Evaluation Feedback and Stakhanovist Research Profiles
Every year, after the Spring semester, we receive a report with our annual evaluation, together with feedback and advice for career improvement (some written, some verbal). Part of the feedback that I received this year:
- You get too many best paper awards, and you do not have that many journal papers. You may want to write more journal papers instead of spending so much time polishing the conference papers that you send out.
- You are a member of too many program committees. You may consider reviewing less and write more journal papers instead.
I guess that having a Stakhanovist research profile (see the corresponding ACM articles) is a virtue after all.
(*) Alexey Stakhanov was a miner in Soviet Union, who cut 102 tons of coal during a six-hour shift with a pneumatic drill, when the average production being 6-7 tons. Stakhanov's record created the Stakhanovite movement where workers were encouraged to exceeded production targets, typically trying to overcome previous production records.
8 comments:
I can understand #2--whatever credit you get for your service probably doesn't mean much to the university. #1 is less inituitive to me. I thought ocnference papers were more important than journal papers these days. Maybe the business school see things differently than the computer science department?
Daniel, you are pretty much on target on both. I just posted this to show that the actual incentives for individuals are actually much different than the incentives that would achieve higher social value.
Even in a computer science department, it is not surprising to get such feedback. The question of promotion and tenure is typically decided jointly by the department, a college or university-wide committee, and the dean or higher academic official. And not all of them agree on what is best for the individual or the school.
One thing that I found interesting was the fact a "best paper" at a conference is considered to be a "best presentation" award. In other words, it can even have a negative effect if the paper is not followed up soon with a journal publication. Since many fields use conferences just to communicate brief early results, without any real paper substantiating these results, a "best paper" means that you spend too much time polishing the presentation, as opposed to actually writing the paper :-)
I'd personally like to see some more journal-length papers and many fewer conference-length ones.
As a professor at Carnegie Mellon, I was explicitly advised to spend less time teaching by some colleagues.
My department head said that the promotion and tenure decision criterion was straightforward -- they'd get letters of rec from 20 people and if they said "yes, this guy's great and has made an impact on the field", then you got tenure. Sure, you still had to produce a nearly book-length "tenure package", but it really came down to the references. I suppose you could've gotten pushback at the college level if you didn't publish at all.
A dean at Ohio State (where I didn't take a job), was very blunt, telling me that I'd be evaluated 90% on research, 5% on service and 5% on teaching. Because this was the humanities, he felt compelled to tell me that this meant it was basically all research (yeah, that's what 90% means).
I am surprised they did not have 3 and 4:
3. You write a blog. You may consider writing fewer posts and more journal papers instead.
4. You go out to restaurants. You may consider eating less and writing more journal papers instead.
"Too many best paper awards"? People should be glad your research is receiving recognition. Also, while it's dangerous to spend a lot of time on service activities (program committees, etc), it can also be a good way to meet fellow researchers. Besides, if you send out papers for review, you should be expected to review papers too.
While writing journal papers is important, disseminating these results is critical too. Otherwise people won't even be aware that the paper is out there.
Good luck with everything!
As I mentioned above, "best paper at a conference" is often perceived as "best presentation" by researchers that work in fields where conferences are just places to meet fellow researchers and are not selective venues for publishing research results.
I found it rather funny but it was instructive at the same time: never assume that people know what is important in your field and what is not.
Another similar story, which I also wrote in http://mat.tepper.cmu.edu/blog/?p=720#comment-6090
I [was] talking with my professor of Russian in 2004, when I was graduating with my PhD. She was asking me what publisher I am targeting to publish my book, now that I start my tenure-track career. When I told her that I was targeting some journals and that my field does not really care about books, she was very surprised! How can someone get tenure without publishing a book? Journal articles are just pieces that should lead to a comprehensive piece of work (the book). How can someone only publish in journals, without a book, and be seriously considered a scholar?
Post a Comment