Shaw, Victor N. (2008). In View of Academic Careers and Career-Making Scholars. Reviewed by Sharon L. Sherman, University of Colorado Denver

Shaw, Victor N. (2008). In View of Academic Careers and Career-Making Scholars. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Pp. xiv + 197         ISBN 978-1-59311-885-3 Reviewed by Sharon L. Sherman University of Colorado Denver September 19, 2008 Citing the work of social reformers like Karl Marx and T.S. Popkewitz to make the point that career-making is linked to the contexts where one is socialized in a field of knowledge (as in academia), author Dr. Victor Shaw, presently a sociologist and professor at California State University, notes that “a shining academician owes much to the support of his or her assistants, students and followers” (p. xiii) resulting in overall university productivity via its divisions. In his book, In View of Academic Careers and Career-Making Scholars, Shaw discusses how the knowledge imparted in higher education depends on individual academicians’ career successes. He goes on to say that “the larger system has an inescapable responsibility to ensure that individual players or components therein grow, develop and perform to the best of their potential” (Ibid). In sixteen chapters, Shaw focuses on what leads individuals to become academics, their career processes and the events that shape a scholar’s professional identity. He divides each chapter into two sections: the first part of each chapter offers readers background information and an analysis of focal issues that academics face in higher education; the second section proposes innovations that set out to reform the status quo within particular disciplines, institutions or systems. To the novice scholar, this breakdown provides a concise introduction to the challenges one faces as an academic, but Shaw does not delve into how the reforms he proposes might impact the social dynamics across disciplines and departments in specific academic contexts. Numerous authors are cited to introduce problem spaces in higher education that need attention, but much of Shaw’s book focuses on the attainment and upkeep of an academic position instead of the long-term development of a scholarly identity that is nurtured by the individuals he works with daily (noted above) in the context of a university system. A university administrator may find sections on organizational management and professional advancement useful, while a new professor will perhaps pay closer attention to the sections dedicated to teaching, networking and service as one works his/her way towards tenure. At first, the reader may feel this book solely sets out to make change in higher education via the usual venues available to universities and academic employees, but in Chapter 1 Shaw focuses on the development of an academic career pathway by proposing various innovations to challenge ideas about existing reward systems. By valuing professors’ teaching time, research and the types of service they engage in as academicians through a more career-sensitive reward system, Shaw believes the differences between junior and senior faculty members would be viewed more equitably. Job mobility could level off in a system that allows assistant professors to stay in institutions to explore new ideas and developing careers interests that reflect their own talents without worrying about family life necessities. By increasing the routine evaluation of senior faculty, their current meaningful work would be reviewed in relation to that of probationary faculty members’ efforts to establish themselves as scholars, thus contributing to overall productivity where performance is a measure of success. This type of reform could create career counseling/mentoring opportunities between junior and senior faculty members who are building momentum at different stages of their careers. Shaw points out that ‘[g]enerational gaps are bridged when older scholars learn about issues faced by their younger counterparts….The knowledge enterprise thrives when individual knowledge discoverers, producers, and distributors embrace each other across traditional divides from ages, gender, rank, and institutional affiliation to career stage, in purely innocent and cooperative spirits” (p. 13). Suggesting that university disciplinary associations invest more time in developing counseling services for faculty to work together, Shaw feels that academic collegiality and productivity would increase as professors’ satisfaction with day-to-day interactions become more meaningful. He ends Chapter 1 by providing some suggestions for systematizing career-related publications that can guide faculty members as they make their way through different career stages and inspire both junior and senior scholars to keep seeking out new directions as teachers and researchers. In Chapters 2 through 5, Shaw provides background information compiled from scholars who look closely at education as a notable part of the career pathway as well as the job hunt process and how a novice scholar becomes part of an academic community (including his own work in these arenas). His strongest arguments for institutional change come in the form of suggestions regarding organizational employment and professional networking. Shaw offers ideas on short-term faculty exchange programs between institutions (up to a year’s time) without penalty for time away from one’s home institution, as regards time of service. According to the author, bringing in “new blood” in this fashion benefits both participating institutions without disrupting tenure processes and may reduce perceived barriers across tiered and non-tiered universities, “teaching” schools and “research” schools in the long run. Another innovation that Shaw proposes is changing the way in which university administrators are selected for dean and department chair positions. Rather than cultivate career administrators or managers, college deans could rotate in two- or three-year terms and chairpersons who move up into these positions (by lottery) would be replaced by a different selection process. Presidents, vice-presidents (and/or chancellors) could be selected by lottery for three- to five-year terms and return to faculty teaching positions following this period of service. Shaw responds to the criticism offered by academicians who have not experimented with this notion by arguing against looking to career administrative leaders for their fundraising skills and social/political expertise when filling top university posts and for providing the average academician the opportunity to practice performing the well-established tasks of a dean or president. In Chapter 4, Shaw advocates for developing a universal ranking system that starts individuals out by choosing one of two tracks to attain a position in the professoriate: as a lecturer or a researcher. Shaw views rank as a measure of a scholar’s honor and distinction, whereas position is should be based on how one is presently meeting the requirements of his/her current duties: “a full professor may be compensated at the level of associate professor when he or she requests a whole period of research from teaching, service and other essential professorial responsibilities at the full rank” (p. 48). Rather than link one’s title to the type of academic work he or she is engaged in, Shaw supports the idea that scholars need to pursue academic interests at various stages of their careers without concern for their status. Universities as a whole would benefit from a different approach to rank and position by not feeling pressured to reward an academician “simply because that employee possesses a rank indicative of some deeds he or she performed in scholarship in the past or somewhere else” (Ibid). Finally, Shaw addresses the formation of a teaching/research underclass when masters-level and doctorate-level graduates create “an oversupply of academic labor to save cost, to boost profit, and to keep their existing faculty policies” (p. 49). Colleges that have adequate full-time faculty teaching courses and universities with doctorate programs should only have graduate students in teaching positions when they have passed their comprehensive exams and are conducting dissertation research as part-time employees (on a limited basis). According to Shaw, all new-hires at the community college level should have PhDs not only to maintain consistency across academic institutions, but also to elevate educational requirements for these faculty members. University administrators may find taking notes on this chapter useful; it is written in such a way that it directs the reader to consider the types of changes that might alleviate controversy around what scholars do as part of their job description and what merits recognition through the course of an academician’s career. The novice scholar, however, may find Shaw’s brief comments on position rotation and faculty ranking less relevant compared to his discussion on the evolution of a floating teaching research underclass. In this section he suggests that flattening the hierarchical system by doing away with the practice of opening academic positions to doctoral students who are just beginning their studies would provide degreed scholars more opportunities to work alongside senior faculty members. Chapter 5 may also attract the seasoned academic more readily than the novice, especially when reading Shaw’s comments on converting funding on promise to funding on outcome, but his notion that the formulation of a broader publishing network (with academic book agents available to scholars) is significant at any stage in a professor’s career. The brevity of this section, however, left this reader wanting more concrete information about the business of academic publishing. Having submitted my own dissertation manuscript for binding and online publication just two months prior to reviewing this volume, I found the description of book agents as field-savvy specialists who receive a percentage of the royalties received once a book is placed in the hands of a publisher intriguing. Shaw does not go into detail about the process of putting together a book proposal or editing a final manuscript for publication; instead, he makes a point of saying that the business of publication could be better served if technical chores were left to those with the proper expertise so scholars can go about their business as researchers and teachers. Shaw groups Chapters 6 through 15 as the final section of this volume in order to present particular innovations and/or reforms regarding the degree process and position, but also delves into the areas of publication, teaching, presentation (as in conference presentations), and service in more detail. Two separate chapters (Chapters 12 and 13) tackle issues in academia related to the pursuit of grants and receipt of monetary awards to fund research, but the last three appealed to this budding scholar more as they highlighted areas that that academic scholars share with their public school district counterparts: membership in academic associations, attaining tenure, and the development of a scholarly identity. While reading Chapter 14, I thought about the times I have attended association-sponsored annual convocations as both a special education teacher and budding scholar. My induction into the world of conferences began prior to obtaining a school teacher’s license while I was still a graduate student. As Shaw states, it is there that young academics tease out the important issues that they will take back with to employers and colleagues, but making a home in this scholarly setting for one’s own ideas is not easily done. Shaw suggests that association leaders need to “[state] clearly to [the] membership that academic leadership is not through words or commands, but rather through achievement, namely, exemplary contribution to knowledge” (p. 161). This advice to associations suggests that extending the academic realm to include average members’ views will guide scholars to investigate “even quasi-scientific hypotheses” (Ibid.) that merit attention. When discussing the tenure process in Chapter 15, Shaw brings a similar notion to his argument for advancing professors based on their readiness for new opportunities rather than the rank they have attained over a prescribed period of service: “they do not have to feel they are falling into an institutional trap when they strive for recognition of status or rank for their activities in their scholarly world” (p. 168). These topics lead into Shaw’s discussion of developing a scholarly identity (Chapter 16) which, having now read the entire volume, is where I would start to read this text anew. In this chapter, Shaw asks, “What makes a scholar?” (p. 173) as he begins to sum up the institutional reforms that he views are necessary to career-making academics. Chapter 16, like those that precede it, could stand alone to develop discussions among educators at all levels; in the realm of higher education, however, attempts to answer Shaw’s question should consider the pressures towards conformity that he refers to in this section of his book. Here he also advocates for clarifying standards that can guide faculty members towards promotion and tenure; the reforms that follow this recommendation make successful attainment of prescribed levels of competence do-able through one’s years of service in an institution and beyond. While clear expectations in one department or school of higher learning may seem restrictive and create a commotion about a university’s image as a diverse research institution or a teachers’ college, they can also “make the management work more effectively in dealing with students, parents, the faculty union and the general public” (p. 179). In other words, Shaw finds that institutions that have viable identities as places where learning occurs can best aid scholars as they choose whether or not to join these communities long-term. In addition, academicians need individuals they can try to be like. Having teaching faculty who lecture and interact well with students but do not conduct ongoing research may encourage different types of competition to attain tenure and include scholars who are typically underrepresented in Ivory Tower halls. This would not undermine university standards, but could inspire junior and senior scholars across the board. Shaw concludes this book by addressing how the social process of integrating academicians into a scholarly career can appear to make “individuals and individuality become less important, insignificant, and negligible” (p. 187). He notes that changing the cyclical rhythms of university life can strengthen both the academician and the institution. Recent references to Tierney’s work regarding academic governance (2004; 2006) and like authors who are concerned with the mission of the American university (Zemsky, Wegner, & Massy, 2005) support his basic premise that institutional reform is needed to continue to structure academic scholars’ careers across their life trajectories. By pointing out the man-made barriers that impede career-making scholars’ successful integration into higher education, Shaw acknowledges that some of the reforms he proposes are clear-cut and uncomplicated, but also recognizes that their successful implementation will require academics to keep an open mind. Academicians who are in positions of authority may take his suggestions to heart and be able to put them to use right away; others may use this text to reflect on their own career-making decisions as they come to the end of their careers at a university. Still others may read this book to gauge where they stand now in relation to what they want to achieve as educators and scholars. Shaw’s readers will have a chance to reflect on the course their career pathways have taken, the challenges they have faced, and those that still lie ahead through the pages of this book. What future academicians will see in the results of their service will be determined by how today’s academic career-making professionals function in their respective institutions and how their aspirations are met in academia as a whole. About the Reviewer Dr. Sharon L. Sherman is a recent graduate of the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Colorado Denver. She is a licensed special educator with several years of experience working with moderate needs learners in public and private schools and doing research regarding the use of technology with learners of diverse backgrounds. Prior to working in public schools, she served as teacher and administrator in Jewish educational settings in the West. Her present work is directed at secondary school writers and their use of assistive technology, learning communities, and professional development in schools.