Chemical Education Today
Association Report: ACS Division of Chemical Education
Hiring and Promotion in Chemical Education A Task Force Report by Christopher F. Bauer,* John V. Clevenger, Renée S. Cole, Loretta L. Jones, Paul B. Kelter, Maria T. Oliver-Hoyo, and Barbara A. Sawrey
This report of the Task Force on Hiring and Promotion in Chemical Education focuses attention on the professional status of faculty members whose appointments are in chemical education. If your immediate response is “What exactly is ‘an appointment in chemical education’?”, that is the essence of the issue. First commissioned by Mort Hoffman in 2005 during his term as chair of the Division of Chemical Education, the Task Force was to provide guidance for departments seeking a colleague in “chemical education” and for candidates interested in establishing academic careers in chemical education. A wide variety of ill-defined expectations for “chemical education” was becoming a complicating factor in achieving successful searches and promotions. The report was recently presented to and accepted by the Executive Committee of the Division of Chemical Education
at the April 2008 American Chemical Society Meeting. The members of the Task Force believe that continuing attention must be given to the professional status of tenure-track faculty in chemical education, as well as to staff and contract appointees. The Report Charge The charge to the task force from the Division was the creation of a “white paper” on the hiring and promotion/tenure of faculty involved in research, development, and practice of chemical education. The “white paper” would provide guidance to candidates for faculty positions and hiring departments to encourage clear and honest communication about professional expectations and responsibilities. Furthermore, this guidance
Table 1. Previous Reports Related to Chemical Education Faculty Date
Title
1991
Research and Scholarly Work in Chemical Education
Task Force on Professional Status of Chemical Education
Committee on Professional Training (CPT), to the Society Committee on Education (SOCED)
To assist tenure and promotion committees in evaluating academic chemists who are primarily involved in chemical education
ACS Task Force (1)
SOCED
1993
Definition of Scholarship in Chemistry
To propose a flexible definition of scholarship that goes beyond traditional research, and to provide a framework for identifying and evaluating the significance of various forms of scholarship, including teaching and service
1993
Chemical Education Research
Task Force on Chemical Education Research
Division of Chemical Education (DivCHED)
To define chemical education research, so that it could be evaluated and rewarded in chemistry departments
ACS Task Force
SOCED
2001
Statement on Scholarship in Chemistry
To update the 1993 ACS task force report (1), in light of the Boyer Report (Scholarship Reconsidered) (2) and others. One specific goal was to include the position of research in chemical education
Statement on Scholarship in Chemistry
ACS Task Force (3)
SOCED
To update the 2001 report
2007
898
Reported by
Commissioning Unit
Purpose
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 85 No. 7 July 2008 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
Chemical Education Today
may help in the preparation of files for promotion and tenure reviews. The Task Force’s perspective was one of identifying and cataloguing issues, and formulating these into questions. It became clear that providing definitive answers would be impossible given the diversity of institutions that hire chemical education faculty.
Many departments have an ill-defined concept of what they want from a faculty colleague in chemistry education and misunderstand the nature of scholarly
Background There have been several reports in the past 15 years from committees appointed by various groups within ACS. All addressed aspects of scholarship in chemical education, but none were directly concerned with the finer details of faculty appointments (see Table 1).
activity in chemical education.
2006 Biennial Conference on Chemical Education at Purdue University, and sponsored a full-day oral session at the Fall 2006 ACS National Meeting in San Francisco. The oral presentations included papers given by junior and senior faculty from a variety of institution types, a department chair, and a dean. The Task
What the Task Force Did To Inform This Report The Task Force members met several times, talked widely to colleagues in academia, presented a poster session at the
Department and Institution Guide
• What is the scope of the position and is there departmental and institutional agreement on that?
• Will a Ph.D. in chemistry be required, or will a Ph.D. in chemical education or science education be considered? Is postdoctoral experience required or preferred?
Is participation in teaching or supervising pre-service teachers expected?
• Does this position lead to tenure? What are the timeline and expectations for tenure?
How are teaching, research, and service weighted?
How are quality and quantity of work assessed?
• What scholarly activity will be expected of the successful candidate?
What is the definition of scholarly activity?
How much will be required?
Is external funding necessary for promotion?
How many publications and of what type will be required for promotion?
To what extent does the position require supervision of other staff ?
• What level of professional and institutional service will be expected?
Department and campus committees? Professional organizations? Is there an expectation of outreach involvement?
• If your department has a graduate program:
Will the candidate participate in teaching graduate courses? Will the candidate be participating in thesis committees? Is the candidate expected to establish a scholarly program of research and development in chemistry education, including supervision of graduate students?
• Are there collateral administrative duties for this position that other faculty do or do not have, and how does that affect promotion and tenure expectations?
• What startup funding is to be provided and how does that compare with that provided to other hires?
Is it more (or less) than other faculty in the department?
• Is there ongoing support for travel to professional meetings?
Does it include labs?
• If the department is not familiar with the chemical education community, including the nature of its scholarly activity, would your department seek advice on hiring or promotion from external experts?
Will education research “count”? Does curriculum development satisfy the definition of scholarly activity at your institution?
• What and how much teaching will be expected?
Does it include TA training? Is there a coordination aspect involved—of courses or labs?
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 85 No. 7 July 2008 • Journal of Chemical Education
899
Chemical Education Today
Association Report: ACS Division of Chemical Education Candidate Guide
• Based on the responsibilities of the position and the expectations for promotion and tenure, what startup funding is available?
• Under what circumstances is teaching release time, leave or sabbatical allowed and supported?
• Is the department unified in their expectations of a chemical educator, or are there differing views? When you ask different people in the department what they expect this position to accomplish, do you get the same answer? Remember, the chair who hires you may not be the chair at promotion time.
• Are there detractors of a chemical education position in the department and how much voting weight or intellectual weight do those people have?
• Does the department have a history of hiring (promoting, awarding tenure to) chemical educators?
Force members also surveyed and interviewed targeted faculty who hold chemistry education positions at U.S. universities. The survey results were presented at the San Francisco meeting, and guided aspects of this report. The Task Force determined that since the issues are complex and institutions diverse, it did not expect to generate one comprehensive report that addresses every possible situation. Therefore this is a narrowly focused report, containing a selfassessment guide for departments and candidates considering a faculty position in chemical education. Also included is a recommendation for an additional area that might be addressed in the future. Key Issues The Task Force identified an underlying and recurring issue in its deliberations. Many departments have an ill-defined concept of what they want from a faculty colleague in chemistry education and misunderstand the nature of scholarly activity in chemical education. Without an understanding of the nature of chemical education and chemical education scholarship, the decisions made about hiring and promoting faculty in this specialty can be problematic. Each college or university, and each department has its own culture of research and teaching. Yet there exists a wide, and often naïve, range of possibilities for the expectations of chemical education faculty positions. It is not uncommon to find that the expectations of the department and the chemical education faculty member do not match, and that this difference is not detected until after the hire is made, or at promotion time. In an attempt to bring all the issues to the forefront before decisions are made, this report includes a set of questions that provide guidance for departments wishing to
900
• Can you supervise student researchers, and at what levels? Can you recruit your own students?
• Does the position carry voting rights? Will you have a say in curriculum decisions? In other words, is the position faculty or staff ?
• Is the position 100% in chemistry, or is it shared with another department, such as education? If the latter is the case, the line of decision for promotion and tenure needs to be carefully considered because of the potential for divergent expectations.
• Does the position require supervision of staff or part-time faculty, and how much control will you have over hiring and review? Does part of your evaluation include a review of your abilities in this regard (as compared with other faculty hires)?
• Are there lab support personnel (staff, TAs) with whom you would be working? Have you been able to meet and talk with them about structure and decision-making?
hire chemical education faculty, and for candidates looking for a chemical education faculty position. Department and Institution Guide There are clusters of questions [see p 899] for a department to use in self-reflection, in order to determine the nature of the chemical education faculty position it wishes to have. It is important that a department be clear among its own faculty about the responsibilities for the position and the expectations for the candidate. This can ensure that there is a better “fit” for the department and chemical educator, and that there are no surprises at promotion time. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and not all questions apply to every institution, but these can be a starting point for internal discussions. Candidate Guide Most of the candidate’s questions [see p 901] are the same or similar to those listed above for the department. However, there may be some additional aspects about which a current or potential faculty member may wish to inquire. We are not trying to include everything any faculty candidate may want to know, but we are trying to highlight questions or concerns that may be unique to a hire in chemical education. Some of these questions may also be pertinent to ask of others outside the hiring department who know something about the position. Recommendations for Future Work There remains a category of chemical educators that has been overlooked by this and previous reports. We recommend that a future task force or committee be appointed to investigate the issues relating to academic staff positions in chemical edu-
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 85 No. 7 July 2008 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
Chemical Education Today
cation. Many such professionals do not have faculty status, yet may be directors of general or organic chemistry, and may have critical responsibilities in teaching students and TAs. Literature Cited 1. Bunce, D.; Gabel, D.; Herron, J. D.; Jones, L. Report of the Task Force on Chemical Education Research. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 850–852. 2. Boyer, E. L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching/JosseyBass: San Francisco, 1990. 3. ACS Statement on Scholarship in Chemistry, 2007, may be found at http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/CTP_004478/ pdf/CTP_004478.pdf (accessed Apr 2008).
Supporting JCE Online Material
http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2008/Jul/abs898.html Abstract and keywords
Full text (PDF) Links to cited URLs and JCE articles
Christopher F. Bauer is a member of the Chemistry Department, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824;
[email protected]. • John V. Clevenger is in the Chemistry Department, Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, NV;
[email protected]. • Renée S. Cole is a member of the Department of Chemistry and Physics, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO 64093;
[email protected]. • Loretta L. Jones is a member of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO; loretta.jones@ unco.edu. • Paul B. Kelter, is in the Department of Teaching and Learning, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115;
[email protected]. • Maria T. Oliver-Hoyo is a member of the Chemistry Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695;
[email protected]. • Barbara A. Sawrey is Associate Vice Chancellor, Undergraduate Education, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093;
[email protected].
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 85 No. 7 July 2008 • Journal of Chemical Education
901
