Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    University Transformation
Sign In
The Review

We Make Tenure Decisions Unfairly. Here’s a Better Way.

By Leah Wasburn-Moses March 27, 2018

It was a Friday night, and I had just sat through one too many promotion-and-tenure meetings. After 12 years on the tenure track, having played the game well enough to be promoted to full, I was simply fed up with the system. I typed a single statement in my “Updates” on Facebook: “Friends on the Tenure Track: I feel as though our futures hinge on: (1) the amount of research we produce that nobody will ever read, (2) the extent to which our students like us, and (3) the number of committees we chair that will never do anything.” I asked my husband, “Before I click ‘post,’ is this too controversial?” He shrugged, and I hit the enter key, and waited.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

It was a Friday night, and I had just sat through one too many promotion-and-tenure meetings. After 12 years on the tenure track, having played the game well enough to be promoted to full, I was simply fed up with the system. I typed a single statement in my “Updates” on Facebook: “Friends on the Tenure Track: I feel as though our futures hinge on: (1) the amount of research we produce that nobody will ever read, (2) the extent to which our students like us, and (3) the number of committees we chair that will never do anything.” I asked my husband, “Before I click ‘post,’ is this too controversial?” He shrugged, and I hit the enter key, and waited.

Although I was not surprised that the comment generated some controversy (particularly for me, whose posts might not always involve cats but are generally benign), I was surprised to see comments of the if-she-feels-that-way-she-should-retire-or-get-another-job sort. I was intrigued with my colleagues’ responses, primarily because I was fairly certain that all of my assertions could be backed by evidence. I decided to take a closer look at what is known about effectiveness and outcomes in the areas of teaching, research, and service.

Teaching: Although many professors love teaching, not many love teaching evaluations or think they are a good measure of quality. These perceptions are backed by research. A meta-analysis on end-of-course evaluations found no significant correlation between those evaluations and student learning. In fact, the meta-analysis overturned decades of previous studies upholding the use of this type of evaluation. Considering the strong evidence from other studies that gender, race, and other elements unrelated to teaching effectiveness have a significant impact on these ratings, there can be no justification for retaining their use in any decisions affecting a professor’s career.

Research: Current reward systems are based on both quality and quantity of research. Unfortunately, at least one study found that the average academic article is read by about 10 people, and half of these articles are never read at all. Ninety percent are never cited. Even the Journal Impact Factor, a measure for ranking technical journals by how often they are cited, has been shown to be misleading and misunderstood. Further, women and minority faculty members often lack the mentoring that would help them publish in prestigious journals and obtain competitive grants, leaving them at a disadvantage. It is difficult to understand and justify a system that continues to value the publication of academic journal articles and books as the gold standard in research, over which career-ending decisions are made.

Service: Anyone who has served on multiple university committees may find it challenging to defend the wider value of internal university service. There is not much evidence to be found regarding the impact of any type of service, including national, elected leadership positions — the standard by which promotion-and-tenure decisions are often made. Research shows that among associate professors, minority and female faculty members are consistently asked to perform more service, perceived as the least important of the three areas considered for tenure, than their white and/or male peers, thus disadvantaging them further.

Academic careers, then, are often determined by so-called evidence that is flimsy at best, from teaching evaluations that are unrelated to student learning, to professional writing that is rarely if ever read, to service that is difficult if not impossible to evaluate. Further, the bias introduced by factors such as race and gender in each of these areas is unacceptable. I suggest three alternative approaches to evaluating a candidate for tenure.

1. Invest in ways to measure teaching effectiveness through student learning. We live in an era of testing and accountability, so why not make it work for us? Our disciplines have experts in measurement, so let’s use them. Another pathway is to invest in the development of instruments such as the Tripod assessment, a system of student feedback used in grade-school education that has been tied to educator effectiveness and is used across the country. We need to ask the right questions in the right way.

2. Reconsider measurements of research effectiveness. Instead of a single standard across all disciplines, consider what scholarship actually makes a difference in each field. For example, in my field of teacher education, “engaged scholarship” should be included in any professor’s evaluation. Such work is conducted in partnership with the community, integrates teaching, research, and service, and can be measured by impact on the community served. Other ways to measure research effectiveness could include citations, contributions to larger projects, or impact on various lay and professional communities. Offering multiple options opens the door to cross-disciplinary collaboration and innovation.

3. Judge impact. Service can be reimagined as the outcome from combining research with teaching, or the overall impact of a professor’s work. Service should focus on measurable accomplishments, such as distributing teaching materials, developing service projects, spearheading community growth and development, or bringing expertise to outsiders. These types of service are often minimized by promotion-and-tenure committees automatically, without considering their scope or overall impact.

Let’s not waste any more time and effort perpetuating a system that appears flawed in nearly every way. Let’s not let any more committed, effective, engaged professors go because their contributions didn’t fit into our narrow system of what counts as scholarship or national reputation. It’s past time to overturn a system created nearly 80 years ago and determine what true impact means in today’s world of higher education. By remaining silent, those of us who are full professors and those of us in leadership positions are perpetuating this system of bias and doing harm to those who are affected by it.

Leah Wasburn-Moses is a professor in the College of Education, Health and Society at Miami University.  

A version of this article appeared in the April 27, 2018, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Leadership & Governance Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

What Delayed Course Evaluations Might — and Might Not — Reveal
The Number That’s Devouring Science
Many Departments Continue to Struggle Over Service

More News

Black and white photo of the Morrill Hall building on the University of Minnesota campus with red covering one side.
Finance & operations
U. of Minnesota Tries to Soften the Blow of Tuition Hikes, Budget Cuts With Faculty Benefits
Photo illustration showing a figurine of a football player with a large price tag on it.
Athletics
Loans, Fees, and TV Money: Where Colleges Are Finding the Funds to Pay Athletes
Photo illustration of a donation jar turned on it's side, with coins spilling out.
Access & Affordability
Congressional Republicans Want to End Grad PLUS Loans. How Might It Affect Your Campus?
Florida Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz, Jr. delivers remarks during the State Board of Education meeting at Winter Park High School, Wednesday, March 27, 2024.
Executive Privilege
In Florida, University Presidents’ Pay Goes Up. Is Politics to Blame?

From The Review

Photo illustration of a classical column built of paper, with colored wires overtaking it like vines of ivy
The Review | Essay
The Rise of a New Ed Tech Buzzword
By Kit Nicholls
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Review | Interview
William F. Buckley Jr. and the Origins of the Battle Against ‘Woke’
By Evan Goldstein
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The Review | Opinion
What RFK Jr. Got Right About Academic Publishing
By Robert M. Kaplan

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: A Global Leadership Perspective
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin