Tips for progressing toward tenure at an R1?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

"Yay!" I tell myself. "I did it!" After many job-market cycles I managed to get a TT job at a R1 school. It's what I wanted. Having said yes to half a dozen collaborations throughout the years and twisting my research to fit the goals and visions of three research projects (through as many postdocs), I made it. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I am pretty happy. But as I'm beginning my first semester "on the clock", I find myself staring at a "timeline to tenure calendar" that I worked up: a 200-or-so column table with each "week" over the next four years taking up one column.

I feel as though I have at least two options. First, I can stick to the spaghetti-&-wall method, where I keep juggling through a bunch of research collaborations that are all vaguely tied together and hope enough sticks to make a coherent case for tenure (especially to an outside letter writer). Or, I can prune off those that I'm less invested in, clear the plate I have in front of me, and drill down into one or two areas within which I might plausibly, to an outside letter writer, be seen as a "field leader."

Going with the first tried-and-true method would likely yield a large number of publications and maybe a grant or two, but at the perceived risk of not becoming a top-tier or renowned expert in any single issue or cottage industry or sub-field. Going the second route might yield fewer deliverables, but might also allow me to develop that "expert-flair". Of course, there's also the risk that I'll choose poorly, or never develop that "expert" reputation (what makes one an "expert" anyhow? Is that even something that tenure letter writers really care about or am I just assuming that?). I'm also sure that there are other, perhaps better, options that I'm not considering.

To file it all down to a few points: are there good (better?) strategies for organizing or prioritizing one's projects in an effort to maximize one's chances for tenure? What do tenure letter-writers really look for? Is this just all a species of impostor syndrome? Do / should people "change" their workflow once they're "on the clock"?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers who are in the know. Although I don't work at an R1, based on what I've heard from others my recommendation would be for the reader to ask the powers-that-be in their department and university exactly what is expected for tenure (e.g. departmental tenure committee members, college deans, etc.) before setting on a strategy. Here's why I say this...

First, I've heard anecdotally that at some R1s, whether you get tenure has little to do with how much one has published or where, but instead on whether you are a "field leader"--that is, whether your tenure-letter writers say you are "one of the top-5 early career people" in a particular field, or even on a particular topic. In fact, or so I've heard, it's entirely possible at schools like this to regularly publish in top journals and still be denied tenure (if, for example, your publications are in great journals, but don't forge a coherent project sufficient to make you a leading figure on a given topic). Alternatively, I've heard that at other R1s, one of the main issues in tenure is how many grants you pull in--as some universities are tight on money and 'need' tenured faculty to have a track record of consistently bringing in lots of outside money. Finally, though (or so I've heard), there are other R1s where the main question is whether you've met some minimum standard of publications (e.g. at least 6 publications, or 1 per year, in top journals). 

Anyway, long story short, my sense is that tenure standards vary greatly across departments, colleges, and universities, so it's probably critical for the reader to find out exactly what is expected for successful tenure cases where they work. Also, just to belabor the point, I would think it's important for them not merely to ask people in their department about this, as departmental tenure committees can sometimes have different standards than college committees or administrators (remember, successful tenure cases have to be approved at many different levels, such that even if a department recommends you for tenure, tenure can still be denied at a higher level). 

But these are just my thoughts, which (admittedly) are based largely on things that I've heard second-hand. Do any readers out there who work at an R1 (including readers who got or were denied tenure at one) have any helpful tips or experiences to share? Here, again, are the OP's questions: "are there good (better?) strategies for organizing or prioritizing one's projects in an effort to maximize one's chances for tenure [at an R1]? What do tenure letter-writers really look for? Is this just all a species of impostor syndrome? Do / should people "change" their workflow once they're "on the clock"?"

Comments

[Mike Titelbaum]

Marcus absolutely nailed it as far as the answers to these questions depending on the context in your university. Does your department (and the higher-ups) want you to keep doing what got you hired, or focus your research in particular ways? Just knowing that you’re at an R1 isn’t enough to answer these questions—different R1s have different standards and goals. So as they used to say in my day, you better ask somebody.

As far as what letter-writers are looking for, I think “field leader” captures it better than “expert”. “Expert” feels to me like a term about your level of knowledge. Letter-writers care about what you’ve contributed to the dialogue on some subject (or subjects). And schools care that you’ve established a national (or international) reputation in your field. Do people working in your area(s) know your work? Do conversations in your area(s) mention your work? That’s what you should be looking to achieve.

[Laurence McCullough]

The questions posed could happen only in a department with no mentoring program for junior faculty. I spent my academic career as a medical educator (in professional ethics in medicine) and mentoring is common in medical education. We (Baruch Brody, of blessed memory, and I) called it mentoring for success. That such mentoring is, apparently, not the norm in philosophy speaks volumes, all bad.

[Anonymous full professor]

I have done quite a few tenure and promotion reviews both for US and Canadian institutions, so I can speak on this issue. I've written tenure reviews for R1s, for places like Yale and Harvard, for small liberal arts colleges etc.

I always look in detail at the tenure requirements. So your foremost job is to meet these requirements to the best of your ability. Some R1s have clear quantitative criteria (e.g., at least 8 papers in peer-reviewed journals or a monograph and 3 papers etc, this is just an example). Meet the quantitative criteria. If you don't, it raises inevitable questions.

Others are a bit vaguer and talk more about quality.

Also, R1s vary a lot. I know that at a place like Yale or Harvard a lot of people with excellent files fail to get tenure (though they often land at other places), so I write my letter depending on how field-leading I think the candidate is, knowing that perhaps less than glowing letters might result in them not making the cut.

A lot of papers, even in top journals, are then perhaps not enough if no-one cites them. So if you're at an Ivy I would suggest that you make sure word gets out on your work, focus on a few or a given topic to pursue excellence, and network the living daylights (sigh... I know this is not the great side of academia, but it's a reality) so that people know your work and will cite it. Presenting at conferences, participating in joint ventures with others, is very important.

In general, also if you're not at an Ivy I cannot emphasize enough the importance of networking. Start with this as soon as possible. Joint collaborations, conferencing, social media (only if that's your thing),... it makes a difference.

I've reviewed tenure files of really excellent people, judging by the quality of their papers but I don't know them, I haven't interacted with them. I do my best to write a good evaluation, of course, that is fair. But if I know the person and can put a face to their name, have seen them present... it is just so much easier to write a strong review letter.

[former chair]

I agree with the stuff said above. First things first, check with the department and recently tenured folk.

Re "field leader." Fwiw, here's how the chair at my grad program (at a once-ranked R1) advised new faculty. Focus on publishing several papers in a relatively narrow area, e.g., on a problem or set of somewhat closely related issues. His idea was that if you do, you'll become someone recognized (at least) by others working in the area. He told them it was a mistake to publish in too many areas, at least early on.

[early career]

All great advice above, I would just add that you should think about what strategy will make your life more enjoyable. I am an early career TT prof at a Canadian R1, and when the pandemic hit I realized that I needed to change my strategy to publish more narrowly, for two reasons. First, because I needed/wanted to spend more time with my kids, and second, because I felt really scattered and stressed doing all these projects only tangentially related to each other. So, I backed out of a few projects that were not squarely in my area of research expertise. No regrets since.

If you are not at an Ivy, then my sense is that you have more freedom on how you achieve tenure. If that's the case for you, and you have checked with your institution about requirements and expectations, then I would suggest you pursue the path that is more fulfilling to you, whatever that looks like.

[tenured at an R1]

Your department probably has a document that sets out research expectations. These often are vague. Once you've read this document, ask a few departmental colleagues how the department interprets those expectations. I say 'a few' because sometimes there are disagreements about this within departments. Some people might care more about quantity, some might care more about having a unified research program, etc. You'll want to meet all of their interpretations of the standards. But don't guess. Ask.