IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0265506.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure

Author

Listed:
  • Diane (DeDe) Dawson
  • Esteban Morales
  • Erin C McKiernan
  • Lesley A Schimanski
  • Meredith T Niles
  • Juan Pablo Alperin

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Diane (DeDe) Dawson & Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Lesley A Schimanski & Meredith T Niles & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2022. "The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0265506
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265506
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265506&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0265506?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meredith T Niles & Lesley A Schimanski & Erin C McKiernan & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2020. "Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Lutz Bornmann, 2017. "Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? An analysis based on data from F1000Prime and normalized citation scores," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 1036-1047, April.
    3. Harley, Diane & Acord, Sophia Krzys & Earl-Novell, Sarah & Lawrence, Shannon & King, C. Judson, 2010. "Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines - Executive Summary," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt0kr8s78v, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    4. David Moher & Lex Bouter & Sabine Kleinert & Paul Glasziou & Mai Har Sham & Virginia Barbour & Anne-Marie Coriat & Nicole Foeger & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2020. "The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Nicky Agate & Rebecca Kennison & Stacy Konkiel & Christopher P. Long & Jason Rhody & Simone Sacchi & Penelope Weber, 2020. "The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Andrew Tsou, 2015. "Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(7), pages 1323-1332, July.
    7. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    8. Harley, Diane & Acord, Sophia Krzys & Earl-Novell, Sarah & Lawrence, Shannon & King, C. Judson, 2010. "Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt15x7385g, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    9. Anna Hatch, 2019. "To fix research assessment, swap slogans for definitions," Nature, Nature, vol. 576(7785), pages 9-9, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gassim H. Dohal, 2022. "Eligibility and Barriers to Promotion: A Perspective," Higher Education Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(3), pages 140-140, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fei Shu & Wei Quan & Bikun Chen & Junping Qiu & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2020. "The role of Web of Science publications in China’s tenure system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1683-1695, March.
    2. Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Meredith T Niles & Lesley Schimanski & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2021. "How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Michaela Strinzel & Josh Brown & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner & Sarah Rijcke & Michael Hill, 2021. "Ten ways to improve academic CVs for fairer research assessment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-4, December.
    4. Chieh Liu & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2022. "Exploring the relationships between altmetric counts and citations of papers in different academic fields based on co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4939-4958, August.
    5. Hu, Guangyuan & Ni, Rong & Tang, Li, 2022. "Do international nonstop flights foster influential research? Evidence from Sino-US scientific collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    6. Alessio J. G. Brown & Klaus F. Zimmermann, 2017. "Three decades of publishing research in population economics," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 11-27, January.
    7. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.
    8. Hendrik P. Dalen, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1675-1694, February.
    9. Loliya Agbani Akobo, 2018. "Action learning through radio: exploring conceptual views and lived experiences of women entrepreneurs," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 235-248, September.
    10. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2020. "How the Publish-or-Perish Principle Divides a Science : The Case of Academic Economists," Other publications TiSEM 6fbb6b92-0e06-4271-b6e7-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists," Other publications TiSEM a6a5a855-bb5a-4d52-a841-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Hamid R. Jamali & David Nicholas & Eti Herman, 2016. "Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 37-49.
    13. Nicky Agate & Rebecca Kennison & Stacy Konkiel & Christopher P. Long & Jason Rhody & Simone Sacchi & Penelope Weber, 2020. "The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Inoue, Masaaki & Pham, Thong & Shimodaira, Hidetoshi, 2020. "Joint estimation of non-parametric transitivity and preferential attachment functions in scientific co-authorship networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    15. Katarina Krapež, 2022. "Advancing Self-Evaluative and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms of Scholarly Journals: Editors’ Perspectives on What Needs to Be Improved in the Editorial Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, March.
    16. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    17. Colin Gallagher & Dean Lusher & Johan Koskinen & Bopha Roden & Peng Wang & Aaron Gosling & Anastasios Polyzos & Martina Stenzel & Sarah Hegarty & Thomas Spurling & Gregory Simpson, 2023. "Network patterns of university-industry collaboration: A case study of the chemical sciences in Australia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4559-4588, August.
    18. Jingfeng Xia, 2013. "The Open Access Divide," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-27, October.
    19. Liyin Zhang & Yuchen Qian & Chao Ma & Jiang Li, 2023. "Continued collaboration shortens the transition period of scientists who move to another institution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1765-1784, March.
    20. Erin C McKiernan, 2017. "Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0265506. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.