In High-Stakes Game, Reputation is Key; Articles Scrutinized

A tenure candidate needs to be well-rounded­—both a professor and a scholar.

“A weakness in either one could disqualify somebody,” says History Department Chair Andrew D. Gordon ’74.

Though evaluations of scholarship and teaching are central to tenure decisions across the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, administrators say the definition of scholarship varies by department.

In economics and science, scholars develop their reputations by publishing journal articles, while monographs are more important for historians, according to recently arrived Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Brian W. Casey, who advises departments on the hiring process.

“An important principle still abides, which is that the process is profoundly peer-reviewed....Articles that are in peer-reviewed journals are always given more weight than those that are not,” Casey says.

In the humanities, “hierarchies of excellence are not as transparent as they are in the sciences,” says Dean for the Humanities Maria Tatar.

“It takes more time for people in the humanities to do the kind of work that is considered tenurable, whereas in the sciences someone who is in their late 20s has often done his or her greatest work, and it is immediately evident that that person should get tenure,” she says.

A strong scholarly record trumps a candidate’s teaching performance, Gordon says.

“Somebody could be a terrific scholar and ‘good’ teacher, and they would get an endorsement....A merely ‘decent’ scholar and great teacher would be unlikely to get tenure,” he says.

But University President Lawrence H. Summers says he has tried to emphasize the importance of teaching for tenured faculty.

“I hope we’ve been successful in promoting more generally appointments that are of people who will be oriented to teaching and to taking greater account of teaching,” he says.

If the size of the dossiers indicates anything, says Lisa L. Martin, who is senior adviser to the dean on faculty diversity, teaching performance is a large part of a tenure case.

“One reason [the dossiers are] so fat is there’s always a ton of information about teaching.”

DEPARTMENTAL DIFFERENCES

Martin says there is variance in the level of engagement of senior faculty members in tenure cases. In some departments, every professor will write a detailed letter stating his opinions for appointments outside of his field.

In other departments, especially larger ones, professors will write only brief letters when evaluating tenure candidates outside of their fields. “Some departments delegate a bit more than other departments do,” says Martin, who is also Dillon professor of international affairs.

The size of the department can also affect the strength of the tenure case that is presented for higher review by an ad hoc committee.

“I think generally, larger departments make better appointments, because

there’s a much greater variety of opinions about a given candidate,” says Sanskrit and Indian Studies Chair Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp.

—Emily J. Nelson contributed to the reporting of this story.

—Staff writer Lulu Zhou can be reached at luluzhou@fas.harvard.edu.