

I find that the third semester through with a particular text/set is the first time when the rhythm is sort of down, but that depends on how often you teach the course, too.  Third year through with no changes to the material is much easier, but only if you teach it regularly.  Otherwise, it can take a lot longer to really find your rhythm because you keep losing it (on courses that only come up once every few years.)

Isn't the whole thrill of being at an R1 that you get to teach your field (or at least the area around your field) in graduate seminars?  (Or do you not have a grad program?)

[mountainguy]

I suspect this is a common experience in both the humanities and social sciences. At the end of the day, there will always be a greater demand for introductory/survey classes than for highly-specialized seminars.

The only advice I would have is not to engage in heroic teaching. Once you've taught a text in a class, stick with it in future semesters. That will start to reduce your prep time and free you up to do research.

[voxprincipalis]

I am on the second year of the tt at a R1

I figure I can try to be more firm when it comes to department scheduling

Heh heh heh.

VP

[larryc]

OP, almost all of us have the same experience. At an R1 maybe you will move past this phase, but for the rest of us it is our career. I taught mostly U.S. history surveys to freshman and sophmores for 12 years. That is the reality of the job market.

And it can be a good thing if you let it. Teaching the range of your discipline forces you to grow mentally and to think in big synthetic terms. You develop new interests that enrich the things you already knew. Your teaching of the survey grows richer each year.

Also, unless you are teaching at the University of Phoenix, you are probably free to give your own flavor to the survey. My history surveys had more Indians and frontier topics (my specialties) than did my colleague who pushed the Civil War (her specialty). We both covered the bases expected in a survey, but gave extra attention to our specialties. I think this makes for a better course.

I wonder what percentage of humanities faculty get to teach primarily their research specialties? I will bet it is less than 10%.*


*Number made up on the spot yet 93% accurate.

[whiteknight]

For the past six years, I've taught upper-division courses only in my fields. My fields, however, have expanded from the two I considered my major areas in grad school to other areas in which I am now interested. It's been a great way to diversify my interests and keep me from becoming bored.

I still teach the surveys, but I change supplementary texts every cycle to make me read something new. I also try to expand my knowledge in one new area every cycle.

[carebearstare]

I'm on my second year on the TT also in an interdisciplinary field. I have been teaching the survey courses primarily, also, but this term I am teaching one that's ostensibly in my area and one that is a survey. And I much prefer teaching the survey. The course in my area requires a lot more work and thinking on my part, and I find it doesn't really help my research all that much (beyond forcing me to read and re-read things I might not have made time for otherwise). But I find it frustrating for a number of reasons. So for the time being anyway I'm very content with survey courses, especially one's I've already taught due to the minimal prep time.

[jacaranda_]

One of the primary problems with grad school is that it gives you the illusion that tight specialization is a virtue.  It isn't.

Yes, this is the profession.  You have 2 courses a semester.  Some schools on a 3/3 or even 4/4 still expect junior faculty to crank out a book for tenure.

And pay attention to VP's post.

[polly_mer]

I'm amused by the whole idea that someone expected to teach primarily things directly related to research.  Even outside of the humanities, the majority of us teach introductory courses or the standard canon for majors, not highly specialized courses directly related to our current research.  Even the biggest name guy I know who has a 1/0 at the highest ranked R1 program in the field usually teaches a section of the intro to one of the three foundations of the field. 

What we do is as LarryC points out:

Also, unless you are teaching at the University of Phoenix, you are probably free to give your own flavor to the survey. My history surveys had more Indians and frontier topics (my specialties) than did my colleague who pushed the Civil War (her specialty). We both covered the bases expected in a survey, but gave extra attention to our specialties. I think this makes for a better course.

I use examples from my research experiences in all of my classes and some of the students are really excited by the idea that the intro things they are learning can build to something fascinating like explosives or supercomputers, but there simply is not enough demand for me to teach classes in the "Theory of Liquid State Simulation Techniques" or "Numerical Methods as They Pertain to Chemical Physics". 

As Mountainguy points out, all schools need multiple sections of introductory classes, but only graduate programs need the research-focused hyper-specialized seminars.  Be grateful that you are at a place where you might get to teach one of those seminars every few semesters.  Many of us likely never will get to teach a class devoted to our research interests.

[seniorscholar]

At an R-1 with a 2-2 load, everyone who has published within the last five years has one graduate course per year. We also have one survey (in a big lecture, with TAs -- this is literature, not something where multiple-choice questions are worth anything) per year. The rest is up for negotiation, depending on department needs. I can't remember any semester ever during which I had courses only in my subfield.