معناسازی جمعی اعضای هیئت ممیزه در فرایند ارتقا: بازتعریف هویت حرفه‌ای

This study investigates the collective sensemaking processes within faculty promotion committees and their implications for the reconstruction and redefinition of professional identity. Although faculty promotion is conventionally governed by formal regulations and guidelines, actual decision-making practices often extend beyond these written regulations. Through in-depth qualitative inquiry, this research reveals that promotion decisions are shaped by the dynamic interplay of individual backgrounds, interpersonal interactions, and contextual ambiguities—factors that together form a space for meaning negotiation, identity construction, and the establishment of informal evaluative norms.
While the formal procedures of faculty promotion are designed to ensure fairness and standardization, the discretionary nature of many evaluative judgments allows for subjective interpretations. This research centers on the following core question: How do faculty promotion committee members construct their professional identities during the group decision-making process, and how does this collective sensemaking influence the formation of implicit promotion criteria? The study draws on Karl Weick’s sensemaking theory and Coburn’s concept of collective sensemaking to explore how evaluative standards are interpreted, modified, and enacted through social interaction.
Professional identity is understood here as an evolving construct shaped by ongoing negotiation between personal experiences, organizational expectations, and professional norms. Sensemaking, particularly in its collective form, provides a lens to examine how individuals in ambiguous situations interpret cues, engage in discourse, and arrive at shared meanings. Identity and sensemaking are deeply intertwined; individuals derive meaning about who they are by interpreting situations, engaging with others, and referencing past experiences. In the context of faculty promotion, this means that committee members do not merely apply existing criteria but actively contribute to their (re)construction based on how they see themselves—as scholars, gatekeepers, or mentors.
A qualitative case study was conducted at a major public university in Tehran, where the promotion committee serves both the institution and several affiliated academic bodies. Data were collected through partial participant observation over 15 promotion committee meetings, along with semi-structured interviews with six committee members and ten promotion applicants whose cases had been contested or rejected. Observations focused on verbal expressions, deliberation patterns, and decision dynamics, while interviews probed the participants’ perceptions, rationales, and identity orientations. Data were analyzed using thematic coding in two stagessupported by the Miles et al. framework for qualitative data analysis. Triangulation across data sources and member-checking were used to validate the findings.
Three major themes emerged from the analysis: 1) Construction of Professional Identity:
Committee members interpret their role along a spectrum between “protectors of academic dignity” and “facilitators of colleagues’ career development.” These identity orientations reflect an underlying tension between upholding scholarly standards and supporting institutional or individual advancement. These conflicting roles are not static; they shift depending on the context, the nature of the application (e.g., for associate or full professor), and the perceived competence and maturity of the applicant. 2) Establishment of Informal Criteria
Beyond the formal guidelines, committee members frequently reference criteria that are not codified in official policy. 3) Influence of Individual and Situational Factors:
Decisions are shaped by committee members’ personal academic histories, research fields, and types of membership (e.g., appointed vs. elected). Contextual variables such as the timing of the meeting, the quality of preceding cases, and even informal familiarity with the applicant influence the interpretive lens. Additionally, interaction dynamics such as groupthink, peer pressure, and inter-member conflicts create further complexity.
This study positions the promotion committee as a socially constructed space of professional identity formation and normative negotiation. The implications are manifold: First, recognizing that committee members bring their identities and histories into the deliberative space calls for increased transparency in promotion processes. Second, the prevalence of informal criteria necessitates the documentation and standardization of these norms to reduce subjectivity. Third, training programs on fair and reflective decision-making could help mitigate personal bias, double standards, and inconsistent judgments. Fourth, mechanisms for structured feedback to applicants could enhance procedural justice and promote developmental use of evaluation. Moreover, the research underscores that promotion decisions have reflexive effects: they shape future behavior, scholarly priorities, and the broader academic culture. Faculty members interpret these decisions not only as career milestones but also as signals of what is valued in the institution. Hence, promotion processes function as meaning-making mechanisms that legitimize certain professional trajectories while marginalizing others.
Faculty promotion is not merely an administrative or evaluative act but a rich, multilayered process of collective sensemaking and identity work. Promotion committees are not neutral implementers of policy; they are active constructors of meaning and norms. Understanding how they interpret, negotiate, and enact professional standards can inform more equitable, coherent, and transparent academic evaluation systems. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of how academic institutions shape, and are shaped by, the human actors who inhabit and interpret them.