The issue of scholarship remains a critical and highly charged issue in the rank and tenure process for junior professorate at teaching-oriented universities. Exactly what is expected of junior faculty regarding scholarship can remain undefined and obscure. This situation is particularly disquieting considering the vulnerability of junior faculty during the promotion process. This paper explores a variety of important issues and argues for (a) the formation of a department-based, developmental framework within which faculty understands what is expected of them, (b) the provision of guidelines for performance in various scholarly activities, and (c) a basis from which faculty can understand how performance will be assessed in the rank and tenure process.
University promotion and tenure policies propose a number of avenues which junior faculty can pursue to fulfill contractual obligations regarding scholarship. Wimberley and Loring (1991) for example, provide an extensive list of activities including: conference presentations, refereed/non-refereed journal publications, book publications, citations by other authors, and so forth. Despite appearing flexible and amiable at first glance, such a broad range of options can be deceptive and problematic. Moreover, although a general map is provided, there remains a lack of clarity inherent in unmarked territory. The intention of this paper is not to argue the range of viable scholarship avenues (Boyer, 1991) but rather to demonstrate how ambiguity within this range can inadvertently contribute to faculty vulnerability during the promotion and tenure process at teaching universities.
From the outset, it is important to distinguish between Research I Universities (RI Universities) and Comprehensive Universities and Colleges II (CUCII institutions) (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987). RI universities offer a full range of undergraduate degree programs and award the doctoral degree, and they give high priority to research. In contrast, CUCII institutions offer graduate education through to the master's degree and award more than half of the bachelor's degrees in occupational and professional fields such as engineering or business administration. Emphasis at CUCII institutions is more on teaching and less on research than is true of RI universities.
New faculty who possess little or no experience in the area of scholarship may be under the false impression that these skills will be introduced and nurtured during the early stage of their academic career. Seemingly, they are under the illusion that their first few years will be a training ground wherein ideas are shared with colleagues, and they begin to articulate their thoughts on paper. In many ways, this thinking suggests that they have not yet made the leap from student to employee/scholar. In other words, they fail to realize that they are expected to assume a leadership role and, for the most part, work independently. In the author's experience, very few individuals are able to make this adjustment without initial difficulty.
Senior faculty can become enamored with the excitement of prospective colleagues joining their department and begin to share ideas for joint writing projects or presentations. What is frequently overlooked during this excitement is the relentless work of academia. Shortly after accepting their academic positions and once the responsibilities of the job become a reality, new faculty quickly realize how rapidly the months pass and how little has been accomplished. With little to submit for their first year rank and tenure review, and even less planned for the future, they experience disappointment, frustration, and despair. They may also come to see that the well-intended offers of collegial support and collaboration did not materialize and instead a sense of isolation has developed. Wunsch and Johnsrud (1992) remark that isolation can have significant repercussions since the mentoring process is critical for junior faculty who need to know the political processes of the institution if they expect to move through the system of rewards and status. It can be a very confusing time for junior faculty, who were once courted and wooed during the recruitment process, only to find themselves isolated and disoriented. For some, further disillusionment occurs when their tenuous employment status is ignored by those who previously verbalized a concern for their academic future and well-being.
A review of the literature indicates an absence of guidelines regarding scholarship for junior faculty. As expectations regarding scholarship remain nebulous, two primary questions emerge. First, exactly what are junior faculty members required to accomplish? Second, by what criteria are junior faculty scholarly works actually evaluated? As discussed later in this paper, each question has different implications. Without clearly articulated guidelines, junior faculty remain unaware of expectations and the weighting process (should one even exist). Consequently, faculty are left guessing whether their efforts will be perceived as sufficient when submitting their rank and tenure portfolios. This issue becomes critical in terms of time management and the development of priorities.
The aforementioned ambiguity is commonly referred to as a political ploy-trump card that can be used by university administration to eventually dismiss faculty members. By avoiding the establishment of clearly defined criteria, administration can inform professors that their contract will not be renewed due to inadequate scholarly productivity. While this cynical perception exists, a systemic perspective is equally viable because it includes a blend of faculty naivete and administrative oversight. Stated differently, junior faculty may underestimate the importance of scholarship and, although committed to improving its standards and reputation, the university fails to articulate how to accurately assess scholarly productivity. In assuming a cynical and critical perspective, central administration is perceived as the culprit and professors as victims. Maintaining this adversarial stance is likely to reinforce the status quo and reduce the opportunity for change and growth. What should not be overlooked is the vested interest of institutions to see their employees succeed. Hiring and training faculty is a time-intensive and costly process.
The lack of a defined and fair evaluation process usually reflects the absence of measurable corresponding weights [italics added] for each area of scholarship. Distinguishing among various scholarly activities would provide faculty with measurable criteria. Such distinctions would also clarify scholarly works which central administration deems important. This latter point is of particular importance because without such criteria, professors are essentially left adrift hoping that their efforts have been devoted in the appropriate direction and are acceptable to administration. According to Edgerton (1993), critical definitional issues pertaining to scholarship must be played out at the divisional or departmental level. He also warns, however, that without central administration direction, "...individual departments are left on their own, without specific guidance about how the mission of a particular university should inform departmental choices. Left to their own devices, departments will stay within the cultural boundaries set by their respective scholarly communities" (15).
An underlying assumption is that faculty (particularly junior faculty) understand the importance of scholarly contributions and have designed an effective plan by which to achieve this goal. Rarely, however, have new faculty been instructed on how to organize and begin the scholarly contribution process while completing their graduate studies. There seems to be an assumption that faculty have been prepared to work toward creating or extending a scholarship agenda while also juggling teaching responsibilities, student advisement, university committee work, and community service. In reality, many junior faculty have not been prepared for a faculty position during their doctoral studies. Aside from serving as a teaching assistant for an undergraduate introductory course, they have not received necessary guidance regarding the rigors of a university teaching position (Daly, 1994; Park, 1996). Boyer (1991) elaborates:
Teaching assistant programs, perhaps more than any other, are crucial in the preparation of future teachers. But the question is: How effective are they? [italics original]. Most TA [italics original] arrangements are not viewed as significant academic undertakings. Graduate students are assigned a section but given little or no help. The primary aim is to give senior faculty relief and help graduate students meet financial obligations. (13)
Along the same lines, Huber (1992) states, "Doctoral candidates work as apprentices with practicing scholars, contributing to the mentor's research while watching how it is done. The mentors, however, do not so often encourage their protègès to write" (114).
There are also junior faculty who have been socialized to marvel at the work of their mentors while in graduate school. Such individuals continue to live off the name of their mentors and struggle with the idea of differentiating and making their own mark. Finding themselves in the shadows of their mentors for a number of years, they question their ability to step out on their own and assume a leadership role. Jencks and Riesman (1971) remark:
Those who do not publish usually feel they have not learned anything worth communicating to adults. This means that they have not learned much worth communicating to the young either. There are, of course, exceptions: men who keep learning but cannot bring themselves to write. Some have unrealistically high standards regarding what deserves publication. Some know no journal which is interested in the kinds of problems that interest them. Some are simply afraid of exposing themselves to their colleagues' criticism, even though their ideas could in fact withstand such scrutiny. Some of these men are constantly learning, and some of them are brilliant talkers and teachers. Still, there are the exceptions. (62)
During departmental discussions regarding scholarly productivity, uncertainty and anxiety typically reign. The questions that are frequently asked are not new and include: Is it to be assumed that a manuscript that has been published in an international refereed journal is comparable to a 45 minute presentation at a regional conference? Is the single-authored journal article considered on par with a paper holding multiple authors? Is a presentation at an international conference as valuable as a book review? At first, the answers to such questions seem obvious and straightforward. After further scrutiny, however, the picture becomes murky and requires clarification since the importance attributed to various aspects of scholarship are perceived very differently by peers and central administration.
Although the answers to these questions depend on the direction and priorities of the university, discerning these priorities becomes the ultimate challenge. The frustration inherent in this search for clarity is commonly reflected in the popular faculty question, "Exactly what is expected of me?" Because a promotion and tenure portfolio meanders through different levels of the university system, various administrators have an opportunity to shape the final promotion and tenure report. Although it might be useful to have a portfolio reviewed by a number of people to acquire various opinions, it is unlikely that these individuals will share a common view or definition of scholarly work. In other words, junior faculty face an extraordinarily subjective process. This is particularly true when individuals from different disciplines judge promotion and tenure portfolios by different standards.
The weighting process is complex and riddled with controversy. Although this process can be described as potentially stifling and unnecessary, the determination of weights are important for at least two salient reasons. First and foremost, it serves to demystify and clarify what value is placed on various scholarly works. As such, it provides a map of the territory. Second, it gives credit where warranted during the rank and tenure review process. Without established criteria by which to assess scholarly contributions, there are no standards or guidelines. Consequently, faculty are left playing a guessing game hoping that what they consider valuable will receive similar recognition from central administration. An intricate challenge of this process involves assigning value to various journals, book publications, and conference presentations. There are certainly implications associated with setting scholarship expectations that are clearly delineated. Some may argue this approach may have may a paradoxical effect, increase faculty apprehension, and inadvertently impede creativity and productivity.
There is also the issue that different units and different levels of administration may have differing expectations for faculty. It is not just a matter of subjective differences, but of necessarily different disciplinary standards. Consider, for example, the difference between performance expectations for a trombonist and for an electrical engineer. This makes it almost impossible for university administrators to articulate institutional criteria in any but the most general terms (e.g., must show promise of becoming a productive scholar/artist of regional, national, international reputation). In addition to such disciplinary differences, conflicts may reside between departmental and higher level institutional missions, and, hence expectations (e.g., a small department with an undergraduate teaching mission may have expectations out of sinc with those of central administrators aiming to transform the institution into a research institution). Under such circumstances, faculty anxiety and difficulty in knowing how to prioritize tasks may stem not from a lack of clearly articulated expectations, but instead from too many conflicting sets of expectations.
Determining who ultimately reviews and determines the value of faculty scholarship is an interesting question. For example, should individuals who do not demonstrate current scholarly productivity be granted the privilege of judging the work of a colleague? Are they in a position to place a value on a professor's effort and accomplishments if they are unwilling to subject themselves to the same rigorous scrutiny? Of course, the question of integrity and professionalism underlies this process. Individuals who are inactive in scholarly pursuits are in an unlikely position to understand the rigors involved in this work and therefore may underestimate or overestimate what is involved. The subjectivity of the review process, however, can be greatly reduced with established parameters for reviewers.
It is not unusual for faculty members to have a promotion and tenure portfolio returned only to discover that they have received a satisfactory [italics added] but questionable review. Confused and dismayed, they complain and grumble but nevertheless continue to perpetuate what they consider to be institutional madness. For some, the process is a never ending game without rules which cannot be changed. As a result, such individuals begrudgingly buy into a system within which they feel victimized and without recourse. Others fear that advocating for clear guidelines will be misconstrued as an attempt to hold central administration accountable and their efforts will be indirectly reflected in their promotion and tenure review.
Clear guidelines can also safeguard faculty when there is a transition in central administration. Rather than wondering about or second guessing new administration, the rules of the game remain unchanged. In essence, clear and consistent guidelines protect junior faculty from different expectations and a change in direction that might result from new leadership. Although leadership may shift, expectations regarding scholarship do not. Obviously as programs evolve change is inevitable and expectations may be altered. Nevertheless, any alterations to existing expectations would require thoughtful review and negotiation by departmental faculty and central administration.
Proposing specific guidelines for scholarship also reinforces the need for professional accountability and integrity. While addressing scholarship specificity within the profession of human services, Wimberly and Loring (1991) assert:
Clear definitions are needed regarding what constitutes scholarly productivity in human service education. Further, guidelines relating to the pursuit of research are important. Establishing individual and departmental goals for developing human service research is a crucial goal that could result in improved professional education and human services. (17)
Setting forth guidelines demonstrates that a department expects a high quality of scholarship from both faculty and students. Unfortunately, the problem of double standards can exist throughout various university departments. For example, professors may expect students to submit a written assignment based on rigorous standards, yet are unwilling to prepare and submit their own work for peer review. When questioned about this practice, both junior and university faculty contend that students need to work toward producing a scholarly product--something perhaps they have not produced themselves--at least not on a regular basis. In some circumstances, students' requests to review a professor's literary work is met with suspicion and subtle resistance. Cahn (1994) asserts that faculty publication relates directly to pedagogic responsibilities and to the advancement of a discipline. He further states that, "Those instructors expected to provide original perspectives in the classroom ought to have their abilities to do so evaluated periodically in accordance with rigorous standards set and maintained by peers who referee manuscripts for publication and comment on materials when they appear" (46).
The problem of double standards, as discussed above, threatens the vitality and integrity of an academic program. Specific scholarship expectations represent standards that a department has set for itself. Expectations reveal a great deal about the professorate who comprise the department. Some would suggest that standards symbolize the self-esteem of a department and influence how the department is perceived by colleagues and, more importantly, the students who it purports to teach. Hexter (1971) notes that 20 to 40 percent of universities maintained the hard line [italics added] on publication and reported, "For a variety of reasons they are the most desirable places at which to teach. They have prestige and confer status" (125). Hearing criticisms hurled at the idea of specified scholarship during departmental meetings is common. It is also interesting that opponents of established guidelines lament about the unpredictability of the promotion and tenure process. Of course, the establishment of scholarship criteria is not considered a panacea for the woes of faculty seeking promotion and tenure. On the other hand, it can be an initial step toward alleviating faculty anxiety. In short, until department faculty are prepared to assume a leadership role and set forth criteria, scholarship expectations will remain undefined and left to the judgment of others.
It is important that each department develop its own standards as a way of justifying its promotion and tenure recommendations. In the event that administration opposes agreed upon standards, an interesting debate should follow. The issues of power and control would surely emerge if departmental definitions of scholarly productivity were not considered accurate and consistent with university expectations. The question of whether a department should burden itself with the responsibility of the promotion and tenure review process would be at the forefront of this discussion. This proves especially true in cases where a department's evaluation is challenged and overruled by central administration. If a decision by departmental faculty is refuted by administration, the issues of respect and confidence immediately surface. Furthermore, in cases where departmental recommendations are challenged, a burning question then pertains to who can make an accurate evaluation. To ensure that departmental decisions are not perceived as being based on emotion but rather merit, recommendations can be supported by the achievement or underachievement of stated expectations. Without defined criteria, faculty are placed in an unenviable position regarding rank and tenure decisions. Simply put, no one wants to cast a vote which can be perceived as a threat to a colleague's livelihood or a basis for future retaliation.
Clearly defined expectations would provide prospective faculty with both a map and knowledge of the territory. Whether it is ethical practice to recruit and employ individuals without clear expectations is questionable. A covert message given to new faculty by departmental colleagues is that they need not worry too much [italics added] about their scholarly contributions during their first year. They are informed that central administration realizes they may require time to adjust to their new work context, living environment, teaching responsibilities, and that a general feeling of disorientation is to be anticipated. In essence, new faculty may be unintentionally misled to believe that their first year is recognized as an adjustment period. This erroneous message can contribute to a dangerous trend among new faculty. Although efforts to make faculty comfortable within their new environment is commendable, the reality is that when their first promotion and tenure portfolio is reviewed it becomes a business decision rather than a compassionate social event. In the long run, it is best if expectations are clearly articulated for prospective faculty during the interview process to avoid confusion, anxiety, and hardship. A concern pointed out by Daly (1994) regarding how young faculty should allocate their time is echoed in a report by the Sid W. Richardson Forum (1997) stating that, "Faculty need to know when hired what is expected of them" (28).
Unarticulated guidelines and expectations for junior faculty can be easily misinterpreted and can result in unnecessary anxiety and despair. In other words, junior faculty may erroneously perceive vague scholarship expectations as the university's disinterest in this area and perhaps an opportunity to become idle. There is a rude awakening during the promotion and tenure evaluation process when professors who have ignored their scholarly work are informed that contractual obligations have not been honored. Cahn (1994) notes that the Ph.D., ...does not entitle the bearer to a lifetime exemption from scholarship" (45). Feeling betrayed and abandoned, professors may become resentful and may respond in a number of ways including: (a) becoming alarmed and trying to quickly compensate for lost time, (b) becoming despondent and emotional and physical withdrawal, or (c) drawing colleagues and students into their grief and conflict with the university. Each response has significant implications for classroom teaching, student advisement, and departmental morale. In all situations, it is unlikely that disenchanted professors will remain available to actively participate in departmental affairs and program advancement.
An obvious advantage of having established guidelines is that faculty need not worry about remaining abreast with colleagues in terms of scholarly productivity. Without standards, resentment can grow toward individuals who are productive and who may appear to be creating a precedence or unreasonable standards. Established standards can be reassuring and at the same time allow a department to celebrate the accomplishments of colleagues. In essence, the risk of competition among colleagues may be reduced. Moreover, as competition decreases a collaborative tone within a department can emerge (Fassinger, Gilliland, & Johnson, 1992).
To alleviate unnecessary trepidation, a developmental framework is suggested whereby a rigorous, fair, and perhaps an enlarged (Paulsen & Feldman, 1995) view of scholarship is designed and employed. Such a framework would consider a professor's year of employment and their overall contribution. It would also be an opportunity to assist colleagues in becoming innovative while creating a balance of scholarly work that would include a variety of appropriate activities. This process might involve identifying the particular strengths and interests of faculty and enthusiastically supporting efforts in these areas. Within a developmental framework, a careful assessment regarding junior faculty needs are made at the departmental level. Following this, a collaborative plan can be developed whereby specific talents can be encouraged and specific needs can be addressed and remedied to avoid potential problems. Underlying this process is a search for equilibrium within the department, and an aura of creativity and persistence can be modeled for students.
Within such a framework, faculty members can become part of an ongoing support network. In describing the benefits of a faculty writing circle for example, Fassinger, Gilliland, and Johnson (1992) remark that academic writers generally write in isolation and only share their work during its final stages of development. In their experience, meeting with colleagues on a regular basis to collaborate on writing projects, "...provide social support and an incentive to write something, even a few pages, despite heavy teaching responsibilities and relatively few institutional rewards for scholarly work" (53).
Although appearing unyielding, clearly established criteria pertaining to junior faculty scholarship may in fact serve as a facilitative measure. It appears that faculty who embrace a framework that is less certain are naive and are at risk during the promotion and tenure process. Not knowing what to expect, they remain vulnerable and at the mercy of various portfolio reviewers. This paper advocates that department faculty avoid perceiving themselves as victims and become proactive, assume a leadership role, and determine their own scholarship criteria. It is argued that the benefits of clear, established guidelines, albeit potentially threatening, can be instrumental in avoiding faculty distress, disillusionment, and premature departure/termination.
Boyer, E. (1991). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. College Teaching, 39, 11-13.
Cahn, S. (1994). Saints and Scamps: Ethics in Academia (Rev. ed.). Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1987). A Classification of Institutions for Higher Education. Princeton, NJ. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Daly, W. (1994). Teaching and Scholarship: Adapting American Higher Education to Hard Times. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 45-57.
Edgerton, R. (1993). The Re-examination of Faculty Priorities. Change, July/August, 10-25.
Fassinger, P., Gilliland, N., & Johnson, L. (1992). Benefits of a Faculty Writing Circle-better Teaching. College Teaching, 40, 53-56.
Hexter, J. (1971). Publish or Perish-A defense. In C. Anderson, & J. Murray (Eds.), The Professors: Work and Lifestyles Among Academicians (pp. 123-141). Massachusetts: Schenken Publishing Company.
Huber, R. (1992). How Professors Play the Cat Guarding the Cream: Why We're Paying More and Getting Less in Higher Education. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1971). The Art of Teaching. In C. Anderson, & J. Murray (Eds.), The Professors: Work and Lifestyles Among Academicians (pp. 61-70). Massachusetts: Schenken Publishing Company.
Park, R. (1996). Research, Teaching, and Service. Why Shouldn't Women's Work Count? Journal of Higher Education, 67, 46-84.
Paulsen, M., & Feldman, K. (1995). Toward a Re-conceptualization of Scholarship: A Human Action System with Functional Imperatives. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 615-640.
Sid W. Richardson Foundation Forum. (1997). Restructuring the University Reward System. Fort Worth, TX: Author.
Weaver, F. (1988). Scholarship for the Teaching Faculty. College Teaching, 34, 51-58.
Wimberly, E., & Loring, M. (1991). Improving Scholarly Productivity in Human Services. Human Service Education, 11, 17-22.
Wunsch, M., & Johnsrud, L. (1992). Breaking Barriers: Mentoring Junior Faculty Women for Professional Development and Retention. To Improve the Academy, 11, 175-187.
Wimberly, E., & Loring, M. (1991). Improving Scholarly Productivity in Human Service.