Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 193–205 | Cite as

The Dynamic between Knowledge Production and Faculty Evaluation: Perceptions of the Promotion and Tenure Process across Disciplines

  • J. Kasi JacksonEmail author
  • Melissa Latimer
  • Rachel Stoiko


This study sought to understand predictors of faculty satisfaction with promotion and tenure processes and reasonableness of expectations in the context of a striving institution. The factors we investigated included discipline (high-consensus [science and math] vs. low-consensus [humanities and social sciences]); demographic variables; and institutional support including mentoring, collegiality, work-life integration, and college commitment to faculty members’ fields. High-consensus faculty members were less satisfied with promotion and tenure processes than were low-consensus faculty members (p < .01). Faculty members who were more satisfied with collegiality (p < .001) and with college commitment to their fields (p < .05) were more satisfied with promotion and tenure processes. Faculty members who were more satisfied with work-life integration and mentoring were more satisfied with reasonableness of expectations (p < .05).


Promotion and tenure Roles and rewards Faculty development High and low consensus disciplines 



Partial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation's ADVANCE IT Program under Award HRD-1007978. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authors also thank the reviewers for suggestions and Kate Epstein for editorial assistance that greatly improved the final manuscript.


  1. American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2014). Job status of humanities Ph.D.’s at time of graduation. Retrieved from
  2. Barnes, K., & Mertz, E. (2012). Is it fair? Law professors’ perceptions of tenure. Journal of Legal Education, 61, 511–539.Google Scholar
  3. Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.Google Scholar
  4. Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204–213.Google Scholar
  5. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). Job satisfaction among university faculty: Individual, work, and institutional determinants. Journal of Higher Education, 82, 154–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), The handbook of theory and research in higher education (pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bronstein, P., & Farnsworth, L. (1998). Gender differences in faculty experiences of interpersonal climate and processes for advancement. Research in Higher Education, 39, 557–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunton, S. A., & Corrice, A. M. (2011). Perceptions of the promotion process: Analysis of U.S. medical school faculty. Analysis, 11, 1–2.Google Scholar
  9. Callister, R. R., Minnotte, K. L., & Sullivan, K. A. (2009). Understanding gender differences in job dissatisfaction among science and engineering faculty. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15, 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, C. M., & O’Meara, K. (2014). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, R. (1999). The academic department: How does it fit into the university reform agenda? Change, 31(5), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forrest Cataldi, E., Fahimi, M., & Bradburn, E. M. (2005). 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). Report on faculty and instructional staff in fall 2003 (NCES 2005–172). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
  13. Fox, M. F. (2015). Gender and clarity of evaluation among academic scientists in research universities. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40, 487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, M. F., & Colatrella, C. (2006). Participation, performance, and advancement of women in academic science and engineering: What is at issue and why. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner, S. K. (2013). Women faculty departures from a striving institution: Between a rock and a hard place. The Review of Higher Education, 36, 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ginther, D. K., & Kahn, S. (2014). Women’s careers in academic social science: Progress, pitfalls, and plateaus. In A. Lanteri & J. Vromen (Eds.), The economics of economists -- Institutional settings, individual incentives, and future prospects (pp. 285–315). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gmelch, W. H., Wilke, P. K., & Lovrich, N. P. (1986). Dimensions of stress among university faculty: Factor-analytic results from a national study. Research in Higher Education, 24, 266–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonzales, L. (2014). Framing faculty agency inside striving universities: An application of Bourdieu’s theory of practice. Journal of Higher Education, 8, 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hearn, J. C., & Anderson, M. S. (2002). Conflict in academic departments: An analysis of disputes over faculty promotion and tenure. Research in Higher Education, 43, 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hermanowicz, J. C. (2005). Classifying universities and their departments: A social world perspective. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 26–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hermanowicz, J. C. (2007). Argument and outline for the sociology of scientific (and other) careers. Social Studies of Science, 37, 625–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hind, R. R., Dornbusch, S. M., & Scott, W. R. (1974). A theory of evaluation applied to a university faculty. Sociology of Education, 47, 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huston, T. A., Norman, M., & Ambrose, S. A. (2007). Expanding the discussion of faculty vitality to include productive but disengaged senior faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 493–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, & National Academy of Engineering (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jackson, J. (2004). The story is not in the numbers: Academic socialization and diversifying the faculty. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 172–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnsrud, L. K., & Des Jarlais, C. D. (1994). Barriers to tenure for women and minorities. The Review of Higher Education, 17, 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones, W. A. (2011). Variation among academic disciplines: An update on analytical frameworks and research. Journal of the Professoriate, 6(1), 9–27.Google Scholar
  28. Lawrence, J. H., Celis, S., & Ott, M. (2014). Is the tenure process fair? what faculty think. Journal of Higher Education, 85, 155–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchneck, B., Smith, J. L., & Latimer, M. (2016). A recipe for change: Creating a more inclusive academy. Science, 352(6282), 148–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Modern Languages Association (2009). Standing still: The associate professor survey, report of the committee on the status of women in the profession. Retrieved from
  31. O’Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. The Review of Higher Education, 26, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Meara, K. A., & Bloomgarden, A. (2011). The pursuit of prestige: the experience of institutional striving from a faculty perspective. The Journal of the Professoriate, 4(1), 39–73.Google Scholar
  33. O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. M. (2011). Faculty sense of agency in decisions about work and family. The Review of Higher Education, 34, 447–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosser, S. V. (2014). Senior compared to junior women academic scientists: Similar or different needs? In V. Demos, C. W. Berheide, & M. T. Segal (Eds.), Gender transformation in the academy (Advances in gender research, Vol. 19, pp. 221–242). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schrodt, P., Cawyer, C. S., & Sanders, R. (2003). An examination of academic mentoring behaviors and new faculty members’ satisfaction with socialization and tenure promotion process. Communication Education, 52(1), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tower, L. E., & Latimer, M. (2016). Cumulative disadvantage: Effects of early career childcare issues on faculty research travel. Affilia, 31, 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolf-Wendel, L. E., & Ward, K. (2006). Academic life and motherhood: Variations by institutional type. Higher Education, 52, 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Youn, T. K., & Price, T. M. (2009). Learning from the experience of others: The evolution of faculty tenure and promotion rules. Journal of Higher Education, 80, 204–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Kasi Jackson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Melissa Latimer
    • 1
  • Rachel Stoiko
    • 1
  1. 1.West Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations