paper chase, The

IN A FIELD SOMETIMES MEASURED IN NANOseconds, is it fair to evaluate engineering professors based on journal articles? Not according to the Washington-based Computing Research Association, whose membership includes nearly 150 Ph.D.granting computer science and engineering departments around the country.

A recent statement released by the CRA rejects the "publish or perish" dictate and urges academia instead to consider papers written for conferences, and "artifacts" or products created by professors on a par with published scholarly articles when evaluating professors for promotions and tenure.

Not doing so, the statement asserts, "ignores significant evidence of accomplishment in computer science and engineering .... [C]onference publication is preferred in the field, and computational artifacts-software, chips, etc.-are a tangible means of conveying ideas and insight." (The full. text of the statement can be found at: www.cra.org/reports/ tenure_review.html.)

In addition, the statement points out the crucial element of timeliness. While journal articles typically take one to two years to be published, conference papers take only seven months, on average, to go to press.

Still, the tried and tested method of relying on published articles in accepted scholarly journals has its merits, if only because of its accessibility Want proof? Just try finding a professor's "artifacts" at the university library.

Copyright American Society for Engineering Education Dec 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved