Vviewpoints
DOI: 10.1145/1785414.1785432
distinguished Members
advice to Members
seeking aCM distinction

ACM’s disTiNGUished MeMber Recognition Program was initiated in 2006 to recog- nize those members with at least 15 years of professional experience who have made noteworthy contributions to the computing field. Since this program is relatively new, and has been undergoing changes, there may be many ACM members unfamiliar with the requirements for this grade. As co-chairs for the Distinguished Members committee, we have seen many submissions fail, not because of the quality of the candidates, but due to the lack of adequate information regarding the submission. We hope this column will help produce more effective nominations.

The ACM Distinguished grade consists of three categories: Educator, Engineer, and Scientist. Each category comes with a unique set of criteria, therefore alleviating any confusion or competition between grade levels. The committee ensures that candidates are assessed by experts knowledgeable of the contributions in their category. To the extent possible, candidates are judged by their peers: scientists by scientists, engineers by engineers, and educators by educators. There is no reason for an engineer or an educator to feel ineligible if their CV does not include an extensive list of publications, nor a scientist if he or she has never managed a large project. Indeed, we estimate approximately 10% of ACM’s membership qualifies as Distinguished Members.

It is important to create a nomination package suitable for the category.

We estimate
approximately
10% of acm’s
membership qualifies
as Distinguished
members.

Of course, many people will have contributed to more than one category; it is perfectly acceptable to list all major professional contributions and activities. However, the submission should focus on making the case for one particular category. The clincher should be contributions as a practitioner, or contributions that advance practice in the relevant category. A scientist practices science by doing research and publishing the results; an engineer by developing products; an educator by teaching. Thus, a member teaching engineering, but not practicing it, might better qualify as an educator than an engineer—unless this person has significantly contributed to the advancement of engineering as a discipline. A member doing research on teaching computer science, but not distinguished as a teacher, might better qualify as a scientist, unless that member has contributed significantly to the advancement of CS education.

The committee cannot indepen-
dently assess the quality of each sub-
mission; candidates come from many
different countries and professional
backgrounds of which the committee
members may have a limited knowl-
edge. Therefore, the committee puts
much weight on the endorsements
that support the submission. Strong
endorsements are essential for a suc-
cessful submission.

to nominate or to self-nominate

It has been our experience that nominating a colleague for this distinction succeeds more often than self-nomi-nations. A major reason for this track record is that nominations composed by someone other than the candidate are likely to have stronger endorsements. The nominator should first check that endorsers are supportive of the nomination. Answers are likely to be more sincere if the nominator is not the candidate.

The choice of endorsers is crucial. The committee tends to trust the judgment of endorsers who are recognized authorities in their field, such as ACM Fellows. In fact, the Distinguished Member guidelines recommend that two of the endorsers be ACM Fellows. The nomination package should also include endorsers who are intimately familiar with the work of the candidate and can provide firsthand testimony of its importance. Endorsers in the first category can focus on qualitative assessment of the candidate’s merit; endorsers in the second category should focus on providing factual information on the candidate’s professional activities and their impact.