Tenure Requirements Research Articles

The enabling environment for citywide water service provision: Insights from six successful cities

Equitable access to safe drinking water remains a key challenge in many urban areas of low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to characterize the enabling environment for inclusive urban water service delivery, and specifically to elucidate the institutional arrangements, policies, regulations, service delivery approaches, financing models, and surrounding contextual factors that influence progress. We identified six cities across Africa, Asia, and South America that offered historical examples of success in inclusive piped water provision, resulting in high levels of access and service quality, including within low-income areas. Using a modified form of the social-ecological systems framework to structure our investigation, we conducted a comparative case study analysis to learn from these cities. Our analysis focused on a review of existing case-specific literature, supplemented by interviews with 1–3 key informants per case to update or fill gaps in the literature. A variety of characteristics supported safe and inclusive services, with contextually appropriate strategies depending on existing institutional arrangements, infrastructure, and the surrounding social, economic, political, and environmental context. Our study cities illustrated three types of progress–utility-driven, regulator-supported, and municipality-driven–each characterized by specific features and drivers of success. We also identified 12 characteristics making up the enabling environment across all three types. These characteristics highlighted two broad themes. First, a well-functioning water service provider was often a prerequisite for inclusive, pro-poor service provision. Elements such as clear performance indicators, customer feedback mechanisms, and strategies to sustainably finance operating costs contributed to cities’ success. Second, inclusive water services often required explicit pro-poor policies and strategies, such as the removal of land tenure requirements for piped connections and community mobilization for participatory decision-making. Although the importance of specific characteristics will vary depending on context, our analysis offers a common foundation to guide progress toward universal access to safe water.

How to Get a Job Offer from a Smaller Joint Teaching‐Research Mission University and What to Do Once You Have It

How to Get a Job Offer from a Smaller Joint Teaching‐Research Mission University and What to Do Once You Have It

From the Ground Up: Building a Culture of Research in an Academic Library

Background: This article discusses the motivations, benefits, and actions taken to create and support a culture of research among library employees at a Carnegie Research 1 University Library system. Despite substantial pressures to publish and engage in library science research, many academic librarians lack the training or support to build their own research agendas. This is particularly worrisome as tenure requirements and professional trends require librarians to be knowledgeable and productive in their research dissemination. Experience: At Clemson University Libraries, librarians responded to this problem by adapting evidence-based solutions from scientific and medical disciplines to fit their own research empowerment needs. The process of building a productive culture of research at Clemson Libraries was a multi-year endeavor that took considerable initiative, planning, and flexibility. Discussion: Each of the initiatives required adaptation to the knowledge levels and existing culture in the Libraries. Organizers had to be willing to make changes and attempt new approaches as the organization evolved and comfort with the research process grew. Some initiatives, like Writing Circle, were disbanded, while others, like Journal Club and Research Roundtable, continue to develop with high levels of engagement. Takeaways: The success of this progressive approach to fostering a thriving culture of research at Clemson Libraries is evident through the rates of participation, dissemination, and satisfaction of library employees in addition to the expansion of the Libraries’ engagement with research in outside departments and disciplines. Librarians who seek to enhance their own institution’s research culture should consider implementing some or all of these initiatives to jumpstart their efforts, including writing circles, journal clubs, and research roundtables.

Onboarding orientation for novice nurse faculty: A quality improvement pilot project

BackgroundNovice nurse faculty have a challenging time transitioning into academia, resulting in reduced satisfaction and retention. After conducting a thorough literature review, it was determined that formalized mentoring combined with professional development workshops could improve the transition into academia, thus improving the satisfaction and retention of novice nurse faculty. MethodsIn fall 2020, an onboarding orientation program for novice nurse faculty was implemented. The objectives included matching mentoring dyads based on similar interests and goals, developing mentoring guidelines, implementing the Department of Nursing (DON) Orientation Checklist, and providing five monthly professional development workshops with topics ranging from creating learning objectives to the promotion and tenure requirements. Five novice nurse faculty participated in the study, and each was matched with a mentor with similar goals. ResultsAfter 6 months of project implementation, overall faculty satisfaction dropped slightly from 4.1 to 4.0. A dependent t-test (p = 0.83) and Wilcoxon signed ranks test (p = 0.461) both indicated no significant difference in satisfaction post project implementation. Although, the results indicate the novice nurse faculty and mentors agreed that the program was effective and should continue. The novice nurse faculty reported that the DON Orientation Checklist, mentoring relationships, and professional development workshops contributed to their successful transition into academia. Retention was 100% 2 years after project implementation. One significant factor noted after program evaluation was conducted is that there should be regular meetings with mentors to support them in their role. ConclusionsThe onboarding orientation program for novice nurse faculty was an effective strategy to ease the transition into academia and maintain satisfaction within the role.

Shifting Culture by Creating Synergy and Equity Through the Unification of Tenure Criteria.

Tenure requirements within universities vary; however, most focus on excellence in teaching, service, and scholarship. Within our university, faculty with either research or clinical doctorates were on both tenure and clinical tracks, with reported marginalization from clinical track faculty. A task force was convened in 2018 to develop a unified single track that included a single set of criteria for all College of Health Professions faculty to obtain tenure. The Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) Roadmap was used to guide the work of the task force. The implementation of a single track has influenced discourse around previous notions regarding what is considered "tenure worthy" and has opened the door to contractual equity among faculty. Internal structures, such as implementation of a single track, can support cohesion and productivity that facilitates collaborations among faculty of all ranks and degree backgrounds, promoting a culture that continues to embrace intellectual discourse and unity. [J Nurs Educ. 2022;61(8):455-459.].

Political connection heterogeneity and corporate innovation

This paper examines whether political connection heterogeneity plays a role in corporate innovation in a sample of all listed firms in China from 2008 to 2016. Our results show that connections with central government officials promote innovation, while connections with local government officials inhibit innovation. The nonconformity between the influence of federalism and that of the local authorities is associated with the personnel promotion and tenure requirements that induce differential innovation-promotion strategies. We use the Heckman two-stage estimation to address selection bias, and we adopt a setting as a quasi-natural experiment, leveraging the decrease in local GDP growth rates to abate endogeneity. Our results endure these econometric treatments and a series of robustness checks. In mechanism tests, we document evidence that the central government promotes corporate innovation by improving innovation efficiency, while the local government inhibits innovation by reducing both innovation inputs and efficiency. We also find that the effect is even larger on high-tech firms and that it can be mitigated by marketization.

OPENING PANDORA’S BOX: A CRITIQUE OF PEER REVIEW PROCESSES

Publishing procedures in all scientific areas have been in constant flux to ensure articles’ formal unity and most importantly significant contribution to respective research fields. Scientists but more specifically higher education professionals across the globe have joined a race for “points” to warrant their standing in academic communities or to comply with promotion or tenure requirements. Publishing scientific/ academic work in high-ranking journals is today the norm in most universities worldwide which has imposed on editorial teams methods of selection relying almost exclusively on the authority of reviewers. This article will present a brief overview of recent concerns regarding the peer review practice in different publishing fields and the issue of less than collegial behaviours that have also emerged. The paper examines the importance of unbiased feedback of specialists which ensures the quality of published materials and highlights authors’ apprehension about bullying in peer review processes. The present critique will also mention the need for golden rules of conduct for peer reviewers and the necessity of editorial boards to supervise and address inappropriate aggressive comments from reviewers.

Great expectations: Adapting a research agenda to changing scholarship requirements

When leaving initial professional librarian positions to join new organizations, the authors considered several common factors: salaries and benefits, livability of potential cities, and new colleagues. However, thriving early- and mid-career librarians taking the step into different roles must be able to navigate one less commonly discussed aspect of a workplace transition: differing expectations of original research among institutions and according to job classification.When moving from one tenure track position to another, librarians are likely to encounter different formal tenure requirements and support mechanisms at a new institution. Small universities might weigh the successful completion of day-to-day duties more heavily, with less emphasis on research output. Often larger research institutions are the inverse, with a much heavier emphasis on what research is published or presented, and where. Since expectations can be informally relayed and not expressly stated in job postings or during interviews, understanding an employer's idea of what constitutes significant scholarship is often developed over the course of the first year at an organization.This column will discuss the two main characteristics that typically inform expected research output: the type of institution for which the librarian works and the classification of the individual's position. The authors draw on recent experiences assessing different research expectations when changing employers, as well as current research on the topic. Expectations can also change moving from non-research-intensive positions into tenure-track or continuing-status-eligible positions at the same institution, and librarians in these situations often will have to deal with differing expectations around output metrics or impact factors in their research. Successful librarians changing roles will recognize that research expectations are a continuum, and will be able to assess where their current job falls on the library research spectrum. Once readers determine whether their new position requires a low, medium, or high level of scholarship and service, they can then strategize to adapt their existing agenda to meet expectations.Lastly, the column will help early- and mid-career librarians identify and assess the resources and support available to assist them in continuing their research agendas, regardless of positional research and scholarship expectations. Formal mentors, peer researchers in one's professional network, and new colleagues can all help with the stated and informal expectations of research.

Women Faculty in STEM Disciplines: Experiences with the Tenure Process and Departmental Practices

Using data from a national survey of tenure-track faculty job satisfaction, the purpose of the study is to explore predictors of perceptions of tenure clarity for faculty in STEM and non-STEM fields. We build on extant studies and use the gendered organization framework as the conceptual lens to examine whether for four groups of faculty (women and men in STEM, and women and men in non-STEM) assessment of fairness in tenure decisions and evaluations, messages about tenure requirements, mentoring, and relationships with peers have a similar effect on their assessment of tenure clarity. Bivariate findings reveal that compared to all other faculty, women in STEM fields are less likely to perceive the expectations for tenure as clear, and the messages about tenure requirements as consistent. Compared to men in both STEM and non-STEM fields, women in STEM are less likely to assess tenure decisions and evaluations as fair, mentoring as effective, and relationships with peers as satisfactory. Multivariate results show that for women in STEM, except for relationships with peers, all other independent variables significantly influence their assessment of tenure clarity. Policy and practice recommendations are discussed.

Becoming a Teacher Scholar: The Perils and Promise of Meeting the Promotion and Tenure Requirements in a Business School

Many business schools continue to use contribution in teaching, research, and service as measures of faculty performance. There has been a long tradition of thinking of faculty as making their research contribution within a specific subdiscipline. We call these teaching and discipline scholars (TDS). However a growing number of faculty who, although they teach in a subdiscipline, are choosing to make their research contribution in the teaching and learning area. We call these persons teaching and learning scholars (TLS). A major hurdle facing TLS candidates is a promotion and tenure (P&T) system primarily designed for teaching and discipline scholars. This article takes a granular look at the typical P&T system within business schools. It proposes a way of thinking about what is typically meant by teaching ability and how it might be measured. It then discusses what is meant by research, how this definition might be applied to measure the output of TLSs and the special challenges for TLSs in having their research accepted as part of their P&T portfolio. Suggestions are provided for how the TLS may navigate the P&T process in light of these challenges.

Clocking your work.

Four months into my second faculty job, I was shocked to discover that I had to record the hours I'd worked. I'd heard that others at the university were required to do that—but surely not faculty members, I thought. I was wrong. At the end of each month, I was expected to sign and submit a sheet that listed my start and end times each day. At first, I was annoyed that I had to waste my time on such a mundane task. But the practice of writing down my work hours was surprisingly illuminating, ultimately sending me down a path to better work-life balance. > “The data have completely altered my view of work-life balance.” In my previous 16 years in academia, it had been up to me to judge whether I was working hard enough. Usually, I felt I needed to work harder. During my Ph.D., I always believed I could make my dissertation better with extra effort. My research never felt finished, and I had no idea how many hours I was supposed to work. That made it easy to go down rabbit holes and work more hours than necessary. After graduating, I continued to work long hours, even though my employment contracts spelled out shorter workweeks. During my postdoc years, I was supposed to work precisely 39.5 hours per week, according to the labor agreement for public servants in Germany. But nobody asked how long I actually spent in the office, and I probably exceeded that on a regular basis. When I started my first faculty position, my contract stated that I work anywhere from 36 to 48 hours per week. At first, I appreciated the flexibility, hoping for the occasional guilt-free 36-hour workweek. But my teaching and administrative workloads were so high that I regularly reached the 48-hour mark. I was conscious of my work hours. I kept track mentally and made a point of taking some time off when I felt as though I'd worked too hard. But there were stretches of time during my first faculty job when my children didn't see me enough, or when—between work and parental duties—I had no time to spend with my husband. In my second faculty position, I expected that my work hours would again be my business. So when I was told to track them, I was surprised. My contract stated that I work 40 hours per week, and couldn't I be trusted to do so? Grudgingly, I opened a spreadsheet and started to record my hours. It would have been easy to add standard start and end times for each day—for instance, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.—and be done with it. But my scientific tendencies kicked in, and I decided to keep careful track of my hours, even noting breaks. I'm glad I did, because the data have completely altered my view of work-life balance. Recording my hours showed that I was racking up much longer workweeks than I realized. During the first month I started to track, for instance, I worked 15 hours more than was required of me—nearly two full workdays. That's far less than the insane hours that some academics work. But it was eye-opening for me. With my tracking, I've found that I generally accumulate 1 week of overtime every 2 to 3 months. So now, every time I reach that milestone, I take a few days or even a whole week off. I spend that time at home with my family. Or I use the days to take a longer vacation, or to spend more time with relatives who visit. The breaks have improved my overall happiness and job satisfaction. The data also help alleviate any guilt that I may have otherwise felt taking time off. I still have deadlines, tenure requirements, and the pressure to publish papers. And I still work a lot, sometimes even on weekends. But I now know how much I work—and that I deserve the time off. When I am tenured, I won't have to submit my hours to my university any longer. But I'm going to continue to track them to help keep my work in bounds. To some academics, it may seem like a waste of time. But for me, it's been anything but. I'd recommend opening a spreadsheet and tracking the hours that you spend at work. Even if you only do it for 1 or 2 weeks, you might be surprised what you'll discover.

Academic Contrapower Harassment and Student Evaluations: The Gendered Experience of Bullying, Intimidation, and Entitlement

Student evaluations are subjective and oftentimes arbitrary, skewed by stereotypes students have of the professor rather than the actual merit of the instructional style. Yet student evaluations are frequently necessary for promotion and tenure requirements regardless of known gender bias. As such, student evaluations have the potential to foster a culture of academic contrapower harassment (ACPH). A convenience sample of 150 professors and instructors (41.3% male, 56.7%, female, and 2% declined to specify) from two separate liberal arts colleges were surveyed to explore the gendered differences of perceived bullying of professors by students on anonymous student evaluations. Using Pearson’s chi-square test for independence (categorical variables), results support differences in the psychological consequences of student evaluations between male and female faculty but fail to confirm instances of ACPH.

Differential eligibility for paid leave benefits in OECD countries: the impact of tenure requirements for young workers

ABSTRACT Research has shown health and economic benefits to having access to paid family and medical leave, yet eligibility requirements restrict coverage. The impact and variation of these requirements across countries have not been studied. This study addresses this gap using original data on legislated tenure requirements and worker tenure as reported in national household surveys from countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to estimate the percentage of workers who would not be eligible for paid leave benefits because of tenure requirements. As the need for different types of leave varies over the life course, ineligibility rates are estimated by age. Findings show that across all types of leave, younger workers (age 20–29 years) were substantially less likely to be eligible than older workers, and that rates of ineligibility declined consistently with each five-year increase in age. This study highlights the important health and economic implications of policy design decisions that can exclude vulnerable sectors of the population.

Managing the Auditor-Client Relationship Through Partner Rotations: The Experiences of Audit Firm Partners

ABSTRACTWhile current audit standards explicitly state engagement partner tenure requirements, firms have flexibility in managing the rotation process. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 20 U.S. audit firm partners who share their experiences on topics including how they identify appropriate candidate partners and what efforts they undertake to manage relationships with clients post-rotation. We investigate firms' motivation to manage the auditor-client relationship through the lens of Social Exchange Theory (SET), and we consider how likely outcomes of this rotation process map onto regulators' intent that a newly rotated partner provides a fresh perspective to the audit. Our study informs regulators and investors about the process by which engagement partners are selected for rotation, documenting that partner assignment is typically not random. Further, our finding that partner rotation is an extended process (rather than a single discrete event) has implications for audit researchers investigating the effects of partner rotation.

Navigating the Lows to Gain New Heights: Constraints to SoTL Engagement

Novice Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) leaders making the transition from scholarly teaching to SoTL to SoTL Leadership face many challenges within higher education. Not only does traditional academic culture confine most academics to disciplinary silos, but promotion and tenure requirements encourage faculty members to conduct SoTL work “off the side of their desk,” if at all (Boyer, 1990; Dobbins, 2008; Webb, Wong, & Hubball, 2013). This paper shares some of the findings from a recent study that investigated what constrained educational leaders’ understanding of SoTL while enrolled in a SoTL Leadership program at a Canadian research-intensive university. The paper will also explore implications for the support and enrichment of educational leadership.

Engagement as scholarship: Food justice in practice

AbstractThe following discussion summarizes Our Kitchen Table's (OKT) food justice project and how I used research methodology to support their community capacity building efforts toward systems change. I also compared and contrasted the work of OKT with that of other food security initiatives in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Time spent doing fieldwork with OKT led me to the conclusion that research should prioritize supporting the implementation of community‐driven solutions. Otherwise, similar to organizations with a top‐down focus, those with ties to the academy, often predictably impose an outside agenda. I explain how this occurrence can be avoided through the use of OKT's preferred method for interacting with researchers, what is referred to as a community‐owned and managed research (COMR) model. Further related discussion highlights the importance of reciprocity, restructuring tenure requirements to support engagement as scholarship, and ensuring the relevance of anthropology as a discipline.

A difference in priorities?

PurposeThis study aims to focus on survey reports of doctoral students’ experiences in the USA, providing a look at factors influencing “in the moment” decisions students make about persistence. Specifically, the authors investigate the reasons doctoral students consider leaving their programs, and how these reasons may differ for international and domestic students. The authors also examine international–domestic patterns by sex and by program of study.Design/methodology/approachAs part of a campus-wide doctoral program assessment, doctoral students and recent graduates at a large, public, Research I institution in the Midwest region of the USA are asked to complete a program satisfaction survey. Content analysis of open-ended survey responses is the basis of the analysis. Next, a code by committee approach is used whereby two members of the research team coded all open-ended responses and discussed discrepancies to reach consensus on all codes assigned, and to reduce individual biases. Each open-ended response is assigned at least one of 16 codes, with more than one code used as necessary.FindingsThe results suggest that, although both academic and social factors are important influences of doctoral departure in general, academic concerns – specifically, alignment with goals, career preparation and program structure – may be particularly important for international students, whereas social aspects – faculty relationships and program climate – may be more important for domestic US students.Research limitations/implicationsResearchers should consider conducting larger, multi-institutional studies in the USA, which would reflect a diversity of perspectives and experiences within the American context. Parallel studies of doctoral programs in other countries may be useful in identifying whether similar factors are found for international and domestic students attending those programs. Follow-up interviews could be used to further delve into and understand the emergent patterns from the surveys. The findings of such future studies have the power to inform programs and policies designed to increase the retention of both domestic and international doctoral students.Practical implicationsGiven that faculty/advising is one of the most important factors cited by both domestic and international students, our findings suggest that US faculty members may need to give more attention to nurturing supportive relationships with their advisees. Furthermore, American university administrators might consider changing tenure requirements and reward systems for professors to place more emphasis on cultivating positive relationships with advisees, publishing, presenting and writing grants with advisees, and providing high-quality mentoring for doctoral students. Doctoral-granting institutions should consider implementing regular program reviews that include surveys from doctoral students to help programs identify and meet their students’ needs.Originality/valueLikewise, while other research on international students’ doctoral experiences has been conducted, such as the relationship with their faculty advisor (Kim, 2007; Rice et al., 2009), single studies that focus on factors affecting the attrition of domestic versus that of international students’ remain limited. The purpose of this study is to address the following research questions: What factors contribute to doctoral students’ considerations of departure in the USA? How might these factors differ between domestic and international students? We seek to expand understandings of doctoral attrition by using larger-scale qualitative data to address limitations of existing studies that focus on the experiences of only a few students.

What price the building of world-class universities? Academic pressure faced by young lecturers at a research-centered University in China

ABSTRACTThis study explores the challenges faced by young lecturers in managerial transformation in elite Chinese academic institutions which aim to develop into world-class universities. Drawing on data from in-depth interviews, the paper discusses how a group of lecturers on tenure-track contracts at a research university in China perceived the impacts of this managerial personnel reform. The study revealed intensified academic pressure and consequent feelings of insecurity, uncertainty and anxiety among the participants. Rigid tenure requirements pushed down research quality, and detracted from the efforts the participants could have devoted to teaching. Further negative impacts were strengthened power hierarchies and increasingly gendered nature of the academic culture.

Managing the Auditor-Client Relationship Through Partner Rotations: The Experiences of Audit Firm Partners

ABSTRACT While current audit standards explicitly state engagement partner tenure requirements, firms have flexibility in managing the rotation process. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 2...

Film and Media Studies and the State of Academic Publishing: Introduction

Film and Media Studies and the State of Academic PublishingIntroduction Emily Carman (bio) and Ross Melnick (bio) In the winter of 2013, editors from five university presses provided their insights regarding the changing nature of scholarly publishing for Cinema Journal’s In Focus. Topics included intellectual property, fair use, and detailed assessments of how digital technologies and pipelines (namely e-books) were already transforming their work. While acknowledging these and other changes in the publishing business, each editor confirmed that the mission of an academic press had remained fundamental: to publish rich and varied scholarship that generates intellectual debate, critical engagement, increased readership, and, yes, library and retail sales.1 A few months later, Columbia University Press published Thomas Doherty’s Hollywood and Hitler, 1933–1939 (2013) and Harvard University Press published Ben Urwand’s The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler (2013).2 While Columbia University Press backed Hollywood and Hitler with a strong, traditional marketing campaign, Harvard University Press employed an outside publicity firm for The Collaboration to garner press attention, in part by critiquing Doherty’s competing book. “Perhaps I’m naïve about academic publishing,” David Denby wrote in the New Yorker, “but I’m surprised that Harvard University Press could have published anything as poorly argued as Urwand’s book; and I’m surprised still more that Harvard or Urwand (or both) hired a commercial book publicist, Goldberg McDuffie, which, in its press release for Urwand’s [End Page 130] book, attacked Doherty’s work on the subject. . . . In the past, disputes between scholars were hashed out in academic journals and conferences, not by hired guns.”3 With the ensuing controversy over The Collaboration (and its public relations campaign) in mind, we (along with Anne Helen Petersen, originally a coeditor who now writes for BuzzFeed) were inspired to ponder the many ways in which film and media studies scholars navigate a complex set of questions for writing, publishing, and promoting their work, especially in an increasingly digital landscape where much of the controversy over The Collaboration played out. This led us to a series of questions: What are our roles as authors? What kind of promotion is appropriate for us to commit to for our books? How can we best work with editors to ensure that we are meeting their expectations for both rigorous scholarship and strong promotion at a time when academic presses are increasingly under financial constraints and adapting to new business models? This engagement between academic press and author is indeed a collaboration, and of a very different kind. Thus, we asked fellow scholars and scholars who are also editors to discuss the current state of academic publishing from this side of the fence with particular attention to how marketing academic books has changed in the era of social media and how the pressures of publishing fit into the demands of an ever-changing academic landscape. This In Focus, therefore, is centered on academic books in film and media studies and the changing ways in which scholars work with editors, marketers, social media, journalists, and their colleagues to expand their research and audience in the twenty-first century. The articles in this section also consider how the work of contemporary film and media studies scholars has changed over the past decade as academic presses, search committee expectations, tenure requirements, contingent labor duress, university cultures, and the field itself continue to transform in challenging, exciting, and unexpected ways. Video essays, academic blogs, social media, popular writing, and spatial and data visualizations are just some of the many ways in which new models of scholarship are joining more traditional avenues like academic journals, edited collections, and—of principal interest here—books. Yet many of these digital publishing options are not counted as highly as the staple outputs of academic research: the peer-reviewed article, chapter, or—again—the book. Still, the changes brought about by the digital transition, the influence of digital humanities, and the move to both closed and open-access digital publishing have created a new set of opportunities for and challenges to traditional academic presses and to traditional scholarship. There is also a significant upheaval in academic journals amid...