Editor’s note: this post first appeared on my personal blog.
As some of you may know, I’m up for tenure this year, and it’s not going to work out. I don’t want to get into the details of anything that ought not be discussed in public, but I thought I’d share some quick thoughts that some of you might find to be of interest.
First, to the best of my understanding, my presence on social media played little to no role in this decision. So if there’s still fear out there that blogging comes at a price, please don’t point to my case as an example. I don’t know exactly why this happened, and probably never will, but there’s no indication that blogging is to blame.
Second, I want to take this opportunity to note that the internet is a pretty magical thing. If this were 1994 rather than 2014, the hours immediately following the bad news would have been filled with some really dark thoughts. Instead, I felt pretty overwhelmed by all the support there was out there, which I’d never have known about if not for Facebook and Twitter. I’m sure some would say that it was unprofessional of me to say anything at all about a case that’s not yet even fully resolved, but I’m honestly not sure where my mind would have gone that night otherwise, so I feel no need to apologize. What I do feel the need to do is reiterate my gratitude to all those who reached out. You have no idea how much that meant to me.
I’m glad to hear that the substantial body of people who know you through social media and who justifiably think you’re awesome were able to keep you from feeling quite such an acute sense of misery following the bad news. If you do find out what really happened, though, I think grad students such as myself, or other very junior academics, would find it very helpful to know some of the details. So much of the process of figuring out how things work in the discipline for us is just stumbling around blindly into things. Obviously there are obligations of professional discretion here, but from my perspective, curiosity on these matters is closely related to wanting to survive and prosper in a complex and still somewhat foreign society (viz., the academy).
Fair enough, Simon. Perhaps I will say more later, when I know more and have had some time to lick my wounds.
I am not sure what lessons you are looking for. The process is pretty simple, publish at an incredible rate, have future projects lined up, do your teaching, do your service, and don’t piss anyone off. There are often problems along the way, people get denied for a whole host of reasons (we have a support group at APSA with cute name tags and everything) but the best advice is always that your record should be based on external projections, not internal benchmarks. If your record is strong externally, it won’t matter what happens internally. Those that survive this, like Phil hopefully, fit that description. Those that don’t will have problems making it in academia. Publish, say important things, focus a bit on quality – not quantity.
My curiosity stems from the apparent fact that even people who satisfy those conditions may not get tenure. It also stems from the fact that while these conditions are kind of obvious when generally stated, what satisfies them may not be. When is it better to publish less often but in better venues? How much are co-authored publications discounted? What are common ways to piss people off? How much does grant money matter? And so on. Also, when I put these questions to various tenured faculty members, I receive answers that are not wholly consistent. So maybe the experiences of people who didn’t receive tenure will be instructive.
My sense is that the answers to those questions vary from institution to institution, and across individuals within institutions. At the end of the day, what you need is the support of as many people as possible, each of whom will evaluate you according to slightly different criteria. In light of that, I think the only universally applicable advice, beyond what Brandon already said, would be to ask people in your department what their answers to those questions would be, and whether they have a sense of what is expected at the higher level in your particular college or university.
That sounds like wise advice.
I think there is a reason why the answers are not consistent. There is no consistent answer really. The only consistency for me is outside perceptions because the letter writers, leaders of your field, and big names at the top schools will always determine what is important and considered productive. Or take for example the major journals, ISQ will always be important, at least for the duration of our careers. World Politics has declined in IR but a hit there is just as important as it was in 1966. Those things last.
As for the specifics on coauthorship, less is more, etc, basically if your department and school like you and you get letters that support you, they will make a positive case. But if there is disunity and conflict in your department, some will use anything they can to make your record look weak. Its almost impossible to have a bullet proof tenure case, at least in 6 years. Even a tenure bar a school can move, drastically. One year it could be a book and 3 articles, the next its 10 articles and book or contract. Who knows. The point is to make sure you minimize the weaknesses as much as possible, that you build strong relationships with your senior colleagues in the department and outside.
There are a few standard things. Don’t publish in low ranked journals that have no impact factor, don’t work on edited volumes, don’t publish a book at a really low ranked press if there is some question about this at your school, have a consistent voice in your work, have a second project started, at least apply for a few grants, go to conferences not to check the presentations box, but to engage the senior people in your field.
Thanks. Really, it is helpful to see it laid out like this.
Mind if I run all this with your questions as a separate post? Might be instructive. Want me to link to a personal website when I mention “Simon”
I would be honoured. https://saidsimon.wordpress.com/ is my (crappy) blog.
@Simon: I’ve looked at your blog; it’s not ‘crappy’. Your discussion of mechanism-based explanation in the latest post is lucid and accessible (in contrast to the somewhat convoluted discussions of this point that one sometimes finds in published monographs).
That is an enormously gratifying compliment, as I am very interested in finding ways of explaining these sorts of meta-theoretical points in ways that are accessible to non-specialists.