Abstract
My first semester as a tenure-track faculty member at a mid-size university began ignominiously and suggested that my academic career might be short-lived. It began with a blistering memo that was stridently critical of the academic dean’s policy which led to being taken to the proverbial woodshed. Other less serious episodes followed which put me at odds with the “administration.” Yet I have spent more than a third of my career in administrative positions, including a stint in the provost’s office (as an assistant vice chancellor), and only recently returned to faculty status. Over the course of my academic career I have noticed that a large number of academic sociologists have taken administrative positions in academia beyond that of the department chair. This paper will explore this phenomenon and discuss the reasons members of the ‘debunking’ discipline assume administrative roles. I will address this issue within the context of my personal odyssey in administration and how the sociological perspective and imagination has contributed to working in the ‘dark side’ of academia. Finally, I will discuss lessons learned and recommendations for the aspirant administrators among the ranks of academic sociologists.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Feldman (2008: 102) makes the observation that “sociologists are and have been well represented among the ranks of deans.”
As a young faculty member I had a public encounter with the academic dean in which I referred to the “power of the administration.” The dean seemed nonplussed and discomforted by my comment and replied tersely, “I don’t know what you mean by ‘power.’” It was obvious by his demeanor that he viewed my power reference in less than favorable terms.
Stephen J. McNamee, personal communication.
I am reminded of a scene in “It’s A Wonderful Life” in which the Jimmy Stewart character, George Bailey, is in Mr. Potter’s office. Bailey is seated in an oversized chair that is so short that his head is barely visible above Mr. Potter’s desk. By contrast, Mr. Potter’s chair is at a much higher elevation obviously giving him an advantage as they discuss Bailey’s future.
I was drafted by the committee after making an impassioned speech about the administration’s shortcomings, faculty responsibilities, and rights.
We experienced a net loss of seven classrooms that could accommodate more than 100 class sections. In addition, the College of Arts and Sciences was awarded a total of 32 new faculty positions, which increased the demand for instructional space. These new hires could potentially generate a demand for 90–100 additional sections. Even before the loss of classrooms in two academic buildings there was a space shortfall. The total ‘seat’ capacity in Fall 2005 was 6,130 students while for Fall 2006 the total seat capacity was for 5,431 students. Student enrollments increased from 10,581 undergraduate students to 10,885.
In a humorous vein, Arden (1987) discusses the challenges a provost encounters in which everyone believes that their unit’s needs should be the university’s and the provost’s “number one priority.”
The provost was so pleased with the report that he ‘rewarded’ each of us with a bottle of fine Spanish wine.
While data may provide powerful support for a decision, or in my case a recommendation, it does not ensure that the decision will be accepted or followed by a higher authority. A case in point is the new building that was originally planned to house three academic programs but was reduced to one unit. This unit currently had about the same number of FTE faculty as the Department of Sociology and Criminology but would occupy an 80,000 GSF building. The dynamics of power work in mysterious ways.
References
Arden, E. (1987). The provost’s number one priority. AAHE Bulletin, 40(2), 8–10.
Berger, P. (1963). Invitation to sociology. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Best, J. (2001). Giving it away: the ironies of sociology’s place in academia. The American Sociologist, 32, 107–113.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Reflections from the middle: Making sense of elitism in our midst. The American Sociologist, 39, 169–180.
Clark, R. (2008). The changing academic ecology of sociology: Learning to live with more frogs in the pond. The American Sociologist, 39, 155–163.
DeFleur, L. (1990). Sociologists as administrators. Sociological Perspectives, 33(2), 265–274.
Downey, D., Wagner III, W., Hohm, C., & Dodson, C. (2008). The status of sociology within the academy: Where we are, why we’re there, and how to change it. The American Sociologist, 39, 194–214.
Feldman, B. (2008). Who am I? The sociologist as dean. The American Sociologist, 39, 101–109.
Foster, B. (2006). From faculty to administrator: Like going to a new planet. New Directions for Higher Education, 134, 49–57.
Gaede, S. (2008). Practicing what we teach: a former president’s take on his own discipline. The American Sociologist, 39, 138–141.
Garrity, D. (1990). Reflections on administration. Sociological Perspectives, 33(2), 275–288.
Griffith, J. (2006). Transition from faculty to administrator and transition back to faculty. New Directions for Higher Education, 134, 67–77.
Kiger, G. (2008). Sociologist as dean and dean as sociologist. The American Sociologist, 39, 110–113.
Hill, R. (1990). On being a sociologist within a university’s administration. Sociological Perspectives, 33(2), 289–294.
Hohm, C. (2008). Thirty five years of viewing sociology as an external program reviewer: A dean’s perspective on how administrators view sociology. The American Sociologist, 39, 1130–1137.
Huber, B. J. (1985). Employment patterns in sociology: Recent trends and future prospects. Washington: American Sociological Association.
Huber, J. (1995). Institutional perspectives on sociology. The American Journal of Sociology, 101(1), 199–216.
Lipset, S. (1994). The state of American sociology. Sociological Forum, 9(2), 199–220.
Lessor, R. (2008). Adjudicating frame shifts and frame disputes in the new millennial university: the role of dean. The American Sociologist, 39, 114–129.
Lyson, T. A., & Squires, G. D. (1983). Oversupply or under utilization? The sociology job market in the 1980s. Sociological Focus, 16, 275–283.
Mainwaring, B. [pseudonym] (2007) The overworked college administrator. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved August 10, 2007 (http://www.insidehighered.com/).
McNall, S. (2008). Save the world on your own time: Or, what’s the matter with sociology? The American Sociologist, 39, 142–154.
McNamee, S. J., & Willis, C. L. (1994). Stratification in science: a comparison of publication patterns of four disciplines. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 15, 396–416.
Palm, R. (2006). Perspectives from the dark side: the career transition from faculty to administrator. New Directions for Higher Education, 134, 59–65.
Podhoretz, N. (1980). Making it. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Richardson, R. (2000). Geoscientists as academic administrators: A trend? EOS Trans. AGU, 81(48) Fall Meeting Supplement, ED52B-06.
Strathe, M., & Wilson, V. (2006). Academic leadership: the pathway to and from. New Directions for Higher Education, 134, 5–13.
Whitley, R. (1976). Umbrella and polytheistic scientific disciplines and their elites. Social Studies of Science, 6, 471–497.
Wong, P. (2008). Some issues of particular concern to sociologists as academic administrators. The American Sociologist, 39, 164–168.
Zuiches, J. (1990). Sociology in agricultural administration. Sociological Perspectives, 33(2), 301–311.
Acknowledgment
A version of this paper was presented.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A. Chronology of Events in a Chair’s Life: January 23 to March 2, 2004 or 40 Days and 40 Nights
Appendix A. Chronology of Events in a Chair’s Life: January 23 to March 2, 2004 or 40 Days and 40 Nights
January 23, 2004: Received notification from Dean of Graduate School that our department had been awarded a grant to do a feasibility study for a professional master’s program.
February 2, 2004 (4:00 pm): Attended open forum for first candidate for dean’s position.
February 3, 2004 (9:30 am): Attended chair’s forum with first candidate for dean’s position.
February 4, 2004 (10:00 am): Met with e-learning coordinator concerning online courses.
February 5, 2004 (2:00 pm): Attended chairs’ forum with second candidate for dean’s position.
February 5, 2004 (3:30 pm): Department meeting.
February 5, 2004: Identified “task force” to conduct feasibility study for professional master’s program.
February 6, 2004 (9:00 am): Met with faculty member A concerning faculty member B’s efforts to control her class schedule and other issues.
February 6, 2004 (3:54 pm): Appointed faculty member C to convene task force.
February 6, 2004 (4:00 pm): Received e-mail form faculty member X complaining that he had not received a leadership position on the task force.
February 9, 2004 (9:30 am): Discussed Faculty members A & B issue with Dean by phone.
February 9, 2004 (11:00 am): Discussed course requests with faculty member B.
February 9, 2004 (2:46 pm): After reading X’s e-mail, I responded giving my reasons for appointing faculty member C.
February 10, 2004 (10:00 am): CAS chairs’ meeting.
February 10, 2004 (4:00 pm): Attended open forum for third candidate for dean’s position.
February 13, 2004 (11:00 am): Met with provost, associate provost, and associate VC regarding Space Utilization Study.
February 16, 2004 (10:00 am) Met with graduate school dean regarding Professional Masters in SS grant.
February 17, 2004 (10:30 am): Attended chairs’ forum for fourth candidate for dean’s position.
February 17, 2004 (2:46 pm): X complains again about my decision and asks me to reconsider the “impact of my decision.” Also, indicates will take his case to graduate student dean and CAS dean.
February 18, 2004 (7:12 a.m.): Responded to X’s latest email and reaffirmed my decision to appoint “C” as chair.
February 18, 2004 (11:30 am.) Call from X requesting a conference to discuss his concerns. Met with X for 1 1/3 hours and restated the reasons for my decision.
February 19, 2004 (9:00–11:30 am): Attended Grassroots Leadership meeting in HR Training Center.
February 19, 2004 (3:30 pm): Task force met with “C” presiding; during discussion of the agenda, X interjected his concerns about his lack of a leadership role and that “C” should not be sole chair given his ‘temporary status.’
February 20, 2004 (9:30 am): Attended chairs’ forum for fifth candidate for dean’s position.
February 20, 2004 (2:42 pm): X forwarded a lengthy complaint concerning my decision to not appoint him as chair or co-chair of the task force.
February 25, 2004 (10:00 am): Attended meeting with CAS chairs to discuss candidates for dean’s position.
February 25, 2004 (3:30 pm): Attended meeting of Chancellor’s Installation Committee as contact person for social sciences division.
February 25, 2004 (4:26 pm): CAS dean forwards X’s email complaint to me and asks to speak with me concerning his complaint.
February 25, 2004 (5:30 pm): Discussed issue with dean by phone following her conversation with X; the dean supported my decision
February 26, 2004 (3:30 pm): Criminal justice program met to discuss coordinator selection process and other issues. Argument between X and faculty member S erupted into (verbally) violent reaction from S. After X left S indicated he was tempted to ‘slap’ X in the face.
February 27, 2004 (2:00 pm): Met with X concerning S incident. Indicated I would discuss issue with S and make note in his record and discuss remedial actions. Discussed Master’s task force, again.
February 29, 2004 (9:15 pm): X left voice mail that he was forwarding a written complaint about S requesting remedial action and sanctions.
March 1, 2004 (7:30 am): Contacted dean by email requesting a meeting to discuss the X-S incident.
March 1, 2004 (9:00 am): Met with S and expressed concern about his behavior and the problems that result from such conduct. S agreed it was inappropriate and expressed regret.
March 1, 2004 (11:00 am): X called to reaffirm his decision to forward a written complaint to me copied to dean and provost’s office.
March 1, 2004 (11:25 am): Received email from faculty member E reminding me of his encounter with S during Spring 2003 and his concerns about S’s conduct.
March 1, 2004 (11:30 am): Received lengthy written complaint from X copied to dean and provost’s office that requested specific sanctions against S.
March 1, 2004 (3:30 pm): Met with dean concerning the complaint from X. Reviewed complaint and the circumstances that contributed to tensions. Decided to request S receive anger management counseling.
March 1, 2004 (4:15 pm): Met again with S concerning anger management counseling.
March 1, 2004 (5:00 pm) Met with X and indicated S would participate in anger management counseling.
March 1, 2004 (6:30 pm): Home, poured first glass of wine.
March 1, 2004 (10:30 pm): Went to bed.
March 1, 2004 (10:32 pm): Slept soundly dreaming of 1 July 2004.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Willis, C.L. To the Dark Side and Back: The Administrative Odyssey of an Academic Sociologist with Lessons Learned. Am Soc 41, 190–209 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-010-9093-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-010-9093-y