Cooper, Tuesday. (2006). The Sista’ Network: African-American Women Faculty Successfully Negotiating The Road to Tenure. Reviewed by Casey E. George-Jackson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Cooper, Tuesday. (2006). The Sista’ Network: African-American Women Faculty Successfully Negotiating The Road to Tenure. MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. Pp. xiv + 147                         ISBN ISBN 1-882982-92-4

Reviewed by Casey E. George-Jackson
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

June 12, 2007

Tuesday L. Cooper investigates the experiences of faculty in higher education who hold dual-minority status in The Sista’ Network: African-American Women Faculty Successfully Negotiating the Road to Tenure (2006). Her initiative to investigate and analyze the challenges of these women and to provide current and future African-American women faculty members practical advise on playing what Cooper candidly describes as “a game” is to be applauded (p. xii). Cooper admits that her motivations for investigating the “Sista’ Network” were due in part to self-interests, but the book has obvious applications to macro-level problems, as well as racial and gender issues found in higher education and society. The book demonstrates how institutional practices replicate structures of racism, power, and privilege, and can affect the composition of the faculty body, damage individual careers, and perpetuate differential and discriminatory treatment of minorities and women.

Cooper defines the “Sista’ Network” as “ the relationships between and among professional African-American women faculty” and explores the phenomenon via a qualitative study (p. xii). Nine experienced African-American women faculty members from 4-year institutions were individually interviewed and asked a series of questions regarding the hurdles they encountered during the tenure-seeking process. Cooper, an associate dean in the School of Education/Professional Studies and Graduate Division at Eastern Connecticut State University, effectively makes the argument that both racism and sexism must be overcome in order to achieve tenure and be promoted within academia. Not all of the women interviewed were able to do so, yet each had insights into the challenges they faced as they attempted to secure promotion and tenure. Rather than separating the two forms of discrimination from one another, Cooper fills an important void in the literature by looking at issues of race and gender simultaneously and how these faculty members’ dual-minority status exponentially increases these women’s invisibility, isolation, and the number of challenges they face inside the ivory tower. A second, but equally important contribution of this book, is to specifically relate these issues to the pursuit of promotion and tenure from the perspective of experienced Black female faculty members.

The Sista’ Network is well organized in its presentation of this important issue. Chapter 1 highlights the number of challenges Black women faculty members face in higher education. In essence, the book represents the convergence of “tenure, experiences of Black women faculty, and African-American feminist thought” (p. 4). Chapter 2 provides a detailed yet simplified description of tenure in order for the reader to better understand what may be a foreign and complicated process. Through this chapter, Cooper not only demystifies tenure but also openly advises: “in order to play the [tenure] game one has to know the formal and informal rules” (p. 12). Recognizing the political and social aspects that infiltrate what appears to be a fair review process assists readers in understanding the many hurdles Black women faculty face throughout their perusal of tenure. Arguably, all faculty members are exposed to such rules, but differences exist in terms of knowing how to play the “game”, having access to information and social networks, and the level of success in negotiating the tenure process. Whites and males have different experiences in pursuing tenure, and can often rely on favorable institutional cultures and practices to assist them achieve tenure, which further highlighting the importance of this book. As will be demonstrated later in the book, the exclusion of Black women faculty from knowing the informal rules often required to achieve tenure necessitates the formation of the “Sista’ Network”. Chapter 3 gives primary attention to the unique and complex experiences of African-American female faculty during the tenure process. Minority and female faculty members are often expected to take on additional and often different roles than their white or male counterparts due to their racial and gender statuses. These additional activities, such as increased teaching loads and mentoring African-American students who are not their advisees, detracts from other activities that are more valued in the tenure process, such as research and scholarship. Therefore, African-American female faculty members are not only isolated due to their dual-minority status, particularly at predominately white institutions, but also are isolated due to differences in their activities within the academy. While other faculty members are encouraged to pursue activities that are more likely to lead to tenure, and are often given differential treatment in order to do so, African-American faculty members spend more time in the classroom, mentoring students, and serving on committees, often as a token minority who is expected and perceived to be a representative for all other minorities. In what is already considered to be a hostile environment for women and minorities, these women’s experiences are plagued by differential treatment, and isolation, negating the need for mentors to be found within the “Sista’ Network”.

The fourth chapter provides the results of the qualitative interviews as presented in the format of an “imperfect narrative” which “allows a researcher to tell a truthful story in a fictional format, a crossing of genres” (p. 35). By choosing to present the study’s findings in this manner combined with self-conscious methodology, Cooper’s book serves another important purpose by expanding the acceptable methods of presenting qualitative research and “to contribute to a new voice to the scholarship in higher education” (p. 39). Although the nine individuals in the study were interviewed on an individual basis, Cooper merges their responses to create a fictitious roundtable discussion between participants in the study. The roundtable discussion is centered on questions posed by a new African-American female faculty member, Thelma. Thelma asks a series of questions to the group based on those used by Cooper in the actual interviews. Through this semi-fictional interaction, the nine participants share their experiences of pursuing tenure with her. This format allows for us to increase our understanding of the perils they faced and the various methods they used to overcome challenges. In order for the roundtable discussion to read easily, Cooper inserts transitory phrases from one participant to another to aid in the creation of the interactive dialogue. In addition, hearing their individual stories through a roundtable discussion allows the common experiences to surface. Thus, the finding’s generalizability is increased as many of the women narrate their common experiences and perceptions of the tenure-process.

The topics of the tenure process, collegiality, service and mentoring, isolation, networking, and highlights and lessons learned are the main themes of the roundtable discussion. Each of these themes is at once important and interrelated to one another. Although these women learned much during the pursuit of the tenure “game”, they were still seeking to better understand the formal and informal rules, operations, and relationships that impact the tenure process and outcome. The faculty members stressed the need for new faculty members to be strategic about the relationships and activities they choose to enter into during their careers. As noted in the literature reviewed on African-American female’s experiences in the academy, these women were asked to serve on committees more so than their white and male counterparts. These additional responsibilities took valuable time away from establishing research agendas and engaging in scholarship, both of which carry a greater weight during the tenure review. As African-Americans, they were also expected to serve as mentors to African-American students who were not officially their advisees due to a perception that they could better relate to them due to common demographics. Although the women recognized the importance of this work, it was also time-consuming and added pressure in attempting to fulfill the duties that officially “count” in the tenure process. Rachel, a faculty member in the social sciences who was preparing to apply for tenure in the near future observed that the “phenomena that are specific to Black women, like the ‘institutional mammy’” greatly changes their experiences in the academy and in their perusal of tenure (p. 92). Rachel reflected: “I now consider myself an institutional mammy; I haven’t broken the pattern” of African-American women expected to serve certain and subservient roles in higher education (Ibid.). While African-American women have gained a limited amount of entry into the ivory tower, their role and incorporation into the academy is distinguishable from other groups on multiple levels. Rachel’s insight is representative of how African-American women and minorities in general believe their experiences may be different upon entering the ivory tower, that they will be able to break the institutional cycle of racism and sexism, but that these ingrained discriminatory cultures are often more complex than anticipated. In addition, such cultures and institutional practices may be particularly difficult to overcome, as these women are isolated within the academy. The women advised to evaluate their service opportunities and pursue them strategically, and to resist pressure from other faculty members and administrators to take on too much service or to over-accept. The “Sista’ Network” provides a way to combat the negative transformation into the “institutional mammy” and to combat isolation in an effort to overcome institutional practices that are detrimental to their experiences and careers.

A number of participants noted that they were not proactive enough as new faculty members and suggested that information be sought out explicitly rather than wait for others to inform new faculty about the qualifications for tenure. Working hard and providing proof of productivity were found to be insufficient on the road to tenure, particularly as the aspects of political and social networks were as important as fulfilling teaching, research, and service responsibilities. Many of the women noted that building collegiality was central to the tenure process, but that a lack of social relationships with white faculty members often led to a lack of endorsement and support for their tenure applications. The use of social networks varied across the nine participants, with some conducting little or no networking, others only networking with other African-Americans, other women, or specifically other African-American women. Clearly the women responded differently to the discrimination and isolation they experienced in their departments and colleges, with some seeking out specific social relationships to counteract these experiences and others further retreating into isolation. Eloise, a faculty member who had received tenure 19 years ago, chose to isolate herself further in order to concentrate on her career and research. Although her experience was unique compared to other participants, it is interesting to note that although she sought isolation on purpose, she was still able to achieve tenure and persist in the academy as an African-American female senior faculty member.

The women collectively discussed the “Sista’ Network” at length emphasizing its tri-part importance. First, the “Sista’ Network” establishes supportive social and strategic relationships for African-American women inside higher education. Second, the network is a method for African-American women to teach each other about the tenure process so that future Black women faculty can succeed in the academy. Finally, and most importantly, the “Sista’ Network” provides a strategy by which to combat the racism and sexism these women encounter working in higher education and during the tenure-process. The participants note these forms of discrimination are covert and lie beneath institutional and departmental practices. As to be expected, they still have real and detrimental effects on these women and their careers. Establishing contacts via the “Sista’ Network” outside the faculty member’s home institution was as important as developing them inside, particularly in terms of asking for external letters of support needed for the tenure review. These women noted that sharing their research interests with colleagues inside their universities was often met by discouraging reactions or misunderstandings of their true research questions. Finding external scholars who could comment on their research intelligibly and who encouraged their scholarship was key for their successful bid at tenure and for achieving promotion. However, building an external support network did not guarantee these faculty promotion and tenure inside their home institutions as inter-institutional networks proved to be more important to the final decision regarding tenure. Internal and external “Sista’ Networks” provide critical support, feedback, and advise that may not have occur otherwise. One theme that reoccurred throughout the roundtable discussion was in regards to confidence, specifically to not let others lessen or question it retaining it was key to surviving in the academy. Self-confidence in their own skills, research interests, and abilities appears to be as important to many of these women’s persistence, as is the “Sista’ Network”. The two work together, as the network of support found in the “Sista’ Network” builds confidence of African-American women faculty members.

In the final chapter, Cooper offers highly practical and useful advise in the form of “12 guiding principles to help African-American women successfully negotiate the tenure process, develop collegial relationships and mentors, and find one’s stride and balance among research, teaching, and service” (p. 106). The principles, many of which are helpful to any new faculty member and graduate students, regardless of race or gender are to:

• Develop a philosophical framework
• Meet with the department chair and dean
• Set a research agenda
• Ask for a reduced teaching load
• Write grants and apply for fellowships
• Decide if you will be the minority voice
• Balance teaching, research, and service
• Be good at what you do
• Be collegial
• Remember that the tenure process is a proactive process
• Learn to politic and do it often
• Find a mentor as early in the tenure process as possible

Interestingly, “negative experiences seemed to overshadow the positive ones,” leading Cooper to identify four major challenges: 1) learning the rules of the tenure game; 2) negotiating the balance among teaching, research, and service; 3) collegiality as the fourth category of the tenure process; and 4) finding a mentor (p. 107). Cooper notes that these challenges may be in part due to higher education institutions attempting to now maintain the status quo, with less assistance being given to minority and female faculty members to reach tenure as compared to 20 years ago when a conscious push to increase these populations in the academy existed. In addition to these four challenges, African-American women must also deal with the “’new’ forms of racism” (p. 115), as well as “sexism, and politics of singularity” (p. 117). Cooper’s recommendations for pursing tenure may assist African-American female faculty members in overcoming certain challenges, or at least negotiate them better, as her title suggests, yet some of the problems they face are societal problems as well, and perhaps not as negotiable as others they are sure to encounter during their careers. It is Cooper’s hope that if such recommendations are utilized, the tenure process may change for future African-American female faculty members. At the same time, the traditional tenure process needs to change by increasing the information available on the process itself, making the process more transparent, evaluating the process frequently, and adjusting accordingly.

In terms of the selection of participants, the nine women were largely homogeneous in terms of their fields of study, as they are found in the disciplines of education, humanities, and the social sciences. It is recommended that future research on the topic of the experiences of African-American women faculty pursuing tenure should also focus on those who are in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematic) fields. It is possible that these women may experience exacerbated challenges compared to their counterparts in the “soft” disciplines, particularly as women overall have far less representation in the “hard” sciences. If this area of research were pursued, it would also be interesting to compare the experiences of African-American women faculty members according to type of discipline.

The focus of Cooper’s book is the ways in which African-American women successfully negotiate the tenure process and provides recommendations for individuals to aid them during this pursuit. However, she does not provide recommendations on how departments, colleges, and universities can and should also change a number of their practices in order to increase the likelihood of minorities achieving tenure and to make the process of tenure more equitable. For instance, departments should assess the assignment of faculty responsibilities to ensure they are allocated equitably. Although the “Sista’ Network” may prove to be successful to a certain extent, institutional changes as well as overall changes in higher education, are necessary in order to improve the tenure process and the composition of higher education faculty members.

The book reminds the higher education community of what is wrong with the tenure process. The emphasis on over-valuing research and scholarship over teaching and service adds to the literature that argues the tenure process is outdated and represents the problems associated with many research-intensive institutions where teaching and mentoring students are given secondary importance. While Cooper’s intention is to assist our understanding in the strategic methods used to overcome the challenges faced by African-American female faculty members, and to provide recommendations to this audience in order to assist them in achieving tenure, an increase in information and communication about tenure to all faculty, especially new faculty, is needed. Cooper succeeds in offering readers a fictionalized “Sista’ Network” in her presentation of the study’s findings via a roundtable discussion which can be used by new African-American female faculty members. While the process of finding and entering into supporting social networks has begun for them via this book, African-American women will have to do more to create their own networks of support in order to persist as faculty in the academy.

About the Reviewer Casey E. George-Jackson is a doctoral student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the Department of Educational Policy Studies. She is currently researching issues related to the sociology of higher education, access and transitions to college, and is monitoring the Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education. She holds a master’s degree in nonprofit management from Roosevelt University in Chicago, IL. She can be contacted via email at cgeo@uiuc.edu.