Advertisement

Faculty Expectations and Development: The Tenure Case

  • S. Suzanne Nielsen

Abstract

Professionals seeking careers in academia should understand the tenure process, and how to prepare successfully for the evaluations linked to the tenure decision. This chapter offers suggestions for persons pursuing tenure–track faculty positions in the discipline of food science. The first promotion process in academia (i.e., from assistant professor to associate professor) is typically linked to tenure consideration. The focus of this chapter is explaining tenure, tenure expectations, resources for guidance, how to manage the process, and how to prepare the tenure and promotion document. While most people are fearful of the promotion and tenure process, this fear and apprehension can be minimized by understanding the process and its expectations, and having good advice to follow to help ensure success.

Keywords

Faculty Member Junior Faculty Orientation Program Grant Proposal Scholarly Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbott, D., and Sanders, G.F. 1991. On the road to tenure. Family Relations 40:106–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boice, R. 2000. Advice for New Faculty Members. Needham Height, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  4. Diamantes, T. 2002. Promotion and tenure decisions using the Boyer model. Education, 00131172, Winter 2002, 123(2). Database: Academic Search Premier pp. 322–325, 333.Google Scholar
  5. Diamond, R.M., 1995. Preparing for Promotion and Tenure Review. Bolton, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  6. Diamond, R.M. 2002. The mission-driven faculty reward system. Ch. 17 in Field Guide to Academic Leadership. R.M. Diamond, Ed., and B. Adam, Asst. Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 271–291.Google Scholar
  7. Gelmon, S., and Agre-Kippenhan, S. 2002. Promotion, tenure, and the engaged scholar: Keeping the scholarship of engagement in the review process. AAHE Bulletin, 54(5) pp. 7–11.Google Scholar
  8. Mawdsley, R.D. 1999. Collegiality as a factor in tenure decisions. Journal Personnel Evaluation in Education 13(2):167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller, R.I. 1987. Evaluating teaching: The role of student ratings, Ch. 3 in Evaluating Faculty for Promotion and Tenure, p. 31–55. Evaluating scholarship and service, Ch. 4 in Evaluating Faculty for Promotion and Tenure, p. 56–70. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Murphy, M. 1985. A descriptive study of faculty tenure in baccalaureate and graduate programs in nursing. Journal of Professional Nursing 1:14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. National Education Association. 1994. Entering the Profession: Advice for the Untenured. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  12. Olswang, S.G., Cameron, C.A., and Kamai, E. 2001. The new tenure. Paper presented at American Association for Higher Education’s Conference on Faculty Roles and Rewards, Tampa, FL, February, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. Ross, A. 1987. Tenure or the great chain of being Academic life and the wheel of fortune. Change 19(4): 54–55.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Suzanne Nielsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations