Promotion and Tenure Decisions Using the Boyer Model

There are two questions dominating the literature on tenure: (a) What is it? , and (b) What shall we do with it at the institutional level? (Hutcheson, 1998). Tierney & Bensimon (1996) interviewed over 300 tenure candidates at twelve different institutions in an attempt to tell the story of tenure and promotion in higher education; answering Hutcheson's first question. Facing Change: Building the Faculty of the Future (1999) is a report from a group sponsored by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The AASCU organized selected Washington, D.C.--based higher education associations and public education systems to undertake an exhaustive review of institutional policies that affect faculty. It was called the Faculty Review Project and defined tenure as an effort to provide security if and when a professor wished to practice academic freedom that may or may not be controversial. It noted that somewhere along the way tenure became equivalent with job security and a guarantee of continued employment. The group made fifty recommendations; among them were recapturing the obligations of tenure, adding more accountability to sabbaticals and incorporating part-time faculty members into the fabric of campus life. Charles Reed, Chair of the Faculty Review Project, offered that the report was the beginning of the answer to, "so what should we do now? " This addresses Hutcheson's (1998) second question; What should we do with it? The concept of tenure is an integral part of the employment relationship between institutions of higher education and individual faculty members (Mawdsley, 1999). Promotion and tenure decisions are often difficult and always have important long-term consequences for both the candidate and the institution (Rhoades-Catanach & Stout, 2000). As a colleague once observed, "tenure establishes a marriage between a faculty member and the university where divorce is not an option! " To underscore the importance of tenure decisions several researchers have compiled guidance for those preparing for tenure review. Diamond (1995) considers preparing for tenure as one of the most difficult and challenging experiences a person can have. His preparation guide crosses disciplines and offers specific strategies for document preparation. Other writers address more specific disciplines. Westney (2000) addresses tenure in relation to teaching and technology. Doost (2000) addresses tenure and accountancy while Amy & Crow (2000) offer strategies regarding recognition of computers and composition in relation to tenure and promotion. Stone (1996) offers eleven suggestions for Ph.D. students and assistant professors for managing their tenure process. They are: 1. make a substantive research contribution to accountancy; 2. do research you love; 3. acknowledge, accept, and manage the nausea that accompanies writing; 4. do a lot of whatever works; 5. learn the craft of publishing in academe; 6. learn which aspects of teaching matter and to whom; 7. work with and benefit from one's colleagues; 8. work and hope you are lucky; 9. manage "paradigmatic clash"; 10. reduce stress by cultivating" free attention"; and 11. learn to skillfully adapt to circumstances rather than carefully plan. Doost (2000) argues against items 3, 4 and 8. He feels that Professor Stone is wrong in comparing writing as a new faculty member and that of tedious, difficulty job of dissertation writing; referring to suggestion 3 and the notion that writing must be accompanied by nausea. Doost (2000) takes issue with suggestion 4 by arguing that we should conduct research that matters and not just "whatever works. " I agree with Doost (2000) and I also take issue with suggestion 8, "work hard and hope you are lucky. " Doost (2000) offers alternatives from his experiences in seeking tenure. …