How to be a professor: What Taylor et al. didn’t tell you!
Article Outline
- Introduction
- Write, write, write
- Clinical credibility
- You are always on show
- Be humble, but realistic, about your achievements
- Look to yourself
- Work hard and forget about the nine to five approach
- Be ready to try new things: that means saying yes more often than no
- Do not get isolated – and do not give up
- Enjoy the journey
- Do not put your life on hold – people are more important than things
- Conclusion
- References
- Copyright
Introduction
We are pleased that others have entered the fray about professorial standards in nursing and grateful, for once, for not being taken to task for our robust views on the deplorable state of the UK nursing professoriate that we have expressed on several occasions (Watson and Thompson, 2000, Watson and Thompson, 2004, Watson and Thompson, 2008a, Thompson and Watson, 2001, Thompson and Watson, 2005a, Thompson and Watson, 2005b, Thompson and Watson, 2006). Taking one of our papers (Watson, 2001) as their starting point, Taylor et al. (2009) argue that obtaining a professorship in most European countries ‘without the requisite academic credentials’ (p. 1) would be impossible. However, the point made in Watson (2001) and subsequently by both of us on several occasions was specifically related to the UK and, while we agree that it would be almost impossible elsewhere, we wish to reiterate and emphasise that that it is eminently possible in the UK to obtain a professorship without fulfilling the accepted criteria – it is still happening. We do not take issue with Taylor et al. (2009) but we feel that we can augment their argument significantly by focusing on some of the points they raise.
The list of items that form an integral package for a professorship provided by Taylor et al. (2009) is excellent; so good in fact that we repeat it with bullet points:
Our support for the above list is total but we can think of one item to add: all professors (Taylor et al., 2009 specify only a research professor) should hold a PhD (or equivalent or some other appropriate esteem indicator) as a minimum; nor can we think of any reasonable excuse why any of these items should be missing for someone to be appointed or promoted to a professorship, although we would be interested to ascertain how many professors of nursing possess all of the above listed criteria. We assume – but may be over-confident – that there cannot be any professors of nursing who do not hold any of these criteria.
However, the arguments of Taylor et al. (2009) are slightly confused by the use, in places, of the term ‘research chair’ and we feel this is confusing because it passes without definition and is also not, explicitly, the initial focus of the editorial, which is simply about ‘professors’. Furthermore, we feel that the use of the term ‘research chair’ is unhelpful – especially without definition – as it may seem to let others seeking chairs by other routes ‘off the hook’ on some aspects of the list of criteria. Whether or not the term ‘research chair’ is helpful or not is debatable; frankly, used together the terms ‘research’ and ‘chair’ are a tautology. Surely they go hand in hand and one without the other – especially professor without research – is like the leaning tower of Pisa, without the underpinning…likely to collapse.
Those of us with professorships tend to assume that everyone wants one or that everyone thinks that one is in their grasp and a fitting recognition of contribution to their field. However, this is not the case. On the other hand, there are those who make promotion or appointment to a chair an abiding aim over and above the achievement of any of the requisite steps on the way. That fact is not remarkable – it is natural for people to be ambitious and for some to be ambitious beyond their abilities; what is remarkable is that a great many UK universities seem to be complying with these misplaced ambitions and either awarding substantive chairs to unworthy recipients or disbursing honorary professorships (Thompson and Watson, 2008) with minimal scrutiny of professorial level achievement. The motivation for this behaviour by universities may be the other side of the personal ambition coin: patronage; presumably both sides perceive benefits to this arrangement. The arrangement is made all the more ironic in nursing with the large scale withdrawal of support for professors generally in universities (Watson, 2006) and, specifically, with the undermining of professorial positions in nursing (unless dedicated to practice development) (Watson and Thompson, 2008b, Thompson et al., 2008) by the UK National Health Service, which funds the vast majority of nursing posts in UK universities (Watson and Shields, 2009).
Just what outcome do people on either side of the spurious professorial title industry hope to achieve? A fitting analogy is the practice – possibly unique to the UK – of fitting personalised number plates to cars. This may draw a certain amount of attention to a car – and indicate something about the driver (exactly what depends on the eye of the beholder) – but a low performance car with a personalised number plate remains, primarily, a low performance car.
Taylor et al. (2009), in addition to their list of attributes – which we hereby label ‘The Ten Commandments’ – provide an interesting ‘take’ on the less tangible aspects of becoming a professor. Again, we do not take issue with this list but it is a list for how to do it properly and it struck us forcibly how this list was an almost exact juxtaposition to the other ‘new route’ to professorship, the one we now recognise as the ‘ambition/patronage’ route. Taking each heading in turn, we have something to say in that regard.
Write, write, write
We simply could not agree more. While we appreciate that there are other aspects to being a professor, this must be the ‘bottom line’ and the logical outcome: publications, was top of Taylor et al.’s (2009) list. Nevertheless, we see evidence of professorships attained without any kind of publication record – international or otherwise – therefore, clearly, some people are eschewing the ‘write, write, write’ adage as their publications are scanty or non-existent. We have recently recommended that nursing scrutinises the h-indices of nursing professors worldwide (Thompson and Watson, 2009) and drawn up some guidance for h-index values that are commensurate with professorial level appointments – and other academic positions. How many ‘new route’ professors even have an h-index?
Clinical credibility
There is not enough time and space to elucidate how much we disagree with this aspect – and it is a unique point of disagreement – of Taylor et al.’s (2009) editorial. However, we are not here to disagree on this occasion and may take this up later at more length. However, what does it matter if ‘our colleagues in medicine’ have addressed this – we’re not in medicine and should be carving our own future. Rather than any mention of clinical credibility we emphasise that the issue, in terms of professorships, is that of academic credibility and some professors are, frankly, not academically credible. We doubt, by the way, that many of these are clinically credible either – but we do not really think that is relevant.
You are always on show
Indeed you are but why, paraphrasing the words attributed to Kitty Muggeridge wife of the late, great Malcolm Muggeridge – about Sir David Frost – (http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1W1RNTN_en&q=rose+without+trace&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=; retrieved 10 September 2009), do so many of our nursing professors ‘rise without trace’? If they were always on show, where were they when it came to writing and publishing, presenting their research and developing an international profile?
Be humble, but realistic, about your achievements
Humility is not the strongest point of some professors, by whatever route they achieved their professorship. However, those rising to professorships without fulfilling the usual criteria simply cannot have been either humble or realistic about their achievements; they may well have been deluded or encouraged to be so. It continues to mystify us why some universities collude with the delusion; indeed, it continues to mystify us why so many universities collude with the deluded.
Look to yourself
In writing this editorial we are probably falling into the trap of not knowing for certain what is on the CVs of others who may have done more or less than us and achieved their professorship. However, it is worrying, in the age of the World Wide Web, if someone of professorial status is virtually invisible electronically through publications. We reiterate our agreement that there is more to obtaining a professorship than just publications – but not much more.
Work hard and forget about the nine to five approach
This is good – albeit sad – advice for any aspiring academic. However, the logical consequence is that academics should have the freedom to decide – outside of the necessities of teaching, administration and committee work – their own working hours. They can expect to work long and unsocial hours but should not be expected to be at their desk and ‘visible’ to all when it is clearly part of their role to write and publish. Otherwise, the antisocial culture of working evenings and weekends becomes the norm for those with professorial ambitions. However, it is reported to us that some non-research professors (such a thing seems to exist) are the ones insisting that their research and publication active colleagues are at their desks nine to five – this is the ‘desk jockey’ approach to academic work; and it does not work. As if on cue, this issue has arisen in the UK (Jones, 2009) at one university where the nine to five culture is being imposed. One person at the receiving end was reported to say: ‘This kind of invasive kind of micromanaging is often done with the intent to reduce the productivity of an academic because others in the department do not want to be outshone by a high achiever’ (Jones, 2009; p. 12).
Be ready to try new things: that means saying yes more often than no
This is sound advice and there does seem to be a correlation between research and publication activity and being able to use the photocopier yourself. Indeed, it is our frequent observation in UK universities that the more research and publication active you are, the less support you receive in your role. The ‘desk jockeys’ who fulfil the important management and administrative activities receive the support – and they should; however, the purpose of a university is to teach and generate new knowledge and these activities, and the ultimate recognition that goes with them: a ‘research’ professorship, seem to be marginalised.
Do not get isolated – and do not give up
It is easy to become isolated preparing research proposals and publications and be downhearted when they are rejected. However, the ‘new route’ professors seem to have found the perfect solution to this – they keep research active professors isolated and never get downhearted themselves because they never submit anything for scrutiny by grant awarding bodies and journals.
Enjoy the journey
The journey is and should be enjoyable; in fact, ‘the journey’ should be the way to reach the destination. However, some seem to have eschewed the journey and reached the destination without effort.
Do not put your life on hold – people are more important than things
We agree and write as two professors who have put nothing on hold for ourselves – but we have put life on hold for our families, and that is inexcusable. Perhaps there should be an article on ‘what they didn’t tell you’ for partners and families of aspiring professors.
Conclusion
We commend Taylor et al. (2009) for their Ten Commandments but we temper this with a less rosy perspective. In their conclusion they ask whether their male colleagues agree with their assessment. We do, mostly, but with some caveats. From our experience and perspective we would be tempted to substitute ‘How to be a professor: what the books don’t tell you’ with ‘How to be a professor: be confident, bluster, exert control and don’t let scholarship get in the way’.
References
- Jones, C., 2009. You want jobsworths? then pay us what the job’s worth’. Times Higher Education, 10 September, p. 12.
- Taylor, J., Hallstron, I., Salanterä, S., Begley, C., 2009. How to be a professor: what the books don’t tell you. Nurse Education Today (10.1016/j.nedt.2009.06.007).
- . Academic nursing – what is happening to it and where is it going?. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2001;36:1–2
- . All bathwater and no baby: revisiting a national curriculum and state examination for nursing?. Nurse Education Today. 2005;25:165–166
- . The state of nursing in the United Kingdom. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2005;14:1039
- . Professors of nursing: what do they profess?. Nurse Education in Practice. 2006;6:123–126
- Thompson, D.R., Watson, R., 2008. Profligate honorifics. Times Higher Education, 27 March, p. 29.
- . Rating research performance. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2009;18:2781–2782
- . Practice development: what is it and why should we be doing it?. Nurse Education in Practice. 2008;8:221–222
- . Elitism, advanced practice and the charge of the light brigade. NT Research. 2001;6:791–796
- . Is there a role for higher education in preparing nurses?. Nurse Education Today. 2006;26:622–626
- . Recent developments in UK nurse education: horses for courses or courses for horses?. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2000;32:1041–1042
- . The Trojan horse of nursing education. Nurse Education Today. 2004;24:73–75
- . Response to Rolfe, G. (2007), Nursing scholarship and the asymmetrical professor [Nurse Education in Practice, 7, 123–127] Asymmetrical professors – unbalanced or misunderstood?. Nurse Education in Practice. 2008;8:73–75
- . Professors as leaders. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2008;17:981–982
- . Cruel Britannia: a personal critique of nursing in the United Kingdom. Contemporary Nurse. 2009;32:42–54
PII: S0260-6917(09)00221-4
doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.11.009
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
