As a junior officer in the US Army, and commonly spoken in the undercurrent among both Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and junior officers alike, is the “Field Officer lobotomy”(https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/v5taom/majors_whats_wrong_with_you/). This is the thing that happens, somewhere in the development of an officer, typically when they are a Major, when they seemingly forget the basics of how the Army runs, and get lost into some rabbit hole while stuck in the long period between company command and battalion command. It’s as if we just loose sense of what is “common sense” as well as being grounded in (and with) the very challenging realities of troops at the company level and below. It’s as if all the staff and broadening “special assignments” time you spend puts you into some esoteric death spiral. Sure you’re smart or capable, etc, but you’ve become this amorphous blob of uncertainty, indecision, and constant incapability because you’ve lost that command touch. The vast majority of officers succumb at some point, as if they become “company men” or “women”, and accept the utter stupidity and core failings in the systems instead of seeking to work to challenge them and make for better systems or simply level with folks about the absurdity of it all.
In my military career, I worked really hard, I mean really hard, to not get/have said lobotomy. Part of this was done by not taking the “normal path”, by eschewing just going with the flow from above as a way to get ahead. Sure I didn’t run away from the core traditional command assignments (company and battalion command), but I found a way to do things that were impactful and as pragmatic as possible, in between. That said, when it came to late 2016 and what I was going to do as I reached 20 years of service, I decided that micromanaging whether Johnny Joe or Jane soldier went to their dental appointment as a the way I was being measured as a commander in the Army Reserve, was ludicrous. While it wasn’t the only reason to opt to decline a full command assignment (medical, career, and family reasons were more prominent), avoiding becoming lobotomized was also on the list. Soldiers who served with me can tell you how successful or not I was at that task. By summer 2017, however, I was heading to retirement, lest I succumbed.
So I am now on the cusp of yet another one of those “lobotomy” points. In 2014 I went to the “dark side” in my career in the AEC (Architecture/Engineering/Construction) world: I became a full time professor. This said, I did so in a fashion that was atypical; I did not possess a doctorate. In academia, these days, holding a PhD is normally the minimum prerequisite for such a role. But instead I was hired to be a full time instructor and Director of the much more pragmatic Construction Engineering Management program at my alma mater, Clarkson. If we look back at the history of engineering education, it was not until the 1970s that it became common that those serving as professors held doctorates. Rather, it was more critical, nay the minimum prerequisite, that you had experience and knowledge that came from practice, demonstrated through licensure and robust professional credentials otherwise, rather than a having a background primarily as a researcher. At Clarkson in particular, who’s motto is “a workman who needn’t not to be ashamed”, it was very common/valued that most faculty were consultants on the side and had a large portfolio of practical experience before and during their appointments. Academia, for a variety of reasons, has turned to become research first, practical knowledge second, as the resume required in most settings. And akin to the above undercurrent in the Army, it’s pretty much the unwritten rule that PhD means you have “pilled high and deep” a wall of theoretical knowledge that makes you lose the ability to have common sense or be grounded in the practical aspects of life. And that stereotype is way too often more true than false, including a number of my colleagues in my department and beyond.
As I said, I am on the cusp of crossing that PhD line. Not counting my chickens before they’re hatched, I still have to figure out how to get this last course done and finish the edits to my dissertation by the end of April, but the light outside that tunnel is very bright at this point. So, if that happens, it’ll be Dr. Backus, fitting in with the crowd that is academia. Now, strictly speaking, I did not have to pursue this. I am a Professor of Practice at this point, something academia is finally realizing is needed; not, therefore, requiring a doctorate. That said, there’s still a barrier to those without one to academic leadership (as was put by one person, “Erik doesn’t have a PhD so he can’t become chair, and shouldn’t remain as XO of the department”). As I’ve seen time and time again, I’m more or less convinced that the fetish academia has with research, and the normal track for preparation and promotion for professors, is neither good nor healthy long term for the greater academy. Running a lab, doing fundamental research, and publishing papers, does not prepare you well for become a leader of a department, school, college, etc. And the things that are needed (eg organizational management & training, practical knowledge, leadership skills, etc.), are seen as almost anathema to gaining tenure and promotion (distractions, as one colleague put it).
So here am I, at that crossroads, about to become “one of them”, a “true academic”, with a doctorate and all to prove it. I have no intent nor do I desire to work to gain tenure, expecting to remain a Professor of Practice through to retirement (although, I’d be very welcome, many years hence, to be considered for professor emeritus status, should that come about). I made this pursuit, however, because it will open the doors to more senior leadership academically, given the current way things work, and it will alleviate my rather constant requirements to correct students from referring to me as “Doctor Backus” when I don’t have one. I have always been a deep and big thinker. I love learning, I remain ever curious and interested in expanding knowledge. So I am not allergic to research (there’s parts of it I really like) and have been doing research even as far back as my Masters and in other roles in the military and when I was a practitioner in facilities organizations. But I really think studying the ability to generate electrical power from lobsters (https://improbable.com/2013/02/06/renewable-power-source-search-lobsters/ ), while novel and cool, is utterly impractical and I am really not that interested in it. I’m not saying that there isn’t a need for researching such things if they can lead to some real breakthrough, but it’s not my bag. And to that, I hope it never becomes “my bag” as I stay rooted in the much more pragmatic, like making sure my students actually know how a toilet works, have had the experience of actually hammering a nail, as well as being able to do structural analysis, understand how to do concrete batch designs, size heating and cooling equipment, and build safer, better, and more resilient/sustainable infrastructure & buildings. I just do not want to be lobotomized away from what my experience and continuing practice allow me to do to bring value to my students, in the immediate sense, and through them, for the broader AEC community as a result.
I am going to say, hitting this milestone is something I remain sheepish and humble about. The resume, so long as things finish as they should, will now list getting a PhD in 2023 (long removed from my Masters in 2004, so a late return to getting a terminal degree). I will remain a bit of a unicorn, not fitting in exactly and pushing back against the consensus on what the broader academy needs to look like to remain relevant. I do not believe one can be “over educated” as some seem to think happens here, when you’ve done a pursuit for a doctorate. But I do get that we cannot and should not stare down our noses or exhibit the too often seen elitism that comes being in an academic ivory tower (evidenced just this week as senior academics poo-pooed the idea that a long-term decades-experienced, successful senior manager in the AEC world was not capable of teaching a masters level course in the “business of construction”, because he lacked an advance degree in business). And I think engineering education, in particular, needs to return more to the practical, hands on, even trade skill training and education, that keeps us rooted. I just don’t want to fit the moniker, I don’t want to be unable to relate to, empathize with, and understand the plumber, carpenter, iron worker in the field. To me, being at the top of what I do means I help tomorrow’s construction (and, more broadly, AEC) leaders, grow in ways that brings better solutions than we come to today, working together and respectfully across backgrounds and experiences. I just can’t succumb to a PhD lobotomy, in other words. To that end, I hope those around me keep me grounded accordingly.
