3203 Collaboration in Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Guidelines
Authors: Knapke Jacqueline , Kues John R. , Schuckman Stephanie M. , Lee Rebecca C. 
Published: March 2019

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: As the issues facing our global society become more complex, university faculty are called upon to address these contemporary problems using interdisciplinary approaches. But do reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) guidelines reflect and reward this fundamental change in the nature of higher education and scholarly inquiry? After collecting all of the RPT guidelines across the university, our research team at the University of Cincinnati (UC) conducted a content analysis of these documents to determine how collaborative work is defined, interpreted, and supported. In addition, we also sought to identify differences in how collaborative work is valued across disciplines and how that value has changed over time. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: An initial database was assembled that included two distinct data samples: historical and current. Both included RPT criteria for over 100 disciplinary units at the university. Working with the initial comprehensive database, the team narrowed content by selecting all language related to collaborative work using several relevant keywords or keyword fragments (team, collaborat[*], disciplin[*], and interprofessional). This process resulted in a subset of data reflecting the area of interest that could then be coded. Three investigators independently coded common portions of the data for categories. The investigators met regularly to compare the results of their coding, and discrepancies between the investigators’ coding schemes were resolved through discussion. The final, common coding scheme will used to code the remainder of the data by each independent investigator. The team meets weekly to discuss significant passages and assign codes, and then reach consensus related to important themes that are identified. Specifically, we will examine the frequency with which collaborative activities are included, the value and emphasis given to them, and the differences across units. Having a historical sample and a current sample also allows us to analyze trends over time and further compare disciplinary differences. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: UC is a diverse institution that includes world-renowned creative schools (the College Conservatory of Music and the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning), as well as traditional colleges of medicine, nursing, pharmacy, allied health, engineering, business, arts and sciences, etc. UC also includes two branch campuses that specialize in associate’s degree level education. Given the diversity in educational and research missions across these areas, we anticipate discovering several themes within the RPT guidelines, primarily centered around the traditional foundations of faculty work such as service, research, and teaching. We anticipate strong differences by college and disciplinary focus, with emphasis on collaborative work and engagement increasing as RPT guidelines become more current. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our experience is that faculty members want to engage in collaborative work when possible and appropriate, but their perception is that independent contributions to their field are more highly valued than interdisciplinary work. As universities rush to endorse and promote interdisciplinary, team-oriented research and teaching, this study will afford a better understanding of the types of activities valued at one large and diverse urban institution, grounded in the actual language of RPT criteria.