PETER A. FACIONE Significant Contributions to Collaborative Scholarship & Tenure S E V SENIORACADEMICLEADERSare in consensus If we who are experienced in making tenure I T that, for purposes of tenure, a candidate’s evaluations and tenure decisions year in and C significant contributions to collaborative year out on candidates from a wide range E scholarship should be valued highly. That of disciplines are not in accord, how can we P S consensus, however, may be as fragile as it is meaningfully discuss tenure expectations in R shallow. At an operational level, we do not an informed and detailed way with colleagues? E agree about what counts as potentially signifi- How can we supply sound academic leader- P cant contributions to collaborative scholar- ship or helpful collegial guidance about this ship. At a conceptual to department chairs, tenure-eligible faculty, level, we appear to their mentors, or the faculty who serve on de- conflate three different notions: “independent partmental, school-level, or university-level Our understanding scholarship,” “solo-authored publications,” tenure review committees? and “significant scholarly work.” of scholarly work The fundamental issue is how to give due Three false starts, three lessons learned and its place in weight and proper consideration for purposes I recall one particularly vexing conversation the life of the of tenure to the intellectual work and schol- early in my years as a department chair. teaching scholar arly worth of various kinds of contributions. Tenured faculty in my department worked by As a group, we are not sure how to value such themselves on their individual research pro- must continue to work as designing and assuring the integrity of jects, but some assistant professors were expand and evolve a collaborative research project, serving as the beginning to collaborate and to publish as content expert on a research team, develop- coauthors. This was a new thing, believe it or ing and validating the research instruments not, to those of us on the departmental evalu- used in the project, writing the first solid draft ation committee. As the department guide- of a scholarly manuscript for publication, be- lines did not cover this situation, we tried to ing an invited coauthor of a scholarly manu- figure out how to count these coauthored pub- script, providing the statistical and analytical lications using the dreadful point system with expertise needed to undertake the project, be- which we had saddled ourselves. One senior ing the principle investigator of the grant that colleague glibly suggested that however many funds the collaborative project, being the per- points we might assign a publication should son who had the initial idea for the collabora- simply be divided equally among its coauthors. tion, or being the leader of a collaborative The message he intended to send to his not- research project or team. yet-tenured colleagues was obvious: every one of his solo-authored articles was automatically PETER A. FACIONE, former provost at Loyola at least twice as valuable as any of their co- University Chicago, is a senior scholar with the authored work. How convenient. Many years National Center for Science and Civic Engage- later at a different institution, a colleague in ment and senior director for academic leadership physics got quite a kick out of the “divide-by- at Keeling and Associates, a higher education the-number-of-authors” suggestion. He was strategic leadership consulting firm. one of several hundred authors on a couple of 38 LIBERAL EDUCATION SUMMER 2006 Loyola University Chicago groundbreaking big-science publications. and informed way the quality and merit of S E Lesson learned. scholarly contributions made to collaborative V Sad to say, but the second approach, “always- research projects. I T trust-the-department,” can backfire too. On Faced with this problem, and wanting not to C more than one occasion, I recall working as a tenure unworthy candidates, some chief acade- E dean with serious-minded groups of faculty mic officers adopt a third approach: demand in- P S leaders to clarify school-level tenure standards. dependent scholarship. For them, the candidate R Naturally, we always began by attending to who produces solo-authored publications is the E the well-rehearsed differences between the only surely worthy candidate. Thinking they P disciplines in our college or school. But, can- are being rigorous, rather than simply confused, didly, we knew that some departments were these good colleagues then mistakenly narrow less than fully able or willing to articulate the their demand for “independent scholarship” various ways candidates in their fields could until operationally it equates to “solo-authored potentially contribute significantly as individ- publications.” At least with divide-by-the- uals to collaborative projects. Unfortunately, number-of-authors, a candidate whose only in some departments influential people ex- contributions are coauthored would accumulate pressed serious difficulties with the evolving some points toward tenure. But if solo-author- character and broadening range of what their ship is a sine qua non, then we really have own larger disciplinary community counted as taken a step backward toward an outmoded, in- acceptable forms of scholarly work. Some would complete, and stifling notion of scholarly work. not accept certain methodologies, or they did The lesson learned? If we who have been not consider certain kinds of questions as wor- making tenure decisions cannot untangle the thy, or they were vaguely suspicious of any work different meanings of “independent scholar- that was interdisciplinary, or they assumed col- ship,” “solo-authored publications,” and “sig- laboration meant people were getting credit nificant scholarly work,” then how should for work not truly their own. In moments of we meaningfully discuss these things with candor, some might confide that they were a bit colleagues? Again, how should we give well- embarrassed themselves because they simply informed and helpful guidance to deans, did not know how to judge the scholarly quality chairs, tenure candidates, and faculty on de- of these different kinds of things. partmental, school-level, or university-level Departments occasionally suffer internal review committees? turmoil because of vested interests, misunder- standings, interpersonal strife, fractious politics, Gathering insights from experience poor processes, or weak management. Some To learn what senior-level academic adminis- department chairs are better than others at ex- trators understand about the nature and sig- plaining their discipline’s research modalities nificance of individual contributions to to those of us from other fields. Not all the collaborative scholarship, I invited many of tenured faculty of a department contribute my colleagues to respond by e-mail to some useful evaluations of a candidate’s research. questions.1Do not, however, confuse my opin- External reviews can be compromised by ion gathering with rigorous research. This was questions about the reviewer’s selection, com- merely a convenience sample designed to give petence, impartiality, or appreciation of a friends and colleagues an organized way to unique institutional context. Thus, tenure participate in an exploratory conversation. recommendations at the departmental level We limited our conversation to collaborative may not always reflect a broad, informed, scholarship in applied behavioral science- unified, objective, and impartial analysis of oriented professional disciplines, such as edu- the quality or the significance of a tenure cation, journalism, communication, health candidate’s scholarly work. and human services, counseling, applied psy- Every provost or president responsible for chology, criminal justice, nursing, and social the final decision knows that some cases are work. There is no reason, however, to limit neither a clear yes nor a clear no. At times, a the conversations on campuses to these fields. president or chief academic officer must make Researchparadigms are expanding in almost a final decision that turns on the central issue every discipline, and opportunities as well as of this article: how to evaluate in a fair-minded demands for collaboration grow. Professional 40 LIBERAL EDUCATION SUMMER 2006 Tenure recommendations journals expect more and more at the departmental As academic leaders, our S in order to accept submissions level may not always understanding of scholarly E for publication, resulting in in- work and its place in the life V reflect a broad, I creasing numbers of coauthored of the teaching scholar must T and multi-authored works. informed, unified, continue to expand and C Funding agencies increasingly objective, and evolve with these kinds of E P target multidisciplinary and impartial analysis changes. The problem of sort- S interdisciplinary questions that ing out the potentially more R of the quality E require building collaborative significant from the potentially or the significance P research teams. The demand less significant contributions from employers, students, and of a tenure candidate’s to collaborative scholarship parents for effective workplace scholarly work must be raised periodically collaboration skills as learning in every area, from the per- outcomes begsthe question forming and studio arts to whether the academy’s historical penchant for the physical and behavioral sciences, from solo-scholarship really does best equip faculty mathematics and the humanities to the to respond knowledgeably to this demand. professional schools. Loyola University Chicago SUMMER 2006 LIBERAL EDUCATION 41 The “independent Fifty-six senior academic vs. collaborative” of faith traditions, theological S E administrators responded to distinction is unclear understandings, and social ori- V my invitation to join the con- entation,” one dean reported and unhelpful I T versation.2Adding my own that at his institution “all fac- C responses, a total of fifty-seven ulty members must be serious E participated. This ad hoc group included about their Christian faith and practice.” P S forty-six from top-ranked private Master’s- The case was then tweaked by adding the R level regional comprehensive universities and information that none of the candidate’s pub- E eleven from nationally ranked private research lications were solo-authored. Our responses P universities. In all, we were five presidents, then split down the middle: twenty-eight said twenty-eight academic vice presidents, and that it made no difference, or perhaps even twenty-four academic deans.3 helped the candidate’s case, and twenty-six said this new information hurt the case for tenure. How we rated the tenure candidate Those with diminished enthusiasm worried To anchor our potential responses, we first that free-riding as a marginal contributor on considered a hypothetical case.4Each of us in- the publications of others would be insuffi- dicated how that case would likely be viewed cient. While they valued substantial contribu- at our own institution by estimating the tions to multi-authored work highly, they now chances of such a candidate being granted wanted to know more about what the candi- tenure using percentages. The fictional case date had actually done or not done as part of was designed to make the candidate strong in the collaboration. All three of the fundamen- all areas so that no weaknesses would distract tally flawed approaches characterized earlier from the issue of independentscholarship. emerged. Using versions of the divide-by-the- Every one of us picked a percentage based on number-of-authors strategy, some proposed the limited information given and without giving lesser weight if the other coauthors caveat regarding reading an actual file, set of were already well-established senior scholars publications, or external reviewer’s comments.5 or giving greater weight if the candidate were All fifty-seven of us saw the candidate as a the “first author.” Several respondents said good faculty member, someplace in the top 40 they would defer to the “expectations of the percent. In all, fifty-three rated the candidate discipline,” although none went all the way in the top 20 percent; thirty-three put the to always-trust-the-department. One took the candidate in the top 5 percent. Eight of the third approach, “I would like to see some evi- eleven respondents from doctoral institutions dence of independent, creative scholarship.” and forty-five of the forty-six respondents from Master’s institutions put the candidate in “Independent” gets fuzzy the top 20 percent. All but one of the deans To close in on the issue at hand, I asked and all but three of the chief academic officers whether a university or a professional school put the candidate in the top 20 percent. ought explicitly to state a requirement that Given this level of consensus, we respondents either “collaborative scholarship leading to could be regarded—at least at that point—as coauthored publications” or “independent more or less equal when it comes to rating the scholarship leading to solo-authored publica- prospects of tenure candidates. tions” be demanded of all candidates for tenure The universally positive judgments expressed in applied professional fields.6The terms about the anticipated success of this case were “independent” and “collaborative” were inten- tempered by caveats regarding institutional tionally left undefined to mirror the way mission. One chief academic officer said, “The conversations about this complex topic often only issue that might derail this candidate unfold. At first, people think they are talking would be a lack of ‘fit’ with the mission. Other- about the same thing only to discover through wise this candidate seems very strong.” Some conversation that their conceptualizations respondents made the connection between are close but not identical. institutional mission and the explicitly faith- Written comments on this item revealed based or values-based character of their insti- some worrisome misunderstandings. For ex- tution. For example, while allowing for “an ample, at least one person linked collabora- impressive ecumenical kaleidoscope in terms tive research with “empirical” as contrasted 42 LIBERAL EDUCATION SUMMER 2006 with “theoretical.” Others associated collabo- Two respondents argued for making tenure S rative work with “interdisciplinary,” as con- candidates demonstrate competence working E trasted with research conducted solely within as independent scholars and as collaborative V I one’s own discipline. One chief academic scholars. They argued that the complexity of T officer reported having heard it argued that the research paradigms that the next generation C E qualitative research cannot be conducted of senior faculty will have to master in order P unless it is collaborative. The fuzziness of the to be effective as scholars and teachers re- S concept of “independent” scholarly work quires that faculty demonstrate a broad range R E was beginning to reveal itself. of research abilities. While thought provoking, P Regarding requirements limiting the kind these kinds of suggestions were the exceptions, of scholarly work a candidate could present, not the norm. one chief academic officer summed up the sit- uation for regional comprehensive universities So what really does “independent this way: “I think it would be unnecessary and scholar” mean? unproductive to dictate the type of publication One question asked whether it is possible to be required at a place . . . where we do not prepare an “independent scholar” without having a doctoral students, but only undergraduate and solo-authored publication. Forty-two of the master’s-level students.” One dean expressed senior academic administrators affirmed that the majority view succinctly: “Both are ac- these are different things; eleven indicated, ceptable, neither should be required.” Forty- however, that it would be highly unlikely that two (74 percent of us) said that both were one could be considered an independent acceptable modes of scholarly work and that scholar without at least one solo-authored pub- neither should be explicitly demanded as a lication. But it was the comments that told necessary condition. the tale. Many urged that we needed a more Loyola University Chicago SUMMER 2006 LIBERAL EDUCATION 43 complete and probing analysis of the ways can- Sort of leader/director versus follower/worker S E didates might make significant independent bee.” One chief academic officer wrote, V contributions to collaborative research projects. “this is hard: in a given case, any of those I T The final question supplied a list of several could be tenure-relevant; but any of them C different ways individuals could potentially (except, I think, ‘lead author’) could be the sign E make a significant contribution to a collabora- of a marginal role not influencing a decision.” P S tive scholarly project. Respondents were wel- Another respondent said, “it’s difficult to R come to endorse as many items from the list as make distinctions in this generalized list.” E they believed apply. (The results are shown in The challenge posed by this question fur- P table 1 below.) ther exposed the inadequacies of the “inde- This was a challenging question. “This is pendent vs. collaborative” distinction. It is tough,” one respondent reported. “Essentially, unclear and unhelpful. As the responses reveal, for me, it boils down to how much knowledge we are not in accord about where to draw and skill this person brought to the scholar- the line between those contributions that are ship/research and how much this person potentially of greater significance and those shaped the significance of the scholarship. that are potentially of lesser significance. Table 1 Significant Contributions 50 (87.7%) Lead author (journal article, book chapter, monograph) 36 (63.2%) Person who designed and assured the integrity of the research project 35 (61.4%) Content expert on the research team for the project being reported 34 (59.6%) Lead developer of the research instrument(s) created for the study 33 (57.6%) Leader of the research project team 31 (54.4%) Person who wrote the first good draft of the manuscript for publication 29 (50.9%) Person invited to coauthor a journal article, chapter, or monograph 26 (45.6%) Person who provided data and statistical analysis expertise 23 (40.4%) Person who had the initial idea for the collaboration 20 (35.1%) Lead presenter of a paper reporting on the research findings of the study 19 (33.4%) Person coordinating the work of the research team 17 (29.8%) Person whose externally funded grant supported the study 12 (21.1%) Person who refined data-gathering tools 12 (21.1%) Person whose previously existing dataset was used in the study 10 (17.5%) Statistician who analyzed some portion of the data in the research study 9 (15.8%) Person who rewrote the manuscript to respond to reviewers’ comments 6 (10.6%) Research staff who facilitated data gathering from subjects 4 (7.0%) Person who identified literature review sources for study 3 (5.3%) Person who rewrote manuscript to fit publisher’s editorial specifications 2 (3.5%) Research staff person who coded or entered respondent data 1 (1.8%) Person who read and edited the manuscript 44 LIBERAL EDUCATION SUMMER 2006 An especially telling observation came from S NOTES a chief academic officer who, after working E 1.I wish to acknowledge and to thank Noreen C. through the list, said, “I don’t find the meaning V Facione, my wife and frequent research collabora- I of the independent/not independent distinc- tor, for her assistance with the development of the T tion to be intuitively as clear or as relevant as questionnaire, the coding and entering of the data C E the significant/not significant distinction.” into SPSS, and her insightful advice about the shape P and content of this essay. Noreen was the founding S director of the Center for Faculty Professional Devel- Final thoughts: R opment at Loyola University Chicago. In that ad- E What advice should we give? ministrative leadership role she worked extensively P The notion of independent scholarship turned with faculty mentors, chairs, deans, assistant profes- out not to be helpful. We did not agree on its sors, tenured faculty, and emeriti. The sensitivities gathered from that work informed this project. meaning or its value at the conceptual level. 2.In sending the e-mail invitations only to academic We were unclear about what it includes and administrators, I assumed faculty who review tenure what it excludes at the operational level. Al- cases have benefit of group conversations in their though we all appear ready to endorse the idea tenure committees when considering and voting on that significant scholarly contributions must be tenure cases. In contrast, academic administrators are more likely to review cases and render their written demanded of tenure candidates, our list offers recommendations working alone. Thus, administra- no sharp limit separating scholarship of torshave less of an opportunity to test any presump- greater potential significance from that of tions they might be making about the way research lesser potential significance. is conducted in a given field or the significance in That list can serve as a starting point for that field of the various independent contributions of different scholars to a collaborative project. campus discussions from which analyses and 3.I focused on private institutions believing that, clarifications of the sorts of contributions because of traditions of confidentiality and campus listed—appropriate to institutional context cultures of more centralized decision making at and sensitive to disciplinary differences—can private institutions, the chief academic officers, emerge. With greater knowledge of the real presidents, and academic deans there tend to exer- cise significantly greater leverage on tenure deci- intellectual work of making different kinds of sion outcomes than do their counterparts at public individual contributions to scholarly collabo- institutions. rations, many of our outmoded ideas and mis- 4.The fictional case was described this way: “Consis- leading ways of talking about this would, one tently excellent teaching and curricular development hopes, fall by the wayside. at the undergraduate and graduate levels, a heavy advising load; exceptional faculty service, positive In closing, I offer two recommendations. collegiality, and good leadership skills; and eight First, we senior academic leaders should inform or more solid publications in blind peer-reviewed, ourselves more fully about the intellectual or professional journals relevant to the discipline artistic work required for successful scholarly (education, in this case), some of which are first- collaborations in a very wide range of fields or second-tier venues, numerous additional publi- cations including lesser papers, book chapters, and and disciplines. We are mistaken if we believe presentations at national professional meetings, lead authorship is the only collaborative con- at least one substantial competitively awarded ex- tribution of potential scholarly significance. ternal grant, and evidence of the beginnings of Second, we should engage the academic national and international recognition through leadership of our institution in explicating op- citations, invited presentations, and adoptions of the person’s materials by others for their scholarly erationally the types of contributions to col- uses in the U.S. and abroad.” laborative scholarship that shall be regarded 5.This is characteristic of experience-based expertise, as potentially of greater or lesser value for pur- namely a readiness to make holistic judgments poses of achieving tenure at the institution. grounded in widely shared cultural understandings— Clarity regarding the operational meaning of in this case, understandings of what generally to expect of a successful candidate for tenure at a “potentially significant contributions to col- particular institution. laborative scholarship” is critical for candi- 6.Five said, “yes, require collaborative scholarship dates and for those charged with reviewing leading to coauthorship.” Ten said, “Yes, require candidate files. ■■ independent scholarship leading to solo-authorship.” And forty-two said, “no, make neither of these ‘required’.” To respond to this article, e-mail [email protected], with the author’s name on the subject line. SUMMER 2006 LIBERAL EDUCATION 45