How to Get Tenure

Strategies for Successfully Navigating the Process

Michael S. Harris

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780815380900
• eBook ISBN: 9781351211567
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Helping assistant professors and pre-tenure faculty balance competing obligations in teaching, research, and service, this comprehensive book explores the challenging path toward tenure. Drawing from research literature on faculty development, pedagogy, and psychology, How to Get Tenure covers topics such as productivity, research agendas, publication, service, and preparing a dossier. Whether read from beginning to end or used as a reference, this book provides clear, concrete, and accessible advice on the most effective and efficient strategies for navigating the inherent ambiguity of the tenure process, tackling the challenges and complexity of the tenure track, and building a strong case for tenure.

Part I
Learning the Rules of the Road

Chapter 1
What Is Tenure?

Tenure is a longstanding fixture in American higher education, yet it is often misunderstood both within, and outside, the academy. At a basic level, tenure is a lifetime contract that provides the protection of due process and termination only for certain causes. Within the United States, the notion of a lifetime contract with only limited causes for termination can seem foreign. Indeed, other than federal judges, it is hard to think of another industry that has something akin to tenure. Some civil servants and K-12 teachers have benefits that may provide the same, or similar, protections as tenure, but those benefits are quite different in scope (Sawchuk, 2010).

Of course, higher education’s system of tenure has been criticized and debated for many years. Opponents suggest that tenure fosters laziness, disinterest in working with students, increases costs, limits institutional flexibility, and supports research of little significance (McPherson & Schapiro, 1999; McPherson & Winston, 1983). But, despite the concerns regarding tenure by administrators (Premeaux, 2008) and state legislators (McGee & Block, 2008), tenure remains an essential feature of American higher education.

Yet, the present reality for faculty has changed starkly from even a few years ago. Two out of three new hires in academia are for positions off the tenure track. In 2017, the Modern Language Association found that 67.1 percent of English faculty job advertisements were for non-tenure track positions. The number of applications for every tenure-eligible position has grown across disciplines as the number of doctorates granted increases, while the number of jobs decreases (McKenna, 2016). At the same time, the requirements and expectations for simply landing a tenure-track assistant professor position, much less tenure itself, continue to increase. There are many reasons why institutions favor non-tenure track and even part-time faculty, from financial pressure to the need for flexibility in faculty hiring (Cross & Goldenberg, 2011; Kezar, 2012). For anyone lucky enough to land a coveted tenure track professorship, the changing environment of higher education undoubtedly adds pressure to a process that was stressful under the best of circumstances (Alexander, 2000; Eagan & Garvey, 2015; Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007; McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).

Given the critiques of tenure, why does the system remain in effect at most colleges and universities in the United States? The example of federal judges proves instructive. Federal judges receive lifetime appointments because we want their rulings and judgment to be based on the rule of law and not on the political winds of the moment. To help insulate judges and guard their decision making, a lifetime appointment protects them from direct or indirect societal pressure. The same argument is true for professors. Society needs scholars and teachers who seek and share knowledge free from political or societal influence; judicial decisions free from influence and based on the rule of law; and professors who are driven by knowledge, evidence, and scholarly expertise.

As a professor, I should focus on sharing my scholarly expertise when I publish my research or teach a class. If I am worried my results will offend the powers that be inside or outside the institution, I will not be able to follow the data and arguments where they lead me. Tenure, at the most basic level, protects faculty from reprisal by those who simply do not like certain areas of research or the conclusions that result. In today’s hyper-partisan environment, this threat is real. In 2016, two Wisconsin legislators threatened to withhold funding from the University of Wisconsin because of a course on “The Problem of Whiteness.” State Senator Dave Murphy told a local newspaper, “Is funding a course that’s about ‘The Problem of Whiteness’ a high priority? I’ve got a feeling it’s not” (Savidge, 2016). Given the attacks by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on academic freedom generally, and tenure specifically, it is clear that both opponents and supporters of tenure regularly acknowledge how influential tenure can be in guiding faculty and institutional behavior (Strauss, 2015).

The notion of protecting the creation of knowledge and the expression of ideas is at the heart of academic freedom. One of the most cited justifications for tenure is the increased protection it affords faculty. All aspects of faculty work are impacted by academic freedom including teaching, scholarship, service, and governance of the institution. In fact, in my own career, I have often found governance to be an area where academic freedom is most crucial. Whether in deciding the admission of a student from a wealthy family or disagreeing with an administrator over a policy matter, tenure gives me the protection to base my judgments on my own expertise without fearing reprisal.

Indeed, tenure has a major impact on the management, authority, and governance of higher education. While academic freedom gets much of the attention in debates over teaching and scholarship, the daily implications of tenure on the management of higher education are quite profound. In this context, tenure constrains the ability of administrators to make sweeping decisions, particularly those related to the academic mission of the university. Tenure does not give faculty absolute authority or power, but it does provide a balance against administrative decision making, or at least raises the costs of certain decisions (McPherson & Schapiro, 1999). Administrators simply cannot make decisions regarding faculty salaries, workloads, and termination without considering significant financial and political costs. These constraints on administrative authority change the behavior of both administrators and faculty. Administrators may decide the costs of a decision are not worth the price and instead focus on persuading faculty, or modifying a decision, to get faculty on board.

Tenured faculty can use their independence and voice to influence institutional decision making, which strengthens higher education (Link, Swann, & Bozeman, 2008). In addition, not only do faculty members constitute an institution’s primary intellectual capital, they are also one of its few appreciable assets (Gappa & Austin, 2010). As a result, tenure plays a critical role in attracting and retaining talented faculty members by providing a high level of job security. To be sure, tenured faculty can be dismissed and are not guaranteed a job for life. However, the causes of termination are clearly outlined and create a high bar to clear, including failing to perform duties, gross misconduct, and extreme financial problems with the institution. Only employees with very strong unions have the same level of job security as tenured faculty.

As you will no doubt discover if you have not already, tenure serves as a powerful motivator for influencing faculty behavior (Link et al., 2008; Ponjuan, Conley, & Trower, 2011). During the pre-tenure years, faculty feel consistent pressure to engage in activities that will be rewarded and evaluated as part of the tenure process (Baldwin, Dezure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008). Although elements of the tenure process can perversely incentivize and encourage faculty to engage in work they otherwise may not choose, there can be no doubt the tenure encourages faculty performance and increases productivity (Bess, 1998). Even one of the most common critiques of tenure (that the lifetime contract promotes laziness and limits productivity) implies that the process of seeking tenure actually motivates faculty productivity. Without a doubt, faculty work includes many privileges and flexibility that workers in many other circumstances do not enjoy. Yet, the motivation provided by tenure ensures faculty productivity in ways that can benefit both the individual and institution.

While the pursuit of tenure certainly influences faculty behavior, the decision to award tenure has a profound financial impact on a college or university. Literally, granting someone tenure commits the institution to a multimillion dollar obligation. For example, after an assistant professor is promoted and tenured, they may reasonably be expected to work for the next 35 years. With a salary of $80,300, benefits at 35%, and a 3.5% annual increase, the financial commitment by an institution is $7.2 million in current dollars (Trower, 2012). During the pre-tenure years, it can be helpful to remember the implication of tenure for the institution. Simply as good stewards of the institution, we would all want our presidents and provosts to give careful consideration to the decision to spend more than $7 million worth of institutional resources. All of the hoops, stress, and requirements of the tenure process at a fundamental level are about ensuring that everyone involved in the decision to grant tenure has evaluated the tenure candidate, and also that they have thoroughly considered the fiduciary responsibility of making a sound investment.

At the same time, tenure provides a merit award for high levels of faculty productivity. This is one of the significant differences between tenure in higher education and tenure as it appears in other settings such as K-12 education. Tenure in higher education requires a level of productivity above satisfactory job performance and longevity. Regardless of whether tenure in a given situation is focused on scholarship or teaching, the tenure review process will ensure that pre-tenure faculty have achieved substantial performance and productivity to justify tenure. Thus, tenure serves as a major reward for sustained and significant merit during service as an assistant professor.

As you move along the path to tenure, remembering the various aspects of this unique career construct can provide helpful context for the process that you are undergoing. When you think about the commitment that the institution is making to you as well as the productivity that you will demonstrate during the pre-tenure years (McPherson & Winston, 1983), the overall process of going up for tenure hopefully makes a little more sense. The various stages of review; the expectations across scholarship, teaching, and service; and the required number of years of service all are justified by the rewards that stem from being granted tenure.

A Brief History of Tenure

Although vestiges of the modern tenure system can be found in higher education as far back as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, tenure as we know it today is largely a by-product of the twentieth century. Aspects of today’s tenure system—such as faculty rank, longer lifetime appointments, and evaluation for performance—appeared in fits and starts during the 1800s. After the Civil War, colleges and universities began adopting the German higher education model, which emphasized science and research to an extent atypical even among the best American colleges of the day. With the growth of this research university model, American professors began to expect the same perks that their German colleagues enjoyed, including indefinite appointments except in cases of gross dereliction of duty (Hofstadter & Metzger, 1955). In many ways, the tenure system can be directly tied back to the founding of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1915. Founders, including noted education philosopher John Dewey, sought protections for faculty after a series of highly publicized cases in which prominent faculty members were dismissed because of unpopular views. Considered alon...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• eResources
• Part I: Learning the Rules of the Road
• Part II: Planning Your Route
• Part III: Arriving at the Destination
• Index