Collective responsibilities for research in science education – the tenure process

Abstract

Why the paranoia over earning tenure in science education? Is it that the bar is so high as to raise the anxiety of all but just a few in our field? Is the bar set at different heights for different people? Do contradictions arise because the peer review process associated with tenure and promotion is fickle and arbitrary? Is there a one-size-fits-all ideology that saturates the field of science education, leaving the impression that what applies across institutions is in some senses generic? None of these questions is answered with a simple yes or no; and the great concern I have is that our practices as senior faculty reproduce mysticism about tenure and promotion. In this editorial I examine some of contradictions I have experienced, and in the spirit of opening up debate about them, suggest that these be the kernels of conversations about our collective roles in creating and sustaining a research-oriented science education. I encounter tenure and promotion in two main ways. As an advisor of doctoral students I ensure that all graduate with a publication record in peer-reviewed journals – so that they are competitive in obtaining jobs, not just with other recent graduates, but also those who have been in employment for a year or two. There are no one-size-fits-all rules about how many publications it takes to be considered competitive for a position – and clearly more is needed than publishing. However, if a person applying for her first position (post PhD) has three to five publications in the leading journals in a field then it will not count against her. Getting several articles through peer review is an important sign that the profession accepts her work. I have discussions with graduate students about where to focus energy and what counts as what. For example, I maintain that a dissertation well done carries about the same weight as each publication from the dissertation. Accordingly, if a doctoral student writes a good dissertation and publishes three papers from it, the potential impact vis a vis earning tenure far exceeds publishing a book. Even so, I am not opposed to publishing a dissertation as a book and encourage junior scholars to rewrite their dissertation with the motive of getting it accepted for publication. The issue is not whether to publish articles or to publish a book