Rethinking Tenure and Promotion Dossiers

As has been the norm, the dictate is to "publish or perish" in pursuit of promotion and tenure as higher education faculty – especially at research institutions. While teaching and service are important, nothing makes the same impression as an academic book and especially a hearty allotment of peer reviewed articles and refereed conference proceedings. However, what of grants or research that does not make the cut for a journal?

This is important because the number of hours and rigorous research it takes for this work to be accomplished seems to gain recognition only if the publisher will accept it – even if the market for a given discipline tend to be rather thin.

In the first paragraph Weber argues that the receipt of a grant is an honor and recognition of past achievement, not the same thing as the “completion of a project,” which Weber defines unequivocally in only two ways–a book or a peer reviewed article. As he writes, “past achievement is past and scholarly promise is not scholarship.” But, of course, one could just as easily argue that a book or an article was also a “past achievement” and no indication of “future promise” (for Weber an important part of scholarship).

edwired » Blog Archive » Should Grants Count?

So should grants and the act of writing grants, even ones that are not accepted on first try, and the act of seeking publication, even good pieces that do not make the cut for a given publisher, count towards tenure as well? Clearly they would not have the same weight and should not. But it does beg the question of whether the tenure and promotion structures are effectively adjusting to how publishers and various grants do business. Moreover, as faculty will continue to seek other venues to publish their work that do not fit the traditional publishing mould, are we also looking at how to evaluate those sources of scholarly output in how we recognize faculty output at our institutions?

No related posts.