At first I was appalled by the title of Mary's paper. "Teachers as
Luddites'? I cringed, but in a fraction of a second saw sarcasm directed
elsewhere and not disrespect of teachers. That reaction is not what I'm
interested in expanding though.
It's the material in the footnotes that have really caught my attention at
this time, that the boundaries of the 'grand system' in applied research
necessarily include the funder and other powerful stakeholders, and
subsequently we must think about the influence on the investigators. In
projects aimed at demonstration or intervenion there is pressure to
*perform*. Partially this comes from the knowledge that the benevolent
foundations or companies want to see their investments used wisely and
effectively. Or there is PR motive. Partially this comes from the
investigator knowing that with a successful grant comes the opportunity for
more. It depends on what one is after -- more grants, more prestige, more
chance for observation, more time doing interesting things.
Fortunately, I have not suffered Mary's situation in things being so
explicit. I have seen what I think are some real sleezebags working the
system effectively, and have not been entirely successful in suppressing my
reactions. But there is a game to play -- one does not put everything in a
project report, there is just not enough room -- it is a deliberation of
what to put in and what to leave out.
Notice my sentences are complete, as compared to postings just prior?
Yeah. This is an area that makes me nervous. Even though when I came to
Lesley it was with the idea of reducing the opportunity for more.
Even though my last two published papers have appeared at least two years
after the end of the grants, partially so I could ensure that the research
-- the relations of theory, observation, interpretations... would be
minimally impacted by the funding cycle, but honestly also because the time
required to write something well cannot be contained in the grant cycle.
Even though I now do any interpretations and relations to theory on my own
time, and try to get conference funding through the college rather than
through the funder.
Even though I put the disclaimer on my publications as "Opinions are those
of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Foundation."
What's enough? Perhaps the realization that by accepting a grant one has
just been bought. It is no different from a runner getting a sponsership
by Nike and being expected to perform.
A buoyantly optimistic report, not just summarizing the difficulties, but
including a discussion of strategies for those problems, eventually made
its way to the funder. The prior one by Dr. J. was depressing -- who would
want to give us the second installment of the grant with that? Not only
were two schools making the effort to achieve something with the grant,
the report seemed only to focus on problems caused by uncontrollable forces
and felt to me like a... an excuse for not trying, for not doing the
groundwork that it takes to accomplish something in schools. Reports like
"prisoners of time" have been around for quite a while -- we know the
ecology of work in schools is demanding and that making meetings with
school folk is not like delivering the US mail -- it can't be done on a
convenient schedule.
After all, its a performance.
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:09 PST