Tenure

Is the Tenure Process Fair? What Faculty Think
Lawrence, J. H., Celis, S., & Ott, M. (2014). Is the Tenure Process Fair? What Faculty Think. The Journal of Higher Education , 85 (2), 155-188. Publisher's VersionAbstract
A conceptual framework grounded on procedural justice theory was created to explain how judgments about the fairness of tenure decision-making evolved among faculty who had not yet undergone the review. The framework posits that faculty beliefs about fairness are influenced directly by their workplace experiences and both directly and indirectly by their socio-demographic characteristics. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to assess the proposed direct and indirect effects with data from 2,247 pre-tenure assistant professors at 21 research universities. The results substantiate the importance of perceived campus and department conditions in shaping faculty members’ views of tenure reviews and as mediators of faculty members’ socio-demographic characteristics. Equitable treatment of junior faculty at the department level and effectiveness of feedback have the strongest relationships with beliefs about the equity of tenure decision-making. Generally speaking, an individual’s sense of control during the process of constructing the tenure dossier predicts his or her judgments about the fairness of tenure reviews. Practical suggestions for campus leaders regarding the conditions that inform faculty beliefs about tenure reviews and implications for future research are discussed.
The role of citizenship status in intent to leave for pre-tenure faculty
Kim, D., Wolf-Wendel, L., & Twombly, S. B. (2013). The role of citizenship status in intent to leave for pre-tenure faculty. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education , 6 (4), 245-260. Publisher's VersionAbstract
Using a national database, this study uses discriminant analysis to explore the role of citizenship status in determining intent to leave for pre-tenure faculty members at 4-year research universities. Of the 3 possible responses (intend to stay, intend to leave, and undecided), 2 functions emerged. The first function differentiates between those who intend to stay as compared to those who intend to leave and those who are undecided. The second function differentiates between those who intend to leave and those who are undecided. Citizenship matters only for the second function. Measures of satisfaction with workplace serve as the primary indicators of function one. Race and citizenship status are the only variables significant for function two. Demographic variables (e.g., gender, marital status), discipline, salary, and institutional variables (e.g., institutional control and Carnegie Classification) are not significant variables in either function. The variables that are significant for the entire sample are similar to those found to be significant just for non-U.S. citizen faculty. Implications of this study for institutions include attending to departmental and institutional fit, recognition of diversity among non-U.S. citizen faculty, and working toward improving various components of satisfaction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
International Faculty in American Universities: Experiences of Academic Life, Productivity, and Career Mobility
Kim, D., Twombly, S., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2012). International Faculty in American Universities: Experiences of Academic Life, Productivity, and Career Mobility. New Directions for Institutional Research , 155, 27-46. Publisher's VersionAbstract
In the past 20 years, the number of international faculty members at American universities has continued to increase rapidly. This growth is evident in data showing that the proportional representation of foreign-born faculty easily surpasses that of domestic underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. The increasing presence of international faculty members is validated using multiple data sources, and their professional experience is examined in terms of the perception of academic life, productivity, and career mobility. The primary interest of this chapter on international faculty and their professional experiences in U.S. higher education institutions is based on the assumption that international faculty are considered to be different than domestic faculty in their academic experiences, largely due to their cultural, educational, and language backgrounds. 

Pages