|
 < back to full column list < back to academic authors column list < back to textbook authors column list Writing a Textbook is Course Prep; College Support Entirely in Order By John Vivian
Every so often,
the idea is hatched anew that a college deserves a share of the royalty
income earned by professors who write textbooks. It's a bad idea, based
on the dubious premise that writing a textbook somehow can be separated
from teaching. My notes, although
expanded and freshened up all the time over the years, were insufficient
when put to the test of writing a comprehensive, coherent textbook.
It had been possible in lectures, I later realized, to gloss over areas
in which my background was modest, as is almost always the case in anybody's
survey course. I had to bone up significantly to write some chapters.
As I see it, a line is impossible to draw between preparing lectures and writing a textbook. They're inexorably intertwined. If a college supports one, it must, to be consistent, support the other. How can anyone separate the part of my expenses that contribute to my lectures and the part that contributes to my textbook? To which should be assigned journal subscriptions? Telephone calls? Postage? Convention registrations? In fact, many colleges are parsimonious with expenses. My checkbook shows I spend many multiples more than my college toward conventions, subscriptions and other necessities of my teaching -- and my writing. In effect, I'm subsidizing the college to keep my teaching current and better. My textbook contributes to my teaching in other ways. The publisher submits my manuscript to double-blind reviewing, which adds an important new dimension to the quality not only of the book but also of my teaching. No less important are contributions from the supervising editor, the copy editor and even the sales reps, who pass on information from adopters nationwide on what works and what doesn't. In effect, the publisher is subsidizing my college to improve my teaching. The argument that textbook authors should surrender some, even all, of their royalty income is an appeal to the "filthy lucre" ethic that clutters a lot of dialogue. The fact is that generally there isn't that much lucre. A typical textbook earns the author less than $3,000 over a five-year or longer period. True, I know some millionaire authors, but, for most of us, authoring is no route to a fortune. For a college to go after a cut is pecking at already bare bones -- and, in the process, discouraging authoring. Does a college deserve some benefit from the work of its faculty? Yes. Just as quality teaching contributes to a college's reputation, so do quality textbooks written by the faculty. The publisher's review process creates external documentation of a book's and an author's pedagogical excellence. For the title page to note that you are with your college should be enough. So is there a case for a college to cash in on author royalties? Some people see a conflict of interest when authors use college time, infrastructure and equipment for work that earns them outside income. It's the filthy lucre bane again, which focuses on discouraging activities that carry perceptions, no matter how flawed, of wrong-doing. These would-be ethicists, infatuated with addressing perceptions rather than realities, have an easy answer: "Don't." Don't write on campus time. Don't talk to your publisher on a university phone. Don't use the college library for research. Don't use the lessons from your teaching to make a better book. It's a simplistic refrain: Don't. Don't. Don't. The consequence of easy "don't" answers can be tragic -- a diminished incentive for faculty members to improve their teaching through the textbook-writing process. That's the real ethics issue. Yes, yes, there also can be legal issues. In its myopic obsession for black-and-white, one-size-fits-all answers, the Internal Revenue Service prefers a clear division between what you do at home and what you do elsewhere, especially if you're seeking a home office deduction. You need to make your own decision on what's prudent in dealing with the tax implications of your writing, but that's hardly an ethics issue. As an ethics issue, the rightness or wrongness of a college claim an author's royalties goes to the nature of the academy. If colleges are, indeed, institutions to encourage learning, then, by their nature, they must strive to fulfill their purpose. This includes nurturing and promoting good teaching. Textbook authoring, by its nature, is a contribution to good teaching. For a college to confiscate an author's royalties is to deny its nature as a teaching institution and make it something quite different." None of this is to say that some textbook authors might abuse the privilege of the professoriate. Excessive time on writing that cuts into lecture prep or committee work, for example, is a legitimate ethics issue that must be dealt with. But the answer is not a cookie-cutter formula that discourages authoring in general and denies students the edge that comes from classes taught by professor-authors.
|
