credit: https://unsplash.com/@hngstrmby Lisa Forbes

Let’s talk about the wall. Not the Pink Floyd album but the metaphorical wall that represents what stands between us and some type of change. I’m a mental health counselor so this topic could quickly get into talking about our shame and childhood traumas that hold us back and mandate our behavior to this day. Gulp. For the record, I do think those things should be a part of the exploration for each of us but I’ll spare you this time since you probably only came here to read about Pink Floyd.

So, I won’t go psychoanalytic on you but in order to do something new and break out of the status quo we have to figure out what stands in our way. That pesky wall of anti-change factors is to blame. Without identifying what makes up our “walls” and then working to overcome those factors, we likely won’t change. For example, you could really want to be a better friend but until you can figure out what gets in your way of actually being better, it will only be a half-assed aspiration and flimsy promises made to another person. Finding the barriers to the change is where the magic is…that’s just good ol’ advice for anything in life.

But since this is a blog on a website about play in higher education let’s start there. Lecture-based teaching seems to be this bad habit that’s been passed down from generation to generation of academics and we just keep doing it despite how boring and ineffective it is. I’m skeptical of any “tradition” or norm that’s been in existence for centuries and keeps being just “the way we’ve always done it.” Don’t even get me started on my disdain for traditions. 

Despite lecture-based teaching being the primary mode of education for so long, and even more recent literature indicating that lecture actually isn’t the most effective mode of teaching, many faculty are still slow to adopt a more active, engaged, or playful approach. It seems simple to me but I realize there are barriers that influence our way of existing in academia. I think there are some structural reasons for why it is the way it is in academia. It’s this way because it works for certain groups of people. In my heart I don’t think the traditional mode of teaching works for students but I think in a way it works for faculty. I don’t want to lump all faculty into one category or characteristic but I am talking broadly about academia being largely similar across institutions. 

So, let’s look at some of the bricks in the wall…

Safety and Comfort

It really is easier to continue to do what you know than to try new things and to potentially take a risk on something you are not certain about or may require you to give up some control. It may feel safer to continue to teach the way we do when students’ feedback on our teaching is considered in our promotion or merit review. Change is scary, especially when it’s trying something potentially out of your comfort zone. Not to mention, faculty work very hard on their lectures and lesson plans so who is happy about re-doing everything that you’ve worked so hard to construct. But we never learn or grow in our comfort zones so…

There’s Never Any Time!

Many faculty already feel limited in their time and resources so the thought of spending time doing something they don’t necessarily have to do for their job is off-putting to some. When I was a new faculty, I certainly felt the time crunch and as though I was just trying to stay afloat so there wasn’t much space for creative thinking at that time. The amount of roles, activities, committees, etc. that faculty are required to pour time into is a barrier for anything extra. But I’d rather spend extra time or protect my time to work on creative, fun and playful endeavors so to me it’s a choice…You make time for what matters to you.

Habit and Modeling

I think we can become creatures of habit in a sense where rigid lecture is modeled to us so it’s what we know and so when we’re finally faculty, we end up doing it that way too. Then our students see us teach in that way and then if they enter a teaching position, then it gets mindlessly passed down from generation to generation of academics. But if we recall boring lectures from our training days, we can admit we never learned very well that way so we need to be mindful about our approach to try something new.

Systems of Academia

As faculty, we are told to be innovative and creative and yet we are not rewarded for those things. Promotion and merit reviews tend to value quantity over quality. How many committees are you on? How many publications did you get? How many classes did you teach? How many students did you advise? These evaluation measures do not reward or support innovation, change, or reflective practice. How can we value a more playful, flexible, innovative approach if we don’t allow space for tinkering or failure? Sometimes the structure of higher ed and the policies we must navigate around limit our ability for excellence in teaching. To this I say: How can I break the rules without breaking the game?

Social Scripts of Play in Adulthood

There is a bias in adulthood and in academia that says seriousness equates to rigor and so anything that’s playful is often considered trivial or “soft” thus not holding students to high standards. This issue deserves much more space than I have given it here but the bottom line is, how we have been socialized to believe that play is something done by kids and not serious adults, is problematic. It’s problematic for our health and well-being and it’s problematic for providing adequate space and legitimacy for faculty to break out of the serious mold. We must resist societal messages that mandate people to one way of thinking and behaving. It’s a trap. It’s mind control. 

Deadpan Perception

The systems of academia as well as the social scripts of play in adulthood make it that a playful approach isn’t always taken seriously. This can lead to faculty feeling as though they need to fit the mold of seriousness. So, in the quest to be taken seriously, respected, and seen as a rigorous academic, we avoid playfulness like the plague. It’s fear-based mostly. But, like Will Smith says in After Earth: “danger is very real, but fear is a choice.” I truly don’t believe being playful is something that will get us fired. It might make some “deadpans” (as Alison James and Chrissi Nerantzi say) view you differently but in the end, whose approval do you really need? If you didn’t get your parent’s approval when you were little, you will be more likely to need the approval of other people as an adult. Okay, I promised I wouldn’t go all counselor on you but I just couldn’t help myself there. But there comes a point where we have to stop worrying about external perception and just follow our instinct and passions. If you limit your playfulness because you fear how you will be perceived, I dare you to try out counseling to work through that unmet need. 

So, there you have it. That pesky wall isn’t so scary. I like to view the wall prohibiting playfulness as a game to win. The reward? Playfulness! Joy! Fun! Career longevity, because without play, I’m toast. 

Share This