Re-envisioning Promotion and Advancement for STEM Faculty Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Re-envisioning Promotion and Advancement for STEM Faculty: Proceedings of a Workshop - in Brief
Re-envisioning Promotion and Advancement for STEM Faculty: Proceedings of a Workshop - in Brief
Pages 1-8
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
In response to this need, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened academic leaders, scientists, engineers, medical professionals, scholars, philanthropists, and representatives from higher education associations and research funding agencies in October 2019 to discuss challenges with the current system of faculty advancement and to re-envision promotion practices. Sessions spanned several topics related to faculty promotion and advancement: the historical context and current realities of academic advancement, evaluation and assessment models for academic careers, new models for faculty advancement, and potential changes to existing advancement systems.
|
From page 2... ...
Next, remarks by Joan Wallach Scott, from the Institute for Advanced Study, were read in absentia by Maureen Connelly, a member of the planning committee from the Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine. Scott emphasized that "academic freedom is granted to scholars on the premise that knowledge is not a private but a public good, necessary for the health, wellbeing, security and prosperity of a nation." Janis Orlowski from the Association of American Medical Colleges discussed differences and inequities of the current faculty advancement in academic medical institutions, particularly for women and underrepresented minorities.
|
From page 3... ...
Opportunities associated with changing the advancement system included broadening the aspects of faculty work that could be rewarded, expanding tenure time tables to allow flexibility for various research approaches and career trajectories, incentivizing and recognizing collaborations between academia and other sectors, and eliminating inconsistent or arbitrary criteria in promotion and tenure systems. Emerging trends discussed included incentivizing evidence-based approaches in teaching and learning to improve student outcomes and experiences through the inclusion of new assessments in faculty advancement processes.
|
From page 4... ...
She pointed to the potential of entrepreneurship to impact society and to research approaches such as team science that, over time, form links to communities. Branchaw responded, "How we measure the development of research is important to consider if we are going to change the evaluative system to match." INSIGHTS FROM THE SECOND AND THIRD SETS OF BREAKOUT GROUPS Planning committee member Laura Diaz-Martinez, from Gonzaga University, summarized the second set of breakout discussions, which delved into the feasibility of implementing different types of assessments in the promotion and advancement systems.
|
From page 5... ...
Asked to discuss Project Kaleidoscope4 and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's (HHMI's) Inclusive Excellence Program,5 Tykeia Robinson, from the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)
|
From page 6... ...
Austin returned to discuss her observations of national change initiatives, including the National Science Foundation's ADVANCE (Organizational Change for Gender Equity in STEM Academic Professions) program, its Improving Undergraduate STEM Education programs, and the TEval program for supporting advancements in teaching evaluations.
|
From page 7... ...
change from the existing system to the new system is difficult. O'Meara posed the question of how academia and society can preserve the valuable aspects of a faculty advancement system that created unintentional consequences over time, while creating new opportunities for improving student learning, increasing public engagement, and fueling innovative research approaches.
|
From page 8... ...
INNISS, Spelman College; ROBERT MARTELLO, Olin College; JULIE RISIEN, Oregon State University; WILLIAM ROUSE, Georgetown University. REVIEWERS: To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop -- in Brief was reviewed by LAWRENCE ROTHBLUM, University of Oklahoma; HIRONAO OKAHANA, Council of Graduate Schools; MICHAEL DENNIN, University of California, Irvine; and SHERILYNN BLACK, Duke University.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.