Return to One Department's Guidelines.

What are the virtues and faults of the language we have added to our TP&R guidelines for evaluating computer-related work?

The language for evaluating computer-related work that we have now incorporated into our TP&R guidelines has both virtues and faults. The virtues of the new language include

• text that states explicitly that the department recognizes the provisional nature of the current guidelines (see the first paragraph of our department's "Statement on MLA Guidelines for Evaluating Computer-Related Work");

• text that states explicitly that there is no prescription yet for evaluating computer-related work, and that standards will evolve as the technology grows and changes (see the first paragraph of our department's "Statement on MLA Guidelines for Evaluating Computer-Related Work"); and

• an implicit statement that we will actively engage in helping that process along by keeping evaluation in front of us as an issue and being willing to talk and argue -- and be flexible -- about how standards should be set.

The new language for evaluating computer-related work also has several faults outlined below.

• The language remains extremely inexplicit: for example, whereas we can and do say in our guidelines just what constitutes a "publication" and how one publication is to be weighted against others and against other research, teaching, and service activities, we cannot as yet say definitively what constitutes an "online publication" (e.g. contribution to a refereed online periodical; contribution to a permanently archived online conference; substantive contribution to a moderated online discussion group, whether archived or not) and what it is worth.

• Since the language still includes no standard of value (other than the assertion that the work "should be evaluated as an integral part of a faculty member's accomplishments") it may create a dis-incentive for pre-tenure faculty to engage in computer-related activity: if we do not have a standard, it is not clear that computer-related activities will receive any value at all in the tenure process. As an example of this problem, in their contribution to this CoverWeb, Janet Cross and Kristian Fuglevik discuss the life of the overworked and unpaid MOO administrator, who may be recognized by all as rendering a `service' to the academy, but who is treated as a techno-flunky rather than as a scholar/teacher.

• There is no suggestion as to what kinds of documentation will be necessary or appropriate for supporting arguments for the value of computer-related activity: candidates are left to apply existing standards of documentation. Thus, we had better save relevant e-mail messages and listserv postings (though, it is not clear -- as has been discussed in the discussion on Rhetnet-L, June 8-30, 1995 that a TP&R committee will be willing to read much of such material, let alone MOO or IRC transcripts from classes or collaborative research projects). But will an e-mail letter of support or a review on a listserv carry the same weight as a letter printed on departmental stationary or a review in a print publication? And are these the most appropriate documents to use as support for the value of some kinds of computer-related activity?

• The evaluation language remains product-oriented, and the evaluation process remains product-driven. Little credit is given for any of the process involved in computer-related work. If a pre-tenure faculty member develops and revises a multimedia package for a general education course, will the development time somehow be factored into the value of the activity? And if the package is not commercially published, will it only be evaluated as course development -- despite the fact that developing the package involved a variety of research and creative activities -- activities more commonly associated with publication? In her contribution to this CoverWeb, Cindy Nahrwold argues that a particular strength of computer-related work is that it provides a venue in which we can show and explore the process of writing in ways that can create a closer relationship between research and teaching than can traditional practices.

The other major nodes in this hypertext provide a context in which to understand the virtues and faults of our revised TP&R document by addressing or presenting the following topics:

• Constraints on Guidelines
• Why We Did It
• What We Did
• The Language We Added
• Future Revisions
• The Text of the TP&R Guidelines

Return to One Department's Guidelines.

E-mail: seth@bradley.bradley.edu

Last revised February 22, 1997