Evaluating professional titles is a major matter that tests the reliability of the college’s development
The work of faculty title evaluation is of paramount importance—not only for the faculty members who are being evaluated, but also for the development of the school itself. To borrow the style of The Art of War, one may say: “Faculty title evaluation is a matter of great significance to the school—where fairness is tested, and development is determined; it must not be taken lightly.”
For faculty members, academic titles signify much more than job security, social status, career prospects, and financial income. They embody recognition of one’s hard work and dedication, and they carry personal dignity. It is therefore entirely understandable that faculty members place great importance on promotion evaluations. Particularly for young faculty under the tenure-track system, their immense efforts—publishing papers, applying for grants, seeking awards, accumulating teaching hours, and contributing to service—are largely in preparation for promotion. This is well understood by those being evaluated, and equally by the reviewers. After all, the reviewers have gone through the same process.
To expand these win-win areas, it is necessary for the school and faculty members to reach a shared understanding of what faculty title evaluation truly entails. Faculty members often believe that teaching and research achievements are the primary criteria. However, from the school’s perspective, the scope is broader. Faculty titles are an extremely important public resource of the school; the more closely they are tied to collective interests and the more limited the quota is, the stronger their public and scarce nature becomes. Therefore, title evaluations must not only consider teaching and research outputs, but also assess the value of a faculty member’s contributions to the school’s future development. When the fundamental distinction between outcomes and value is not fully recognized, faculty members may assume that teaching and research achievements are sufficient conditions for promotion. Yet from the institution’s standpoint, they are necessary but not sufficient conditions. Demonstrating that one’s research aligns closely with the school’s development priorities—especially strategic focus areas—and showing one’s indispensable role and value contribution to disciplinary advancement can strongly support the transition from merely meeting necessary conditions to fulfilling sufficient ones.
The competition for faculty titles within the School is mainly concentrated at the levels of Professor and Associate Professor. Selecting candidates for these ranks is essentially choosing the core forces that will sustain the School’s long-term development. The distinction between the two lies in their expected roles: Professors are the “commanders,” while Associate Professors are the “generals.” The former are those capable of leading a disciplinary team to reach new heights, while the latter are those who can advance alongside the team. Professors are those who have already established influence in a particular academic field, whereas Associate Professors are those who have produced solid research achievements in that field. As a highly open, socially-oriented School of Social Sciences and Management, our influence on society—especially on business and industry—is a crucial manifestation of our institutional value. If one is unable to lead a team, to make widely-recognized contributions to the School’s disciplinary development, or to exert sufficient professional influence in society, then even with excellent research achievements recognized within academia, awarding the title of Professor in our School of Management would still feel lacking.
Anonymous external peer review is essential, as it is a necessary means to assess whether an applicant meets the basic qualifications for promotion. However, peer review alone is far from sufficient, because it only evaluates the academic level reflected in past and fragmented achievements. It does not reveal the applicant’s alignment with the School’s future development.Therefore, the School must also conduct forward-looking assessments of the applicant’s growth potential and determine their systematic relevance to the School’s need for disciplinary leadership. In other words, the evaluation should develop a conceptual link—from individual research outputs to a coherent academic trajectory, from past achievements to future prospects, from personal performance to team leadership, and from team contributions to School-wide development—and then form analytical conclusions on that basis.These analytical tasks will require the aid of advanced AI large language models. The School will convene a comprehensive review meeting involving representatives from research, teaching, administration, and ideological/political education. Based on the applicant’s self-presentation and defense, and taking into account both peer review results and AI-based analytical reports, the committee will evaluate the applicant’s teaching, research, contributions to the School, prospective role in disciplinary development, and capacity for academic leadership. The synthesized evaluation will then be submitted to the Academic Committee for the final decision.
The evaluation of academic titles is a critical matter that tests the reliability of the School’s development. To successfully carry out this important task, we must rely on sound mechanisms, technology supported by AI, and a shared understanding among applicants, reviewers, and the School regarding the meaning and purpose of academic titles. Yet management itself contains a certain “imperfect beauty”: wherever evaluation exists, subjective judgment exists, and interpersonal factors may also exert influence. These are inherent attributes of management—factors that we can minimize, but never completely eliminate. The clearer and more resolute the School’s development direction and faculty promotion principles are, and the more scientific and transparent the evaluation process becomes, the fairer and more effective the final outcomes will be.
