Institutions use faculty activity systems for different purposes.
15 responses. Almost exclusively R1 institutions. Average institution size approximately 40,000 students. Respondents include professors, deans, associate deans, chairs/heads, and academic professionals.
Evidence
The preliminary survey documents substantial variation in how faculty activity platforms are used. Academic Analytics is commonly used for unit reporting, institutional reporting, awards, program review, and benchmarking. Other systems are frequently used for annual review and promotion and tenure. Elements appears heavily connected to annual review in responding institutions. Watermark/Digital Measures appears heavily connected to annual review and promotion and tenure.
Interpretation
Comparing institutions by vendor name alone flattens the practice. Use — annual review, promotion and tenure, benchmarking, advocacy — is part of the evidence.
Limitations
Preliminary. “Commonly” and “frequently” describe this respondent set, not the national distribution of platforms.
Related questions
- How can research universities represent the pathways, milestones, collaborations, and forms of impact associated with creative and interdisciplinary scholarship without reducing that work to conventional publication-equivalency metrics?
- How are institutions actually using faculty activity data?
- What information is useful for annual review versus promotion and tenure versus institutional advocacy?