How much research at your institution, for tenure?

[Conjugate]

So... I have a modest proposal. Any department that wants to increase tenure expectations should have to do so retroactively. Anyone who got tenure in the past 10 years should have the new standards applied to them. if they wouldn't have gotten tenure, then their tenure should be retroactively revoked up until the date when they did meet the new standards, and should have to pay back whatever additional salary they earned during that time.

The problem here is that it is often not the faculty driving the quest for tenure, but the administration, who want to raise the prestige(?) of the institution. (This may not be just for bragging rights; I suspect that some other considerations, such as how much of a cut they can take from grants for "overhead," or even what sorts of grants they might be considered for, may depend on this perception.) I talked with faculty perhaps 10 years back at an institution I'd known from some years earlier; they were considerably unhappy about the steep requirements for tenure.  They actively discouraged me from applying for any positions at the institution.

[SquarePeg]

I'm at an R1 but in the Arts. I know from talking to people in other fields bringing in grants and money to support your research is very important. In Humanities fields research is a fairly high standard of achievement in being published. I just went up for tenure, hit the research numbers out of the park, but had petty arguments against tenure based on lower than average student eval averages, at least that was the only objective reason given, even though I teach primarily freshmen. If the right people like you, you will get tenure, if they don't, it appears all the research achievements in the world won't matter.

[Kron3007]

I'm at an R1 but in the Arts. I know from talking to people in other fields bringing in grants and money to support your research is very important. In Humanities fields research is a fairly high standard of achievement in being published. I just went up for tenure, hit the research numbers out of the park, but had petty arguments against tenure based on lower than average student eval averages, at least that was the only objective reason given, even though I teach primarily freshmen. If the right people like you, you will get tenure, if they don't, it appears all the research achievements in the world won't matter.

At my research intensive university teaching is not enough to get tenure if research is low, but it can sink a case even if research is good.  I believe it even says this (in other words) in our contract.

So, I can't comment on your case, but unacceptable teaching can sink a case regardless of people liking you or not.  However, I agree that peoples' opinion of you matter just as much as the paper version of you.  Teaching evaluations can be used against you or justified based on this.

Hope it works out in the end square peg.

[Phydeaux]

Here at my public regional 4-4, its two peer-reviewed "things" for tenure (book chapters, articles, etc).

Pretty much the same here, at my 4-4 school that just attained R2 status. We also have to have at least 2 juried conference presentations. In theory, that means that someone with multiple books but no presentations could be denied tenure, but I don't think that's ever actually come up.

[drbrt]

Here at my public regional 4-4, its two peer-reviewed "things" for tenure (book chapters, articles, etc).

Pretty much the same here, at my 4-4 school that just attained R2 status. We also have to have at least 2 juried conference presentations. In theory, that means that someone with multiple books but no presentations could be denied tenure, but I don't think that's ever actually come up.

Wow. It's 4-5 here and we forever hover at the R2/R3 edge.

[eigen]

Research active SLAC here... No direct breakdowns, but a requirement of "excellence" in teaching and scholarship and "significant" service. So like 60/40/40, honestly.

No exact publication count, but most people have several going up, along with (usually) external funding in the sciences.

[Volhiker78]

I am at a lower rated R1 in an Institute, not a Department.   In our Institute,  there aren't any tenured faculty.  Still, faculty promotions go through the same channels as all other university faculty.   i would say the importance between Research/Teaching/Service for promotion is about 80/10/10.   From Assistant to Associate,  you can get promoted purely on publications of your research; however to go from Associate to Full,  you better be bringing in fresh grant money to the Institute.   

[tuxthepenguin]

So... I have a modest proposal. Any department that wants to increase tenure expectations should have to do so retroactively. Anyone who got tenure in the past 10 years should have the new standards applied to them. if they wouldn't have gotten tenure, then their tenure should be retroactively revoked up until the date when they did meet the new standards, and should have to pay back whatever additional salary they earned during that time.

for example.
Professor A got tenure five years ago with two publications.
The new standard is three publications.
Professor A didn't get a third publication until last year.
Professor A got a $10,000/year increase in salary.
Professor A would still have tenure, but would be expected to repay 4 years of that salary increase ($40,000)

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this proposal (which would not go anywhere even if it were proposed seriously). The mission of an institution can change through time, departments add graduate programs, they get more funding to hire faculty, .... The tenure standards in place at the time you're hired are what should matter. Punishing tenured faculty when the department shifts from undergrad-only to having a grad program doesn't make much sense.

Would you make the same argument about teaching? If someone got tenure with a 2/2 teaching load, but due to budget cuts the teaching load rose to 3/3, should all tenured faculty have to pay back a third of the salary they earned under the old system?

[Hibush]

I am at a lower rated R1 in an Institute, not a Department.   In our Institute,  there aren't any tenured faculty.  Still, faculty promotions go through the same channels as all other university faculty.   i would say the importance between Research/Teaching/Service for promotion is about 80/10/10.   From Assistant to Associate,  you can get promoted purely on publications of your research; however to go from Associate to Full,  you better be bringing in fresh grant money to the Institute.

I'm missing one piece of this story. Could you clarify one thing? How can you get enough publications to merit promotion to Associate on an 80% research expectation without also bringing in substantial grant funds to pay for that research? Does the institute provide a lot of base resources?

[Volhiker78]

Hibush - Most of our faculty are in service type roles (epidemiology/biostatistics/bioinformatics) as opposed to clinical/laboratory.  I do research on biostat methodology and publish on my own but most of my publications are in clinical journals with others as first authors. In order to go from Assoc to Full for me - the expectation would be that my research is significant enough that someone would be willing to fund such methodological research.     

[Tamiam]

You need an option for "it's a moving target as our smallish institution lurches all over the place in response to demographic shifts and prior-administration financial shenanigans".

I honestly have no idea what these people want; fortunately I have another three years to get there, wherever "there" is.

[Juvenal]

Some here forget that research is a "requirement" at four-year/plus-four places; at less stringent two-year places--well, not really at all unless they suffer from r-envy.  Some are most happy in the library/lab; some are most happy in the classroom and no pressure beyond.  The Fora seem to pay little attention to the second case.

[darkstarrynight]

I think this is one of those "it depends" questions.  I am at a R1 and since we do 360 evaluations within my department annually, I can see that each TT faculty member has a different percentage for teaching-research-service and it can be negotiated with the chair each year. I have stuck with mine since being hired, which is 50% teaching, 30% research, 20% service.  Even though it is a R1, teaching has been highly valued during my annual reviews, but I am guessing research will likely be weighted more than 30% for my P&T review this coming semester.  We have a mentor program within my college for all TT faculty, and I have had three different mentors from departments outside of mine within the college who are unable to provide me a magic number of publications needed, including the mentor who is on the college P&T committee.  I just hope my number of refereed articles coupled with my first book coming out in a few weeks is sufficient.  At my mid-tenure review, the college committee told me to get a grant as my main research priority at that time, so I got the biggest one in my field last year (which is very little money but from a prestigious organization).  Because of that, I feel confident that I addressed their suggestions, and my teaching evaluations have been great thus far.

[eigen]

Some here forget that research is a "requirement" at four-year/plus-four places; at less stringent two-year places--well, not really at all unless they suffer from r-envy.  Some are most happy in the library/lab; some are most happy in the classroom and no pressure beyond.  The Fora seem to pay little attention to the second case.

This is field dependent. Research is a requirement, even if a much smaller one, even at two years in my field. A lot of the research ends up being pedagogy based, but there are still research requirements for tenure.

[mleok]

I think this is one of those "it depends" questions.  I am at a R1 and since we do 360 evaluations within my department annually, I can see that each TT faculty member has a different percentage for teaching-research-service and it can be negotiated with the chair each year. I have stuck with mine since being hired, which is 50% teaching, 30% research, 20% service.  Even though it is a R1, teaching has been highly valued during my annual reviews, but I am guessing research will likely be weighted more than 30% for my P&T review this coming semester.  We have a mentor program within my college for all TT faculty, and I have had three different mentors from departments outside of mine within the college who are unable to provide me a magic number of publications needed, including the mentor who is on the college P&T committee.  I just hope my number of refereed articles coupled with my first book coming out in a few weeks is sufficient.  At my mid-tenure review, the college committee told me to get a grant as my main research priority at that time, so I got the biggest one in my field last year (which is very little money but from a prestigious organization).  Because of that, I feel confident that I addressed their suggestions, and my teaching evaluations have been great thus far.

I'm surprised that a R1 allows their faculty to elect 50% teaching and only 30% research, but if your description of your output is any indication, it sounds like they want their cake and to eat it too. In particular, it feels like you're doing more research-wise than what one might reasonably expect from a 30% research election. Do you have a higher teaching load because of the 50% teaching election?