Findings
Every card names its source. Survey results from 15 responses, almost all at large R1 universities, are preliminary until the Working Group says otherwise.
Performances, exhibitions, applied work, and other creative activity are described as difficult or impossible to represent in some institutional analytics systems.
15 responses. Almost exclusively R1 institutions. Average institution size approximately 40,000 students. Respondents include professors, deans, associate deans, chairs/heads, and academic professionals.
The same platform may support annual review at one institution, benchmarking at another, and institutional reporting at another.
15 responses. Almost exclusively R1 institutions. Average institution size approximately 40,000 students. Respondents include professors, deans, associate deans, chairs/heads, and academic professionals.
Respondents describe platforms that support some administrative functions while remaining poor representations of creative research.
15 responses. Almost exclusively R1 institutions. Average institution size approximately 40,000 students. Respondents include professors, deans, associate deans, chairs/heads, and academic professionals.
Current practices often place an activity system next to a CV, a narrative, supplemental evidence, and committee judgment.
Survey context: 15 preliminary responses, almost exclusively R1. Interview context: one anonymized institutional account of Elements.
An institutional interview describes flattened data, split meanings, and collaborative work that older categories cannot hold.
One anonymized institutional interview. Prototype case, not a general evaluation of Elements.