The College of Wooster
AC-8: Responsible Research and Innovation
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
Reporter |
Brian
Webb Director of Campus Sustainability President's Office |
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:
See pages 11-12 of attached Faculty Handbook chapter 9 on Faculty Evaluation and Reviews
Section B. Faculty Reviews
2. Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure
iii. Research is an essential component of a faculty member's professional development.
Furthermore, Independent Study depends upon faculty members who have an appreciation
of the requirements of research, and its vitality depends directly upon the quality of the
research of the faculty. Research is here defined as efforts to extend the bounds of
knowledge or to produce creative works. These results are to be shared with the
professional community at large as well as with colleagues at Wooster in ways and forms
appropriate to a given discipline or across disciplines. Both collaborative and
interdisciplinary research are recognized as valuable contributions.
It is essential that candidates for re-appointment, promotion, or tenure be capable of
systematic exploration and discovery. To make a judgment in this matter, the Committee
must have opportunities to evaluate specific examples of this capability. These may
include, for example,
• articles,
• book chapters,
• monographs,
• creative writing and composition,
• exhibitions, recitals, or other public performances, and
• digital research projects.
In addition, evaluations of the quality of such work by peers external to the College are
helpful to the Committee in its assessment
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:
See pages 11-12 of attached Faculty Handbook chapter 9 on Faculty Evaluation and Reviews
Section B. Faculty Reviews
2. Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure
ii. Scholarship is also essential. How this criterion is met may vary, but it must include efforts
to remain abreast of new developments in one's own discipline and may include efforts to
expand one's intellectual interest beyond that discipline.
Particularly in making recommendations for reappointment for tenure, the College must
estimate the likelihood of continued intellectual growth and thus welcomes opportunities
to judge an individual's commitment to sustained learning. These opportunities may
include, for example,
• public lectures,
• conference presentations,
• seminar presentations and workshops,
• book reviews,
• encyclopedia entries, including online,
• manuscript reviews,
• participation in professional meetings, and
• digital scholarship such as blogs, electronic essays or exhibits, web portals or
gateways, or online bibliographies
iii. Research is an essential component of a faculty member's professional development.
Furthermore, Independent Study depends upon faculty members who have an appreciation
of the requirements of research, and its vitality depends directly upon the quality of the
research of the faculty. Research is here defined as efforts to extend the bounds of
knowledge or to produce creative works. These results are to be shared with the
professional community at large as well as with colleagues at Wooster in ways and forms
appropriate to a given discipline or across disciplines. Both collaborative and
interdisciplinary research are recognized as valuable contributions.
It is essential that candidates for re-appointment, promotion, or tenure be capable of
systematic exploration and discovery. To make a judgment in this matter, the Committee
must have opportunities to evaluate specific examples of this capability. These may
include, for example,
• articles,
• book chapters,
• monographs,
• creative writing and composition,
• exhibitions, recitals, or other public performances, and
• digital research projects.
In addition, evaluations of the quality of such work by peers external to the College are
helpful to the Committee in its assessment.
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:
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:
Our funding is more general in support of Faculty Research (i.e., there is not a specific fund for APCs), but faculty may request funding for open-access charges from the DFD. We have typically capped them at $1,000, although that is negotiable if there are special circumstances.
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
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.