"Bailey at Year Two"
Evolution of the Liberty Hyde Bailey Scholars Program
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Michigan State University
January 2000
Ron Whitmore and Diane Doberneck(1)
This is the third in a series of essays chronicling the evolution of the Liberty Hyde Bailey Scholars Program, an undergraduate specialization within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University. These essays are the product of an ongoing process of reflecting upon and learning from the experiences of Bailey student and faculty scholars. The first essay, "The Road to Bailey" (March 1997), describes the early development of the Program. The second, "Introduction to Bailey" (January 1998), describes Bailey as it was conceived by faculty scholars as they welcomed the first cohort of student scholars into the Program. Now, after two years of 'real time' experience, this essay is an attempt at capturing the essence of what the Bailey Scholars Program has become.
As with most valuable learning experiences, the development of the Bailey Scholars Program is marked by a number of creative tensions. These tensions arise between hallmarks of the Program and the set of challenges created by each hallmark. These Bailey hallmarks are fundamental shifts away from traditional structures, pedagogies, and models of leadership toward the creation of a Self-Selecting Community whose members embark on Learning Journeys supported by Network Leadership. This essay briefly describes these shifts and the challenges they have presented and concludes with some reflections about how the Program's creative tensions fuel its evolution.
Self-Selecting Community
The first Bailey hallmark is its structure. Unlike most academic programs, Bailey is not, nor is it structured like, a department, an institute, a center, or a residential program. In fact, as much as it is an academic program, Bailey is a community(2). It is a community united by a shared ethos, which is articulated as the Declaration of Bailey:
The Bailey Scholars Program seeks to be a community of scholars dedicated to lifelong learning. All members of the community work toward providing a respectful, trusting environment where we acknowledge our interdependence and encourage personal growth.
By coming together around this shared ethos, Bailey community members strive to create a safe, hospitable learning environment (called the Commons(3)) grounded in collaborative practice. Bailey scholars value this learning environment because it is a place where they are respected, listened to,and affirmed, where they are trusted and given responsibility, and where they feel connected both professionally and personally.
The physical space in which Bailey is housed has proven critical for creating a community learning environment. Bailey's home is Agriculture Hall, a converted residence built in the 1920s in the northwest corner of campus. Unlike most academic buildings, because it was once a residence, Agriculture Hall is inviting, hospitable, comfortable, and personal. Bailey scholars have also designed it to be inclusive, accessible (scholars have 24-hour access), and flexible enough to accommodate a variety of learning experiences in large and small groups.
The Bailey community is unique in that it is open, accessible, and voluntary -- Bailey scholars self-select. No one is "around the table" who does not want to be, and everyone who would like to be is welcome. Undergraduate students in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR) become Bailey student scholars by investigating the Program, connecting with community members individually and at open houses, sharing with the community their interest in the Program by completing an application, participating in roundtables designed to model the Bailey learning model, deciding whether or not to join the community, and then celebrating their entry into the community at a welcome dinner. The Bailey community does not choose new student scholars -- new student scholars choose Bailey.
Bailey faculty scholars join the community through a parallel process marked by investigation, connection, sharing, participation, decision, and celebration. Faculty scholars include not only tenure-stream faculty from a variety of different departments in CANR but also non-tenure-stream faculty, faculty from other colleges, adjunct faculty, staff members, graduate students, and community members not otherwise affiliated with MSU.
For most Bailey scholars, Bailey is not an administrative "home" -- for student scholars, it is an academic specialization, and for faculty scholars, it complements their primary research, teaching, and outreach responsibilities. Despite how much they value the learning space created by Bailey, scholars consistently stress the importance of their academic homes as intellectual and administrative mooring points. Therefore, Bailey is not a deep community cemented with strong ties; rather, it is a network community bound by the strength of weak ties.
Some Challenges of Self-Selecting Community
Bailey scholars are learning the value of -- and how to nurture -- a self-selecting network community. Community development, however, is not without its challenges, particularly in an environment that sometimes creates disincentives for participating in community life. Both student and faculty scholars are continually "crossing boundaries" between their Bailey lives and their larger University lives -- networks are only as strong as the connections among their members, which sometimes suffer due to conflicting loyalties. Moreover, in a research-intensive institution like MSU, faculty are often rewarded more for publications and grantsmanship than they are for innovative undergraduate teaching. The Bailey community is an encouraging and nurturing environment for non-tenured junior faculty, but ironically, they often take the greatest risks by becoming Bailey scholars. For some faculty members, the barriers to entry are simply too high -- there are people who would like to join the Bailey community, but, due to competing responsibilities in their home departments, they are unable to.
Conversely, because the Bailey community has no mechanism for screening new scholars, the community runs the risk of having people join for predominantly individualistic reasons. Maintaining a community of self-directed learners requires keeping 'self' and 'connection to others' in dynamic balance.
The rich diversity created by making the community open and accessible has proven to be a tremendous asset, but it can also be a source of challenges. Collaboration, even within a homogeneous group, is difficult. So when a group is composed of individuals with diverse learning, teaching, leading, interpersonal, and organizational styles, as well as diverse levels of enthusiasm, of comfort in network organizations, and of interest in community building, the challenges are compounded. The Bailey community continues to struggle with working and learning in diversity and with avoiding the natural tendency to devolve into comfortable sub-communities of scholars who share preferences and styles.
Learning Journeys
The second Bailey hallmark is its pedagogy. During the early development of the Program, a fundamental intellectual shift was made away from the teaching paradigm, in which the focus is on teachers, content, and teaching products, toward the learning paradigm, in which the focus is on learners and their learning process. The ethos of the Bailey community (i.e., the Declaration of Bailey) becomes a living ethic in its learning process, which is ongoing, self-directed, connected, transdisciplinary, and holistic.
Each Bailey scholar -- whether student or faculty member -- is encouraged to consciously engage in a self-directed lifelong learning journey. Like a helix, this journey is simultaneously linear and cyclical -- that is, forward developmental progress is made as scholars repeat a cycle of learning in which they envision, prepare, do, gather, reflect, connect, and then re-envision. And because the journeys are their own, scholars generally maintain a high level of enthusiasm and motivation along the way.
Each scholar's journey is formalized in the form of a learning plan (in the case of students) or envisionment (for faculty). To begin mapping-out their learning journeys, Bailey scholars address five questions: Who am I? What do I value? What is my worldview? How do I learn? and How do these connect in my life? Learning in the Bailey community, therefore, is inside-out rather than outside-in, which accommodates the fact that scholars are often at different places along their learning journeys.
Though originally conceptualized as a program for undergraduates, it has become clear that Bailey is as much about faculty development as it is undergraduate development. Though their journeys are sometimes less formalized and are more closely linked with Program leadership, faculty scholars also engage in learning journeys. Many faculty scholars cite Bailey as their one respite, the place they come to refocus and re-energize for the rest of their work and lives.
Paradoxically, Bailey scholars engage in individual learning journeys while connected with other scholars -- the Bailey Commons is the point at which individual journeys converge, where Bailey scholars learn with, from, and through others in community. Student learning journeys consist of nine credits of Bailey core courses (ANR 210, 310, 311, and 410), which are collaboratively organized around shared learning interests, as well as the Bailey "middle twelve" credits (a combination of other courses that support the learning plan) and co-curricular learning experiences (e.g., internships, service-learning, Program outreach, etc.), all of which can be either individual or collaborative learning experiences. Regardless of the nature of their learning, however, Bailey scholars reconnect their learning with the larger community. Some recent examples of scholar-initiated reconnections include a wild game dinner, a study abroad presentation, a dialogue about learning through the loss of a loved one, and a holiday heritage dinner.
Not surprisingly, the questions and issues that arise out of self-directed yet connected learning journeys related to agriculture and natural resources are complex and therefore require transdisciplinary reflection. This reflection is facilitated by the fact that, because Bailey is a college-wide program, community members have diverse backgrounds and expertise. Moreover, Bailey scholars frequently invite people from outside the Bailey community to share their expertise and experience. When these different perspectives are brought to the table together, scholars are challenged to question their views, and, in the process, they develop new respect for other disciplines and ways of thinking. Bailey scholars commonly refer to this process as stretch learning.
Because both student and faculty scholars are undertaking learning journeys, effort is made to blur the distinctions between Bailey students and faculty. Faculty scholars try to shed their status as "experts", "authorities", or "teachers", while student scholars do the same with their status as "neophytes" or "empty vessels". In any given class, working group, or reading or writing circle, all share responsibility for both specifying the content and facilitating the process. In Bailey courses, all are equal partners, co-learners, and co-creators. Detailed syllabi are not prepared in advance for Bailey core courses -- courses begin with a concept paper, which is prepared in advance by the community and describes the learning goals of the course, and a skeletal syllabus, which is a distilled version of the concept paper and serves as a guide for deciding how to approach those learning goals. With those two documents, scholars collaborate to create each course around mutual learning interests.
Because Bailey learning journeys are so colorful (scholars may play the role of student, intern, friend, visitor, host, leader, servant, neighbor, colleague, etc. at different points along their learning journeys), a flexible yet responsible model of learning assessment had to be developed for the Program. Bailey scholars are held accountable for their learning, but effort is made to match the mode of assessment with the goals of the learning experience and the preferences of the learner and the faculty convener(s). In ANR 210, for example, a combination of self- and peer-assessment has been used during the last two years.
Ultimately, the goal of Bailey learning journeys is whole-person development. Though part of an academic program, the developmental, inside-out, connected, and transdisciplinary nature of Bailey learning journeys also challenges scholars to examine their values and how they make meaning. The hope is that Bailey scholars will balance their intellectual and professional preparation, which is commonly driven by external rewards, with the development of their character, identity, integrity, and spirit, which fuels intra- and inter-personal development and is primarily a function of intrinsic motivation.
Some Challenges Along Learning Journeys
Such an unconventional approach to learning is not without its potential pitfalls. Intuitively, self-directed, connected, transdisciplinary, and holistic learning seems like it would be a natural success. But in practice, it is more difficult than expected and can be frustrating, uncomfortable, and overwhelming for those involved. In the classroom, for instance, its success is very often a function of the learning topic and the temperament, courage, humility, commitment, sincerity, and skills of the people at the table. Similarly, because Bailey scholars are often at different places along their learning journeys, and the Bailey Commons is the point at which individual journeys converge, it is difficult to accommodate these differences while maintaining a climate of inclusivity. Bailey scholars continue to grapple with these and other tensions associated with encouraging self-directed learning in a community learning environment.
Network Leadership
A third Bailey hallmark relates to issues of leadership, management, and organizational development. Organizationally, the Bailey ethos has become a living ethic through network leadership. Network leadership stands in marked contrast to both hero leadership and shared leadership. Hero leadership is the familiar mode in which the strong leader makes decisions independently. In shared leadership, which is far more participatory, collaborative, and dependent in nature, every member of the organization contributes to and buys-into the decision-making process and implementation. Network leadership, on the other hand, is characterized by loosely-coupled organizational sub-groups. These sub-groups operate in a collaborative mode and are networked with the other sub-groups and individuals in the organization, but the degree to which they involve every member of the organization in decision-making is a function of the issue or task at hand. Because this mode of leadership is interdependent in nature, its success is largely a function of the level of trust maintained within the organization that individuals and sub-groups will act responsibly.
Network leadership has evolved as the modus operandi in the Bailey community because it is a diverse, horizontal network of self-directed individuals and self-organizing groups that continually refocus and reorganize to explore shared interests and meet new challenges. Semi-permanent working groups, for instance, self-organize to address issues related to academic affairs, student affairs, technology, administration, etc. Similarly, learning circles are periodically organized for shorter time periods to explore ideas and challenges that emerge within the community. Working groups, learning circles, and individuals often raise questions or issues for community consideration during community gatherings like the weekly Wednesday lunches or on the Bailey online dialogue web site.
Normally, the members of self-organizing Bailey groups are not selected -- they self-select through a process of envisionment and reflection designed to find the best "fit" between the needs of the community and individual interests and skills. In the last year, the community has hired a new Academic Learning Coordinator and Administrative Assistant, and, though somewhat constrained by the requirements of the larger administrative structure of the University, both positions were filled with the question of "fit" in the forefront of the community's mind.
Network leadership also makes it possible to keep the number of paid staff members to a minimum. Bailey currently operates with the support of 4.5 faculty/staff FTEs (full-time equivalents). The Program Chair devotes 0.6 FTEs of his time to Bailey and 0.4 to his home academic department, in part, because the Bailey Administrative Team emerged as the working group that addresses programmatic policy questions.
Some Challenges of Network Leadership
Once again, innovation is not without its challenges. For example, striking the balance between communal privileges and individual responsibilities is a consistent source of tension in the community. Network leadership -- despite its obvious strengths -- can also be cumbersome and frustrating. It is also counterintuitive and uncomfortable for those who prefer hero or shared leadership. Moreover, the community commonly finds itself having to reconcile its ethos and ethic with the administrative realities (e.g., having to do with budgets, hiring, etc.) of the larger institutional environment of which it is a part -- this phenomenon is referred to in Bailey as boundary crossing. Consistently, however, the University leadership has been supportive and encouraging. Without such support, the Program would never have been able to flourish as it has.
Learning from the Creative Tensions
In many ways, the Bailey Scholars Program has become a living laboratory for the development of and experimentation with new models for self-selecting community, learning journeys, and network leadership. And, as is typically the case when things are done "outside the box", tensions arise.
Bailey scholars have several options for how to respond to the tensions within the Program. They could ignore them, hoping that they will magically disappear, or they could try to resolve them, hoping that Bailey will become the utopia they imagine it to be. A third option, with which most Bailey scholars are growing more comfortable, is to identify the tensions, reflect upon them, and then frame conversations around them. As scholars' understanding of the tensions grows, some of the tensions gradually become less problematic and even disappear, while others never go away, but the community grows to appreciate them for the opportunities for stretch learning they create.
This approach is possible because Bailey scholars, especially faculty, strive to be reflexive about their Bailey experience. That is, they are continually reflecting upon and evaluating both the Program and their own role within the Program. As an aid, scholars often draw upon the literature base. Interestingly, however, because Bailey scholars generally act and then reflect, the literature often helps scholars understand and articulate what Bailey is doing and becoming rather than serving as a guide (or as a framework) for the journey.
Another reason for the success of the Bailey approach is because reflexivity is coupled with dialogue. In dialogue, the focus is on learning rather than on the subject or the participants, on listening and reflecting rather than speaking, on humble inquiry rather than persuasion, and on suspending judgment rather than making a case. When practiced most artfully, dialogue creates a synergy out of which emerge ideas that no single individual brought to the conversation along with new levels of understanding. Bailey scholars like to remind each other that "It's not what you bring to the table as much as it is what happens when you get there."
Bailey scholars are learning to trust and depend on these emergent surprises. In fact -- and this is still very counterintuitive for some -- Bailey does not establish goals or develop a strategic plan for fear that the very act of strategically aiming for desired outcomes would stifle creativity and the organic development of the Program. As a result, Bailey never "arrives" -- it is where it is, in a continuous process of dynamic evolution as the different perspectives and interests of scholars influence and change community life and practice.
And as time passes, people come and go, and circumstances change, the Program's hallmarks, challenges, and tensions are likely to change. In fact, this essay is simply a snapshot framed by a few people at the end of 1999. Bailey is already different from the Bailey described in these pages. The learning never ends.
Endnotes
1. Though the essay has two principal authors, all members of the Bailey Scholars community were invited to share suggestions and reflections. The authors would like to acknowledge the particularly thoughtful contributions made by Pat Burkhardt, Marquita Chamblee, Frank Fear, John Hesse, and Howard Person. The authors also drew upon a variety of previously-prepared pieces about the Bailey Scholars Program, including Frank Fear's essays "The Road to Bailey" and "Introduction to Bailey", John Duley's essay "The Bailey Scholars Program: Its Ethos and Ethic", a paper by Frank Fear, Diane Doberneck, Kristie McElhaney, and Pat Burkhardt entitled "Students and Faculty Growing Together: How Might it Be?", the essay "What We Have Learned about Space -- The Liberty Hyde Bailey Scholars' Learning Experience", a 1998 presentation entitled "Taking the Leap: One Groups's Journey from the Teaching to the Learning Paradigm", and a 1999 presentation entitled "Building a Learning Community: The Bailey Scholars Experience at Michigan State University".
2. For the remainder of the essay, the Bailey "community" refers to the collective of people who participate in the Bailey "Program", which includes the community but also includes its academic requirements, organizational structure, budget, and other non-human components.
3. Bailey scholars use the "Commons" to refer to a physical place (the main meeting room in Agriculture Hall, where the Program resides), an event (for example, a community meeting), and a cultural way of relating.