The Book as the Gold Standard for Tenure and Promotion in the Humanistic Disciplines
Leigh Estabrook
With Bijan Warner, Research Assistant[1]
Summary of Findings
Methods available at http://lrc.lis.uiuc.edu/reports/CICBookMethods.html
With funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation conducted a study (June-November, 2003) to determine the extent to which publication of a scholarly monograph is essential for faculty to receive tenure in the humanistic disciplines. Further, it sought to understand whether faculty members and their department chairs are open to change of their promotion and tenure standards. The research was carried out by the Library Research Center at the University of Illinois and directed by Leigh Estabrook. It included surveys and focus groups of faculty in Anthropology, History and English at CIC institutions; telephone interviews of department chairs in six of the CIC universities; and a survey of faculty who left before receiving tenure in these departments. Among the major findings are the following:
· With the exception of scholars who are doing “creative work” or whose work is in certain subfields of Anthropology, department chairs expect a faculty member to have published (or have in press) a scholarly monograph prior to consideration for tenure.
· Department chairs are not willing to abandon the scholarly monograph as a standard for promotion and tenure.
· Only in History departments does a majority of faculty believe a book should be required (with rare exceptions) for tenure in their departments. Faculty with tenure and faculty who have not yet achieved tenure are similar in their views about this issue.
· Most of the faculty members surveyed do not feel a book length manuscript is necessary to present their scholarship.
· Department chairs and junior faculty have different perceptions about the type of support provided by the department to untenured faculty.
· The publication record of faculty achieving tenure has increased since the 1970s, suggesting that requirements for promotion and tenure in CIC schools have increased.
· Nearly one-fourth (24.5 percent) of the faculty report being asked for a subvention for one or more books. Respondents differ in their perspectives about subventions with some quite accepting of the practice and others concerned about the implications of providing subventions.
· Junior faculty have numerous concerns about the process of getting their work in print, including issues of market forces, time between submission and response and the changing profile of presses.
· Faculty members are beginning to examine electronic publications as an outlet for scholarship. A small number of departments have formally considered how electronic publications should be evaluated.
An analysis of these findings is contained in the full report to be distributed prior to the December 2, 2003 meeting of CIC provosts and LAS deans.
The Book as the Gold Standard for Tenure and Promotion in the Humanistic Disciplines: Findings and Analyses
The following report provides background for the planned December 2, 2003 Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) Summit on Scholarly Communication in the Humanities and Social Sciences. With generous support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the CIC conducted a study (June-November, 2003) to determine the extent to which publication of a scholarly monograph is essential for faculty to receive tenure in the humanistic disciplines. Further, it sought to understand whether faculty members and their department chairs are open to change of their promotion and tenure standards. The research was carried out by the Library Research Center at the University of Illinois and directed by Leigh Estabrook.
The research involved a web-based survey (with paper mail follow-up) to all tenured and tenure track faculty members in History, English and Anthropology in CIC institutions for which we had valid electronic or postal mail addresses.[2] A total of 864 surveys were sent, with 456 returned for a response rate of 52.8 percent. Supplementing that survey are data derived from (i) a review of promotion and tenure guidelines; (ii) a web-based questionnaire to 55 faculty who, in the past five years, left these institutions prior to receiving tenure;[3] (iii) focus-group interviews with junior faculty at the Northwestern University, the University of Iowa, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; (iv) telephone interviews with a seventeen department heads from six CIC institutions.[4] [5] The variety of data provide a rich resource for understanding the role of the scholarly monograph in promotion and tenure decisions in three disciplines represented in CIC university. They cannot tell us about American universities in general, nor even about other humanistic disciplines at CIC institutions.
The investigators sought to answer the following questions:
- Is it the case that the book is required for promotion with indefinite tenure in these three disciplines? Are there exceptions? Do faculty members from different ranks have different perspectives about whether it should be required?
- How willing are department heads and faculty to change criteria for promotion and tenure away from "the book as gold standard"?
- Is there evidence that requirements for tenure have increased in these departments in the past 20 years?
4. What issues in scholarly publication are most problematic for faculty?
- How willing are department heads and faculty to consider alternative forms of publication?
Findings:[6]
· With the exception of scholars who are doing “creative work” or whose work is in certain subfields of Anthropology, department chairs expect a faculty member to have published (or have in press) a scholarly monograph prior to consideration for tenure.
Our study shows the promotion and tenure documents of CIC schools to be similar to those surveyed by Cronin and La Barre.[7] The majority of CIC promotion and tenure documents do not specifically state that a faculty member must have a book to achieve promotion with tenure. The English Department guidelines for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure at Purdue University, for example, state:
“The normal expectation for promotion to associate professor with tenure…is either a book—accepted and in press with a reputable academic publisher—or a significant number of substantial publications in refereed journals and/or chapters in refereed collections…Publication may be either in traditional print form or in electronic or on-line forms.”[8]
The notion that a significant body of publications might be substituted for a book is mentioned in the P&T documents of other departments and schools. Our interviews with chairs of History, English and Anthropology departments provide strong evidence, however, that faculty members (with the exception of faculty doing creative works or in archaeology, linguistics and biological Anthropology) must produce a book to achieve tenure. The seventeen chairs interviewed[9]—even those who saw themselves as more open to the possibilities of presenting faculty scholarship in alternative ways—were consistent in expressing their expectation that faculty will have at least one scholarly monograph as part of his or her portfolio for promotion and tenure. The P&T documents of the History department, unlike the English department, at Purdue University reflect this common sentiment of department chairs: “Of utmost importance is an excellent scholarly monograph, well written, persuasively argued, based on appropriate primary sources, engaging appropriate historiography, and published by a reputable academic press” (author’s emphasis).
Chairs sometimes lamented the insistence on a book for tenure, noting that the key question is the quality of the faculty member’s work and how much impact it has on the field. But in those areas in which the book has been expected in the past, there seems little indication that that expectation will change. One English department chair said he "can't point to any substantive data that our people have failed to find publishers." Another from an Anthropology department said her department members are "trying to maintain a steady expectation of quantity and not up that. Having second book in the works is pretty standard."
At the same time some department chairs recognize a more fluid understanding of what a book is. One noted: “The profession and this department…are being dragged kicking and screaming into broader definitions of scholarship.” Chairs mentioned a willingness to accept more creative materials, including film and varied forms of written expression. For example, a department chair in English noted "you'd find a broadening of interest in some variety of creative, expressive and interpretive material. Foregrounding of personal experience in much of the work people do. [The] memoir has become high prestige area…advanc[ing our] understanding…." Another chair noted changes in attitudes toward editions of works. He said he is "…trying to explain to dean there are new editorial principles. Convention used to be that editor did not seek to interpret the work by editing the work—editor was rendering a perfect text—edition then available for critics to interpret. New editorial principles argue that every edition is interpretation. That blurs the distinction between editions and monographs."
Department chairs, when asked how they mentor junior faculty, appeared confident that they were providing, guidance, feedback and support. And some appeared annoyed at the behavior of junior faculty who appeared to demand quantifiable measures of achievement. However, in the focus group discussions it was apparent that junior faculty are not getting the guidance they want and probably need. At one institution we asked, “tell me how you chose (the publishers to which you sent your manuscript), what guidance you have on that, what kind of contact has been.” The faculty members proceeded to discuss in detail issues such as how they have worked with different publishers, the value of going to meetings of the professional associations and contacting publishers, and to whom to send a manuscript (and how much of the manuscript to send). This occurred at every institution and revealed a hunger from non-tenured faculty to understand better the way they should work with different publishers.
· Department chairs are not willing to abandon the scholarly monograph as a standard for promotion and tenure.
The more fluid understanding of what a book is (mentioned above), does not translate into a willingness to abandon the scholarly monograph as the norm for promotion and tenure. When asked whether it was likely that their departments would alter expectations with regard to all levels of publishing, chairs’ responses were mixed. No one said that they expected to ask for fewer publications; but several talked about wanting to get away from a "numbers game" to focus more on the impact and quality of publications. Individuals at Michigan State University, Penn State and Illinois Chicago echoed one department chair's comment that at his university "people are trying to raise the bar; [it is] not necessarily a bad thing." Chairs also compared themselves to other universities. One historian said, “No one can step out in front without paying attention to other schools [we] compare ourselves to.” Another said, “My initial reaction to Greenblatt's letter was, when they decide to change the requirements at Harvard you can come talk to the rest of us.”[10]
And while our interviews reveal high value attached to the scholarly monograph, several department chairs expressed concern about the corruption of the process of faculty evaluation. Two of the individuals mentioned Lindsay Waters’[11] (Executive Editor for the Humanities at Harvard University Press) point that university presses have become surrogates for other kinds of peer review. “…part of the issue involves foisting off the decision about the quality of work to the University presses. Evaluation in the home department is less intensive” said one chair of an English department. If this is so, then a comment from another respondent is particularly troubling:
It is always difficult to get reliable feedback from reviewers. Probably one-third of reviewers take the job seriously (it’s very difficult, so that’s one reason why, but it’s also not rewarded to the degree that it should be, both monetarily and professionally). I’m seeing this both as an author and as an editor of a book series (and now, as a publisher).
- Only in History departments do most faculty believe a book should be required (with rare exceptions) for tenure in their departments. Faculty with tenure and faculty who have not yet achieved tenure are similar in their views about this issue.
Faculty members are less adamant about the book as a gold standard for promotion and tenure. Of the three faculty groups we studied, only historians insist on the scholarly monograph as an essential piece of a faculty member’s promotion and tenure portfolio. The survey to all CIC faculty asked, “Do you believe that a book (under contract or published) should be required for tenure in your department?” Over 80 percent (82.9 percent; N=136) of the historians replied “yes” or “yes, with rare exceptions.” Fewer than half (46.6 percent; N=90) of English department faculty and only 17.9 percent (N=17) of anthropologists gave similar responses. (Table 1)
|
The survey of faculty who had had left CIC institutions was too small to divide meaningfully by department, but of the 33 respondents, only 27.3 percent said yes, a book should be required. (The questions were not phrased identically.)
Some researchers perceive that a change in the criteria for promotion and tenure is stymied in part by the attitudes and expectations of tenured faculty: “it is the tenured faculty, above all, who are the fundamental source of intellectual and structural ossification.”[12] We do not have evidence to support that assertion. In this study of CIC faculty, tenure status was not statistically related to whether or not individuals thought a book under contract or published should be required for tenure in their department. Neither did the age of the faculty member or the faculty member’s tenure status predict whether a book under contract or published should be required for tenure.
It is important to note that that we said “published or under contract.” Interviews with chairs indicated that some departments are flexible about a book’s being in print at the time of a tenure decision. One historian said, "In the old days [the book] was physically in your hand. Now, because you can't trust publishers—things take more time—[our department] now requires final contract—manuscript in clean shape. [Confirmation that] we will publish your book!"
· Most faculty members surveyed do not feel a book length manuscript is necessary to present their scholarship.
The survey of faculty also asked “As you think about the nature of your current research and the best ways to publish it, is a book length manuscript the best way in which to present your work?” Fewer than half (46.8 percent; N=212) stated “Yes, a book length manuscript is needed to develop fully the logic of my argument and ideas.” An additional 25.4 percent (N=115) stated they would “prefer to publish as a book; but it would be possible to break down the work into a series of articles.” (Table 2)
Table 2
Not surprising was the disciplinary breakdown of this question: 65.6 percent (N=107) of the historians compared to 38.7 percent (N=75) of English faculty and 30.5 percent (N=29) of anthropologists feel their argument and ideas require a book length manuscript.
· The publication record of faculty achieving tenure has increased since the 1970s, suggesting that requirements for promotion and tenure in CIC schools have increased.
Focus groups with junior faculty reveal their beliefs that standards for promotion and tenure have changed in recent years; however, most department chairs interviewed seem to think they have not.
To test whether publishing requirements have changed, we asked all faculty: “Did you have any book-length manuscripts completed and/or in process at the time you were considered for tenure?” We also asked faculty in what year tenure was awarded. An analysis of these responses suggests that tenure requirements at CIC schools have increased in the past 30 years. Of faculty tenured since 2000, Almost 90 (89.2 percent; N=58) had one or more completed manuscript at the time they were considered for tenure. Of the faculty tenured prior to 1980, fewer than two-thirds (64.2%) report having a completed manuscript at the time they were considered for tenure. (Table 3)
As noted above, department chairs generally did not express concern about the current standards, although one commented that the hope was to keep the standards from increasing.
Table 3
· Nearly one-fourth (24.5%) of the faculty report being asked for a subvention for one or more books. Respondents differ in their perspectives about subventions with some quite accepting of the practice and others concerned about the implications of providing subventions.
In our survey of all faculty, 24.5 percent (N=98) report they have been asked for a subvention for one or more of their books. Almost 90 percent of the requested subventions were for $1,000 or more and over 10 percent of the requests were for $4,000 or more. Only three faculty members indicated they paid all or part of the subvention from personal funds. 18 (5 percent) said they “negotiated not to pay the subvention.” At least one CIC institution provides start-up funds for individuals in the humanistic disciplines. The Office of Research and Development at Penn State provides $10,000 as a start up with the expectation that it should cover subventions for publication should that be necessary.
Requests by scholarly presses for subventions to publish faculty members’ monographs trouble individuals we interviewed. One chair feels subventions “could come back to bite her because…someone might say [a book] was published because she [the author] paid for it.” Another called subventions “a discouraging system for all participants.” Some argue that subventions should not be necessary: universities should go back to funding their presses adequately.
· Junior faculty have numerous concerns about the process of getting their work in print, including issues of market forces, time between submission and response and the changing profile of presses.
One of the dynamics of the focus group interviews was the information sharing among the faculty about how to work with publishers. As noted above, they talked about how to work with publishers. This includes how to ask for a response to publishers, the protocols for multiple submissions, and what to do when a book requires many more pictures than the publisher will pay for (publish with a European press was one recommendation).
Faculty members report long lags between submission and review of a manuscript, while often being expected not to do multiple submissions. When asked to identify any difficult experiences they have encountered in seeking to publish their works, half (50 percent; N=228) of the respondents mentioned the length of time required by the publisher to review a manuscript. Other difficulties mentioned by a large number of faculty were "publisher concerned about market for my book" (32.3 percent; N=147); "reviewers did not agree" (29.2 percent; N=133); and publisher concerned about cost of producing book (22.1 percent; N=101)
The market focus of scholarly presses was also mentioned often in comments by chairs and faculty. One eloquent and long comment included the statement:
It has been rather distressing to realize that an informal majority of the major presses in the field—the ones with whom I am expected to publish if I hope to receive tenure—were passing on my project not for its scholarly merits, but because books in the field hadn't been selling. The latter is an important criterion for any business venture, but it's almost completely unrelated to whether or not I am making a substantial contribution to the field…. If we are going to continue to require books for tenure (and I think there are good reasons to do so), we need to uncouple market considerations from evaluation of scholarly merit.
Another person said, “If the criteria employed by university presses are not scholarly, what is the point of requiring a book for tenure?”
Faculty members report the shifting profiles of scholarly publishers--both shifts in areas in which presses publish and types of materials they accept. One noted, "I must stress how difficult it is for first authors to publish in the area of literary studies, now that many university presses have stopped publishing in literary studies entirely, or have drastically cut their lists. Few possibilities exist anymore. Another said, "I'm in a small field, so "backup" or 3rd tier—and arguably even 2nd tier—publishers do not exist. Within this context, the publishers in my field are either cutting their lines completely, reducing them, or moving to only doing textbooks or books with very wide focus." What was prestigious at the time older faculty were tenured may no longer be so; and lesser known presses may have strong lines in certain areas.
· Faculty members are beginning to examine electronic publications as an outlet for scholarship. A small number of departments have formally considered how electronic publications should be evaluated.
A substantial part of our survey was devoted to exploring faculty attitudes towards electronic publishing as an alternative to traditional print. We wanted to understand how faculty members think about the problems and advantages with electronic publishing, as well as explore their general attitudes towards electronic publishing by colleagues. Although not an alternative to the book, various forms of electronic publishing expand scholars’ opportunities for and methods of presenting their scholarship.
When asked to rank issues that must be resolved before electronic publishing becomes a viable alternative to print, the 3 issues most frequently cited were:
1. Faculty who serve on promotion and tenure and other evaluation committees do not value electronic publications as highly as print publications.
2. Electronic journals in my field are less prestigious than print ones.
3. Other faculty members in my department do not value electronic journals as highly as print publications.
The most significant problems with electronic publishing are issues of prestige confounded with issues of how electronic publications are evaluated by others. Few electronic journals in the humanities and social sciences provide the level of peer review or prestige of editorial boards equivalent to paper-based journals in their fields. And journals do not substitute for the book. One chair said:
There is an e-publication called Post-Modern Culture and it was brought to my attention just in May at ACLS forum, edited by a guy at Virginia…it looks perfectly good…it looks perfectly interesting…I don't know… just because it's an e-journal doesn't solve the problem. Does thematic research collection in e form solve the problem...that won't erase the prestige of a book?
In level of importance, copyright issues were ranked seventh out of the ten issues faculty thought needed to be resolved before electronic publication becomes a viable alternative to print. Only 34 individuals (7.6 percent) of the respondents in this study report experiencing copyright problems. One faculty member said, “I have seen JSTOR versions of my work posted without permission on individual web pages.” Of the thirty-two comments on copyright issues, (1) five were on issues related to obtaining permission to reproduce copyrighted material; (2) eight were on issues related to others reproducing the material without permission; and (3) eight were related to concerns about increased student plagiarism. This relatively low level of concern about copyright issues may well be an artifact of the sample. Only 62 (13.6 percent) of the faculty surveyed said they had, in fact, published any of their scholarship or creative works in other than traditional paper based form. And we found a clear generational division. Of the tenured faculty, only 10.2 percent (N=37) had published in other formats compared to 28.4 percent (N=25) of the untenured faculty surveyed in this study.
We also asked faculty members to rank some of the advantages of and incentives to use of electronic publishing. Most frequently cited were: (1) wider dissemination; (2) lower publishing delay; and (3) allows multimedia and hyperlinked components. Comments on the advantages of electronic publishing varied from cynicism to enthusiasm. One of the enthusiasts reflected on ways in which electronic publishing has affected his or her publishing activities: “I have started to select paper journals that I know are easily available on-line, because it really makes the work more accessible to colleagues and students. This is a sign, I think, that ‘dissemination’ is a real advantage of on-line publication”
Among the concerns expressed by our respondents was the cost of electronic publishing. As one faculty member said, “I think the fundamental problem is that electronic publishing is proving to be as expensive as print publishing (or so I’ve been told, from more than one source).”[13] Also of concern is the transience of materials in electronic format. “It’s also fragile, subject to degradation and loss and liable to be lost to future generations if not updated regularly,” said one faculty member.
Our survey inquired into how attitudes towards electronic publishing may have changed in recent years. The survey asked respondents to report if their department has formally considered how electronic publishing should be evaluated. Faculty in both History (16.6 percent; N=27) and English departments (14.4 percent; N=28) are more likely than faculty in Anthropology (3.2 percent; N=3) to report their departments had considered how to evaluate electronic publications; but the numbers are so small that the results are questionable. A large percentage of respondents reported that they didn’t know if their department had formally considered how to evaluate electronic publishing, so these percentages do not accurately represent the number faculty working in departments where evaluation of electronic publications has been considered. We can only report numbers of faculty, not numbers of departments. A recent web based study of History department chairs found that only 6% of History departments have a “formal, written policy for assessing technology-related activities in the tenure, promotion, and review process.”[14] Our review of promotion and tenure documents in the CIC indicated that Purdue is unusual in addressing the issue with its statement that “Publication may be either in traditional print form or in electronic or on-line forms.”
Finally, we asked if faculty members have observed greater respect for alternatives to traditional print by their colleagues. Slightly over one fourth of all faculty (27.2 percent, N=119) responded that they have.
Considerations for CIC Provosts and Deans:
When we look at the responses as a whole, rather than question by question, we find several areas in which members of this summit might begin a conversation.
- To begin we should say that many faculty members seem more concerned about getting articles published than getting their books published—in some areas the ratio of submissions to acceptances is much higher for journals than it is for books. Faculty members are more concerned about the quality of electronic journals than they are about difference in format. Would it be useful for the CIC to assume responsibility for beginning one or more electronic journals that meet standards of peer review, permanence and access?
- Second, as part of their normal mentoring of junior faculty, can department chairs and senior faculty tutor junior faculty more about the processes of identifying publishers and working with them? This would also involve having senior faculty becoming more informed about the changes in profiles of various presses.
- Third, in comments related to electronic publishing it was clear that some faculty in the humanities do not understand the difference between a “born electronic” journal (one originally published in electronic form) and digitized versions of journals made available, for example, through JStor. The first step in expanding conversations about moving beyond print publications must be to help faculty understand what an electronic publication is and what it offers that is different (and what the same) from print publications.
- Fourth, it is difficult to leave this study without suggesting we examine the economics of scholarly publishing including (1) subventions in relationship to university presses; and (2) the tenuous relationship between market-based decisions for book acceptance and evaluations of scholarship. We were not able to survey directors of university presses for this study, but clearly they should be brought into the discussion.
- Finally, although this study involved only three disciplines, it is obvious that the importance of the scholarly monograph to promotion and tenure is dependent on discipline. This research did not cover several areas like foreign languages and literature where the difficulties of finding an outlet for scholarly monographs are reported to be acute. Are there strategies that CIC institutions might adopt to focus on problems in those critical areas?
References
Anderson, Deborah Lines and Dennis A. Trinkle, “‘One or Two is not a Problem’ or Technology in the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Process.” JAHC, vol. 4, 1(April, 2001). Available online at: http://mcel.pacificu.edu/JAHC/JAHCIV1/ARTICLES/Anderson-Trinkle/Anderson-Trinkle.html
Blaise, Cronin and Kathryn La Barre. “Mickey Mouse and Milton: Book Publishing in the Humanities.” Learned Publishing, vol. 17(January, 2004). Available prior to publication at: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~klabarre/Humanities.doc
Greenblatt, S. (2002). Call for action on problems in scholarly book publishing; a special letter from Stephen Greenblatt. Available at: http://chronicle.com/jobs/2002/07/2002070202c.htm
Lohmann, S. (2002). “Herding cats, moving cemeteries, and hauling academic trunks: Why change comes hard to the university.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, California, November 21-24, 2002.
Ryan, Judith, et al. “The Future of Scholarly Publishing,” Profession 2002. New York: MLA, 2002. 172-186. Available at http://www.mla.org
Tenopir, Carol and Donald W. King. (2000). “Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers.” Psycoloquy, 11:84
Unsworth, John, “The Crisis in Scholarly Publishing in the Humanities.” ARL, no. 228 (June 2003): 1-4. Available online at: http://www.arl.org/newsltr/228/crisis.html
Waters, Lindsay. “Rescue Tenure From the Tyranny of the Monograph,” The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 20, 2001: B7. Available online at: http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v47/i32/32b00701.htm