Nicola Polloni Photo: PROVIDED TO CSST

Tenure-track systems offer scholars stability and security, but they also intensify pressure on younger academics competing for a limited number of positions. This tension has made the evaluation of scholars’ research achievements—while safeguarding long-term innovation and sustaining a healthy research environment—a pressing concern across the global academic community.

Originating in the United States, the tenure system has evolved over decades and is now relatively standardized. In Europe, however, pathways to tenure vary considerably across different higher education systems. To better understand how tenure systems operate in European countries and how scholars perceive them, CSST interviewed Nicola Polloni, an associate professor of medieval philosophy at the University of Messina in Italy.

Intense competition for tenure

CSST: Could you briefly introduce the tenure-track system in Italy, drawing on your own academic experience?

Polloni: Tenure-track systems are becoming increasingly common in Europe. In Italy, the tenure-track scheme consists of a six-year research fellowship, at the end of which, if completed, an evaluation panel may recommend the researcher for appointment as an Associate Professor, which, in Italy, is the tenured position.

Securing a tenure-track position is extremely difficult in Italy, as in the rest of Europe. Outside of tenure-track schemes, an academic career usually unfolds through a succession of postdocs. The period between the doctorate and tenure is therefore typically marked by a series of two- or three-year postdoctoral fellowships. Since most of these are funded by national research institutions, they often require moving from one country to another—just as one begins to adapt to a new environment, it is time to move again.

I have been fortunate in that I was able to bypass this process. I spent most of my pre-tenure career abroad. With a measure of luck, I was then able to return to my home country directly as an associate professor—that is, as tenured faculty. But many of my colleagues have not been that lucky.

CSST: What was the greatest challenge you faced while pursuing tenure?

Polloni: Achieving tenure demands enormous sacrifice and, ultimately, a leap of faith. Sacrifice, in this context, means putting one’s life on hold for years. Most of my non-tenured colleagues do not have children and, for now, are not planning to. Like I once did, many are forced to change country and institution every two or three years, moving between different parts of Europe and, frequently, the United States, and increasingly China as well.

This constant mobility creates deep uncertainty. A researcher cannot know whether they will secure another postdoc, a tenure-track role, or instead face unemployment. Would you choose to start a family in such conditions, aware that you might soon find yourself jobless, with no clear path for translating highly specialized expertise into opportunities outside academia? On top of this uncertainty, the pressure is relentless. You must publish in high-ranking journals—otherwise you are out. You must attend conferences and build networks—otherwise you are out. You must develop a strong teaching portfolio—otherwise you are out. You must conduct innovative research and propose groundbreaking ideas—otherwise you are out. You must spend months applying for jobs and fellowships, writing countless proposals—otherwise you are out.

All these demands amount to a single, devastating sacrifice: that of one’s own self. With no fixed working hours, you may find yourself working entire days with only short breaks. Holidays cease to exist when conference travel takes their place. Friends outside academia drift away. Hobbies and passions vanish. You cannot know whether you will attain tenure until the very moment it is granted. At every step along the way, it could be game over. Yet, after so many sacrifices and years of total dedication to knowledge, how could one simply walk away from academia? And to do what, exactly? Unsurprisingly, the mental health crisis in academia is acute, though only recently has it become easier to discuss openly.

Undermining long-term innovative research

CSST: To what extent does evaluation pressure influence research decisions? Have you ever had to abandon meaningful topics that might take longer to produce results in favor of trending subjects that are easier to publish?

Polloni: This is an excellent question, as it points directly to one of the major dysfunctions of the current system. I am convinced that today’s tenure structures may risk actively discouraging promising and innovative lines of research, with consequences that will become increasingly visible in the coming years.

Let me illustrate with an example. My field is the history of philosophy, where critical editions of ancient texts are indispensable. A critical edition reconstructs a text philologically by comparing multiple medieval manuscripts. Without such editions, scholars must rely on individual manuscripts, which may contain errors or distortions (I spare you the technical details). Producing a critical edition, however, takes years of painstaking work—often culminating in a single publication, not even a monograph but something considered “less” than that.

Many colleagues now admit they no longer even contemplate undertaking a critical edition, since it amounts to career suicide: years of effort for just one publication. By contrast, tenure criteria demand multiple outputs—small, discrete contributions that can be produced quickly. Yet if nobody produces critical editions anymore, what exactly are we meant to write our articles on? Without reliable texts, the foundation of scholarship collapses.

Here is another example. In Europe, it is now almost a cliché to say that “filling a gap is not enough to get funded.” In other words, studying something neglected for decades is no longer considered sufficient justification for research support. Instead, proposals must be flashy: they must be novel, interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and demonstrate significant “societal impact.” These implicit requirements lead to what can be termed “Frankenstein proposals”: stitched-together projects designed to tick institutional boxes, but lacking a coherent intellectual thread. Unsurprisingly, their scientific value is often limited.

Improving a people-centered evaluation system

CSST: What suggestions would you offer for building a healthier academic ecosystem?

Polloni: It is difficult to offer advice, yet I would emphasize three points that I believe are quite important—and in a way, also very well known—for academic communities worldwide to consider.

First, it is reasonable to expect results from scholars on tenure track, and equally reasonable to seek ways of assessing those results. But we must not lose sight of the fact that scholars are human beings, not machines. Tenure criteria should be reasonable, nuanced, and tailored to each discipline and subdiscipline. The value of research cannot be measured solely by whether it secures funding (given the many non-scientific variables that shape funding decisions), nor by whether it appears in a top-ranked journal (many of which are often highly elitist, privileging local scholars, traditions, and native speakers).

Each discipline has its own methodologies, research questions, and modes of dissemination, and evaluation criteria must reflect this diversity. We cannot expect the same kinds of publications or impact from scholars in the sciences as from those in the humanities. Notwithstanding this fact, which is quite banal, actually, most evaluating criteria are based on a groundless assimilation of the humanities and other disciplinary realms to the epistemic specificities of the sciences. This risks creating an unlevel playing field with hindering effects on research and researchers.

Second, we must try to remove the Damoclean sword that hangs over researchers’ heads. In Europe, one of the greatest sources of stress is the pervasive fear: “if I don’t get tenure, I will have no future, no career, no prospects.” Academic systems must do more to prepare doctoral candidates and postdoctoral researchers to apply their skills beyond academia. Not all doctorates will lead to tenure. But then, what will they lead to?

Personally, I do not believe in restricting doctoral admissions by imposing arbitrary thresholds. What is necessary, however, is that we not only make doctoral students aware of the challenges they are likely to face, but also support them in navigating both academic careers and the possibility of leaving academia.

Third, I believe it is absolutely essential to speak openly about mental health in academia. The pressures that pre-tenured scholars—and, in different ways, even tenured ones—face on a daily basis have profound effects not only on their own mental well-being but also on the lives of their families. There should be no shame in addressing this, although in Europe there often still is.

These three measures are not easy to implement. We need to trust our leadership and its constant effort to make academia a better and more efficient work environment. Yet I think that each of us can make a difference and that it is important to remember that when we evaluate a grant proposal or a submitted article, there are human beings behind those words—people whose lives and futures may be profoundly shaped by our judgment.

I would like to say a few words to my many colleagues who are struggling with work–life balance and the immense pressure to secure tenure. I know very well the feeling that you are experiencing. There were countless times when I thought I had reached my limit and should leave academia altogether.

If I managed to keep going, it was largely thanks to my family and friends. Speak to yours about your concerns and difficulties. At the same time, try to support your colleagues. Show them that they are not alone and that you care. A sense of community cannot solve all our problems, but it can make a big difference. It can create a better working environment and help relieve some of the pressure. Be resilient. Do not blame yourself if things do not unfold as you hoped.