PPT 下载： What Is this? Promotion and Tenure: Exploring the Guidelines of Journalism, Mass Communication and PR Departments in a Digital Era Mia Moody, Yueqin Yang and Poplar Yuan

The Internet and new media have created more avenues for publication such as online journals, podcasts/videos of conference presentations and research websites, so that departments must continually monitor tenure and promotion guidelines to keep up with the contemporary trends of scholarly activities. Research on tenure and promotion guidelines typically focuses on the best strategies for gaining tenure and methods for updating tenure guidelines in various disciplines, particularly in the areas of humanities and computer science While current literature holds great value, very little research exists on similar guidelines for journalism, PR and mass communication departments. Introduction

1 Literature Review

PPT 下载： Literature Review The Department of English at Bradley University provided concrete examples in 1996, which served as an impetus in creating new guidelines for evaluating technology-related work(cited in Katz, 1997). Lawson and Pelzer affirmed that little is known about how technology-based projects are reviewed for tenure attainment in academic libraries. However, the two asserted that education schools were indicating evidence of a shift in considering new forms of scholarship in the decision (Lawson & Pelzer, 1999). Seminoff and Wepner’s (1997) findings indicated that faculty and administrators valued technology-based projects for tenure and promotion, however, deans of schools of education did not value such projects. Universities did not expect changes in the near future (Lawson & Pelzer, 1999).

Literature Review In 2007, the MLA raised concerns about the over-reliance of departments on monographs as the primary measure of a junior professor’s scholarship. Based on study findings, the MLA’s 2006 report called on departments to consider scholarship that is digital or different from traditional books.They encouraged departments and institutions to recognize the legitimacy of scholarship produced in new media by both individuals and teams (Blais, Ippolito, and Smith et.al., 2007). Likewise, reports from the American Council of Learned Societies, the Modern Language Association, and the University of Maine recommend that promotion and tenure guidelines encourage the creative and innovative use of technology (Blais, Ippolito and Smith, et. al., 2007).

2 Research Questions

1 What are the most common methods of evaluation in tenure and promotion policies of U.S. journalism, PR and communications departments? 2 How are technology/creative projects, such as photography, magazines and multimedia, evaluated as scholarship in tenure and promotion guidelines? 3 How is impact used to evaluate tenure-track faculty in journalism, mass communication and PR departments? 4 How do faculty perceive their departments’ tenure and promotion guidelines.

3 Methodology Google search using the search terms, “tenure guidelines,” “journalism,” “mass communication,” and “public relations (PR).” The search yielded 40 tenure and promotions documents from various universities in the United States.

4 Findings and Discussion

Research question one asked what are the most common methods of evaluation in tenure and review policies of journalism, PR and communications departments? The results in Table 3 indicate that the primary components considered for promotion and tenure in journalism, mass communication and PR departments are teaching (100%), research (98%), service (100%), and creative work (93%).

Measures of teaching According to Table 4, measures of teaching included evaluation (84%), advising (73%), syllabi (70%) and grades(25%). Types of evaluation included student, peer, committee and self. Other types of evaluation included evaluation from dean, dean of college, dean outside school evaluation, candidate's administrative superiors, and external evaluation.

Measures of research According to Table 5: Academic papers were listed in almost all of the tenure and promotion documents in our sample 88%. Refereed journal articles made up the next largest category with 83% of documents including it as a measure. Non-refereed papers were included in only 18% of tenure and review documents.

Technology/creative projects Research question two asked how are technology/creative projects, such as photography, magazines and multimedia, evaluated as scholarship in tenure and promotion guidelines? According to Table 6, technology/creative projects were not as prevalent in tenure and promotion guidelines as traditional measures such as journal articles. Of the 40 journalism, mass communication, and PR department tenure and promotion guidelines reviewed, a little over half (55%) included multimedia as a measure. Photography was the next largest category with 40% (15) referencing it as a measure.

Impact of Work Research question three asked how is impact used to evaluate journalism, mass communication, PR faculty? Findings indicate online strategies were rarely included as a measure of impact in the 40 journalism, mass communication, and PR department tenure and promotion guidelines in our sample (Table 7). None of the tenure guideline mentioned websites, databases, download and book citations. However, the Google search engine was mentioned in one of the documents. The document included this category as a measure mentioned utilizing Google searches of the faculty member’s name and search terms to assess his or her impact.

Faculty Perceptions of Tenure and Promotion Guidelines Regarding traditional research evaluation, all of the respondents indicated that their department’s guidelines included refereed journal articles, academic book, chapters, conference paper/presentation, invited/edited publications (see Table 7). However, only three of the four respondents indicated that they consider non-refereed journals in their tenure decision.

The granting of tenure is a long-term effort and commitment that requires proof of excellence and a forecast for sustained performance. Findings indicate that all 40 of the tenure and promotion documents in our sample included elements of scholarly excellence and productivity measured by the quality of (1) research and scholarly work (2) teaching and the development of teaching materials (3) service to the public, the university, and the profession. These three areas collectively encompass the diversity of activities essential for all faculty members. Findings

However, many of the documents in our sample have not adapted to changing technology. This is of interest as the 21st Century has presented many new media advancements and transformations. Online journals, podcasts/videos of conference presentations and research websites offer publishing opportunities that were unheard of two decades ago. Findings