The tenure concept at American universities dates at least back to the 1870’s when the tenure system was developed to ensure employment protection when a faculty member engages in research or teaching on topics that may be controversial.
An early pivotal case involved Richard Ely, a professor at the University of Wisconsin who was advocating labor strikes and labor reform. In 1894, the state legislature and various business interests tried, unsuccessfully, to pressure the university to fire him. One of the results of that case was what must be the most elegant statement ever penned about the importance of academic freedom to a university. It is immortalized on a plaque at the University of Wisconsin, Madison:
"In all lines of academic investigation it is of the utmost importance that the investigator should be absolutely free to follow the indications of truth wherever they may lead. Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."
And so the tenure concept developed, and by 1910, 22 universities had hired faculty with a presumption of permanence.
Today most, if not all, universities have a tenure system whose details are governed by each individual university’s policies and procedures. General similarities exist among all such policies—in order to get tenure, junior faculty must show competence in research, publishing, teaching, ability to get grants, etc. However, the entire concept of tenure is still being debated, pro and con. Much of this debate involves a related concept: “performance” evaluation. That is, how does a university decide whether or not a faculty member is “doing a good job”? This difficult question is answered by various universities in different ways, and with the increasing focus on technology transfer, a new criterion has emerged within the past several years.
In 2006 the Texas A&M System Board of Regents voted to “consider faculty members’ commercialization success in tenure applications.” This created quite a stir; a 20111 survey shows that 75% of universities do NOT use commercialization as a tenure/promotion criterion. However, of those that do include commercialization activities, most of them developed such policies before 2006. So, some universities have been on this track for quite some time; they are “early adopters.”
Universities vary as to what falls under the umbrella of “commercialization activities and economic development.” Such metrics include patents filed, patents issued, and royalties generated. Others may include new company startup activities and corporate research funding.
Based on the 2011 survey, the majority of universities that consider “commercialization activities” as part of tenure and promotion have research budgets that are mid-sized to small (less than $147 million). The obvious conclusion to be reached is that these universities value faculty who augment their budgets with additional revenue.
It seems to me, however, that no matter the size of the university, credit should be given for commercialization efforts on the part of their faculty. After all, don’t the taxpayers who fund state-supported schools expect faculty to do research that benefits society? And isn’t “commercial impact,” along with other conventional measures, a good measure of benefit to society?
1Ashley J. Stevens, Ginger A. Johnson, and Paul R. Sanberg. 2011. The Role of Patents and Commercialization in the Tenure and Promotion Process. Technology and Innovation, Vol. 13, pp. 241-248.
An early pivotal case involved Richard Ely, a professor at the University of Wisconsin who was advocating labor strikes and labor reform. In 1894, the state legislature and various business interests tried, unsuccessfully, to pressure the university to fire him. One of the results of that case was what must be the most elegant statement ever penned about the importance of academic freedom to a university. It is immortalized on a plaque at the University of Wisconsin, Madison:
"In all lines of academic investigation it is of the utmost importance that the investigator should be absolutely free to follow the indications of truth wherever they may lead. Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."
And so the tenure concept developed, and by 1910, 22 universities had hired faculty with a presumption of permanence.
Today most, if not all, universities have a tenure system whose details are governed by each individual university’s policies and procedures. General similarities exist among all such policies—in order to get tenure, junior faculty must show competence in research, publishing, teaching, ability to get grants, etc. However, the entire concept of tenure is still being debated, pro and con. Much of this debate involves a related concept: “performance” evaluation. That is, how does a university decide whether or not a faculty member is “doing a good job”? This difficult question is answered by various universities in different ways, and with the increasing focus on technology transfer, a new criterion has emerged within the past several years.
In 2006 the Texas A&M System Board of Regents voted to “consider faculty members’ commercialization success in tenure applications.” This created quite a stir; a 20111 survey shows that 75% of universities do NOT use commercialization as a tenure/promotion criterion. However, of those that do include commercialization activities, most of them developed such policies before 2006. So, some universities have been on this track for quite some time; they are “early adopters.”
Universities vary as to what falls under the umbrella of “commercialization activities and economic development.” Such metrics include patents filed, patents issued, and royalties generated. Others may include new company startup activities and corporate research funding.
Based on the 2011 survey, the majority of universities that consider “commercialization activities” as part of tenure and promotion have research budgets that are mid-sized to small (less than $147 million). The obvious conclusion to be reached is that these universities value faculty who augment their budgets with additional revenue.
It seems to me, however, that no matter the size of the university, credit should be given for commercialization efforts on the part of their faculty. After all, don’t the taxpayers who fund state-supported schools expect faculty to do research that benefits society? And isn’t “commercial impact,” along with other conventional measures, a good measure of benefit to society?
1Ashley J. Stevens, Ginger A. Johnson, and Paul R. Sanberg. 2011. The Role of Patents and Commercialization in the Tenure and Promotion Process. Technology and Innovation, Vol. 13, pp. 241-248.
No comments:
Post a Comment