My strategic planning rant

So at the Chairs’ retreat last week we received a draft document from the Strategic Planning committee outlining the proposed “strategic objectives” that will guide the strategic plan. We’re told the document will be the subject of discussion among the whole faculty this fall, but what the hell – let’s get the discussion started now.

There are four strategic objectives, each with associated “strategic actions” that give some concreteness to the document. We were asked to comment on the general language and specifically asked the question “did we leave anything out?” The strategic objectives are:

1. Gettysburg College will enhance its educational experience by making engaging learning opportunities central components of the academic and co-curricular core.

2. To prepare students for a diverse world, Gettysburg College will ensure a learning experience for all students that includes diversity of perspectives and that promotes a culture of understanding.

3. Gettysburg College will cultivate stronger collaborative relationships between faculty, students, staff, alumni, trustees and the community at large in order to build a culture of connection.

4. Gettysburg College will strive aggressively to garner the resources necessary to provide the most compelling liberal arts experience and to secure our place as one of the nation’s premier institutions of higher learning.

I found nothing objectionable about these objectives, but I thought something was missing. Something like

5. Gettysburg College will support the scholarly efforts of its faculty in order to enhance the College’s reputation as a producer as well as a disseminator of knowledge.

O.k., the language is clunky, but you get the idea: we have four strategic objectives related to our role as teachers, and none to our role as scholars. I felt that we needed something like number 5 for a number of reasons:

- it reflects what we actually do and the expectations for tenure
- it reflects the personal expectations that many of us have; I, for one, think of myself as a scholar-teacher, not just a teacher. Being involved in research, connected to people doing research at other institutions, is a big part of my professional life.
- we have an opportunity to use new institutions such as the public policy center as a platform from which to take big leaps in the direction of greater prominence in the scholarly world.
- if we don’t have something like number 5, from now until the next strategic planning process every increase in resources for research will have to be sold as benefitting our teaching, rather than recognizing research as an end in itself.

Well, the reaction of my colleagues was mixed. Immediately, the concern was raised that this would destroy the character of Gettysburg College as a liberal arts institution. The argument was also made that in fact we do have faculty that are very prominent in their fields, and perhaps what we really need is not more of this, but mechanisms in place that would increase our awareness of the “great work” being done by our colleagues. In the end, a compromise of sorts was offered by which some reference to research would be inserted as a “strategic action” plank under each of objectives numbers 1-4.

Well, I say feh, why can’t we just take a stand for research? Why can’t we strive to make Gettysburg College known as a place where really good research is done and where students get a really good education? I don’t think one necessarily has to sacrifice the quality of education in order to be stronger in research. My former institution, the College of William and Mary, manages to strike the balance very successfully. And while I agree that there are a number of people here who do very good research and are very well-known in their fields, I don’t see why we shouldn’t strive to have more such people, or people who are even better-known in their fields.

Any thoughts?