The American Professoriate: A Status Check of Factors and Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the publication of Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (Boyer, 1990) many changes have taken place in higher education in America. However, how have faculty perceptions of aspects of the professoriate such as teaching, research, publishing, administration, quality, and areas of interest, changed in the twenty-plus years since the initial research on this topic. This project provides an overview and insight in the current concerns of faculty with respect to promotion and tenure issues. The findings suggest a number of changes have taken place in the way scholarship is perceived by faculty. Publishing still maintains a significant role in decision-making about tenure and promotion and there is still a significant difference in the perception of factors in achieving tenure and promotion between research institutions and liberal arts institutions. There are differences between tenured and non-tenured faculty in concerning what constitutes appropriate scholarship. The scholarship of teaching is seen as important by faculty and yet most have indicated they have little formal teacher training. In both research and liberal arts institutions research and grant writing are seen as important, but there is also a concern that these activities detract from the primary role as a teacher.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".