Assessment

After a brief moment of silence, another one around the table remarked, “In addition to the grant, clinical professors have very good reasons to hire scientists to do research for them. You know, the substantiation and promotion of a clinical academic staff depend almost entirely on their research output. Service and teaching are practically not considered, and, since basic science journals generally have a higher impact factor than clinical ones, it makes sense for clinical academics to focus on making money and find suitable experts to do the research work.”

“Very true,” my mentor nodded, “That brings us back to the eternal question: How to assess the performance of a clinical academic staff – especially in the situation when we have to compare a clinical professor to a basic scientist?”

My eyebrow rose. The question was certainly not a déjà vu feeling of what I was asked by TL a few days ago.

“My own suggestion is simple,” he explained, “It should be a two-stage process. When a clinical academic staff is applying for substantiation or promotion, the first thing that they have to prove is the amount – and preferably the quality – of the service and student teaching that they provided. If, and only if, this step is passed, they would be further assessed on their research output. If they have sufficient research output – by themselves or by whoever they hire, it doesn’t matter – but do not contribute to service and teaching adequately, they could still be substantiated or promoted, but they should receive the salary of a non-clinical academic staff.”

It sounds a terrific (or horrible?) idea to me.