A proposed model to evaluate faculty research productivity.

A proposed model to evaluate faculty research productivity. ABSTRACT Faculty annual evaluation is one of the most importantresponsibilities of academic administrators, as annual evaluationresults are generally used to determine merit pay Noun 1. merit pay - extra pay awarded to an employee on the basis of merit (especially to school teachers)pay, remuneration, salary, wage, earnings - something that remunerates; "wages were paid by check"; "he wasted his pay on drink"; "they saved a quarter of all raises for faculty.Without an effective evaluation system in place, it is very difficult,if not impossible, to assign the proper monetary rewards to faculty.This paper explores the issue of research evaluation and proposes amodel that may be used to quantitatively determine research productivitylevel of faculty. The aim of this article is to remove one of the mostpressing problems facing college deans and department chairpersons todayby coming up with an objective and yet easy-to-understand approach toconduct annual reviews of faculty research. The proposed model considersnot only quantity of publication, but it also takes quality ofpublication and degree of individual scholarship into consideration. INTRODUCTION Faculty annual review is one of the most, if not the most, crucialtasks of college and university-level academic administrators, sinceannual evaluation results are almost always used to determine merit payincreases for faculty and, for longer term, to make promotion and tenuredecisions. Without an effective evaluation system in place, it is veryhard, if not impossible, to assign proper monetary rewards to faculty.The failure of the compensation management system can lead to numerouscostly administrative problems later on. These problems include thedeparture of many outstanding faculty members to other institutions, asthey doubt that they have been properly compensated via annual merit payraises. Other serious consequences are low faculty morale and shorttenure of administrators. There are generally three major areas of evaluation employed byinstitutions of higher education: teaching, research, and service.Teaching and research are routinely viewed as the most criticalcomponents among the three. Depending on the type of institutions,either teaching or research may be considered as the most importantfactor in faculty annual evaluation. An overwhelming amount of researchhas been published on the subject of teaching evaluation andeffectiveness. Abrami et al. (1982) examined the relationship betweenstudent personality characteristics, teacher ratings, and studentachievement. Wright et al. (1984) reviewed the research findings onvalidity and reliability of student ratings. Eiszler (2002) conducted astudy to test whether the use of student evaluations of teachingeffectiveness had contributed to a trend of grade inflation in collegesand universities and found that such a relationship was supported. Hoand Shalishali (2001) examined the issues of grade inflation and gradevariation and developed an effective approach to measure studentcompetencies. Other research related to teaching can be found in Centra(1979), Hildebrand Hildebrand:see Gregory VII, Saint. et al. (1979), Doyle Doyle? , Sir Arthur Conan 1859-1930.British writer known chiefly for a series of stories featuring the brilliant detective Sherlock Holmes, including The Hound of the Baskervilles (1902). (1983), Fairweather Fair��weath��er? , MountA peak, 4,666.5 m (15,300 ft) high, on the border between southeast Alaska and western British Columbia, Canada. and Rhoads(1995), Greenwald Greenwald may refer to: Greenwald, Minnesota, USA Greenwald as a surname may refer to: Greenwald family, the rabbinic family of Puppa (Hasidic dynasty), originated from Hungary Alex Greenwald Andy Greenwald (1997), and Greenwald and Gillmore (1997). Faculty publishing productivity is often used as a barometer ofdepartmental and institutional prestige and is strongly associated withan individual faculty member's reputation, visibility, andadvancement in the academic reward structure, particularly at researchinstitutions (Creamer, 1998). Moreover, Root (1987) pointed out thatthere is a generally held view that "publications areparamount" in the determination of salary and promotion. Thisviewpoint is supported by the fact that faculty salaries in researchuniversities are higher than those in teaching universities. There are alot of articles written on faculty research performance. Baird Baird may refer to:In places: Baird, Texas, a US city Baird, a local government ward within Hastings Borough Council in the county of East Sussex, England Other: Robert W. Baird & Co. (1991)studied publication productivity in doctoral research departments andfound that there were substantial variations in publishing rates amongand within disciplinary groups, as well as across programs. Hattie andMarsh (1996) studied the relationship between research and teaching andfound a negative relationship between faculty time allocated to teachingand time allocated to research. Ward and Grant (1996) examined thegender and publishing productivity issue. Sax (Simple API for XML) A programming interface (API) for accessing the contents of an XML document. SAX does not provide a random access lookup to the document's contents. It scans the document sequentially and presents each item to the application only one time. et al. (2002) examined therole of several family-related factors, including marriage, children,and aging parents, in family research productivity. They concluded thatfamily variables contributed little or nothing to the prediction offaculty research productivity and that professional variables, such asacademic rank and salary, were the more important predictors. Otherpublications on research productivity include Golden and Carstensen(1992), Omundson and Mann (1994), Massy mass��y?adj. mass��i��er, mass��i��estHaving great mass or bulk; massive. and Wilger (1995), McDonald(1995), Tierney Tierney is an Irish surname. It is an Anglicized form of Gaelic �� Tiarnaigh (male), N�� Tiarnaigh (female), also Tighearnaigh/Tighearnach. It is pronounced "tee + er + nee".It originated in Co. (1999), and Fairweather (2002). In this paper, we propose a model which can be used toquantitatively determine the research productivity level of faculty. Thegoal of this article is to remove one of the most challenging issuesfacing college deans and department chairpersons today by bringing forthan objective and yet easy-to-understand approach to perform annualreviews of faculty research. The proposed model not only considers thequantity of publication, but most importantly Adv. 1. most importantly - above and beyond all other consideration; "above all, you must be independent"above all, most especially it also takes the qualityof publication into account. Furthermore, the model may be extended toincorporate the degree of individual scholarship. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The next sectiondiscusses the criteria that are commonly used in assessing researchproductivity and justify the measures used in this paper. Section 3introduces and explains the proposed model for research evaluation. Wealso discuss the applications of the proposed model by presenting twoprocedures for research evaluation. In section 4, we provide a completenumerical numericalexpressed in numbers, i.e. Arabic numerals of 0 to 9 inclusive.numerical nomenclaturea numerical code is used to indicate the words, or other alphabetical signals, intended. example using hypothetical Hypothetical is an adjective, meaning of or pertaining to a hypothesis. See: Hypothesis HypotheticalHypothetical (album) data and solve it via MicrosoftExcel (tool) Microsoft Excel - A spreadsheet program from Microsoft, part of their Microsoft Office suite of productivity tools for Microsoft Windows and Macintosh. Excel is probably the most widely used spreadsheet in the world.Latest version: Excel 97, as of 1997-01-14. . Finally, section 5 summarizes and concludes this paper. CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY Research productivity in this paper is defined as the productivityof publishing scholarly materials, including, but not limited to,articles in journal and proceedings, and books. In the researchliterature, quantity of journal articles and quality of publications aretwo of the most prevalent measures used to determine researchproductivity. Quantity of articles is the more popular of the two due tothe ease of measuring them (Ward and Grant, 1996). Campbell Campbell, city, United StatesCampbell,city (1990 pop. 36,048), Santa Clara co., W Calif., in the fertile Santa Clara valley; founded 1885, inc. 1952. et al.(1983) studied the perceptions of accounting educators with respect tothe present importance and desired importance of some twenty factorsconsidered in promotion and tenure decisions. For doctoralAACSB-accredited institutions, the quantity and quality of journalarticles were ranked first and fourth, respectively, based on thepresent importance. However, according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. the desired importance, theywere ranked sixth and second, respectively. Similar switching of rankingorders between these two factors was also found in both non-doctoralAACSB-accredited and non-doctoral non-AACSB accredited accreditedrecognition by an appropriate authority that the performance of a particular institution has satisfied a prestated set of criteria.accredited herdscattle herds which have achieved a low level of reactors to, e.g. institutions.These survey results strongly suggest that the quality factor should bevalued even more highly than the quantity factor. Academic administrators often seek to reward productive facultywith annual merit-based salary raises. Unfortunately, faculty'sdesires to maximize merit raises could be in conflict with theirincentives to improve the quality of their research if annualevaluations fail to take quality into consideration. One of the reasonsfor the research conflict is that faculty would be motivated mo��ti��vate?tr.v. mo��ti��vat��ed, mo��ti��vat��ing, mo��ti��vatesTo provide with an incentive; move to action; impel.mo to publishin non-refereed journals and/or proceedings so as to maximize thequantity of outputs and hence merit-based raises. In view of the significance of research quality, we develop a modelthat is capable of capturing both quantity and quality of publications.To account for research quality, Creamer (1998) affirmed af��firm?v. af��firmed, af��firm��ing, af��firmsv.tr.1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.2. To support or uphold the validity of; confirm.v.intr. that quantitycounts could be weighted by the impact of the particular volume of thejournal, as reported by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI ISIInternational Sensitivity Index, see there ),based on the average citation Citation(foaled 1945) U.S. Thoroughbred racehorse. In four seasons he won 32 of 45 races, finished second in ten, and third in two. He won the 1948 Triple Crown, and became the first horse to win $1 million. He set a world record in 1950 by running a mile in 1:33 3/5. rate of articles in that volume of thejournal. Research quality may also be determined by the number ofcitations an article receives; however, citations may not appear formany years, if at all, after the article is published. Hence, thisapproach is not very practical for the purpose of routine annualevaluation. We therefore propose that colleges and departments classify clas��si��fy?tr.v. clas��si��fied, clas��si��fy��ing, clas��si��fies1. To arrange or organize according to class or category.2. To designate (a document, for example) as confidential, secret, or top secret. their relevant publication outlets into categories according to factorssuch as types of publication outlets (journal and proceedings, etc.) andprestige of the publication outlets (degree of peer recognition andcaliber of editorial board, etc.). In short, the publication outletdirectly determines research quality. The categorization of intellectualcontributions should be made with both internal and external inputs.Internal inputs may be obtained from periodic surveys on the currentfaculty members; and external inputs may be obtained from similarclassifications of the peer institutions. This approach isstraight-forward since it judges quality by publication outlet ratherthan the impact of each article and is flexible enough to be applicableto various disciplines. Furthermore, the proposed model allows all formsof scholarly contributions (books, journal papers, and proceedingsarticles, etc.) to be included and counted because different qualityratings can be associated with different forms of scholarlycontributions to reflect the quality criterion. THE PROPOSED MODEL Before introducing the proposed model for research performanceevaluation Performance evaluationThe assessment of a manager's results, which involves, first, determining whether the money manager added value by outperforming the established benchmark (performance measurement) and, second, determining how the money manager achieved the calculated return , we first define the following notation notation:see arithmetic and musical notation. How a system of numbers, phrases, words or quantities is written or expressed. Positional notation is the location and value of digits in a numbering system, such as the decimal or binary system. which will be used inthe development of the proposed model.T Length of evaluation time period in years.[L.sub.i] Level i, i = 1,2, ... n research publication, such that [L.sub.i] and [L.sub.n] represent the lowest and highest quality publications.[e.sub.i] Amount of research expected in terms of numbers of [L.sub.i] publications per faculty member per year.[E.sub.i] Amount of research expected in terms of number of [L.sub.i] publications per faculty member during the evaluation period, such that [E.sub.i] = [e.sub.i] * TR Research productivity index, such that R = 0,0 + x, 0 + 2x, ..., 1, where x is the desired increment.[R.sup.k] Research productivity index of faculty member k, k = 1,2 ... m The research productivity index of a faculty member may beinterpreted as that faculty member's probability of getting amanuscript manuscript,a handwritten work as distinguished from printing. The oldest manuscripts, those found in Egyptian tombs, were written on papyrus; the earliest dates from c.3500 B.C. accepted for publication in a level 1 publication.Furthermore, having a manuscript accepted for publication in a level j(1 [less than or equal to] j [less than or equal to] n) publication, itis assumed that the requirement would be j times as much as the originalcontribution would be in a level 1 publication. Hence, a faculty memberwhere R has an 81% (=[(0.9).sup.2]) chance that he or she will get hisor her manuscript accepted for publication in a level 2 publication,assuming the independence of acceptance probability of level 1 and level2 original contributions. In the proposed model, we therefore define the probability of[L.sub.j] publication acceptance based on research productivity index R,i.e., [P.sub.R](j) as follows: [P.sub.R](j) = [(R).sup.j] Formula (1) This definition takes the form of an exponential function exponential functionIn mathematics, a function in which a constant base is raised to a variable power. Exponential functions are used to model changes in population size, in the spread of diseases, and in the growth of investments. with baseR. Suppose that an academic department classifies publication outletsinto four categories (n = 4) and employs a 0.025 increment To add a number to another number. Incrementing a counter means adding 1 to its current value. (x = 0.025)for the purpose of determining the research productivity index. Table 1gives the probability of manuscript acceptance according to fourresearch publication levels and some selected research productivityindices. The Table shows that the probabilities of getting a manuscriptaccepted for publication in [L.sub.1], [L.sub.2], [L.sub.3] and[L.sub.4] publications, for faculty members with a 0.90 researchproductivity index, are 0.90, 0.81, 0.73, and 0.66, respectively. Animplication from Table 1 is that faculty members with larger researchproductivity indices possess more incentives to target higher levelpublications than members with smaller research productivity indices.This is because faculty members with lower research productivity indiceshave much lower probability of gaining acceptance in higher levelpublications and therefore more likely focus on lower level publicationsso as to be fruitful fruit��ful?adj.1. a. Producing fruit.b. Conducive to productivity; causing to bear in abundance: fruitful soil.2. . Moreover, we define the standard required to achieve level Rresearch productivity with regard to the number of [L.sub.i]publications as [S.sub.i,R]. It is computed as follows: [S.sub.i,R] = [P.sub.R](i) * [E.sub.i] Formula (2) Suppose that the amount of research expected by the department isthree [L.sub.1] articles per faculty member per year ([e.sub.1] = 3) andthe length of evaluation is two years (T = 2). The amount of researchexpected is then six ([E.sub.1] = [e.sub.1] * T = 6) [L.sub.1]publications during the two years. Table 2 provides the values of[S.sub.i,R] obtained from Equation (2) for some selected values of R and[L.sub.i]. For instance, a faculty member needs to contribute 5.40[L.sub.1] publications or 3.94 [L.sub.4] publications in order to attaina 0.9 research productivity index. Most, if not all, faculty members contribute in more than one levelof publications. Hence, a conversion system is necessary to determinethe numerical equivalence of one level of publication into another levelof publication so as to facilitate comparisons and further analyses. Wedefine [U.sub.ij,R] as the numerical equivalence of [L.sub.j]publication with regard to Li publication for research productivityindex R. The [U.sub.ij,R] is given below: [U.sub.ij,R] = [P.sub.R](j)/[P.sub.R](i) Formula (3) Table 3 presents the numerical equivalence of [L.sub.j] (j = 1, 2,3, and 4) publication in terms of [L.sub.1] (i = 1) publication forselected values of R. It should be emphasized that the numericalequivalence may be computed in terms of any publication level. As shownin the Table, faculty members with a research productivity index of 0.8view one [L.sub.4] publication worth or equivalent to 1.95 [L.sub.1]publications. On the other hand, faculty members with a researchproductivity index of 0.6 view a [L.sub.4] publication worth 4.63[L.sub.1] publications. This large disparity dis��par��i��ty?n. pl. dis��par��i��ties1. The condition or fact of being unequal, as in age, rank, or degree; difference: "narrow the economic disparities among regions and industries"is explained by the factthat publishing in [L.sub.4] outlets requires significantly moreoriginal contributions than publishing in [L.sub.1] outlets, and thisstatement is more pertinent PERTINENT, evidence. Those facts which tend to prove the allegations of the party offering them, are called pertinent; those which have no such tendency are called impertinent, 8 Toull. n. 22. By pertinent is also meant that which belongs. Willes, 319. from the viewpoint of faculty members with alower research productivity index. Applications of the Proposed Model Academic administrators, such as deans and chairpersons, may applythe proposed model to determine the research productivity index fortheir faculty members. Let be the number of [Q.sub.ij.R], [L.sub,i]publication research points associated with one [L.sub.j] publicationbased on research productivity index R, such that [Q.sub.ij,R] =[U.sub.ij.R] For instance, a faculty member receives 1.563 [L.sub.1]research points by [Q.sub.ij.R], contributing a [L.sub.3] publication ifhe or she is evaluated according to research productivity index of 0.8,i.e. [Q.sub.13,08]= 1.563, (see Table 3). Then, the total [L.sub.i]research points earned by faculty member based on research productivityindex R, T[Q.sup.k.sub.i.R], are computed as follows: T [Q.sup.k.sub.i.R] = [n.summation summationn. the final argument of an attorney at the close of a trial in which he/she attempts to convince the judge and/or jury of the virtues of the client's case. (See: closing argument) over (j = 1)][N.sup.k.sub.j] x[Q.sub.ij.R] Formula (4) where [N.sup.k.sub.j] is the number of [L.sub.j] publicationscontributed by faculty member k in time period T. The computed T[Q.sup.k.sub.i.R] of faculty member k is compared tothe standard required to obtain research productivity index R in termsof the number of [L.sub.i] publications, that is, [S.sub.i,R]. IfT[Q.sup.k.sub.i.R] [greater than or equal to] [S.sub.i,R], then facultymember k achieves a research productivity index of at least R. Thefollowing procedure, called Procedure A, is designed to determine theresearch productivity index for faculty member k. Procedure A thereforehas to be employed m times to derive the research productivity indicesfor the entire faculty. Procedure A Step 1: Initialize To start anew, which typically involves clearing all or some part of memory or disk. [R.sup.k] = x Step 2: If [R.sup.k] [less than or equal to] 1, then compute To perform mathematical operations or general computer processing. For an explanation of "The 3 C's," or how the computer processes data, see computer. T[Q.sup.k.sub.i.R] using Equation (4) and enter Step 3; else, go to Step4. Step 3: If T[Q.sup.k.sub.i.R] [greater than or equal to][S.sub.i,R] then set [R.sup.k] = [R.sup.k] + x and return to Step 2. Step 4: Output [R.sup.k] + [R.sup.k] - x. Procedure A will be applied to the following data: [e.sub.i] = 3, T= 2, n = 4, x = 0.05, and i = 1. In addition, suppose that facultymember #1 produces two [L.sub.1] publications ([N.sup.1.sub.1] = 2), one[L.sub.3] publication ([N.sup.1.sub.3] = 1) and one [L.sub.4]publication ([N.sub.1.sub.4] = 1) during the evaluation period Evaluation periodThe time interval over which funds assess a money manager's performance. T. Step 1initializes [R.sup.1] = 0.05. Since [R.sup.1] [less than or equal to] 1,the procedure computes T[Q.sup.1.sub.1,05] using Equation (4) accordingto Step 2. In Step 3, since T[Q.sup.1.sub.1,05] the value of [R.sup.1]is increased from 0.05 to 0.10 and the procedure returns to Step 2. Thisloop involving Steps 2 and 3 continues until [R.sup.1] is updated to0.85. Procedure A now calculates T[Q.sup.1.sub.1,85] = 2(1.00) + 1(1.42)+ 1(1.63) = 5.05 and [S.sub.1,85] = 5.10 (see Table 2). SinceT[Q.sup.1.sub.1,85] the procedure outputs [R.sup.1] = .085 - .05 = 0.80in Step 4. Therefore, faculty member #1 earns a research productivityindex of 0.80. It should be noted that if x is reduced to 0.025,Procedure A would yield a productivity index of 0.825 for the facultymember. Hence, the smaller the value of x, the more precise the researchproductivity index becomes. Generally, employing a very small x becomesessential if the range of the faculty research productivity indices israther small. In order to avoid the undesirable scenario where most facultymembers only target and publish in [L.sub.1] outlets but receiving highresearch productivity indices, we propose that additional constraints CONSTRAINTS - A language for solving constraints using value inference.["CONSTRAINTS: A Language for Expressing Almost-Hierarchical Descriptions", G.J. Sussman et al, Artif Intell 14(1):1-39 (Aug 1980)]. beimposed so as to promote high quality and diversity of scholarlyactivities. These constraints may take any one or a combination of thefollowing forms. First of all, administrators may impose limitations onthe publication outlets. For examples, at least one publication mustbelong to a level 4 in order to be considered for a 1.00 research index;at least one publication must be a level 3 or higher so as to beeligible to a maximum of 0.80 research productivity index. Second,administrators may add constraints to ensure that at least y%, 0 < y#100, of total research points must be earned in level [i.sub.min](1< [i.sub.min] [less than or equal to] n) or higher publicationoutlets in order to qualify a certain research productivity index.Third, administrators can focus on the degree of sole-authorship. Forexample, the mean number of authors allowed per publication must be nomore than [A.sub.min], say 3.33. Fourth, administrators may consider thelevel of publication and the degree of individual authorship factorssimultaneously. For example, at least one single-author contributionmust be published in a level 3 or higher outlet to become eligible toearn a 0.90 research productivity index. The above constraints cancertainly be used in combination with Procedure A to derive the finalresearch productivity index. Incorporating the Degree of Individual Authorship We propose the concept of adjusted research points to explicitlyfactor in the effect of single-vs. multiple-authorship. The adjustedresearch points, [Q.sup.a.sub.ij.R.] are derived from simply discounting[Q.sub.ij,R] Let z be the number of authors of a scholarly publication.Then the adjusted research points associated with a [L.sub.j]publication based on research productivity index R are defined as: [Q.sup.a.sub.ij,R] = [Q.sub.ij,R]/[z.sup.1-1/z] Formula (5) where [z.sup.1-1/z] represents the discount factor. The effects of discounting are shown in Table 4. If a publicationhas only one author, then the discounting factor is one and the adjustedresearch points are identical to the research points of the publication.As the number of authors goes up, the value of the exponent exponent,in mathematics, a number, letter, or algebraic expression written above and to the right of another number, letter, or expression called the base. In the expressions x2 and xn, the number 2 and the letter n of thediscount factor (1 - 1/z), as shown in column 2 of Table 4, alsoincreases. This allows the formation of larger discount factors assigned as��sign?tr.v. as��signed, as��sign��ing, as��signs1. To set apart for a particular purpose; designate: assigned a day for the inspection.2. to articles with larger number of authors as shown in column 3. The nextcolumn provides the proportion of research points each author receives.For example, for a publication with two authors each author receives70.71% of. The proportion of research [Q.sub.ij.R], points that eachauthor receives is therefore not simply defined as 1/z so as toencourage collaboration Working together on a project. See collaborative software. among scholars. Since the vast majority ofpublications are multiple-authored, this is especially true in academicjournal publications where the refereeing process may take many months.On the other hand, to safeguard the negative effect of excessivecollaboration for the sole purpose of earning research points, Equation(5) ensures that the total adjusted research points per publication (seecolumn 5) begins declining when the number of authors becomes large,i.e., four or more. Once the adjusted research point concept is defined in Equation(5), the adjusted total research points are calculated as follows: [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE re��pro��duce?v. re��pro��duced, re��pro��duc��ing, re��pro��duc��esv.tr.1. To produce a counterpart, image, or copy of.2. Biology To generate (offspring) by sexual or asexual means. IN ASCII ASCIIor American Standard Code for Information Interchange,a set of codes used to represent letters, numbers, a few symbols, and control characters. Originally designed for teletype operations, it has found wide application in computers. .] Formula (6) where [N.sup.k.sub.j,z] is the number of [L.sub.j] publicationswith z authors contributed by faculty member k and z max is the maximumnumber of authors allowed per publication. Procedure B given below supplies the steps to determine theresearch productivity index for faculty member k with the degree ofindividual authorship explicitly taken into consideration. Similar toProcedure A, the output from Procedure B can be easily modified toincorporate the quality assurance constraints discussed earlier. Procedure B Step 1: Initialize [R.sup.k] = x. Step 2: If [R.sup.k] [less than or equal to] 1, then compute[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] using Equation (6)and enter Step 3; else, go to Step 4. Step 3: If [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]then set [R.sup.k] = [R.sup.k] + x and return to Step 2. Step 4: Output [R.sup.k] = [R.sup.k] - x. Lastly, we end this section by summarizing the inputs and outputsof the proposed model. The inputs are: 1. Base publication level, i.e., i. 2. Number of Li publications expected per year per faculty member,i.e.,[e.sub.i]. 3. Number of years in evaluation time period, i.e., T. 4. Number of publication levels, i.e., n. 5. Number of faculty members, i.e., m. 6. Desired research productivity index increment, i.e., x. 7. Maximum number of authors allowed per publication, i.e.,[z.sub.max] 8. Faculty publication record during the evaluation period, i.e.,[N.sup.k.sub.j,z] 9. Any additional constraints used to promote publications inhigher level outlets. The outputs consist of research productivity indices computed foreach faculty member, i.e., [R.sup.k] for k = 1, 2, ..., m. AN EXAMPLE The chairperson chairpersonChairman The head of an academic department. See 'Chair.', Cf Chief. of Department of Management at State University isresponsible for performing an annual evaluation of faculty every Aprilof each year. There are three areas of evaluation: research, teaching,and service. The chair has decided to employ the proposed model toreview faculty research performance. The Department of Managementconsists of the chairperson plus nine professors. The faculty of thedepartment has agreed to use a two-year moving window as the length ofevaluation period for research. The advantage of using multi-year movingwindow is its ability to smooth out short-term fluctuations in researchoutputs and year-to-year variations in merit raises. The faculty hasalso concurred to use an increment of 0.025 in deriving the researchproductivity index. The department has traditionally categorized cat��e��go��rize?tr.v. cat��e��go��rized, cat��e��go��riz��ing, cat��e��go��riz��esTo put into a category or categories; classify.cat publications into fourlevels. Levels 1 and 2 are for proceedings outlets; while levels 3 and 4are for journal outlets. Book publishing book publishing.The term publishing means, in the broadest sense, making something publicly known. Usually it refers to the issuing of printed materials, such as books, magazines, periodicals, and the like. is considered as a level 4publication. Each year each faculty member is expected to contribute 2.5[L.sub.1] publications, that [L.sub.1], five L1 articles over thetwo-year evaluation window. The department would like to take the degreeof individual authorship into consideration. The maximum number ofauthors permitted per publication is seven, that is, a publication willnot contribute any research points to its authors if the number ofauthors of the publication is eight or more. Furthermore, the departmentimposes the following restrictions to encourage a proper mix of researchquality. * At least one [L.sub.4] publication to be eligible to earn a 1.00R. * At least two [L.sub.3] publications to be eligible to receive a0.90 R. * At least one [L.sub.3] publication to be eligible to receive a0.80 R. * At least one [L.sub.2] publication to be eligible to receive a0.70 R * At least one [L.sub.1] publication to be eligible to receive a0.60 R. Each faculty member has been requested to submit his or herresearch record for the past two years. Moreover, each publicationincluded must be sorted by the submitter with regard to the level ofpublication and the number of authors. The chair has the responsibilityto confirm the accuracy of the submitted data. Table 5 provides anexample of data collection form with data completed from all tenprofessors. As shown in the Table, faculty member #1 has primarilytargeted [L.sub.1] outlets and produced seven [L.sub.1] publicationsduring the evaluation period: one is single-authored, five aredouble-authored, and one is triple-authored. Faculty member #2 hascontributed a more balance mix of research portfolio with fivepublications: one is double-authored [L.sub.1] publication, two aredouble-authored [L.sub.2] publications, and two are double-authored[L.sub.3] publications. Faculty member #3 has principally targeted[L.sub.4] outlets and sole-authored one publication of this level. We have programmed the proposed model using Microsoft Excelspreadsheet spreadsheetComputer software that allows the user to enter columns and rows of numbers in a ledgerlike format. Any cell of the ledger may contain either data or a formula that describes the value that should be inserted therein based on the values in other cells. program to facilitate computations. The data describedearlier was entered into the spreadsheet program. Table 6 offers asummary of the results for the example. The results are broken down intothree categories. The first research productivity index is derivedsolely from the total adjusted research points. The second researchproductivity index reflects the upper limit entailed by the additionalquality constraints. The third line provides the final researchproductivity index, which is derived from taking the minimum of thefirst two indices. As shown in Table 6, faculty members #1, #2, #3, #4,#5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10 have final research productivity indices of0.60, 0.85, 0.65, 0.575, 0.875, 0.85, 0.90, 0.825, 0.70, and 0.80,respectively. It is interesting to note that the final researchproductivity indices of faculty members #1, #9, and #10 are capped bythe quality assurance constraints; while the other seven facultymembers' indices are limited by the total adjusted research points.Faculty member #1's final research productivity index is severelyrestricted by the quality constraints, since all of faculty member#1's seven publications belong to [L.sub.1]. On the other hand,faculty member #3's final research productivity index is seriouslyconfined con��fine?v. con��fined, con��fin��ing, con��finesv.tr.1. To keep within bounds; restrict: Please confine your remarks to the issues at hand.See Synonyms at limit. by the total adjusted research points. This is because facultymember #3 contributed only one publication belonging to the highestpublication level and so there is no limit imposed by the qualityconstraints. Lastly, the Microsoft Excel program with the embedded Inserted into. See embedded system. datafor this example is available from the author upon request. CONCLUSIONS Faculty annual evaluation is one of the most, if not the most,important responsibilities of university-level academic administrators,since annual evaluation results are generally used to determine meritpay increases for faculty. There are generally three areas of evaluationemployed by colleges and universities: teaching, research, and service.Depending on the type of institutions, either teaching or research isconsidered as the most critical component among the three. Therefore,this paper proposes a model that can be used to quantitatively determinethe research productivity level of faculty. We describe the developmentof the proposed model and the application of the model by introducingtwo straight-forward procedures, known as A and B. The differencebetween these two procedures is that Procedure B explicitly takes thedegree of sole-authorship into account, while Procedure A does not. Bothprocedures may be modified to incorporate constraints to stipulate stip��u��late?1?v. stip��u��lat��ed, stip��u��lat��ing, stip��u��latesv.tr.1. a. To lay down as a condition of an agreement; require by contract.b. additional research quality and diversity requirements. We illustratethe proposed approach using a complete numerical example based on dataof a hypothetical department with ten faculty members and discuss theresults of the example. The proposed model incorporates four important and desirablecharacteristics. First of all, the proposed model is objective andcomplete because it takes both quality and quantity of scholarlycontributions into account. The degree of individual scholarship factormay also be incorporated into the model. Secondly, the proposed model iseasy for administrators to understand and simple to apply and implement.A Microsoft Excel program has been written to implement the proposedmodel and is available from the author on request. Thirdly, the inputdata requirements of the model, as discussed in section 4, are nominal.Finally, the proposed approach is flexible because it can easily beextended and customized to meet the specific requirements (e.g.,including other forms of research productivity such as grants) ofdepartments. REFERENCES Abrami, P.C., R.P. Perry & L. Leventhal John Leventhal Harold Leventhal Norman B. Leventhal Adam Leventhal Rick Leventhal Paul Leventhal, nuclear protester (1982). Therelationship between student personality characteristics, teacherratings, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,111-125. Baird, L.L. (1991). Publication productivity in doctoral researchdepartments: Interdisciplinary in��ter��dis��ci��pli��nar��y?adj.Of, relating to, or involving two or more academic disciplines that are usually considered distinct.interdisciplinaryAdjective and intradisciplinary factors. Researchin Higher Education, 32, 303-318. Campbell, D.K., J. Gaertner & R.P. Vecchio (1983). Perceptionsof promotion and tenure criteria: a survey of accounting educators.Journal of Accounting Education, 1, 83-92. Centra, J.A. (1979). Determining Faculty Effectiveness. SanFrancisco San Francisco(săn frănsĭs`kō), city (1990 pop. 723,959), coextensive with San Francisco co., W Calif., on the tip of a peninsula between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, which are connected by the strait known as the Golden : Jossey-Bass. Creamer, E.G. (1998). Assessing Faculty Publication Productivity:Issues of Equity, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Washington, D.C:George Washington University Graduate School of Education and HumanDevelopment. Doyle, K.O. (1983). Evaluating Teaching. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks. Eiszler, C.F. (2002). College students' evaluations ofteaching and grade inflation. Research in Higher Education, 43, 483-501. Fairweather, J.S. (2002). The mythologies Main article: Mythology This is a list of Mythologies of the world, by culture and region: Myths by regionAfrica of faculty productivity:Implications for institutional policy and decision making. Journal ofHigher Education, 73, 26-48. Fairweather, J.S. & R.A. Rhoads (1995). Teaching and thefaculty role: Enhancing the commitment to instruction in Americancolleges and universities. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17,179-194. Golden, J. & F.V. Carstensen (1992). Academic researchproductivity, department size and organization: further results,comment. Economics of Education Review, 11, 153-160. Greenwald, A. (1997). Validity concerns and usefulness of studentratings of instruction. American Psychologist psy��chol��o��gistn.A person trained and educated to perform psychological research, testing, and therapy.psychologist, 52, 1182-1186. Greenwald, A. & G.M. Gillmore (1997). Grading leniency le��ni��en��cy?n. pl. le��ni��en��cies1. The condition or quality of being lenient. See Synonyms at mercy.2. A lenient act.Noun 1. is aremovable contaminant contaminant/con��tam��i��nant/ (kon-tam��in-int) something that causes contamination. contaminantsomething that causes contamination. of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52,1209-1217. Hattie, J. & H.W. Marsh (1996). The relationship betweenresearch and teaching: A meta-analysis meta-analysis/meta-anal��y��sis/ (met?ah-ah-nal��i-sis) a systematic method that takes data from a number of independent studies and integrates them using statistical analysis. . Review of Educational Research,66, 507-542. Hildebrand, M., R.C. Wilson & E.R. Dienst (1971). EvaluatingUniversity Teaching. Berkeley, CA: University of California The University of California has a combined student body of more than 191,000 students, over 1,340,000 living alumni, and a combined systemwide and campus endowment of just over $7.3 billion (8th largest in the United States). Center forResearch and Development in Higher Education. Ho, J.C. & M.K. Shalishali (2001). A proposed approach tomeasure student competencies: Adjusting for grade inflation and gradevariation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 5, 59-68. Massy, W. & A. Wilger (1995). Improving productivity: Whatfaculty think about it - and its effect on quality. Change, 27, 10-21. McDonald, K.A. (1995, April 28). Too many co-authors? The Chronicle chronicle,official record of events, set down in order of occurrence, important to the people of a nation, state, or city. Almanacs, The Congressional Record in the United States, and the Annual Register in England are chronicles. of Higher Education, A35-A36. Omundson, J.S. & G.J. Mann (1994). Publication productivity andpromotion of accounting faculty women: A comparative study. Journal ofEducation for Business, 70, 17-24. Root, L.S. (1987). Faculty evaluation: reliability of peerassessments of research, teaching, and service. Research in HigherEducation, 26, 71-84. Sax, L.J., L.S. Hagedorn, M. Arredondo & F.A. DiCrisi III(2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender andfamily-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43, 397-421. Tierney, W.G. (1999). Faculty Productivity: Facts, Fictions, andIssues. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : H.W. Wilson Company. Ward, K.B. & L. Grant (1996). Gender and academic publishing.In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research,11, 172-212, Agathon, Edison, NJ. Wright, P., R. Whittington & G.E. Whittenbury (1984). Studentratings of teaching effectiveness: what the research reveals. Journal ofAccounting Education, 2, 5-30. Johnny C. Ho, University of Texas at El Paso The University of Texas at El Paso, popularly known as UTEP, is a public, coeducational university, and it is a member of the University of Texas System. The school is located on the northern bank of the Rio Grande, in El Paso, Texas, and is the largest university in the Table 1: Probability of Acceptance for Selected Values of R and[L.sub.j] R [L.sub.1] [L.sub.2] [L.sub.3] [L.sub.4]0.500 0.500 0.250 0.125 0.0630.525 0.525 0.276 0.145 0.0760.550 0.550 0.303 0.166 0.0920.575 0.575 0.331 0.190 0.1090.600 0.600 0.360 0.216 0.1300.625 0.625 0.391 0.244 0.1530.650 0.650 0.423 0.275 0.1790.675 0.675 0.456 0.308 0.2080.700 0.700 0.490 0.343 0.2400.725 0.725 0.526 0.381 0.2760.750 0.750 0.563 0.422 0.3160.775 0.775 0.601 0.465 0.3610.800 0.800 0.640 0.512 0.4100.825 0.825 0.681 0.562 0.4630.850 0.850 0.723 0.614 0.5220.875 0.875 0.766 0.670 0.5860.900 0.900 0.810 0.729 0.6560.925 0.925 0.856 0.791 0.7320.950 0.950 0.903 0.857 0.8150.975 0.975 0.951 0.927 0.904Table 2: Standard Required to Attain Selected Values of R and[L.sub.i], where [E.sub.1] = 6 R [L.sub.1] [L.sub.2] [L.sub.3] [L.sub.4]0.500 3.000 1.500 0.750 0.3750.525 3.150 1.654 0.868 0.4560.550 3.300 1.815 0.998 0.5490.575 3.450 1.984 1.141 0.6560.600 3.600 2.160 1.296 0.7780.625 3.750 2.344 1.465 0.9160.650 3.900 2.535 1.648 1.0710.675 4.050 2.734 1.845 1.2460.700 4.200 2.940 2.058 1.4410.725 4.350 3.154 2.286 1.6580.750 4.500 3.375 2.531 1.8980.775 4.650 3.604 2.793 2.1650.800 4.800 3.840 3.072 2.4580.825 4.950 4.084 3.369 2.7800.850 5.100 4.335 3.685 3.1320.875 5.250 4.594 4.020 3.5170.900 5.400 4.860 4.374 3.9370.925 5.550 5.134 4.749 4.3930.950 5.700 5.415 5.144 4.8870.975 5.850 5.704 5.561 5.422Table 3: Numerical Equivalence in Terms of [L.sub.1] for SelectedValues of R and [L.sub.j] R [L.sub.1] [L.sub.2] [L.sub.3] [L.sub.4]0.500 1.000 2.000 4.000 8.0000.525 1.000 1.905 3.628 6.9110.550 1.000 1.818 3.306 6.0110.575 1.000 1.739 3.025 5.2600.600 1.000 1.667 2.778 4.6300.625 1.000 1.600 2.560 4.0960.650 1.000 1.538 2.367 3.6410.675 1.000 1.481 2.195 3.2520.700 1.000 1.429 2.041 2.9150.725 1.000 1.379 1.902 2.6240.750 1.000 1.333 1.778 2.3700.775 1.000 1.290 1.665 2.1480.800 1.000 1.250 1.563 1.9530.825 1.000 1.212 1.469 1.7810.850 1.000 1.176 1.384 1.6280.875 1.000 1.143 1.306 1.4930.900 1.000 1.111 1.235 1.3720.925 1.000 1.081 1.169 1.2630.950 1.000 1.053 1.108 1.1660.975 1.000 1.026 1.052 1.079Table 4: Effect of the Discount Factor Number Exponent Discount Proportion Totalof Authors factor Research Points 1 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2 0.5000 1.4142 0.7071 1.4142 3 0.6667 2.0801 0.4807 1.4422 4 0.7500 2.8284 0.3536 1.4142 5 0.8000 3.6239 0.2759 1.3797 6 0.8333 4.4510 0.2247 1.3480 7 0.8571 5.3011 0.1886 1.3205 8 0.8750 6.1688 0.1621 1.2968Table 5: An Example of Completed Data Collection FormLevel z Fac.#1 Fac.#2 Fac.#3 Fac.#4 Fac.#5 1 1 1 2 5 1 3 1 4 5 1 6 7 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 4 5 1 6 7 3 1 2 2 3 4 5 1 6 7 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 1 6 7Level z Fac.#6 Fac.#7 Fac.#8 Fac.#9 Fac.#10 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 7 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 4 1 1 2 2 3 4 1 5 6 7Table 6: Summary Results for the ExampleFaculty # 1 2 3 4 5R based on totalresearch points 0.975 0.850 0.650 0.575 0.875Upper limit on Rdue to constraints 0.600 0.900 1.000 1.000 1.000Final researchproductivity index 0.600 0.850 0.650 0.575 0.875Faculty # 6 7 8 9 10R based on totalresearch points 0.850 0.900 0.825 0.975 0.975Upper limit on Rdue to constraints 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.700 0.800Final researchproductivity index 0.850 0.900 0.825 0.700 0.800