46 Chapter Scholarly Praxis at the Edges: Why Responsible Academic Leadership Matters in Developing Faculty Scholarship Linda Schwartz Ambrose University, Canada Christina Belcher Redeemer University College, Canada ABSTRACT This philosophical, comparative content inquiry explores how academic leadership might facilitate an opening for the convergence of scholarly inquiry with a fidelity to concerns that shape the values and experiences of faculty Three components are explored: academic tradition in higher education (ideological world); the regulatory formation of institution (system world); and the integration of scholarship with personal values in life and work (life world) Tensions emerge at critical moments between what constitutes appropriate scholarly inquiry in a discipline field and the belief systems that form and inform the scholar’s worldview Reflective exploration considers the place of academic leadership in fostering views of tradition, conversation, and scholarship Issues that seldom arise emerge, providing fresh insight into the practices of academic culture In conclusion, it is suggested that further research on the need for administrators to provoke grand conversations around their mission and the scholarly tradition is warranted INTRODUCTION At first glance, this may appear to be an unusual chapter for a research handbook; however, the authors maintain that aesthetic and philosophical considerations are a means of reminding administrators that the mission of higher education is to pass on scholarly traditions and accumulated wisdom through dialogic grand conversations (Bakhtin, 1981) The setting in which research occurs and the reasons why scholarship is undertaken cannot be separated from the life of research any more than the scholar can be separated from the call of the research itself Much is written about the outcome of research and scholarly endeavors as final work Little is written about the theory, reflection, and relational nuances that allow a research culture to flourish The primary DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch003 Copyright © 2017, IGI Global Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited Scholarly Praxis at the Edges motivation for this chapter is to examine theoretical and philosophical considerations about faculty scholarship within institutions of higher education By doing so, this may serve to remind administrators of the need to return to their missions of passing on and enriching the traditions of scholarship through critical inquiry As grand conversations emerge, resultant engagement and reflection may serve to foster a scholarly tradition which includes incorporating personal values and thoughtful engagement with the world The authors have drawn from literature that focuses on what is essential to create the necessary conditions for a flourishing community of scholars across the academy This will hopefully attune academic leadership to ways of facilitating change that fosters scholarly inquiry in all its forms Scholarship in the academy is haunting, lonely work (Derrida, 1994) There is a duality of specters that haunt the academic space: the burden of fidelity to the notion of a scholarly tradition and the tension experienced by the scholar at critical moments of convergence between what constitutes appropriate scholarly inquiry in a discipline field and the belief systems that form and inform the scholar’s worldview This chapter explores how academic leadership might facilitate an opening for faculty to probe this convergence of scholarly inquiry with a fidelity to those things that shape the values and experience of academics in their daily life and work The authors examine three components that have the potential for meaningful interface: the notion of academic tradition in higher education (ideological world); the regulatory formation of institution (system world); and the desire to integrate scholarship with personal values in a milieu of relational exchange with the other (life world) Following the ethnographic narrative work of Dorothy Smith (2002, 2005) that advocates for a stance of listening to the everyday voices that inhabit institutional life, a reflective exploration is conducted of the value of academic leadership that navigates and brings together disparate views of scholarship This approach addresses issues that are not often emergent in current academic leadership theory, and thus provide fresh insight into the reality of academic culture It is critical for academic leaders and administrators who are invested in the success of their institutions to understand why scholars require reflective conversation and the freedom to pursue questions that open spaces for rich and meaningful response to established canon and discourse Furthermore, to enhance and support faculty in their life and work, it is imperative for leadership in the academy to attend to the means and ends of facilitating scholarship in all its forms In this process, the philosophical, reflective, and haunting questions regarding how to foster a love of research beyond systematic theory are raised The content may not be unusual or surprising on first reflection because academic leaders are already aware of and wrestle with daily tensions concerning faculty life and work, such as the expectation to publish On further examination, the content may be valuable to consider for what is not usually evident in the life of the academy: the philosophical and reflective goals that engender writing and recording meaningful and scholarly work Since no research takes place in a vacuum, it is sensible to begin where the conundrum of research resides, within the setting of the academy BACKGROUND Institutional Worlds and Grand Conversations The outcome of academic life cannot be separated from scholarship in all of its many forms Every educational act has a scholarly parallel Theory informs scholarship and has grounded academic texts 47 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges for leaders, faculty, and scholars of every discipline as long as higher education has been recognized as an entity in its own right In the end, it is not the theory behind the running of an educational institution that induces change for academic scholarship; rather, it is the philosophy and worldview of leadership in the academy that may lead to change or regression in institutional life Much in that regard has been left unsaid, as the understanding of worldview in educational institutions has not been a deliberate part of theoretical discussion But the authors believe it should be For the most part, discussion about “worldview” has been left to the realm of theologians However, in the last fifteen years there has been a resurgence of interest in the original worldview terms of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft—in sociology, education, theology, business, and philosophy The writings of Habermas (1987); Naugle (2002); Sacks (2000); Sergiovanni (1994, 2000); J Smith (2009); Tönnies (1971); Wolters (2005); and Wolterstorff (2002) have been informative regarding the significance of recognizing the place of worldview in educational institutions—a cognizance of identity that goes further and deeper than a written mission statement The understanding and implementation of the original terms Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft have changed and expanded over time, and thus, the words “life world” and “system world” and variations thereof, have become popular within institutional life Sergiovanni (1994, 2000) explores the function of worldview within a specific “field,” noting how worldview is made evident by the autonomy and collectivity of sociological exploration The field of education (or any other institutional realm) is made of the “life world” or Gemeinschaft, and the “system world” or Gesellschaft The system world involves administrative tasks The life world involves relational activity These work together intentionally or by default to engage or restrain institutional change: To change we have to challenge practices that have always “appeared” sensible, and this is hard to We need to examine the unstated assumptions behind accepted practices … Change the theory and we will have to learn new habits If we can get the theory right, the right practices will follow … If we view schools as communities rather than organisations, the practices that make sense in schools understood as organisations just don’t fit In communities connections are not based on contracts, but on commitments (Sergiovanni, 1994, pp 1-5) It is within this insight of seeing institutions of higher education as communities rather than organizations, that listening to the voices inside an institution becomes critical This is where grand conversations (Bakhtin, 1981) that consider how conversations inform an intentional topic, can occur The argument of course is, if it is possible for change to occur at all, why does this not happen frequently in higher education? What impedes innovation and the quest for learning and improvement that drives scholarly enterprise? There is a recognized need for change One thing is certain: a good idea is not enough Is it possible for educational institutions to be a compass toward innovation and transformational change, or are places of higher learning destined to be only a mirror to the functions of institutional life? The answer, according to Dorothy Smith (2002, 2005) may be found within conversation between the voices of administration and faculty Academic leaders and faculty must be willing not only to listen to each other, but to actually implement change However, this course of action is fraught with dilemma Administrators and faculty tend not to operate relationally, functioning more as a hierarchy than a community—especially under some administrative models, such as the Carver model, where the board “defines, limits, and delegates to its Chair [President] the right to make any reasonable interpretation of its words in governance” (Keip, 2000) In such hierarchies the CEO holds all the power 48 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges Administration deals with finance, outcomes, and check lists Faculty focus on people, conversations, innovations, and lack of voice into administrative life Administrators are often unaware of the giftings or goals of faculty, and faculty are not often privy to the inner workings and demands of leadership (unless their work involves mentoring or advising student groups or chairing committees) However, both groups have goals and adhere to the mission statement of the institution What is not discussed is putting theory for innovation within scholarly work into action What would be necessary for the sort of radical change to occur that breaks down hierarchies and invites the academic community to come together around grand and inspiring conversations? When one party’s agenda becomes the dominant discourse, academic unity is fragmented The authors support the view that theoretical consideration, and time set aside for reflective conversations and dialogical exchange, would provide some clarity and a way forward Involvement in countless conversations over decades of experience within a variety of different institutions of higher education at administrative and faculty levels has provided ample opportunity for observation and comparative analysis of what allows scholarship to flow or ebb This analysis considers the work of theory, scholarly activity, and what is not being said or modeled by leaders in the academy The Ideological World: Types of Scholarship Scholarship in the academy is identified across a spectrum of perceptions that span from naïve and idealistic assumptions about the scholarly task to more jaded and cynical attitudes that regard academic work according to purely instrumental ends An academic administrator may view scholarship in somewhat pragmatic terms as a requirement of service, while the academic practitioner may understand scholarly activity as that which permits inquiry and a critical quest for truth The reality is that both of these are accurate perceptions that operate out of different frames of reference Dorothy Smith’s (2002) work on ethnographic narratives reinforces that all the voices from within the university need to be heard in order for truth and authenticity to rise to the surface: Institutional ethnography is sampling an institutional process rather than a population … The presence of institutional organization is in what someone has to say about her or his work (p 26, author emphasis) In Smith’s view, the inadequacy of some sociological approaches that involve jumping to broad, overarching statements about the way the world operates extinguish or at best de-emphasize the particular experiences of individuals and social groups within institutional academic settings (D Smith, 2005, pp 27-33) One of the things that Smith is critical of in traditional sociological research is the way [traditional sociology] interprets the everyday and local events in terms of a framework originating in sociological and political discourse Its conceptual structure displaces people, displaces their activities, displaces the social relations and organisation of their doings (D Smith, 2005, p 31) There is an essential need for attention to individual voices within the institution because the voices of many scholars appear to be mute Smith’s research supports the view that it is problematic to talk about scholarly inquiry as a simple method or a set of methods whose findings can be applied mechanically across different contexts and studies The will to accommodate multiple and competing views of scholarship cannot be subsumed neatly under a single common practice 49 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges According to Derrida (1994), there are two types of scholarship The first is a scholarship of denial— an almost hysterical utterance which conjures against the “revenant” or “avenir” of unfavorable spirits, resulting in a silencing or violence done to the “other.” Within the realm of institutional life, it is often observed that the scholarship of denial is tied to maintenance of the status quo, guarding what is familiar or tied to work economics—keeping things from conflict The second is a scholarship of responsibility—a fidelity to the tradition which practices resistance without reducing the gaps left by the “other.” Out of continual exploration and dialogue with the tradition—the task of inheritance—comes the possibility (promise) of bringing new voices to utterance (pp 52, 54, 68, 70, 85, 90, 114) In the day to day life of the university, if the aforementioned scholarship of denial functions as the modus operandi, academic leadership will seldom acknowledge or foresee gaps that would allow creativity Faculty benefit more from a responsible view, as their hope is in positive transformation and change in their disciplines Authors Eagleton (2003); Kouzes and Posner (2003); Ruch (2001); and Wigley (1997) are helpful in seeing the trajectory of topics that impact theory and leadership The tendency on the part of academic culture is to exercise what Wigley (1997) describes as “a form of institutional resistance [denial] that attempts to conceal the convoluted structure of the tradition that makes it” (p 71) Rather than acknowledge or trace some new thought or idea, additional space for the question is excluded or subordinated to produce an “orderly façade, or, rather, the façade of order, to mask an internal disorder” (p 71) Something is being covered over in this familiar space, whose traditional economy of discourses is appearing more strange and unfamiliar By adopting modes of denial which refuse to acknowledge existing gaps in traditional discourses, and carrying on with orthodox studies conducted with predictable methodology based on accepted norms, academic work is reduced to machinations and repetition Although scholarship is touted as a valued currency and essential endeavor in academic life, Ruch (2001) acknowledges that “Zachary Karabell, among others, has argued that the emphasis on faculty research all across academia has resulted in the duplication and triplication of the research already being carried out by faculty at the major research universities” (p 145) Often, new scholars are expected to conform to institutional assumptions regarding scholarship—i.e., to fit in—rather than to transform and add to the tradition of scholarly discourse by responding to the tradition in ways that help it to live on in a vital way Scholarship is valued not for engagement in the act of inquiry but rather for the product or reward it may acquire Research is not discussed collaboratively beyond the acquisition of a Ph.D and tends to become an isolationist activity Senior scholars are acknowledged for the quantity of their output, and junior scholars are rarely mentored or encouraged to pursue meaningful or hopeful facets of their research within clusters of shared praxis Even when publication occurs, the playing field is not equal for all types of research The format of research for publication is most frequently acknowledged if it conforms to the structure and guidelines of a quantitative (scientific) method Modes of narrative and applied research are often held hostage to these norms because scholarly practice in more qualitative fields of humanities and social sciences is situated outside of the domains of inquiry promoted by institutions and discipline fields with a preference for production and analysis of measureable data Innovative or creative modes of discourse are generally not encouraged in humanities and social sciences research because there is no standardized and quantifiable way to make a rigorous evaluation This is not to say that qualitative research is not rigorous, but rather that there is no scientific formula to assess it While it might seem counter-intuitive, faculty compliance with these norms may stem from personal experience that asking questions or pushing perceived boundaries in scholarship may little to enhance one’s success in the academy Adequate time is not allocated to enable scholarly pursuits to be taken 50 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges seriously or to acknowledge or discuss this critical piece as an act of professional and personal growth Scholarship in its fullest sense is truncated to a five-minute discussion in a year-end review, and there are few spaces or opportunities where these sorts of meaningful and flourishing conversations can take place The scholarship of denial is evident in institutions where academic leaders never engage faculty on topics that impassion them, and faculty not speak to administration about what they love Scholarship is an activity often carried out as a solitary pursuit, and it is not spoken of unless there are rewards that accrue to the institution Such mazes of contention often lead to the practice of a safe scholarship that shuts down any hope of conversation and does not encourage new forms of knowledge, creative production, innovation, or transformative discourse, all identified within the domain of responsible scholarship Wigley (1997) notes, Texts call for translation In answering this call, translation necessarily abuses the text, transforming it rather than transmitting it There is some kind of gap in the structure of the text that the translation is called in to cover, to cover precisely by forcing it open even further to liberate what is hidden within that structure (p 3) Much of what passes for scholarship in the 21st-century academy denies the possibility of new utterances to live on (sur-vive) in response to the tradition in ways that allow the validation of other voices, other narratives, to dialogue with traditional discourses The transmission of the tradition in the academy often allows no possibility of the performative “event” or of its movement or play through historical or material specificity Rather, all content is subsumed or synthesized in an ideal static structure or metanarrative—as an organic, unified whole All social and cultural texts are already corrupted, fissured, inhabited by something alien They not stand on their own, uncontaminated or unimpeded by the institutions that frame them (Wigley, 1997, p 3, citing Benjamin, 1923) Within the academy, traditional discourses are already disturbed, cracks are showing through performative ruptures, and, within this institutionalized construct, the unfamiliar is, as Wigley would describe it, overflowing the familiar Put another way, there is a great deal for the scholar to think about and to (Derrida, 1994) without succumbing to the stagnation of ideological frameworks and methodologies embedded within a safe scholarship of denial In examining the values embedded within the culture of the academy, the authors endeavor to reframe notions of scholarship within a model of academic leadership that encourages authentic and responsible inquiry At the heart of the project is this question: By what possible means might academic leaders be enabled to encourage flourishing, community-making, and transformative scholarship that Derrida (1994) would recognize as legitimately inheriting the gift or burden of response to the scholarly tradition? There is a dearth of current thought that calls the scholar to pursue meaningful inquiry for the sake of the question But Terry Eagleton (2003) presents a view that builds on Derrida’s notion of the scholarship of responsibility He separates theoretical method from the theories that birthed them, noting a fundamental difference between ideas and ideology Eagleton laments the amnesia under which most of academe seems to have fallen since the last major theoretical turn of the 1960s He is critical of the majority of contemporary academics who are content to preserve the ideas of predecessors, by doing something useful with them, such as developing a method or apparatus based on prior theories of others— for application Eagleton observes that theoretical ideas are speculative in their initial conceptualization and non-normative (revolutionary) in their context; but theories require systematic application if they are to be proved or their validity claims tested Systems or frameworks that ground a theory eventually 51 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges identify as beliefs or ideology, and these rarely forge a radical response to the tradition (pp 13-18) To place Eagleton’s perspective in Derrida’s frame, amnesia—the forgetting of the question and the taking up of systematic modes of repetition—is not an act of responsible scholarship Eagleton arrives at similar conclusions about notions of denial and responsibility in scholarship, through examining dominant narratives, normative discourses, critical thought, and the conceptualization of revolution and repetition in theory Best known for his provocative critique of twentieth-century academic projects in cultural and literary theory and criticism, Eagleton mourns the disappearance of new inquiry that responds to traditional or normative discourses Following the high theory of the 1960s and 1970s that marked the postmodern turn, successive generations of theorists have developed, added to, criticized, and applied these original ideas, without coming up with a “comparable body of ideas of their own” (p 2) Scholarship in many disciplines is no longer dependent on a comprehensive inquiry framework, because scholars are not familiar with old theories or traditional narratives Not knowing—or forgetting—consigns scholars to repetition and trivialization within a systematic process (p 7) Without constant conversation within the academic community, inspired by leaders who understand the importance of frequent conversation to refresh those narratives, the academic enterprise takes on a collective amnesia (Eagleton 2003) Collective memory or vision for scholarship that is responsible is supported by Palmer’s (1997) view that academic leaders must create openings for the scholarly community to gather around “the grace of great things.” The love of scholarly work must be central Eagleton points to the cultural discontent in the mid-20th century of the two-thirds world, fuelled initially by scholarly inquiry at the edges of the academy that questioned the notion of colonial dominance The idea of post-colonialism ushered in new geo-political and social narratives that incited political action and social change—both within and outside of the academy “Margins can be unspeakably painful places to be, and there are few more honorable tasks for [scholars] of culture than to help create a space in which the dumped and disregarded can find a tongue” (Eagleton, 2003, p 13) But norms and conventions of culture and of academic life are inescapable “Language levels things down It is normative all the way down” (p 14) Eagleton claims that the “postmodern prejudice against norms, unities and consensuses is a politically [and intellectually] catastrophic one” (pp 15-16), because those academics who insist on revolutionary resistance where there is nothing to blow up in this social order, practice nothing better than “low-minded effrontery” (pp 16-17) Binary dualisms about old and new, self and other; modernist power narratives about cultural progress; and postmodern stories about particularities, marginality, and difference have permeated the academy for decades and have increasingly fragmented discursive practices Dominant narratives in traditional Western thought, representing powerful ideologies such as liberalism, which grounded Western cultural and societal values, no longer form a nexus of power or a locus against which resistance is practiced in scholarly inquiry The traditional narratives have been largely abandoned or forgotten in many scholarly domains as new ideas—once regarded as responsible inquiry or resistance within traditional discourses—detach from the root and reify into their own particular ideologies and methodological systems Rather than be linked—through resistance—to the dominant cultural narratives that have shaped our scholarly traditions, academics are increasingly uprooted and dis-inclined to take up more resistant forms of inquiry that would, paradoxically, add to the richness of traditional discourses and transform them Discursive fragmentation contributes to an increasing instability of the academic institution at its core No longer able to ground itself on common scholarly values or ideals that transcend the material substance of scholarly striving (such as systems, methods, proofs) in order to make meaning, the uni52 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges versity and its inhabitants have been set adrift Scholars and academic leaders alike have lost the ability to inherit the burden of tradition, to wrestle with its ghosts and gaps, to have grand conversations, and to be challenged by the act of inscribing themselves responsibly into traditional narratives The unintended consequences of those scholars who practiced mid-century resistance in the name of justice and in support of a leveling of hierarchies, is that the marginal, the different, the trace element, and the dis-enfranchised have become the fixation of current scholarship (Eagleton, 2003) In many disciplines—as these stories are transmitted—there is no longer a common back story to which these particularities relate More critically, the university set adrift has, inadvertently, been caught up in the machinations of a global world order, where the net worth of the educational enterprise is determined by a set of complex relationships tied to the economy Over and against the once secure identity of institution, educational systems—not unlike those of political, economic, and cultural conglomerates—are now driven by systems and frameworks of late capitalism that are impervious to ideas and ideologies operating outside of any moral code or human agency (Eagleton, 2003, pp 15, 19) Hence, the academic machine and its leaders—detached from the roots of social and cultural discourses that ground intellectual identity and purpose—are driven by systems and currents that are seemingly impervious to ideals or values Ideological frameworks (with their bifurcated bent toward grand modernist narratives) marginalize the plurality of experience on one side, or identify with particular groups at the margins over and against a dominant story on the other In many places, the academy is consigned to repeat this dis-integrated duality with ever more refined and nuanced gestures or to ignore the old narratives altogether in favor of promoting whatever is currently in vogue Leadership has lost sight of scholarly values that propel faculty toward meaningful work, and institutional systems of operation are driven by external economic factors that arbitrate both the content and manner in which scholarly inquiry is framed In order to effect change, it is imperative to consider what facets of academic leadership can be charged with a mandate to move scholarly praxis back to the heart of what drives responsible scholarly inquiry Academic Leadership at the Edges Within the unique university context, the most crucial of all human rights are meaningless unless they entail the right to raise deeply disturbing questions and provocative challenges to the cherished beliefs of society at large and of the university itself … It is this human right to radical, critical teaching, and research with which the University has a duty above all to be concerned; for there is no one else, no other institution and no other office, in our modern liberal democracy, which is the custodian of this most precious and vulnerable right of the liberated human spirit (Excerpts from the Mission Statement, University of Toronto, as cited in Westheimer, 2010) Westheimer (2010) declares that those who drafted the University of Toronto’s Mission Statement, a “shining example … in promoting and preserving critical thinking as the engine of progress in any democratic society,” neither believe nor abide by their own credo He cites two examples of blatant violation on the part of University of Toronto administrators in failing to stand up to corporate power that controls university research agendas: Nancy Oliveri and David Healy (Westheimer 2010; Baylis 2004; Charleton, 2001) By nature, academic leaders are rarely contrarian They conform to the conventions of academic culture as it has evolved, and they reinforce its codes of behavior and identity by rewarding those who 53 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges operate within the margins of current acceptable practice and penalizing those who not There is little room for transgression outside of these bounds; academic leaders have no time or inclination to model or encourage responsible discourse and critical inquiry about the meaning or signification and impact of human activity within cultural currents of resistance Current university leadership is preoccupied by conversations about 1) national and global rankings, 2) workforce training—inviting the appearance of sustainability and relevance, and 3) anxiety over the state of the institution relative to current economic realities This generation of academic leadership is being molded to run corporations; many are not familiar with what is necessary to restore scholars to the heart of academic culture Put another way, there is little tolerance for responsible scholarship that is transformational Many institutions offer little opportunity to the scholar to investigate and respond to critical gaps in traditional discourse beyond the Ph.D., thereby limiting critical examination of canon and traditional discourses Putting up barriers that deny access to various legitimate modes of inquiry relative to current popular institutional practices and preferences, academic leaders inadvertently choose to support a “scholarship of denial” rather than a “scholarship of responsibility” (Derrida, 1994) There is a reluctance on the part of academic leaders to permit questions that uncover and open “spectral cracks of institution”—prompted by the anxiety that to disturb those conventions that cover over or sanitize a discourse might unleash unwelcome or unpopular spirits (Wigley, 1997) But academic leadership must permit space for the question and the conversations that produce new understanding in order to encourage the practice of scholarship that is responsible to the tradition How those in academic leadership come to terms with the notion of an educational enterprise as a negotiator of space that operates at the intersection of personal formation and public discourse? Given all that divides—within a system that is increasingly removed from theoretical speculation; inured to truly radical thought; and increasingly uncomfortable with responsible, critical examination of its own tradition—is there a way for academic leadership to recognize the malaise of discourse fragmentation in scholarly practice and reclaim foundational values of scholarly inquiry that are responsible to the tradition and give purpose to scholars? Kouzes and Posner (2003) outline practices of exemplary academic leadership While their research is focused on the skill sets required for successful leadership in human resources, planning, and institution-building contexts having to with institutional change, they introduce transferable principles for academic leaders who might be more attuned to internal voices that speak to matters of scholarly responsibility Based on extensive interviews and analysis conducted with the intent of determining best practices, Kouzes and Posner contend that all exemplary leaders have the ability to articulate and clarify their own personal values, and in doing so, they are able to model an unwavering integrity in challenging situations where faculty require support to pursue unpopular or controversial questions (p 20) According to Kouzes and Posner, research shows that there is positive energy that results when individual and institutional values are aligned Faculty are more effective and satisfied when they are able to care about what they are doing And leaders endeavor, in clarifying values, to move the conversation from “what I believe” to “what we believe” (p 23) In what ways can leadership affirm and endorse academic freedom to pursue those avenues of scholarship that cannot deny haunting questions, that challenge the scholar to be responsible toward traditions that shape ways of knowing? Leaders need to exemplify and embody a tolerance for calculated risk in order to support responsible scholarship Kouzes and Posner support the premise that experience is developed through experiment and failure, as well as the will to proceed against the odds (pp 7, 57) 54 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges Learning from experimentation and failure while committing to shared values around academic freedom can inspire confidence in faculty What might challenge leadership in higher education to encourage scholars to occupy a space of tension—with integrity? How might scholars be liberated and encouraged to occupy those spaces of tension as harbingers of hope and critical voices of disequilibrium, inscribing themselves within the cracks and fissures of a discourse in ways that are transformative? “Leaders encourage the heart of their constituents to carry on, to continue even when they might be tempted to give up Genuine acts of caring—whether exhibited in dramatic gestures or simple actions—uplift spirits and draw people forward” (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p 9) The authors contend that the absence of a strong philosophical foundation specific to academic leadership as a form of relational praxis is largely absent in publication on higher education management and administration A shift in the academy toward more corporate models of leadership have resulted in a serious erosion of the vision and mission of higher education, estranging academic leadership from faculty work In the concluding section of this chapter, possibilities for academic leaders to facilitate scholarship and teaching are proposed which engage new modes of inquiry and permit greater degrees of risk at the edges and intersections of academic tradition and self-actualization, for the sake of renewing and enlarging traditional discourses Since foundations and philosophical belief guides practice, it has been pertinent to review how unexamined practices become a philosophy and foundation unto themselves This pseudo-philosophy is often embedded in the system and life world—the worldview—of university life Moving Scholarship from the Edges to the Heart of Community The notion of education being a transmission of tradition which either is renewed or reinvented over time is valuable “Education [Scholarship] is the transmission of a tradition…traditions are never lost They can be renewed or re-invented” (Sacks, 2000, p 184) This invites a critical stance or a kind of scholarly inquiry that welcomes the struggle for change and recognizes the work of the scholar as that which bears the weight or burden of tradition, without simply accepting a reductionist or limited view of the world or of discourse Refusing to gloss over in generalities, the scholar knows that this burden cannot be reduced There are questions that wait to be uncovered The cracks and gaps within varying discourses and subject matter continue to yield traces that require attention and leave a great deal for the scholar to think about and to (Derrida, 1994) The ends of scholarship require a robust, reflective discourse However, this is not a timid conversation There are dangerous intersections of complacency, instrumentalism, and fear in the academy which would ambush more life-giving views of nuanced and refined scholarship and its place in academic life Initiating the conversation requires unconditional love—for the self, for the other, and for the process of critical inquiry At its end, such conversation would unfold modes of new scholarly inquiry that honor institutional fidelity to the tradition in ways that are less confining How might academic leaders proceed to engage scholars and redefine scholarship, moving conversation from the edges to the center or heart of the task to which the scholar is called? The authors offer the following principles for leaders who desire transformative modes of discourse to take root within their communities of scholarship Supporting scholarly inquiry in all its forms requires multi-modal attention to disciplinary inquiry, inter-disciplinary inquiry, and engagement in the process of vocational discernment James Smith 55 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges (2009) and Andy Crouch (2008, 2013) advance the theory that social institutions—in this case, universities—are essential for social engagement and flourishing within society A transformational leader will inspire a community to seek out mystery in the details of subject matter and will also connect threads of disparate disciplinary thought in ways that spark new insights and lead to new forms of knowledge Such a community will also treat scholarship as being worthy of time and will allocate appropriate space for scholarly work within the teaching and scholarly flow of academic life—rather than have scholarship be seen as something to be fitted into a crowded timetable of daily events Cherishing academic freedom by being responsible to tradition in the wake of the postmodern turn would disturb established theory and analysis by creating disequilibrium Disequilibrium refocuses our attention on the surface detail in order to develop new perceptions about tradition Wolterstorff (2002) defines disequilibrium as a state of being lovingly dissatisfied with life as it is at that moment and advocates that this stance of loving dissatisfaction is required in order to engage tensions within a vital institutional and communal sense of place Wolterstorff proposes that one of the tasks of scholarship is to provoke thinking outside of one’s comfort zone, in order to articulate tensions in life in ways that bring shalom and reconciliation, coupled with grace and compassion to problems in a broken world These ruptures, born of a recognition on the part of exceptional leaders that there are gaps in the transmission of traditional texts, invoke the kind of scholarly responsibility that raises questions and gives voice to silenced or marginalized bodies of text, fostering inquiry that could critique the privileging of some narratives over others Scholars have the option to carry on with orthodox, self-contained scholarship and pose the risk of consigning the life of the academy to marginalization because the voices of regeneration are silenced Inheriting a scholarship of denial, many scholars continue to engage canonic literature, methodological approaches, and theoretical assumptions in a milieu that denies the possibility of new utterances or speculative thought to live on—to survive—as a legitimate response to the tradition, and in ways that allow the validation of other voices, other narratives, to dialogue with the dominant traditional discourse Scholarly inquiry might employ familiar analytical apparatus to new ends, searching for the disequilibrium in tradition that betrays neat consistencies and conformities It is also possible to look beyond established canons for other sites of inquiry that can be considered through the lens of traditional discourse Translation transforms discourse rather than merely replicating it This is academic freedom: to pursue the question responsibly, to allow the tradition to live in ways that are compelling for our time and for future generations Placing a high value on inquiry that challenges notions of meaning opens a space for self and communal actualization within a constructed framework (or world) This enhances and gives meaning to a living scholarly community There is no climate like the present in which divergent discourses and multiple ways of being in the world could be tested and interpreted within formative values that shape the whole person The practice of intentional formation, or the integration of the disciplines of self-awareness and scholarly pursuit, provides a possible model around which leaders may structure inquiry Fostering transformational scholarship within a life world or lived visionrequires hope on the part of faculty to engage a thriving scholarly practice Faculty fear scholarship because they not see themselves as scholars within the structural norms of the academic frame When this happens, the 56 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges capacity of otherwise engaged, committed faculty is limited, and the courage to risk possibility in scholarly inquiry is severely constrained At its heart the academy is a scholarly community whose mission is to engage in an ongoing conversation about the meaning of things The academy exists to cultivate the life of the mind and soul, while continuing the paradoxical quest into the mystery of being fully human The academy is a place where everyone participates in the work of seeking truth and reality and interpreting it clearly In return, an understanding of the self and others is given focus, and people are transformed A transformational approach calls the scholar to be a harbinger of hope Change must come from within the heart of the educational process rather than be imposed from some place external to the community’s experience This requires an institutional commitment to ongoing, shared conversation between administration, faculty, students, and external stakeholders about the educational mission/scholarly task We can challenge and change norms of [academic] discourse, but we must be able to justify any deviation from them in a public and compelling way [Such conversation is] conducted with passion and discipline [a] process of inquiry and dialogue the dynamic conversation of a community that keeps testing old conclusions and coming to new ones (Palmer, 1997, p 104) A transformative academic leader facilitates discourse about things that matter; connects scholarly inquiry and subject matter, in order to refresh the academy and bring currency to scholarship; and seeks out opportunities to explore new questions for the sake of enlargement Transforming boundaries and opening spaces that redefine academic tradition calls for an open conversation that welcomes creative conflict, embraces ambiguity, invites honest diversity, and creates a sense of shared ownership Modelling academic leadership within partnership is a non-linear process that requires the facilitative attention and discerning insight of academic leadership within collegial partnership Such partnership invigorates leadership and is able to connect threads of commentary and inquiry, engaging a community of learning in response to its traditional foundations Parker Palmer extends this concept when he describes how tyrannical positions of power and the desire to withdraw into isolation evaporate in the practice of honest, free exchange, and personal agendas are upstaged and revealed (1997, pp 108, 120) In Palmer’s view, scholarship must not become polarized; rather, the notion of scholarship needs to be understood as the collective gathering around great things Scholars need to gather around what they love When individual scholars are drawn into a community of truth to offer unique and multiple perspectives, there is a power which allows everyone with memory or insight to contribute to a collective inquiry (pp 127-128) Those who care about scholarship must also care for the conditions that bear on the work scholars This model of leadership demands the kind of courage that allows room for change to occur as a natural outgrowth of individual and collective response to those things that call scholars to an authentic sense of life and work Academic leaders have to invite the kind of conversation that brings faculty out of isolation into a public forum around the subjects that impassion them, allowing individuals who think and care deeply about their work the freedom to act toward transformative change Such community is not easily achieved in academic life—given all that divides us It is most likely to happen when leaders call faculty back to the heart of inquiry, to the shared work and the shared passion behind the work (Palmer, 57 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges 1997, p 161) This would result in a horizontal rather than a vertical model of practice in leadership, supporting Boyer’s focus on horizontal realignment (1990, p 16) Understanding and embracing the centrality of an embodied applied worldviewlegitimizes the need for disequilibrium as one strives for a moral and authentic life Truthful meaning-making, while desired by many, is embodied most completely within a scholarly community whose collective call to gather around the grace of great things (Palmer, 1997) underlies a firm belief that education transforms the world and opens minds to possibility and hope CONCLUSION Bringing Mission and Meaning Together in Scholarly Work This chapter is a theoretical examination that calls for academic leaders to re-examine their purpose and motivation to support faculty scholarship This is a call for a distinctive stance, set apart from the general push of education policy makers and governments to instrumentalize higher education as a driver of “economic growth and social cohesion” (cf OECD 2006, as cited in Belcher & Parr, 2011) The Bologna Policy Report (2009) reflects this agenda: a globalizing tendency toward standardization in higher education, in an increasingly complex environment, where the university, paradoxically, has been set adrift: valueless and devoid of a moral and intellectual imperative to be responsible to the scholarly tradition by subverting its norms and challenging its assumptions The mission of universities worldwide has changed to reflect a post-industrial economy, where “knowledge production has replaced labor and raw materials as the key determinant of productivity and competitiveness” (Clark, Moran, Skolnik & Trick, 2009, p 50) The “rise of commercialization” in the university and the challenges this creates for “those who would seek to maintain the core values of these institutions” (p 49) are a stark reality and constitute an increasing set of pressures for academic leaders who believe that university life, at its core, is a relational enterprise No longer quiet enclaves removed from the busy world, [universities] emerged as the chief source for the three ingredients most essential to continued growth and prosperity: highly trained specialists, expert knowledge, and scientific advances others could transform into valuable products (Bok, 2003, p 1, as cited in Clark et al., p 49) If competitiveness in a global economy links higher education research and scholarship increasingly to innovation, commercialization, and wealth generation, academic life will be challenged increasingly and overwhelmingly to be responsible to scholarly traditions—by transforming rather than merely transmitting their discourses Utilitarian ends such as providing a highly qualified workforce and fuelling a national innovation engine are not necessarily transformational in nature, nor are they achieved solely through utilitarian means Government agendas and funding for research (in Canada, the US, and the UK) are tilted disproportionately toward applied innovation and commercial productivity, and the dramatic increase in competitive and collaborative work in the sciences, engineering, and business fields—both within and outside of the university—is not surprising What is surprising, however, is the spin-off of this galvanized focus 58 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges on innovation research to other areas of scholarship: As a result of the directive of governments that universities should contribute meaningful innovation for the manifold purpose of improving economic and social wellbeing, conversations within and across the academy are turning with increasing frequency to collective modes of inquiry, such as design thinking Complex themes involving human factors invite multi-disciplinary approaches to problem-solving for a range of current issues that affect quality of life, such as environmental and industrial challenges and questions of human security, health, sustainability, and social satisfaction/personal fulfillment Design thinking strategies, applied as inquiry around a problem, invoke the kinds of conversations that matter to people, personally and professionally, and incite the kinds of transformative discourse that is responsible to the tradition whilst paying attention to conditions that bear on the welfare of the world and on the life world of the scholar Grand conversations occur in these settings, where all voices are considered as strategic pathways to problem-solving This is the sort of relational engagement to which scholars are called and to which academic leaders must be attentive The mission of the university is experiencing radical change within a milieu of pressures to conform to and support a global economy As a result, the new priorities of scholarly work within the professoriate are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary and collaborative, and the expectation of performance outputs are measured differently and scrutinized more than ever before Is it possible therefore—in light of the radical shifts required in understanding and adapting to increasingly nuanced and instrumental roles of postsecondary institutions in a knowledge economy—to re-root institutional mission and align it with daily practices of university life that are life-giving and sustainable? The short answer is yes, conditional on the ability of academic leadership that is prepared to consider comprehensively all the issues involved when institutions commit to inhabiting such a volatile space of tension and risk Currently in Canada, there is a great deal of systemic dysfunction within university leadership that requires examination It may not be fashionable to conduct qualitative or data-driven research on this issue because university leadership is distracted by other things at present Time and focus not permit a lengthy examination of this question within the project, but it is hoped that there is a recognition of the vast scope of inquiry that remains to be explored on this topic It is imperative to state—in summation—that despite the urgent need to identify and define shifts in institutional identity and purpose that may pose opportunities for new theoretical constructs and new systems of operation, a powerful constant holds and knits together the need for an ongoing scholarship of responsibility in the university If a goal of the university is to better equip adherents to think in ways that assist the reality of the current mission while never forgetting the larger responsibility of the academic enterprise to transform its own traditions and discourses in ways that inherit the burden of scholarship, then it must also be understood that university life is a relational learning enterprise where scholarly inquiry in all its forms within the community should be able to flourish In order for that relational constant to thrive, conversations around what flourishing would entail are necessary, followed by actions that support scholars in their work Conversations—even those on a grand scale—require action and the will on the part of academic leaders to implement change, which may require approval or decision-making for systems changes having to with process, procedure, time, money, or public acknowledgement and does require continual attention, communication, and affirmation in the wake of decisions Academic leaders can bring change into the daily realm of faculty work by permitting freedom for innovation, by encouraging departmental autonomy, and by making space and time for conversations across disciplines Faculty scholars will 59 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges know that academic leaders are authentic when leaders demonstrate a solid awareness and attend to the conditions that bear on the work scholars In the academy, theory (ideology) must be continually transformed rather than transmitted, in order to engage new conversations Systems (organization) must be flexible enough to incorporate new fields of inquiry and new institutional approaches that accommodate and support the work In academic life, what is required to create an abundant life world is the cognizance and the competence of academic leadership that is able to weave strands of discourse from disparate voices, integrate fragmented narratives, and bring people together around grand conversations about the collective purpose that inspires scholarly work REFERENCES Bakhtin, M (1981) Discourse in the novel In M Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M M Bakhtin (C Emmerson & M Holquist, Trans.) (pp 259–289) Austin, TX: University of Texas Press Baylis, F (2004) The Olivieri debacle: Where were the heroes of bioethics? The Olivieri Symposium Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(1), 44–49 doi:10.1136/jme.2003.005330 Belcher, C., & Parr, G (2011) Exploring worldview and identity in an institution of Christian higher education Research and Development in Higher Education: Higher Education on the Edge, 34, 40–49 Benjamin, W (1923) The task of the translator In H Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (H Zohn, Trans.) New York, NY: Schocken Books Bok, D (2003) Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Bologna Policy Forum (2009, April) Statement by the Bologna Policy Forum Louvain-la-Neuve Retrieved from https://globalhighered.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bologna_policy_forum_statement_29april2009 pdf Boyer, E (1990) Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate New York, NY: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Charlton, B (2001, June 12) The David Healy affair [Transcript] CBC News and Current Affairs Retrieved from http://www.pharmapolitics.com/cbcnational.html Clark, I D., Moran, G., Skolnik, M L., & Trick, D (2009) Academic transformation: The forces reshaping higher education in Ontario Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press Crouch, A (2008) Culture making: Recovering our creative calling Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books Crouch, A (2013) Playing God: Redeeming the gift of power Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press Derrida, J (1994) Specters of Marx: The state of the debt, the work of mourning, & the new international (P Kamuf, Trans.) New York, NY: Routledge 60 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges Eagleton, T (2003) After theory London, UK: Allen Lane Habermas, J (1989) The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T Burger, Trans.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Keip, M (2000) Basic principles of policy governance: Condensed from John Carver & Miriam Mayhew, Carver guide series on effective board governance, with notes inserted on adapting the model to Unitarian Universalist churches Unitarian Universalist Association Retrieved from http://www.uua org/governance/ga/98376.shtml Kouzes, J M., & Posner, B Z (2003) The Jossey-Bass academic administrator’s guide to exemplary leadership San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Naugle, D K (2002) Worldview: The history of a concept Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Palmer, P (1997) The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Ruch, R S (2001) Higher Ed, Inc.: The rise of the for-profit university Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press Sacks, J (2000) Politics of hope (2nd ed.) London, UK: Vintage Books Sergiovanni, T J (1994) Building community in schools San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Sergiovanni, T J (2000) The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture, community, and personal meaning in our schools San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Smith, D E (2002) Institutional ethnography In T May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp 17–52) London, UK: Sage Smith, D E (2005) Institutional ethnography: A sociology for the people Oxford, UK: AltaMira Press Smith, J (2009) Desiring the kingdom: Worship, worldview, and culture formation Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Tönnies, F (1971) Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft In M Truzzi (Ed.), Sociology: The classic statements (C P Loomis, Trans.) (pp 145–154) New York, NY: Oxford University Press Westheimer, J (2010, April-May) Higher education or education for hire? Corporatization and the threat to democratic thinking Academic Matters, OCUFA’s Journal of Higher Education Retrieved from http://www.academicmatters.ca/print-issues/challenging-the-academy/ Wigley, M (1997) The architecture of deconstruction: Derrida’s haunt Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Wolters, A M (2005) Creation regained: Biblical basics for a reformational worldview (2nd ed.) Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans (Original work published 1995) Wolterstorff, N P (2002) Educating for life: Reflections on Christian teaching and learning Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books 61 Scholarly Praxis at the Edges KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Gemeinschaft: The personal life of relational aspects within an educational institutional community It is more recently defined by Thomas Sergiovanni (2000) as being the life world of an educational institution Gesellschaft: The societal life of management and operation within an educational institutional community It is more recently defined by Thomas Sergiovanni (2000) as being the system world of the educational institution Grand Conversations: A dialogic conversation of intentional reflection seeking meaning first expounded by Mikhail Bakhtin in 1981 Mission: A public statement provided by a university which provides its reason for existence and its intent as an institution, be it public, independent, or private Scholarship of Denial: An almost hysterical utterance which wills or conjures against the “revenant” (return) or “avenir” (arrival) of unfavorable spirits, a silencing or violence done to that which would utter “other” It is a worried, anxious acknowledgement that the thing which has been expunged is not really dead Attributed to Derrida (1994, Specters of Marx), who describes scholarship as a “haunting” enterprise that is taken up fearfully (denying what we not wish to disturb) or responsibly Scholarship of Responsibility: Fidelity to the tradition that practices resistance without reducing the gaps left by “other.” Out of continual exploration and dialogue with the tradition—the task of inheritance—comes the possibility (promise) of bringing new voices to utterance This type of scholarship necessarily abuses the text, seeking out the cracks and fissures in discourse, for the sake of the question, and poses new ways of thinking about traditional narratives (Derrida, 2004) Worldview: A belief about the world seated in a philosophical understanding that guides its adherents in the world 62 ... recognized as an entity in its own right In the end, it is not the theory behind the running of an educational institution that induces change for academic scholarship; rather, it is the philosophy and... ways of being in the world could be tested and interpreted within formative values that shape the whole person The practice of intentional formation, or the integration of the disciplines of self-awareness... Bringing Mission and Meaning Together in Scholarly Work This chapter is a theoretical examination that calls for academic leaders to re-examine their purpose and motivation to support faculty scholarship