Review Process for Fall 2018 Awards
A three-person committee comprising the Dean, the Associate Dean, and the Associate Dean of Research reviewed the 40 applications that were submitted. 15 applications were from tenure-track faculty, and 25 were from tenured faculty.
Fall 2018 applications were assessed on:
- The strength of proposed RSCA agenda (25%); and
- The record of success during the period January 1, 2014 to September 15, 2018 (75%)
To assess the RSCA agenda, applicants provided: a) a 400-600 word proposal in lay-person language that provides an overview of their RSCA agenda for the next five years; b) a CV; and c) a list of past RSCA support—all the RSCA assigned time awards and the summer salary awards in support of RSCA received during the period January 01, 2014 to September 15, 2018 from the college and the University. The proposal’s various sections and their evaluation criteria were as follows:
- Description of the proposed scholarly agenda, including goals and activities: Evaluation criteria: clarity of the proposal; and contribution to knowledge and scholarship in the discipline.12 points.
- Anticipated RSCA outputs with timeline: Evaluation criteria: how outputs align with the RSCA agenda; where relevant to agenda, how outputs may have other impacts; and feasibility (the CV and past RSCA support are also considered). 8 points.
- Description of how the RSCA agenda benefits students. 5 points.
All three sections total 25 points (12+8+5).
To assess the record of success, faculty provided details of their RSCA outputs in three groups (List A, B, and C). List A included scholarly books and long documentaries; List B included edited books, journal articles, book chapters, external grants, etc.; and List C included conference presentations, invited RSCA talks, internal grants, etc. Different criteria were then used to assess tenure-track and tenured faculty productivity.
Tenure Track faculty (Assistant Professors):
All tenure-track faculty who met minimum RSCA productivity standards received full credit for this section. In order to be considered minimally productive, tenure track faculty had to have one (1) item from List A, OR two (2) items from List B, OR any one (1) item from List B and four (4) items from List C. 14 of the 15 applicants met this standard. Considering years since Ph.D. and other extenuating circumstances, one newer faculty who was close to meeting this standard was also recommended.
Tenured faculty (Associate and Full Professors):
The RSCA output of the 25 tenured faculty applications was evaluated using a weighting scheme. List A outputs (scholarly books and long documentaries) were weighted two times those in List B (edited books, journal articles, book chapters, external grants, etc.), and four times the outputs in List C (conference presentations, invited RSCA talks, internal grants, etc.). Single-authored RSCA outputs were weighted two times the multi-authored outputs. Outputs as a principal author were weighted 1.5 times other multi-authored outputs. Grants/contracts as PI or Co-PI were weighted two times the grants/contracts as an investigator and four times the grants/contracts as a consultant. Next, using this weighting scheme, RSCA Output (RO) scores were calculated for each faculty. For example, a RO score of 18 means that the faculty produced equivalent of 18 sole-authored/funded List B outputs. Finally, a “bucket approach” was adopted to assign 75% weight to the RO scores. The top-5 RO scores were assigned 75 points, the next five, 70 points, and so on.
Finally, for the tenured faculty a total score was calculated by adding the RSCA Agenda score to the weighted RO score. Of the 25 tenured faculty applicants, those with the highest ten total scores received awards. As noted earlier, all 15 tenure-track applicants received awards.