209 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus academy. For some the stories will be familiar while for others they m a y b e s h o c k i n g . R e g a r d l e s s , this is a b o o k f o r all to r e a d w h o h a v e a n y c o n c e r n f o r e n s u r i n g the l e g i t i m a c y o f the b r o a d e s t r a n g e o f v o i c e s within the academy. ty "fr J. B r a x t o n & A . B a y e r . ( 1 9 9 9 ) . Faculty Teaching. Misconduct in Collegiate Baltimore, M D : The John Hopkins University Press. Pages: 2 2 8 . Price $ 3 4 . 9 5 (hardcover). R e v i e w e d by Ruth Rees, Faculty of Education, Q u e e n ' s University, Kingston, ON. T h i s b o o k is a " m u s t r e a d " for college and university faculty — n o t j u s t t e a c h i n g faculty, b u t counselors, f a c u l t y in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s and those involved in grievance procedures. T h e authors attempt to determ i n e types o f b e h a v i o u r s that are d e e m e d inappropriate b y teaching faculty. T h e authors e c h o B o i c e ' s (1996) contention that the g r o w i n g concern of increased student m i s b e h a v i o u r is really a result of "professorial incivili t y " (p. 2). A d d i t i o n a l l y the a u t h o r s seek to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r f a c u l t y m e m b e r s across various collegiate settings share v i e w s a b o u t inappropriate behaviors b y their colleagues in the teaching role. B e c a u s e m o s t p r o f e s s o r s t e a c h t o v a r y i n g d e g r e e s , the a u t h o r s a r g u e t h a t i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r m u s t b e identified first a n d then dealt with. B o t h inviolable and a d m o n i t o r y p a t t e r n s o f b e h a v i o u r constitute t e a c h i n g m i s c o n d u c t , w i t h inviolable patterns being the m o r e serious of transgressions. Specifically, the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s (pp. 7 - 8 ) are: 1. W h a t inviolable patterns of behaviour comprise the n o r m a t i v e structure of undergraduate college (i.e., postsecondary) teaching? 2. W h a t a d m o n i t o r y p a t t e r n s o f b e h a v i o u r c o m p r i s e the n o r m a tive structure of u n d e r g r a d u a t e college t e a c h i n g ? 3. A r e a n y o f the inviolable n o r m s or a d m o n i t o r y p a t t e r n s similar across all t y p e s of e d u c a t i o n I institutions? The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000 210 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus 4. A r e t h e r e c o r e inviolable o r a d m o n i t o r y n o r m s across a c a d e m i c disciplines? 5. D o individual faculty characteristics, e.g., administrative e x p e r i e n c e , gender, p r o f e s s i o n a l status, r e s e a r c h activity a n d t e n u r e status, a f f e c t the e s p o u s a l o f inviolable or a d m o n i t o r y n o r m a t i v e p a t t e r n s a b o v e a n d b e y o n d t h e e f f e c t s o f institut i o n a l t y p e a n d a c a d e m i c discipline? T h e a u t h o r s c o m p i l e d a q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e s c r i b i n g 126 b e h a v i o u r s that t h e y a n d o t h e r f a c u l t y m e m b e r s d e e m e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e into a C o l l e g e T e a c h i n g B e h a v i o u r s I n v e n t o r y ( C T B I ) , c a u t i o n i n g that this q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s d e v e l o p e d w i t h a c a d e m i c s ' i n p u t a n d f e e d b a c k and n o t f r o m a n e x t e n s i v e literature r e v i e w . C o n s e q u e n t l y t h e y d o n o t c o n s i d e r t h e 126 b e h a v i o u r s as c o m p r e h e n s i v e . N e x t t h e y selected t h r e e t y p e s of U S p o s t s e c o n d a r y institutions a l o n g a c o n t i n u u m o f t e a c h i n g a n d r e s e a r c h u n i v e r s i t i e s to t e a c h i n g c o l l e g e s : r e s e a r c h u n i v e r s i t i e s a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e c o l l e g e s a n d universities, h i g h l y selective and less selective liberal arts colleges, and c o m m u n i t y colleges. Institutions were r a n d o m l y s e l e c t e d ; t h r e e s u r v e y s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d to 800 faculty. F a c u l t y m e m b e r s w e r e r a n d o m l y selected to i n c l u d e 2 0 0 f a c u l t y in e a c h o f f o u r p u r e life and non-life disciplines: biology, math, psychology, and history. E a c h w a s a s k e d to rate the 126 b e h a v i o u r s on a f i v e - p o i n t s y s t e m f r o m " a p p r o p r i a t e " to " v e r y i n a p p r o p r i a t e " b e h a v i o u r . T h e r e s p o n s e r a t e s w e r e : f o r s u r v e y one: 3 5 6 or 4 4 . 5 p e r c e n t r e s p o n s e s ; for s u r v e y t w o , 3 8 2 or 47.5 percent responses; and for survey three, 265 or 33.1 percent r e s p o n s e s . T h e a g g r e g a t e d s a m p l e h a d 72.3 p e r c e n t m a l e faculty, 2 7 . 7 percent w o m e n faculty, 47.2 percent full professors, and 46 percent t e n u r e faculty. T h e s u r v e y w a s sent out o v e r a six-year p e r i o d . C h a p t e r s t h r e e a n d f o u r contain descriptions of types o f t e a c h i n g misc o n d u c t clarified b y short fictional vignettes. C h a p t e r three describes the w o r s t t y p e s of f a c u l t y t e a c h i n g m i s c o n d u c t t o w a r d students, t e r m e d inviolable norms, classified under seven normative headings: negativism, i n a t t e n t i v e p l a n n i n g , m o r a l t u r p i t u d e , particularistic g r a d i n g o f s t u d e n t assignments and examinations, personal disregard, uncommunicated c o u r s e details, a n d u n c o o p e r a t i v e c y n i c i s m . C h a p t e r f o u r d e s c r i b e s t h e n i n e a d m o n i t o r y n o r m s , d e f i n e d as i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r o f f a c u l t y The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000 211 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus associated w i t h the t e a c h i n g of students, b u t less serious t h a n the p r e v i o u s inviolable n o r m s . T h e s e n i n e a d m o n i t o r y n o r m s are: a d v i s e m e n t n e g l i g e n c e (lack of or inappropriate advising of students), authoritarian classr o o m (a rigid a n d closed a p p r o a c h to teaching), instructional n a r r o w n e s s ( t r e a t m e n t o f c o u r s e c o n t e n t ) , i n a d e q u a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h a class, i n a d e q u a t e c o u r s e design, insufficient syllabus, i n c o n v e n i e n c e a v o i d a n c e , and t w o types of p o o r relationships with t e a c h i n g c o l l e a g u e s — teaching secrecy and u n d e r m i n i n g colleagues. T h e vignettes of these inappropriate b e h a v i o u r s m a k e these chapters particularly u s e f u l a n d appealing as teaching tools in p o s t s e c o n d a r y m a n a g e m e n t and orientation courses. P e r h a p s h o w e v e r , a m o r e p r o - a c t i v e m e a s u r e m i g h t b e to m a k e f a c u l t y a w a r e of the breadth of good teaching behaviours expected of them. A n a l y z e s o f the d a t a w e r e c a r r i e d o u t u s i n g tests o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . T h e c o r e inviolable n o r m s w e r e f o u n d to b e m o r a l t u r p i t u d e f o l l o w e d b y p r e f e r e n t i a l grading. F a c u l t y in r e s e a r c h universities e x p r e s s e d a lesser d e g r e e of d i s a p p r o v a l for p e r s o n a l r e g a r d of students a n d u n c o m m u n i c a t e d c o u r s e details. F a c u l t y in all f o u r o f the disciplines identified invio l a b l e n o r m s as inattentive c o u r s e p l a n n i n g a n d m o r a l turpitude. F a c u l t y m e m b e r s in b i o l o g y e x p r e s s e d t h e g r e a t e s t d i s a p p r o v a l t o w a r d t h e s e inviolable norms. Faculty across the different types of p o s t s e c o n d a r y institutions a g r e e d on their level o f indignation at the p r o s c r i b e d n o r m a t i v e b e h a v iors r e f l e c t i v e of a n a u t h o r i t a r i a n c l a s s r o o m , i n a d e q u a t e c o u r s e d e s i g n and teaching secrecy. These represent the core admonitory norms. F a c u l t y in r e s e a r c h u n i v e r s i t i e s t e n d e d to v o i c e less c o n t e m p t f o r t h e admonitory norms of advisement negligence, inadequate communication, inconvenience avoidance, insufficient syllabus, and undermining c o l l e a g u e s . T h e y are n o t that c o n d e m n i n g of i n s t r u c t i o n a l n a r r o w n e s s . A c a d e m i c s in m o r e selective liberal arts colleges e x p r e s s e d less disapp r o v a l o f i n c o n v e n i e n c e a v o i d a n c e a n d instructional n a r r o w n e s s . A c o r e admonitory n o r m , an authoritarian classroom, p r o v o k e d c o m p a r a b l e d e g r e e s o f c o n t e m p t f r o m a c a d e m i c p r o f e s s i o n a l across all f o u r a c a d e m i c disciplines. A g a i n , a c a d e m i c biologists e x p r e s s e d a greater d e g r e e o f c o n c e r n f o r the r e m a i n i n g a d m o n i t o r y n o r m a t i v e p a t t e r n s t h a n f a c u l t y in the other three disciplines ( m a t h e m a t i c s , history a n d p s y c h o l o g y ) . The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000 212 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus C h a p t e r seven looks at five individual faculty characteristics in relation to n o r m espousal: administrative experience, gender, professional status, research activity a n d tenure. O n l y g e n d e r and research activity s h o w e d statistically significant relationships w i t h the level of faculty disapproval v o i c e d for m o r a l turpitude. W o m e n faculty t e n d e d to voice stronger disapp r o v a l of b o t h c o n d e s c e n d i n g negative b e h a v i o u r and personal disregard f o r students. A l s o faculty w i t h administrative experience expressed strong s a n c t i o n i n g f o r p e r s o n a l d i s r e g a r d . S o c i a l c o n t r o l s of institutional t y p e p l a y a greater role than d o personal controls, the authors concluded. S i m i l a r l y w i t h the c o r e a d m o n i t o r y pattern, b o t h w o m e n a n d historia n s t e n d e d to v o i c e s t r o n g e r d i s a p p r o v a l of c o l l e a g u e s h a v i n g a n a u t h o r i tarian classroom. W o m e n faculty expressed more disapproval of inadequate communication and undermining colleagues. Faculty with h i g h e r p r o f e s s o r i a l status i n d i c a t e d a g r e a t a v e r s i o n to i n c o n v e n i e n c e a v o i d a n c e . A s b e f o r e , a c a d e m i c d i s c i p l i n e a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l t y p e , i.e., social controls, a c c o u n t e d for greater d i f f e r e n c e t h a n p e r s o n a l controls. T h e . . . f i n d i n g s . . . s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t t h a t . . . t h e structural d i m e n sions o f the a c a d e m i c p r o f e s s i o n — the institutional type a n d the a c a d e m i c discipline — exert a greater influence on faculty espousal of inviolable a n d a d m o n i t o r y n o r m a t i v e patterns t h a n the individual and career characteristics of faculty do. (p. 112) S o c i a l c o n t r o l m e c h a n i s m s , then, m u s t b e p u t into place. C h a p t e r 8 identifies social c o n t r o l s existing in t e r m s of the d e t e c t i o n a n d d e t e r r e n c e o f t e a c h i n g m i s c o n d u c t . T h r e e are m e n t i o n e d : g r a d u a t e s c h o o l socialization t h r o u g h b o t h i n f o r m a l a n d f o r m a l f a c u l t y relations h i p a n d t a s k s , s u c h as t e a c h i n g a s s i s t a n t s h i p s ; t h e p u b l i c a n d o p e n n a t u r e o f t e a c h i n g at the p o s t - s e c o n d a r y level; a n d s t u d e n t s ' c o u r s e ratings. T h i s c h a p t e r a d v a n c e s s o m e theoretical p e r s p e c t i v e s on t h e social control of teaching misconduct. Next, the authors investigated documents on teaching behaviours, such as f r o m the A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of University P r o f e s s o r s ( A A U P ) , documents f r o m 22 colleges and universities across the U n i t e d States s u c h as t e a c h i n g a s s e s s m e n t i n s t r u m e n t s , a n d p o s t - t e n u r e r e v i e w p o l i c i e s at o n e large e a s t e r n p u b l i c university. O n l y s o m e c o n tained a f e w of the prescriptive and proscriptive statements pertaining The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000 213 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus to b e h a v i o u r s in the t e a c h i n g role in the a c a d e m y . T h e s e w e r e e x p r e s s e d g e n e r a l l y , n o t explicitly as in the C T B I . T h i s r e v i e w r e v e a l e d t w o points: 1. Little specificity exists to g u i d e the p r o f e s s o r i a t e in their p r o f e s s i o n a l roles as teachers. 2. E n t i r e d o m a i n s or c l u s t e r s of b e h a v i o u r s w e r e n e g l e c t e d in virtually all of the policy-related d o c u m e n t s r e s e a r c h e d . The authors summarily contend that these gaps should be addressed " w h e t h e r f o r s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n as a p r o f e s s i o n , or for s t r e n g t h e n e d g u i d e lines f o r a p p r o p r i a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n " (p. 155). T h e final chapter demonstrates reflective writing, and indeed an e x c e l l e n t c o n c l u d i n g c h a p t e r f o r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s to f o l l o w . S e v e n w e a k n e s s e s in the research are reiterated and suggestions for future r e s e a r c h are o u t l i n e d . N i n e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s s t e m m i n g d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e r e s e a r c h are o f f e r e d f o r p o l i c y a n d p r a c t i c e (pp. 1 7 6 - 1 8 0 ) : 1. Systematic records of incidents of teaching m i s c o n d u c t s h o u l d b e kept. 2. A f o r m a l c o d e of t e a c h i n g c o n d u c t s h o u l d b e d e v e l o p e d . 3. A u d i t s s h o u l d b e c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n a c a d e m i c d e p a r t m e n t s to i d e n t i f y v a r i a n c e in p r e v a i l i n g n o r m a t i v e b e h a v i o u r s . 4. Formal committees should be established that consider r e p o r t e d incidents of t e a c h i n g m i s c o n d u c t . 5. Sanctions for teaching misconduct should be formulated. 6. Graduate schools should consider their role of socializing f u t u r e f a c u l t y m e m b e r s as to p o s i t i v e n o r m a t i v e p a t t e r n s f o r teaching. 7. F a c u l t y s h o u l d b e r e w a r d e d for t e a c h i n g integrity. 8. N o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g s h o u l d b e c o d i f i e d in collective b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e m e n t s . 9. F o r m a l p o l i c i e s s h o u l d explicitly i n c l u d e a w i d e r v a r i e t y o f general prescribed and proscribed teaching behaviours. T h e c o n c l u s i o n , n o t surprising, is that greater attention to a n d f o r - m a l i z a t i o n o f t e a c h i n g n o r m s a n d s a n c t i o n s a r e s o r e l y n e e d e d at t h e The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000 214 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus p o s t s e c o n d a r y level. C o n t r o l s n o t o n l y m i g h t p r e v e n t the e r o s i o n of the public trust and public esteem, but rather might strengthen the profess i o n a l i s m of the p r o f e s s o r i a t e . F r a n k l y it is a b o u t t i m e t h a t s u c h a b o o k h a s b e e n p u b l i s h e d . It m a k e s f o r a n e x c e l l e n t r e a d f o r a n y o n e in the p o s t s e c o n d a r y s e c t o r c o n cerned about acceptable teaching behaviours and treating students a p p r o p r i a t e l y a n d fairly. If w e c o n s i d e r t e a c h i n g to b e an integral p a r t o f f a c u l t y m e m b e r s ' roles, t h e n t h e n o r m s c o n s t i t u t i n g g o o d t e a c h i n g a n d appropriate teaching behaviours must be clearly delineated, expected and rewarded. Moreover, teaching misconduct should not be sanct i o n e d ; c o n s e q u e n c e s s h o u l d b e clearly a n d f o r m a l l y d o c u m e n t e d . A s a p r e v i o u s A s s o c i a t e D e a n , I f o r o n e w o u l d h a v e b e n e f i t e d greatly f r o m such policy and procedures. References Boice, R. (1996). Classroom Incivilities. Research in Higher Education, (August), 453-485. ^ The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000 37