Adjusting and the rules change...

As I catch up from a residential move, I have had some time to ponder the latest developments in my goal to achieve tenure. We now have a new Dean of the College and he is working diligently on raising the profile including that which is decided by the U.S. News rankings. Albeit, problems abound with the methodology of these rankings, this is one of the stated objectives. Naturally, changes have started to occur to achieve these new goals.

For the most part, I wholeheartedly embrace these changes as I think they are going to move the College in a positive direction. For instance, increasing our scholarly productivity doesn't hurt us in any way. But as I approach my 3rd year review, I start to feel some tremors of concern. Why? Quite simply the rules are changing but none of us are exactly sure how that will manifest itself in the tenure review process or the annual faculty evaluations.You see, to raise a ranking one of the ways to do so is to increase the presence in the high impact journals in the discipline. In a one discipline department this might be a bit easier to accomplish. With the proper infrastructure this would also be slightly easier to do. However, we are an interdisciplinary group. We don't all publish in criminology and criminal justice journals. Does that make our publications any less worthy? Similarly, how many publications do we need for tenure consideration? When I started various officials suggested one peer reviewed journal article per year. In my second year, the ante appeared to increase to two peer reviewed journal articles. Now in my third year, the question remains whether it is the quantity or the location of publication. Not sure.

Let's face it. This is a thorny issue even when the guidelines for tenure are well established. Anyone who has been on the job market recently knows that during a job interview everyone is to some extent dodgey about tenure requirements. Probably for a good reason. However, for those of us on the tenure track some clarification would certainly put this probationary faculty member more at ease. As the saying goes: Tell me what needs to be done and I'll get it done. The ambiguity that presides makes this difficult. So, I have decided to take the approach of continuing to do what I have been doing so far. Work on research projects that interest me, do the best work that I can, and publish the results in the most appropriate journal for the given topic and methodology. What happens next? Time will tell.

Publish or Perish

Publish or perish is the mantra one learns as an untenured faculty member. Regardless of the type of institution or the discipline, all faculty members are expected to produce scholarly work to some degree. What varies is the extent to which this is an expectation that is weighted heavily in merit reviews and tenure considerations. What I have also learned (quite recently) is sometimes the rules can change. When they do, they tend towards more stringent evaluation criteria. Such is what I currently face with the introduction of ranked journals (i.e. impact ratings) and the use of the recent publications in the Journal of Criminal Justice Education ranking universities based on faculty productivity in the top tier journals.
This leaves me in a quandry about several things. First, what happened to submitting a manuscript to the journal that is substantively the most appropriate? Second, not all of us have access to the type of data that would be required to publish in one of the top five journals. Third, where has the focus on the research questions gone? For tenure, a research theme or substantive focus needs to be demonstrated for our work over the last five to six years. Fourth, shouldn't faculty productivity be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively? For instance, it is not unheard of in our college to be on 2-3 committees, 1-2 advisory boards in the community, supervising 5-10 M.A. and Ph.D. students, participating in 5+ thesis/dissertation committees, and teaching 2-3 courses per semester. Given these other obligations, I find it difficult to imagine having a room of one's own (thus, the picture) to conduct the research that will now be expected. Finally, I thoroughly enjoy conducting research. For me personally, I couldn't imagine being effective in the classroom without my research as it keeps me connected with the field. But I am frankly concerned with the recent developments. It's not that I don't think I could achieve the new standards but more a question of principle. How does one cope when the rules change while on the tenure track? Expect further postings on the issue. In the meantime, any words of wisdom would be gratefully accepted.