Dr. Mr. Beall
I have a concern with another statement you make in your DW post. It concerns your pronouncement that “earning tenure at WIU actually involves very little published research on the part of the candidate and that the tenure and promotion process has no external review.” This statement is false, plain and simple. I would guess that the source of your information is “Anonymous.” I can also guess that your source did not provide evidence of their claim. Relying upon anonymous sources that are purely argumentative and lacking in substance may have led you to conclude as the anonymous source has. But doing so does not legitimate the claim.
In fact, our departmental criteria are publicly available for review. Below, I provide you with the criteria from my own department. And I openly attest that our criteria for tenure and promotion in fact do require published research.
More generally, WIU is bound by a faculty union contract, and that contract requires our minima criteria for tenure and promotion to be shared across departments. Hence, in all cases, WIU requires junior colleagues to submit for evaluation at least two peer-reviewed publications/professional works, that are have appeared in bona fide, legitimate venues. The validity of these venues it determined by department personnel committees, then the chair, then the dean, then the provost. I say “two” bona fide/legitimate professional works, because some departments require more. In addition, all portfolios must demonstrate additional profession works (beyond the two). We also expect junior colleagues to have established themselves in professional societies, through service in order to be tenured. Our university views legitimate peer review, service in regional and national societies, and the publication of additional, secondary scholarly works as a form or external validation from the disciplines and professional communities. While we do not go further to the point of asking faculty from other universities to serve as external reviewers, I do not believe this practice is common.
The union contract requires DPC and other reviewers to effectively judge the quality as well as the quantity of professional works prior to making recommendations regarding retention, tenure, and promotion decisions. What follows are the criteria from my own department.
A. Scholarly/Professional Activity
1. Categories of Materials and Activities
a. Publications of Scholarly Research: refereed journal articles, book chapters in edited scholarly books, and scholarly books
b. Publications of monographs, refereed teaching notes, and refereed research notes
c. Research Grants/Contracts: receiving, administering and fulfillment of research grant project obligations including written reports
d. Editorship of a professional journal
e. Officer or leadership activity in a state, regional, national or professional organization
f. Other Research and Creative Activities (not prioritized)
1. papers presented to professional associations and other
2. professional meetings
3. manuscript review
4. work in progress
5. research grant proposals
6. consulting work, paid or unpaid, that is reflective of the faculty member’s discipline
7. professional testimony to groups, agencies, courts, etc.
8. book reviews
9. film reviews
10. encyclopedia entries
g. Any scholarly activity can be counted only once
2. Relative Importance
In general, categories a, b, c, and d are judged more important than categories e and f.
