Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T15:02:46.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fiddling While Rome Burns? A Response to Weyland on Full Professor Promotions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2018

David L. Leal*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin

Abstract

This article responds to the stimulating comments of Kurt Weyland (2015) about the important but seldom discussed full professor promotion process. He suggested a number of problems, particularly candidates who are too eager to “go up” and institutions with insufficiently rigorous publication standards. Rather than proposing a top-down solution, Weyland urged associate professors to wait until they cleared a high research bar. By contrast, I see few systemic problems with the current promotion process. Although research is important, our academic ecosystem requires the valuing of a wide range of faculty activities and contributions. In addition, asking faculty to jump through even more research hoops may be ‘fiddling while Rome burns.’ It overlooks the crucial issue that we all face: making the case for the value of higher education to taxpayers, parents, lawmakers, students, employers, philanthropists, voters, and society. I am optimistic that we can do so, but it may require a new set of academic priorities—less of the status games that can animate our academic lives and more of a focus on how our work benefits society.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. “Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate.” New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
Cossins, Dan. 2012. “Less Influence for High-Impact Journals.” The Scientist. November 9. Available at www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33209/title/Less-Influence-for-High-Impact-Journals.Google Scholar
Flinders, Matthew. 2013. “The Tyranny of Relevance and the Art of Translation.” Political Studies 11: 149–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Andrew J. 2017. “In Praise of ‘B’ Journals.” Inside Higher Education. March 28. Available at www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/03/28/academics-shouldnt-focus-only-prestigious-journals-essay.Google Scholar
Larivière, Vincent, Gingras, Yves, and Archambault, Éric. 2009. “The Decline in the Concentration of Citations, 1900–2007.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60: 858–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neely, Stephen R., and Coggburn, Jerrell D.. 2017. “Incentives for Sharing Knowledge: A Survey of Scholarly Practices in Public Affairs and Administration.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50: 480–86.Google Scholar
Waterman, Richard W., and Dan Wood, B.. 1992. “What Do We Do with Applied Research?” PS: Political Science & Politics 25: 559–64.Google Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2011. “The Logic of the Tenure Decision: In Dubio Contra Reum.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44: 357–62.Google Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2015. “The Logic of the Promotion Decision: In Dubio Pro Patientia.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48: 341–5.Google Scholar