Promotion and tenure--do criteria and process differ?

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Fall 1998 by Anderson, Robert J, D'Souza, Martin, Grapes, Z Tom, Kavula, Michael, Miller, Susan W

Dear Sir:

This past academic year our Promotion and Tenure Committee was charged with reviewing and clarifying existing criteria and process at our institution. This exercise generated the following questions and discussion which we would like to share with our colleagues: (i) How do criteria and process for promotion and tenure differ?; (ii) If tenure is considered the highest award of the university, should it not be more difficult to attain than promotion?; (iii) Should promotion be a pre- or co-requisite for tenure?; and (iv) Should there be separate faculty committees for evaluating promotion and tenure, if indeed, criteria and process do differ?

Besides the obvious, what really is the difference between promotion and tenure? Evaluation for tenure is routinely undertaken during the sixth year in a tenure-track position. Our School, like several others, have recently strengthened our promotion criteria such that application may not be feasible until the seventh or eighth academic year. Our committee had concerns that a faculty member could be recommended for tenure prior to being eligible for initial promotion to associate professor. As a "lifetime contract," most administrators and faculty would consider the granting of tenure to be the highest recognition of the University, but if it is received prior to initial promotion, should not the criteria and process be re-evaluated? Should the length of time for tenure consideration be lengthened so that promotion can be a pre- or corequisite for tenure?

Faculty evaluation criteria for promotion in the traditional triad of teaching, service and scholarly activity are well established, but the evaluation criteria for tenure are more nebulous. Should promotion criteria focus more on "what have you done" (more quantitative), whereas tenure criteria should focus more on "how did you do it and how important is it" (more qualitative) as has been suggested by Miller. If criteria for tenure evaluation are more related to a faculty member's contribution to the school, should the review process be primarily a self and peer evaluation of how their teaching, service and scholarly activities relate to the curricular outcomes and mission of the School as well as departmental goals?

While some of these issues may be institution-specific, the larger issue of differences in criteria and process of promotion and tenure may be more pervasive and thought provoking. In our committee deliberations we recommended lengthening the "tenure time-table" for new faculty to a minimum of 1-2 years in a nontenure track position in order to establish their teaching, service and scholarly activity for promotion before the tenure "clock starts ticking." If a faculty member is not "promotable" (i.e., does not meet minimum quantitative criteria) within a reasonable time period of time (7-8 years), we feel that the tenure application should not be evaluated. A draft of qualitative criteria have been developed in order to assist a faculty member in the development of their tenure portfolio.

With differing criteria and process, our committee also favors the establishment of separate committees for promotion and tenure. Membership on the "promotion committee" would be open to any faculty member (tenure and non-tenure track), whereas membership on the "tenure committee" would, of course, be limited to tenured faculty. These changes on committee structure and membership would require both administrative approval and a revision of the Faculty By-Laws.

Our recommendations are currently being reviewed and evaluated by the University (for compliance with policy) and School administration (philosophy) before presentation to the overall faculty. According to a recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education many universities are increasing the hiring of nontenure track policy and utilizing long term contracts in lieu of hiring more tenure-track faculty. In pharmacy schools we see evidence of this change as more nontenure track practitioner faculty are being hired as Pharm. D programs expand. We welcome comment and encourage further dialogue in the pharmacy academy on this important issue.

References

Miller, R.I., Evaluating Faculty for Promotion and Tenure, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco CA (1998).

"Chipping away at tenure," Chronicle Higher Educ., June 12,1998.

Robert J. Anderson

Martin D'Souza

Z. Tom Grapes

Michael Kavula

Susan W. Miller

Mercer University, Southern School of Pharmacy