By William
J. Rothwell, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Penn State University
(IACEHOF 2023)
The university tenure system is a cornerstone of higher education, intended to ensure job security, academic freedom, and the retention of high-quality faculty. But this system is under increasing scrutiny for failing to align with the evolving needs of students, institutions, and society (Sporn, 2024). Understanding and improving tenure is vital for students, parents, policymakers, and educators, as it can directly impact the quality and relevance of higher education (El Hajjar & Borna, 2025).
Challenges in the Tenure System
Research
Tenure decisions often overemphasize research output, pressuring faculty to prioritize grant acquisition and publication volume (Mutongoza, 2023). This “publish or perish” culture can compromise quality and ethics, encouraging isolated rather than collaborative efforts and diminishing focus on teaching or real-world application. Grant priorities may not align with pressing societal needs, further skewing academic efforts (Purnell, 2025).
Publishing
Tenure traditionally values peer-reviewed journal publications. However, this narrow definition of scholarly contribution excludes more accessible and impactful formats such as books, policy papers, or practitioner-oriented content. The peer review system, while important, can be biased, and the pressure to produce frequent articles may stifle innovation and inflate minor contributions (Sobkowicz, 2015).
Teaching
Teaching often receives less weight in tenure evaluations (Schimanski & Alperin, 2018). Faculty may have little motivation to improve instruction, adopt new methods, or prioritize student learning—especially when excellence in teaching is not rewarded. This neglect results in theoretically strong students with weak real-world preparation, especially if experiential learning is overlooked.
Advising
Advising and mentoring, critical to student development, are time-intensive and often undervalued in tenure reviews (Morrison et al., 2019). The demands of research and publishing leave faculty with limited availability for meaningful student support, particularly for those needing tailored guidance.
Service
Service—including committee work, faculty governance, and community engagement—is crucial to university functioning. Yet tenure reviews often treat it as a lesser duty (St. Louis University, 2022). This leads to uneven workloads, where committed faculty bear the brunt, potentially jeopardizing their research and teaching efforts.
How to Improve Tenure
A reformed tenure system should balance research, publishing, teaching, advising, and service:
Research Reform
- Prioritize quality, innovation, and relevance over quantity.
- Encourage interdisciplinary and collaborative projects.
- Expand definitions of scholarly output to include policy work, practitioner research, and cross-disciplinary contributions.
- Support faculty with funding, assistance, and time for meaningful research.
Publishing Reform
- Broaden recognition to include books, open-access journals, and digital dissemination.
- Promote in-depth, long-term research agendas.
- Improve transparency in the peer review process.
- Foster mentorship to develop thoughtful publication strategies.
Teaching Excellence
- Implement robust teaching evaluation methods (peer reviews, student feedback, teaching portfolios).
- Offer development programs to improve instructional quality.
- Recognize innovative pedagogies like active and experiential learning in tenure decisions.
Advising as a Priority
- Set clear expectations and provide training.
- Include advising effectiveness in tenure decisions, using input from advisees.
- Reward faculty who demonstrate excellence in student mentoring.
Valuing Service
- Distribute service duties equitably.
- Count diverse service activities (governance, outreach, leadership) in evaluations.
- Foster a culture that appreciates service as essential to academic life.
Other Considerations
Tenure decisions could also reflect faculty contributions to social impact and diversity, helping to combat the perception that higher education is elitist or disconnected from societal needs. Additionally, restoring faculty leadership in curriculum decisions, instead of delegating it to expanded administrative control of bureaucrats, can ensure relevance to students’ educational and professional aspirations.
Conclusion
Tenure should reflect the full scope of faculty responsibilities—research, teaching, advising, service, and societal contribution. Reforming the system to emphasize quality, balance, and relevance will ensure universities better serve students, faculty, and society. Such improvements can restore public trust, enhance student outcomes, and re-energize the academic profession.
References
El Hajjar, S., & Borna, S. (2025, May 5). The tenure dilemma: Stability or innovation? AACSB Insights. Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. https://www.aacsb.edu/insights/articles/2025/05/the-tenure-dilemma-stability-or-innovation
Morrison, J. A., Barthell, J. F., Boettcher, A., Bowne, D., Nixon, C., Resendes, K. K., & Strauss‑Soukup, J. (2019). Recognizing and valuing the mentoring of undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative activity by faculty members: Workload, tenure, promotion, and award systems (CUR White Paper No. 2). Council on Undergraduate Research.
Mutongoza, B. H. (2023). The negative consequences of the ‘publish or perish’ culture on academic staff in higher education. SOTL in the South, 7(2), 49–65.
Purnell, P. J. (2025). Transdisciplinary research: How much is academia heeding the call to work more closely with societal stakeholders such as industry, government, and nonprofits? Scientometrics, 130(6), Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05367-2
Schimanski, L. A., & Alperin, J. P. (2018). The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future. F1000Research, 7, Article 1605. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16554.2
Sobkowicz, P. (2015). Innovation suppression and clique evolution in peer review. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(2), 13. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.2957
Sporn, B. (2024). Higher education institutions as change agents in society. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 14(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2024.2412764
Saint Louis University, Gender Policies and Initiatives Council, & Academic Faculty Affairs Committee. (2022). Lip service? White paper on service in the personnel review process. Saint Louis University.
