Assessing Scholarship
A candidate for promotion in UL shall compile a strong record of scholarship. For UL, scholarship may include, but is not limited to, structured scholarly investigation that utilizes appropriate and sound research methods in the search for new knowledge. It may be typified by descriptive, relational, or causal research questions. The candidate must demonstrate a cohesive line of inquiry as part of the scholarly record presented.
Scholarship should be conducted either (a) within the discipline of library science or (b) in relation to the responsibilities of one's position or (c) based on one's grounding as a librarian. A candidate who undertakes scholarly activity outside these areas must persuasively explain the appropriateness of the research in their reappointment file. In addition to the more traditional means of pursuing research, significant advanced degree work is also valued when it relates to one or more of the three areas listed above. See Appendix 2.C. of the UL Faculty Handbook for a statement on graduate study by faculty members in University Libraries.
To be successful for promotion to Associate Professor, a candidate should have achieved an "excellent" assessment rating in either the category of job performance/teaching or the category of scholarship. The rating in the other category should be at least "very good."
Promotion to the rank of Professor requires an assessment of "excellent."
The rubric for scholarship follows.
|
Assessment |
Definition |
Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment |
|
Excellent |
Wide recognition of active research program |
Demonstrated evidence of a clear line of inquiry. Consistent record of publication. Invitations to give presentations to national, regional, or state organizations. Thoroughly addresses any improvements needed based on reappointment letters. |
|
Very Good |
Growing recognition of active research program. |
Emerging line of inquiry. Active record of publication. Evidence of presentations to national, regional, or state organizations. Significant effort demonstrated to make improvements based on reappointment letters. |
|
Good |
Active research program |
Evidence of some research activity. Some publications or presentations. Modest effort to make improvements based on reappointment letters. |
|
Fair |
Limited research program |
Little evidence of research activity. Few publications or meeting presentations. Minimal effort to make improvements based on reappointment letters. |
|
Poor |
No research program |
No evidence of research activity. No publications or presentations. No effort to make improvements based on reappointment letters. |