Making the right decision: Suggestions for hiring the Director of Forensics

By David E. Williams
Department of Communication Studies
Texas Tech University; Lubbock, TX 79409-3083

Abstract

The Director of Forensics (DOF) is the single most important component of a successful forensics program.  This individual is an important decision maker, role model, educator, and administrator who can influence the competitive, academic and social success or failure of a program more than anyone else.  Therefore, departments and schools must weigh carefully their options when hiring their new DOF. This essay will provide guidance to those who interview and hire forensics professionals by highlighting some of the differences in applicants and suggesting the use of an evaluative tool designed specifically for their task.

Duties of the DOF

Thomas Workman (1997) provided a useful categorization of the primary job duties of the Director of Forensics.  These should be reviewed by job search selection committees in light of the needs of their specific institution. Workman’s competencies include: instructional competency, financial management, leadership and responsibility, administrative abilities, interpersonal skills, and professional insights.  The DOF, regardless of institution will likely have responsibilities in each of these areas.  DOF’s must have instructional competencies in both forensics pedagogy and the teaching of subject matter related to the specific position for which they are being interviewed.  To varying degrees, the DOF will also need to be capable of working with budgets and trusted with financial management.  Budgets for programs can vary greatly from high school programs which have minimal UIL travel to college programs that travel nationally.  However, fiscal management is a common concern and the organizational ability to properly keep track of expenditures and from both state funding and locally generated (e.g. fundraising efforts) sources is critical.  This is also a skill set that does not come naturally in the educational process of someone going into education as a career.  A successful applicant should be able to demonstrate the ability to blend interpersonal and professional requirements.  Whether the students range in age from 15 to 18 years of age, or 18 to 25, the DOF must be able to interact and advise their students on a personal level while also conveying the requirements dictated by competition and functioning as a coach.  Some applicants will have more ability in one of the two areas, but the DOF must be able to accomplish both in order for a program to be successful.

Williams and Gantt (2005) investigated the job duties of the DOF by asking current forensics professionals and students to identify the most important requirements for the job. Their results provide a useful schematic for search committees to use in viewing their own needs with the position as well as determining the preferences, strengths, and weaknesses of applicants. 

Four categories of DOF duties emerged from this study.  Administrative, team management, coaching, and faculty member responsibilities comprise the DOF job description.  Various administrative duties comprised 46 percent of all responses.  Arranging travel, working with the budget, public relations, funding, and paperwork were the most frequently noted administrative duties.  Team management responsibilities and coaching responsibilities each garnered 22 percent of the responses.  Recruiting, managing coaches, fostering team unity, instilling discipline, and providing social support were the most noted team management concerns.  With regard to coaching, coaching events, traveling to tournaments, doing research, and judging were most frequently noted.  Finally, faculty member responsibilities accounted for nine percent of the survey responses.  Specific responsibilities included service functions, teaching, advising, attending regional, state, or national meetings, and attending faculty meetings.

While Bartanen (1994) echoed the thoughts of many when he referred to the forensics professional as a “jack of all trades” (p. xiii), it is possible to categorize the many varied tasks of the Director of Forensics in terms of administrative, management, coaching, and faculty member responsibilities.  Search committees should review this categorization of responsibilities in light of their particular institutions and goals for the forensics program.  A school which places more emphasis on the hire as a teaching position and the forensics component is not viewed beyond the realm of an extra-curricular activity, may place greater emphasis on the faculty member responsibility in evaluating their candidate pool.  However, institutions which seek a competitively successful program that can be used to promote academic excellence should weigh more heavily the coaching function of the DOF responsibilities.

After determining the institutional needs, search committees could administer the Williams and Gantt (2005) assessment instrument to determine the strengths or preferences of their job candidates.  The instrument (see Appendix A) asks respondents to rank order 12 job duties.  The job duties and the primary functions of each of the four DOF responsibilities were derived from the Williams and Gantt (2005) study. The three most prominent duties of each responsibility are included in the instrument.  The category that records the lowest total rank would indicate what the candidate views as most important. The category recording the second lowest total rank would indicate what the candidate views as second most important.  Search committees can then attempt to match their needs with the candidates’ view of the duties of the DOF.

The hiring of a new DOF is critical for the program and the institution housing the forensics program, as well as the many students who will serve under that individual’s direction.  A wrong decision or a decision that does not match candidates’ strengths and preferences with those of the hiring institution can be detrimental to the forensics program, school, and the new DOF.  By adequately reviewing the typical duties of the director of forensics and the needs of the institution, search committee members can proceed confidently with an evaluation of the applicant pool to assess their qualifications while searching for the best match between the potential DOF and the program.

References

Bartanen, M.  (1994). Teaching and directing forensics.  Scottsdale: Gorsuch Scarisbrick Publishers.

Williams, D.E.  & Gantt, J.A. (2005).  Duties of the director of forensics:  Step one in the development of an interviewing and evaluation instrument.  National Forensic Journal, 23, 54-68  

Workman, T.A. (1997). Solving for a healthy future:  Creating national standards for training future directors of forensics.  A paper presented at the 3rd National Developmental Conference on Individual Events, Rice University.

Appendix

DOF Interviewing Instrument

Please rank the following twelve items in order of importance (1=most important, 12=least important) with regard to the duties of a Director of Forensics.  Thank you.

 

___         Work on/monitor the budget (Admin. Duties)

___         Hire/manage assistants (Team management)

___         Travel to tournaments (Coach)

___         Teach/Student growth (Faculty member)

___         Arrange travel   (Admin. Duties)

___         Recruit students (Team management)

___         Coach    (Coach)

___         Service functions (faculty member)

___         Public relations (Admin. Duties)

___         Manage team unity (Team management)

___         Do team research/teach research skills (Coach)

___         Academic advisor (Faculty member)

 

*Items in parentheses would not appear on the instrument.  They are included here to identify which job responsibility they were derived from.