Psychology Department Statement on Scholarship

What forms of scholarship define the work of those in your department at their best?

I. Scholarship under the Scientist Model (in order of importance)

Active involvement in an ongoing program of empirical research in one’s area of specialization (while such a program may not necessarily produce significant and therefore publishable results, it is the expectation that one be actively engaged in such a program)
Publishing the results of empirical work in peer-reviewed forums (abstracts, proceedings, articles, chapters, and poster papers)
Invited talks and presentations (local, regional, and national levels)
Sponsorship of student research presentations at undergraduate research conferences
(The department has the expectation that students will be involved in all of the above activities.)

II. Scholarship under the Scientist/Practitioner Model

Those members of our department working under the scientist/practitioner model would be held to the scholarship expectations outlined under Part I. However, because practice and professional work can inform the classroom, such work may be acknowledged as supplementing significant scholarly activity, if it can be demonstrated that such activity is directly related to teaching performance.

What forms of peer review—including those beyond the Luther College campus—are appropriate for that work?

Refereed journals and referred conferences provide a primary mechanism for peer review in our department.
Other types of peer review (e.g., an invitation to write a chapter) are acknowledged.

How can you encourage and enable your colleagues to see that such work bears fruit in their teaching?

An ongoing program of research is essential because it deepens one’s topical knowledge, expands one’s understanding of the methods of science and opens the door to faculty-student collaboration.
If possible, one should be encouraged to make their research applicable to laboratories and demonstrations in general psychology.
The department and college should work to ensure that one has the resources and adequate time to carry forward a program of research within their specialty area.

What depth and range of achievement in scholarship at the third year, tenure review, and application for promotion for full professor should distinguish the work of Luther faculty?

I. Third year review: Launching

In consultation with the department head, new faculty will propose a program of research to be initiated within the first three years. By the third year review, new faculty will have taken steps to initiate such a program of research (setting up lab space, enlisting student research assistants, conducting initial studies, seeking research funding, etc…).

II. Tenure review: Realizing

By the tenure review, faculty should have established an ongoing program of research that routinely involves students. This program should have produced at least 2 or 3 conference presentations at national or equivalent forums and one peer-reviewed publication (Given the protracted nature of the peer-review process in psychology and the possibility of null findings, faculty without a publication at the time of the tenure review must show evidence of research productivity).

III. Full Professor: Culminating

Evidence of a sustained and productive program of research that involves students is necessary for promotion to full professor. Operational definition of such productivity: 2-3 conference presentations and at least two first-author or second-author publications in peer-reviewed psychology journals since the granting of tenure.

What distinctive forms of scholarship can thrive at a liberal arts college of the church?

The highly collaborative and scientific emphasis of the department contributes to the mission of the college by complimenting the theological experiences of students. For example, the professional ethics employed by counseling psychologists are useful for faith-based practitioners.

                                                                                                      (updated October 2011)