Blazing New Trails - Connexions

320 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LEADERSHIP PREPARATION
LITERATURE REVIEW
The quest for tenure, in the area of service, is often problematic when deciding on
what meets the service requirement. Stalcup (2006) explained that the issue of service applies
not only to department possibilities such as committee membership and involvement in
organizational activities but to serving in areas that impact the “larger community” of the
profession such as national service as a reviewer or editor of a journal. Robbins (2002)
contended that the area of service should receive greater consideration in regards to tenure
because of the benefits faculty members receive toward their place in the profession. While
service does constitute only one part of the tenure process, efforts toward service projects
should be “intricately intertwined” with teaching and research in order to represent a wellrounded
candidate who has adequately prepared for the tenure review (Office of Academic
Affairs, n.d., p. 1).
For junior faculty, service to the field of higher education involves acknowledging the
importance of service as well as establishing a plan of action that will ensure this requirement
is met. Careful consideration should be taken when choosing service projects due to the fact
that the quantity of experiences is not as important as the merit associated with the activity
(FAU, 2006). The University of Oregon (n.d.), in their tenure policy, suggested that a faculty
member “develops a commitment to service that has a long-term positive impact on [their]
disciplines, and is a well-rounded pattern of service” (p. 1). In the general guidelines for
tenure and promotion for the University of Texas (2010), there are seven different
requirements for teaching, candidates for tenure are expected to provide evidence of at least
five “significant” pieces of scholarly works, while in the area of service there are only two
expectations, service on committees and service in “scholarly or professional organizations.”
In a book review by O’Meara, she purported that in trying to assess the impact and
purpose of service in regards to achieving tenure, university and college tenure committees
are on “soft and mushy ground” (Robbins, 2002, p. 90). Young (2002) added, “Community
and professional service is often given little attention and appreciation, but faculty tend to be
involved (maybe by necessity) in many service roles” (p. 2). Filetti (2009) wrote, “Many
universities do include service as one component in annual reviews as well as in assessing
progress toward tenure and promotion. Unfortunately, criteria for evaluating service are often
not specified” (p. 343). Whicker et al. (1993) agreed that while a quantitative requirement for
scholarly publications and certain expectations for teaching exists, professors are faced with
unclear guidelines on “how to acquire service hours” (p. 141).
This uncertainty about the service requirement coupled with scholarly and teaching
responsibilities presents additional stress and concerns for novice faculty on the tenure track.
Whicker et al. (1993) voiced a common thought about service in regards to attaining tenure,
“Service has typically been the criterion that people think about the least, often waiting until
the last minute” (p. 107). Newly hired assistant professors have limited knowledge and
understanding and may well be at a loss when defining and meeting the service requirement
for tenure. Stalcup (2006) remarked, “Service is often the least valued component of faculty
activities at research-oriented institutions; yet, it can represent a significant amount of effort”
(p. 2). The logical person in place to help assist junior faculty on this journey is an existing
faculty member who has already achieved tenure.