The Clinical APT Faculty Scholarship Grid

For reference purposes, this content is a static archive of the Clinical Sciences Faculty Appointments, Promotion & Tenure website previously at the URL on December 15, 2020. The content herein has been superseded by the 2020 Clinical Sciences APT Guidelines effective July 1, 2020 for new faculty (start date on or after July 1, 2020) and existing faculty effective January 1, 2021 (absent exercising of the option to opt-out of the new APT Guidelines until subsequent promotion or December 30, 2025, whichever occurs first).    

The Faculty Scholarship Grid helps to identify examples of how accomplishment can be demonstrated in each of the various academic scholarship areas. The goals of the APT Scholarship Grid are to:

  • delineate and categorize the performance criteria required for promotion
  • allow for customization for each faculty member based on their work effort;
  • recognize the differences in performance and characteristics of accomplishment

The grid enables each faculty member and chair (or designee) to proactively customize academic effort by designating the weighting of the key factors (seen in the vertical axis – research, education, integration, application, administration, and clinical care). Satisfactory academic performance can then be evaluated prospectively on previously designated areas of academic concentration.

The APT Scholarship Grid lists the areas of academic accomplishment used in determining faculty promotion down the left side.

Major Areas:

  • Scholarship
    • various types of research effort
    • integration of new knowledge
    • application of knowledge to current problems
  • Education
    • Student
    • Resident 
    • Fellow
    • Post doc
    • Practitioner

Minor Areas:

  • Administration
  • Clinical care innovation.

The evaluation categories for assessing accomplishment and excellence are delineated along the top. These include:

Significance/ impact of the academic effort

  • Assessment of the reputation of the faculty member
  • Leadership
  • Funding
  • Degree of service to the University and the profession
  • Quality of mentoring
  • Significant collaboration

The contents of the “cells” are suggested ways one can demonstrate accomplishment in the various categories. These are meant to be examples, not the only accomplishment that could occur in each area. The four major areas (grey colored rows) contain content which applies to all the subcategory rows below them. Metrics specific to one of the subcategories are listed in the corresponding “cell”.

It is expected that faculty will have significant accomplishment in some areas and small or no effort in others. Faculty are expected to have some accomplishment in at least one “cell” in each of the “evaluation” columns, but clearly not in all “rows”.

As the faculty member becomes more “senior”, it is expected that the quality of the accomplishment in the “cells” will improve. For example, an Assistant Professor may list a platform presentation invitation as an accomplishment in the “reputation” column, whereas a Professor might include a “Named” lecture. Both are indications of a “national” reputation, the latter being more prestigious and more likely only to occur after a long career of accomplishment.

Since these same metrics will be used by the APT committee in the review process, faculty can monitor their progress over time.