Over the past week I have had several conversations with friends and colleagues about what exactly it is that associate professors are supposed to do. Considering that I am one, this is a pressing question. So how come I don't really know the answer? The role is unclear, that's why. Associate professorland seems to be the epitome of the liminal space. Associate professors are most often defined by what they are not. My trusty Webster's dictionary defines an associate professor as "a member of a college or university faculty who ranks above an assistant professor and below a professor." Wikipedia's entry on "associate professor" isn't much better; it emphasizes only how one gets to be an associate professor, observing that the title is "usually awarded (in the humanities and social sciences) after the second book" (second book? good thing my college Executive Committee didn't know about that).
Given these definitions, and what I've been told by senior colleagues and inferred from others, the main thing I am supposed to be doing as an associate professor is trying to become a full professor. Which seems to entail at least some of the following:
Research. Finish that second book. Definitely start a third. However, I have also been told that full professors are not created on books alone. Apparently I must achieve some additional research greatness, though I'm not exactly clear what form that might take. But I am pretty sure it involves grant money.
Teaching. This one's easy: Don't suck.
Service. The biggie. Once you're tenured you're supposed to do more service, of all kinds, and I definitely embrace the importance of service. I actually did a lot of service as an assistant professor, especially for a department that protected untenured people quite well, but nevertheless the message seems to be: step it up. National associations, editorial boards, graduate advising, disciplinary organizations, grant reviewing, campus committees, public engagement, you must serve, serve, serve them all. But how do you know when and where to put your energies? How do you decide among seemingly limitless alternatives?
There's a very real Catch-22 in all of this: what if the very things that I do to prove I'm worthy of becoming a full professor are the very things that ultimately keep me from advancing? My friends and I talked a lot about this last week, and one thing we concluded is that in an ideal world, there would be more effort to mentor associate professors -- to talk about the role, explore what is necessary for promotion to full, encourage newly tenured folks to really think about where they want to direct their energies. Granted, our most senior colleagues are rightly focusing their energies on bringing along untenured folks, but I think it's incumbent on those of us in the liminal space to be proactive about these kinds of questions.
I think being an associate professor is like becoming a middle sister, you know, where we're supposed to take hand-me-downs and our turn doing dishes more often and with grace.
Posted by: dhawhee | 25 October 2006 at 04:20 PM
Oh, actually, the better analogy (though it's hardly an analogy because it's mostly the case) is that associate profs are middle managers. They don't call workers at Wal Mart and Target "associates" for nothing!
Posted by: dhawhee | 25 October 2006 at 04:22 PM
Re: the middle sister thing: I am not sure I will be very good at that. You can ask both of my older sisters, and they will tell you with absolute certainty that I am very good at being the BABY SISTER. In every way.
Posted by: caraf | 25 October 2006 at 05:18 PM
I thought associate professors got to be the middle finger: "you can't fire me now, muthafukkas!!!" and then you can start publishing autoethnographic studies of your secret, necrophilic habits.
More seriously, though, I think you are right about the lack of mentoring associates. In our field, especially, this "class" or species of being is in super-heavy turnover . . . there seems to be a glut of assisants and a larger, new arrival at the level of full . . . but the inbetween is thinner . . . . maybe that's why there are less mentors in the associate ranks? There are just fewer associates period?
I dunno. Just blabbering after a long, raining day in traffic.
Posted by: Joshie Juice | 25 October 2006 at 06:05 PM
JJ: I think that depends on where you look. Some places are middle heavy.
Bummer about the rain.
Posted by: dhawhee | 25 October 2006 at 10:47 PM
The body metaphors are great, aren't they? For years our dept. was described as "bottom-heavy" because at one point we were well over 50% assistants, and very few fulls. Now that a few more folks have gotten tenure, we are more middle heavy. But doesn't carrying your weight in the middle make you more prone to heart attacks? That's what the doctor-people say anyway...
Posted by: caraf | 26 October 2006 at 09:42 AM
Depends on subfield,too. In the little corner that is performance studies, there is a a fairly large vacancy sign at the full level and bunches of excellent associates. For those of us trying for tenure in the near future who work at institutions that like for full prof's to write dossier reviews, this poses no small concern...also makes the few fulls incredibly overworked in the summers when dossier's get sent out.
Posted by: mindy | 26 October 2006 at 04:15 PM
When I was seeking at letter from my prospective host country to apply for my Fulbright grant, the department head, in his best English, referred to me as Ass. Prof. That sums it up.
So, I just saw Flags of our Fathers this weekend, and I'm dying for your review (sorry if you've treated this already and I missed it).
Posted by: katka | 30 October 2006 at 07:00 AM
When My Brother the Dean was an associate dean we always threatened to get him license plates that said "Ass Dean" -- just like the episode of "Seinfeld" where Kramer accidentally gets license plates that read "Ass Man."
As for "Flags," I haven't seen it yet. In addition to the whole Iwo Jima photo thing, I am also very intrigued by the film's color palette. Reviewers have described it as "muted" or "desaturated." From what I've seen in previews and ads, it's very blue/gray but with vivid blue/reds (mostly the lipstick of the women characters -- and of course blood). People either seem to like that choice or really hate it.
Posted by: caraf | 30 October 2006 at 10:20 AM
friend,it's my first time to come to your belong,but i was deeply inpressed by it.
Posted by: Air Jordan shoes | 31 October 2010 at 08:47 AM
Wherever Everyone has the life,But not everyone understand life, cherish life. Don't understand life people, The life to him, it is a kind of punishment. So we must love our life.
Posted by: supra shoes | 04 November 2010 at 10:23 PM
Beautiful!!! You truly have an eye for colour.
Posted by: mulberry handbags | 22 October 2011 at 05:40 AM