The suggestion that external reviewers of tenure and promotion candidate files, in general, have become less discerning is an important issue for the discipline. My perspective on this question comes from being a senior administrator and serving several years as associate provost. Thus, my comments are more general and comparative in nature.
There are two questions to address: Is there a self-selection process that results in generally positive and less-useful external reviews? Would a significant honorarium for reviewers reverse or ameliorate this trend? There indeed may be self-selection toward more general and/or positive reviews. My discussions with deans and chairs over the years, as well as in deliberation of this proposal, lead me to suspect that reviews tend to be positive, that reviews for borderline candidates are more difficult to solicit, and that at least some reviews resemble recommendation letters rather than critical analyses of a promotion portfolio. That said, there often are significant nuances in external reviews that give pronounced clues. A borderline candidate who meets minimum standards often elicits a lower level of enthusiasm even though the review is positive.
To a certain extent, the tendency toward positive reviews is unavoidable. The primary culprit is the trend toward academic specialization. Faculty hired in tenure-track positions are encouraged to focus on a specific “body of work” and become part of a national network of scholars to attain maximum visibility and prestige. This necessarily means that at least some letters likely will be solicited from a select pool of colleagues reluctant to criticize someone they know or with whom they have worked. Another inevitable trend for tenure candidates, particularly in those universities striving for higher research profiles, is that these candidates are increasingly “weeded out” in the years before the tenure decision. Many chairs tell me they have fewer borderline tenure candidates than in previous years.
The suggestion that senior scholars may be hesitant to take on borderline cases because they fear liability issues cannot be dismissed. Confidentiality notwithstanding, many states—including Texas—interpret public-information statutes as allowing unsuccessful candidates access to external reviews. In theory, this may lead to defamation suits; in practice, lawsuits based on external comments are rare. However, if someone is concerned with legal liability, an honorarium is not likely to make a difference.
The proposal for a significant honorarium for external reviewers evokes strong reaction both negative and positive from colleagues. Not surprisingly for an administrator, my first reaction to the proposal was concern for costs. Weyland makes a persuasive argument that a short-term investment is worth ensuring the quality of a long-term commitment. However, from the university’s perspective, initial costs are not insignificant. Honoraria paid in one department likely would lead to the practice in many departments across campus. An average of 50 candidates a year, each soliciting three reviews at $2,000 each, would result in a cost of $300,000. Who would pay? Departments probably would be expected to bear at least some of the expense. By necessity, most department chairs are not thinking about long-term investments; rather, they are strategizing about getting through the fiscal year. Cost is not the definitive argument against paying a significant honorarium, but it cannot be ignored.
Another inevitable trend for tenure candidates, particularly in those universities striving for higher research profiles, is that these candidates are increasingly “weeded out” in the years before the tenure decision.
Some colleagues indicate ethical discomfort at the notion of paying reviewers. Should reviewers be encouraged to change their opinions to more negative ones? Should there be a sliding scale of negativity based on the rate an institution agreed to pay? Some skeptics advocate paying a smaller honorarium to acknowledge the time spent on a thorough review.
In my experience, I have observed significant variations across disciplines in the degree of objectivity or negativity of external reviews. For example, despite the absence of honoraria, the external reviews in engineering were not always positive. This may be because engineering is a discipline that has straightforward and universal research metrics that include not only the quality and quantity of publications but also external funding and preparation of graduate students. It might be worth emulating this model to some degree or variation by giving external reviewers more specific charges. They might focus on certain components of the portfolio or comment on what they believe to be the most important pieces in the candidate’s work. This might present the task as a manageable enterprise rather than an amorphous or burdensome project.
Despite the preceding arguments against paying, I think it is an option worth exploring. My discussions reveal enthusiasm for the option among some established scholars and chairs. Supporters for paying emphasize that it incentivizes a more careful review. These advocates agree that it must be a substantial amount to entice recognized scholars to devote time and energy for a thorough analysis. Not paying sends a message that time invested is not appreciated. As one colleague stated, “It takes time to be critical.”
Paying reviewers almost certainly would expand the pool of those willing to engage in comprehensive reviews. Although it might not entice the highest-tier faculty or “stars” who already have hefty salaries and subsidies, it most certainly would encourage prominent scholars who are hesitant to take on yet another task that is not immediately tied to their research agenda.
I believe that, despite its challenges, the proposal for paying significant honoraria has merit. Still, as one of my colleagues noted, the most effective strategies for ensuring success are to hire strong candidates, mentor them carefully, and have high standards for tenure and promotion.
Acknowledgments
My thanks to Drs. Michael Hennessy, Christine Hailey, Ken Grasso, Dan Lochman, and Paul Kens for their insightful and helpful comments.
