The Daily Princetonian reports on its Web news page a story about the Modern Language Association’s task force recommendation regarding “ways in which universities should rethink how they ‘admit’ professors and later decide on their tenure.” Rosemary Feal, executive director of the MLA, said, “We wanted data that we could analyze in light of the changes in the scholarly community.”

Now, lest you think this is yet another effort to jettison the tenure system from the “scholarly community,” let me hasten to assure you that is not the object of this MLA report. After all, tenure foes are much more likely to come from outside academe than from within—and the MLA is about as “within” as anyone can get. No, this is an effort, as Feal puts it, to respond to the “major changes in the way scholarship is published.”

Because colleges and universities—especially top-tier and/or research-oriented institutions—are increasingly emphasizing scholarship as a condition for tenure, and because it is increasingly difficult for professors to find traditional journals willing and able to accept narrowly focused research articles (partly a consequence of shrinking library budgets), a broader definition of “publication” is desirable. Princeton itself seems comfortable with its current scholarship requirements (according to Dean of the Faculty David Dobkin) primarily because, as Feal observed, “it can attract the greatest experts in their field,” those who have ready access to scholarly journals for their work.

But what about the lesser lights, those faculty squeezed out of the most prestigious research journals? This problem is what the MLA’s efforts might rectify. We will await the full report and subsequent action following the author’s presentation of results at the annual meeting of the Association of American Colleges and Universities in New Orleans in late January.

First, let us ask if the premise of the report is valid. Logic suggests that it is. No doubt even those non-elite, non-research institutions (including small liberal arts colleges) that populate the higher education landscape in the United States have ratcheted up the scholarly publications criteria for tenure over the last decade. And no doubt library budgets (and the rising costs of journals) work against the publishing prospects of younger faculty without name recognition in the academy. The squeeze is on!

Second, the alternatives to the prestige print journals—notably, the growing respectability of electronic “online” journals—suggest that the “new media” should not be discounted as legitimate outlets for publication. Peer review is still essential to protect the integrity of the “publication” process, but faster, cheaper (if not better) forms of publication are likely to grow in popularity and respectability.

Third, recall that the MLA is addressing an old problem, not a brand-new phenomenon. At least as far back as 1990, when Ernest Boyer, on behalf of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, published Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, leaders in our field have argued for a broader definition of scholarship itself to reflect the interests and needs of what Boyer termed “a new generation of scholars.”

So long as the MLA has reopened this issue, let academic leaders consider not only the means of scholarly publication but also the ends. A rereading of Boyer’s classic text would be a good beginning place for this aspect of the “publish or perish” tenure conundrum for college professors today.

Given the glut of newly minted humanities Ph.D.s seeking tenure-track positions and the extensive use of adjuncts by cost-conscious institutions, and given the high rate of tenure-track candidates who achieve tenure (about 90 percent by some estimates), there will not likely be much impetus for institutions, especially the most prestigious, to relax or redefine scholarship requirements. And as for those who would argue for the elimination of tenure altogether? That is an argument for another day.

Send your comments to partingshot@magnapubs.com.

This article first appeared in Academic Leader. If you are an academic dean, provost, academic vice-president, department chair/head or have any role in academic leadership, this newsletter is for you! But don't take our word for it--try it free for 3-months and make the decision for yourself!