Wiese Glenda C, Percuoco Robert E, Pickar Joel G, Duray Stephen M, Faruqui Saeed R, Schmiedel Gilbert O, McLean Ian D
David D. Palmer Health Sciences Library, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport Campus, Davenport, Iowa 52803, USA.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2007 Sep;30(7):527-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.07.007.
Every promotion committee is challenged by the need to make value judgments on the quantity and quality of peer work. Decisions based upon subjective assessments may not do justice to the applicant's or the institution's needs. The purpose of this article is to (1) describe the process a college promotion committee used to increase the objectivity brought to this activity, (2) present the tools developed that facilitated the collection and evaluation of faculty work, and (3) describe their usage in a promotion cycle.
The Professor Promotion Committee met weekly for 6 months engaging in lengthy and comprehensive discourse to capture the breadth of scholastic and service activities normally engaged in by faculty.
The committee's work culminated in the development of 4 electronic applications soliciting specific evidence aligned with faculty work and 1 scoring rubric tied directly to the e-applications. More than 55 activities were identified, divided into 4 levels of accomplishment using quantitative and qualitative criteria and weighted according to their centrality to faculty work and relative importance to the institution. Each activity was assigned to one of the following categories: teaching/academic support, scholarship/research, service, and professional development. A consensus score based upon the evidence was used to generate promotion discussions.
The committee believes the online application aids applicants in recognizing the breadth and depth of promotable work. It provides them the opportunity to structure their work in ways that enhance their chances for promotion. The evidence-based rubric helps to reduce subjectivity in the evaluation process.
每个晋升委员会都面临着对同行工作的数量和质量进行价值判断的挑战。基于主观评估做出的决策可能无法满足申请人或机构的需求。本文的目的是：（1）描述一所大学晋升委员会为提高此项活动的客观性所采用的过程；（2）介绍所开发的有助于收集和评估教师工作的工具；（3）描述这些工具在一个晋升周期中的使用情况。
教授晋升委员会每周开会，持续6个月，进行冗长而全面的讨论，以涵盖教师通常从事的学术和服务活动的广度。
委员会的工作最终形成了4个电子应用程序，用于征集与教师工作相关的具体证据，以及1个直接与电子应用程序相关的评分标准。确定了55项以上的活动，根据定量和定性标准分为4个成就级别，并根据它们对教师工作的核心程度和对机构的相对重要性进行加权。每项活动被归入以下类别之一：教学/学术支持、学术成果/研究、服务和专业发展。基于证据的共识分数用于引发晋升讨论。
委员会认为，在线申请有助于申请人认识到可晋升工作的广度和深度。它为他们提供了以提高晋升机会的方式组织工作的机会。基于证据的评分标准有助于减少评估过程中的主观性。
