1. COUNTING NEW FORMS OF SCHOLARSHIP TOWARD TENURE AND PROMOTION Peter Angelos and Linda Deneen University of Minnesota Duluth October 2010 This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the authors. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors.

2. UMD's fall 2009 enrollment was 11,664. The total number of teaching faculty is 555. Among the faculty, 83% are full-time employees; 75% of the full-time faculty have terminal degrees. Among the tenure-eligible faculty, 66% are tenured.

3. The Problem University of Minnesota Duluth Chancellor Kathryn A. Martin saw the need for new ways to count technology and web-based research and scholarship toward the promotion and tenure process. The campus had no clearly established guidelines, no consistency across collegiate units and departments, and no campus-wide agreement regarding definitions and value of new technologies and scholarship.

4. Appoint a Committee The chancellor appointed a committee in April 2008 and asked that we complete a study and report by September 2008. Committee Members: Peter Angelos (Liberal Arts), Linda Deneen (Information Technology), John Hamlin (Sociology/Anthropology), Jill Jenson (Writing Studies), Helen Mongan-Rallis (Education)

5. Actions Literature review and search for solutions or practices at other institutions A meeting with the collegiate deans to gather their input Regular meetings with the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Administration Focus group meetings with faculty members in each of the five collegiate units

6. Actions Interviews with key faculty members Survey of the faculty Creation of public web site and committee wiki Evaluation of all information gathered and creation of final report Town Hall Meeting to discuss the final report

7. Final Report - Findings 1. The gold standard for scholarship … is peer- reviewed work … 2. Recognition and evaluation … varies among disciplines. 3. Newer forms of scholarship are emerging … 4. … few [institutions], if any, seem to have devised workable systems or metrics … 5. The challenge … is to find ways to evaluate …. 6. Peer review … is an essential criterion …

8. Final Report - Recommendations 1. …departments … consider … the broader areas of scholarship … defined by Boyer (1990) the scholarship of discovery the scholarship of integration the scholarship of application the scholarship of teaching 2. Faculty … should recognize that it is the entire package of their scholarly work that must be evaluated … 3. Faculty … should plan in advance how to document the value of the work …

9. Final Report - Recommendations 4. … six criteria for evaluating scholarship... defined by Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff (1997) clear goals adequate preparation appropriate methods significant results effective presentation reflective critique

10. Final Report - Recommendations 5. … external reviewers who have some familiarity with these forms of scholarship should be included on the review panel. 6. …Online journals should be judged using equivalent criteria to print journals …

11. Final Report – Definitions and Examples The report provided specific quotations and examples to illustrate the forms of scholarship as explicated by Boyer: scholarship of discovery, scholarship of integration, scholarship of application, and scholarship of teaching. The samples of documenting forms of scholarship provided both standards and examples for each of these four types of scholarship.

12. Conclusions Increased awareness and acceptance of newer forms of scholarship Guidelines for departments to establish evaluation criteria Concrete framework for faculty to document their work Processes that can be used by other institutions

13. http://www.d.umn.edu/faculty/fsc/ THANK YOU