Indiana University has a job opening, and I know there are others but I've forgotten who they are. If you have a job opening, post it here.
Indiana's position is announced here:
http://www.indiana.edu/~telecom/job_opps.html
Note: "Candidates should hold a Ph.D., J.D., or M.F.A." I wish we could hire direct from industry, but these are the rules we are given. Tenure-track (meaning "long-term") jobs require a terminal degree, which means having an MFA, PhD, or JD.
(Re: terminal degrees... I'll restrain myself from ranting on academia cutting itself off at the knees once again...)
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 17, 2007 at 16:48
9 years in academia and naught more than a stupidly expanded undergrad degree and a bit of peer recognition to show for it
:(
As much as I believe I was right for recognising the PhD slog a suckers game , Its a bummer that some doors are closed to me for that assessment.
Back in my uni days, we had a bit of a 'free uni' movement going on, where we'd all just turn up for classes and the like un-enrolled on the premises that the journey was more important than the destination, and we didn't *need* a formal coercive structure to research stuff. Generally the paid academics where pretty supportive of us , particularly the 'old marx beards' , and the administration didn't seem to mind. The catch? No formal recognition. Being that I was already well employed as a code monkey and didn't see a particular advantage career wise in a Philosophy/Politics double major, I figured I could just study it anyway knowing my reward was a well polished brain and a healthier wallet. No regrets, but man, it'd be nice to have that escape route from humdrum coder land.
Posted by: dmx | Sep 17, 2007 at 19:03
That and my favorite academic, an amazing academic who headed the Womens Dept and loved my paper on Subjectivity + Mathematical models of space really got upset when I declined her request to publish it because I didn't want to 'become an academic'.
:(
To be young again :(
Posted by: dmx | Sep 17, 2007 at 19:07
C'mon, Mike. The job description does say "should." I know of plenty of cases where the lack of the "proper" degree for a particular job in academia didn't keep a desirable person from getting the job. There's wiggle-room everywhere.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 17, 2007 at 19:08
And well said, dmx.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 17, 2007 at 19:09
Good point re "should," Thomas. Though Ted's disclaimer seems to indicate that there's maybe less wiggle room than I'd like to see.
I'm just tilting at the same old windmill, really. It bothers me to think of a generation of game developers coming out of schools that are either seen as sub-par themselves (employing former industry folks, often 2nd or 3rd tier), or are fine schools where the students learn things like "Design and Production" from those who professionally haven't done either. There are exceptions to this (such as CMU or USC ... bizarrely not UT-Austin), but they are still too few for my liking. And as Ted implies, too many administrations are playing by the "normal" rules, and thus hamstringing their own programs.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 17, 2007 at 20:00
yeah, we've asked for some wiggle on this before and been told 'no'. one thing we're lucky about in this particular department is that we can hire MFAs. might be something industry types could do.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Sep 17, 2007 at 21:00
An MFA? I guess that might work for some people, and a few (Lee Sheldon I'm guessing, and I think Raph) already have them. But these are by far the exception. Let me put it this way: With the PhD and academic work you've done, would you go back and spend the time and money to get an MFA now if that's what you had to do to get a tenure track job? Or would you just say, "no thanks, I'll keep working over here?"
Most industry folks, I suspect, don't have the time, money, or inclination to put their careers on hold for a few years to get a PhD or MFA in a field in which they are already expert. And yet these are the very same people that ought to be teaching game development to help propel both industry and academia forward.
Sorry to clog up your topic with this, Ted. I hope others do post academic job openings and hear from qualified applicants. I remain more than a little discouraged at the chasm between academia and industry; the arrows coming from each side shooting down folks who might try to cross into jobs on the other side sure don't help.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 17, 2007 at 21:29
In my experience, some people coming directly from an industry (speaking generally) to academia can be stupendous teachers, but far more often they are not, no matter how expert they may be. I'm not a fan of the stand-in for competence that bona fides are, but we're not just talking about competence at the job. We're talking about the abilities to teach and to contribute to the ongoing conversation and inquiry that academia is. Graduate degrees do in most cases guarantee that someone had the opportunity to teach, and to become familiar with how university pedagogy works, both institutionally and in the classroom, and they also show that someone can follow through on a research project. Should, under the right circumstances, some of the accomplishments elsewhere fairly stand in place of these? Sure, but not uncritically.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 17, 2007 at 23:03
Even if there was some wiggle room in the "should" component, getting a job is different than keeping the job. Tenure can be a cruel process. Many excellent teachers have been denied tenure because they did not bring in enough grant money or had enough publications. While the tenure process remains as it is, changing the job requirement would mislead applicants into thinking they are getting a long-term job when in fact they are set on a 5(7?) year crash course.
Yusuf (who has a PhD and sometimes wanders what jobs the PhD and 10 years in academia would get him if he switched to an industry position)
Posted by: Yusuf | Sep 18, 2007 at 03:13
I'll note that there are plenty of people with Ph.D.'s who can't teach their way out of a paper bag. But if they can publish and bring in grant money, it matters not a whit.
Contrarily, there are certainly people in industry who could teach, publish, and raise funds. However, we don't have the proper mandarin certification. This is a guild system, after all -- tenure in the absence of true academic freedom (institutionally, not speaking of your group specifically) proves this.
Posted by: Shava Nerad/Shava Suntzu in SL | Sep 18, 2007 at 05:55
I do understand the point however. For an analogy, a few years back, I tutored a girl who had been accepted into a masters degree in some sort of social sciences field. Human rights, or something like that. She'd got in under Recognised Prior Learning, based on her work as an Activist and Advocate for street children. She absolutely knew her stuff. Practically. She also hadn't any formal education beyond High School. Completely self taught.
Probem was, she absolutely crashed and burned within weeks of getting in due to the fact she didn't have a *clue* what she was reading about. The sort of basics that an undergrad knows past second year, What the various philosophers where roughly 'about', some statistics, Post modernism, Structuralism and so on where completely alien to her, and honestly, I was left to feel the RPL thing was a bit of a sham.
Granted most IT people have a fair grasp of their field, but a working coder, for instance, might not know what's going on when one of their Academic colleagues starts ranting on about Haskell Monads, or the Lambda calculus, or whatever.. Its not stuff used in industry, but it *is* the sort of mathematical mayhem that piques academic interests, because it generates useful ideas .. sometimes ..
And if you consider that an appointment at a University in an Academic position isn't JUST about teaching, then one can see where problems can appear from.
None of which reflects on the competence of the unqualified applicant. Its just that Universities tend to need to formalise something that will usually work.
Posted by: dmx | Sep 18, 2007 at 06:53
Thomas: Graduate degrees do in most cases guarantee that someone had the opportunity to teach, and to become familiar with how university pedagogy works, both institutionally and in the classroom, and they also show that someone can follow through on a research project. Should, under the right circumstances, some of the accomplishments elsewhere fairly stand in place of these? Sure, but not uncritically.
If proven ability to teach, publish, raise funds, or run a research project are the obstacles, each of those is easily evaluated (critically as you say) or if necessary rectified (e.g., by requiring prior or concurrent coursework in teaching, say).
But unfortunately from within the university system in the US, that's really not the point. If you don't have the "union card" (as one of my grad school profs said to me), you can't teach at the university level. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but they are very few, and typically either at the rare and more forward-looking schools, or at the lesser ones trying to shore up their faculty and programs.
Yusuf, the idea of a 5 or 7 year "crash course" in academia is, from the game industry POV, hilarious. I have a friend who's a prof at a major university (not anyone here) who has probably missed out on tenure for various reasons, not the least of which is that a top-tier journal is still reviewing an article of his, and it won't be actually published in time to count. So he has a couple of years to figure out what's next. This glacial, perhaps tectonic pace compared to what happens in the game industry makes it a completely different world.
And sadly, the answer to your last question, Yusuf, is "probably very little." The arrows aren't coming only from the academic side of the chasm. The perception, warranted or not, is that academics do not understand how to operate at Internet speed, champion products effectively, architect large and complex projects, and most of all finish a project beyond the student or publication level (which is maybe somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 done by commercial standards -- and it gets harder as it goes on).
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 18, 2007 at 09:55
Mike (/chuckling), are you aware that you've brought this issue up every time I have posted about Indiana's openings? The note that I wrote about degrees was explicitly directed at you!! I was composing the post and said to myself "Sellers is probably going to ask again whether and why there's a degree requirement, and then complain when I have to respond that there is. Maybe if I make it explicit that it's a moot issue here, and not our fault, and not what we want, he won't bring it up." Oh well!!!! (I mean all of this in a bar-room ha-ha-ha way.)
That humor aside - teaching and doing research at a university is its own vocation and requires its own set of skills. Teaching students is wayyy not like directing employees. Being in a persistent community of colleagues who cannot be fired no matter how annoying they are has its own set of challenges (at which I regularly fail). So I am not ready to say that only people who make games should teach making games. I love the university. It's a special institution and I like what it does. Even though it drives me absolutely insane on a regular basis.
It's not like we eat up resources. I just found out that my 30-something niece, with her high school education, working in the office of a moving van company, now makes as much money as I do. The white cinder block wall staring back at me right now sends the same message.
I don't want industry people in our department because they're great industry people, I want them because I think they could be good teachers. And the case I am making to my colleagues is that many industry people are very intellectual in their approach to design. And that making games is a form of research. I wish, o how I wish, that there was degree conferral for this activity, and indeed I am trying to come up with a model by which we could grant PhDs in game design here. But for the generation of brilliant game designers out there, there has not been the recognition yet. it's too early. that's sad.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Sep 18, 2007 at 10:03
Many, many apologies Ted. Sigh. I don't like being that predictable. I need to be better about hiding this particular soapbox from myself.
FWIW I'm not directing my frustration about this at you (far from it!), but at the university/faculty officials who make these sorts of policies. And, truth to tell, some of this is coming out because of my frustration with our local big university, a particularly egregious example of academic-industry cooperation. The University of Texas at Austin, with the most numerous student body in the US, in the town with the third-largest (and growing fast) game development community, hosting one of the major game development conferences... has little apparent interest in competing with the likes of USC or CMU, which (IMO) they are eminently capable of doing in this area. They have a small game-ish "collaboratory" but no program, no internships, very little cross-over. Even our local community college has more.
I don't want industry people in our department because they're great industry people, I want them because I think they could be good teachers.
I completely agree. Teaching, researching, inspiring, driving the field on in ways that industry doesn't and can't support.
I wish, o how I wish, that there was degree conferral for this activity, and indeed I am trying to come up with a model by which we could grant PhDs in game design here.
It's been a long time since I researched the origins of psychology, but I recall distinctly that all the earliest of those who contributed to psychology (James, Wundt, Helmholtz, Freud) all necessarily came from other fields (what Postman called the academic doctrine of "hot pursuit" of a field across pedagogical lines; much the same happened with cognitive science in the 1980s). What I don't know is how the first PhDs in the subject were conferred, or how the first university programs in it were started. Maybe worth looking into. OTOH, given the clinical/industrial split between psychology and games, the model may not work all that well.
At any rate, it is as you say too early. These are the birth pangs of a new discipline.
And for my part in banging this drum yet again, I'll buy you a root beer next time we meet.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 18, 2007 at 10:24
I think the problem here is one of a gap between the skills and talents that drive industry members and academia. When Thomas talks about the minority of entries from industry being stellar faculty, I think that seems right on track. This is less because 'industry doesn't support' those same goals, but that people who excel at at these same traits are unlikely to be found in industry. I don't see this as 'If you can't do, teach'. Rather it is a case of incentives and outcomes. The schism between what makes a good teacher and what makes a good member of the game industry is really a function of the needs of the game industry and the alignment of the research goals and industry goals.
Paul Graham does a better job of explaining this than I do.
"At one end of the scale you have fields like math and physics, where nearly all the teachers are among the best practitioners. In the middle are medicine, law, history, architecture, and computer science, where many are. At the bottom are business, literature, and the visual arts, where there's almost no overlap between the teachers and the leading practitioners. It's this end that gives rise to phrases like "those who can't do, teach.""
http://www.paulgraham.com/marginal.html>The Power of The Marginal
Here we have (IMO) a case where teachers from industry aren't just pushed away by the different social economies (tenure/accreditation vs. project success), but by the lack of intersection of skill sets. This may not just be birth pangs, but may be indicitive of the nature of the discipline. rare intersections may occur (http://www.wired.com/print/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/15-09/ff_halo>here and http://eve.warcry.com/news/view/73382>here, but these are both transfers FROM academia to industry), but we might be faced with a permanent differentiation between the two.
More personally, I remember feeling sheepish after forwarding a syllabus from a friend's game class that covered game design (From a college that produces far more game designers than PhD's) to Thomas. The subject matter seems light and uncritical in comparison to the syllabus that Thomas was operating on. The class titles were the same (Games and Culture), but the approaches were vastly different. The more academic (Thomas's) approach dealt with anthropology as a whole and the connection of current scholarship to games. My friend's syllabus talked about game design and the connection to poplar culture.
Back to the original post, maybe we should list job posting in a manner more familiar to the members of the game industry.
US CST LF Economist--At least SSC/TK. No Kara/Gruul economists need apply. Marxists economists be prepared to defend your spec.
Posted by: Adam Hyland | Sep 18, 2007 at 12:28
"That humor aside - teaching and doing research at a university is its own vocation and requires its own set of skills."
Thanks for posting that. As a professor in business schools for 20+ years I shudder to think of how many people I've met that were successful in industry X and assume that because of that they would be great as a biz school professor as a second profession upon retirement. I've run across a handful and we even have a couple here, right now. They're the exception, not the rule.
Posted by: JuJutsu | Sep 18, 2007 at 12:29
I am happily employed or I would definitely check out this opening.
About the whole industry/academy divide, I concur with JuJutsu. There really is much more to being a professor than teaching a good course here and there. Honestly, to assume that being an expert practitioner in a particular industry should somehow qualify a person to become a university professor is, in my mind, identical to a person who plays a lot of MMOs firmly believing that they would a great designer. I really did gather skills unique to the institution of the university in my 6 years of graduate school. To imply that anyone can be a good professor is similar to implying that anyone can design a hit game.
Of course there are many people in the industry who would make excellent professors, but the skills required are much more likely assured when they hire someone who has already proven themselves as effective in that professional setting. I’ll compare this to me getting an industry job. It proved very difficult (though not impossible) for me to get a job as a designer because I had no industry experience on the design side. Even though I theorize about games, people were very reluctant to hire a PhD because that doesn’t show any practical evidence of my abilities in that professional setting.
I whole-heartedly think academics and industry folk should cross-pollinate and communicate, but it doesn’t help anyone to assume that there are no unique skills or knowledge gained by actual experience in either professional setting. Cooperation is not the same as assuming we can automatically do each other’s jobs. I would never imply that I should be lead designer on a game because I think about and play games all the time (unless someone would like to hire me as their lead designer in which case I am totally qualified ;)).
Posted by: Jen Dornan | Sep 18, 2007 at 13:39
Jen: to assume that being an expert practitioner in a particular industry should somehow qualify a person to become a university professor is, in my mind, identical to a person who plays a lot of MMOs firmly believing that they would a great designer.
You're right, but that's not what I or anyone else here was assuming. I think that should be clear.
OTOH, the current rules in academia do assume that if you have don't have a PhD you are necessarily not a good teacher or researcher at the university level. This is equally specious, but also 100% accepted.
Put another way, while you had difficulty gaining an industry job with your PhD, outside of rare opportunities to sign on as "professors of practice" or the like, going the other way the answer is simply "No." Without the PhD, you're a non-starter.
This limits the progress of the field and puts non-practitioners in the position of teaching future practitioners, which dilutes the value of that education and thus widens the gap between academic and industry views. No one wants this, least of all people like Ted trying to hire new instructors, and yet this is exactly the result driven by common university hiring practices.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 18, 2007 at 21:26
Mike wrote:
the current rules in academia do assume that if you have don't have a PhD you are necessarily not a good teacher or researcher at the university level. This is equally specious, but also 100% accepted.
This is not true on several points, as noted above (and acknowledged/conceded by you, Mike). Why are you mischaracterizing the discussion? To beat the drum again? I don't get it.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 19, 2007 at 03:43
Just out of interest I know of at least 5-6 jobs which will becoming available in the next few weeks at my institution for Lecturing posts. Keep a look out at
http://northumbria.ac.uk/sd/central/hr/staffvacancies/
In the next few weeks.
Though obviously working at Northumbria involves living in or near a city three times voted "Party City of Europe"... The drama! :-)
On the matter of getting academic positions, having read the prevoius posts, it doesn't seem all that different in the UK. Increasingly, UK Universities are demanding either you to be partway through a PhD or to have completed a PhD, with people who have published in their field greatly prefered. In the UK some of the main drivers for this is the RAE (our applications as Universities to the funding body for cash) and for a number of institutions in the business field the requirements of AACSB or EQUIS. The driver is actually thus mainly external accreditation bodies or funding bodies, at least at a number of institutions I know of in the UK.
Posted by: David Grundy | Sep 19, 2007 at 04:00
Thomas, I don't believe I am mischaracterizing the situation. In the every instance of which I'm aware where those with significant game industry experience and non-terminal degrees have been hired in as instructors, they are treated as exceptions, and those who fill these positions are treated provisionally (in one case I know of, the instructor had to have a PhD in class with him, per the University's regulations). Significantly, I know of none that are on a tenure track (do you know of any?).
Universities grade themselves (for their own purposes and via accrediting organizations, as David notes) very carefully on the proportion of instructors with and without terminal degrees, and make no or only rare exceptions for the dynamics of emerging areas for which prior terminal degrees may not represent adequate preparation.
So I stand by the statement you quoted from me. The idea that if you don't have a terminal degree you are not fit to be a researcher or teacher at the university level is specious, and it is entirely accepted in academia (though perhaps I should qualify that: I'm speaking of mainstream, US-based academia; I don't know the situation elsewhere). This is true even in the case of the exceptions because they are exceptions -- and at the vast majority of schools, they aren't even that.
I admit I'm trying to beat the drum about this because I'd like to see this situation change. This is an area where I don't believe the strictures of academia serve an emerging field well, either in terms of the graduates or the research it produces.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 19, 2007 at 09:15
David, I think Indiana and Northumbria should established a sister-party-school relationship:
"Top U.S. Party Schools: Let the Beer Bonging Begin"
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Sep 19, 2007 at 10:23
@Mike: Well, I'm not *that* ready to see the relationship of a terminal degree to competence as arbitrary -- would you hire someone who had never initiated and completed a project? In academia, especially as regards the research component, a university *has* to hire people who will be productive, and that productivity depends on an *enormous* amount of self-motivation. We don't have bosses in the conventional sense. We may or may not work in teams (often not). We are expected to produce things because of an incentive structure that is real but incredibly indirect and uninterested in asking for work. After all, no editor at a journal is out there just staring at his inbox waiting for a piece from me to arrive. All of this means that a university's productivity depends upon them hiring people who are motivated to produce without a boss telling them how, when, or what. To me, the degree is at least in part an index of someone's commitment to pursuing inquiry in that strange economy of academia (one that is quite distinct from the universities as institutions, actually). It's not perfect, but it's also not "specious."
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 19, 2007 at 11:14
Thomas: Well, I'm not *that* ready to see the relationship of a terminal degree to competence as arbitrary -- would you hire someone who had never initiated and completed a project?
People like that get hired all the time. Not for lead roles, but then in your example you're talking specifically about relevant experience, not degrees as markers for experience.
We don't have bosses in the conventional sense.
You seem to have the view that everyone in industrial game development is goaded on by a boss and is somehow not self-motivated; this is far from the complete picture. It's the mirror, maybe, of the industrial view that PhDs have no sense of pacing or deadlines, at least not at the speed at which industry operates. Neither are entirely true, and both probably have a grain of truth.
In terms of a terminal degree equating to competence, if someone has built up unique competency in a fast-growing area, published in scholarly books or journals, presented papers at conferences, taught as adjunct faculty at the community college (or university) level, contributed to the overall field of interest, and led long-term original R&D projects, in what way would the absence of a terminal degree render them incompetent to work at the university level in academia? I would say such a person (depending on their temperament and career goals) might do well there. And yet, such a person would be excluded from the vast majority of positions from the very start simply and specifically because of the lack of that terminal degree.
You seem to be taking the degree itself as a marker for the actual experience and competence. Now typically teaching, publishing, speaking, and original research do come as part and parcel of obtaining a PhD, but the two are not the same. And my point is that in a new, dynamic area for which prior PhD training may not prepare someone (as is the case for game design, development, production, and criticism), the marker of the terminal degree itself should become the least important aspect -- but instead it's the most important, often the only one considered.
So I stand by what I said: the base assumption that someone without a PhD is necessarily unfit to be part of academia at the mainstream university level is specious -- and more important, harmful to the progress of game (and virtual world) development.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 19, 2007 at 12:24
I think I'm done trying to discuss this topic with you, Mike. I'm not interested in seeing you mischaracterize my views. I have taken every opportunity to state that I see the credential and the competence as two different things -- that's what "marker" means; i.e., that they are *not* one in the same. You're also overstating the realities by putting up a semi-official policy as immutable. We thus simply disagree in our assessment of how common exceptions are, how easily accomplishments in one can be analogized to the other, and probably a few other details of this issue, so on the whole all we're ending up doing is counter-asserting, with you seeming to believe that you have a clearer picture of how academia actually operates than I; I wouldn't presume to make the reverse claim. Consider your drum beaten. /shrug
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 19, 2007 at 12:42
@Mike
I expect that if I were to argue that 'the base assumption that someone without an MD is necessarily unfit to practice medicine is specious' you'd have a different opinion.
I may be wrong [and I'm sure you'll correct me if I am ;) ] but I suspect that you just don't believe Edward's point, that teaching and doing research at a university is its own vocation and requires its own set of skills.
There is all sorts of stuff about certification and labor market signaling that the econ people could trot out, sociologists and anthropologists can talk about institutional processes but there's no sense in doing so. It sounds like you and Prof. Castronova have had this conversation before.
Posted by: JuJutsu | Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50
Sorry to hear that, Thomas, but okay. FWIW I don't believe I've mischaracterized your views, especially as I've taken pains to quote what you've said (and I wish you'd extend to me the same courtesy of not mischaracterizing what I've said, for example your assertion that I believe I know more about academia than you -- I did not say or imply that, and you are twisting what I did say).
Nor do I believe I'm overstating the case. If I am, please point out some counter-examples. I know there are a few, but that's the point, they are very few. This isn't about assertions and counter-assertions as you say, but about actual practice which can be observed. In this case at least, I would be overjoyed to find that I'm wrong in what I've seen. Are there in fact mainstream universities bringing in those without terminal degrees for tenure-track positions in studying and teaching game or virtual world development? If I'm overstating the case, there ought to be abundant examples of this. There may be one or two I can think of, but I'm not even sure of those.
JuJutsu, I don't believe there is an effective parallel between a medical doctor and a university professor or game developer. One is a matter of knowledge, practice and most of all licensing (and not only MDs practice medicine in the US), the others are matters of accreditation on the one hand and practice on the other.
It's not that I disagree with the idea that teaching and doing research at a university is its own vocation (though I don't believe that's been Ted's point), but that doing so effectively may or may not require a PhD or other terminal degree. In an area where the vast majority of what is known comes through praxis rather than theory, where there is little to no corpus of knowledge to build on, a PhD in another area is of debatable value. The ability (and experience) to teach and do research are critical, as I've said several times in this thread. But it is not the case that without a PhD one is incapable of doing those effectively at the university level -- that is the specious-but-accepted assertion I referred to above.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 19, 2007 at 13:53
the vast majority of what is known comes through praxis rather than theory
But this is the problem. There is a reason why the theories of practitioners -- and let's be sure to understand that they do develop them, out of their own experience; i.e., they're not speaking only from practice -- are often not going to be robust enough in comparison to the long-developed ways of understanding that the academy is designed to cultivate. You seem (and please note when I use the word "seem"; that is when I am taking pains not to mischaracterize, but instead to report on the impression that I am left with) to work from the assumption that there is no theory amongst practitioners, and that there is no attention to practice amongst academics. But, then, I've expressed my reservations about your broad brush-strokes categories for these kinds of assessments before. You seem to want to assert a picture of a situation that is without nuance, and that makes it sound more like a political or personal bugaboo than a reasoned assessment.
As for examples from game development, etc, I never claimed to be able to supply them. The examples I know come from other, longer-running parts of the academy (in fields like public health and architecture, for example).
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 19, 2007 at 15:13
Thomas, I'm aware of the development and characteristics of theory in fields like biology and psychology, each of which has seen both huge upheavals and strong, coherent, generally accepted models emerge. So when I talk about theory in the context of game and virtual world development, I mean in the epistemological sense of an organized and generalized system that applies descriptively and predictively to a set of phenomena.
In that sense, game and VW design and development has almost no theory. It's almost entirely built on anecdotal and idiosyncratic heuristics and praxis. So yes, we all build theories out of our own experience, but that's precisely the same as saying what we have is practical knowledge, not theoretical knowledge -- there is as yet no real theory applicable across any significant portion of game or virtual world development.
I don't mean to be demeaning to my own field by saying this; that's just where we are right now. There are a few bits and pieces here and there of models that may make sense in some contexts, but as yet little if any actual theory. (And just to clarify your other comment, in my experience there is attention to practice among many academics, but typically -- not always -- on a different scale of time and completeness than is necessary in industry.)
There is a reason why the theories of practitioners ... are often not going to be robust enough in comparison to the long-developed ways of understanding that the academy is designed to cultivate.
I agree: but I believe this has much more to do with the pressures of commercial development than with the letters that come after one's name. Of course, given these same pressures, many, probably most in industry don't learn about or aren't interested in teaching, doing independent research, or working to create or refine robust theory. But for those few who might have those abilities and interests, the doors to academia are currently closed (you said I was overstating this before -- if you have no counter-examples how can you know?).
My point all along has been that as things stand now within academia, with a very few exceptions, any construction of theory of game development -- or even just instruction in how to do it -- necessarily comes from those who have never done it. Computer games and virtual worlds are so new and have spread so fast that the practice has far outstripped the theoretical concerns. It's only been in the past few years in fact that these were seen as valid subjects for academic study!
Having learned theory and research and teaching to the "terminal degree" level in psychology, anthropology, sociology, and even computer science has some applicability to game and virtual world development and theory, but this applicability is necessarily limited. Thus, until those who know what practice, heuristics, and shreds of theory already exist are able to become part of the academy, any progress in teaching or creating theory will be hamstrung.
And, as far as I can see the biggest barrier here is not that game industry people are not interested in theory, research, and teaching, but that current university practices actively bar the way for anyone, no matter their experience in academically relevant areas, if they do not have that hallowed terminal degree.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 19, 2007 at 16:11
Agree with that -- my answer is, it will very probably take some time. The fields I know that have come to a reasonable accommodation on this had to arrive at that realization. I do think we can push for it, but it will probably go faster if it is in a constructive spirit.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 19, 2007 at 16:24
@Mike
[i]In terms of a terminal degree equating to competence, if someone has built up unique competency in a fast-growing area, published in scholarly books or journals, presented papers at conferences, taught as adjunct faculty at the community college (or university) level, contributed to the overall field of interest, and led long-term original R&D projects, in what way would the absence of a terminal degree render them incompetent to work at the university level in academia? I would say such a person (depending on their temperament and career goals) might do well there. And yet, such a person would be excluded from the vast majority of positions from the very start simply and specifically because of the lack of that terminal degree.[/i]
I will grant you the distinction between competence and credential. But two points I'd toss into the mix.
I'll admit that I'm somewhat skewed based on my personal circumstances: business schools, not game design. It's the specific situation you describe writ large: it seems that [b]every[/b] successful business person assumes that success in praxis would mean success in the ivory tower.
1. I'd argue that the special circumstance you described above is rare. Very rare. In my world successful business people don't write grant proposals to the NSF, conduct research projects, publish journal articles, and teach students.
2. You make the argument that game design is special [it's new and dynamic] and that it should be treated differently. To the extent that it happens in a university [as opposed to say a private organization devoted to training] then it's going to be subject to the institutional norms and practices of universities. For better or worse....
If universities are screwing it up then there should be opportunities for doing the education and training
outside of the university context. Start the Sellers School of Game Design, hire whomever you want and kick the stuffing out of the traditional Ivory Tower. Sorry for reverting to biz school mode there ;)
Posted by: JuJutsu | Sep 19, 2007 at 16:29
Trackbacks apparently not working. My thoughts on this here.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Sep 19, 2007 at 18:45
Thomas, I'm not sure what a 'reasonable accommodation' would look like here, but I'll keep looking. I don't think "go get an MFA or PhD" is it. I'm also interested in being constructive whenever possible. You seem to have taken my critical comments here in a negative light... I hope that pointing out that the currently accepted situation is not particularly effective is not of itself non-constructive.
JuJutsu, I've seen business people like that too. Probably game dev people as well, though they're typically really different animals and I don't think you can generalize from one to the other.
And I don't think that the general qualities and practices I mentioned are all that rare in game industry people, but who knows, I could be wrong. If they are, that would change the picture from the industrial side too -- but it still doesn't change the basic Kafka-esque situation that a qualified industry person would find themselves in with regard to working in academia.
Your point #2 seems to miss my deeper point, which is that it is those very institutional norms and practices that do well in other areas are holding back the incubation of better game/VW theory and practice. Some aspects of this growth can happen only within a solid university environment, and then only with people who are qualified (currently, based on experience, the only substantive teacher we have in this area) to work on it -- and these are the same people barred from the university environment by its practices!
This also goes to your final point. Yes, if I was interested in a career in academia (I'm not right now, as I don't feel qualified and have more than enough to do in industry), I could either open a new school or join one of the existing "game development" schools out there. But they too miss out on the more theory-building aspects that the university environment affords.
In short, the answers of "wait," "suck it up," or "avoid the problem" are ultimately non-answers. Or, if they're the only answers available (as seems likely, outside of a few programs), then I'm much less sanguine about the course of the development of game and virtual world theory, or the ability to make academia and industry useful or even just intelligible to each other.
Andy, good comments on your blog. Your point about diversifying and bringing in both academics and industry folks is a good one, but as we see here (and as many game companies who have brought in academics have found) it's a lot easier said than done.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 19, 2007 at 23:20
I can only say that I have had dealings now outside of this blog with dozens of industry people in many different contexts (including one just this weekend) and I have every reason to believe that those interactions were productive for both parties. And I don't think I'm alone. As I've observed before, you don't shy away from speaking for an entire industry point of view, Mike, but I cannot say that my experience has backed up your assertions in any meaningful way. That's just my opinion.
What is more, your characterization of all of academia's practices concerning credentials from the example of only one area is a case in point (and Andy's wonderful blog post contains its own deft counter-example). I've said repeatedly that it is, in practice, quite a bit more flexible. Since there is so much university interest in these programs today, I would bet the farm that there are deans out there willing to make it happen (apparently they aren't at UT Austin), but as with all new fields, those communication channels are hard to establish.
I also fail to see that you've taken seriously any counter-suggestions to your implicit assertion that only practitioners have something to contribute to any program seeking to avoid a seeming dead-end. But that's the aspect of this discussion that I would feel least sanguine about becoming productive. I think we can agree that a good program would include multiple points of view and kinds of experience.
And FWIW, I did not simply say "wait."
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 19, 2007 at 23:48
Thomas: I have had dealings now outside of this blog with dozens of industry people in many different contexts
That's fine, but it doesn't bear on the issue of whether non-PhDs are suitable for university positions. I've had many positive and fruitful interactions with those in academia, and some that were not so fruitful. This isn't about whether industry and academia can have good dealings with each other -- my point continues to be the restraining of the development of better theory and practice by excluding those without terminal degrees from academic positions. That's all I'm talking about.
As I've observed before, you don't shy away from speaking for an entire industry point of view, Mike
Actually, I've been very careful to say things that were in my experience when I thought there might be any significant disagreement. If you want to bring up something specific I've said where I'm overreaching my ability to talk about industry conditions, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I'll stand by what I've said. And I have to wonder -- is this really what you'd call a constructive comment?
I've said repeatedly that it is, in practice, quite a bit more flexible. Since there is so much university interest in these programs today, I would bet the farm that there are deans out there willing to make it happen
Okay, show me.
I know about the ETC at CMU. I know a bit about USC's program. I know about The Guildhall at SMU. None of these, AFAIK, involve tenure-track positions that will lead to better theoretical consideration, but at least they're creating a solid academic environment for those who will exit school and go into industry.
But other than that, you keep saying things are "quite a bit more flexible." Okay. I haven't seen it, and not for lack of looking.
How big is this farm you're willing to bet?
I also fail to see that you've taken seriously any counter-suggestions to your implicit assertion that only practitioners have something to contribute to any program seeking to avoid a seeming dead-end
Now see there's a good example of you mischaracterizing me. I don't believe I said or implied that only practitioners have something to contribute. My main point is that it is not the case that only those with terminal degrees are competent to contribute, which as I think you'll agree is quite different from the words you put in my mouth. I have said that advanced study in other fields (psychology, anthropology, computer science, etc.) have some applicability as well -- thus something to contribute. I am in no way saying that only practitioners know what they are doing.
My only point throughout this discussion has been that by actively excluding qualified practitioners from academia, the progress in theory and practice is significantly reduced. Unfortunately such practitioners are (again, with very few exceptions, unless you're able to point out this flexibility you assert exists) actively and specifically excluded from meaningful academic positions.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 20, 2007 at 00:11
Good god, Mike. When I say flexible, I'm talking about the flexibility I've seen in different parts of the academy as a whole on the issue of credentials. You respond as if it's not true until it's true for these programs, and say "show me" because you haven't seen it -- how arrogant and intellectually dishonest. Again, the point I made was about the academy I know, and what I've noticed it is capable of, and hopefully will be capable of for games programs. You simply move your assertions around to the level that suits you and claim that no one has answered them. It's so aggravating that you refuse to argue reasonably.
I gave you, as I said, *my opinion* that my experience does not match your assertions about an industry point of view. I don't think I need to do more than say that.
The first part of my last post was a response to the last part of your prior one, in two places, so don't pretend that you hadn't brought the issue up:
I'm much less sanguine about ... the ability to make academia and industry useful or even just intelligible to each other.
and
as we see here (and as many game companies who have brought in academics have found) it's a lot easier said than done.
So I was responding to those.
Lastly,
I am in no way saying that only practitioners know what they are doing.
Here is where *you* misread *me*. I was very careful to say the following the way I did:
"I also fail to see that you've taken seriously any counter-suggestions to your implicit assertion that only practitioners have something to contribute to any program seeking to avoid a seeming dead-end."
If you parse this, rather than jumping to conclusions, you'll see that I'm *not* claiming that you're suggesting that only industry people have something to contribute. That ought to be plain as can be. But, in any event, I then made sure to express the point on which we surely agree -- that both have something to contribute. You ignore that as if I never wrote it.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 20, 2007 at 00:31
Bah, just the M.A. here. I'll have to settle for trying for the IndU doctoral program for next August. :p
-Morgan
Posted by: Sutro | Sep 20, 2007 at 03:52
"So when I talk about theory in the context of game and virtual world development, I mean in the epistemological sense of an organized and generalized system that applies descriptively and predictively to a set of phenomena.
In that sense, game and VW design and development has almost no theory"
Sorry but I find this hard to believe. There is systematic research out there that is descriptive and prescriptive. You can probably find it at say
http://www.presence-research.org/
http://mgsuserresearch.com/
http://interactive.usc.edu/research/games/
http://www.research.scea.com/research/research.html
"1. I'd argue that the special circumstance you described above is rare. Very rare. In my world successful business people don't write grant proposals to the NSF, conduct research projects, publish journal articles, and teach students."
Business / govt grant proposals, research, press releases, intern training, hmm heard of IBM?
I used to work for Digital, they did a lot of this stuff too. Maybe your world just isn't big enough? :)
Anyway, a PhD means someone can supervise PhD students. It also means they have done original research and been evaluated by their peers (or at least that is what it is supposed to mean. Since it is the highest degree and a mark of the purest form of self-directed (institutional) learning, a university obviously should value it, or General Motors executives could drive Hondas to work.
"So I stand by what I said: the base assumption that someone without a PhD is necessarily unfit to be part of academia at the mainstream university level is specious -- and more important, harmful to the progress of game (and virtual world) development."
Actually I almost agree with the above, except, why employ someone who undermines your aspirational status? They may be a great teacher but if they don't have a PhD students have less reason to do one themselves--a rich educational funding and status source blown.
Most of the above thread reminds me of architecture and creative design *which is why a PhD in Creative Media et al is becoming quite popular. But the real problem I think, is, why would an excellent game designer want to teach rather than build games? And if som why at a university and not at a technical college?
Posted by: | Sep 20, 2007 at 07:48
OK, this is a rant. If you don't want to be ranted at--stop reading.
I find it fascinating that most people in industry think holding a PhD in just about any field (but particularly in something like the humanities) is all but worthless for working in the "real world."
At the same time, they believe their years of industry experience gives them qualifications to step into the University and teach (what could possibly be easier?) and work as tenure track faculty.
I am sorry to say this, but industry experience makes you an interesting addition for a class or two, but is terrible experience for work in a university. You would step into a tenure track position completely out of step with university culture and would have very little idea how to deal with things like advising dissertations, scheduling oral exams (yes, that can be way more complicated that it sounds), advising students about academic career choices, or dealing with administrative academic politics. When a student asks you which journal to submit their work to because they want to position themselves in the job market for the next year, what do you tell them? When they leave one of their committee member's star student's work off their quals reading list, how will you know to make sure they include it?
Jobs at research I universities require a ton of skills that industry does not give you. In fact, it instills a worldview which is hostile to many things academic think are important. Academics know this and when they find out you are from industry they will either distrust you, ignore you, or loathe you. None of these are good, especially when it comes time for tenure decisions.
If I told you I wanted to run a major game design studio because I had taught about games for 10 years, you'd probably tell me I wasn't qualified and you'd be right.
When I tell you that 10 years in the game industry doesn't make you qualified for a tenure track job at a university, you might want to pause and consider that what we do in the ivory tower might be a little more complicated than you think. Building games is lousy training for being a professor.
With all due respect to Ted and Thomas, saying life in the university is a different set of skills is a bit like saying living in Japan requires you to use a few different words for things.
I am always amazed that people who hold the university is such contempt and who are so fond of ridiculing its practices are then so put out when we don't roll out the red carpet and tell them they piss excellence because they have spent 10 years of their lives doing something mildly interesting, but largely irrelevant to what we do.
Tenure track faculty are in the business of producing academics. Our most valuable contributions are what we pass on to our graduate students who earn PhDs and go into teaching and research. That process is about enculturation and socialization into a profession. If you come from industry you don't know how to do that.
Probably, worst of all, you will have to read lots and lots of books and articles filled with the dreaded "jargon." And since industry has no jargon of its own and is always transparent and intuitive (yes, that is sarcasm), you will be unprepared. Even worse, you will have to produce work in that vernacular and, gasp, even be evaluated based on how well you do it. People like Malaby will hold conversations with you and guess what, you will have to speak his language, understand it, and speak it back to him. The burden will not be for him to be clear to you, the burden will be on you to demonstrate that you have read Bourdieu, and Mauss, and Levi Strauss. And if you haven't read them and can't talk about them, guess what, you are illiterate. You won't belong and you won't be taken seriously. And it won't matter how many years you spent in industry, because you won't be part of our conversation.
So by all means, come to the university. Teach some classes, make us relevant to undergrads, train people for industry jobs, share your experiences and all the wonderful stories you have about the "real world." But leave the tenure track jobs to those who are qualified to do them.
Posted by: Lazlo Toth | Sep 20, 2007 at 08:51
I'm glad you weighed in on the tenure-track issue, Laszlo -- Mike's reference to that had escaped my notice. There is a reason that schools of architecture (probably our best model for the integration of industry and academia -- and a good analogy to game makers to boot) have local and distinguished private practice architects teaching for them as adjuncts, lecturers, and other non-tenure categories. As far as I understand it, that doesn't bother the architects, who want to contribute to a program and understand that their expertise doesn't in any way translate to a tenure-track position for them -- they gain status by the association, get to participate in making better students (and finding the best ones), and continue to make their private practice salary. On tenure, they (quite maturely) don't seem to care.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 20, 2007 at 09:35
Thomas, just to be clear, you said: I've said repeatedly that it is, in practice, quite a bit more flexible. Since there is so much university interest in these programs today, I would bet the farm that there are deans out there willing to make it happen (emphasis added)
That to me seems pretty clear that, given the context of this discussion, by "these programs" you mean that there is flexibility regarding staffing of programs relevant to game development -- that there are "deans out there" staffing "these programs" who are "more flexible" than, sadly, the Indiana program is able to be. You're so sure of this that you'd "bet the farm" on it.
But then after I ask you for examples (I know, empiricism, what a concept), you back off with: When I say flexible, I'm talking about the flexibility I've seen in different parts of the academy as a whole on the issue of credentials.
Okay, except that's not what you said, and not what this discussion has been about. Perhaps there is flexibility in other areas of academia, I don't know. If there is, there may well be good lessons to learn there.
In a similar vein, regarding me having misread you, let's parse out your statement as you suggest. You said, I also fail to see that you've taken seriously any counter-suggestions to your implicit assertion that only practitioners have something to contribute to any program seeking to avoid a seeming dead-end
This is, as I said earlier, a complete mischaracterization of what I've said repeatedly here. Setting that aside (though you haven't responded to that), and stripping some of the above statement away, the core is, your implicit assertion that only practitioners have something to contribute (the parts I've removed do not alter this meaning).
So you are saying that I have made an "implicit assertion" that, again quoting you, "only practitioners have something to contribute."
Now you then said that you were "very careful" in writing that as you did. But then you go on to say I'm *not* claiming that you're suggesting that only industry people have something to contribute. That ought to be plain as can be.
No, Thomas, that is exactly what you claimed. To review, you first said that I made an implicit assumption that (your words) "only practitioners have something to contribute." And then you said, "I'm *not* claiming that you're suggesting that only industry people have something to contribute."
Given the blatantly contradictory nature of the above, I'd suggest that at the very least it behooves you be a lot more careful in your "very careful" writing -- especially if you're going to be that sloppy and then accuse others of being unconstructive or worse, not arguing reasonably or being intellectually dishonest. Those are hard charges, and ones I don't believe you can support. OTOH, who knows, maybe you're right. Maybe this is all very carefully written (your words), maybe it's not sloppy and contradictory. After all, you're the one with the PhD. Even so, I'll continue to stand by what I've said here.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 20, 2007 at 09:36
An unnamed poster writes: he real problem I think, is, why would an excellent game designer want to teach rather than build games? And if som why at a university and not at a technical college?
That's a valid question. The primary answers have to do with the theoretical aspect I've been on about -- technical colleges, AFAIK, and of course most game development companies typically offer little in the way of research opportunities -- and the fact that more and more game developers are coming out of universities, having been trained by PhDs with no experience in what they're teaching others to practice. That seems to me to be a problem.
But there is another answer that I hadn't considered earlier, and that is that the equation of patronage seems to be shifting. I know a very smart fellow, a PhD, who was teaching at a university and recently went to work for a huge web company to do, as one friend said, "pretty much whatever he wants." Now that doesn't include just hangin' out, I'm sure, but does offer him the kind of open-ended patronage that typically only universities and a few very large companies (IBM and DEC have been mentioned, also Xerox, etc.) have offered in the past. It may be that this is the place to be looking for the advancement of theory grounded in practice, and not universities.
That still doesn't help with the instruction of the next generation of developers though.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 20, 2007 at 09:42
:Sigh:
If you don't want to read and understand what I'm saying carefully, then (as I've said before) this cannot be constructive. Saying that there are deans out there with a willingness in their heads to make something like this happen is several steps removed from it being put into practice *for these programs*. (Some dean somewhere starts talking to the one faculty member that is senior enough, and on good terms with his department/program enough, about how to grow the game design program, but then the conversations go nowhere, for a host of reasons.) That is why I said that the communication channels are difficult to establish. So I'm saying that the possibilities exist, and you claim that I'm saying the realities are already there. It's just nonsensical, your reasoning.
Regarding "the parts removed"...
"to any program seeking to avoid a seeming dead-end."
This is a non-trivial element of the sentence you refuse to understand, no matter what you say, and it's quite obvious that you read the meanings you want to read. If you think about it clearly, you will realize that a program without practitioners, in my view, could still develop into a quality program from the contributions of its faculty. I'm suggesting that you have been implying that any program without practitioners would inevitably run into a dead end. So, the point is not whether the non-industry people would contribute anything, it is whether such a program could be a quality program that is up to your standards. I would be happy to be corrected if you don't hold this view. But, again, I don't really have much expectation that you can see this kind of point. The nuances matter.
I'm left with the conclusion that this is simply the venting of spleen on your part, dressed up in the trappings of argument. The sloppy reasoning is not mine. The sloppy reading is yours. I stand by my charges.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 20, 2007 at 09:48
Lazlo wrote: I find it fascinating that most people in industry think holding a PhD in just about any field (but particularly in something like the humanities) is all but worthless for working in the "real world."
At the same time, they believe their years of industry experience gives them qualifications to step into the University and teach (what could possibly be easier?) and work as tenure track faculty.
Lazlo, those are both straw men that have been stood up and knocked down in this discussion already. I have made no such claims and would not; to my knowledge no one else in this discussion has done so either.
I could repeat what I've said several times already, but I'm not sure of the point. Briefly, I never said what you're railing against, and you seem to have completely missed the points I've made several times in that regard.
Working as adjunct faculty is a good solution to the instruction of students by those who have done what's being taught. But, as I replied above, it does not typically supply the support of theoretical research that a tenured position at a university provides. That said, if the discussion here is indicative of academia's overall intransigence as a matter of norm and policy (despite Thomas's vague assertion that there is more flexibility out there somewhere), it may be that this fast-moving area will simply route around the damage, so to speak, and find its environment for theoretical research elsewhere.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 20, 2007 at 09:49
I see, so the situation is binary, Mike. Either these game programs are being flexible and finding solutions to this, right now, or they are utterly incapable of it now or in the future, and any claim that they may be is a "vague assertion." Thanks, now I understand your point.
You also choose not to concede that expecting tenure-track positions may have been over-reaching, for all the good reasons Lazlo describes, and therefore are able to claim that you can't imagine what he's arguing against. Beautiful.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 20, 2007 at 09:52
Thomas, at this point I think I've said all I can. I'm happy to leave it to others to decide who is arguing and thinking sloppily or venting his spleen.
FWIW, I'm less confident than ever in any but a few programs in terms of the students and theory they will produce, given the siege mentality made evident here. But so it goes. Either these programs will produce strong results or, as I said, others in this field will simply route around the damage. Best of luck to you.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 20, 2007 at 09:55
Ah yes, there it is again, the grand pronouncement of a sad state of affairs from a presumed authority. I'm very glad that my experience with virtually every other game designer and developer I've met has been at odds with that picture, and I think you'll understand if I don't feel deep stirrings of dread.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 20, 2007 at 09:59
There's one good reason for an academic institution to not hire from industry--they probably don't know how to evaluate the qualifications of a non-academic. When hiring someone out of a Ph.D. program or postdoc, they have academic papers to look at, can discuss areas of common knowledge in common lingo, and have recommendations from people they trust within the field.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be willing to hire non-Ph.D.'s, but it does mean it's bound to be a serious extra challenge to do so. It seems to me like it's something where only a few schools in any field would want to make the investment to learn how to hire based on different criteria.
Posted by: Timothy Dang | Sep 20, 2007 at 10:45
The burden will not be for him to be clear to you, the burden will be on you to demonstrate that you have read Bourdieu, and Mauss, and Levi Strauss. And if you haven't read them and can't talk about them, guess what, you are illiterate.
Oh crap, what happend to interdisciplinary research? So you are basically saying that game-researchers from the humanties are striving to paint themselves into an obscure semiotic corner in their little room of smoked mirrors?
I agree. That is my impression too. Of course, it would be a crime to change this in favour of interdisciplinary research?
Btw, it is hardly surprising that they want a phd for a research position as that would be the proper education, but the brilliant theoretical professors are often not the best teachers... Not to mention the odd course profiles you get when profs primarily want to teach their (useless) pet research topics.
Thank God that many professors slow down their research ambitions when they earn their title and dedicate time to teaching instead...
The problem with practitioners is that their knowledge is tacit and that they tend to focus on pragmatic heuristics rather than general theory. Doesn't make them bad teachers, per se, you probably want both if you want to teach for "real work" in emerging fields where the existing theory is crap.
Gee, that was kinda hostile. *smirks*
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Sep 20, 2007 at 10:56
"Oh crap, what happend to interdisciplinary research? So you are basically saying that game-researchers from the humanties are striving to paint themselves into an obscure semiotic corner in their little room of smoked mirrors?"
Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say. Because thinkers like Levi Strauss, Bordieu and Mauss are obscure semiotic thinkers who have only fundamentally changed the way a number of disciplines think about theory and practice and have transformed our understanding of how we critically engage with issues of space, movement, and knowledge.
These are influential and important people in the academic conversation about games, in a variety of disciplines. If you want to be part of the conversation, you need to read and understand what they are saying.
In 100 years, people will still be reading Levi Strauss and Bordieu and others. They will still inform how we think about research (even if only as a point of departure) and I am pretty sure, unless the next 50 of expansion packs are a hell of a lot better than TBC, no one will even remember World of Warcraft or its designers.
I find it fascinating that a description of an engagement with a serious academic discipline is attacked in this way.
You make my point eloquently. Anyone who would have this frame of mind about academic research, no matter how narrowly focused or deeply embedded in an academic tradition, is not someone I would want as a colleague and certainly not someone I would feel comfortable making tenure decisions in my department.
"but the brilliant theoretical professors are often not the best teachers"
Really? How is it this old chestnut keeps getting trotted out my people who continually demand empirical evidence for such claims. And yet, the best they can provide is anecdotal evidence because they once had a professor who was theoretically brilliant (from the perspective of an undergrad), but not good in the classroom.
I see my teaching evals from all of my colleagues when I sit on departmental merit reviews. They are, with a few exceptions, very high, most getting evals of 4.5/5 in most areas of assessment. The ones that are lower are usually isolated cases and tend to balance out in later semesters.
There seems to be this belief that if you are brilliant at theory you suck in the classroom. I don't see evidence of that. I am sure it happens. But if you want to generalize that kind of claim, you need to be able to back it up.
I am amazed that people who have almost no clue about how the university works are willing to make sweeping generalizations about the people who work in it.
And BTW, if you think *that* was hostile, you definitely wouldn't like the academy.
This is a pointless conversation. You think you can step into our world and "advance theory" and push the field forward, as if there aren't a whole bunch of us trying to do that every day. You have some special magic that will allow you to waltz in and show us all how we silly academics are wasting our time with obscure theory and pointless research.
The fact of the matter is you are clueless about what we do, why it matters, and what its value is. But you all speak as if you have some special insight. You don't.
Posted by: Lazlo Toth | Sep 20, 2007 at 12:28
My goodness this got heated. Let me see if there are some things we can all agree on:
1. Interaction and collaboration between academics and industry folks is good.
2. Every industry uses experience and proven skills to make hiring decisions.
I do think we can debate about the ways in which #2 happens but clearly every industry is going to have its markers of success and ability within that professional world (shipping 10 AAA games for dev jobs or a PhD for academic jobs being easy examples). Are those good markers of future success? That is debatable. But realistically, in both industries job openings will generate sometimes hundreds of applicants and there is rarely a simple or easy way to sort through them and so hiring committees fall back on a set of standards that help them figure out who can do the job well.
We can argue about the ways that those kinds of hiring practices might hurt an industry, but I don’t really know a good way to do away with them entirely. Yes, hiring only designers with 5 shipped games might mean that a company overlooks the diamond in the rough, the next great game designer who simply hasn’t gotten her foot in the door. Yes, hiring only PhDs might limit the scope of academic programs and prevent truly great future professors from broadening their horizons.
I entirely agree with Andy’s post that those cross-over margins are very important places for innovation. I also do think that there are many universities that seek just those kinds of people. In anthropology, for example, there are some applied programs that seek out social workers, human rights investigators, and other hands on practitioners to expand the scope of their programs.
Although some universities might hire practitioners, in general having practitioners come in as lecturers or visiting faculty to teach practical skills makes a great deal of sense to me. Mike, I think the reason you are getting such heated responses here is because it seems as though you are basically suggesting that you believe you should have access to, not only teaching, but also the support and research funding of a university to conduct theoretical research that a tenured position would provide.
Perhaps this will sound trite or cold, but honestly, if you want the ability to garner university support to run theoretical research projects, you first have to prove that you have the ability to conduct independent research that is peer reviewed and respected. The best way to do that is to get a PhD. I have run at least 4 major independent projects, written many reports and have many academic publications and I am still seen as a junior researcher. Why would someone who has never run such a research project be provided with research support?
One question I do have about this whole discussion - are we talking about a game development program or a digital media program? Are they focused on training the next generation of scholars theorizing about virtual worlds or training the next generation of developers? I would say those are not necessarily the same thing, nor should they be. Let me share an imagined dream research project – this would be a joint venture by a crack researcher and a top industry professional with years of experience between them. They could then bring the skills of both areas of expertise to bear on a research design directed by the theoretical and methodological skills of the researcher/academic as well as the theoretical and practical knowledge of the industry veteran.
Posted by: Jen Dornan | Sep 20, 2007 at 12:43
Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say.
;-) Good. Unfortunately you overgeneralize about what research groups are like. It's not like everybody in all research groups share references. In fact, as Malaby pointed out, you can be quite lonely (if your fiueld is narrow and specialized). The basic assumption is thus disproved by the existance of researchers coexisting without sharing an overwhelming number of references.
And yet, the best they can provide is anecdotal evidence because they once had a professor who was theoretically brilliant (from the perspective of an undergrad), but not good in the classroom.
Uhm, you don't really expect me to list names? Do you? It isn't a matter of not being good, but of not being able to "dumb things down" enough to get everybody along.
I am amazed that people who have almost no clue about how the university works are willing to make sweeping generalizations about the people who work in it.
You are full of fluff.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Sep 20, 2007 at 13:09
Jen: Let me share an imagined dream research project – this would be a joint venture by a crack researcher and a top industry professional with years of experience between them.
Yeah, fortunately in design-heavy fields the groups do value practitioners (who might have phds) as they realize that theory alone doesn't cut it. So it might only be some fields suffers from this. *shrugs*
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Sep 20, 2007 at 13:25
@Ola: Sure, not everyone shares references, and even the best scholar may not recognize a name that others feel is a giant, but Lazlo chose those names because they *are* interdisciplinary, at least across the humanities and a good chunk of the social sciences. Being broadly read and trained enough to join the conversation in an academic setting does not mean knowing what everyone else does, but it does require enough shared territory that a productive conversation can follow (and it's productive as much *because* of the gaps as what's shared).
In my opinion it's true that certain parts of the academy, as you also suggest, get more insular than others, but in my experience those are more likely to be in obscure subject areas, where there's not much interest from elsewhere, or else in fields dominated for decades by a single powerful but flawed paradigm (such as rational choice theory). In any event, I still think that architecture is the best area of the academy to look to as a model -- they've combined the very best of both practitioner training and theorizing about space and human condition.
As for teaching quality and research quality -- my experience is that the best researchers are more often the best teachers (not always). I surmise that this is because they are often more passionate about their subjects. The chestnut of saying that great researchers are not great teachers is in any case to me just as unfounded and pernicious as it seems to be to Lazlo. I would instead suggest that, to the extent this seems true, it is more because of how research universities structure, prioritize, and reward research over teaching in how they operate.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 20, 2007 at 13:51
Jen: Mike, I think the reason you are getting such heated responses here is because it seems as though you are basically suggesting that you believe you should have access to, not only teaching, but also the support and research funding of a university to conduct theoretical research that a tenured position would provide.
Jen, I realize that's the response I've been getting. And that's close to but not really the point I've been making (though I thank you for not beating up a straw man as others have, refuting arguments that have not been made). The actual point I've been trying to make -- that excluding all PhDs retards game instruction and theory construction -- is all but lost in the surrounding noise. Perhaps I'm just not making it clearly enough, I don't know.
I am not saying that industry veterans know how to teach or do research or form theory as well or better than academics, nor that they are the only competent ones to do this. I am not saying that industry people should be given special dispensation or that their overall fitness for a university classroom, research program, and general academic life should not be considered.
I am saying (and have said multiple times) that even if all these things were in place, someone with strong industry experience and without a terminal degree would not be eligible for such a university position. Again, I see that simple and overt exclusion as something that reduces the quality of game/VW development instruction, and theory related to the development of these.
Further, I believe this is important because the online environment is unique. Computer games and virtual worlds are not simply extensions of earlier artificial forms; they bring something essentially different to the individual and social experience, something for which no other field is completely adequate preparation. The case that I know of best as most similar is that of cognitive science; during the 1980s when I was studying this there was a lot of jostling of computer scientists, psychologists, and neurologists about what this was, and they eventually settled into a few fairly well-defined camps. But in this current case, we don't even have the pre-existing theoretical (or pedagogical) foundations to build on. Yes, Levi-Strauss, Mauss, and others -- Jacobs, Tonnies, Alexander, Norman, Turkle, Toqueville, Turner, and doubtless many others -- are all foundational. But the construction, development, and operation of games and virtual worlds is so essentially different from any previous endeavor (a point perhaps under-appreciated by some in academia who have not seen this intimately from the inside) that the preceding theoretical frameworks from various disciplines are informative but not determinative.
This is what I meant when I said we have little to no theory in game and virtual world development. We are somewhere between the position of trying to move beyond phlogiston theory -- are there underlying regularities that will lead to a foundational principle like Cell Theory or Atomic Element Theory? -- and trying to bring in useful elements from many of the existing social, cognitive, and computer sciences.
Are existing academic specialties, practices, and views necessary for this? Absolutely. Are they sufficient? Not in my opinion. So long as academia attempts to in effect wall off game and virtual world instruction and theory as its own domain into which the non-terminal-degreed may not tread, something essential is missing, and we are all the worse for it.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 20, 2007 at 14:34
Mike wrote:
I am saying (and have said multiple times) that even if all these things were in place, someone with strong industry experience and without a terminal degree would not be eligible for such a university position. Again, I see that simple and overt exclusion as something that reduces the quality of game/VW development instruction, and theory related to the development of these.
And *I'm* saying that this is an overstatement, that there is ample reason to believe that the academy can be flexible on the issue of credentials, as it has been elsewhere, so to continue to argue that the ineligibility is non-negotiable is itself an argument against a straw man -- a situation that, practically speaking (and that's what counts, for whom gets hired), doesn't exist. You're railing against something on the presumed grounds that it is not only an obstacle, but one that is actively, thoroughly, and without exception enforced. This is not true, at least about the academy as a whole. Of course, it *may* be true, of certain places in certain times, but that is a far cry from cause to lob a broadside against academia as a whole.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 20, 2007 at 15:04
Thomas you've said that my point is an overstatement based on what's happened in other fields, but that's really irrelevant. My concern is not the whole of academia, but the pedagogical and theoretical progress of games and virtual world development. The current inflexibility in this area is shown pretty clearly in the job posting at the top of this item (not Ted's fault or desire, I know) and the reality that the same inflexibility is apparent in all but possibly a very few programs. Again, if you know of evidence relevant to this field that justifies your contention that there is the flexibility you claim out there, by all means share it. Otherwise, it would seem you are over-generalizing from situations that do not apply here. Maybe in the future they will, who knows. But claiming that there is flexibility in other fields is irrelevant to the inflexibility in working outside of the bounds of typical academia in this particular area -- an inflexibility made all the more ironic given the continuing rapid deep changes in game and virtual world development.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Sep 20, 2007 at 15:50
Thomas and Mike --
If you're both really enjoying this back-and-forth and getting something out of the mutual exchanges, I think you should continue talking. If not, I think there's not a lot of point in exploring the conversation further.
Just my opinion, which you're free to ignore.
Posted by: greglas | Sep 20, 2007 at 15:58
That's sophistry, Mike. Obviously, it's relevant, because we're talking about an institution with a particular set of practices and tendencies. Any discussion about how to improve the situation would be well served by understanding what is possible inside a university setting and what isn't. That's far more constructive than simply lobbing a criticism that, until a counter-example comes along, seeks to stand as a transcendent and revealing truth about these programs at least, and academia as a whole.
Furthermore, for you to say now that your position here never implicated academia as a whole makes no sense, given the content of your first comment:
...academia cutting itself off at the knees once again
And there are numerous other places where you've moved from anything like a specific claim about specific places to broadsides about academia.
Throughout this discussion I have tried to be constructive about what ought to be possible for these programs, and how they might go about making it happen. You seem only to want to level a charge that is meant to vilify these programs specifically, and universities by extension, as if it's a sign of an active and uncompromising policy. It is far more likely, given my experience in the academy, to be the default that you see because tenure-track jobs are their own category, which require a terminal degree by default. Industry people who would like to get involved with game programs should do what architects (and lawyers) do -- get involved in the program informally, by attending symposia, getting to know the faculty, etc. Then they can simply offer their services. A category will no doubt be created to get them involved. For lots of good reasons enumerated here it will very likely not be all the things a tenured professorship is, but that's not the point, after all.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Sep 20, 2007 at 16:11
@Thomas: Researchers pick up titles from their fellow researchers so over time an outsider (who likes to read) will pick up the shared "reference-frame" for that particular group anyway. I think it is quite obvious also that if a group actually wants to hire a practioner they probably do it because they find that she can contribute to their upcoming projects and that they actually desire this setup (e.g. because the practitioner has developed a unique methodology in his field they want to build on).
I never said that researchers are poor teachers as I I don't see any correlation either way. I said that brilliant theoretical professors aren't the best teachers. I could point to some brilliant mathematicians, but I wont... Another point is that
it is generally not enough time to fully devote oneself to both teaching and research. Different people have different priorities, some don't get any research done while teaching, others recycle inherited course materials in order to maximize the time they have for research. I would expect a game-developer who wants to join academia to give preference to teaching and would desire to collaborate on developing a course that is worthwhile. So yes, I agree with Jen. :)
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Sep 20, 2007 at 16:14
Posted by: mbmtcz | Sep 20, 2007 at 17:10
I know that this has been brought up a few times in the comments above, but considering almost all game/virtual world companies have "X number of shipped titles" and "industry experience" as their top priorities for any applicant, I do not see a problem with universities requiring PhDs or MFAs for faculty. I have had hell of a time trying to find a job in the industry with my grad school background, so to any person with loads of industry experience who is frustrated because he or she cannot instantly become a professor: a tiny violin plays the world's saddest song for you.
Posted by: Rory | Sep 20, 2007 at 17:33
You don't need a terminal degree to be president, but you need one to be an academic.
Go figure.
Posted by: thoreau | Sep 21, 2007 at 07:46
Some data points:
About 1/4 of my time as a professor is related to teaching. The rest is research or service. We're also not rewarded much for teaching, but we are penalized for not researching, so we focus most of our efforts on research.
The USC school I teach in (Annenberg) has 47 tenured or tenure-track faculty and 111 non-tenured. That 111 is made up of lots of clinical professors and visiting professors, but a big chunk of them are professionals we bring in from industry. Of course, we're lucky to be in the talent pool that is LA. The reasoning is that these 111 can add crucial practical experience to students focused on going into the work force--the screenwriter teaching screenwriting, the ad exec teaching advertising, etc. The former or current band manager teaching promotion. Not everyone from industry can teach well, but some can, especially with some help and practice. So these people are constantly vetted and checked at a good school.
It's also worth mentioning that most Ph.D.s have little or no formal training in pedagogy. Compared to middle or high school teachers, we're hacks. We're socialized in a great many things about the academy, but at research I institutions we're rarely amazing teachers. It's a flaw that we don't put in the brochures. OTOH, we're pretty good at creating knowledge, so the hope is that being around us (however poor our teaching) and working outside of class with us will teach students to become researchers on their own, and keep them close to the latest and greatest in our fields.
So, I'm teaching a games class next term to undergrads and then to master's students in the fall. I'll be actively looking for industry visitors as guest speakers. As they come through, I'll also be on the lookout for those who might have the interest and aptitude to teach their own class down the road. Again, these won't usually be people who will play the same kind of advisor role I do, but we recognize that they can add a lot to our curriculum. And, for those who might need more help with pedagogy, there is always the idea of co-teaching with someone more experienced.
Posted by: Dmitri Williams | Sep 21, 2007 at 11:03
Finding root causes for things is important, both in business and academia, neh? Dmitri makes the point (which we all kinda knew) that teaching isn't rewarded in many instances for tenure positions, but publishing is. Why is that?
Because publishing in peer-reviewed journals leads to a hierarchy of authority, which can then be used to determine which research/theory is better/best, etc. and can then provide various schools/programs/people with ongoing, discipline-wide credentials. These credentials are then used to garner resources, whether those be direct research dollars or reputations that attract undergrads (a chief economic fuel of many schools).
Problem is (not just for gaming) that notions of authority are changing.
A good article in the Chronicle of Higher Education talks about the new ways in which authority is being divested from traditional journals, and invested in a much wider variety of connections and communications. The author, Michael Jensen, lists a number of touchpoints for what he's calling "Authority 2.0." These include both traditional rankings (the authority and prestige of particular publishers), and new measures, like the number of links to an online article, number/prestige of comments/commentors, inclusion in lists and tag rank.
In some disciplines, my guess is that it will take years and years for these other methods to penetrate, as the corpus for many "older" disciplines is measured in decades and centuries.
Games? Anyone? More or less likely to use newer and more flexible methods to attribute authority?
Posted by: Andy Havens | Sep 22, 2007 at 13:04
As promised 9 lecturing jobs have appeared at Northumbria University.
http://northumbria.ac.uk/sd/central/hr/staffvacancies/675129
Posted by: David Grundy | Sep 27, 2007 at 15:22
On a related note, IU's Department of Communication and Culture is also hiring:
Posted by: jccalhoun | Sep 29, 2007 at 22:15
Posted by: slinlydiz | Oct 03, 2007 at 03:59
I have 3 credit cards and they give me about $10 000. Should I get one more? I’m thinking about applying for a credit at
http://badcredit524.cn/bc72/reloadable-virtual-credit-card.html >reloadable virtual credit card
Sf2pKMdiDv
Posted by: Uiuodindvestidv | Nov 05, 2007 at 15:31
Hello
I should be translated a http://www.mysoftware.ru/payments/>website from Russian on English.
How it is better to make it?
Posted by: Boss_msgu | Nov 12, 2007 at 20:44
It is hard to find a good credit card deal. There are always hidden pitfalls. I have a college friend who’s been paying off her credit card debt for 6 years now. That’s because she wasn’t aware of the terms and conditions of her card. The only way to avoid trouble is to read all the details. This is what I did when I applied for my most favorite visa card at
secured credit cards today
canadaian secured visa credit card
gYt5fgDdWLr59
Posted by: Beqoheadbxmkx | Nov 13, 2007 at 02:43