While we often refer to the tenure process as if it is a single process that assistant professors undergo, the reality is the tenure process constitutes three interrelated streams that work both together and at cross purposes. The tenure process is comprised of a legal process, a peer review process, and a political process. This idea is foundational to understanding tenure and how I approach the subject in How to Get Tenure: Strategies for Successfully Navigating the Process. In this excerpt, I discuss the three processes and how they influence various aspects of the pre-tenure years.
TENURE PROCESS(ES)
Legal Process
Since the AAUP’s original statements related to tenure called for due process and legal protections for faculty, the tenure process has always contained a significant element of legality. While undergoing the process for tenure, pre-tenure faculty must always remember that this legal aspect will create the same degree of formality and due process that you would expect in any other legal proceeding. Policies and procedures as well as court cases and legal precedent guide decisions regarding tenure, and the dossier and other written documentation required during the process are critically important precisely because of the legal nature of tenure.
While we often think of tenure as simply an institutional evaluation of the teaching, research, and service activities of a faculty member, its legal implications are quite real. Tenure establishes, for example, the legal causes for which faculty may be terminated. Its guidelines create property rights and contract law implications as well as due process criteria. As a result, no matter the academic discipline or institution, the tenure process includes legal elements that must be considered by the candidate as well as the institution. This legality protects both parties, increases the necessity of formality, and provides remedies for faculty who believe they have been treated inappropriately or unfairly.
Peer Review Process
Beyond the legal process involved in tenure, faculty are likely more familiar with the peer-review process that occurs throughout the tenure review. Similar to the process by which academic publications are peer reviewed as part of publication, in the tenure process the overall case for tenure is reviewed by academic peers in the department, school, institution, and discipline. Through the use of external reviewers (discussed in more detail in Chapter 6), the peer review process brings an element of disciplinary peer-review into the tenure process. Throughout the various stages of tenure case review within the institution, peers evaluate whether pre-tenure faculty have met the criteria laid out for them under institutional policies and guidelines for promotion and tenure.
For those outside of higher education and not accustomed to peer review, this process can seem unusual, if not downright bizarre; in essence, colleagues have a direct say in whether or not you keep your job. At times, this can even be disorienting: One moment you and your colleagues share equal voice and vote on departmental issues, while the next your entire professional career is laid out for judgment by these same peers. Just as we in American society value a jury by one’s peers in, for example, the criminal justice system, faculty value that colleagues, with scholarly expertise and experience, make judgments regarding the suitability of someone for tenure. This does not mean, however, that the process is without challenges. While administrators certainly have a voice in the process, faculty colleagues have a direct and early influence upon the outcome of a tenure case. Peer review, thus, is vital to the tenure process and proves one of the most influential elements in determining a final decision.
Political Process
In addition to the legal and peer-review processes at play, tenure involves a political process that can create perhaps the most uncertainty and ambiguity throughout the process. The political process as part of tenure includes interactions and negotiations between various groups (i.e. pre-tenure faculty, tenured faculty, and administrators) as well as balancing different goals, values, and interests. For better or worse, a tenure case is not simply decided on the merits of a candidate–it is also influenced by politics. The political process may work for or against you, but it can undoubtedly make the tenure process more complicated, especially for those not used to navigating within this context. Certainly, being a wunderkind with institutional politics does not replace a strong teaching and research record as evidenced by the dossier, but candidates also cannot ignore the political reality of tenure.
Once pre-tenure faculty start to realize the inherent political process at work with tenure, it becomes reasonable to devise an approach to successfully navigate these waters. Whicker, Kronenfeld, and Strickland (1993) compared the tenure process to a political legislative process. Legislatures have rules and traditions that guide their work, but they can also be freewheeling, swayed by powerful interests and public perception. Powerful constituents, both formal and informal, may play a significant role in the final decision. While at times you may wish that the tenure process was an apolitical meritocracy, you will nevertheless need to navigate the political process in order to provide a foundation for your tenure case to be considered on its merits.
