Working Group proposalPreliminary
Structured data and narrative evidence may need to work together.
Survey context: 15 preliminary responses, almost exclusively R1. Interview context: one anonymized institutional account of Elements.
Evidence
The seeded finding draws on two kinds of material. Survey responses show platforms being used alongside other review practices. In the anonymized Elements notes, annual evaluation uses the activity system together with an updated CV and a faculty narrative.
Interpretation
The Working Group’s working proposal is that narrative and structured records answer different questions. Neither should be asked to impersonate the other.
Limitations
This is a Working Group proposal grounded in early evidence, not a confirmed finding about all review processes.
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?
- What information is useful for annual review versus promotion and tenure versus institutional advocacy?
- What counts as evidence in creative and applied research?
- How can narrative and structured data work together?