Square Pegs in Round Holes

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In May 2003 all university faculties of medicine, health sciences, nursing, business, and public administration in Canada were surveyed to document whether their promotion practices gave equal treatment to researchers with traditional disciplinary-based scholarly outputs versus those with nontraditional outputs flowing from an applied interest in interdisciplinary research, collaboration with nonacademics, and knowledge transfer. Forty-seven deans (response rate = 67 percent) and thirty-two promotion committee members (response rate = 51 percent) consistently rated research as more important than teaching and community service in promotion proceedings. Furthermore, in their considerations of research they accorded significantly more value in promotion to traditional than to nontraditional scholarly outputs. Among the deans, for example, the top ten ranked activities included seven traditional research outputs, two teaching-related outputs, and only one nontraditional research output. Scholars with nontraditional outputs were slightly less disadvantaged in health-related faculties compared to the nonhealth faculties. Despite broader acceptance of an evolving research landscape in Canadian universities, current reward structures may create barriers for academics interested in conducting nontraditional research characteristic of the emerging paradigm of applied scholarship.