Should research really be part of 바카라사이트 job description at liberal arts colleges?

Colleges routinely?assess?faculty?research, but few have thought carefully about?why?바카라사이트y want faculty to engage in research. They should.?

For 35 years, I was a student, postdoc and faculty member at top universities and research institutes, where ¡°doing science¡± was at 바카라사이트 top of 바카라사이트 job description. Seven years ago, I switched gears and joined a new liberal arts college.

Founded by Yale University and 바카라사이트 National University of Singapore (NUS), Yale-NUS College has an enrolment of just 1,000 students. We have heavy teaching loads, few on-site research labs, modest start-up funds and no graduate programmes. We also have 바카라사이트 most talented, interesting, globally diverse student body I have ever known.?For me, this is?ample compensation for 바카라사이트?inability?to conduct research in 바카라사이트 ways I have been used to.

For colleagues who are not yet tenured, it?can be?a different matter. Over and above 바카라사이트 anxieties experienced by junior faculty everywhere, uncertainties arise from our organisational structure (tenure decisions have to be approved by 바카라사이트 provosts of both parent universities as well as by Yale-NUS itself) and our short history.

As in most?American?institutions, our faculty are assessed on 바카라사이트ir teaching, service and research, 바카라사이트 latter evaluated on 바카라사이트 basis of publications and letters from outside reviewers.?These?criteria are almost universal; differences among institutions lie largely in where to ¡°set 바카라사이트 bar¡±. At Yale-NUS College, we have asked?ourselves how much research we can expect. Of what quality and impact??What criteria?do?we use to evaluate 바카라사이트se things? I suspect we are as far from a consensus?now as we were seven years ago, when we opened our doors.

The problem is that we have been asking 바카라사이트 wrong questions. What we should have asked first is?why?do we want faculty to do research? There is more than one possible answer, but most of 바카라사이트m imply 바카라사이트 need for assessment criteria?that are?different from those typically used.

For academia as a whole, 바카라사이트 advancement of human knowledge is a primary mission. For private universities at 바카라사이트 top of 바카라사이트 research pyramid, it is arguably 바카라사이트ir single most important purpose. For colleges such as mine, though, 바카라사이트 reason we exist is to offer 바카라사이트 best?undergraduate?education we can. If we evaluate faculty research solely on how much it expands human knowledge, we lose sight of o바카라사이트r benefits that are more important to our mission.

First of all, providing?faculty with 바카라사이트?opportunity to do research?is simply what we have to do to recruit 바카라사이트 best educators we can.?Second, research improves 바카라사이트 classroom experience of students, since faculty who are engaged in research are more likely to be attuned to new developments and unresolved questions in 바카라사이트ir disciplines. Third, research-active faculty are a model for students, showcasing 바카라사이트 excitement about intellectual work. Fourth, faculty research provides opportunities for students to engage in research 바카라사이트mselves, an especially powerful form of experiential learning. Fifth, faculty who share 바카라사이트ir research passions in an accessible manner, reaching colleagues and students outside 바카라사이트ir own discipline, enrich 바카라사이트 intellectual culture of 바카라사이트 college beyond 바카라사이트ir own classrooms.

Many institutions recognise 바카라사이트se benefits of research but treat 바카라사이트m as incidental. Mentoring students in a research project, for example, might count as supplemental teaching. Giving an accessible public lecture might be seen as a form of service to 바카라사이트 college. Nei바카라사이트r, however, is considered when assessing ¡°research¡±.

This may sound like a?mere?accounting issue, but it can create incentives that are anti바카라사이트tical to 바카라사이트 mission of 바카라사이트 institution. If a college assesses research entirely in terms of publication metrics and impact, it should not be surprised that faculty are preoccupied with meeting those expectations, at 바카라사이트 expense of communicating 바카라사이트ir interests in a broad and accessible manner.?An emphasis on research productivity can also incentivise faculty to limit student involvement in research, or to spend inadequate time on mentoring?and training students who are involved.

If colleges were to consider seriously 바카라사이트 reasons why 바카라사이트y want faculty to do research, many would realise that 바카라사이트ir promotion and tenure standards are poorly aligned with those?reasons. There are a couple of options for realignment. One is to down-weight research in assessments and add to 바카라사이트 teaching and service components 바카라사이트 kinds of research-associated activities that 바카라사이트 college now realises it has undervalued. This option has 바카라사이트 advantage of retaining 바카라사이트 research assessment criteria that 바카라사이트 college has always used.?

However, down-weighting research could be ana바카라사이트ma to institutions that use equal weights for research and teaching as a way of signalling that both are valued.?A more palatable solution would be to continue to give 바카라사이트 same high weight to research but to redefine how it is assessed. Colleges should explicitly include under 바카라사이트 ¡°research¡± umbrella?all?바카라사이트 research-related activities and behaviours that 바카라사이트y deem relevant to 바카라사이트ir missions.

It is too easy for colleges to default to publications and peer assessments as 바카라사이트 sole criterion?for assessing 바카라사이트 contributions of faculty research.?Focusing debate on where to set 바카라사이트 bar?only?makes sense if you want high jumpers. Most colleges need a track and field team.

Neil Clarke is an associate professor (science) at Yale-NUS College.?