The Slow Professor
April 2013
The Slow Professor:
Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy
Maggie Berg, Queen’s University
Barbara K. Seeber, Brock University
Authors' Contact Information
Maggie Berg, Professor,
Department of English,
Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 2N6,
phone: 613-533-6000, 74418, email: bergm@queensu.ca
Barbara K. Seeber, Associate Professor,
Department of English,
Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2S 3A1,
phone: 905-688-5550, 3470, email: bseeber@brocku.ca
Abstract:
This paper explores the principles of the Slow Movement to counter work-stress
among university and college teachers. We believe that a Slow approach to teaching
and learning may be the most effective way to counter the erosion of humanistic
education by the corporate ethos of consumerism, efficiency, accountability, and
standardisation We explore the principles of Slow not only to counter the consumer
model of education but also to foster better teachers and learners. It is well-documented
that changes in academic work have created significant stress among academic
teachers (Catano, Francis, Haines, Kirpalani, Shannon, Stringer, & Lozanksi, 2007;
Miller, Buckholdt & Shaw, 2008), and students (Dabney, 1995; Brown & Ralph 1999;
Rowbotham and Julian 2006), but what requires further attention is the link between the
corporate reliance on efficiency and the problem of lack of time in learning and teaching.
Corporatisation has sped up the clock. The Slow Movement—originating in the Slow
Food Movement—has gained recognition as a way to resist both globalization and the
frantic pace of contemporary life. While slowness has been lauded in architecture,
business, urban life and interpersonal relations, among others, it has yet to be applied
to academia. Yet, if there is one sector of society that should be cultivating deep thought
in themselves and others it is academic teachers. The consumerism that has taken hold
in higher education propels the belief that time is money, resulting in superficial learning
(Coté & Allahar, 2011b; Readings, 1996). Perhaps the most damaging effect of
corporatisation in the universities is that individual educators feel paralysed in the face
of overwhelming odds. Our focus on individuals and their own professional practice is
conceived as political resistance to corporatisation.
Key Words:
Slow movement; Corporatization; Stress; Student learning.
1
Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal
Volume 6 Issue 3 April 2013
The Slow Professor
April 2013
Introduction
Studies document that academic stress is on the rise (Catano et al., 2007; Miller et
al. 2008). Our project explores the principles of the Slow Movement to counter workstress among university and college teachers. When we look at studies of academic
stress, we are struck by how many apparently diverse situations identified as sources of
stress are actually about lack of time. It seems to us that time poverty is directly
connected to what has been called the “Mcdonaldization” of higher education (Parker &
Jarry, 1995, 321). We believe not only that corporatisation has sped up the clock, but
also that a Slow approach to teaching and learning may be the most effective way to
counter the erosion of humanistic education by corporate culture. We explore the
principles of Slow not only to counter the consumer model of education but also to
foster better teachers and learners.
Our project began in a series of telephone conversations about coping with our
academic jobs. Not reading an email sent by the department chair at 10:45 pm until the
next morning led one of us into paroxysms of guilt about not working hard enough.
Being asked to vet essays for a prize within ten days (without advance notice) prompted
a discussion between us about when it is OK to say “no.” Reading Carl Honoré’s In
Praise of Slow (2004) turned our desire to be less harried into a philosophical and
political commitment to shift our sense of time. Honoré’s remarkable book documents
the benefits of extending the principles of Slow Food to other areas of our lives:
architecture, medicine, sex, work, leisure, and child-rearing. Although education is
noticeably absent, Honoré’s inclusion of a quotation from Dean Harry Lewis’s open
letter to Harvard undergraduates entitled “Slow Down: Getting More out of Harvard by
Doing Less” left us hungering for more (Honoré, 2004, p. 246-248). If there is one sector
of society that should be slowing down in order to cultivate deep thought in themselves
and others it is academic teachers. Our telephone conversations became more upbeat
as we generated strategies to alleviate our time stress which ranged from checking
email at noon to rethinking what we mean by coverage in a course. One day, one of us
laughingly observed, “We should write this down,” and the other responded, “We should
write this down.”
While we were unflaggingly playing therapist with each other, we came across the
first-ever national survey on occupational stress conducted by the Canadian Association
of University Teachers in 2007 (Catano et al., 2007). The results are based on 1470
participants from 56 universities across Canada and concur with previous studies in the
UK and Australia (Catano et al., 2007, p.3). Ironically, it was liberating to learn that
“stress in academia exceeds that found in the general population” (Catano et. al., 2007,
p. 7). We realized we were not alone. Particularly compelling was the significant impact
of stress on psychological and physical health: 13 % of respondents
“reported…psychological strain” and 22% “reported…physical health” symptoms, and
many reported use of medication (Catano et al., 2007, p. 38). While there were
differences according to gender, age, faculty rank, employment status, and language,
the conclusion is that “stress levels…are very high” overall. It turns out we were not
constitutionally weak or not cut out for the profession. We shifted our thinking from
“what is wrong with us?” to “what is wrong with the academic system?” to “what can we
do about it in this context?” We did not make this shift overnight. Academic training
2
Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal
Volume 6 Issue 3 April 2013
The Slow Professor
April 2013
includes induction into a culture of scholarly individualism and intellectual mastery; to
admit to struggle undermines our professorial identity. The academy as a whole has
been reticent in acknowledging its stress; to talk about the body and emotion goes
against the grain of an institution that privileges the mind and reason. Furthermore, the
long-standing perception of professors as a leisured class has produced a defensive
culture of guilt and overwork. How many us find ourselves snap at the cheese counter
when we have to explain yet again, “No, I don’t have four months off in the summer.”?
We are busy countering the widely-held notion of the ivory tower.
In the current global context—in which universities are faced more than ever with
justifying their existence—to speak of professors’ stress might appear self-indulgent.
Indeed, some colleagues have suggested that we stop whining, while others have
described our project as brave. These opposing responses articulate our own inner
struggle. Being an academic has privileges not enjoyed by the majority of the workforce:
job security provided by the tenure system; flexibility of hours and the changing rhythms
of the academic year; and the opportunity to think, create new knowledge, and to pass
on our enthusiasms to others. We wanted to become professors because of the joy of
intellectual discovery, the beauty of literary texts, and the radical potential of new ideas.
These ideals are realizable, even in today’s beleaguered institution, although the ever
increasing casualization of labor makes them harder to attain for many of us. Even the
privileges of tenure have a downside. Flexibility of hours can translate into working all
the time, particularly because academic work by its very nature is never done. Our
responses to student papers could always be fuller; our reading of scholarly literature
could always be more up-to-date; and our books could always be more exhaustive.
These self-expectations are escalated by the additional external pressures of the
changing academic culture. In the past two decades, our work has changed due to the
rise of contractual positions, expanding class sizes, increased use of technology, and
downloading of clerical tasks onto faculty—all part of the corporatization of the
university. As the protagonist in David Lodge’s most recent campus novel, Deaf
Sentence, explains to a graduate student who complains that her supervisor is never
available: “He probably just doesn’t have enough time.... He’s probably too busy
attending meetings, and preparing budgets, and making staff assessments, and doing
all the other things that professors have to do nowadays instead of thinking” (2008, p.
89).
The more we reflected on the links between our own experiences and the findings of
the CAUT Survey on occupational stress, the more certain we became that individual
professor’s well-being has far-reaching effects. We believe that our focus on the
professor is not entirely self-serving. It goes without saying that stress is bad for the
individual, and has direct consequences for society. The harmful effects of stress on our
well-being, health, and communities are well-documented and now generally
acknowledged. What is less evident is that addressing individual professors’ stress has
ramifications in the academy that are both educational and political. The Slow Food
movement promotes the small-scale food producer in an effort to resist agri-business,
and we, in turn, want to focus on the individual professor precisely because the
corporate model of education undermines, and, indeed, threatens to efface, the role of
the professor. In Bill Readings’ analysis of the “posthistorical university,” it is “the
3
Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal
Volume 6 Issue 3 April 2013
The Slow Professor
April 2013
administrator rather than the professor” who is the “central figure” in what is fast
becoming a “transnational bureaucratic corporation” (1996, p. 3). With increasing
corporatization, power is transferred from the faculty to managers of the university,
economic justifications dominate, and the familiar “bottom-line” eclipses pedagogical
and intellectual concerns. Benjamin Ginsberg, in The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the
All-Administrative University and Why It Matters, writes:
Every year, hosts of administrators and staffers are added to college and
university payrolls, even as schools claim to be battling budget crises that are
forcing them to reduce the size of their full-time faculties. As a result, universities
are filled with armies of functionaries—the vice presidents, associate vice
presidents, assistant vice presidents, provosts, associate provosts, vice provosts,
assistant provosts, deans, deanlets, deanlings, each commanding staffers and
assistants—who, more and more, direct the operations of every school. (2011, p.
2)
Why does this matter? For example, strategic planning and reporting documents are
specific manifestations of this transfer of power. Ginsberg demonstrates that rather than
identifying the unique strengths and future directions of each institution, universities’
strategic plans are nearly identical. He concludes that the point is “not the plan but the
process” (2011, p. 51): an “assertion of leadership” (2011, p. 49) and the erosion of the
power of the faculty. It is the appearance of process that counts. Another consequence
of the shift in power is time poverty. The administrative university is concerned above-all
with efficiency, a corporate value which results in a time crunch, making those of us
subjected to it feel powerless. So, talking about professors’ stress is not self-indulgent;
not talking about individual professors plays into the corporate model.
We have noticed that studies of the corporate university imply that change might well
lie in the hands of individual professors. It seems to be an effort to give us back a sense
of agency within a potentially overpowering bureaucracy. While Jennifer Washburn in
University Inc. suggests policies to “safeguard...the universities’ autonomy,” equally, if
not more, crucial, she says, is the “willingness” of individuals “to stand up and defend
traditional academic values” (2005, p. 240). Readings explicitly avoids proposing policy
changes, because, as he sees it, this serves to exacerbate what is already a top-heavy
institution. Readings is clear that he addresses his remarks to the professor rather than
the administrator, and “The Scene of Teaching” (the title of his penultimate chapter)
rather than the provost’s office. Our focus on the personal might seem solipsistic in the
current climate, but, at the risk of repeating ourselves, we see individual practice as a
site of resistance.
Faculty stress directly affects student learning. We know from our experience that
when we walk into a classroom breathless, rushed, and preoccupied, the class doesn’t
go well; we struggle to make connections with the material and our students. Hard data
is beginning to emerge which confirms this. In a 2008 study reported in The Journal of
Educational Psychology on “Teachers’ Occupational Well-being and the Quality of
Instruction,” researchers conclude that “a combination of high engagement with the
capacity to emotionally distance the self from work and cope with failure (resilience) is
associated with high levels of occupational well-being (low levels of exhaustion, high job
satisfaction) and better instructional performance, and in turn leads to favourable
4
Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal
Volume 6 Issue 3 April 2013
The Slow Professor
April 2013
student outcomes” (Klusmann, Kunter, Trautwein, Lüdtke & Baumert, p. 702). In other
words, professors’ well-being is inextricably linked with students’ learning.
Corporatisation has led to standardized learning as well as a sense of urgency. As
Readings argues in The University in Ruins, education now is “the passage from
ignorance to enlightenment in a particular time span” and “‘Time to completion’ is now
presented as the universal criterion of quality and efficiency in education” (1996, p.
128). Standardization loses sight of the open-endedness of intellectual inquiry. The
consumerism that has taken hold in higher education propels the belief that time is
money, resulting in superficial learning. It is extremely difficult to resist the universities’
ever onward and upward mentality. Stefan Collini, among others, has drawn attention to
the damaging “no standing still” conception of “excellence” in the current academic
ethos: “standards must always be driven up. Benchmarks exist to be surpassed” (2012,
p. 109). We suggest that “standing still” now and again may be beneficial.
If the corporate model induces panic, ironically so do the very books protesting
corporate values. James E. Côté and Anton L. Allahar’s Ivory Tower Blues is sub-titled
A University System in Crisis (2007a), and the opening sentence of Martha Nussbaum’s
manifesto Not for Profit reads: “We are in the midst of a crisis of massive proportions
and grave global significance” (2010, p. 1). Frank Donoghue points out the ubiquity of
the language of crisis. We also question the language of crisis but for reasons that differ
from Donoghue, who “think[s] that professors of the humanities have already lost the
power to rescue themselves” (2008, p. xi). We take a more optimistic approach. While in
their more recent Lowering Higher Education: The Rise of Corporate Universities and
the Fall of Liberal Education, Côté and Allahar qualify their definition of “crisis” as “a
turning point...rather than a situation of impending doom,” they nevertheless maintain
that the “university system has developed a set of problems that require some sort of
decisive action now” (2011b, p. 91). We do not deny that intervention is necessary.
However, the discourse of crisis creates a sense of urgency —act quickly before it is too
late—which makes us feel even more powerless in the face of overwhelming odds. The
discourse of crisis is part of the problem we face.
We argue that approaching our professional practice from a perspective influenced
by the Slow movement has the potential to disrupt the corporate ethos of speed. Slow
living, as Wendy Parkins and Geoffrey Craig explain, “is not a simple matter of ‘slowing
down’ but rather it is more fundamentally an issue of agency” (2006, p. 67). We
envisage Slow Professors acting purposefully, thereby cultivating emotional and
intellectual resilience, enabling them to challenge the corporate university and maintain
the values of liberal education. This takes time. Thomas Skovholdt and Michelle TrotterMathison observe in The Resilient Practitioner that “experience does not seem to
increase expertise” (2001, p. 131). They have found that professional development—
which in our case is evolving a unique teaching style— requires three conditions:
practice, a supportive and open environment, and reflection. “If we are busy doing there
is no chance to be,” they say, “Yet it is being that produces the chance to learn” (2001,
p. 28). This is as true for our students as it is for us. Time for reflection is not, then, a
luxury, but crucial to effective teaching and learning. The Slow movement has prompted
us to be more deliberate in all aspects of our professional practice and not to be swept
along by the ever accelerating pace.
5
Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal
Volume 6 Issue 3 April 2013
The Slow Professor
April 2013
Furthermore, insisting on our need for time to think may promote organisational
change. It is important to de-pathologise work stress, which is usually accompanied by
feelings of guilt and loneliness (Carlyle & Woods, 2002, p. xiii). We feel guilty because
our colleagues seem just as busy as we are, and then we deny being overwhelmed,
even to ourselves. Denise Carlyle and Peter Woods point out that research into stress
predominantly employs “a discourse of individual responsibility where people are
deemed vulnerable to stress due to unique personal profiles.” Such research fosters “a
false separation of the individual and the social context” (2002, p. xi). Andy Hargreaves
and Elizabeth Tucker argue that even our private guilt is “a public issue”: it is “socially
generated and mediated, emotionally located and practically consequential” (1991, p.
504). Being honest about our stress may be a first step in challenging the culture of
speed.
In response to the colleagues who have told us to wake up and get with the program
or that they are simply too busy to slow down, we wish to emphasize that the slow
movement is not nostalgia for the “good old days” that never existed in the first place.
Rather, it is, as Parkins and Craig put it, “a process whereby everyday life—in all its
pace and complexity, frisson and routine—is approached with care and attention...an
attempt to live in the present in a meaningful, sustainable, thoughtful and pleasurable
way” (2006, p. ix). And we agree with Parkins and Craig that the Slow movement has
the “potential” to not only “reinvigorate everyday life” (2006, p. 119) but also
“repoliticize...everyday life” (2006, p. 135). One of the distinctive features of Slow Food
is its combination of “Politics and Pleasure”—the subtitle of Geoff Andrews’s The Slow
Food Story (2008). We want a cure that not only will work but also feel good. As
Jennifer Lindholm and Katalin Szelényi conclude, “it is critical that we...strive to develop
habits of conducting our work and our lives in ways that promote both our own and
others’ well-being” (2008, p. 36). Corporatisation not only speeds up the clock but also
compromises academic values. By taking the time for deliberation, reflection, and
dialogue, the Slow Professor takes back the intellectual life of the university.
References
Andrews, G. (2008). The Slow Food Story: Politics and Pleasure. Montreal & Kingston:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Brown, M. and Ralph, S. (1999). Using the DYSA Programme to Reduce Stress and
Anxiety in First-Year University Students. Pastoral Care in Education. 17.3, 8-13.
Carlyle, D. and Woods, P. (2002). Emotions of Teacher Stress. Stoke on Trent:
Trentham.
Catano, V., Francis L., Haines T., Kirpalani, H., Shannon H., Stringer, B., & Lozanksi, L.
(2007). A Survey of Occupational Stress Among Canadian University Academic Staff.
Canadian Association of University Teachers.
http://www.caut.ca/uploads/CAUTStressStudy.pdf
Collini, Stefan. (2012). What Are Universities For? London: Penguin.
Côté, J. E. and Allahar, A. (2007a). Ivory Tower Blues: A University System in Crisis.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Côté, J. E. and Allahar, A. (2011b). Lowering Higher Education: The Rise of Corporate
Universities and The Fall of Liberal Education. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
6
Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal
Volume 6 Issue 3 April 2013
The Slow Professor
April 2013
Dabney, Jackie. (1995) Stress in Students: Implications for Learning? Innovations in
Education and Training International, 32.2, 112-16.
Donoghue, F. (2008). The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of
the Humanities. New York: Fordham University Press.
Ginsberg, B. (2011). The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative
University and Why It Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hargreaves, A. and Tucker, E. (1991). Teaching and Guilt: Exploring the Feelings of
Teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7, 5/6, 491-505.
Honoré, Carl. (2004). In Praise of Slow. Toronto: Vintage Canada.
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2002). Teachers’
Occupational Well-Being and Quality of Instruction: The Important Role of SelfRegulatory Patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 3. 702-715.
Lindholm, J. and Szelényi, K. (2008). Faculty Time Stress: Correlates Within and Across
Academic Disciplines. Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 17,
1/2, 19-40.
Lodge, D. (2008). Deaf Sentence. London: Harvill Secker.
Miller, G, Buckholdt, D and Shaw, B (Eds.). (2008) “Faculty Time Stress” Special issue
of Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 17, 1/ 2.
http://jhbse.haworthpress.com
Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Parker, M. and Jary, D. (1995). The McUniversity; Organization, Management and
Academic Subjectivity. Organization, 2.2, 319-338.
Parkins, W. and Craig, G. (2006). Slow Living. Oxford: Berg.
Readings, B. (1996). The University in Ruins. Cambridge Mass. & London: Harvard
University Press.
Rowbotham, D. and Julian, C. (2006) Stress and the higher education student: a critical
review of the literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 30.2, 107-117.
Skovholt, T. and Trotter-Mathison, M. (2001). The Resilient Practitioner: Burnout
Prevention and Self-Care Strategies for Counselors, Therapists, Teachers, and
Health Professionals. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Washburn, J. (2005). University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education.
New York: Basic Books.
7
Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal
Volume 6 Issue 3 April 2013