The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship

Agate, Nicky; Kennison, Rebecca; Konkiel, Stacy; Long, Christopher P.; Rhody, Jason; Sacchi, Simone; Weber, Penelope

doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00647-z

Cited by 15 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such an environment can fuel resentments and disrespectful conduct among colleagues. These “perverse incentives” and a “pervasive culture of competition” actively discourage faculty from engaging in activities that would facilitate or contribute to the success of their colleagues [ 57 ]. Another possibility for the mentions of collegiality in R-Type institutions, might be that these institutions have recognized the value of collegiality, which has led to the inclusion of the concept into evaluations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes at universities typically assess candidates along three dimensions: research, teaching, and service. In recent years, some have argued for the inclusion of a controversial fourth criterion: collegiality. While collegiality plays a role in the morale and effectiveness of academic departments, it is amorphic and difficult to assess, and could be misused to stifle dissent or enforce homogeneity. Despite this, some institutions have opted to include this additional element in their RPT documents and processes, but it is unknown the extent of this practice and how it varies across institution type and disciplinary units. This study is based on two sets of data: survey data collected as part of a project that explored the publishing decisions of faculty and how these related to perceived importance in RPT processes, and 864 RPT documents collected from 129 universities from the United States and Canada. We analysed these RPT documents to determine the degree to which collegiality and related terms are mentioned, if they are defined, and if and how they may be assessed during the RPT process. Results show that when collegiality and related terms appear in these documents they are most often just briefly mentioned. It is less common for collegiality and related terms to be defined or assessed in RPT documents. Although the terms are mentioned across all types of institutions, there is a statistically significant difference in how prevalent they are at each. Collegiality is more commonly mentioned in the documents of doctoral research-focused universities (60%), than of master’s universities and colleges (31%) or baccalaureate colleges (15%). Results from the accompanying survey of faculty also support this finding: individuals from R-Types were more likely to perceive collegiality to be a factor in their RPT processes. We conclude that collegiality likely plays an important role in RPT processes, whether it is explicitly acknowledged in policies and guidelines or not, and point to several strategies in how it might be best incorporated in the assessment of academic careers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While collaborative and collegial behaviors are necessary for the effective functioning of an academic unit and the contentment of its faculty, we must also recognize that it is complex to fairly assess collegiality, either as a criterion in RPT processes or as a dimension of other activities. Perhaps a values-enacted approach to assessment, as exemplified by the HuMetricsHSS initiative (https://humetricshss.org/) and discussed by Agate et al [53], may present a viable means to include the aspects of collegiality that are desirable within a larger evaluation framework. As per Agate et al's approach, "values-enacted indicators" could be developed by each institution, or unit therein, to align with the core values or mission of the group, and a subset of these indicators, which they refer to as "vicarious indicators", could be used to recognize faculty who facilitate the success of colleagues through activities such as mentorship or providing formative reviews.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such an approach could reward this kind of traditionally undervalued labor while encouraging collegiality and collaboration. Agate et al [53] note that this kind of evaluation is not unknown in the academy; administrators are often assessed on the success of those they lead. While none of the institutions that defined or assessed collegiality used a value-centric approach, there is ample opportunity for them to do so, especially as momentum continues to build towards research assessment reform [56][57][58][59].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such an environment can fuel resentments and disrespectful conduct among colleagues. These “perverse incentives” and a “pervasive culture of competition” actively discourage faculty from engaging in activities that would facilitate or contribute to the success of their colleagues [53]. Another possibility for the mentions of collegiality in R-type institutions, might be that these institutions have recognized the value of collegiality, which has led to the inclusion of the concept into evaluations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure

Dawson

Morales

McKiernan

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes at universities typically assess candidates along three dimensions: research, teaching, and service. In recent years, some have argued for the inclusion of a controversial fourth criterion: collegiality. While collegiality plays a role in the morale and effectiveness of academic departments, it is amorphic and difficult to assess, and could be misused to stifle dissent or enforce homogeneity. Despite this, some institutions have opted to include this additional element in their RPT documents and processes, but it is unknown the extent of this practice and how it varies across institution type and disciplinary units. This study is based on two sets of data: survey data collected as part of a project that explored the publishing decisions of faculty and how these related to perceived importance in RPT processes, and 864 RPT documents collected from 129 universities from the United States and Canada. We analysed these RPT documents to determine the degree to which collegiality and related terms are mentioned, if they are defined, and if and how they may be assessed during the RPT process. Results show that when collegiality and related terms appear in these documents they are most often just briefly mentioned. It is less common for collegiality and related terms to be defined or assessed in RPT documents. Although the terms are mentioned across all types of institutions, there is a statistically significant difference in how prevalent they are at each. Collegiality is more commonly mentioned in the documents of doctoral research-focused universities (60%), than of master's universities and colleges (31%) or baccalaureate colleges (15%). Results from the accompanying survey of faculty also support this finding: individuals from R-Types were more likely to perceive collegiality to be a factor in their RPT processes. We conclude that collegiality likely plays an important role in RPT processes, whether it is explicitly acknowledged in policies and guidelines or not, and point to several strategies in how it might be best incorporated in the assessment of academic careers.

show abstract

“…We note, however, that this shift in the valuation of activities for HRPT must be accompanied by training for supervisors in how to review performance equitably and account for disparities in the opportunities available to minoritized groups (i.e., invitations to collaborate and nominations for scholarly awards) as well as biases in the peer review process for publications and grants (Darling 2014;Grossman and DeVries 2019;Silbiger and Stubler 2019;Salerno et al 2020), in citations (King et al 2017), and in teaching evaluations (Lazos 2012;Mengel et al 2019). This shift has already been proposed in the humanities, in the social sciences, and in medicine (Lieff 2009;Agate et al 2020). In short, this is a framework for a new science-one that removes historic barriers and gatekeeping and recognizes all of the work needed for science to be diverse, equitable, and inclusive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%