In academia, we all understand the importance of tenure as we seek to establish ourselves as scholars and teachers at the post-

Research Criteria for Tenure in Second Language Acquisition: Results from a Survey of the Field

Bill VanPatten and Jessica Williams

The University of Illinois at Chicago

Posted May 22, 2002

Introduction

In academia, we all understand the importance of tenure as we seek to establish ourselves as scholars and teachers at the post-secondary level. As candidates for tenure, we tend to personalize it and see it as one of the milestones we achieve during our careers; we know that not all of our peers successfully pass this particular milestone. As tenured faculty who review assistant professors for promotion and tenure, we tend to take a departmental view of the evaluation; we are aware of the seriousness of our decision and that any decision will affect permanent relationships the candidate has with the institution and us.

So, how is that we make tenure decisions? At large and medium-sized research institutions, on what basis do we draw conclusions about the area of the candidate’s profile that receives the most scrutiny, namely, scholarship and research? The following guiding statement from The University of Hawaii’s Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs may be considered typical:

The faculty member must have demonstrated a level of scholarly achievement appropriate to the rank at which tenure is sought in comparison with peers active in the same discipline. The comparison peer group consists not only of local colleagues but also of the whole of the appropriate community of scholars active at major research universities. For the Assistant Professor seeking tenure as an Associate Professor, the applicant should be well on the way to becoming an established scholar in his or her discipline. (p. 4, emphasis added)

Such statements are general, to be sure, and even vague. Yet, they contain key phrases that are of interest to any discussion of the tenure granting process. These key phrases are in the same discipline and appropriate community of scholars. These phrases have particular relevance to the present study, as we will soon see. There are a considerable number of tenure cases in which the candidate is not obviously in "the same discipline" as other members of the department, who are themselves unsure as to what the "appropriate community of scholars" for their colleague might be. Such is the vexing situation in which many scholars in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) find themselves.

The field of SLA is relatively new, traceable to several influential papers in the late sixties and early seventies (e.g., Corder, 1967; Selinker, 1972). Since then, SLA has emerged as a major branch within what has been termed “applied linguistics.” Similar to scholars who research child first language acquisition, SLA specialists seek to understand how a second language learner constructs a non-native linguistic system over time. In this search, they examine variables both internal to the learner (e.g., linguistic and cognitive factors) and external to the learner (e.g., conversational interactions, feedback during communicative exchanges). Some SLA specialists may simultaneously or exclusively concern themselves with instructed SLA by asking the basic question, “Given what we know about SLA, can instructional intervention affect the processes the learner uses to construct the linguistic system?”

What is clear from this brief overview of SLA research is that it has a largely behavioral or social science orientation and involves research design and quantitative or qualitative inquiry borrowed from psychology, education, sociolinguistics, and communication. Despite this orientation, a considerable number of faculty positions in SLA are within language and literature departments. This is particularly true of those working in languages other than English. Thus, scholars in SLA are involved in research that is often quite alien to most humanities scholars. A problem has consequently arisen in the field of SLA in the last decade: because of its primarily social science orientation involving empiricism, it is not clear what standards for scholarship are appropriate for promotion and tenure in this area. Should departments use traditional humanities-oriented criteria or should the criteria reflect those of the social and behavioral sciences? Or, does SLA have a distinct standard for scholarship, different from traditional humanities and the social sciences? In short, just what do we mean by the phrase, the same discipline? And when we seek to evaluate these non-humanities scholars within our humanities departments, what is the appropriate community of scholars? If we assume for a moment that SLA specialists do belong to a distinct research community and that there may be differences in standards of scholarship, to what extent should these differences be accommodated and to what extent is this happening already? A survey of linguists in foreign language departments, conducted on LinguistList, a listserv for the linguists, suggests that such scholars almost always follow tenure guidelines set for literary and cultural studies faculty (Pearson, 2002). It is clear from our own survey results, however, that changes are already in progress. Half of the respondents to our survey reported that their department makes a distinction between literary studies and SLA in terms of the quantity or type of scholarship appropriate for tenure. Pearson also found evidence of both institutional and personal efforts to explain differences across linguistic research.

A small number of SLA scholars find themselves in linguistics departments, which again, may have standards (Zwaan & Nederhoff, 1990) that do not neatly fit those in more applied areas. However, most SLA scholars in languages other than English are found in foreign language departments. The Association of Departments of Foreign Languages Guidelines on the Administration of Foreign Language Departments' statements on the evaluation of non-traditional fields (of which SLA clearly is considered one) is as follows:

The curricula of departments of foreign languages continue to change and expand. The thrust toward interdisciplinary work and the study of new technological advances, broaden the legitimate areas of both teaching and research within a foreign language department. Department members may be involved in disciplines not traditionally considered integral parts of a foreign language department, such as area studies, creative writing, film studies, foreign language acquisition research, foreign language pedagogy, gender studies, and literary and technical translation. In questions of promotion, tenure, and salary, colleagues working in these fields should be evaluated using the same procedures and standards as those used for the more traditional fields but with proper consideration for the particular standards each discipline requires.

The last sentence offers a potential contradiction: How can the same standards be used at the same time that "proper consideration" is given for divergent disciplinary standards?

Many SLA specialists who explore the acquisition of English are found in English departments. The Association of Departments of English's Statement of Good Practice: Teaching, Evaluation, and Scholarship is even less specific than the ADFL's, saying only that departments should value diversity in scholarship and recognize differences in evaluation standards:

Departments should recognize the value to the individual and to the institution of changes in the focus of a faculty member's work. Departments should recognize the value of having a diverse faculty practicing a range of scholarly activities. Scholarship should be defined broadly and not be limited to the academic book or article.

Local definitions of scholarly activity will vary and may include the presentation of papers, the development of instructional materials, reviews of others' scholarly work, and other forms of writing. These activities should be evaluated according to well-thought-out standards.

It is not clear what those "well-thought out standards" might be. This article is an effort to begin establishing such standards.

We have identified over 70 tenured SLA specialists at major research universities in the United States and Canada. The purpose of the study reported here was to survey views of these scholars about criteria for tenure and promotion in the field of SLA and to come up with recommendations on this matter for establishing a standard or set of standards for the review of junior SLA faculty. The survey also assessed their opinions of major journals and presses. Finally, we have attempted to determine what are current practices for evaluation of scholarship of SLA faculty in departments whose primary focus is on literary and cultural studies. We hope that the results will help departments determine appropriate research expectations of junior faculty in SLA and develop standards for promotion and tenure. We should note that the findings here pertain primarily to research, rather than the other two standard tenure consideration categories: teaching and service.

Data collection procedures

Data were collected through surveys that were mailed out to 72 participants in the United States and Canada. Participants in the project completed the survey anonymously and filled out a separate consent form. Recipients who choose not to participate were asked to simply return the materials. Respondents have appointments in a variety of departments, including English, Linguistics, foreign languages (e.g., Spanish, German), as well as in combined departments of Modern Languages. A significant percentage of respondents are members of departments dedicated specifically to the field, e.g., Second Language Studies.

Criteria for inclusion in the study were as follows:

· Rank of associate of full professor at a Canadian or U.S. post-secondary institution

· Published research in the field of second language acquisition

Respondents were faculty members from both private and public institutions, the majority being research oriented. To protect the anonymity of the respondents, we are unable to list the institutions here or to further identify them.

The Survey

The survey is included here as an appendix. Respondents were asked questions regarding the minimum and optimum standards for tenure promotion to the rank of associate professor. Specifically, they were asked their views on the importance of various types of publications and presentations. They were also asked to rank various presses and journals for their importance in the field of SLA. Space was included for respondents to make comments on issues not covered by specific questions in the survey.

Results

There were 45 respondents to the study (63%). Table 1 shows the breakdown for departmental affiliation, rank and language studied. In the subsequent tables, a ranking of 1 indicates strong disagreement with the statement and a ranking of 5, strong agreement. Table 2 shows the mean responses to questions pertaining to the publication of a book as a tenure requirement. Tables 3 and 4 display responses on issues other than book publication, principally, the use of journal articles as a criterion for tenure and promotion. Table 5 displays the ranking of major journals that publish work in SLA.

Table 1. Departmental affiliation, rank and primary language studied

Department	No. of responses	Main lang. studied	No. of responses	Rank	No. of responses
Education	9	English	9	Full	26
English	6	Spanish	7	Assoc.	19
Linguistics	6	French	3
Second Lang. Studies	6	Japanese	2
Modern Langs.	4	German	1
Spanish	4
Applied Ling.	3
ESL	2
	2
German	1

Note. Column totals are not equal because not all respondents answered all questions.

Table 2. Book publishing in SLA

	Number of responses Max = 45	Mean response Scale 1-5*	SD
Is a book necessary for tenure?	45	1.9	1.3
Is a book important for tenure?	45	2.6	1.4
Should an edited volume count toward tenure?	45	4.4	.8
Publisher rankings: Are these presses important venues for publication of SLA research?
Cambridge	44	4.8	.6
Oxford	43	4.7	.8
Blackwell	44	4.6	.7
Erlbaum	42	4.5	.7
Benjamins	41	4.4	.8
Heinle	6	4.3	.9
University presses (U.S.--various)	5	4.2	.8
Ablex	5	4.2	.8
Multilingal Matters	11	4.1	.8
MIT**	43	4.0	1.4
Longman/Pearson	14	3.9	1.1
Cascadilla	35	2.7	1.1

Note: Ratings for presses that received at least five responses are presented here. Figures that indicate a low numbers of responses (<20) are for presses not named in the questionnaire; rather, they were suggested by respondents. SD=standard deviation

*Scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree

**MIT Press received ambiguous ratings. Based on comments, it appears that some respondents gave a low rating because it does not publish a great deal of SLA research. Others disregarded this criterion and gave a high rating based on more general criteria.

Table 3. Mean Ratings for Importance of Non-book Scholarly Activity

	Number of Responses Max = 45	Mean Response Scale 1-5	SD
Is it important to publish empirical research in journals?	45	4.8	.7
Should textbooks count toward tenure?	44	3.1	1.3
Should conference presentations count toward tenure?	44	4.0	1.0

Note: Scale: 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree; SD=standard deviation

Table 4. Mean Rating for Quantity of Journal Articles Necessary for Tenure

Number of Responses

Max = 45

Mean Response

How many articles should be published in refereed journals during the probationary period?

7-8*

*For this question, the requested responses were somewhat different from the others and were as follows:

1=2-3 articles; 2=4-5 articles; 3=6-7 articles, 4=more than 7 articles. The actual mean response was 3.5, suggesting that about 7-8 articles.

SD=standard deviation

Table 5. Mean Ratings for Quality of Journals

Journal Name	Number of Responses Max = 45	Mean Rating Scale 1-5	SD
Studies in SLA	45	4.9	.5
Language Learning	44	4.8	.5
Applied Psycholinguistics	43	4.4	.7
Second Language Research	41	4.3	.8
Bilingualism, Lg. & Cognition	37	4.3	.7
Applied Linguistics	45	4.3	1.0
Modern Language Journal	42	4.3	.9
TESOL Quarterly	45	4.1	1.1
Language Awareness	5	4.0	.7
System	5	4.0	.7
Language Teaching Research	41	3.8	.7
Can. Mdn. Lang Review	45	3.8	1.5
Jnl. of Second Lg. Writing	5	3.6	.6
Foreign Lg. Annals	13	3.5	.5
Applied Language Learning	44	3.1	.9

Note: Scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree

Ratings for presses that received at least five responses are presented here. Figures that indicate a low numbers of responses (<15) are for journals not named in the questionnaire; rather, they were suggested by respondents.

SD=standard deviation

These quantitative results reveal several major trends and, given the standard deviations displayed in the tables, it is clear that the respondents were often very much in agreement. Unlike the traditional standards of literature departments, scholars in SLA are almost unanimous in their agreement that a book is not necessary for promotion and tenure. The single-authored book is seen as a post-tenure achievement. Instead, respondents seem to favor the publication of a substantial number of articles in refereed journals as the primary expected achievement during the probationary period. Respondents' views varied on the number of articles that should be published by tenure. This ranking corresponds to about seven or eight articles by tenure. However, this number was tempered by comments that this would the expected number if this was the only type of publication. If the candidate had written or edited a book or published several important book chapters, the expected number would be lower. Considerations of joint authorship, journal quality, and other accompanying professional activity were also discussed by many respondents as important factors that could affect these figures.

Scholarly activity other than books and articles was also addressed in questions on book chapters, textbooks, and conference presentations. The responses on book chapters are not presented here because there was considerable confusion regarding how the question was worded. A number of respondents pointed out that many books, particularly those published by university presses, are strictly refereed, sometimes with higher standards than journals. In contrast, others are invited by friends and colleagues, with no peer review, making it difficult to evaluate book chapters as a single category. Textbooks raised a similar number of questions, specifically regarding the audience of the textbooks. Respondents saw textbooks for language learners and textbooks for graduate students in applied linguistics as very different. This was a particularly troublesome question for those in foreign language departments. This issue will be taken up at greater length in the discussion section. Finally, most respondents saw presentations at professional conferences as an important and necessary aspect of the tenure portfolio. Many pointed out that most major conferences have a peer review process at the abstract submission stage, imposing basic standards for those that are accepted. In addition, invited presentations at major conferences were seen as a sign of general recognition of excellence by peers and thus should be considered in the tenure decision.

Tables 2 and 5 also contain ranking of presses and journals that publish SLA and SLA-related research. Most of the results should not be surprising to those in the field. For those unfamiliar with SLA research, this kind of ranking should help them to evaluate the quality of the publications of their colleagues in this field. However, such rankings should not be seen as permanent, especially for the presses. Although some (e.g., Cambridge) have been publishing high quality research for many years, others (e.g., Erlbaum) are relative newcomers to SLA. Neither are the evaluations of journals static. Several respondents mentioned that journals that they formerly considered important venues for SLA research were, in their view, no longer at the center of the field (e.g., TESOL Quarterly, Applied Linguistics). Because of the changing nature of the field and publishing outlets, this kind of survey should be done on a periodic basis and made readily available to departments with SLA scholars.

Discussion and Suggestions

It is clear from the results presented in the previous section that there is considerable consensus among senior scholars in SLA about the nature of the scholarship appropriate for junior faculty members seeking tenure as well as ranking of venues of publication. This consensus, along with several issues raised by a number of respondents but not directly addressed by the survey, are worthy of further discussion. We take each in turn presenting them first as an issue and then offering suggestions for dealing with the issue. The first issue concerns what scholars should present for tenure.

The Pressure of a “Book Culture”

The Issue. Some respondents who are isolated SLA scholars in literature-oriented departments reported that they are surrounded by a “book culture. ” Because there are no other scholars in SLA or language-related studies, no discussion has taken place in their academic units about possible differences in researcher orientation between literary studies and SLA. They reported a feeling of being pressured to write a book in order to get tenure and that their publications in journals were deemed not as valuable.

We’d like to illustrate this with a case one of the present authors recently witnessed first hand. At an annual meeting of applied linguists, the author ran into a junior faculty member from a West Coast university whom he had not seen in some time. As discussion got around to research projects, the younger scholar reported that he “needed to begin thinking about a book project.” When queried what he would write a book about, the young scholar said he was not sure. He quickly added, however, that he had to write a book for tenure because he was “in the Humanities Division and that’s the criterion used for tenure.” From the conversation, the senior scholar realized that the younger scholar was neither prepared to write a book nor had he accumulated enough empirical research of his own for the foundation of a book. This is the dilemma in which young SLA scholars find themselves. The consequences may be significant. If SLA books are normally only undertaken after of a series of related studies are published in top journals, premature publication of a book may mean a book of little substance. Although departmental colleagues may be satisfied to see a book of any stripe, knowledgeable external referees in SLA will inevitably see it for what it is. The result may be a lukewarm outside evaluation. This would be a particularly unfortunate outcome since the evaluation of a departmental colleague is especially dependent on these external letters when the other members of the department are unfamiliar with the field.

Suggestion. It is quite clear from our survey results that the research community in SLA is not a book culture. Books are written by senior scholars and are post-tenure activities. Scholarship in SLA is better conceptualized as a “journal culture.” What this means is that junior scholars are to be evaluated on the research studies they publish and the impact that these have on the field. As such, the emphasis should not be on a book publication but rather on the following:

· the quantity of articles and book chapters produced

· the quality and significance of the publications (i.e., the contributions they make to any particular sub-field of SLA research)

· the quality of the journals and presses where these publications appear

Our survey results suggest that the field of SLA recognizes a set of core journals in which the newest and most significant scholarship is expected to appear. The results also indicate that something around seven or eight journal articles and chapters in books would be appropriate. However, this number is offered only as a guideline. For instance, lengthy pieces based on a longitudinal, qualitative study might mean the number of expected articles would be lower. To be clear, SLA empirical research is generally grouped into two very large categories: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative research is experimental in nature or in some way “quantifies” the observed data so that mean scores can be evaluated. Qualitative research is generally observational as it interprets data that are gathered in situ such as conversations, entire classroom lessons, learner diaries, among others. As such, the research may have two consequences: (1) it takes longer because of the nature of the data gathering and data review (often involving detailed transcription); (2) it results in lengthier pieces because the data cannot be neatly presented and discussed as rows and columns in a table as it can be with quantitative research. Thus, qualitative research may result in fewer but lengthier pieces of research while quantitative research may result in more but shorter pieces of research. This is, of course, not a hard and fast rule but is one of the many factors to consider when evaluating our respondents’ suggestions of quantity of work to be produced for tenure and promotion.

Our results also rank journals and presses so that those handling tenure matters will be aware of how researchers in SLA perceive the quality of publication venues. Assuming an initial year of “settling in” to a new position for the candidate once hired, a solid profile for tenure in SLA would include an average of two journal articles/book chapters per year that are placed in journals such as Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Language Learning¸ and just about any of the other journals listed in Table 3. Chapters in books published by Cambridge, Oxford, Erlbaum, and a few others represent solid contributions to the field.

At the same time, this suggestion should not be taken so literally that theory-oriented scholarship is considered less important. SLA scholars often produce significant “think pieces” that do not report on a specific study but instead push the research community to reexamine an issue or open up new avenues of research. Such articles and book chapters can be extremely influential and should be counted equally with empirical studies.

Sole Authorship

The Issue. Some respondents noted that their colleagues in literary studies discourage joint publications and joint research projects. This, we believe, is related to the first issue discussed above. As noted, literary studies as an academic research interest promotes a “book culture” whereas SLA is best viewed as a “journal culture.” At the same time, in line with other social sciences (as well as the natural sciences), SLA scholarship can and often does entail joint endeavors that result in significant publications. Research teams are not atypical, as exemplified by the multiple publications of such duos as Dulay and Burt, Pica and Doughty, Schwarz and Sprouse, Lightbown and Spada, Gass and Varonis, among others. Important books in the field have been co-authored, e.g., Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), Gass and Selinker (2001), Towell and Hawkins (1994), again, among others. Although it is true that SLA scholars publish alone as well, the field should not be narrowly conceived nor circumscribed by a culture of “sole authorship.”

One of the reasons for this particular difference between literary studies and SLA research resides in the nature of what gets studied. The emphasis in literary studies is cultural production of authors (this includes movies, art, and other works beyond written texts). The research involves, largely, library research and reading (or viewing), which tend to be solitary acts. On the other hand, the object of SLA research are learners of languages. Experimental research in particular often requires large numbers of subjects and sometimes, complex designs. These efforts are sometimes best realized as projects involving more than one person and often it is the case that a scholar with one kind of expertise works with a scholar with another type of expertise. The result is a project that neither scholar would have attempted on his or her own (at least not without tremendous background work). This is particularly important for cross-linguistic and even cross-disciplinary research where a scholar may not have sufficient background in a particular language or sub-field.

Suggestion. A tenure candidate’s research involving joint authorship should not be seen as less valuable than single-authored work. Instead, the evaluation of the piece or pieces of scholarship should be left to outside reviewers (as well as any SLA scholars that might happen to be in the candidate’s department, of course). What is more, we do not think that joint research should be discouraged; on the contrary, if it results in more productivity, joint research ought to be encouraged. The model of the social sciences should be considered here and humanities departments will need to make the case for multiple authorship as tenure packages are forwarded to the Dean’s office for the next level of review. This should become easier as universities promote post-disciplinary inquiry. This latter point is especially important in Colleges of Arts and Letters with little or no presence of any kind of science (social or otherwise) in the Dean’s executive committee (or whatever body reviews the candidate’s documents as prepared by the department).

What is SLA?

The Issue. Some respondents pointed out in their comments that there is a discrepancy in how SLA is viewed across institutions, making outside evaluations uneven. This is evident especially in foreign language departments as one reviews job ads that are posted in the MLA Job Information List. In a few cases, it is clear that the department seeks to hire a researcher who can contribute to a graduate program in SLA. In most cases, it is also clear that the department seeks to hire someone to direct a language program, This suggests that in some cases the job ad--and its author--confuses language pedagogy with SLA research. In still other cases, the job ads seek someone with a specialty in literary studies who also has a background in SLA, suggesting that SLA as a discipline can constitute a minor for literary studies, where students may have little or no background in any of the disciplines on which SLA is dependent (e.g., cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, linguistics).

These job ads indicate that among non-SLA specialists who develop the ads, there is no consensus on, and perhaps little understanding of, what constitutes SLA. This contrasts with the more likely consensus on what it means to be a Golden Age Scholar or a specialist in contemporary French literature. For them, SLA may mean everything from pedagogy to linguistics to what we might say is “real” SLA (i.e., the study of how learners internalize an implicit linguistic system). What happens, then, when institutions seek outside evaluations for junior faculty whose ostensible emphasis is SLA, but in fact, may be doing very different kinds of work? The result is an uneven approach to what should be reviewed for tenure. As scholarship, some accept a language textbook because “that is what SLA people do.” Some accept a lesser amount of scholarship compared to candidates in literary studies and place more weight on teaching and service because “that is what SLA people do.” Still others may place greater emphasis on research and publications, especially if the candidate was hired to contribute to a graduate program in SLA.

Suggestion. A first suggestion we offer is that faculty members need to discuss their departmental needs before hiring. The particular questions that need to be addressed in their discussion are these: (1) What will this person contribute to the intellectual life of this department? (2) How will this person contribute to both undergraduate and graduate level programs? (3) How will this person be evaluated for tenure? and perhaps most importantly, (4) If we hire someone in SLA, we are making a commitment to include SLA as a field of study in our department. Is this our intent? By asking these very important questions, faculty members will be forced to grapple with the very nature of SLA from the beginning.

Our second suggestion—and perhaps one that is more realistic than the first—is that those of us in SLA need to educate colleagues in literary studies about the field. This can happen in a number of ways. On the local level, we can meet with colleagues in both formal and informal settings to discuss in person the kinds of issues and topics that publications such as this one contain. Importantly, job candidates need to be educated by their mentors in order to approach these topics as part of the interview process. As the candidate gets on-campus interviews, there are ways to discuss with potential future colleagues what the field of SLA is and to ask the questions listed above regarding what the candidate has to offer that the department wants. In this way, the process of education begins before the candidate is even hired (and hopefully will not stop there).

Quality of Work

The Issue. Another related issue that surfaced in respondents’ comments to the survey is particularly difficult given the nature of the tenure review process. It appears that in many cases, literature faculty are unable to distinguish between high quality SLA research and less scholarly material; the result may be simply counting the number of articles published. Research articles placed in very good journals are counted equally with pedagogical materials, what some of us might consider to be “service” essays. This inability to discern the quality of a junior SLA colleague’s work places the entire burden of judgment on outside reviewers. In principle, this is not such a bad thing. The potential problem is that another issue quickly manifests itself: who should be the outside reviewers and how are they chosen? If faculty cannot determine the nature of the scholarly work, how are they to know from whom to request letters of evaluation? What is more, how are they to judge the quality and stature of these scholars in the field if they do not know the field themselves? An exemplary case comes to mind. We know of a junior scholar who was being presented for tenure. She submitted certain names of scholars for possible inclusion as outside reviewers as is the custom in the tenure process. She was told by the head of her department that two scholars in particular were not suitable for review. The younger scholar was dumbfounded because these scholars happened to be two of the most recognized names in the field of SLA, with scores of scholarly articles in top journals and several books each as well. She came to understand they could not be included because they were not at equally ranked institutions. Normally, they could have been included because the head of the department is allowed to make cases for such scholars as evaluators. The problem in this particular case was that the head could not make the case; he was unfamiliar with the scholars, unfamiliar with the field, and unfamiliar with their work and could not comment on the quality of their scholarship nor their presence in the field.

In short, literary scholars may not know where to look for SLA scholars or where SLA research is conducted. This may be because a humanities orientation may often lead departments to look toward Ivy League and similar universities, given the long history of excellence in humanities at such institutions. However, because SLA research is rather new to the academic scene, many excellent graduate programs in SLA and many renown scholars may be found at less visible institutions such as some land-grant institutions or those universities more known for fields such as engineering, sciences, psychology and so on. Indeed, when called upon to name a top institution in the city of Chicago, one thinks of the University of Chicago. Yet, there are no SLA scholars there. On the other hand, the University of Illinois at Chicago, known for its programs in medicine and the sciences, houses an emerging program in SLA in which the present authors work.

Suggestion. If no senior scholar in SLA is a member of the department, it is clear the department needs to seek outside help in the review process. If there is no SLA scholar on campus, then the department must seek the help of someone from another institution of equal or higher rank. This may sound unusual, but the presence in a literature department of an SLA scholar who belongs to a non-humanities research community is itself unusual and demands certain accommodations. An outside consultant could serve as a person who distinguishes the different types of publications the junior faculty is submitting with the tenure profile. That person could also speak to the rank and stature of outside evaluators. We see no way around this for some departments. We also suggest that professional associations, such as the American Association of Applied Linguistics and the Modern Language Association, develop recommendations for this purpose, so that departments will have reliable documents to consult when they have little knowledge of the field. This is discussed further in our final suggestion below.

Workloads

The Issue. The workload for junior faculty in SLA was another issue that received a number of comments from survey respondents. In literature departments, junior faculty members are often hired to run language programs. The result is a heavy administrative workload that is often not compensated with release time. Even in the cases when junior faculty receive some sort of release time, they feel under pressure to make sure that the language program not only runs smoothly but that teaching assistants are trained properly and that the curriculum is in up to date. They feel caught between the demands of their own research agenda and the demands of a language program. Because they are junior and new to the academy, they are not sure what deserves their attention and what does not. The result is a good deal of “hidden” time put into the language program that their colleagues do not see. As a result, their scholarship may suffer in terms of quantity and quality. Clearly, this issue begins to extend beyond the category of research and into service and possibly teaching. There are many other important questions that arise here, such as whether program direction and other administrative duties should count as service or if course reduction suggests that the service has already been compensated. These are questions that, while significant, fall outside of the scope of our survey.

Suggestion. Information regarding language program direction is abundant. An organization known as the American Association of University Supervisors and Coordinators can direct departments to position papers on the workloads of language program directors. (The AAUSC also published an annual volume, several of which have addressed matters related to language program direction.) One suggestion that is self-evident is that the administrative work of language program direction needs to be viewed as just that; administrative work. It thus needs to be compensated in the same way any other administration is compensated, usually by a reduced teaching load. For large research-1 institutions, the standard should be that the language program director is compensated the same way as the department head is. This is usually a 50% reduction in teaching.

Such reductions must be justified, to be sure. In the case of junior faculty, we also suggest that the day-to-day commitment of the language program director to the program itself be documented. The onus is placed on the LPD to detail and summarize the time spent “on the job.” This information is also useful for noting any areas in which the LPD may be placing unwarranted time and energy. It may also be that the LPD needs to prioritize program matters so that some are addressed later than others. Such prioritizing can only occur when the job is sufficiently spelled out and duties are clear.

At the same time, a department needs to consider to what extent the LPD has a support staff commensurate with the job as it needs to be done. Is there clerical support? Is there the support of assistants who can help with the non-clerical parts of the job (e.g., syllabus development, observation of teachers)? In large institutions with large language programs, it is often the case that the language program is almost a mini-department in size and scope. In such cases, what is needed to run a department needs to be a yardstick by which to evaluate the needs of the LPD to run the program. The point here is that the job requirements should be appropriate such that the LPD can be a participating faculty member and researcher in the department in the same way that a chair, head, or director of graduate studies can.

Do Textbooks Count?

The Issue. The issue that received the greatest number of written responses was the role of textbooks in tenure review. Should they be counted as part of the candidate’s productivity? It became clear that we had not made the important distinction between two different kinds of textbooks: basic language textbooks and textbooks for use in, say, teaching assistant training. Many basic language textbooks are not written by SLA experts, especially in foreign languages in the U.S. Thus, it is not clear to what extent a language textbook automatically demonstrates a person’s expertise in SLA. However, an SLA specialist may write a book on language teaching or an introductory book on SLA, for example. These books are clearly intended for use in upper division or graduate coursework. The issue that some respondents raised was that these latter types of textbooks should indeed count toward the research and scholarship component of the candidate’s profile. Unlike language textbooks, these books do require a certain expertise in SLA and they may often contain original insight and scholarship on the part of the author.

Suggestion. Textbooks that are not basic language textbooks should be considered as part of the scholarship component of the tenure profile. Departments should have outside reviewers address the novelty of the work and any original contributions the book makes to scholarship. As for basic language textbooks, these should not be dismissed. First, there are some cases, in which a language textbook is clearly informed by significant developments in SLA theory, and therefore this may form some part of the candidate's research portfolio. Textbooks that are not so informed are still an important part of the candidate's tenure profile, but should instead be considered important components of service to the profession. Alternatively, they might contribute heavily in the evaluation of a candidate's teaching. Such may be given extra consideration if they demonstrate knowledge and incorporation of new findings in the field.

Mentoring

The Issue. The lack of mentoring of junior colleagues in SLA was a matter of concern for a number of respondents to our survey. In departments where there are no SLA specialists, how is a newly hired colleague to be mentored and by whom? Many of the issues we have discussed in this paper are traceable to a lack of mentoring. An established mentor can not only guide the junior faculty member, but that mentor can also be the source of education for colleagues in literary studies who do not understand the field nor the nature of the kinds of jobs SLA specialists are asked to perform (e.g., language program direction). The mentor can address all of the issues we have outlined here: book culture, scholarship quality, outside evaluators, and workloads for program directors.

Suggestion. Perhaps it is time for institutions and academic units to consider more creative ways of mentoring isolated junior faculty. Is it possible, for example, to have mentors from other institutions? Is it possible to bring in outside consultants on a repeated basis during the probationary period of the junior faculty member? With the technological age upon us, is it possible to develop long-distance mentoring as well as long distance discussion with the junior faculty member’s colleagues? Given the strong consensus evidenced in our survey about tenure requirements, it would appear that junior faculty could receive appropriate advice from any number of scholars from other institutions. However, by suggesting this, we do not mean that an outside mentor should have an exclusive relationship with the junior faculty member. Instead, we would recommend that an outside mentor communicate to the department about the advice and suggestions made. It is not the place of the outside mentor to determine the criteria for the institution but to dialogue with the junior faculty member and his or her colleagues on the expectations of the larger research community of SLA scholars. We also suggest that for those departments that have isolated SLA faculty who are pre-tenure, that an official third-year review be conducted for the candidate in which an outside person is brought in on the review and discussions, both with the candidate as well as the rest of the faculty who will read the review. We expand upon this in our final suggestion below.

One Final Suggestion

The issues that we raise in this article can of course be discussed at the local level. However, it occurs to us that professional organizations could be galvanized into discussion at a broader national level. A joint council, for example, appointed by the executive committees of the American Association for Applied Linguistics and the Modern Language Association, might adopt a set of guidelines containing suggestions for how to distinguish between the nature of more traditional humanistic research in literary studies and the more social science nature of SLA research. If this information is available on websites and published yearly in particularly widely read journals or newsletters, it may greatly influence and direct the discussion of tenure for SLA specialists in literature departments. In addition, such information is easily incorporated into tenure documents and narratives prepared by department heads as part of the tenure package that is sent to the next level of review. In this way, deliberations in SLA tenure cases are less subjective or misdirected, perhaps engaging a type of discussion that is more appropriate for one of the most important processes in academia.

We suggested above that perhaps it would be appropriate to bring an outside evaluator in on a candidate’s pre-tenure review. Such reviews are becoming more and more common in universities, generally occurring during the third or fourth year of probationary status. However, these reviews tend to be internal. As such, they may suffer from the very issue that the current document has highlighted; a lack of knowledge about a particular discipline. Junior faculty may receive inappropriate or wrong direction at this stage of their pre-tenure career. They may be told that everything is “ok”, when it may not be. They may be told that most everything is “ok” but also told that they must produce a book before tenure, something that is clearly not expected by the SLA research community. By bringing in an outside evaluator, the department could better recommend a course of action if one is needed and will be in a better position to evaluate the candidate when the actual time for tenure review arrives.

Conclusion

It is clear from our discussion that there is concern among those in SLA research that the field is not as well understood by colleagues in humanities as it could be (and by extension, perhaps by deans as well). The result has been some tension between what scholars in SLA expect out of a junior colleague and what those in literary studies view as appropriate expectations for the same person. Our discussion here, to be sure, is not exhaustive; however, we do hope to have provided sufficient information so that discussion at both local and professional levels may take place. The issue of tenure and promotion is to be taken very seriously—as we assume everyone in academia does. In particular, the how and what of tenure need to be examined to be sure that appropriate criteria are applied and that criteria from one discipline are not imposed on another when different cultures may exist under one departmental roof. To this end, we remind the reader of the sample tenure statement excerpted in the introduction to this article and its insistence that the tenure review reflect the expectations of the appropriate community of scholars.

Authors’ Note

We would like to thank all the respondents for their time and effort in completing the survey and offering many issues for discussion. We would also like to thank Christopher Maurer for reading an earlier version of this paper and for providing suggestions. We would also like to thank Nancy Velez for her help in assembling, mailing, and subsequently receiving and processing the surveys. Any errors rest with the authors.

References Cited

Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-170.

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). 2^nd Ed. Second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

http://www.ade.org/policy/index.htm. ADE Statement of Good Practice: Teaching, Evaluation, and Scholarship.

http://www.adfl.org/resources/index.htm. ADFL Guidelines on the Administration of Foreign Language Departments.

http://www.hawaii.edu/ovcaa/0102guid.pdf. Criteria and Guidelines for Faulty Tenure/Promotion Application, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Harlow: Longman.

Pearson, L. (2002). Linguist List summary:Vol-13-1365. Wednesday May 15, 2002. IFSN: 1068-4875.subject:13.1365.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231.

Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matter.

Zwaan, R., & Nederhof, A. (1990). Some aspects of scholarly communication in

linguistics: an empirical study. Language, 66, 553-557.

Appendix

Questionnaire regarding Tenure and Promotion of Faculty in SLA/Applied Linguistics

What department are you in? ___________________

Does your research focus on a specific language? ______________________

Rank: ____ associate professor ____ professor

We would like for you to consider each question carefully. We ask that you not answer the question from your institution’s perspective or what may be an official departmental response, but rather, what you, as a scholar in the field, view as reasonable and appropriate expectations for junior faculty seeking tenure.

Please answer the following questions in terms of tenure and promotion decisions for assistant professors[1] in the field of SLA.

Circle the number that most closely reflects your view.

1. It is necessary to publish a book or have a book manuscript under contract.