"Cases & Questions" Development
Content — Annotated (Color-Coded) Career Account
This is a case summary, or unofficial accounts, of candidate's career. This account is annotated, or color-coded; non-coded accounts are written without biases and procedural issues highlighted, and are used in all ADEPT activities. Consistent formatting was done using a template.
Legend:
Bias issue
Procedural issue
Linked reference
--------------------------------
Jamie Perez (annotated)
Materials Science and Engineering
ISSUES: evaluation of collaborative research, constraints regarding courses/lab equipment, graduate students
Jamie Perez, Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from MIT, joins
a prestigious research university as a tenure-track assistant professor
after completing post-docs at Berkeley and Northwestern. At the time of
hiring, the search committee notes a one-year gap between post-docs, a
time when Perez studied as a Fulbright Scholar at a European
university. Support for his faculty slot is earmarked from the Dean’s
office for the first two years of the appointment by virtue of an
underrepresented faculty hiring initiative.
Perez’s start-up package was average for faculty in that unit, but
there are some glitches in finding adequate lab space and equipment. While
he had been verbally assured during his negotiations that he could
share the lab of a senior professor, Perez is told upon arrival by the
senior faculty member in his interest group that the senior faculty
member’s group has priority, and he has limited Perez and his students
to two hours per week in that lab (reference to guidelines on written agreements in hiring package). The chair then sent an e-mail to Perez about a change of plans, suggesting that he share a lab with another entering assistant professor (references on age bias and mentoring)
until the following year, when the senior colleague moved to a new
building on campus. Although somewhat constraining to the research
programs of both individuals, this logistical arrangement encouraged
the two new colleagues to collaborate on a small research project with
some industry funding while also continuing their individual research
agendas. The chair recommended at the first
annual review that Perez “pay greater attention to research funding in
areas more closely linked to the unit’s focus” and “try harder” to
attract graduate students (reference to guidelines for feedback from chair and consistency, best practices).
In year two, Perez established a functioning independent lab,
attracting a small number of graduate students, and published a paper
in a journal about teaching undergraduates and one (with two
collaborators) in a significant journal. The small amount of industry
funding for collaborative research continued, and Perez was again
counseled by his chair during the annual review to pursue more funding.
In year three, Perez coauthored papers in two important journals, and
worked as the sole materials science and engineering faculty member on
a multidisciplinary project with four other faculty members from
different engineering and science units. The collaborative, five-year
project attracted $5 million funding from the National Science
Foundation and supported one post doc and three graduate students in
Perez’s lab. During
this period, Perez taught only relatively large undergraduate service
classes, as senior professors in his interest group claimed the
specialty and advanced courses in his area (references on mentoring).
The third-year review of Perez’s work resulted in a somewhat mixed
evaluation. The school chair counseled Perez to “keep up the good work
with teaching and service” but expressed his concern that Perez had not
been able to secure more than a minimum amount of individual funding (references on bias against interdisciplinary research)
despite a very reasonable record of publication in top quality
journals. The chair was also concerned that Perez had trouble retaining
the more marginal graduate students assigned him (the more promising students were assigned to the most senior faculty in the same interest group) (references on mentoring).
During his review meeting, Perez requested that his chair exercise
leadership over the interest group so that he can teach graduate
courses in his field and therefore attract more and better graduate
students. The chair suggested that perhaps Perez “instead ought to
consider devoting more time to individual research, especially in an area more closely related” to the unit’s interests and strategic plans (references on bias against interdisciplinary research)
to supplement his collaborative work. The chair also expressed concern
that Perez was not playing a leadership role in the interaction with
other departments on the large NSF grant.
By the time of tenure review, it is clear that Perez did not emphasize
pursuing any individual grant funding, as his chair suggested. Perez
remained a popular teacher, according to evaluations of MSE majors, and
a valued advisor as attested by some graduate students. He
was somewhat more inclined than other faculty members in the unit to
take on certain advising and other committee responsibilities (references on mentoring).
Although he attracted little individual funding, Perez was able to keep
up a moderately active and fairly well-funded research program in an
area not well developed in the unit because of the multi-disciplinary
collaboration.
In the unit promotion and tenure committee, questions are raised
regarding Perez’s future funding potential as an individual researcher,
as a teacher of graduate students, and the value of his area of
research for the unit. As a member of the committee, how would you
respond to these concerns and ensure that Perez receive a fair hearing?
Project Organization
ADEPT Goals
ADEPT Tool Design
ADEPT Tool Development
ADEPT Project Schedule
ADEPT Minutes
ADEPT Prototypes
Related Links
Georgia Tech Resources
Outside Resources