VI. Tenure and Merit Review
The following section explores faculty attitudes about the tenure and annual merit review processes in their unit. Responses to both open and closed-ended questions are described below.
Tenure
Review Process and Criteria (Q 23)
Click to
view snapshot results of (Q
23)
Faculty as a whole believed that some of the most important factors in tenure decisions include the following: regular reviews (89% agree), securing a grant (74% agree), getting along well with the “right” people (66% agree), and publishing high quality research/creative work (64% agree).
|
The least important factors were perceived to be one’s particular research area (39% agree that tenure decisions depend to an important degree on this), receiving high teaching evaluations from students (45% believe this is necessary), and doing one’s fair share of committee and service work (47% believe this is necessary). (See Table 22.) |
|
)
Three quarters of respondents believed that tenure procedures are clearly defined and that they are appropriate. However, only 57% agreed that the processes and criteria used to reach tenure decisions are evenly applied.
|
Almost three quarters (73%) believed that the annual promotion
and tenure review helps faculty prepare for eventual promotion
and tenure decisions, and 76% believed that all full professors
should undergo regular performance reviews by their peers. See
Table 23.)
|
) Click on image to view larger. Close image window to return. |
Differences by School
The following paragraphs highlight those responses from each school that were substantially different from the overall averages.
Agriculture faculty were more likely than average to perceive that receiving high teaching evaluations from students, doing one’s fair share of committee and service work, and securing grants were important factors in securing tenure. They were also more likely than average to believe that the annual promotion and tenure review helps faculty prepare for eventual promotion and tenure decisions. They were less likely than average to perceive that tenure decisions depend to an important degree on the particular area of research pursued, outside evaluations, and knowing the “right” people.
Consumer and Family Sciences faculty were more likely than average to perceive that tenure decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of research published and that the particular area of research pursued, securing grants or fellowships, and regular reviews are important within the tenure process. They were also more likely than average to perceive that the annual promotion and tenure review helps faculty prepare for eventual promotion and tenure decisions and that all full professors should undergo regular performance reviews by their peers. They were less likely than average to perceive that tenure procedures are clearly defined.
Education faculty were more likely than average to believe that receiving high teaching evaluations from students and doing one’s fair share of committee and service work were necessary in order to secure tenure. They were less likely than average to perceive that the tenure procedures are clearly defined, that it is important to secure a grant or fellowship in order to secure tenure, and that tenure decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of published research. Finally, they were more likely than average to believe that full professors should undergo regular performance reviews by their peers.
Engineering faculty were more likely than average to believe that getting along well with the “right” people and securing a grant or fellowship were important in order to secure tenure. Also, they, more than most others, believed that tenure decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of published research. They were less likely than most to agree that tenure decisions depend to an important degree on the quality of published research and high teaching evaluations from students and that the criteria and processes used to reach tenure decisions are evenly applied.
Health Sciences faculty were more likely than average to say that securing a grant or fellowship was important in order to secure tenure and that tenure decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of published research. Fewer than average believed that the criteria and processes used to reach tenure decisions are evenly applied.
Liberal Arts faculty were more likely than average to say that tenure decisions depend heavily on outside evaluations and less likely than most to say that doing one’s fair share of committee and service work and securing a grant or fellowship were important in order to secure tenure.
A higher than average number of Library faculty believed that doing one’s fair share of committee and service work is important in order to secure tenure, while fewer than average perceived that outside evaluations, high teaching evaluations from students, and securing grants or fellowships are important.
Management faculty were less likely than average to believe that tenure procedures are clearly defined, that the annual promotion and tenure review helps faculty prepare for eventual promotion and tenure decisions, and that regular reviews are important within the tenure process. Fewer than average also perceived that securing a grant or fellowship, doing one’s fair share of committee and service work, and the quality of one’s published research are important factors in securing tenure.
More Science faculty than average perceived that outside evaluations, securing a grant or fellowship, and the quality of one’s published research were important factors in tenure decisions. Fewer than average believed that receiving high teaching evaluations from students, doing one’s fair share of committee and service work, and getting along well with the “right” people were important factors in tenure decisions. Fewer than average also believed that tenure decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of published research and that full professors should undergo regular performance reviews by their peers.
Those in Technology were more likely than average to perceive that receiving high teaching evaluations from students, doing one’s fair share of committee work, and getting along well with the “right” people were important factors in securing tenure. They were less likely than average to believe that tenure decisions depend heavily on outside evaluations or securing a grant or fellowship.
Finally, more Veterinary Medicine faculty than average reported that getting along well with the “right” people was an important factor in securing tenure, while fewer than average believed that outside evaluations were important and that tenure decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of one’s published research. Fewer than average also reported that the tenure procedures are clearly defined and that the process and criteria used to reach tenure decisions are evenly applied.
Differences by Rank
Just as with response patterns by school, response patterns by rank differ considerably. Assistant professors were more likely than those in the other two ranks to believe that outside evaluations (65% vs. 45% of associate and 48% of full professors), doing one’s fair share of committee work (61% vs. 44% and 42% respectively), and getting along well with the “right” people are important factors in tenure decisions (81% vs. 73% and 53% respectively). They were the least likely to believe that tenure procedures are clearly defined (60% vs. 68% of associate professors and 88% of full professors). Associate professors, along with assistant professors, were more likely than professors to believe that tenure decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of published research/creative work (61% of associate and 60% of assistant professors compared to 42% of professors).
In addition to these different response patterns, assistant professors were the most likely to answer that they did not know the answer to these tenure-related questions. In most cases, 10% to 15% at this rank answered that they did not know, but in four cases, substantially more chose this response. Specifically, 24% of assistant professors did not know whether tenure decisions depend to an important degree upon the particular area of research pursued, 46% did not know whether tenure decisions depend heavily on outside evaluations, 24% did not know whether criteria used to reach tenure decisions are generally appropriate, and 38% did not know whether the processes and criteria used to reach tenure decisions are evenly applied.
Associate professors took the most negative view of the tenure process, being the least likely to report that regular reviews are important within the tenure process (83% vs. 92% of assistant and 91% of full professors), that the criteria used to reach tenure decisions are generally appropriate (59% of associate vs. 77% of assistant and 86% of full professors), that the process and criteria used to reach tenure decisions are evenly applied (39% vs. 52% of assistant and 69% of full professors), and that annual promotion and tenure review helps faculty prepare for eventual promotion and tenure decisions (60% vs. 69% of assistant and 83% of full professors). They were also the least likely to report that the quality of published research/creative work (49% vs. 65% of assistant and 73% of full professors), high teaching evaluations from students (39% vs. 45% of assistant and 49% of full professors), and securing a grant or fellowship (66% vs. 77% of assistant and 77% of full professors) are important factors in tenure decisions.
Full professors, for their part, took the most positive stance toward tenure procedures and criteria. As noted above, they were the most likely to say that tenure procedures are clearly defined (88% vs. 60% of assistant and 68% of associate professors), that the criteria used to reach tenure decisions are generally appropriate (86% vs. 77% of assistant and 59% of associate professors) and evenly applied (69% vs. 52% of assistant and 39% of associate professors), and that annual promotion and tenure review helps faculty prepare for eventual promotion and tenure decisions (83% vs. 69% of assistant and 60% of associate professors). Further, they were the most likely to say that tenure decisions depend to an important degree on the quality of published research/creative work (73% vs. 65% of assistant and 49% of associate professors). On the other hand, they were the least likely to say that one’s particular area of research (34% vs. 47% of assistant and 41% of associate professors) and getting along well with the “right” people (53% vs. 81% of assistant and 73% of associate professors) are important factors in tenure decisions. Finally, they are the least in favor of a regular performance review for full professors (66% vs. 93% of assistant and 80% of associate professors).
Differences by Gender
Given these different perspectives on tenure criteria and procedures based on one’s school and rank, and given that males and females are unequally distributed across both school and rank, considering differences by gender alone is of uncertain value. Notable differences follow, but these must be examined in more detail before valid conclusions can be drawn.
Generally, men were more likely to believe tenure decisions are clearly defined (78% vs. 68%), that to secure tenure it is important to secure a grant/fellowship (76% vs. 67%), that tenure decisions are generally appropriate (80% vs. 64%), that the processes and criteria used to reach tenure decision are evenly applied (60% vs. 48%), and that annual reviews help faculty prepare for eventual promotion and tenure decisions (76% vs. 63%). Females, on the other hand, were more likely to perceive that tenure decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of published research/creative work (59% vs. 50%), that tenure decisions depend heavily on outside evaluations (60% vs. 48%), and that to secure tenure, it is important to get along well with the “right” people (74% vs. 62%). They were also more likely than males to believe that all full professors should undergo regular performance reviews by their peers (82% vs. 75%).
Differences by Race
Differences by race are also difficult to interpret without further analyses because of differences in representation across schools and ranks. Most significantly, Asian Americans are far more likely to be members of the Schools of Science or Engineering than are Caucasians or underrepresented minorities (59% compared to 25% of the others). Also, underrepresented minorities are more likely to be assistant professors than are the other two groups (50% vs. 38% of Asian Americans and 24% of Caucasians).
In each case that underrepresented minorities were the most likely to agree with a tenure-related question, their responses matched those of assistant professors. Specifically, they were the most likely to believe that tenure decisions depend almost exclusively on the quantity of published research/creative work and that outside evaluations, regular reviews, and getting along well with the right people are important factors in tenure decisions. They were also the most likely to indicate that full professors should undergo regular performance reviews by their peers.
Response patterns for survey items for which Asian Americans indicated the highest level of agreement are not as clear. This population, like those in Science and Engineering, were more likely than others to believe that securing a grant or fellowship is important for securing tenure. However, they were also the most likely to indicate that the quality of published research/creative work (71% vs. 55% of underrepresented minorities and 64% of Caucasians) and the particular area of research pursued (69% vs. 42% and 37% respectively) are important factors in tenure decisions, which rank or school demographics do not readily explain. Finally, they were the most likely to perceive that the criteria used to reach tenure decisions are evenly applied (62% vs. 54% and 57% respectively) and, along with underrepresented minorities, that the criteria used are appropriate (89% and 88% vs. 75% of Caucasians).
