University Library, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Language & Literacy Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 6;17(4):e0265506. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265506. eCollection 2022.
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.
大学的评审、晋升和终身教职（RPT）流程通常从三个维度评估候选人：研究、教学和服务。近年来，有人主张在第四个有争议的标准中加入：合作精神。虽然合作精神对学术部门的士气和效率有一定作用，但它是无形的，难以评估的，并且可能被滥用，以扼杀异议或执行同质化。尽管如此，一些机构还是选择在其 RPT 文件和流程中加入这一额外的元素，但目前尚不清楚这种做法的程度以及它在机构类型和学科单位之间的差异。本研究基于两套数据：作为一个项目的一部分收集的调查数据，该项目探讨了教师的出版决策以及这些决策如何与 RPT 流程中的重要性相关，以及从美国和加拿大的 129 所大学收集的 864 份 RPT 文件。我们分析了这些 RPT 文件，以确定合作精神和相关术语在多大程度上被提及，如果有定义，以及它们在 RPT 过程中是否以及如何被评估。结果表明，当合作精神和相关术语出现在这些文件中时，它们通常只是简单地被提及。在 RPT 文件中定义或评估合作精神和相关术语的情况较少。尽管这些术语在所有类型的机构中都被提及，但在每个机构中的出现频率存在统计学上的显著差异。合作精神在以博士研究为重点的大学的文件中更为常见（60%），而在硕士和学院（31%）或学士学位学院（15%）的文件中则较少出现。对教师的伴随调查结果也支持了这一发现：来自 R 型的个人更有可能认为合作精神是他们 RPT 过程中的一个因素。我们的结论是，合作精神很可能在 RPT 流程中扮演着重要的角色，无论其在政策和准则中是否得到明确承认，并指出了几种最佳纳入学术生涯评估的策略。
