View in EDS

Science Faculty Perceptions of the Promotion and Tenure Process at Major Research Universities in the United States

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Science Faculty Perceptions of the Promotion and Tenure Process at Major Research Universities in the United States
Language: English
Authors: Chris Impey (ORCID 0000-0003-3515-167X), Mark S. Goldman (ORCID 0000-0002-8257-2314), Martin Formanek (ORCID 0000-0003-2704-6474), Sanlyn Buxner (ORCID 0000-0002-8504-252X)
Source: Discover Education. 2026 5.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Science Teachers, College Faculty, Teacher Attitudes, Teacher Promotion, Tenure, Research Universities, Teacher Evaluation, Preferences, Educational Practices, Evaluation Criteria, Scientific Research, Science Instruction, Teacher Researchers, Services
DOI: 10.1007/s44217-025-01004-5
ISSN: 2731-5525
Abstract: The tenure and promotion process defines the standards and expectations for faculty at research universities. To explore faculty values and perceptions related to this process, we conducted a survey of 412 science faculty at major research universities across the United States. Responses were analyzed using an instrument designed to measure faculty observations of how much weight is given to 14 different research, teaching, and service-related activities considered in the promotion and tenure process, and to compare these weights to those they thought should be used. Additional survey questions probed how well-defined applicants found the metrics for evaluating research, teaching, and service, and how much respondents personally value, and feel supported in, these different aspects of their jobs. The sample is broadly representative of science faculty at R1 institutions, although life scientists are overrepresented relative to physical scientists. The data reveal several disconnects between what faculty think should occur and the practice at their institutions. Overall, faculty would prefer more emphasis on teaching and somewhat more on service than they observed in practice. The largest disconnects were the overvaluation of publication numbers and grants and undervaluation of publication quality in research, and the undervaluation of evidence-based practices and assessments, as well as student mentoring, in teaching. This asymmetry in the reward culture serves as a disincentive for excellence or the use of evidence-based pedagogy in teaching. Overall, this study highlights the degree to which university reward and incentive systems align with faculty priorities for different aspects of their major functions of research, teaching, and service.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503477
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503477
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Science Faculty Perceptions of the Promotion and Tenure Process at Major Research Universities in the United States
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chris+Impey%22">Chris Impey</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3515-167X">0000-0003-3515-167X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mark+S%2E+Goldman%22">Mark S. Goldman</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8257-2314">0000-0002-8257-2314</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Martin+Formanek%22">Martin Formanek</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2704-6474">0000-0003-2704-6474</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sanlyn+Buxner%22">Sanlyn Buxner</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8504-252X">0000-0002-8504-252X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Discover+Education%22"><i>Discover Education</i></searchLink>. 2026 5.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Teachers%22">Science Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Promotion%22">Teacher Promotion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tenure%22">Tenure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Universities%22">Research Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Evaluation%22">Teacher Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preferences%22">Preferences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Criteria%22">Evaluation Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Research%22">Scientific Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Researchers%22">Teacher Researchers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Services%22">Services</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s44217-025-01004-5
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2731-5525
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The tenure and promotion process defines the standards and expectations for faculty at research universities. To explore faculty values and perceptions related to this process, we conducted a survey of 412 science faculty at major research universities across the United States. Responses were analyzed using an instrument designed to measure faculty observations of how much weight is given to 14 different research, teaching, and service-related activities considered in the promotion and tenure process, and to compare these weights to those they thought should be used. Additional survey questions probed how well-defined applicants found the metrics for evaluating research, teaching, and service, and how much respondents personally value, and feel supported in, these different aspects of their jobs. The sample is broadly representative of science faculty at R1 institutions, although life scientists are overrepresented relative to physical scientists. The data reveal several disconnects between what faculty think should occur and the practice at their institutions. Overall, faculty would prefer more emphasis on teaching and somewhat more on service than they observed in practice. The largest disconnects were the overvaluation of publication numbers and grants and undervaluation of publication quality in research, and the undervaluation of evidence-based practices and assessments, as well as student mentoring, in teaching. This asymmetry in the reward culture serves as a disincentive for excellence or the use of evidence-based pedagogy in teaching. Overall, this study highlights the degree to which university reward and incentive systems align with faculty priorities for different aspects of their major functions of research, teaching, and service.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503477
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503477
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s44217-025-01004-5
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Science Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Promotion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tenure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preferences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Researchers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Services
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Science Faculty Perceptions of the Promotion and Tenure Process at Major Research Universities in the United States
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chris Impey
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mark S. Goldman
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Martin Formanek
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sanlyn Buxner
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2731-5525
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Discover Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1