Research Expectations | Lifespan Development & Educational Sciences Faculty Handbook | Kent State University

Research Expectations

Overall, activities relevant to and impacting one’s professional field are prioritized when considering Faculty members for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion. As such, a Faculty member is expected to be an active researcher, as evidenced by having established and continuing to pursue one or more focused areas of inquiry that applies a clear and cogent method of investigation (or combination of methods). These methods include qualitative and quantitative research designs (or a mixture of the two), as well as conceptual or theoretical pursuits or other creative activities. Our School values applied and basic research equally, as well as community-engaged research (e.g., efforts to engage community stakeholders in research activities). Given the professional and practice-oriented nature of most of the programs in our School, we also value research that has implications for practice and/or implications for policy. When considered for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, various reviewing bodies will focus on the candidate’s scholarly productivity as evidenced by the quality of publications, presentations, grant applications and/or awards, and/or other creative products (e.g., academic/training materials, electronic and/or multi-media productions). Collaboration with professionals and students is encouraged; however, when preparing materials for review by reappointment, tenure, and promotion committees, the candidate must define his or her role in these shared efforts in the contextual statement.

The dissemination of quality research is valued highly. Of equal importance is the dissemination of basic and/or applied data-based publications and/or theoretical/review articles that appear in peer-reviewed outlets (e.g., journals, books). Peer review is the process of evaluating another person’s (or collection of persons’) written work. It is conducted by scholars who are not the authors of the submitted work and in a structured manner (e.g., blind or masked review, multiple reviewers). Typically, the peer review process is made explicit by the publisher or journal editor and advertised to submitting authors. Invited works only reviewed by an editorial body or works that are self-published are not considered peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed invited work is considered peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed journals with a wide circulation and/or those peer-reviewed journals indexed in major and reputable bibliographic databases (e.g., PsycINFO, PubMed, ERIC) are preferred.

With regard to the dissemination of research, it is required that candidates provide evidence of a combination of peer-reviewed publications that include first and/or lead authorship and multi-authored projects. For multi-authored published works, descriptions of the candidate's role on and contribution to the publication is expected. That is, candidates are required to describe their leadership role on collaborative projects (e.g., content expert, methodological design consultant, data analysis, discussant, research advisor for student). Books, chapters within books, other publications (e.g., monographs, research and/or policy reports, white papers, invited works), and presentations to learned societies also are respected and valued as part of the candidate’s dissemination of scholarly endeavors. Another area pertaining to dissemination of research that is respected and valued includes scholarly products that have implications for practice and/or implications for policy in the candidate’s profession/discipline or a relevant academic area. 

 

Examples of quality Research include, but are not limited to:

  • Publication of peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, monographs or books in the candidate’s field(s), jointly or solo-authored;
  • Peer-reviewed or invited presentations at recognized professional meetings at the international, national, regional, state, and/or local levels;
  • Invited publications and presentations within professional organizations;
  • Scholarly work that has implications for practice and/or implications for policy in the candidate’s profession/discipline or a relevant academic area;
  • Creative professional activity such as the creation of published media, software, and related professional materials;
  • Applications to fund research, training, or service endeavors submitted to local, state, or federal entities, or to foundations, that undergo a structured review process, and have yielded positive evaluations;
  • Competitively awarded grants that lead to publication; and
  • Development of measurement instruments/manuals and/or academic/training materials that have undergone a structured review process and will be disseminated.

 

  1. Considerations For Reappointment

    For reappointment, the candidate should demonstrate the development of an agenda of basic and/or applied research that is relevant and impacting within his or her discipline/field/profession. Such research should demonstrate that the candidate’s work is, or will be, deemed of high quality by peers in his or her profession. The quality of the candidate’s research and future directions for refining a line (or lines) of research must be clearly articulated in the Contextual Statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook.

  2. Considerations For Tenure

    University Guidelines identify the specific standards for tenure by which the School adheres. That is, the School’s guidelines for tenure mirror university policy. In general, tenure is established when a candidate establishes an agenda of basic and/or applied research within his or her profession. The candidate’s research, taken as a whole, should demonstrate clearly that his or her work is deemed of high quality by peers in his or her profession; and suggests continued success. Evidence of a pattern of research and a demonstrated record of continued meaningful professional inquiry is required. The quality and impact of the candidate’s research record and future directions must be articulated in the Contextual Statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook.

  3. Considerations For Promotion to Associate Professor

    For promotion to Associate Professor, the candidate must demonstrate emerging leadership through a sustained basic and/or applied research record with one or more systematic lines of inquiry within the candidate’s profession. A description of the candidate’s emerging leadership and developing expertise of his or her line(s) of inquiry must be clearly articulated in the Contextual Statement. The criteria that distinguish promotion to Associate Professor is a record demonstrating emerging leadership and/or mentorship as a scholar within the candidate’s field and establishment of a national or international expertise in one or more areas of focused research (i.e., including but not limited to, participating in invited presentations and/or colloquia; publishing with doctoral students; being part of a national panel; organizing a committee to examine an area of research germane to the candidate’s focused research; engaging as a consultant for external grant applications). The candidate’s unique contributions to the fruition of research products must be apparent.

  4. Considerations For Promotion to Professor

    For promotion to Professor, the candidate must demonstrate an extended quality record of basic and/or applied research that demonstrates sustained achievement and leadership in systematic line(s) of inquiry within the candidate’s profession. This scholarship demonstrates clearly that the candidate’s work continues to be recognized nationally or internationally for its excellence in one or more of the candidate’s area of expertise; and, demonstrates a broader impact on the literature. The quality of the candidate’s sustained line(s) of scholarship inquiry and his or her leadership as a researcher, and the recognized significance of his or her scholarship must be articulated in the Contextual Statement using factors identified in this Handbook. The criteria that distinguish promotion to Professor from promotion to Associate Professor are demonstrated leadership and/or mentorship as a scholar in the candidate’s profession and area(s) of expertise, and establishment of a national or international reputation for excellence in one or more areas of focused research (e.g., participating in invited presentations and/or colloquia; publishing with doctoral students; hosting post-doctoral residents; being part of a national panel; organizing a committee to examine an area of research germane to the candidate’s focused research; engaging as a consultant for external grant applications authoring major chapters or review articles that help pull together some body of research, authoring/editing books; conducting longer-term projects). The candidate’s leadership in the fruition of research products must be apparent.