I’ll admit that this is a rather anodyne title, but the alternatives involved language not suited for above-the-fold content.
The tenure process involves power asymmetries that make life very unpleasant for assistant professors. They have to worry about alienating their colleagues and their administration. They interact daily with people — who are too often petty, fickle, or, at least, mysterious — who hold tremendous power over their careers. Then there’s the whole publish-or-perish thing. Now, many of these indignities don’t even rise to the level of first-world problems. Compared to the lot of the vast majority of the human race, untenured professors deserve a violin too small to be detected absent an electron microscope.
But there is one very minor compensation. If you are denied tenure, and unhappy about it, you can mount a campaign and say pretty much whatever you want. But because the contents of your file and the specifics of the deliberations are confidential, your tenured colleagues and your administration are hamstrung in their ability to respond.
Good higher-education reporters know this. They also know that failed tenure cases sometimes leave behind bitterness, frustration, and recriminations. So they adjust their coverage accordingly. Judged by this standard, Colleen Flaherty doesn’t pass muster. Her June 14th story on Samer Shehata’s ongoing war against Georgetown for denying him tenure is, to put it mildly, problematic.
Where to begin? Perhaps the right place is to ask “where not to begin?” The answer is obvious: as a voting member of the faculty of the School of Foreign Service I cannot, and will not, discuss our deliberations or the content of Shehata’s confidential file. But I will say a few words about Flaherty’s coverage and Georgetown University as an institution. This requires me to directly address some of the claims advanced in the article, and to do so without any reference to the actual substance of deliberations.
First, as a number of my non-academic friends have pointed out, one does not inspire confidence by starting a discussion of an academic tenure case with an account of the subject’s media profile. Of course, we can have a very interesting conversation about whether — and to what degree — appearances on, for example, the PBS News Hour should count toward tenure. But the reality of academia is that one usually must make an affirmative argument for why, and how much, media profile should influence the decision to grant lifetime employment.
Second, although the piece begins by noting that the relevant unit was the School of Foreign Service, Flaherty soon loses that important thread. She quotes Professor Emeritus Michael C. Hudson:
His political ethnographic approach I think offended doctrinaire political scientists in the Georgetown government department who are narrowly committed to quantitative and rational-choice approaches….
The School of Foreign Service is a multi-disciplinary unit independent of the Department of Government. It is composed of historians, anthropologists, economists, political scientists, and scholars from a variety of other disciplines. Many of us hold joint appointments in both programs, but I think it something of a stretch to characterize the faculty of the Department of Government — let alone the joint faculty — as “doctrinaire political scientists… narrowly committed to quantitative and rational-choice approaches.” I should also note that SFS has tenured and promoted a number of scholars whose work can hardly be described as “quantitative and rational-choice” in orientation, including those who use ethnographic methodologies.
Third, I can’t imagine that anyone went into this process thinking that Shehata’s case would have an obvious outcome. I cannot discuss the deliberations themselves, but as a number of commentators at IHE have noted, Shehata’s collection of peer-reviewed publications was (and remains) thin (PDF). He has an edited volume. His dissertation was completed in 2000 but published as his (only) monograph in 2009. He lists six shorter peer-reviewed publications. Two are chapters in his (then forthcoming) edited volume with Routledge. One is a 2008 chapter in an edited volume with Lynn Reiner. Another is a chapter in a 2006 edited volume with M.E. Sharpe. Only two are journal articles: one from 2003 in the International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies and one from 1992 in Folklore.
Now, I think that edited volumes are undervalued and under-read, but I also know (1) what peer review of edited volumes usually entails and (2) how much they count toward tenure. The answers? Outside of a few presses, very sympathetically; and not much at all. So if I were looking at this file for the first time, I’d see this as a book, two journal articles (one nearly twenty years old), material inclusive of the edited volume, and two miscellaneous chapters. Certainly not a record you would dismiss out of hand, but also not anything resembling a “slam dunk.” Especially for a scholar who looks to have accumulated some time on grant-supported research leave.
The same is true of the citation data. Including data that postdates Shehata’s tenure decision, his work has been cited 122 times. By rough count, less than 50% of those citations are attributable to the peer-reviewed section of his CV. Again, not nothing, but not something that should leave anyone “stunned” about the kind of mixed-but-positive vote reported — which I cannot confirm, deny, or even remember — in the IHE article:
School of Foreign Service faculty voted 25 to 13, with six abstentions, in favor of his tenure, according to information from Shehata’s lawyer (who said his colleagues from the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies were not involved in the vote, due to a university regulation).
Fourth, maybe I’m foolish for expecting better of IHE, but it seems tabloid-esque to uncritically quote some pretty incendiary accusations, such as the claim that Georgetown faculty and officials were motivated by an anti-Palestinian ideological agenda. Even some of the more pedestrian claims get served up without adequate scrutiny. At one point, Flaherty writes:
Other elements of his publication and service records were downplayed, Shehata said, including King’s reference to a second publication of Shehata’s book in 2010 as a “revised edition,” when it also included a new chapter based on original research.
Uh, okay. The Miriam-Webster definition of a “revised edition”?
an edition (as of a book) incorporating major revisions by the author or an editor and often supplementary matter designed to bring it up to date — compare reissue, reprint.
On his CV, Shehata describes it as a “Middle East Edition, with a new Afterward.” This objection just sounds weird.
Independent of Flaherty’s piece, all of this should make clear why, frankly, I’m just surprised by how shocked and surprised Shehata says that he is.
But perhaps no one was more stunned than Shehata himself. Each review leading up to his tenure denial had been “stellar,” according to a grievance he filed, and none of his senior colleagues advised him on ways to strengthen his application. “There was no previous indication that my record was deficient in any way, because it wasn’t,” Shehata said in an e-mail interview from the Middle East, where he is traveling.
I can’t speak to Shehata’s yearly reviews, but I would be extremely surprised (this word is coming up a lot, I realize) if no one raised the mater of his publication record. Why? Because my meetings involved recommendations that I publish more and in more prominent outlets. SFS faculty chairs always took these reviews very seriously.
So, yeah, anything’s possible. But, as I said, I’d be surprised.
The moral of this story, as it were, isn’t about Shehata, who has a lot to recommend him and has already landed a tenured position elsewhere. Rather, it is about the aftermath of a tenure denial: the people who know what happened are highly constrained in their ability to comment, but the scholar who feels wronged can throw around any accusation he or she wants to. That doesn’t mean that the denial was right, but it also doesn’t mean that it was wrong. It does mean, however, that those watching the case unfold — and reporting on it — need to be cautious in their assessment of the truth. Flaherty’s piece fails on that front.
I think the other question this raises though concerns tenure promotion processes in general and whether teaching, administration, and overall university service is undervalued compared to publications. Of course, I’ve merely heard stirrings from G-town, but it seems Shehata was enthusiastically supported by his students. I do understand the necessity of consistency and fairness (if we’re all expected to publish or perish, why make exceptions), but I can’t help but question if the system is flawed regarding the undervaluation of teaching.
These are excellent points. Obviously, there’s tremendous variation on how to evaluate the research-teaching-service triangle among institutions, departments, and even individuals. And there’s no right answer. The best we can hope for is that places are as transparent as possible without giving up the ability of decision-makers to exercise appropriate discretion, shift standards over time to reflect the evolution of the institution, and so forth.
At the same time, we need to be careful that “undervalued” isn’t synonymous for “determinative.” Let’s stipulate a, hypothetical: that (1) someone has an amazing service record, an adequate teaching record, and a poor research profile and (2) that person is denied tenure. We might look at that case and say, “well, clearly service is undervalued.” But it is also possible that service was appropriately valued — or even that it was overvalued — but that value wasn’t enough to offset the research profile.
There are very good reasons for research to be valued more than teaching and service. The basic purpose of tenure is to protect academic freedom, which is to say, to allow faculty to teach (and do interviews about) what their expertise says is true, and not what some college administration thinks should be taught. Having adoring students and being in a reporter’s rolodex don’t test that expertise the way that research does.
That doesn’t mean teaching and service should not count for anything, but it’s not obvious that the current balance is wrong.
Precisely: Service is not scholarship, while teaching (although based on scholarship) is (almost) never evaluated by peers and is, by definition, never aimed at peers.
I read the article as well and thought something similar (loads of media appearances counts nothing towards tenure and he should have known that), and tenure decisions at major universities are primarily based on the publication record. Here, having a book with a less visible university press and an edited volume with a commercial press are, not having read the material, superficially middling indicators. That somehow Charles King or David Edelstein are emblematic of a Georgetown mindset that values game theoretic, rational choice hegemony strikes me as fantastical, given the kind of work they do, both qualitative and field work-oriented. Working ten months in a textile factory strikes me as interesting, but the payoff would be in making the link to larger political forces. For those interested in a large public profile as assistant professors, you have to realize that you do that in addition to all the other scholarly activity not in lieu of. The most troubling thing is, if true, that he had no indications from previous reviews that his case wasn’t airtight and that he might have some difficulty. For a journalist that covers higher education to treat these accusations uncritically suggests someone needs to understand her beat a little better.
Charles King, if I recall correctly, actually teaches a course on ethnography. Perhaps it is a course on why he hates ethnography and its practitioners, but that seems very unlikely.
He also has written for Foreign Affairs on numerous occasions so is no stranger to public engagement.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/author/charles-king
There is one point that hasn’t been answered directly: did he receive advise from colleageus regarding his chances of tenure?
The reason that point cannot be answered directly is that it would violate confidentially obligations imposed on those involved.
What I can write is what I’ve already noted in the post: I would be very surprised if the allegations are true with respect to the annual review process, as they are not consistent with my own experience during an overlapping period.
I’m disappointed in the Duck. Frankly, it’s inappropriate to discuss a specific tenure case here, especially since you were involved in it. What good could you reasonably expect to come from this?
“Im disappointed in Dan Nexon.” I’ve corrected this for you. The Duck is a collective blog and has no formal editorial structure. What I post here reflects on me… not the rest of the team.
Before posting this I took special care to review confidentiality guidelines related to our tenure process, and I have taken special care to comply with both the spirit and the letter of those guidelines.
Moreover, I think that you’ve missed the point of the post, which has “asymmetric voice” in the title for a reason. Indeed, if you have a problem discussing tenure cases in public, I suggest you take that up with those involved in the linked to IHE article. There you will find accusations of malfeasance against *named* members of the Georgetown faculty, allegations of a political conspiracy connecting faculty at the University of Chicago and un-named (but not difficult to guess) members of the Georgetown faculty, and specific quotations disclosed from confidential tenure documents acquired by Shehata and his lawyer.
Dan made a general point that the journalist writing about a tenure case led with references to media appearances. It just so happens that this case happens to involve Georgetown, but I think the critique is valid whatever the institution involved. Tenure decisions at top-tier institutions are not made on the basis of whether someone has a large number of media appearances, and a reporter covering higher education should know that. So, Dan’s argument was less about the case and more about the coverage in Inside Higher Education. As a non-Georgetown faculty (but a graduate of Georgetown), I made comments more specific to the case, but I think the tenor of the discussion here, given affiliations, should rightly focus on journalistic coverage of higher education and the general process that goes in to tenure decisions around the country. Fine line to be sure. Sorry if I dragged the discussion into the merits of a case that can’t really be discussed (by Dan).
In fairness to Wendy, I do discuss specifics of the publicly documented aspects of the case, i.e., I assert that an objective observer would view the publication record (on its own) as falling in a range between “enough for tenure” and “not enough for tenure.” I also walked through the reasons why, contra the quotations in the article, this part of the record could hardly be characterized as a “slam dunk.” I was, frankly, very surprised that Flaherty didn’t provide assessments from disinterested parties — ones with knowledge of tenure standards at comparable institutions — on this point.
Now, I disagree with Wendy in this instance: we’re talking about inflammatory accusations and there’s a general point about how to handle such accusations in the media. But I think it is fine for her to raise this objection.
Seems to me that most commentators on the IHE article actually share your concern and evaluation.
I find this interesting because here in Britain, media appearance is something many academics almost desperately seek. At this university, it even gets you personal letters from the Vice-Chancellor and sometimes a fast-track to promotion… I guess the pressure on justifying our existence by producing some dodgy publicly consumable ‘expertise’ is bigger here than in the US, or at least the top-tier universities there. But I don’t see how a 20 sec, two sentence performance on al Jazeera reflects on good scholarship…
Surviving Colbert is of course a different matter.
Try, just for a moment, to step outside the academic bubble and see this from a different perspective.
If you ask any average person what professors do, it is teaching and, to some extent, being a public intellectual. If it is true that he was “a go-to public intellectual during the Arab Spring” for the media, then Shehata is doing a service to the public at large by appearing on the media to provide intelligent discussion. To the extent that people like him are too busy writing articles for their tenure committee (effectively), the rest of us unwashed masses are left with people screaming at each other on Fox News and MSNBC. Maybe, just maybe, Georgetown might think they have a duty to provide a public service (they do after all receive millions of dollars in federal subsidies through various channels) and not just feed the fickle intellectual interests and egos of academics.
This is why I am surprised the tenure denial came from the “universitywide committee” of Georgetown itself. Perhaps “average” people (some of whom might be Senators or rich entrepreneurs/potential donors) might see support being provided to faculty who provide no observable public service and say, in some form, screw them.
Steve Saideman has a good post on this over at his blog.
He does a nice job of explaining why media appearances should count as “service” and therefore, like other forms of sevice, should comprise the smallest component of a case for tenure: https://saideman.blogspot.com/2013/06/public-outreach-and-tenure-decisions.html
On a side note, it strikes me as amusing when people implore academics to “step outside [their] academic bubble” when considering how they evaluate things like tenure and invoke the “average person.” How about we ask architects to step outside their “architectural bubble?” After all, does it matter if the designs are inadequate if that person has an excellent radio voice? How about we ask doctors to step outside their “doctor bubble?”
Universities have professorial slots for public intellectuals who can’t make the research cut for tenure. Places like Georgetown have plenty of those. They also have plenty of faculty who did what they needed to do while being active in the media or before being active in the media. There’s also a better-paying, parallel career track where media, op-eds, and policy reports are one of the main criteria for advancement: think tanks.
The proposition that “universities have a duty to the public” and that “publication records long on op-eds should be tenurable” are distinct.