The Chair's Department Role Set and Implications for Faculty Advancement

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 25-26
Author(s):  
Melvin Prince
Keyword(s):  
Faculty Advancement

A Stochastic Model of Consensus Reaching in Committee Decisions for Faculty Advancement, Promotion and Tenure: Does Diversity Matter?

2019 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 418-426
Author(s):  
Taniecea A. Mallery ◽  
Ilana S. Mittman ◽  
Laura Castillo-Page ◽  
Jennifer Eliason ◽  
J. Renee Chapman Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Stochastic Model ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Faculty Advancement ◽  
Consensus Reaching

scholarly journals Understanding Faculty Collaboration and Productivity: A Case Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Chung-Yen Yu ◽  
Yung-Ting Chuang ◽  
Hsi-Peng Kuan
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Ministry Of Education ◽  
Faculty Collaboration ◽  
University Programs ◽  
National University ◽  
Evaluation Policies ◽  
Faculty Advancement

Research productivity has been always an important part of every academic’s job, since it has a profound effect on faculty promotion and tenure decisions. In addition, some scholars believe that co-authorship between faculty members has a great impact on their academic life and faculty advancement. Since 2005, the Ministry of Education of Taiwan (MOE) has developed two university programs and evaluation policies for improving the competitiveness and internationalization of Taiwan universities, and has clearly stated that there is a strong relationship between faculty promotion and research performance. However, none of them has used social network analysis (SNA) to examine research productivity and co-authorship under two university programs and evaluation policies from MOE in Taiwan. Therefore, in this study, we first uses SNA to analyze the research productivity, collaboration patterns, and publication strategies of faculty members in a Management Information Systems (MIS) department at a national university in Taiwan. Then, we used D3, a well-known drawing tool to create data visualization using JavaScript libraries, to visualize and discuss how these two university programs and evaluation policies from the MOE affected these patterns and strategies. We hope that our study not only provides beneficial information to the MIS department, but can be treated as an important source for MOE committees in their future adjustment of university programs and policies.

The preferences of Chinese LIS journal articles in citing works outside the discipline

2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuanfu Chen ◽  
Qiao Li ◽  
Zhiqing Deng ◽  
Kuei Chiu ◽  
Ping Wang
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Machine Learning Techniques ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Learning Techniques ◽  
Faculty Advancement ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Practice Community

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how Chinese library and information science (LIS) journal articles cite works from outside the discipline (WOD) to identify the impact of knowledge import from outside the discipline on LIS development. Design/methodology/approach This paper explores the Chinese LIS’ preferences in citing WOD by employing bibliometrics and machine learning techniques. Findings Chinese LIS citations to WOD account for 29.69 percent of all citations, and they rise over time. Computer science, education and communication are the most frequently cited disciplines. Under the categorization of Biglan model, Chinese LIS prefers to cite WOD from soft science, applied science or nonlife science. In terms of community affiliation, the cited authors are mostly from the academic community, but rarely from the practice community. Mass media has always been a citation source that is hard to ignore. There is a strong interest of Chinese LIS in citing emerging topics. Practical implications This paper can be implemented in the reformulation of Chinese LIS knowledge system, the promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration, the development of LIS library collection and faculty advancement. It may also be used as a reference to develop strategies for the global LIS. Originality/value This paper fills the research gap in analyzing citations to WOD from Chinese LIS articles and their impacts on LIS, and recommends that Chinese LIS should emphasize on knowledge both on technology and people as well as knowledge from the practice community, cooperate with partners from other fields, thus to produce knowledge meeting the demands from library and information practice as well as users.

scholarly journals Assessing Institutionalized Bias

2021 ◽  
pp. 61-80
Author(s):  
Linda F. Bisson ◽  
Philip H. Kass ◽  
Kyaw Tha Paw U ◽  
Laura Grindstaff
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Intellectual Ability ◽  
Knowledge Generation ◽  
Culturally Specific ◽  
Higher Education Systems ◽  
Socially Constructed ◽  
Academic Standing ◽  
Marginalized Groups ◽  
Scholarly Impact ◽  
Faculty Advancement

AbstractIdeally, higher education systems are meritocracies in which advancement or promotion is based on demonstrated accomplishment and scholarly impact. “Merit” is believed to be associated with innate intellectual ability, dedication to learning and knowledge generation, mastery of a field of study, and recognition by others of comparable training and academic standing. Evaluations of accomplishment are dutifully (and often wishfully) believed to be wholly objective despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, implicit bias and other barriers to inclusion are pervasive within meritocracies. For members of marginalized groups, their social identity may diminish how their accomplishments are perceived and valued; conversely, the accomplishments of those with privileged identities may be over-valued. Moreover, what counts as “valuable” is itself not objective or neutral but rather reflects socially-constructed and culturally-specific priorities. Because academic merit and reward systems, as well as local cultures, can intentionally as well as unintentionally reinforce and hence perpetuate bias and barriers to inclusion, one of our UC Davis ADVANCE initiatives centered on review of all policies and practices affecting faculty advancement. We appraised the potential for bias in hiring, promotion, progression, and retention of faculty. We also evaluated the importance of culture in replicating barriers to inclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document