Add to bookbag
Authors : Deborah Lines Andersen, Dennis A. Trinkle
Title: "One or Two is not a Problem" or Technology in the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Process A Survey of Current Practices in U.S. History Departments
Publication Info: Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library
April 2001
Availability:

This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact mpub-help@umich.edu for more information.

Source: "One or Two is not a Problem" or Technology in the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Process A Survey of Current Practices in U.S. History Departments
Deborah Lines Andersen, Dennis A. Trinkle


vol. 4, no. 1, April 2001
Article Type: Article
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3310410.0004.101
PDF: Download full PDF [48kb ]

"One or Two is not a Problem" or Technology in the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Process A Survey of Current Practices in U.S. History Departments

Deborah Lines Andersen and Dennis A. Trinkle

In spring 2000 the American Association for History and Computing conducted a survey of current tenure, promotion, and review practices regarding technology-related activities across United States college and university history departments. The survey was posted on the World Wide Web [1] and the chairs of history departments (657 in all) were notified of the survey through a variety of history-related listservs and advertisements. By the end of April 66 chairs responded.

The survey contained 20 questions that asked department chairs about policy, formal and informal, in using products of technology-related activities in tenure, promotion, and review. This process was broken down into areas of teaching, service, and professional development and research. Additionally the survey asked about institutional support for technology-related activities. After each question there was a space for respondents to comment or describe experiences that they, or their departments, had had.

The Association strongly promotes these technology-related products through its journal, conference, and annual award for best multi-media history project. Anecdotal information had suggested that history departments across the United States were, for the most part, traditional and paper-based in their valuation of historical scholarship. Stories from other fields strongly suggested that history is not the only field struggling with evaluating products of digital scholarship in the tenure, promotion and review process. [2] Thus, the overarching research question for this project was whether academic departments were rewarding the efforts of historians in using multimedia technologies. The Association hoped that the results of this survey would create a picture of the use of technology products in the promotion process as well as create the groundwork for a best practice policy statement that could be promoted by the AAHC. In this effort, the association has created such a draft policy, "AAHC Suggested Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Media Activities." [3]

One of the strengths of a web-based survey is that it can ask for additional information from respondents, and they, in turn, can electronically respond, as much as they want, to the questions posed to them. An obvious weakness of this data collection method is that survey respondents are self-selected. The researchers expected that department chairs might have very strong positive or negative responses to the survey. Often those individuals who are indifferent do not bother to fill out questionnaires. With a 10 percent response rate (66/657) and a self-selected pool of respondents, the researchers cannot generalize to academic history departments across the United States. This survey, at best, can serve as a guidepost to possible best practice, potential changes in university policies, and additional research questions for future projects. With these reservations in mind, this report presents the findings, qualitative and quantitative, from the spring 2000 sur

Findings

The responses to this survey were of two sorts. Chairpersons were first asked to indicated a yes or no response to each question (1 through 19). After each question respondents were asked to comment, or to describe a particular departmental policy or situation. This survey method created a rich array of data. In the findings sections below results are given for the yes/no questions, followed by a discussion of the qualitative results of that section of the survey. Following the discussion of each question there is a link to the text of open-ended comments for that question. These quotations are followed by respondent numbers that allow for reference in the text of this paper.

Subsequent sections of the findings and the conclusions focus on overall lessons to be gained from the survey results, especially as the qualitative and quantitative materials create a picture of the use of technology-related scholarship in the tenure, promotion, and review processes of these 66 schools.

Formal Policies on Technology-related Activities

In particular, this first section of the survey asked chairpersons to describe their formal institutional assessment guidelines pertaining to technology-related activities (questions 1, 1a, 1b, and 1c). If the chairperson did not believe there was a formal, written policy in question 1, he or she was directed to skip questions 1a through 1c.

[Question 1]: The institution has a formal, written policy for assessing technology-related activities in the tenure, promotion, and review process

  • Yes: 4
  • No: 62
  • Total: 66

Of the 66 chairpersons who returned surveys, four (6%) indicated that there was a formal policy in their department for dealing with the technology products in the tenure, promotion, and review process. As seen in the informal policies section that follows, many chairpersons stated that technology products were considered in the review process, but unevenly across the university, at various levels of the university, or across time within the department. The most striking comments suggested that these technologies were too new and unknown—there had not been enough test cases to create a policy or to establish what the departmental policy would be. It seemed that department chairs assumed there would be time for policy development AFTER there had been test cases, not before.

It was also apparent that technology products were considered primarily a part of the teaching aspects of the tenure and review process. Using technology in the classroom was good. Nonetheless, there was much more hesitation about using technological products of research and scholarship in the promotion process. The more traditional medium of the print journal article or peer-reviewed monograph prevailed in these questionnaires as the usual method of seeking tenure and promotion.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 1a] : The institution counts technology-related activities in the area of teaching [1a].

  • Yes: 2
  • No: 2
  • Total: 4

This question is hard to analyze in that many chairpersons who did not have formal policies nonetheless took the time to respond in the comments section. Teaching was highlighted as a strong area for technology. Not only does it enhance learning, but it draws students, makes the university look better, and perhaps even encourages donations! It was expected, but there were no universal guidelines that surfaced from this study.

A distinction that did surface had to do with level of teaching evaluation. Chairpersons mentioned tenure, and promotion, but they also mentioned merit evaluation in relation to technology. Thus technology products could be used in "regular or special evaluations" that might increase base salary, even if the chairperson believed they would not, at present, be used in the tenure and promotion process. These special evaluations might also be for university-wide teaching or service awards even if they included no pay or rank increase.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 1b]: The institution counts technology-related activities in the area of service [1b].

  • Yes: 1
  • No: 3
  • Total: 4

For the respondents in this study, many were surprised that there was a question on using technology in a service capacity. The uses of technology that did appear ranged from serving on committees that deal with technology or technology in teaching, to helping other faculty members deal with technology. "Brow beating other faculty members into using technology" was considered service by one respondent! At least one comment suggested that technology is a complement to traditional service. Nonetheless, the nature of the open-ended comments left the impression that technology is service was good, but not really necessary in the tenure and review process.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 1c]: The institution counts technology-related activities in the area of professional development/research.

  • Yes: 1
  • No: 3
  • Total: 4

Again with this question, many chairpersons who did not have formal policies in place nonetheless took the opportunity to comment upon technology-related activities in the area of professional development and research. This section was noteworthy for questions raised about the nature of the research process in history. What qualifies as research? How critical is peer review? What is the process of creating an electronic journal article? Is that process as rigorous as it is for print journal articles? Some department chairs voiced the opinion that it would be good if materials came out in paper first, then in electronic format. There would be easy web access, but the old style peer review process that makes tenure, promotion, and review committees comfortable.

Some respondents said they could not really answer this question because their institutions did not particularly value research activities. This was especially the case for two-year, and undergraduate institutions that concentrate on teaching activities. This view of the tenure and promotion process was an administrative and mission issue. Administrations emphasize different aspects of activities for tenure and promotion. Sometimes research is just not an issue.

This is undoubtedly the focus issue for this paper. Whereas teaching and service reviews both use products of technology, whether or not there are formal departmental and university guidelines, department chairs stated that products of digital scholarship in research are usually questionable indicators of academic success.

University Evaluation of Non-print Intellectual Products

The second section of the survey asked if the university valued publications in electronic journals or in non-print media (questions 2 and 3). All department chairs were asked to respond to these questions.

[Question 2]: The university values publications in electronic peer-reviewed journals in the tenure, promotion, and review process [2].

  • Yes: 36
  • No: 30
  • Total: 66

The first title for this paper comes from this section of the survey. One individual simply stated that "If a person has primarily e-publications, grave questions would be raised. One or two pieces in a vita is not a problem." This attitude pervaded the qualitative section of the survey. Individuals stated that there were no test cases in place at their universities, that e-publication was too new and unfamiliar to have status or that they might be "scrutinized more closely" than a more familiar print source.

The picture was not that bleak for e-publications across the respondent pool. Some indicated that e-journal publications would, or would probably be given the same weight as print journal articles. Other department chairs did question if they would be given as much value, as much weight, as articles in print journals. Still others suggested that e-publications would be evaluated, "if the author met minimum publication standards through print books and journals." The peer review process was very important. Policies of the department and university were also important, although it was clear from respondent comments that different policies can exist across different departments within a single university. Culturally, the words that department chairs used were informative. They stressed "value," "quality," "legitimacy," and "weight" as important aspects of the research publication process. They focused on peer review, and the rigor of peer review in the publicatio

Perhaps one department chair's comments sum up the problem facing historians today. "Frankly, if I am under review, I would not at this point publish electronically." These surveys presented a strong culture of watch-and-wait, of testing the waters and recommending that individuals not immerse themselves fully in electronic publication for fear of being turned down for tenure and promotion. No matter how good an e-publication might be, there was a good chance that promotion committees would discount it based upon its medium of presentation.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 3]: The university would value the creation of a database or digital creation (Valley of the Shadow, for example) as the equivalent of a monograph.

  • Yes: 22
  • No: 44
  • Total: 66

One chairperson stated that "at this point the monograph is the pinnacle of prestige." And, in fact, many respondents stated that a database or digital creation would be considered less than a monograph and more along the lines of an edited volume or "derivative" work. A central cultural question in this section of the survey was the definition of historical research. The single-authorship monograph seemed to be the benchmark. Once individual stated that even an extensive project such as "Valley of the Shadow" would not be "seen as adequate basic evidence for tenure." Another chairperson stated that this form of scholarship was too new—that he had not seen anything of this sort in his department.

Thus historians who work in e-publication or digital creations face a strong cultural bias against them and their work. This bias verges on fear of, or at least unfamiliarity with the unknown. There is a strong call here for educating historians, history departments, and tenuring committees at academic institutions about the work that goes into e-publications. It is impossible to truly evaluate something that one does not understand. It is much easier to reject it out of hand.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

Informal Policies on Technology-related Activities

If departments did not have formal policies (section 1), the chairperson was asked about informal policies regarding the use of technology products in the tenure and review process (questions 4 through 7). These questions asked about beliefs, consensus, and agreement among faculty—questions better answered through narrative than through a simple "yes" or "no." If departments did have formal policies they were asked to skip question 4.

[Question 4]: The institution has an informal policy regarding the use of technology in teaching, professional development, or service [4].

  • Yes: 37
  • No: 25
  • Total: 62

As with responses from the formal policies section of this survey, teaching, professional development, and service aspects of digital scholarship seemed to create few problems for the respondents. Faculty members were rewarded or recognized for using technology in their teaching and service. Faculty received recognition for securing grants—including grants for technology. Nonetheless, only slightly more than half of the respondents said that there were informal policies in place to deal with these issues.

Perhaps most relevant for this research was the response of one chair. "Because this is an informal policy, faculty members are obliged to state both the kind of work and the importance to the relevant category of faculty review." This informal policy could form the basis for policy at other institutions. If, as seen in the previous question, the culture does not recognize the medium, then perhaps individuals will need to be taught. The onus rests upon historians who are coming up for tenure and promotion. They need to educate their peers.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 5]: The university has a consistently understood policy about how technology-related activities will be evaluated.

  • Yes: 1
  • No: 65
  • Total: 66

The balance of responses in the "no" column above say it all. Chairpersons overwhelmingly felt that there was no consistently understood policy—that general agreement on policy had yet to exist. Again, one has the feeling that test cases will cause policy development, but at the expense of the first faculty members who come up for review.

[Question 6]: There is consensus among your faculty colleagues about how technology-related activities ought to be considered in the tenure, promotion, and review process.

  • Yes: 5
  • No: 61
  • Total: 66

Question 6 garnered almost as many "no" responses as did question 5. Anecdotal information stated that faculty fear technology, that they do not understand it, and that there was little consensus about using products of technology in the tenure, promotion, and review process.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 7]: There is agreement between the faculty and the administration about the place of technology-related activities in the tenure, promotion, and review process.

  • Yes: 6
  • No: 60
  • Total: 66

Several chairpersons stated that administration was more enthusiastic about technology-related activities than were history faculty and departments per se. This seemed to come down to a difference of purpose. The departments were looking for classic scholarship in the tenure and promotion process. Administrations look to visibility for the school, to the cutting edge, and are therefore happy to see technological innovation across the campus. Although administrations liked technology, it was not clear that this would help with tenure and promotion.

A synthesizing quotation came from one individual who said, "As chair of the department, I received constant pressure from the administration to encourage faculty members to use technology in the classroom. My consistent reply was that older faculty members were not interested and that I could not in good conscience encourage younger faculty members to spend the time required by such activities, because I knew that the various faculty committees judging tenure and promotion do not value those activities." Interestingly enough, this chairperson identified another tenure and promotion issue. "Older faculty members were not interested." If this is the case across U.S. academic institutions, and promotion committees are populated by senior faculty members, then it is no wonder that the culture does not value the products of digital scholarship.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

Institutional Support for Technology-related Activities

This last and longest section of the questionnaire (questions 8 through 19) asked about the provision of release time, grants, training support, and technical support for research and course development using digital technologies. The researchers were interested in whether there was a perceived different in institutional support for tenured versus non-tenured faculty members. Question 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19 specifically referred to tenured scholars while the rest pertained to untenured faculty members.

[Question 8]: The institution provides release time or grants to tenured faculty for pursuing technology-related research activities

  • Yes: 33
  • No: 33
  • Total: 66

The yes/no responses from this question on tenured faculty (33/33) were more even than those for untenured faculty in question 10 (27/39) although not different enough to say that untenured faculty are treated significantly differently in this sample of history departments. Thus it would appear that about half of these 66 departments do not provide release time or grants for faculty, tenured or not who wish to pursue technology-related research activities.

The open-ended questions presented department chairs who were often confused by departmental and university policy, pondering whether or not technology-related research activities would count or be funded. The chairpersons did give many examples of conferences, grants, release time, and support that might fall into this category.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 9]: The institution provides release time or grants to tenured faculty for pursuing technology-based course development.

  • Yes: 34
  • No: 32
  • Total: 66

Despite earlier findings in this study that teaching was considered a "safer" area for pursuing technology-related activities, both this question and question 11 on untenured faculty (32/34) saw a fairly even split between those departments that did and did not provide release time or grants for technology-related course development. The open-ended questions were again filled with stories about grants, release time, new programs, and resource centers that helped with course development. Given that in previous sections of this research administrations were seen as positive forces for technology-based programs, and that resource centers are often at the university-wide level, it is not surprising that some department chairs reported receiving this kind of administrative support.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 10]: The institution provides release time for grants for untenured faculty for pursuing technology-related research activities.

  • Yes: 27
  • No: 39
  • Total: 66

See the discussion associated with question 8 above. The open-ended questions contained two in which the chairperson made a distinction between untenured and tenured faculty. One stated that in his department " the untenured faculty are more likely to pursue technology-related activities than are the tenured faculty," although the pool of money for technology-related activities would be the same. A second reported that "senior faculty members would advise junior faculty members not to pursue such activities unless it would lead to the publication of a printed, peer-reviewed book."

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 11]: The institution provides release time or grants to untenured faculty for pursuing technology-based course development.

  • Yes: 32
  • No: 34
  • Total: 66

See the discussion associated with question 9 above. The two open-ended responses for question 11 of the survey stressed the distinction between technology-related activities for old and younger faculty members, ands that competition was for all faculty, not related to rank or tenure.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 12]: The institution provides training support to tenured faculty who wish to use technology in their teaching or research.

  • Yes: 55
  • No: 11
  • Total: 66

Both this and question 13 dealt with training support, for tenured (question 12) and untenured (question 13) faculty. In both questions the yes/no ratio was about 5 to 1. Departments did seem to be providing a lot of training support. It should be noted, again, that training support appeared to have been made from outside the department per se, mostly in the form of computer centers, instructional technology staff, centers for teaching and learning, and "computer people." These are resources provided at a university level, not a departmental level.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 13]: The institution provides training support to untenured faculty who wish to use technology in their teaching or research [13]

  • Yes: 53
  • No: 13
  • Total: 66

See the discussion associated with question 12 above.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 14]: The institution provides technical support (instructional technologists, graphics experts, etc.) to tenured faculty who wish to use technology in their teaching or research [14]

  • Yes: 44
  • No: 22
  • Total: 66

The responses here and in question 15 (untenured faculty) were very similar to those for questions 12 and 13. The support that chairs talked about was support outside their departments. Again, chairs mentions college technology staffs, computer centers and centers for faculty development, and teaching centers as support structures for technology. No one mentioned graphic artists except to say that there were none available on campus.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 15]: The institution provides technical support (instructional technologists, graphics experts, etc.) to untenured faculty who wish to use technology in their teaching or research [15]

  • Yes: 46
  • No: 60
  • Total: 66

See the discussion associated with question 14 above.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 16]: In general, the institution encourages or discourages tenure-track scholars from digital research projects.

  • Encourages: 26
  • Discourages: 23
  • No response: 17

Questions 16 and 17 both asked for information about institutional encouragement for digital research projects, first for tenure-track and then for tenured faculty members. These were the first questions that respondents left blank. Slightly less than one third of the chairs did not answer these questions although they did respond extensively in the open comments section. The open-ended comments indicated that this question could not be answered with an "encourages" or "discourages"—that cases differed, or that administrations and departments differed. One person mentioned the "mixed messages" that individuals received from various sources.

Barriers to doing digital research projects seemed to be funds and time. Chairs reported that technology was an extra, expected in addition to regular forms of scholarship and teaching. One respondent stated, "The reality of the experiences of faculty who pursue IT is that they are simply adding to their already extended list of "things to do" and in this case, it is a confusing and frightening experience in teaching situations without adequate IT support."

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 17]: In general, the institution encourages or discourages tenured scholars from digital research projects [17].

  • Encourages: 28
  • Discourages: 22
  • No response: 16

See the discussion associated with question 16 above.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 18]: The institution encourages or discourages tenure-track scholars from digital teaching projects [18].

  • Encourages: 42
  • Discourages: 19
  • No response: 5

This and question 19 did have some individuals who did not respond. In both questions there were about twice as many "encourages" as "discourages." Especially with question 19, the open-ended comments stressed economics. "Resources are limited." "No incentive to change." One chair's perception was that the university would encourage digital teaching projects because it could save money delivering education in this medium.

An interesting policy issue was the assignment of intellectual property rights for digital teaching materials. A history department chairperson stated, "We have a Virtual University that offers faculty the opportunity to offer on-line courses. Web sites are also encouraged. However, intellectual property rights are the object of some dispute, with the university insisting on propriety rights." Who owns digital materials that are created by faculty for courses? Is it the individual faculty member or the institution? Could the university use these materials in such a way as to make a profit or royalties for itself as opposed to the individual instructor?

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 19]: The institution encourages or discourages tenured scholars from digital teaching projects.

  • Encourages: 42
  • Discourages: 16
  • No response: 8

See the discussion associated with question 18 above.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

[Question 20]: Comments that might be of assistance in compiling a detailed and accurate survey of current tenure, promotion, and review practices. [20]

The open-ended responses in this section formed a microcosm of the entire research project with chairpersons addressing such issues as tenured versus untenured faculty, the differences in technology for teaching as opposed to technology for research, various support structures at the administrative versus departmental levels, and the need for guidelines that will keep individuals from becoming test cases for their universities.

Overall, no departmental chair answered "yes" or "encourages" to all 19 forced-response questions. Nonetheless, there were five who had 6 or fewer negative responses (rated as departments with a high regard and use for technology products of scholarship). On the other hand, two chairs did indicate "no" or "discourages" to every question, and an additional ten had 15 or more negative responses (rated as departments with low regard and use for technology products of scholarship). Future research could look at the truly encouraging institutions as benchmark cases for the field, or look at those departments with truly low regard and use for technology in order to understand departmental and institutional culture that could produce those conditions.

SEE: Representative replies to this question

Conclusions

The policy conclusions that arose from this study address not only the way that tenure and promotion cases use technology products, but also the apparent lack of formal means for dealing with these products within departments. There appears to be a "wait-and-see" approach at many schools. Additionally, department chairs questioned the worth of technology products in an academic setting where print articles and monographs have always been the measure of scholarship in the field.

The discussion that follows is divided into general areas of concern and approach for the subject of tenure, promotion, and review using the products of digital scholarship. In particular, areas of concern and approach center on culture, barriers to policy formation, teaching versus research, senior versus junior faculty, best practice, and, finally, questions for future research.

Culture

There was a strong sense of "them and us" on some of the questionnaire responses. "Us" was a history department, and "them" was the administration. Administrations were characterized as clueless or uncaring. Nonetheless, administrations were the agencies that provided technological support in the form of teaching and computing centers.

Continuing the above theme, there was a fair amount of anger, fear, and name calling throughout the survey responses. The name calling was in the form of "technophiles versus dinosaurs." Notice that it was not "technophobes." The image is obviously that the oldies will die out and not be a problem anymore! Name calling in a culture usually takes a while to mature. This taking of sides has been going on for quite a while without, it would appear, any real changes in departmental policies.

Anger was directed at administrators and university who do not care, a lack of funds and staff, promotions that discount technology products, and technology using up research dollars and grant money. Some respondents expressed a cultural norm that only traditional research was legitimate research.

Fear also came from both sides of the argument. There was fear that untenured faculty members would not get tenure if they were producing too many digital media works. This was to be expected. On the other hand, one respondent noted the fear of senior faculty—that technology products would become a requirement for them, too. This was a reversal of the digital scholarship issue. It was not that junior faculty would not be tenured, but that senior faculty would be retroactively deemed less good and less skilled! It would make sense that senior faculty would defend their turf, emphatically denying that technology products were worth anything in the tenure and review process. To acknowledge that these products are necessary is to acknowledge that they themselves are somehow lacking. (This phenomenon has a parallel in library and information science. Students in LIS often say that they chose the field because they had taken no mathematics, did not like mathematics, and were now being forced to do it anyway.

Culturally, tenure and promotion are a rite of passage. They signal a move from junior to senior status—a move to adulthood or manhood. If the rules are changed, are the adults still adults? Could it be, in the extreme, that senior faculty view this new requirement as a kind of technological castration? If that is the case then changing policy in history departments is indeed going to be a difficult process. The policy need here is to find a way to make this change non-threatening—to allow the old order its proper respect while at the same time acknowledging the contribution of the new order..

Following on the previous point—it is probable that senior faculty find even the teaching end of technology to be threatening. If newer faculty are using web pages, PowerPoint, multimedia, and real time Internet connections to enliven their teaching, what do students think of more traditional faculty members who use more traditional lecture notes and discussion? Do end-of-semester evaluations reflect these differences? Do senior faculty fear these differences are signs that they are less good than they used to be? Cultural issues abound in dealing with tenure and promotion—defining who is in and who is out in a field that has many more doctoral students than it has faculty positions. Does a digital divide exist in history departments? The answer appears to be "yes." Department chairs speak of technophiles who see traditional history teachers as dinosaurs and ineffective teachers. The digital divide also could refer to the difference between using technology for teaching versus using it for research. The first is at least acknowledged, if not rewarded, according to many of the department chairs in this study. Alternately, technology for research is ignored or perhaps seen as a negative. This paper's tongue-in-cheek first title— "One or two is not a problem," really addresses this issue of digital media activities as being detrimental to successfully passing through the tenure and review process.

Barriers to Policy Formation

Departments need to establish policy before e-journal and computer-based scholarship becomes an issue in the tenure and review process. Many chairpersons said they had not policy but had not yet had a case. This suggests that the first case will set policy and might be detrimental to the tenure and promotion of the test-case individual.

An often used word was "consensus," usually in the sense of lack thereof when looking at the products of digital media activities in the tenure and review process. "No policy exists because no consensus on the value or reliability of such materials exists" (30).

Teaching versus Research

A theme that should be underscored throughout the survey comments was that of the difference between technology for teaching and technology for research. The first was considered good, if time-consuming and not particularly valued for tenure and promotion. The second was not considered good by the majority of respondents—considered to be an inferior product to the usual methods of disseminating research through peer-reviewed articles and monographs. One respondent stated that using a computer was not considered doing research any more than using a typewriter would be. The computer was a tool that allowed one to present information efficiently.

Senior versus Junior Faculty

One of the premises of this research was that there would be a difference in the level of support given to tenured versus non-tenured history faculty members. There was little indication from the survey that there was a difference in the level of support. At the same time there was a broadly based caveat that untenured faculty should not participate in digital media activities for fear that they would not publish enough traditional materials to merit promotion and tenure. One respondent did state that an untenured faculty member applying for grant money would have to prove that the proposed activities would advance him or her toward tenure and promotion. Depending upon the department or university, this could mean that digital media products would or would not be considered for grant funds.

There is a paradox that exists in history departments. Whereas junior faculty members have the knowledge and desire to create digital media products, they are discouraged from doing so because these products will not get them tenure. On the other hand, senior faculty members who have tenure, and who might experiment in these newer delivery modes, are perceived by departmental chairs as having very little desire to use new methods. They are happy to proceed the way they always have.

Best Practice

Chairpersons questioned whether a peer-reviewed e-journal article was "as good as" a peer-reviewed print article. "Peer-reviewed" should be just that no matter what the format. Inevitably, some journals will have more status than others—print or digital. It seems clear that tenure and promotion committees at departmental and university levels need to be taught about the peer review policies of e-journals.

Other products of technology, such as databases or interactive web teaching tools, might be weighted as are edited volumes. These products of scholarship make a contribution to the field but perhaps should not be weighted in the same way that a scholarly article or book would be. Nonetheless, they should have a part in the tenure and review process.

There was some confusion on the questionnaires as to what might be considered the products of digital scholarship. Several respondents pointed out that they were taught and encouraged to use PowerPoint in their teaching. This is a far cry from web page design (which was almost never mentioned!) or creating CD-ROM interactive materials (which was mentioned only once or twice in the sense that they could be evaluated as edited volumes, not original works of scholarship like a monograph).

Department chairs believed that universities and departments valued the products of technology. These products make schools more visible, giving advertising value and the potential for attracting new students and faculty. Administrations need to create rewards for these methods of scholarship if they expect to reap the benefits of having them exist at their institutions. Faculty development grants, release time, paid conference attendance, and state-of-the art technology were all mentioned as ways to reward or encourage faculty.

The value of technology can also be seen in the technology centers across many university campuses. These centers serve as support organizations for faculty and graduate students, teaching them the finer points of using technology in their pedagogy. The University at Albany's Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning is an example of one such center. Perhaps there is a partnership to be formed between these organizations and history departments that would give greater credibility to digital media activities. Other departmental chairs mentioned computer departments as sources of education and teaching. At the same time some voiced concern that these departments were overloaded and overworked.

Remedies do exist at some institutions. One department gave a 1/4 work reduction to develop a web based course (or $1650 if no course reduction was feasible). Another university offered departments $12,000 grants to develop web courses. This puts a monetary value on digital media activities, at least when they concern teaching.

One indication of doing a better job is if employers of history students want them to be technologically literate—"tech friendly" as one chair (4) wrote. Perhaps part of the impetus for using more technology is to educate students in the varied uses of that technology. Otherwise they will continue to teach history in the usual, tried-and-true, print-based and lecture notes fashion.

Questions for Future Research

One product of technology is distance learning. Several respondents mentioned distance learning activities and the use of release time to make development possible. It was unclear if the release time was to tenured or untenured faculty members.

Several respondents mentioned the use of summer time and summer grants for technology-related scholarship. It appeared that faculty were expected to teach and do research during the academic year, but could use the summer, sometimes paid, to develop digital media materials. This is an area for future research in terms departmental expectations and the effect of these expectations on digital scholarship.

Good business administration dictates that innovations should be introduced when they allow for doing work better, cheaper or faster. So one question for this research is whether departments perceive that they are getting a better, faster, or cheaper product when historians use digital media activities.

One respondent stated that resources were limited for the kind of technology-based activities discussed in the survey. In a zero sum world it would be interesting to know how many department feel constrained by budget and therefore do not promote digital media products because of the additional costs incurred by the department. One respondent did indicate that "newer classrooms for engineering and medical education are equipped for incorporating technology in teaching, but such facilities are virtually non-existent elsewhere on campus" (38). Do historians project a strong enough image of not needing technology that no one thinks of making it available to them? Some of the respondents expressed true resentment that only small groups of politically connected faculty could get technological support or be promoted based upon their use of technology.

There is probably an issue for the history community that does not exist in such fields as information science. There are never enough information science Ph.D. graduates to fill the positions advertised each year. For information science publication is critical and non-traditional, technologically sophisticated publication venues are valued, perhaps even over standard print publications. If, as at the University at Albany, there are hundreds of applications for any single history faculty position, then perhaps the traditional, tried-and-true venues in reviewed, print publications create a litmus test for "best scholarship," especially if hiring, promotion, and tenure committees are composed of senior faculty members. There is no easy policy fix for tradition. Time might change the minds of committees. Additionally, e-journal articles and other products of technology will become more common, more understood, and, hopefully, more revered.

An area of concern that appeared in discussion at the American Historical Association conference (Boston 2001) was the role of collaboration in digital scholarship. History department tenure, promotion, and review committees are eventually going to have to grapple with collaborative work. Digital research and teaching are demanding higher and higher levels of technological expertise. Inevitably historians will call upon their colleagues in other departments to create these projects together. How will history departments ascertain individual contributions under these circumstances? The sciences have seen collaborative research as a mainstay of their work. History will have to either learn from them or reinvent the wheel.

It seems apparent that policy recommendations, such as those footnoted in this paper would allow history departments to be sensitive to cultural issues while at the same time dealing with individuals who are about to be reviewed for tenure. There needs to be a safety net of formal policy in place, especially for creative, untenured faculty members who might make great advances in the field, if they were not worried about the security of their jobs.

Notes

1. http://www.theaahc.org/tenure.htm

2. See the following articles as examples of other fields grappling with digital scholarship and its place in the tenure, promotion, and review process:

  • Cronin, Blaise & Kara Overfelt. 1995. E-Journals and Tenure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46(9): 700-703.
  • Kiernan, Vincent. 2000. Rewards Remain Dim for Professors Who Pursue Digital Scholarship. The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 28, 2000.
  • Speier, Cheri, Jonathan Palmer, Daniel Wren & Susan Hahn. 1999. Faculty Perceptions of electronic Journals as Scholarly Communication: A Question of Prestige and Legitimacy. . Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50(6):537-543.
  • Westney, Lynn C. Hattendorf. 2000. A Trivial Pursuit? Information Technology and the Tenure Track. Campus-Wide Information Systems 17(4):113-119.
  • Whitman, Michael E., Anthony R. Henrickson, & Anthony M. Townsent. 1999. Research Commentary. Academic Rewards for Teaching, Research, and Service: Data and Discourse. Information Systems Research 10(2):99-109.

3. AAHC Suggested Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Media Activities in Tenure, Review, and Promotion

Deborah Lines Andersen
School of Information Science and Policy
University at Albany, Albany NY
dla@albany.edu
Dennis A. Trinkle
Department of History
DePauw University, Greencastle IN
dtrinkle@theaahc.org

[QUESTION 1]: The institution has a formal, written policy for assessing technology-related activities in the tenure, promotion, and review process.

  • Yes: 4
  • No: 62
  • Total: 66

—My institution does not have a policy per se, but the VP for Academic Affairs and the Area Chairperson would look very favorably on any activity that enhanced the reputation/visibility of the school. 36

—We have flexible guidelines in which faculty are evaluated on the basis of how they use varying techniques to engage and educate students. Technology-related activities are listed as one type that deserves consideration in evaluation. 33—school has policy but haven't had a case yet

—Well, we're starting to build one. Our president is pushing for some web courses, and has a full-time administration guy who has as a major responsibility organizing and supporting those teaching the web classes. There are also 2 student-level, part time webtech guys whose full job is to help out with the many problems that come with WebCT (our current software). This isn't really a policy yet, but it is support and saying it's valued. One also gets either a course off (of regular load of 4 per semester) or &1650 if being replaced for 1/4 load is not possible. We also have increasing available machines in our offices and now—just beginning—fully wired classrooms. Again, this is action rather than words, but of importance in terms of how much support is available. This would make it harder to just way using all the stuff doesn't count. 23

The faculty handbook (revised May 1999), the basic contract document, makes no mention of technology-related activities in areas of assessment of teaching, with the sole exception (that I can find) of ... .Students are asked to rate the course on the following statement: The instructor's use of computers as aids to instruction"—reported on a five point scale. However, faculty demonstrate their effectiveness in teaching by pointing to technology-related enhancements, and students in qualitative statements praise or damn faculty for the use or lack of use of technology. 50

[QUESTION 1a]: The institution counts technology-related activities in the area of teaching.

  • Yes: 1
  • No: 3
  • Total: 4

—Technology assessment in history is connected to teaching methods and, while tech is not required, it has been favorably reviewed. 39

-Anything to make access to materials easier and more understandable to students. 53

—Technology-related activities "count" as evidence of innovative practices in general. #

—The university values teaching materials as publications given its mission as a teaching college. 44 [27: no major emphasis; 60: publication not an important criterion here. But if the journal had a strong reputation, I believe the publication would be regarded as evidence of serious accomplishment]

—Technology-enhanced teaching is valued and given weight, although there are not any particular guidelines in the P&T process at this point. 34

—..weighting what technological contributions would receive would depend entirely on the subjective judgment of the evaluating committee. 38

—Technology is evaluated as part of teaching. 43

—...the institution welcomes any techno-related activity as a way to catch up, attract students, as well as potential donors. The success of the method is unclear. 54

—The informal policy is that the administration would like to see more technology integrated into teaching. 17

—I was not given credit for a large, student-friendly web site. 64

—Part of the annual review of faculty and the regular reviews of tenure and promotion include assessment of all aspects of teaching. In recent years, as more faculty have begun to use technology in their teaching, their performance evaluations include questions about the quality and effectiveness of the technology. Peer evaluation and class visitations are a second measure. In tenure and promotion year, faculty are visiting by their peers and by the department head and a written repot filed as part of the dossier. Third, in annual reviews, there are questions about the use and effectiveness of technology in the classroom.... Use of technology is thus a regular part of annual and special evaluations. 9

[QUESTION 1b]: The institution counts technology-related activities in the area of service [1b].

  • Yes: 1
  • No: 3
  • Total: 4

—If tech is used, then it is included.

—Nothing specific is in the guidelines for service, but request for service and opportunities for service include work on technology-related areas (such as an Academic Computing Committee). #

—Serving on instructional technology committee 28

—It will depend upon what more "traditional" service is accomplished (e.g., committee work) 54

—Those faculty who assist their peers in developing more effective uses of technology will list these activities as part of their service contribution to the department or institution and it is a factor in merit review as well as tenure and promotion considerations. There is no formal guideline. 9

—If it is an activity such as browbeating fellow department members to increase their use of technology or conducting workshops on campus, that falls under service. ##

[QUESTION 1c]: The institution counts technology-related activities in the area of professional development/research.

  • Yes: 1
  • No: 3
  • Total: 4

—Lack of support in general for tech as well as lack of admin understanding of tech. 39

—Publications have no direct bearing on tenure or contract decisions at this university. 25

—I'm not sure how much value is assigned, but the institution would prefer a balance between the two media. The best of both worlds for them is something along the lines of JHU Press' "Project Muse," whereby articles appearing in the press' paper journals also find their way on the web and are available to institutions that subscribe to Project Muse. 54

—The institution is not against the use of these materials in the review process, but is unfamiliar with a great many submissions in this area. Many professors in my department are not clear that this qualifies as research.57

—...general policy on research follows the Boyer Report which recognized a broad range of activities that meet the designation of "research.." One presently recognized format includes electronic portfolio development for student-faculty collaborative research. I am sure electronic, peer-reviewed journals would also count. 16

—What hasn't been directly addressed is the question of "Is an on-line publication a publication?" ###

—All publications that are peer-reviewed are considered. 21

—I do not believe that most publications in electronic media earn much respect. They are seen as curiosities rather than as scholarship. The questionable level of "vetting" associated with computer publications is partly to blame. The basic unfamiliarity with and hostility to technology among many of the members, especially the "humanistically" oriented, also plays a role. 3

[Question 2]: The university values publications in electronic peer-reviewed journals in the tenure, promotion, and review process [2].

  • Yes: 36
  • No: 30
  • Total: 66

-The preferred venue is still the print journal and electronic publications seem to be scrutinized more closely than print journals. 22

-As with teaching and service, any technological activities, including e-journal publishing, would be evaluated by the assessment committees in the various departments and schools. Each would use its own subjective judgment about the value of such activities. 38

-Electronic, peer-reviewed journal articles are treated the same as traditional print articles. 66

-I can only report my impression that such publication would be acceptable only if the author met minimum publication standards through print books and journals.... Work would have to be in addition to print publication. 40

-These are treated as printed journals as long as they are peer-reviewed and tied to a recognized organization. 44

-I would expect they'd count, but probably not as much as established print. 23

-The key issue, I have heard quite consistently in my college, is the quality of the peer-review process. #

-Peer-reviewed journals per se have not been an issue in my work. The extensive editing work that I do is given no value whatsoever. ##

-[yes] In general, I would say the institution is strongly committed in theory but hasn't had to grapple with the practice yet. It hasn't happened, and I won't know how they'll value it (and I doubt they know) until the occasion arises. 33

-I do not think this has been tested or addressed. 43

-This is just really beginning to be a consideration—and it is not specifically looked for. Electronic publications are lumped in with all the others. 28

—Provided they are peer-reviewed and not simply self-published or published in a non-reviewed journal, they are treated as if a regular, print, peer-reviewed journal. 17

—It hasn't been tried but my guess is that this will count. 12

—[my university] selectively gives credit to faculty for articles, reviews, etc. in on-line journals. The history department does not. 64

—Such "publications," if verified, are counted as publications. 30

—No cases yet in Dept of History. It will be a while before such publication will reach the status of print publications. 5

—legitimate and worthy of reward 42

—We have included electronic publication as a legitimate category for merit considerations. 42

—If a person had primarily e-publications, however, grave questions would be raised. One or two pieces in a vita is not a problem. 47

—the university recognizes electronic, peer-reviewed journals, but publications in them do not carry the same weight as articles appearing in quarterlies or other periodicals in paper form.

—There has not yet to my knowledge been a case of electronic publication. However, I have no reason to suppose that such peer-reviewed electronic publication would NOT be assigned value in the determination of tenure. 51

—Frankly, if I am under review, I would not at this point publish electronically. 32

—I am currently a member of the tenure and promotion faculty committee. We have received tenure and promotion portfolios that included electronic publications. They were considered, but in no instance of which I am aware did the weight of the evidence fall solely or even primarily on these products. 50

—there has only been one case so far. The candidate had one article in an electronic journal, but also a few in regular journals, and a book accepted for publication. He received tenure. 4#

—The university accepts the use of technology in teaching as part of evidence of good (or at least of conscientious) teaching. Taking workshops in computer technology would be evidence of being intellectually alive. In some case technology management might be counted as service but can't recall this happening. 40

[Question 3]: The university would value the creation of a database or digital creation (Valley of the Shadow, for example) as the equivalent of a monograph.

  • Yes: 22
  • No: 44
  • Total: 66

-It would count, but not nearly as much as a monograph, especially if promotion is the issue. 22

-...not a required component of the review process. 15

-such a work probably would be valued in my department at this time, but not necessarily in another department or in this department at some other time. The politics of faculty assessment would make it impossible to make a blanket statement about this. 38

-...since I don't know of any cases, I strongly suspect that my department would not see a database or digital creation as the equivalent of a monograph.

-I have created, with another colleague, an ongoing large web site on African primary sources that is in the process of being turned into database. Much of the information on the site comes from questionnaires that we have designed and distributed as well as research in a variety of source. The work is being labeled "derivative" at this institution and not what a "real historian" does. ##

-It is a legitimate scholarly activity, in the same way as edited paper collections are a valuable scholarly activity. #

-At this point the monograph is the pinnacle of prestige. 17

—Many members of my department are familiar with the database, but they have not thought of it as a formal research submission. The conversation has simply never really been pushed. 57

—Such a site, especially if it was focused on student-faculty research would certainly be recognized as a substantial piece of research, especially if the project was attempting to develop an analytic approach to a subject or to teaching pedagogies. 16

—Difficult to say but my suspicion would be no due to the lack of anonymous peer review. 30

—Is a database more like an edited collection of source materials? If so, it would count less than a monograph (i.e., a solely authored, "real book" published by a scholarly press). 42

—We seek the publication of original research that advances knowledge more than the dissemination of knowledge or assembly of knowledge. 47

—I think it is unlikely that anything besides a book at this stage would count, although perhaps some fields in which publication is especially difficult might be permitted to submit a digital manuscript. 6

—Personally, I've never encountered such a project. 56

—The internet academic culture seems not to have been embraced whole-heartedly across the campus. 62

—Lack of intense peer review akin to that of a scholarly monograph. 20

—I doubt that even an elaborate project of the kind you describe would be seen as adequate basic evidence for tenure. 31

[Question 4]: The institution has an informal policy regarding the use of technology in teaching, professional development, or service [4].

  • Yes: 37
  • No: 25
  • Total: 62

—The administration does all it can to encourage the use of technology in the classroom by equipping classrooms with multimedia equipment and computers. It also buys each faculty member a new computer every three years. 14

—It is recommended that professors utilize technology in their teaching. However, neither the degree of use nor the quality is seriously questioned. The only members of the department that are not held to this policy are those close to retirement. 57

—The faculty recognize that substantial effort goes into the creation, operation, and evaluation of technology-related materials. Because this is an informal policy, faculty members are obliged to state both the kind of work and the importance to the relevant category of faculty review. There is also a formal college-wide grant program for faculty to undertake the inclusion of technology in the classroom. Receipt of these grants is accepted as evidence of faculty activity. 50

[Question 5]: The university has a consistently understood policy about how technology-related activities will be evaluated.

  • Yes: 1
  • No: 65
  • Total: 66

—There is no stated policy. 27

—I think the administration is aware of the need for a policy and that one is evolving. I don't think, however, that general agreement exists yet. 31

[Question 6]: There is consensus among your faculty colleagues about how technology-related activities ought to be considered in the tenure, promotion, and review process.

  • Yes: 5
  • No: 61
  • Total: 66

—In an evaluation discussion of a faculty member, technology-related activities show commitment and engagement, but only in circumstances where the basic outline of competence is met. A faculty member would not be promoted or deemed meritorious for her/his technology-related activities if the student satisfaction ratings of the classroom experience were low. A divergent point of view on campus is that technology is robbing the faculty of resources (usually salary supplements) to improve the quality of their content delivery. 50

—Individual faculty members who are active in technology-related activities need to take the initiative in framing it as scholarly work, teaching, or service. Documenting, for example, the peer-review strength of an on-line journal will have to be an individual faculty member's job. 25

—There are only two or three tenured lecturers here, and they are not generally current on such things. However, my fellow lecturers consider it a potentially valuable resource. 53

—Varies tremendously in dept. Some shun all tech. As glitz unrelated to the quality of a course or its effectiveness. Others are enthusiastic about the new technologies as ways to improve teaching for students. To the extent that teaching fits into tenure, promotion guidelines, these differing views may have an impact. Others argue that e-scholarship (e.g., crating a historical research database for "publishing" via CDs or diskette)s ought to be considered the equivalent of a monograph (if peer previewed and evaluated). Others argue it should not. Not much consensus has emerged yet. ##

—Although everybody uses computers for word processing and communications, only a minority of my faculty colleagues goes further than this. Probably the prevailing attitude is that computer technology is no more important for tenure and promotion than knowing how to touch type or to dial a long distance phone number. 40

—Faculty value this kind of work. I am not certain that the administration takes much note of it. 27

—This issue has not even been discussed by the relevant faculty committee that handles promotion and tenure policies. 36

—For the most part, faculty fear technology, since they do not understand it. 26

—For the promotion and tenure process, technology-related achievements would have to be extraordinary and probably a source of national and international recognition. For the salary review process, there are lesser expectations of status as the result of tech-related activities. 22

—All decision making with regard to tenure, promotion, and review is highly politicized. If a candidate has strong technological accomplishment and good political connections, s/he will receive high ratings from departmental and school assessment committees. If, on the other hand, a candidate has strong technological accomplishment and is politically anathema, those technological achievements will be discounted. 38

—It is my guess that many older faculty (which are predominant currently at [ ]) have a difficult time understanding the relevance of many technology-related activities (such as web courses). 66

—Most faculty haven't thought about it. Of those who have many support it as a recognition of the probable reality of the profession in the future. Those who oppose it often fear that the refereeing process hasn't been solidly established yet or that storage and permanence will be a problem. 33

—There are two views offered informally by colleagues. The first one is held by older faculty and views technology as a toy/too. They do admire people who use the many gadgets, but see it as a slightly wasteful but intelligent tool. Junior faculty are more intrigued by its uses but do not want to spent too much time out of their realm of research. However, their daily usage is much higher than the senior faculty. 57

—Faculty are not compelled to use technologies. When the effort makes sense and a faculty member wished to attempt a procedure, the school encourages—and supports—such activity. The use of technologies in the classroom is not, however, a requirement for tenure or promotion. 16

—It has never come up so it is not yet an issue. 6

—We try to be as flexible as we can in such reviews, rewarding people for their teaching and scholarship contributions in whatever form they may take. I imagine there are some among the tenured faculty, less comfortable with computer technology, who worry that the day may come when those who are not using the new technologies will be penalized for that. 13

—There are faculty colleagues to whom anything beyond a chalkboard and a typewriter is suspect. They do, however, respect the commitment of time and effort individuals spend in creating enhanced lectures such as PowerPoint or presentations. The real battle for the technology types is the difficulty of selling the "scholarship of teaching" as REAL scholarship. The battle isn't over the technology aspect, it's over the methodology and topic of research. So far, decisions about merit, promotion and tenure in which claims were made for the kinds of technology activities described above, there's not been an issue coming from positive decisions based on the individual's listing activities, publications, etc. referred to above. ###

[Question 7]: There is agreement between the faculty and the administration about the place of technology-related activities in the tenure, promotion, and review process.

  • Yes: 6
  • No: 60
  • Total: 66

—I am not sure what the issue is here. I know that in the past I have heard information from technology support people from prominent institutions who lament that junior faculty would be fools to devote too much time to developing web pages and on-line teaching materials, because it is time consuming to do so, and will not be rewarded at tenure time. This is not so much of an issue at an institution like [ ]. But when it come right down to it, technology is a tool, and I have never evaluated faculty based on how they use the tools of their trade. To the extent that the new technologies are effective, they should make it easier for us to do the jobs we have always done, and if that is so we should be rewarded for it. But I see no need to reward someone simply because he or she has become extremely proficient in web-based technologies, at the expense of challenging teaching in his/her discipline or at the expense of good scholarship. 13

—This is a difficult question to answer. I believe the administration is more sympathetic to technology related activities than the faculty. As chair of the department, I received constant pressure from the administration to encourage faculty members to use technology in the classroom. My consistent reply was that older faculty members were not interested and that I could not in good conscience encourage younger faculty members to spend the time required by such activities, because I knew that the various faculty committees judging tenure and promotion do not value those activities. 14

—No explicit guidelines as far as I am aware. 25

—It is not a discussed topic to my knowledge. 53

—Some resentment that the technophiles seem to be one-waivers vis a vis what constitutes good teaching: they seem to argue that if you are not using/open to the new technologies you are a dinosaur and hopelessly behind the times [and ineffective] as an instructor. Those less open to the new technologies seem more pluralistic in their approach, arguing that different instructors are talented in different ways. Some may be brilliant lecturers, others brilliant Socratic discussion leaders, others highly effective in presenting course material via new technologies and using "integrated" methods, and that each of us ought to teach in accord with our own particular talents. This is flatly rejected by most of the technophiles. ##

—Many of us are pushing for specific incentives for scholarly publishing, but haven't gotten far. 65

—The administration touts technology, gives "research" grants for working in it, and then when the departmental colleagues (who don't even know how to use the web) state that it isn't history, the same administration backs up the department. I have had a tenure review process by a departmental committee where two of the three members of the committee stated that they had not looked at the web site (didn't know how to do so) and were relying on another member who, because he belongs to "3 or 4 discussion lists" is considered the expert on the subject. ##

—I think the administration is more committed to faculty learning and implementing teaching-related technologies but without thinking through any implications for tenure, promotion, or review. 40

—The administration is perhaps MORE enthusiastic about faculty use of technology than the faculty is—this is because many administrators are not technologically sophisticated but generally perceive that Web as a good tool for attracting students. Faculty who have worked with the Web know how much more work it actually entails; my sense is that nearly all faculty would be skeptical about the value of web activity unless its effectiveness [in teaching above all] could be demonstrated. 60

—Again, since the possible uses of technology are not generally understood, no consensus has been possible. I remember hearing about a professor at the University of Cincinnati, who tacked onto his tenure packet the notation that he now had an e-mail account, and therefore should have that noted under professional development. 26

—The administration values technology-related activities more than the faculty (generally speaking). 34

—The subject has not been discussed enough by either faculty or admin to comment on either similarities or differences. 22

—It's not a matter that there's disagreement, it's a matter that there's not policy commitment whatsoever. It is in the best interest of administration and politically aligned faculty to keep overarching policies to a minimum. This gives maximum play to political patronage in the tenure, promotion, and evaluation process. Technology is simply another playing chip in this patronage game. 38

—The absence of clarity on the nature of the beast means an absence of consensus. 33

—I don't think the faculty, except for a few members, sees it as an issue of importance. I think they would receive technology-related activities as potential evidence of creative teaching. A research effort based on technology that did not yield traditional books or articles would have to be a second or third kind of "publication" to receive any substantial respect. 31

[Question 8]: The institution provides release time or grants to tenured faculty for pursuing technology-related research activities

  • Yes: 33
  • No: 33
  • Total: 66

—A difficult question to answer. The administration supplies support but it is not necessarily ear marked for technology-related activities. 14

—Not sure. It hasn't come up. 63

—I do not know. 25

—Such projects must compete, meet the same standards as "traditional" applications for research. ##

—In very few occasions, at administration request only. 65

—I have received several thousand dollars as well as two release-time grants for web site work. ##

—Grants to pay for equipment and software more likely than released time. 40

—The college places little value on traditional research for promotion—I doubt that technology-based research would be seen in a better light. 27

—Part of the faculty development envelope includes grants offered in instructional technology. These are usually semester long activities that are competitively reviewed by the Committee on Instruction Technology, thou the grant is given by a special grants committee. The grants lack fte, so the only release time possible is summer stipend to compensate faculty for not teaching summer classes. The grants are small and project driven. 50

—No, since it is viewed as a web search, and something that can be done easily in the office in your spare time. 26

—Well,. If one writes up a grant application for our internal research grant money, it certainly can include money to hire one or more adjuncts. And Deans have funds they can use that way, if they wish. 23

—It has to be particularly significant to be supported in the form of grants or release time. I don't think comparable significance would be required for traditional research. 22

—The best example is the university's offer to prove up to $12,000 per department last fall for proposals that would result in the development of new web or distance-ed courses. 66

—We can apply for annual grants that equate to a one course reduction (from a 3/3 load) for such work. 10

—Release time, no. Some members of the faculty have participated in a series of conference funded by an outside resource to promote integration of technology for use in the classroom. 17

—This is a brand new policy that is about to be implemented. It is occurring under the Title III grant activities and is tied to other curricular developments on campus. It has not been past policy to support faculty involvement with technology. However, over the last three years, the campus has supported technology workshops to help faculty acquire skills to use in their classes. 57

—Grant monies up to $3,000 for two years; release time,, up to 3 courses in two years; hardware—all faculty have Pentium class computers. 16

-There is release time associated with the development of web courses. However, I don't know of any specific designation of release time or grants for the pursuit of other technology-related activities. On the other hand, there is an internal grant procedure that does not preclude requests for money to support such activities. Requests for release time would probably be as hard to get for technology related activities as it is for other purposes! ###

[Question 9]: The institution provides release time or grants to tenured faculty for pursuing technology-based course development.

  • Yes: 34
  • No: 32
  • Total: 66

—It hasn't come up. 63

—Our Center for Teaching Enhancement has for the last several years had an annual competition for instruction-innovation support, either for general instructional innovation or technological innovation. 25

—Given mainly through the Teaching Resource Center. ##

—In some cases, yes. As recruitment and retention issues become more important, I see more willingness for my university to do this. Moreover, the work world keeps insisting it want tech friendly grads. 4

—Just began, to my knowledge, offering grants support for attending seminars, workshops on applying new technologies in the classroom. Some released time for new course development. ##

—This is new for us—just now the administration is considering a couple of requests for release time to develop on-line courses. 27

—NO. Most of that work has been done by teaching assistants, actually. 26

—I currently have a 1/4 load reduction from my dean, to develop a web course. There's also the more formal web course policy I described above, but the formal policy is only for the web courses that officially belong in the Distance Ed Program. Mine is separate, but my dean gave permission for me to teach one less course. 2  

—I receive release time to coordinate the efforts of various faculty and staff regarding distance learning. 15

—We have had substantial release time and grant money available for incorporating technology into classroom instruction. 33

—Technology grants—$3,000; American Cultures Grants (can be used with focus on technology—$4,500; No release time. Do it in the summer. 43

—We are in the middle of a limited pilot project incorporating lap top computers in the classroom. There are two faculty embers participating per semester for two years. 28

—We have fellowships specifically targeted at this. Also, we have generic teaching fellowships; applicants proposing to prepare technology-based delivery (PowerPoint, etc.) have been quite successful in the competition for the latter. 42

—The institution will award summer grants for such work, and the grants are pretty substantial—$5000 for a summer. 52

[Question 10]: The institution provides release time for grants for untenured faculty for pursuing technology-related research activities.

  • Yes: 27
  • No: 39
  • Total: 66

—In our department the untenured faculty are more likely to pursue technology-related activities than are the tenured faculty. The pool of money and the application process would be the same as for tenure faculty. ###

—Support is provided through the College's Faculty & Library Research Support Fund and through the council on Teaching and Learning. 39

—I do not know of any. 25

—Through professional development grants. ##

—All grants are awarded to faculty who are eligible for tenure, or to part-time faculty/administrators who have continuing contracts. 50

—This has not yet occurred, but I am certain that sabbatical leaves will be approved for such research. A senior, recently retired member of our department (a distinguished cliometrician) was supported during several technologically-related projects. 42

—I'm pretty sure that senior faculty members would advise junior faculty members not to pursue such activities unless it would lead to the publication of a printed, peer-reviewed book. The Graduate School has a competition for research awards each semester, and technology-based research would receive support—provided it would yield a traditionally published research project. 31

[Question 11]: The institution provides release time or grants to untenured faculty for pursuing technology-based course development.

  • Yes: 32
  • No: 34
  • Total: 66

—The administration is more interested in this than in technology-related research and is very generous in supporting it, but as I said in answer 7 I must discourage young faculty members from following this route, because it will not help them get tenure. 14

—The competition above [see question 9, respondent 25] is open to all tenure or tenure-track faculty. In addition, individual departments may rearrange assignments to support technology-based course development. My department chair, for example, has done so in the last two years. 25

[Question 12]: The institution provides training support to tenured faculty who wish to use technology in their teaching or research.

  • Yes: 55
  • No: 11
  • Total: 66

—I have done a great deal with technology in teaching, and I have gotten anything I asked for. I believe anyone else would receive the same treatment, although I am told I am a role model and may receive more generous treatment for that reason. 14

—General orientation and specific support, but the central administration support is generally for commercial web stuff like WebCT. 25

—There are workshops for specific skills: electronic presentation, web-page creation; chat and bulletin board discussion groups. 65

—In-house support would probably be granted at the discretion of the computer center (if they had the time and resources to help). A faculty member might also be able to use professional development support to get tech training from an off-campus provider. 36

—The director for instructional technology and his staff provide classes in software use, hardware selection. They will assist in the development of new courses related to software. 50

—Basic classes in the use of Black Board (newly adopted), Word, Excel, etc. 60

—The computer sciences department offers courses and workshops on a regular basis. 34

—Yes, although some of us might counsel caution about spending lots of time doing tech until they have enough traditional publication to please the dinosaurs that count only print as "real." 23

—Center for Teaching and Learning provides such support. 66

—The institution has a staff of technology support personnel under various rubrics (Academic computing specialists for groups of 3 or 4 departments, library information specialists, information services personnel) who can provide assistance. 33

—They provide assistance, but the computer people are rather limited and impatient. With the heavy demand for computer experts it is difficult to be competitive and attract people willing to work with non tech profs. A visiting scholar did it last year, but he was the only one to help. 54

—The institution and college both have technology support personnel who work with faculty in the design, development, and use of technology. Our college support person has devised a simple click and drag folder system that allows faculty to place any print or digitized materials on the college server for classroom use. These activities are well used and effectively supported. The institution also has an office visits workshop program where tech staffers will come to the faulty member's office to work with him/her in addition to programs in the technical support area. 9

[Question 13]: The institution provides training support to untenured faculty who wish to use technology in their teaching or research [13]

  • Yes: 53
  • No: 13
  • Total: 66

—Some—the same insufficient amount that is available to all of us. Our Ac Comp Center is trying, but they have so many calls on their time, and struggle greatly to get more salary lines. I hear we are to et 2 more tech lines—but to keep up with hardware needs, not advanced user training on software. 23

[Question 14]: The institution provides technical support (instructional technologists, graphics experts, etc.) to tenured faculty who wish to use technology in their teaching or research [14]

  • Yes: 44
  • No: 22
  • Total: 66

—I have available to me both technology staff in our college and also support staff in the central administration. Some are general technology support and some are specifically for teaching. 25

—We have a good computer support staff on campus. 65

—Computer Center and Center for Faculty Development provide support.18

—There are currently no graphic artists available for any faculty, except as a billable item in the departmental budget. 50

—The IT staff is friendly, though overworked. They have been willing to help as much as time and budgets allow. Individual faculty members have to pitch projects and win the enthusiasm of IT. There's no discernable effort by academic administrators to get involved.. Most wouldn't understand most projects. 60

—Personnel from Info Tech Center and Center for the Advancement of Teaching. 24

[Question 15]: The institution provides technical support (instructional technologists, graphics experts, etc.) to untenured faculty who wish to use technology in their teaching or research [15]

  • Yes: 46
  • No: 60
  • Total: 66

—Instructional Media Center has some services; the university as a whole also offers a variety of opportunities. 22

—No distinction here between tenured and non-tenured re access to assistance. 8

[Question 16]: In general, the institution encourages or discourages tenure-track scholars from digital research projects.

  • Encourages: 26
  • Discourages: 23
  • No response: 17

—There are a lot of classes to take and UWM pushes to becoming tech literate but there is no evidence it counts toward tenure. A traditional book is still necessary. 63

—They send mixed messages. It is confusing, harmful to morale and abusive. 2

—The department dynamics, not institutional policies in general, will determine such. I suspect that tenure-track scholars in most humanities and social sciences will need at least some publications in print media to earn tenure. ###

—The administration likes us to produce or publish work because it is good for reputation. But the heavy teaching load precludes most from doing so, and there is no financial incentive to do so. 65

—In the sense that they are not discouraged, but like other research projects, they are not supported well either. 44

—There is no yes or no to this—it all gets done on an individual basis. 27

—It provides rhetorical support. A small amount of financial support would be available, but the burden of the effort would have to come from the faculty person's own emotional and financial resources. 36

—The college has invested heavily in technology and makes technology a separate budget item for departmental requests. Thus the climate reflects a positive value to digital activities. The lack of clear guidelines of assessment could be seen as proof that the administration feels there is good quality work being done so no threshold requirement is necessary. 50

—They are not valued since they are misunderstood. 26

—Neither—just sort of barely notices it is happening, and doesn't yet do anything to help. 23

—We are a heavy teaching-load school, so while the administration might theoretically say it supports such research, the fact of the matter is that research gets the short end of the stick. 8

—The reality of the experiences of faculty who pursue IT is that they are simply adding to their already extended list of "things to do" and in this case, it is a confusing and frightening experience in teaching situations without adequate IT support. 15

—I would say that the institution encourages digital teaching, but seems ambivalent about digital research at present. 66

—Discourages through lack of support—funds and time. 43

—Neither. Our administration does not care. If faculty want to shoulder such costs they are welcomed to do so but the administration does not support. 30

—A case has not arisen in History. 16

—Though by itself it will not lead to tenure, the university supports this activity. I think the current thinking on tenure and promotion committees, and this is no more than my opinion, has it that such work is a good supplement, but by itself, it will not lead to tenure or promotion. 52

[Question 17]: In general, the institution encourages or discourages tenured scholars from digital research projects [17].

  • Encourages: 28
  • Discourages: 22
  • No response: 16

—Mixed messages, though they seem to be more encouraging for tenured faculty (as long as they understand they won't get a promotion for the work). 2

—Neither, unless you are the recipient of a large external grant. 22

—Research is not particularly suited to the community college environment—even classroom research seems to be a huge luxury and rarely takes place. 15

—Support is very sporadic. One can obtain a research incentive grant, but $1000 does not go very far. Additionally, although course release can be obtained, it is, presently, occasional and not easy to obtain. 57

[Question 18]: The institution encourages or discourages tenure-track scholars from digital teaching projects [18].

  • Encourages: 42
  • Discourages: 19
  • No response: 5

—The atmosphere is supportive and encouraging, but the resources are limited. 44

—No real incentive to change. 34

—They are open to it. 34

—We have a Virtual University that offers faculty the opportunity to offer on-line courses. Web sites are also encouraged. However, intellectual property rights are the object of some dispute, with the university insisting on propriety rights. 22

—"The wave of the future." And it may save money in the long run, if they have enough to invest in the initial machinery. 54

[Question 19]: The institution encourages or discourages tenured scholars from digital teaching projects.

  • Encourages: 42
  • Discourages: 16
  • No response: 8

—Since tenure is based heavily on effective teaching, the administration is eager to show that the institution is "up with the times: in terms of electronic teaching the general atmosphere is vaguely supportive. 60

[Question 20]: Comments that might be of assistance in compiling a detailed and accurate survey of current tenure, promotion, and review practices. [20]

—In my opinion this is a crisis situation. The American Historical Association needs to move forcefully in support of scholars who are using this new technology. Evaluation of this new technology by ignorant historians is harming the careers of historians who have moved into the new field. Truly there needs to be guidelines and assistance given along the lines of what the AHA tried to do in attempting to extend the definition of professional work that was published in Perspectives a few years ago (the Carnegie-supported studies in various fields). To continue to try to force historians into one mold, ignoring public history, is harming the profession. 2

—The atmosphere allows for faculty to take the initiative in this area.

—There is a double standard applied. Teaching with tech is accepted and generally promoted while research and pub in this area is "not" encouraged, rewarded or recognized. My own experience on AAHC's board and publication in technology-related matters counted for nothing when tenure review came up. My effort to use technology and teaching together was only acknowledged, not rewarded. 4

—I would only emphasize that in a small, liberal arts institution as [ ] the differentiation that this survey instrument suggests is not present. There is not clear difference in the resources or the evaluation procedures between ranks, or classes of activities that contribute to assessment and review, vis-à-vis technology. 50

—[ ] is an undergraduate teaching institution. Teaching is the primary task. The college however encourages research in traditional and non-traditional ways. As a result, computer technologies are a part of that mix. 16

—I suspect many institutions have not formally addressed the questions/issues because it is a small portion of their faculty who are affected at this point. ###

—The university sees technology as very important for research and teaching. Except for some individual professors, the department cares much less about it. 31

—Technology is more associated with teaching than with research. The university usually thinks more in terms of the teaching impact than the research impact when it gives grants. The department sees computers as an adjunct to teaching. 31

—Tenured faculty have much more security to attempt new forms of research and teaching than untenured faculty. A tenure case based on primarily technology-related activities would be viewed skeptically at this time. 31