The Philosophers' Cocoon

Lateral Assistant Professor moves and the tenure process: what can you negotiate?

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

How common is it for a lateral move at the Assistant level to have to 'start again' with respect to publishing for tenure? In other words, if you make a lateral move at the Assistant level is it common to negotiate that some of your current publications will count for tenure (perhaps with an advanced tenure clock)? Or is this really uncommon? I realize experiences will vary widely across different jobs and institutions but I'm particularly curious to know if folks are ever able to successfully negotiate previous publications counting for tenure at their new job.

Good questions. My sense, from what I have heard from friends, is that it is common to negotiate all of these things. I know some people who were able to negotiate a shorter tenure clock (e.g. 3 or 4 years instead of 6), and others who were able to get previous publications to count. But I also know of people at some institutions that as a matter of standing policy only consider publications for tenure that occurred while at their institution. So, it seems to me, negotiating these things is common, but as the OP notes, such things may vary greatly according to institution.

It would be great to hear from readers who have made lateral junior moves. What were you able (or not able) to negotiate with respect to the tenure process?

Can paid work count as 'service'?

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

Can I include paid work under 'service' on my CV? I'm doing some copy-editing for a journal. Or is service supposed to be volunteer?

Fair questions, and I'm not sure what the answers are. I suppose you could always list it in your CV under "service", but maybe it should be noted parenthetically as "(remunerated)"? What do you all think?

How are pieces in pop culture volumes viewed?

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

How do people (especially those on hiring committees, tenure committees, etc.) view publications in special volumes on pop cultural topics? E.g., Philosophy and Dragons, The Ethics of Middle-earth? Is there any professional value? Does it leave a negative impression?

Good questions. My sense is that the answers to them may depend a lot on the kind of college or university in question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I was editing a volume for a leading press, and one of the referees objected to the inclusion of a paper by an author of one of these popular pieces - this is merely a correlation. They never explicitly mentioned the publications. But I doubt this helped the person.

It's honestly a bit shocking to me that someone would object to including an author in an edited volume simply because the author published a pop culture piece. Then again, the longer that I've been in academia, the fewer things surprise me. There are always naysayers, and I have little doubt that some people may look down on these kinds of publications. On the other hand, I know someone at a teaching-focused university whose pop culture piece was one of the main things their tenure committee focused on in favor of tenure. They loved it, as apparently did the university's administrators. 

I'm curious to hear what other people think, particularly people who have served on hiring or tenure committees. I've written two pieces for pop culture volumes, and frankly I don't care what anyone thinks of it! I doubt they've had much (if any) "professional value" for me, but I've enjoyed writing them tremendously and think philosophy as a discipline can only benefit from this kind of stuff.

Unhappy after tenure?

In our newest "how can we help you?", an anonymous professor writes:

I have tenure but I am not happy where I live.

I won the academic lottery after years on contingent contracts, and then I finally got on the TT and received tenure, yay!! I love my job--I have lovely students and great colleagues (don't take a good work environment for granted). But, I don't like where I live. There are limited options for my spouse. I don't like how car-dependent the place is. I do not like the climate, which is getting more and more extreme due to global warming.

Before the pandemic I felt that my love of the job outweighs the not loving the location. But during the acute phase of the pandemic I got a huge bout of homesickness for my home town. Also, I got worried being so far away from my parents who aren't getting any younger. It would not take many hours and I need to take a long flight to reach them.

The pandemic worsened my sense of homesickness and increased my desire for more geographic control. It's like I'm realizing and now only fully coming to terms with how much I (and my partner) have sacrificed for my academic career.

How do you deal with this? Moving to a place that would fit my criteria of e.g., physical proximity to my parents is close to impossible given how the job market is structured. But I'm also not quite willing to go alt-ac. So, maybe what I need is a psychological shift? Any perspective on this welcome, of people who learned to love where they lived or tips to feel more at home.

This is a wonderful query, and I'm hoping we may be able to help the OP work through their situation by hearing from others. Are you (or were you) unhappy after tenure? It might be good to hear from readers on this, as I suspect that many early-career people conceive of a TT or tenured job as the "promised land"--but, as the OP notes, it's not always that simple. One can be lucky and privileged to get a job like this, and yet still be (reasonably) unhappy for a variety of reasons, such as the job or institution "not being all it's cracked up to be" or (as in the OP's case) due to location. Second, if you are (or were) unhappy, how have you dealt with it? Did you make a career change of some sort, or instead try to make a psychological shift? Either way, how did it work out? Finally, based on your experience, do you have any specific tips or advice for the OP?

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...

Priorities and strategies after early tenure?

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

I got a tenured, fairly senior position, as one of the youngest in my country (where I never worked before), just a few years after my PhD.
Since I was not in a tenure-track position before, and since it is a department where I do not know anyone (also in a different field), I am a bit confused and at loss.

I could use suggestions about research/publication strategies, grant applications, service, how much time to spend on teaching (I am going from one graduate course every two years in the past to two bachelor courses per year now), etc.

On one hand, I feel I can relax and work on what I find interesting even if there is no immediate output; on the other hand, I feel a certain amount of pressure to prove myself, as I am fairly young, by getting large grants, organizing big conferences, outreaching, etc.

For those who have been in a similar position: what do you wish you had known?

I realize I am in a very privileged position, yet, I think it still qualifies as an early career issue.

This is a pretty unique situation, as I've rarely heard of someone getting a "tenured, fairly senior position" without being in a tenure-track position first (though perhaps the OP previously had a permanent position in a state that doesn't have tenure-track positions, such as the UK). I'm not entirely sure how to answer, as I've never been in the OP's position. It's also not entirely obvious what kind of institution they are at, though it seems likely to me that they are at an R1--in which case, I'd assume that they should dedicate most of their time to publishing and grant applications. But again, I'm not sure. Anyone have any helpful experience to share here?

Mentioning going up for tenure in a job letter?

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

When going up for tenure and applying for other jobs, are there advantages to mentioning in a job application cover letter that you're going up for tenure at your current institution but nevertheless deeply serious about the other job to which you're applying?

My sense, having served on numerous search committees now, is that this is probably a very good idea. When reading a job application, it can be pretty obvious that an applicant is up for tenure (they've been in a TT job at their university for 5 years, which is right when one applies for tenure). Further, I would not be at all surprised if some (or even many) search committee members might think, "This person is just applying to jobs in case they are denied tenure", which could very well lead them to discount the application. I'm not sure how much discussing things in a cover letter might help, but if you could show that you are a better fit for the university in some way or that you have ties in the area (such as family), that might serve to assuage any worries a search committee might have.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from search committee members here (and if they do weigh in, to hear what type of university/department they are in, as I suspect that different types of departments--ones at R1s, SLACs, etc.--might think about these kinds of things differently)!

Listing external examiner service on a CV?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, ECR writes:

I am an ECR (~5 years post-PhD) and I am starting to get my first invitations to be an external examiner for PhD and MA theses. Is this something one should list on one's CV? (It seems prima facie like an indicator of scholarly esteem.) If so, how? (what section should it go in, what information should one provide, etc.)

Good questions. This does seem like something to list on a CV, and one reader submitted the following reply:

List it under teaching. I have a section on my c.v. labelled teaching. There is a subsection labeled (i) Courses taught, another labeled (ii) Supervision, and another labeled (iii) Educational training and development. Under supervision I list post-docs supervised, PhD committees served on, Masters theses supervised, and various Masters projects supervised. I have another section labelled Refereeing and Evaluations. The subheadings include: journals, publishers, conferences and projects, funding agencies, editorships and editorial boards, and "PhD theses, tenure and promotion reviews, and hiring" (I have been an external evaluator for jobs at other universities - common in Europe).

I would have thought it should be listed under "service", or at least, this is probably where someone would (and should) list it at my university. At my university, teaching (as defined in the faculty handbook for annual merit raises, tenure, and promotion) only applies to courses officially taught at the university--all else is considered research or service. So, I guess what I would advice ECR to do is to see which category it fits in best where they are and put it there. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Transitioning to a new AOS before tenure?

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

I am in my first year of a TT position and I am wondering how (or whether) I can or should transition from my current area of research to a new one. I still find my current AOS relatively interesting, but I don't feel passionate about it. I feel much more interested in doing research in another AOS that I have little background in, but it seems like a bad idea to transition before I have tenure (because publishing and letters of recommendation for tenure). I would love advice on how to gradually transition, especially from those who have done something similar, so that perhaps I can make the shift over time while still meeting my tenure requirements. I am already planning on doing the most obvious thing, which is to teach content related to my new area of interest. But maybe there are other things I could or should do?

This is an excellent question. Another reader submitting the following reply:

It is imperative that you get tenure, after the struggle to get a TT job. So, be prudent. I was on the job market long enough - 5 years - such that I had a number of good publications (2 PhilSci papers, 2 PSA, 1 Synthese and others) Further, my first TT job was at a place where I was already upon being hired the most (or second most) productive scholar. I had already begun to publish in new areas. If you are in that situation, transitioning to new areas of research is easy. But if you have never published in this new area, perhaps divide your research time. But it is imperative to get tenure.

And a second reader added:

[L]ife is short so why not? Speaking from my own experience, I transitioned to another area as soon as I started my TT job, and this felt like the force of nature. But I guess we will both need to publish into the transition, in other words, make the transition by publishing. It won't be too difficult, I think, given your publishing experience and your passion in the new area.

These comments are both good, but personally I think a lot may depend here on what kind of job the OP is in. I've heard that at (some) R1s, what tenure and promotion (T&P) committees really care about is whether you are a "top name" in your AOS by the time you come up for tenure. If this is the kind of institution the OP is at, then transitioning to a new AOS could be an immense risk, as it might spread them too thin, distracting them from really making their mark in either AOS (the old one or the new one). On the other hand, if they are at an institution that just cares about publications (e.g. 1 publication a year in good journals), then it may not be so risky to transition to a new AOS...as long as they are publishing. Personally, if it were me--and I did publish outside of my original AOS leading up to tenure at the latter type of institution--I would probably keep my primary focus on my original AOS while beginning to publish occasionally in the new AOS.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear both from people who have transitioned AOSs prior to tenure (how did it work out?), as well as from people who have served on T&P committees either at the department or college level (what kind of institution are you at, and how would a candidate for tenure fare if they shifted their area of focus?). 

Early (tenure and) promotion?

A reader writes in:

I'm writing to ask if you could ... post the following question:  I'm looking for examples of philosophers who were promoted from Assistant to Associate within 5 years of receiving their PhD (not within 5 years of starting their job). In particular, I'm looking for examples of people who may have held postdocs or VAPs or other temporary roles before landing a TT, but still got promoted within 5 years of graduating. I imagine such cases might be rare, but I also suspect they exist. 

Crowdsourcing examples of this on the Cocoon would be very helpful to me. Long story short, I am in the atypical situation where my admin is basically looking for an excuse to promote me as quickly as possible. But it needs to be justified to outside accreditors in Europe, so concrete examples would help establish precedent. 

Indeed, it might be good to hear about cases of this, including the circumstances where it happens. Any readers have experience with this, either in their own case or with someone they know (e.g. in their department)?

Repeatedly publishing in the same journal?

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

How do we feel about having multiple publications in the same journal?

For instance, there are four major journals specific to my subfield. Of them, one is an absolute pleasure to work with; one has had egregious, well-documented problems with response time (i.e., taking many years); one has lesser issues with response time (i.e., taking many months); one has an acceptance rate of about 2% and hardly seems worth the effort.

Given this situation, sometimes I'm tempted to stop sending to the other three and only send to the 'good' one. Of course, I'm not actually going to do this, but I'm curious whether anyone has thoughts or stories about this subject. In particular, I wonder how multiple publications in the same (good, maybe A- level) journal would look to search committee or tenure committee members.

Good question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Assuming the journal is well-regarded, it's not clear to me why publishing repeatedly in the same journal should be a problem--or why search committees or a tenure committee should care. But maybe I'm missing something. Anyone have any helpful insights here?

Work habits on the tenure track?

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

As a (very) early career person, it would really help me to know how later career people spend (or spent, when they were on the tenure-track) their average week. How much time to you dedicate to writing? How do you make sure you are setting aside the right amount of time for editing / pipeline type work (responding to reviews, getting papers submitted) vs creating type work (developing new projects, drafting new paper sections)? I'm finding it difficult to navigate this and am curious if others have systems that work for him. I expect this varies widely, but it would still be helpful to hear about others' experiences.

These are very good questions, and I am very curious to hear how readers respond. It is difficult for me to give a simple answer in my own case, as during my time on the tenure-track (and post-tenure) my work habits have varied tremendously. A lot depends, I think, on how in need of publications one is. When I needed to publish a lot, if I had a two-day-a-week teaching schedule, I would basically spend the other three days of the week writing. On the other hand, during times that I didn't need to publish a lot or had a three or four day a week teaching schedule, there have been entire semesters when I've gotten very little writing done--and, in any case, I get the vast majority of my writing done during winter and summer breaks. In general, I've found it pretty difficult to shift-gears between teaching and research on "teaching days", and have friends who report the same thing--though maybe things are different in R1 jobs where one has a very light teaching load.

In terms of how I partition my writing time between pipeline-type work (editing pre-existing papers, completing R&Rs, etc.) and drafting new work, I'd say it's roughly 50/50. On writing days, I'll usually spend the first half of my day (say, 9am-1pm) drafting new work, and then the afternoon (2-5pm) on pipeline stuff. I will say that my sense is that it is vital to always be drafting new things. Most of the people that I know who are the most successful (including in terms of receiving tenure) are people who consistently publish a lot, and hence, always have quite a few things under review at any given time--which requires producing a lot of new work pretty consistently. 

But these are just my habits and experiences. What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from those on the tenure-track who are pretenure, but also (for obvious reasons) from those who received tenure. What does your average work week look like, and how do you partition your time between teaching and research, and between drafting new work and work in your pipeline?

Informing your department you're on the market?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I am in a TT position in a R1 university in a city where I know no one (also bc of CoViD). I am not unhappy, but another R1 university in a city where I have very deep roots has recently advertised an associate prof. position. It is unlikely that they will choose me, since I am not yet tenured, but it would be foolish for me not to apply. Should I mention it to the head of my department and my colleagues here? How?

My sense is that a lot of people in TT jobs apply for jobs elsewhere, and that it is probably a mistake to let your home department know. First, as the OP notes, the chances of getting a job elsewhere are low (particularly if it is a tenured position, as is the case here). Second, letting your department know could bias people at your institution against you, leading them to think, "So-and-so really doesn't want to be here." Although I'd like to think this wouldn't effect how people would treat you (including in tenure and promotion), you never know what the effects will be. Finally, I just don't think an employer has any right to know that you are looking for work elsewhere. It's your career, not theirs--and I think you probably only have an obligation to let them know once you have accepted an offer elsewhere.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Also, I'm very curious to hear what people think of a TT Assistant Prof applying for a tenured Associate position. Is there any realistic chance of a non-tenured person receiving a tenured appointment? I would have thought not, given how protracted the entire tenure process is (i.e. going through a department committee, college committee, Dean, Provost, and Board of Trustees). I seem to recall hearing that it is possible, but if so, I'm curious how it works and just how good an untenured candidate would need to be for this to happen.

'X and philosophy' books

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

I was wondering what people think about contributed chapters to "X and philosophy" books. Are they just considered a 'popular publication' or are they closer to a contributed chapter to an edited volume? Are they peer reviewed in any serious sense?

Good questions! I contributed a chapter a few years ago to Westworld and Philosophy, a book in Blackwell's Philosophy & Pop Culture Series. I enjoyed writing the piece a great deal, and it was cool to have the piece featured on a major fan site--and in addition to being fun to write, I think it's good for our discipline to be engaged in public philosophy and outreach like this. Obviously, given that the series is written for the general public, the piece wasn't technical or very advanced. But I do recall it being peer-reviewed, going through one round of minor revisions.

As for "what people think" of pieces like this, my sense is: it depends. Presumably, hiring and tenure committees at R1's aren't going to assign much (or any?) weight to these pieces, but I know second-hand that people at teaching-oriented colleges and universities--including tenure committees and (especially) administrators--love stuff like this. Remember, at teaching-oriented places, the primary focus is on students. More down-to-earth, popular-facing pieces like these can not only interest students in our disciplines, but also be featured in college magazines for parents, alumni, and donors--particularly if and when the pieces are featured various places online, increasing the university's visibility. In terms of how they should be listed on a CV, I'm not sure there is a clear-cut answer. On the one hand, my experience is that they are peer-reviewed, and often 'do real philosophy.' On the other hand, they are pitched toward a popular audience and presumably not reviewed with the same kind of rigor as more professional-facing work does. 

What do you all think? How do you view these pieces, and how do you think they should be listed on a CV?

 

What is the perceived value of invited pieces?

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

[W]hat is the perceived value of invited contributions to peer-reviewed volumes? My thoughts on this are that, on the one hand, such papers should be greatly valued since they show that the author is good enough/ respected enough to be invited to contribute to the volume. On the other hand, my impression is that the peer-review standards are not that high when it comes to edited volumes compared to regular journals. I have the impression that it is very hard to get rejected once invited to contribute. What are your thoughts on this topic?

I think we may have discussed this before, but these are very good questions that it's probably important for graduate students and job-candidates to get good answers to. What do you all think? For obvious reasons, it might be good to hear from people who have served on search committees or tenure and promotion committees. Having served on both kinds of committees myself, here are a few quick thoughts.

PhilPapers publication metrics?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I am wondering what - if anything - is the use of one's "Publication metrics" on PhilPeople. For those who aren't aware of this feature, PhilPeople provides users with their percentile rankings (Q1, Q2, Q3, top 5%, top 1%, etc.) for their publications, paper downloads, and citations, both overall and in specific subject areas. The rankings are relative to "pro" users, which are users with either a PhD in Philosophy or at least one publication in one of the "Most Popular" journals according to PhilPapers. Using this feature, you might learn that you are in the top 1% of downloads in say, Social Epistemology in the past five years, or that you are in the 90% percentile for publication volume in Value Theory.

I find this feature kind of neat. However, I can't imagine a situation where I would actually tell anyone about my publication metrics - if I did, I am sure it would be seen as being in bad taste. But at the same time, it seems like these metrics would be be useful information for search committees or for tenure and promotion cases: it's a decent way of showing whether or not people are actually engaging with your work, and how engagement with your research compares with others working in a similar area. Publication Metrics on PhilPeople is a bit like one's h-index and citations on Google Scholar, which I have heard of people mentioning for T&P, but PhilPeople has the advantage of being specific to the discipline, or even the sub-discipline. One issue might be that - unlike Google scholar citations and h-index - these metrics aren't public: as far as I can tell, one can only see one's own metrics, not those of others. I'm not sure why PhilPeople doesn't make them public, but doing so would mean that they're worth more than simple navel-gazing.

This is an interesting query. It does seem like these kinds of statistics might be useful in some regards when it comes to hiring or tenure and promotion. After all, the statistics do in essence 'compare you' to other specialists, indicating how much you publish in your field and how interested other people are in reading your work. On the other hand, I wonder how useful hiring or T&P committees might find this kind of information.

In any case, because I'm about as unsure as the OP on all of this, I'll open discussion to all of you: what do you think? Is this kind of PhilPapers information useful in any way above and beyond 'navel-gazing'? If so, how? Do you know of cases where it has been used (e.g. in hiring, etc.)? Should PhilPapers make the information public?

How many papers do you/should you write?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I am starting a TT job in a research heavy institution and have not done my PhD in an elite US program so I have what are likely silly/self-evident questions: how many papers do people work on at the same time? Or, how many papers do people typically write in a year? I am sure it varies tremendously but I wonder if people start one new paper a year and keep working on the ones who are going through review or if they start more projects than that, esp. while being on the TT. Thank you for your help!

These are great questions, especially given that some people are starting new jobs right now. I think there are two important sets of questions here:

1. How many papers do people write in a year, and work on at the same time?
2. How many papers should one write a year at an R1?

Here's my own quick answer to (1). I looked in my paper draft folders last night, and found that I now write, on average, something like 4-5 new papers per year. Because I often end up revising those papers over several years, this means that I often find myself with 10 paper projects at a time. I'll often bounce around between them, revising papers that are already written while beginning new ones. It wasn't always like this, though. Earlier in my career, when I got my first job, I worked much more slowly--on maybe like one or two new papers per year. Why the change? I think there are two explanations: it gets easier to write papers over time, but also, I wasn't publishing enough early in my career, so I had to increase my output.

Sprezzatura in Academia: is the myth of brilliance the aesthetic of cool?

Baldasar Castiglione's Book of the Courtier (1528) is a series of dialogues between hip Italian Renaissance courtiers who stayed over at the court of Guidobaldo da Montefeltro and Elizabetta Gonzaga and who debated a range of topics over several evenings. Their discussions ranged on which sport looks good to play (apparently, tennis), which musical instrument to learn (not the trumpet, just don't...), what knowledge to acquire in the humanities, and how to behave towards peers, and social superiors and inferiors. 

The Book of the Courtier tells its reader how to be the perfect courtier. Re-reading this lively and creative work over the summer, I considered that a lot of Castiglione's advice for Renaissance noblemen and women be lifted out and go straight into handbooks for placement directors.

Projects to (not) take on prior to tenure?

As I mentioned on Friday in response to a reader's request, I'd like to begin a new series here focusing on tips for tenure-track faculty. If you're currently on the tenure-track or otherwise have questions about how to flourish in a tenure-track position, please feel free to share your query in the comments section below that post. I'd like to begin the series today by addressing the first question posed by the reader who originally suggested the Cocoon focus more on these issues. The reader asks: what projects shouldn't one take on before tenure (e.g. maybe writing a book?)?

This is a very good question, as my sense is that people on the tenure-track can get themselves into difficult positions by either over-committing to things or by committing to the wrong kinds of things. We actually discussed the other week whether it makes sense to try to publish a book prior to tenure. Although only a few people chimed in there, the general sentiment appeared to be that trying to publish a book before tenure is risky--though, as one reader noted, the best thing to do here is to ask one's department chair (and, I would add, get their answer in writing). Here's one other reason to believe this to be really important: I actually heard of a case on social media recently where the reason given for a tenure denial (at an R1) was that the philosopher in question hadn't published a book. Indeed, in addition to asking one's department chair, cases like these suggest to me that it's vital to find out (and again, get in writing) exactly what is expected of one in progressing successfully toward tenure.

But this is just one example. Are there other projects that individuals on the tenure-track should--and, importantly, should not--take on while on the tenure track? I'm really curious to hear what readers think. But here are a few examples that occurred to me:

1. Editing a book: As gratifying as it may feel to edit a book, my sense is that this is in general probably not a great way to spend one's time prior to tenure. The reason why is simple: I've heard that editing a book takes a ton of time, but it probably won't carry much weight in a tenure-and-promotion decision. When it comes to evaluating the research productivity of a candidate for tenure, my sense is that T&P committees (both in departments, and equally importantly, at the college level) tend to focus far more on original research (i.e. authored articles and books). It simply doesn't seem plausible to me that editing a book is likely to be a positive difference-maker in terms of getting tenure. What it may do is take a great deal of time, impacting your ability to publish the kind of original research that T&P committees are actually likely to care about.
2. Publishing articles in edited collections: While there's nothing wrong with publishing an article or two (or three) in edited collections prior to tenure--particularly if your piece is in an edited collection with a notable press--my admittedly anecdotal sense is that some pre-tenure people go overboard here, primarily publishing in edited collections rather than in anonymously peer-reviewed journals. For what it is worth, my experience here is that in cases like these, T&P committees may have real reservations. Many publications in edited collections, after all, are 'invited' and it's not always clear just how anonymized the reviewing for such collections is. The mere fact that a piece is invited, after all, is itself a kind of 'thumb on the scale' that doesn't exist in the case of journal submissions--and peer-reviewers for pieces in edited collections may be inclined to be more supportive than reviewers for journals, assuming that if a piece is invited, that is a prima facie reasons to provide a favorable verdict. To be clear, I'm not asserting that this is the case (that is, that edited collections don't have the same peer-review standards as journals). What I am saying is that T&P committees--who a candidate for tenure has no control over--may have these kinds of reservations, for better or worse. My recommendation for anyone on the tenure-track, then, is to prioritize publishing in anonymously peer-reviewed journals. It's okay, I think, to publish a few pieces in edited collections. However, if most of your publications are in edited collections, I worry that it could come back to haunt you in a T&P decision.
3. Overcommitting to service: People in universities today tend to take service very seriously. As a tenure-track faculty member, my experience is that you will be nearly-constantly bombarded with requests to take on more service--to serve on this committee or that, or to even head some kind of institute. Alas, my experience here is also that as serious as people take service, one's service record is probably the least likely thing to 'make the difference' in an eventual tenure and promotion decision. Here, my experience is that T&P committees tend to care the most about research and teaching. If (depending upon the kind of institution you are at) your research and teaching records are sufficient for tenure and promotion, chances are you'll get a favorable decision--and conversely, if either your research or teaching record is insufficient for tenure or promotion, you may get an unfavorable decision. Service, in my experience, is sort of regarded like 'whip-cream on the top' of a dessert. T&P committees look favorable upon service, and you should almost certainly engage in some fair amount of service. The problem, though, is that it can be very easy to take on too much service. Again, my experience is that once you are on the tenure-track, you will get asked to do more and more service on a near-continual basis--and so, if you don't learn how to say no and 'jealously guard your time', you may very well find yourself in a situation where you lack sufficient time to publish and/or teach effectively...and these are the things that, far more often than one's service record, are likely to make a difference when it comes to tenure. 

Anyway, these are just three things that immediately occurred to me off the top of my head. What do you all think? Which projects should--and shouldn't--one take on before tenure?

Mid-career moves?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader ('feeling stuck') writes:

I have a question about mid-career growth and/or moves. I'm up for tenure soon, and all signs suggest I will be successful. I should feel relieved and grateful, but I don't see much room for growth at my very, very small institution and feel a bit stuck. My position is primarily teaching and service with very little research support, though I've tried to establish a robust research trajectory. I love teaching, but I don't want to only teach.

I'm super burnt out, but feel like I need to stay competitive (whatever that means) in case something else comes along. But I'm also in a good location and close to family, and reluctant to give that up. Are these just normal growing pains? Is it okay to feel like I'm settling? Any advice from others at small institutions?

Great questions, and I'm curious to hear what other readers think. My sense is that it can be very difficult to move institutions after tenure, particularly if you're at a small institution--as most senior jobs seem to be at research institutions, hiring people from other research institutions. I do know a few people who moved from small institutions to senior positions at R1s post-tenure, so I do know that it can be done, at least in principle. However, these cases seem few and far between, and in today's market environment it seems to me one probably has to be a 'rock star' of sorts at research to be competitive for these jobs.

In terms of the OP's final questions ('Are these just normal growing pains? Is it okay to feel like I'm settling?'), my sense from talking to people is that it is totally normal, and quite a lot of people feel this way. Most of us were educated in top research departments, and so it can be natural (even for those of us who value and enjoy teaching) to wish that we had more time and resources for research. Still, as natural as these wishes may be, I guess my thoughts here are three-fold: (1) One shouldn't look a gift-horse in the mouth as it were. Those of us who have full-time tenured (!) jobs are in general very lucky to have them, and it is entirely possible to be a good and productive researcher even with a high teaching load; (2) If you're that burnt out (as the OP says), then one of the great things about tenure is that it provides a lot more freedom to decide where to invest one's energies (one can, for example, back off from particularly intensive teaching practices to focus more on research); and (3) Although there's nothing wrong with 'settling', it's entirely up to you whether you want to keep pushing (as it were) to publish in top places in pursuit of a potential move to another institution (again, I've known people who did it!).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Delaying publication dates for tenure?

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

Here's a question that I've only had the opportunity to ponder in the abstract.

Some places only count pubs towards tenure if they came out while you're officially at that college/university, i.e. stuff you published in previous jobs elsewhere doesn't count towards tenure.

Have people ever tried delaying publications when transitioning to a new job (especially NTT to TT). Either by explicitly asking a journal that has accepted a paper to wait or more informally by dragging one's feet to submit an R&R draft? Do people have other strategies?

To reiterate, hold the rotten veggies, I don't have a TT offer and a forthcoming paper. Just curious if this is a thing.

Interesting question, and a good one to ask, as I expect not all readers know of this feature of many TT jobs. My university works like this. When you come up for tenure, candidates are evaluated only on what they have done since starting the job. So, publication dates can make a big difference. I guess I don't think it's appropriate to try to ask a journal to delay publication (though I'd be very curious to hear if any readers think it is appropriate and/or have tried it!). I guess I'm also not sure whether it's a great idea to delay completing an R&R for this reason, as plenty of R&R's are rejected and it's always possible that if you delay publishing, the literature will move on in some way that renders your argument passé (undermining your ability to ever publish the relevant paper). Personally, this is something that always stresses me out, as there have been a few occasions in my career where I was 'beaten to the punch' on an argument that appeared in the literature. So, I generally try to publish quickly. But of course these are just my predilections, and I know mine aren't everyone's. 

Anyway, what do you all think? It might be good to hear from readers who have found themselves in the OP's situation. Do you have any inside tips?

Tenure standards for research at a public university w/o a philosophy grad program?

A reader writes in:

At a public university without a graduate program in Philosophy, but in a College and University with high expectations for research and scholarship, what are the expectations of junior faculty coming up for tenure about the number of publications in good journals? My sense is about 1 a year, so that in the 6th year, the candidate has 4-5 good publications. My sense is that talks at professional meetings or works in progress or under review do not count officially as research productivity. Does everyone agree?

This is a great query, and I'm really curious to hear from readers who work at a university similar to the OP's. What are tenure standards in research at your university?

Soliciting tenure recommendation letters at R1s?

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

I am an assistant professor at an R1 university, preparing to come up for tenure. We are required to come up with a list of 12 references, all of which, (1) are experts in our own field of research, (2) are full professors (not just tenured), (3) work at R1 universities.

I thought I was doing pretty good with a solid list of 8 references, as that was always more than enough for anything I needed. (And 7 will actually fit the R1/full professor requirement.) 12 seems a lot to me, given that they have to be full professors at R1 universities. (I haven't looked into exactly how R1 is defined, but I will be curious how international universities are considered.)

I was told that only 4 would be asked to write "full-letters," and that the rest would be asked to write "notes." Who writes what is up to the tenure committee. They said that up to 4 professors, and one "full-letter" writer, could flake out without causing too much trouble. I am not sure if declining rather than flaking out would be different.

I do feel lucky that I work in a pretty broad field. I can't imagine working in one of the more narrow speciality areas and having to come up with that list. Anyway, I have a few questions:

1.) Is my university's requirement typical for R1 universities?

2.) If it is typical, (or even if not) is it normal to ask someone you don't know very well to be a tenure reference? I have more than enough publications for my university's typical tenure case, and I am pretty sure my "reserved" group of 8 will write great letters. However, I just don't know what will happen if I approach people in my field I don't know personally. My work isn't the type to involve a lot of back and forth with the literature, so even those who work in my area might or might not know have much familiarity with my work. Anyway, I guess I am just curious if it is typical to write tenure letters for persons you don't know personally?

I am horrible socially, and it took a lot of effort to cultivate the relationships that I did. It is a bit demoralizing to worry that I haven't done enough, especially because my research area tends to be pretty cliquey, and I always feel out of place at conferences. Conferences (or the talk giving parts) are like standing standing around awkwardly during high school lunch hour all over again.

Lastly, I imagine this question will only get speculative answers, but does anyone think universities might be tougher with tenure because of budget constraints? It seems if they are looking to save money, they might be happy to get rid of a tenure line at a time when they have a good excuse for not replacing it.

I'm really curious to hear answers to the OP's questions from readers in the know, as I have no idea what the answers are (tenure at my institution doesn't require outside letters at all, so I have nothing go on here!). Do any readers out there have tips or advice to share to help the OP? 

Defending tenure at KU

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

I'm a grad student at KU's (University of Kansas) philosophy department. I'm not sure how widespread this news is, but I'd appreciate you guys sharing the following with your readers, if it meets the standards for content.

"The KU administration is moving forward with the optional KBOR (Kansas Board of Regents) Policy to suspend tenure protections here that would not only eject us from the AAU, it would threaten accreditation of all our programs and, in the process, significantly diminish the value of a KU degree. In the news, this issue is covered as professors upset at the prospect of losing our cushy jobs. It's not. There are already numerous ways to fire them and our salaries are part of the public record. We're speaking out in defense of KU's educational mission and its status as a leader amongst US universities. We're speaking out in defense of our students, who deserve to have the quality of their work reflected in the value of their diploma. Also, it'd be helpful if people would sign the petition. https://sites.google.com/view/kufacultydemands/solidarity-statement.

While the solidarity statement no longer appears to be available, I encourage readers to speak out in defense of tenure at KU in any way we reasonably can! More details are available here: 'The Fight for the University of Kansas' (Chronicle of Higher Ed).

Posting your dissertation online?

In our November "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I recently have had a number of requests for a pdf of my dissertation. I defended in 2018 and am currently a postdoc. At the moment, I've polished and published a few sections of the dissertation; however, I'm currently in the process of refining other elements into their own proper articles. Is there any reason, besides the somewhat dated content and style, that I shouldn't post a pdf version of my dissertation on my website? When I've searched for advice on this topic, I've found blog posts (usually from other humanities fields) that recommend not making the dissertation freely available (e.g. https://theprofessorisin.com/2011/08/24/the-perils-of-publishing-your-dissertation-online/). I would love some advice from folk in the tenure-track process on this matter.

This is an interesting question that I have to confess never coming across before. Having read The Professor Is In's post above, the main worry there seems to be book publishers not wanting to publish something that's already available online. However, this worry seems to me a bit overblown in philosophy. My understanding is that some disciplines (English?) generally expect faculty to publish books for tenure. But this isn't the case in philosophy, and my impression is that publishing dissertations as books is pretty rare. Further, the Professor Is In updated their post with data indicating that almost no publisher would refuse to publish a substantially revised dissertation, and that posting dissertations online is in general no obstacle to tenure.

By my lights, a more relevant worry about posting dissertations online might be 'idea poaching', i.e. someone reading your dissertation and publishing ideas based on yours without appropriate attribution. Here again, though, I'm not sure how seriously to take the worry, and of course in one sense 'publishing' your dissertation online (via ProQuest or even on PhilPeople) does constitute a public record of the relevant ideas being yours. So, I'm really not sure what to advise. I uploaded my dissertation to PhilPapers prior to obtaining tenure, and it didn't prevent me from obtaining tenure or from publishing papers based upon it.

What do you all think?

How to list talks on a CV

In our October "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

How should talks appear on a CV? I'm late-junior stage (about to be tenured) so I've given more than a few. Do I just list the most recent? Going back how far? Do I list the most prestigious and somehow indicate that it's a selected list? Do I not list any? For context, the 'talks' section of my CV is currently taking up a little over a page, about the same as my publications. How do other people navigate this?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

A common practice is to have a list of invited talks, and then a list of refereed conference talks. Each list is labelled - clearly! I assume, if you have some publications (a page worth), that that is what will really determine whether you get tenure or not. Talks are much more important for early career people with few pubs. I am far along, and generally just list recent talks.

I'm curious what other people think. What do you all do, and why?

 

Publication expectations post-tenure

I came across an interesting discussion on social media the other day on what publishing expectations are like after tenure. Although answers varied, if I recall correctly the most common answer was that to 'meet departmental expectations', tenured people at R1's are expected to publish something like 1 journal article per year in a good journal. Given that this is (or so I've heard) something like what people are expected to do to get tenure in the first place, this means that tenured faculty (at least at R1's) are expected to do something like 'keep up the same output' necessary for achieving tenure. 

To be clear, I don't get the impression that anything like this standard holds at all universities. At some teaching-oriented SLACs, for example, one needn't publish anything like 1 article per year to get tenure, and one certainty isn't expected to keep up that kind of rate after tenure (indeed, my sense is that at SLACs, research standards both prior to and after tenure can be nebulous). Still, I am curious: what does everyone out there make of the one-article-per-year standard post tenure?

My own reaction is that I found it rather disturbing. Why? Well, for a couple of reasons. First, by incentivizing people to 'keep up their output' post-tenure, it seems to me like it disincentivizes the kind of deep, broad, slow, careful, and systematic thinking that historically, at least, seems to have led to the most important kind of work in philosophy. For example, it took Kant twelve years to come up with the Critique of Pure Reason, and Rawls something like a decade to finish A Theory of Justice. Obviously, few philosophers will ever produce work as important or influential as these--but still, it seems to me that this is something that we should want tenure to do: give research the time to think deeply, broadly, and systematically rather than pump out article after article. And indeed, when I look at academic philosophy a few decades ago, that seems to me to have been how tenure worked. Second, it seems to me that the 'one-article-per-year' standard contributes substantially to the phenomenon of journals being overrun with too many submissions--something that in turn makes the entire review process worse for everyone (for editors, reviewers, and authors alike). 

Anyway, maybe I'm missing something, but that was my reaction. What do you all think? What are post-tenure research standards like at your institution? Do you think they are good ones, or do you think they should be changed? Why? 

How are different types of publications weighted?

Yesterday on social media I came across an interesting question: namely, how different types of publications are weighted, both on the job market and in tenure and promotion. Among other things, it was brought to my attention that different types of publications can be valued more in some countries than others. For example, I learned that in Germany, publications in edited volumes are looked upon very highly, but that in the UK, this may not be true (with exceptions, perhaps, for publications in volumes published by OUP or CUP). Similarly, I heard that public philosophy (i.e. publications in popular press such as Aeon, The New York Times, etc.) can be looked upon highly in the US, but not in other countries. I think it might be great to crowdsource more information about these differences in the comments section below.

I also think it might be good to hear people's thoughts on other particular issues, such as how it looks to a search committee  or tenure and promotion (T&P) committee when most of a candidate's publications are in edited volumes (as opposed to journals). For example, suppose someone has a publication or two in decent but not great journals, but a bunch of publications in edited volumes by top-ranked presses with influential editors. How do people think this looks on the job-market and in T&P? On the one hand, I imagine that it may look good to publish in volumes put together by big name editors for good presses. On the other hand, I've always wondered whether publishing primarily in edited volumes may raise the following concern: namely, that publishing in edited volumes is a more ambiguous measure of research quality than publishing in journals. After all, one of the key things about journal publishing--at least in the present system--is that peer-review is anonymized. In edited volumes, on the other hand, the editors know who you are and (depending on the review process) so too may any reviewers they send your chapter to. Because content for edited volumes isn't selected by a fully (double- or triple-) anonymized process, the worry is that readers (i.e. search committees or T&P committees) won't feel in a good position to know if the work was selected primarily on its merits or as a result of the person having 'good connections.'

For these reasons, I can't help but wonder--at least in terms of job-market success and eventual tenure decisions--whether candidates should focus primarily on journal publishing. Maybe I'm off on this--it's just something I've long wondered about, and figured it might be good to hear from more people about. Anyway, what do you all think, particularly those of you with good experience in these matters? How are different kinds of publications weighted on the job-market and T&P? How do things differ from country to country? And how do things differ with respect to department types (e.g. do R1 institutions weigh certain things more heavily than non-R1's)?

Tenure standards at state schools?

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

I have a question about the tenure standards at state schools that focus on undergraduate teaching. It seems clear that research schools really emphasize publications and SLACs emphasize teaching (with ok publications). What about those state schools that only have undergraduate programs? The jobs at these schools require people to focus on teaching, and the workload is similar to (or heavier than) the SLACs. However, some of these schools are research universities. Is teaching still the main focus when one is considered for promotion at those schools?

Good questions. My sense is that it may vary quite a bit, as I've seen philosophy departments at some state schools whose faculty regularly publish in top-ranked journals (suggestive of high tenure standards), whereas I've seen departments at other state schools where the faculty seem to publish very little. But this sense is based on little more that visiting department webpages when I was a job-candidate. Any faculty at state schools with undergrad-only philosophy programs willing to chime in with some insight?

Tenure appeals

Thus far in this series on tenure, we've discussed clarity of tenure standards at time of offer, different universities' actual tenure standards, the tenure process itself, life after tenure, and tenure denials. In this, the final entry I have planned for the series, I would like to discuss tenure appeals. Here are some questions it might be illuminating to hear answers to:

1. What is your university's tenure appeal process?
2. If you were denied tenure and appealed, what was your experience of the process like?
3. If you won (or lost) your appeal, what were the grounds for the decision?
4. Did you/do you think the appeals process was fair?
5. If you have been through the process, is there anything else you think people should know?

My university's tenure appeal process is detailed here in our faculty handbook (section I). Because I have no experience with the process beyond what is written there, I don't consider myself in a good position to answer any of the other above questions. However, I do hope some readers with experience in these matters choose to weigh in, as I imagine there is a good number of readers out there who would benefit from learning more about appeals, including how often appeals are successful, whether appeals processes are fair, and so on. Anyone with any experience or insight (including, potentially, people who have served on appeals committees) able and willing to share? 

Tenure denials

Thus far in this series, we've discussed clarity of tenure standards at time of offer, different universities' actual tenure standards, the tenure process itself, and life after tenure. In my last two posts in this series (I think), I'd like to discuss tenure denials and tenure appeals. In today's post, I'd like to focus on the former: that is, on tenure denials themselves. Given that tenure denials can be an important (if negative) event in a person's career, affecting their future career path and prospects, I think it may be important to discuss them and try to learn more about how and why they occur, as well as how those who have been denied tenure grappled with the situation. For although there are some online discussions of these matters, I have to confess that I can't ever recall seeing these issues discussed openly in academic philosophy.

Here, at any rate, are some potential questions:

1. When someone is denied tenure, what exactly were the grounds are provided to the person?
2. What level(s) did the decision emenate from (their department committee?, college committee?, Dean?, etc.)?
3. When a person has been denied tenure, how did they grapple with it personally and professionally? Did they appeal the decision? Did they leave academia? Move to a different academic position? What kind of position?
4. Do they have any advice for others, including advice for other scholars facing the situation, but also potential advice for family members and colleagues (in terms of providing appropriate care and support)?

Although I understand that these may be difficult issues to discuss, I do hope some readers choose to chime in--the aim being to potentially help current and future tenure-candidates (and their loved ones and colleagues) to better understand and think about answers to the above questions. On that note, notice that although questions (3) and (4) primarily apply to individuals who have faced tenure denial themselves, others (e.g. members of departmental or college tenure committees) may chime in on questions (1) and (2).

Anyone have any insight or experiences they are willing to share?

After tenure

Thus far in this series, we've discussed clarity of tenure standards at time of offer, different universities' actual tenure standards, and the tenure process itself. I'm a bit surprised that no one else weighed in on the process at their university, but maybe people will weigh in on that at some point. In any case, in my final three posts in this series (I think), I'd like to discuss life after tenure, tenure denials, and tenure appeals. In today's post, I'd like to discuss the first: life after tenure. Specifically, I'd like to pose the following questions:

1. How did you change after tenure (e.g. in your professional life, personal life, etc.)?
2. How did your job itself change after tenure?
3. Is there anything else in particular about life after tenure that you'd like to convey to readers?

I'm really curious to hear how others answer these questions. But allow me to begin!

What's your university's tenure process like?

Thus far in this series we've examined (1) how clearly tenure standards are conveyed at the time of hire, and (2) what tenure standards are actually like at different types of universities. In today's thread, I'd like to hear from readers what their university's tenure process is like. It will be very interesting to see how similar or different the processes are at different places.

My university's tenure process is described in detail in our faculty handbook. Although I won't try to summarize everything here, the basics are as follows: a candidate comes up for pretenure review mid-way through their third year. In most respects, the process here is just like their tenure review three years later. The candidate uploads materials to folders in Blackboard: everything ranging from their CV to a 6-10+ page narrative discussing their approaches to and accomplishments in research, teaching, and service, to grade distributions, to publications, student evaluations, and so on. Their file is then considered by a departmental review committee that writes a letter stating how well they are doing. That letter then goes to a college-wide review committee that considers the letter as well as their own judgment of the candidate's file. Then the college committee writes a letter, and both letters go to the Dean. Evaluations are supposed to be based on and speak to these criteria. Then the candidate is supposed to meet with both committees and the Dean to discuss the committees' letters--and, if the candidate disagrees with anything, they can write a rebuttal letter. However, the pretenure process is supposed to be helpful to the candidate, conveying to their peers in their department and college judge their progress toward tenure. Given that all full-time faculty also have annual performance evaluations (and merit raises) judged by their Dean, tenure candidates at my university are given a lot of feedback on the record on how they are doing from the date they are hired. There are also a number of processes in place to ensure fairness, such as conditions for recusal from a committee, etc.

The tenure process itself, two years after that (at the beginning of the sixth year), is similar--except this time the Dean writes a letter making a recommendation to the Provost and President, who in turn make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. It appears to be very uncommon, but not unheard of, for a Dean (etc.) to make a different recommendation than a departmental or college faculty committee. Another thing that is notable about our process is that it is not the norm for pretenure or tenure candidates to provide outside letters of recommendation--which I wholeheartedly approve of, as I don't think tenure should be a popularity contest. Our procedures do make it possible for a committee or Dean to request information above and beyond that which the candidate supplies in their file, but the candidate must be notified and the committee may not otherwise make a decision on the basis of anything not included in the file. It is also possible in rare cases for someone to be tenured but not promoted to the Associate level. Finally, there is an official appeals process involving a Hearing Committee.

I am a big fan of our Tenure and Promotion (T&P) process. My experience--though it is restricted only to my College of Arts and Letters--is that it tends to be fair and (perhaps unusually?) transparent, and that candidates can have a very good idea of where they stand (in terms of likelihood of gaining tenure and promotion) given their annual performance reviews and the pretenure process, which more or less specifies what it is expected for the candidate to get tenure and promotion. But this is just our process. What is your university's tenure and promotion process like? Does it differ substantially? How?

What are your university's tenure standards?

Last month, I began a new series on tenure. Basically, the hope is to give people who have never been through the process a better idea of what it is like, including what tenure standards are like at different types of institutions. I am hopeful that the series will not only benefit grad students and job-marketeers, but also the profession more broadly--so that we can all reflect on different types of practices, institutional processes, standards, and so on. In my first post in the series, I asked readers to share how clearly their university's tenure standards were conveyed at the time they were offered their jobs. Although there were not a ton of comments, some readers indicated that tenure standards were made clear by the time of offer, whereas others reported only being given a vague picture. However, the general consensus seemed to be that to the extent that tenure standards are conveyed by the time of offer, they tend to only be shared verbally rather than in writing. This all coheres with my own experience.

In today's post, I'd like to solicit reader comments to a broader question: what in fact are the tenure standards at your institution? Given that this question asks not only what people were conveyed at the time of their job offer, but rather what their institution's tenure standards in fact are (or, at any rate, appear to be), my hope is that we will get a lot more data on this one. Here, more specifically, are the questions I'd like to put to readers:

1. What type of institution are you at? An 'elite R1' (Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale, etc.)? A 'non-elite R1' (see here)? A 'Leiter-ranked R1'? An 'R2' (see here)? An 'elite SLAC' (selective liberal arts college)? A 'non-elite SLAC' (small liberal arts college)? Community college? Some category of university outside of the North American system? In which country?
2. What matters most in tenure decisions at your institution?:Research? Teaching? Service? Can you assign a rough percentage to each area in terms of how much they seem to matter?
3. What do the tenure standards at your institution appear to be in each area?: What counts as necessary (and sufficient?) in research for tenure? What about teaching? Service? Etc.

I really look forward to hearing people's answers, and hope a lot of people choose to chime in! I'll chime in down in the comments section as well. 

Clarity of tenure standards at time-of-offer

A few weeks ago, I mentioned that I wanted to start a new series on tenure. This series is inspired by my general sense that, despite how important tenure in many people's careers, it is an issue that seems to be rarely talked about. What exactly is the tenure process like? What are tenure standards like? How clearly and consistently are they conveyed and enforced? And how do all of these things differ across different types of institutions (elite R1's, R2's, SLACs, community colleges, etc.)? My sense is not only that many job-candidates that don't know the answers to questions, but in fact that many senior members of the profession may not have a very good grasp of the answers to them either. This series aims to shed some greater clarity on these issues.

I would like to begin this series by asking readers who have obtained tenure-track jobs to chime in on the following series of questions:

1. How clearly were your hiring department's/institution's tenure-standards converyed at your time-of-offer (i.e. before you actually accepted the job)? Were you given any clear picture of what those standards are, or no clear picture at all? If you were given a clear picture, how clear was it? How exactly was it conveyed: merely verbally or in writing? Did you have to ask or even press them to find out, or were their tenure standards presented to you without you having to ask?
2. If tenure standards were conveyed to you at your time of offer, what exactly were the standards conveyed?
3. What kind of institution were you hired into the tenure track to--for example, an 'elite R1' (Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale, etc.), a 'non-elite R1' (see here), a 'Leiter-ranked R1', an 'R2' (see here), an 'elite SLAC' (selective liberal arts college), a 'non-elite SLAC' (small liberal arts college), a community college, a special category of university outside of the North American system? In which country?
4. How accurately do the tenure standards that were conveyed to you represent the actual tenure standards that appear to you to exist in your department/university post-hire?

I am really curious to hear people's answers, and hope tenure-track and tenured readers take the time to answer. A good series of answers may not only help present and future job-candidates, but also provide the rest of us a clearer picture of the kinds of practices (both good and bad) and differences that exist across the academy!

New series on tenure

Yesterday, I came across an interesting discussion on social media on what tenure requirements are at different schools. Because it is clear from that discussion and others discussions I have encountered that tenure requirements differ greatly at different institutions, I thought it might be good to run a short series on the tenure process and tenure requirements. It occurred to me that such a series might be of interest to a variety of the blog's readers, including job-marketeers (who might benefit from better awareness of differences in the tenure process and standards across institutions), tenure-track faculty who have not gone up for tenure yet, and members of the profession more generally.

Anyway, I tentatively plan this series to cover the following topics:

• What tenure processes themselves are like at different institutions
• How clearly and consistently tenure standards are stated and conveyed to job-candidates
• What tenure standards are like at different kinds of institutions
  • R1 (research) institutions
  • Elite liberal arts universities
  • Non-elite liberal arts universities
  • Regional public state schools (non-R1's)
  • Community colleges
• What tenure-denial is like and involves (including potential for appeals)

Are there any other topics the series should cover? If so, please let me know in the comments section below this post. Because the quality of information this series provides will depend on reader comments, I'd like to encourage readers to share posts in the series, so that readers who may have experience and insight in these matters can chime in! For now, I'd just like to solicit suggestions on any additional topics to cover in the series. The first substantive post in the series will come in the next day or two!

Reader query on pregnancy and having children while on the tenure track

An anonymous reader writes: 

“I am currently in a tenure-track job that I love so far, and my partner and I are hoping to have kids (at least one, but maybe two). When I was a job candidate, I heard horror stories about departments not wanting to hire women candidates in case they might get pregnant. Now, I’m worried that if I get pregnant and go on leave before tenure, that could hurt me in some way. Since my biological clock is running out before my tenure clock, I was hoping I might be in good enough shape to go up for tenure early and have kids after – but that plan puts a ton of stress on me to publish a lot of good work and fast. (And the prospect is taking a toll on my mental health.) Does anyone have advice for what people who want to have kids should do in this sort of situation? If we do have kids before tenure, are two full years of teaching sufficient before going on leave for this reason?”

I imagine many readers face this issue, and would welcome any insights from them. 

How are co-authored papers regarded for tenure?

An anonymous reader writes in:

I am now in the the tenure process and one question that naturally arises is the value of certain kinds of publications. Since co-authored publications become more and more common in philosophy, the question arises how they count, esp. in the tenure procedure. There was some discussion about this topic on Brian Leiter's Blog in 2013 (https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2013/02/co-authorship-in-philosophy.html). One commentator argues that co-authored papers should not count that much towards tenure because they do not demonstrate that the candidate has the potential to publish in the future. This argument rests, however, on the contingent fact that most philosophical papers are single authored. If more philosophers publish co-authored papers, the ability to contribute to such papers becomes an important aspect of successful publishing. I would thus see co-authorship is an additional skill that will become more and more important in our scholarly context. Hence, I would not value co-authored papers against single-authored papers, but see them as their "own beasts". I am curious what colleagues think about this issue

This is a good query. Although we've discussed co-authorship on at least a few occasions, I'm always happy to return to the issue because I think it's an important one. Judging from past discussions here and elsewhere, there seems to be something of a prejudice against co-authorship in philosophy, though this may be changing. In any case, having just read the Leiter thread anonymous links to in their query, I think the following comment by Mark van Roojen is probably fairly accurate:

Tenure is a global judgement, not about a person's past work, but about how they'll continue to contribute. Coauthoring a good paper where there are other single author papers of similar quality is more evidence that one will continue to contribute over time, perhaps even in a different collaborative way from the way the single author papers display. Writing *only* coauthored papers is something that less clearly presents evidence of continued contribution. The mixture seems to me greater than the sum of its parts in this context.

Learning how and when to say 'no'

This is a guest post by Kevin Timpe, Jellema Chair of Christian Philosophy at Calvin College 

My writing a post on how to say ‘no’ is roughly like my writing a post on how to drink less coffee. In some ways, I'm the last person that should do it given that I struggle with it so much. But I’m hoping that my own struggles (which, to be honest, continue) might provide some useful guidance or discussion.

I’m a pluralist about the kinds of scholarship we ought to engage in (e.g., for the academic guild, but also for the general public); the kinds of projects that people should engage in (e.g., I think that articles and books and edited collections and book reviews are all worth doing). As I tell my students when we discuss Augustine, most times we have to decide not between obviously good and bad choices, but between different good options. The trick is in figuring out how to weigh those goods properly, especially given their opportunity costs.

In terms of knowing what to do (and thus how to better know how to say know), one needs to know the details of one’s position. What you should say ‘yes’ to and ‘no’ to is shaped, in large part, by what your position expects of you. My department has a very helpful document on what we expect in terms of scholarship for promotion and tenure. It’s 8 pages single spaced, discussing the purpose, scope, audiences, and expectations for scholarship. It includes four different sample scholarly dossiers that might be sufficient for tenure in our department. It’s a very helpful document, and I’m grateful to the colleagues that put it together before I arrived. But my favorite line of the whole document is this gem from page 2: “Policy can never replace phronesis.” This is good advice.

If you don’t have tenure, your focus in scholarly projects should be those projects that are more likely to earn you tenure. (The pragmatic advice in the previous sentence is defeasible. Some things are worth doing despite the opportunity costs even if they won’t help earn you tenure.) Only do a book review, for instance, if you know it’s a book that you know you need to read anyway. And maybe not even then. Obviously, once you have tenure you have a fair bit more freedom to do what you want, and this makes it easier to say no to some things and harder to say no to others.

For me, the biggest trick has been to not let side projects get in the way of my main research focus. I’ve long used some papers, especially co-authored ones, as ‘fall-back’ projects—papers to work on when I have time and energy to write but am stuck on my main projects. I let my co-authors know this. I think having projects like these help increase one’s productivity. But one has to be careful to not have too many side projects—especially when they come with deadlines, such as for an edited volume. For the past three years, for instance, I’ve had an idea for a book I want to write and a press that’s interested in it. But I’ve taken on too many other projects that are keeping me from turning directly to it. Don’t do that. For me, focusing on the main trajectory makes it easier to say no to other things.

Reflections on my upcoming 40th birthday, hitting targets, and our relevance in the profession

In less than a month, I will be 40 years old. 

In my early 30s, I took away my date of birth from social media and from my CV.

The reason behind this was that I worried about being regarded as "past my prime", especially for hiring committees. It took me a while to get funding for my PhD and then it took me a while to get a second PhD, as well as several postdoc positions. I also had two children. My partner was the primary caregiver for both through their early years, so I only took a few months off for each birth. Still, this all takes time--and time goes on inexorably. 

In the past I could not help thinking, "By age 40, I should..."

• Have a permanent job, check. Still, what is permanent these days? 
• Bought house, nope. Too expensive. 
• Published a paper in one of the top-3 philosophy journals, nope. (I should start writing in a different way and actually submit to these things, so it doesn't seem to be that big a priority). Etc. 

We use age as a measuring-rod, a series of checkpoints that we should have reached. Seeing younger people getting all sorts of accolades and accomplishments fills us with gladness for them, but also amps up our insecurity, as if we're missing the targets we need to hit. A bit like looking at the ultrasound of a gestating fetus, there are these set checkpoints that we evaluate ourselves by. By age x I surely should have accomplished y. Otherwise, there's a problem.

Getting tenure standards in writing?

In the comments section responding to Ash's recent query on grappling with tenure denial, Ash writes:

Thanks so much everyone again. I hadn't expected so many people to recommend appealing. I have looked into it and I suppose I will appeal, if only to voice my disappointment with the inconsistencies and lack of transparency in the process...

One final question: did other people *get* their tenure standards in writing? They were shared with me a couple of times during the fly-out--once by another assistant professor at the time, who left for another position before I started--and at a few meetings, two with the Chair, since then. But I never thought to get them in writing. I've asked the three other people who have been assistant professors since I joined here, and they all said they were given the same formula--X number of articles, Y number of articles in top journals--but none of us were given it in writing. And we never thought to get it because... There didn't seem to be any disagreement about what the standards were. And we wouldn't have anticipated this kind of situation.

Amanda added, "I would love to hear people's thoughts about getting tenure in standards in writing. Is it weird to ask for this?" I too am curious to hear from readers on this.

Reader query on grappling with tenure denial

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Ash writes:

I've been denied tenure. It was unexpected. I've been told that I should just get back out there, write up a storm, double down, push hard.... all to get a NEW great job, and that that's how I'll show them. (Them = the Dean/TPC/few Dept'l colleagues that didn't vote for me, since almost all of my colleagues thought that I was not just a yes but an obvious yes.)

All I feel though is *done*. And exhausted. Thinking about writing sometimes makes me feel ill and other times makes me want to throw things. I suppose that's normal, at this stage in the game. But I think it's possible that it's permanent--that I don't have it in me to start striving and "selling my work" again. Not even for one more year.

I'm not sure exactly what I'd be looking for in terms of advice or discussion; I feel unmoored and I have no idea what to do.

I'm so sorry to hear this happened to you, Ash. Does anyone have any thoughts they think Ash might find helpful? It might be especially helpful to hear from other readers who have been in Ash's situation.