Final nail in the coffin for tenure in Florida

[dismalist]

Here is another: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-021-03957-4

Now, that's good stuff, jimbo!

There's really too much in there to digest in a half hour. What I would say, skimming, is that while it seems STEM is special, one can argue about where a book chapter comes from [from one's friends], even where a book comes from [from one's past]. The authors know that they aren't considering quality, usually measured with citations. Such was criticized -- properly -- upthread.

After a quickie, I would say the hypothesis of tenure promoting research productivity is not confirmed. All is possible, of course, as I said to you upthread, but there is not sufficient cause for insisting that tenure promotes research productivity.

Again, people follow incentives, even STEM researchers do, for they are people.

One good turn deserves another, jimbo: This, naturally,  https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.32.1.179 was what I saw first upon foraging. It cites the studies whose results I mentioned.

You fail to recognize other incentives beyond base salary and job security that are common in STEM.  Where I am, we can't pay extra salary from Grants, but I understand this is common in the US.  However, even where I am I can generate, own, and profit from, IP that I develop in my research program.

To get grants and/or generate IP, you need to do research and publish.  So, tenure doesn't take incentive away in STEM as it may in some fields.  This doesn't even factor in the drive many academics have for non-monetary items.

There are billions of other incentives that promote research productivity. One, perhaps the main one, is being around people who like  to discover stuff and publish it! Hell, you'd be looked at askance if you didn't find new stuff and write and talk about it. What you point out -- research cash after tenure -- is not causal either. The cash is! :-) None of these incentives emanate from tenure, or need to.

Your objection is well taken, but it's not an objection to my views. It's an objection to extant tests.

[jimbogumbo]

It feels like we are going back and forth. I'm confident we could replace tenure with a different system, but doubt it will happen. I do strongly believe that the current system requires that to be productive in STEM research with grants requires an infrastructure and prestige that is linked to promotion to Associate and tenure.

I'm also convinced that the majority (vast?) of STEM researchers at the AAU schools are motivated intrinsically to discover and produce.

[mleok]

I'm also convinced that the majority (vast?) of STEM researchers at the AAU schools are motivated intrinsically to discover and produce.

That was the point raised by the article which I cited upthread.

[dismalist]

It feels like we are going back and forth. I'm confident we could replace tenure with a different system, but doubt it will happen. I do strongly believe that the current system requires that to be productive in STEM research with grants requires an infrastructure and prestige that is linked to promotion to Associate and tenure.

I'm also convinced that the majority (vast?) of STEM researchers at the AAU schools are motivated intrinsically to discover and produce.

All that might well be correct, jimbo. But the original question was about the positive research productivity consequences of tenure, as we know it. And that, in my view does not pass.

The long paper you linked was really informative, even if not conclusive. You want to analyze many, many fields in many, many countries, in many, many years, in many, many incentive systems, using proper methods to control for many, many confounders. We understand the principles of these things; we just haven't done it. :-) What's wanted is  clearly not available.

So, where does this leave us? A very small n, really. Implies large standard errors in subjects like this. Result: Looks to me  like tenure does not promote research productivity, a belief I would not be allowed to hold very strongly on empirical grounds. I do hold these views strongly on à priori grounds. My views are compatible with  incentives.

But on  statistical grounds there is no reason to strongly believe that tenure does promote research productivity either! I think one would have to have weird theories of human nature to make greater research productivity post tenure a prediction that would survive.

[mleok]

It feels like we are going back and forth. I'm confident we could replace tenure with a different system, but doubt it will happen. I do strongly believe that the current system requires that to be productive in STEM research with grants requires an infrastructure and prestige that is linked to promotion to Associate and tenure.

I'm also convinced that the majority (vast?) of STEM researchers at the AAU schools are motivated intrinsically to discover and produce.

All that might well be correct, jimbo. But the original question was about the positive research productivity consequences of tenure, as we know it. And that, in my view does not pass.

The long paper you linked was really informative, even if not conclusive. You want to analyze many, many fields in many, many countries, in many, many years, in many, many incentive systems, using proper methods to control for many, many confounders. We understand the principles of these things; we just haven't done it. :-) What's wanted is  clearly not available.

So, where does this leave us? A very small n, really. Implies large standard errors in subjects like this. Result: Looks to me  like tenure does not promote research productivity, a belief I would not be allowed to hold very strongly on empirical grounds. I do hold these views strongly on à priori grounds. My views are compatible with  incentives.

But on  statistical grounds there is no reason to strongly believe that tenure does promote research productivity either! I think one would have to have weird theories of human nature to make greater research productivity post tenure a prediction that would survive.

Tenure is a confounding factor, it affects the system and the incentives irrespective of whether a specific individual in particular has it. To truly determine the effect tenure has on research productivity, one really needs to compare systems which have it vs. those which do not, not whether one has earned tenure in a system which has a tenure-track.

[mythbuster]

The latest revisions to the proposed Post tenure review. Will be discussed by the BOG on Wed Feb 22. https://www.flbog.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Regulation-10.003-Post-Tenure-Faculty-Review.pdf.

[spork]

The latest revisions to the proposed Post tenure review. Will be discussed by the BOG on Wed Feb 22. https://www.flbog.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Regulation-10.003-Post-Tenure-Faculty-Review.pdf.

If I were a tenured faculty member at a public university in Florida, this would cause me to look for work elsewhere.

[pondering]

The latest revisions to the proposed Post tenure review. Will be discussed by the BOG on Wed Feb 22. https://www.flbog.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Regulation-10.003-Post-Tenure-Faculty-Review.pdf.

If I were a tenured faculty member at a public university in Florida, this would cause me to look for work elsewhere.

We're trying, but it's slim pickings in the humanities.