Earlham College
AC-8: Responsible Research and Innovation
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
Reporter |
Jamey
Pavey Director of the Integrated Program in Sustainability Sustainability and Environmental Studies |
8.1 Published ethical code of conduct for research
Online location of the institution’s ethical code of conduct for research:
Copy of the institution’s ethical code of conduct for research:
The Reporting Tool will automatically calculate the following figure:
8.2 Recognition of integrated, community-based, and extra-academic research
Description or text of the promotion/tenure guidelines or policies that explicitly recognize integrated research:
The Faculty handbook, under section B- Appointment and Renewal, lists four criteria for the renewal of a contract with a member of the teaching faculty (these four criteria are what a make up tenure reviews at Earlham). The second criterion is Quality of Mind which states some indicators as: "Intellectual sharpness and vitality as evidenced by the quality of such things as continuing studies, research, creative work, public lectures, publications; breadth and depth of intellectual interests and competencies, and the capacity to place knowledge and skills into significant context; grant writing; interdisciplinary interests and activities; regular involvement in professional scholarly and educational societies and organizations; and the quality of one’s contributions to intellectual discourse with students and peers."
Do the promotion/tenure guidelines or policies that recognize integrated research cover all of the institution’s research-producing academic divisions?:
Does the institution have published promotion or tenure guidelines or policies that give explicit positive recognition to community-based research?:
Description or text of the promotion/tenure guidelines or policies that explicitly recognize community-based research:
Do the promotion/tenure guidelines or policies that recognize community-based research cover all of the institution’s research-producing academic divisions?:
Does the institution have published promotion or tenure guidelines or policies that give explicit positive recognition to research impact or reach outside of academic journals?:
Description or text of the promotion/tenure guidelines or policies that explicitly recognize research impact or reach outside of academic journals:
- B: Quality of Mind
Assessing a teacher’s quality of mind involves a complex judgment by peers and others. Some indictors of quality of mind are:Intellectual sharpness and vitality as evidenced by the quality of such things as continuing studies, research, creative work, public lectures, publications; breadth and depth of intellectual interests and competencies, and the capacity to place knowledge and skills into significant context; grant writing; interdisciplinary interests and activities; regular involvement in professional scholarly and educational societies and organizations; and the quality of one’s contributions to intellectual discourse with students and peers.
Do the promotion/tenure guidelines or policies that recognize research impact or reach outside of academic journals cover all of the institution’s research-producing academic divisions?:
If Yes to any of the above, provide at least one form of evidence (website URL or document). If reporting on multiple guidelines or policies, provide the best available example and/or a website that provides an overview of promotion/tenure for academic employees.
Copy of the institution’s promotion/tenure guidelines or policies:
The Reporting Tool will automatically calculate the following figure:
8.3 Inter-campus collaboration for responsible research and innovation
Description of the institution’s inter-campus collaborations for responsible research and innovation:
The Reporting Tool will automatically calculate the following figure:
8.4 Support for open access publishing
Narrative and/or website URL providing an overview of the open access repository:
The repository was established in Fall 2024 and is available at https://earlham.hykucommons.org/collections/af9ff1d0-e459-430d-aaec-362660992d1e?locale=en
Does the institution have one or more published policies that require its employees to publish scholarly works open access or archive final post-peer reviewed versions of scholarly works in an open access repository?:
Do the open access policies cover all of the institution’s research-producing academic divisions?:
Text or online location of the institution’s open access policies:
Copy of the institution’s open access policies:
Does the institution provide an open access article processing charge (APC) fund for employees?:
Narrative and/or website URL providing an overview of the open access APC fund:
Does the institution negotiate or participate in transformative open access agreements that are consistent with ESAC guidelines?:
Narrative and/or website URL providing an overview of the institution’s transformative open access agreements with publishers:
The Reporting Tool will automatically calculate the following figure:
Optional documentation
Confirmed with library director and office of sponsored research
Additional documentation for this credit:
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.