Academic tenure is a topic of great concern in the field of public affairs and administration. Especially for pre-tenured faculty members, institutional expectations profoundly influence individual decisions regarding what to research and how, and where to publish results. For academic programs, the stakes are also high: negative tenure decisions affect morale and represent lost resources that may not be easily recovered, while positive decisions on marginal cases may have long-term impacts on department performance. This suggests an imperative of establishing and communicating clear tenure expectations. Yet little is known, aside from anecdote and myth, about public affairs and administration tenure standards. A survey of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration’s member institutions elicited responses from 144 academic leaders (54% response rate). One portion of the survey specifically addressed this fundamental question: What are NASPAA member institutions’ tenure expectations for public affairs and administration faculty members?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of University Professors (1940). 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academicfreedom-and-tenure
2.
American Association of University Professors (n.d.)Trends in Faculty Status, 1975–2007. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/7BAE5D10-3DE3-404D-99A7-23183E9027E4/0/Fig4.pdf
3.
AlshareK. A.WengerJ.MillerD. (2007). The role of teaching, scholarly activities, and service on tenure, promotion, and merit pay decisions: Deans’ perspectives.Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11(1), 53–68.
4.
Backes-GellnerU.SchlinghoffA. (2010). Career incentives and “publish or perish” in German and U. S. universities.European Education, 42(3), 26–52.
5.
BoyerE. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
BushouseB. K.JacobsonW. S.LambrightK. T.LlorensJ. J.MorseR. S.PoochaaroenO. (2011). Crossing the divide: Building bridges between public administration practitioners and scholars.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21, i99–i112.
7.
CageM. C. (1995, January 20). Regulating faculty workloads: State laws proliferate, but professors see them as unnecessary and ineffective. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Regulating-Faculty-Workloads/85472/
8.
CommC. L.MathaiselD. F. X. (1998). Evaluating teaching effectiveness in America’s business schools: Implications for service marketers.Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 16(2), 163–170.
9.
CrossJ. G.GoldenbergE. N. (2002). Why hire non-tenure-track faculty?Peer Review, 5(1), 25–28.
10.
DennisA. R.ValacichJ. S.FullerM. A.SchneiderS. (2006). Research standards for promotion and tenure in information systems.MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1–12.
11.
DillmanD. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.American Sociological Review, 48, 148–160.
13.
FairweatherJ. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for institutional policy and decision making.The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26–48.
14.
GreenR. G. (2008). Tenure and promotion decisions: The relative importance of teaching, scholarship, and service.Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), 117–127.
15.
GuilloryJ. (2005). Valuing the humanities, evaluating scholarship.Profession, 2005, 28–38.
16.
HaegerJ. D. (1998). Part-time faculty, quality programs, and economic realities.New Directions for Higher Education, 104, 81–88.
17.
HardréP.CoxM. (2009). Evaluating faculty work: Expectations and standards of faculty performance in research universities.Research Papers in Education, 24(4), 383–419.
18.
KolibaC. J. (2007). Engagement, scholarship, and faculty work: Trends and implications for public affairs education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(2), 315–333.
19.
LagonM. P. (1995). Rational choice.Perspectives on Political Science, 24(4), 206–210.
20.
LambrightK. T. (2008). Lessons outside of the classroom: Examining the effectiveness of service learning projects at achieving learning objectives.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(2), 205–217.
21.
LathamG. P. (2007). Work motivation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
LemannN. (2014, April 28). The soul of the research university. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Soul-of-the-Research/146155/
23.
LoveD. A.KotchenM. J. (2010). Grades, course evaluations, and academic incentives.Eastern Economic Journal, 36, 151–163.
24.
LuchsC.SeymoureS.SmithW. (2012). How important is service in the promotion and tenure process?Research in Higher Education Journal, 15, 1–11.
25.
MarginsonS. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education.Higher Education, 52, 1–39.
26.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
27.
MilemJ. F.BergerJ. B.DeyE. L. (2000). Faculty time allocation: A study of change over twenty years.The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 454–475.
28.
ParkT. (2011). Do faculty members get what they deserve?: A review of the literature surrounding the determinants of salary, promotion, and tenure.The Journal of the Professoriate, 6(1), 28–47.
29.
PerlmutterD. D. (2012, March 25). Good deeds that are most punished, part 2: Service. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Good-Deeds-That-Are-Most/131279/
30.
RhodeD. (2006). In pursuit of knowledge: Scholars, status, and academic culture. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
RotherhamA. (2011, June 30). Should tenure be abolished?Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2080601,00.html
32.
RothgebJ. M.BurgerB. (2009). Tenure standards in political science departments: Results from a survey of department chairs.PS: Political Science and Politics, 42(3), 513–519.
33.
Schaefer RileyN. (2012, June 24). Should tenure for college professors be abolished?Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303610504577418293114042070
34.
Van de VenA. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research.New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
WeylandK. (2011). The logic of the tenure decision: In dubio contra “reum.”Political Science and Politics, 44(2), 357–362.
36.
YounT. I. K.PriceT. M. (2009). Learning from the experience of others: The evolution of faculty tenure and promotion rules in comprehensive institutions.The Journal of Higher Education, 80(2), 204–237.
