Georgetown is a “student-centered research university.” I recently have thought of that in two different ways — a university with student-centered research and a research university that is student centered. Student-centered research sees faculty integrating their research into classes they teach so that students are exposed to cutting-edge knowledge. A research university that is student centered has faculty who involve students actively in their scholarly activities. I think both of these parsings describe a desirable environment.
Having faculty teach their latest scholarly work guarantees excitement in the classroom. Those are the times when they effortlessly convey their own excitement of discovery, interpretation, and understanding. Having students work side-by-side faculty doing their research gives students life-long skills in formulating questions in ways that can be answered. Students with the critical thinking skills from research and scholarship will lead the future world. We want that for our students.
There are faculty members at Georgetown who are producing important research results — in books, articles, patents, or other modes of dissemination. There are faculty honored by professional associations for their scholarly contributions to their fields. Some of these same faculty members are also the most effective teachers we have at the University. They vividly demonstrate that scholarship and teaching effectiveness are synergistic. Being at once productive in research and at the same time achieving teaching excellence is what happens at great student-centered research universities.
President DeGioia and I want to honor faculty who excel at research and teaching simultaneously. Starting next year at fall faculty convocation, he will present the president’s award for research and teaching to one associate and one full professor from among the three campuses at the university and thereby inaugurate the Society of Presidential Fellows.
Those honored will be nominated by their schools and selected by a group of peer faculty. They will receive a small grant of support for their faculty activities and be named a Presidential Fellow. We’ll announce procedures for the nomination process in the coming days.
We want to shine a light on these extraordinary successful members of our faculty as role models for the rest of us. Following their lead will allow us to even better fulfill our vision as a “student-centered research university.”
The 2006-7 Intellectual Life Report noted that then current practice at GU tended to divide “student-centered” and “research university” into two separate parts and recommended uniting them, so this latest initiative is to be applauded.
The language used by the University can be helpful. Consider: “Georgetown is a Catholic and Jesuit, student-centered research university” from the University Mission Statement, which combines the ideas albeit without much guidance as to how the combination is supposed to work (which could be a strength, if it encouraged imaginative pairings). Contrast from the Office of Student Life Mission Statement: “Our staff and programs engage students in conversation, reflection, and action – rooted in Georgetown’s identity as a Jesuit and Catholic, student-centered, research university” which seems to affirm – maybe inadvertently – the separateness. And the formulation in the Faculty Handbook which seems to positively glory in the distinctions – separate domains no less – like they were distinct sovereignties: “The faculty of Georgetown University stand among the world’s leaders in their domains of research, service, and teaching.”
The authors of the 2006-7 Report suggested a different formulation, with more guidance on what should underpin the combination: “Georgetown University is a student-centered-research-university founded on cultures of civility, engagement, and inquiry-based learning.”
I think as a stand-alone term civility is rather under-baked – they do better explaining it – “By a culture of civility we mean a respect for others that goes far beyond respect and toleration of the ideas of others to the valuation of others as equal members of the human community…[o]ne might also view a culture of civility as the ethical dimension of the life of the mind” – but who takes the time to read the small print if they think they understand what the big print means? I would recommend something more near to the obligations of Cura Personalis as described by Phil Boroughs: “’Cura Personalis’ suggests individualized attention to the needs of the other, distinct respect for his or her unique circumstances and concerns, and an appropriate appreciation for his or her particular gifts and insights.”
Maybe a change to the language in the University Mission Statement is in order?