By Gates Palissery, Hellman & Simons Fellow in Science and Technology Policy
Anti-intellectualism is on the rise, fueled in part by attacks on institutions of higher education. As a result, the public has begun to question the role these institutions play in society and whether they still provide the value they once did. For decades, colleges and universities have claimed to advance the public good, pointing to their research contributions as evidence of their value and their continued need for public support. Their internal processes, however, do not always reflect their commitments.
Reward, promotion, and tenure (RPT) systems, in particular, often appear misaligned with the goal of maximizing the public good. Traditional measures of research productivity, such as citation metrics, publication counts, and grant funding, reinforce narrow definitions of academic excellence. Although universities frequently highlight community-engaged scholarship in their mission statements, this work is typically categorized as “service” in RPT evaluations and is often undervalued compared to research and teaching.
The Academy, in partnership with the Open Research Community Accelerator (ORCA), hosted a convening on November 5–6, 2025, to consider this misalignment. Led by Ben Vinson III (Harvard University), the meeting assembled leaders from across higher education to explore how RPT systems might better align with university mission statements and the public good.
The participants largely agreed that defining and evaluating scholarly achievement is a key component to reforming RPT systems. Although peer review is regarded as the gold standard, not all scholarly work undergoes traditional peer review. For example, new technologies may be clinically validated without being peer-reviewed. Similarly, work such as developing standards, dashboards, or databases; securing patents; and contributing to textbooks often falls outside peer review processes. As a result, some participants questioned whether peer review is the most effective way to evaluate scholarly achievement.
The most sustained discussion during the convening focused on institutional culture. Although RPT systems vary across institutions, participants agreed that meaningful reform would require faculty-led cultural change, supported by visible and sustained commitment from university leadership. Some participants suggested that eliminating tenure altogether could catalyze the desired cultural change and encourage innovative and creative research. Others expressed concern about the implications for academic freedom without the protections tenure affords. A few participants noted that non-tenure-track faculty also go through reward and promotion processes and must be included in reform efforts.
The conversation about institutional culture continued, with some participants expressing their desire to see universities clearly define and support public engagement. Doing so would encourage, and ideally reward, faculty who seek to bridge the gap between their institutions and their communities. It would also broaden what “counts” as research (an important consideration given the current cuts to research funding) and expand the types of work within the traditional service category in RPT evaluations.
Mentorship was also highlighted as an important consideration in reforming RPT systems. Participants suggested that definitions of mentorship could be expanded to include senior faculty mentoring junior faculty. Some participants also stressed the importance of recognizing, if not formally rewarding, the often invisible work faculty do, particularly those from diverse backgrounds who mentor students from similar backgrounds, regardless of their research field.
Participants had differing views on how to engage with tenured faculty who may resist changes to RPT systems. Suggested approaches included implementing post-tenure reviews and encouraging intergenerational knowledge exchanges between senior and junior faculty members.
Reforming RPT processes will require time and institutional change, but some steps can be taken immediately. Institutions can set clear expectations for faculty early on, soon after hiring, and collaborate with them to align their work with their career advancement goals. A database of RPT materials, reform examples, and case studies across institutions could support these efforts.
RPT systems should be nimble and responsive, adapting to the tumultuous times we live in. The ideas discussed at the meeting will inform future work. The Academy is planning a series of virtual roundtables on professional societies, industry partnerships, and tenure practices in international contexts to translate these insights into concrete recommendations.
