"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
--------------------------------
Pam Lee (annotated)
Economics
ISSUES: fluctuating productivity of a maturing scholar, ethnic/cultural differences
Pam Lee, Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago, was hired
by a prestigious research university's management program to teach
econometrics. Although she is one of a dozen economists on campus, she
is only the third econometrician and replaces a retiring star in the
field, someone considered an anchor of a graduate program ranked in the
top three in the nation. Lee’s very prominent graduate advisor highly
recommended her as his best student in the past decade, indicating that
her dissertation was "groundbreaking" and "revolutionary" in creating a
new theoretical model for the field.
A deferential, somewhat quiet person unless probed about her research,
Lee had a rocky start with her university colleagues and students. Some
undergraduates complained to the undergraduate coordinator about her
accent, and some graduate students reported that Lee is "too rigorous"
"especially concerning statistical analysis." Although
the preponderance of faculty in the department see Lee as merely
"young" and "a little shy," two faculty members express concerns to the
chair during her first term about Lee's "inability to socialize" and
"fit in" (bias report on ethnicity, race).
The chair, also an Asian immigrant, regarded Lee as undergoing the
typical adjustment period of a new faculty member struggling to shift
from star graduate student to novice teacher while keeping up a high
research profile. The chair encouraged a sympathetic senior faculty, not directly in her research area, to mentor her (bias report on mentoring; best practices).
After an initial lunch meeting with Lee to offer his mentoring input,
the senior faculty member drifted away from the arrangement, too busy
to set appointments.
During her first three years at the university, Lee presented four
conference papers on sophisticated, technically rigorous statistical
analysis methods, complementing the work she did in her dissertation;
she also published one journal paper based on her dissertation. She
improved her undergraduate and graduate teaching ratings by working
with professionals at the university center for teaching and managed to
attract two graduate students to work closely with her. She also expanded departmental offerings in her field and created a sequence of two undergraduate courses in econometrics (bias report on mentoring).
At the time of her third-year critical review, her chair conveyed the
review committee's warning about her lack of publications. He
encouraged her to stay in touch with him and to work closely with two
other colleagues "to generate more papers." After being initially taken
aback by this criticism, Lee agreed with her chair that she would
"appreciate some advice." She sought out faculty her chair helped identify as her mentors (bias reports on mentoring, gender),
sharing two new conference papers with them and asking them for
editorial criticism and guidance on improving her publication record.
Although the two mentors worked in different fields, they recognized
that Lee's papers were hampered by her awkward written English and her
tendency to rely solely on complex formulas to demonstrate her
arguments. One suggested that Lee improve her grammar and general
writing skills by studying an English composition text, and the other
encouraged her to read The Wall Street Journal
and some American novels to develop a more fluid style. They also
encouraged Lee to think about applications of her theoretical models to
their fields, finance and macroeconomics.
Lee worked hard to improve her English and accepted the offer to
collaborate on an article with one mentor. He devoted time during the
process of co-writing to show her how to put together a scholarly
argument, and he helped her understand how they could manage the
journal reviewers' comments in revision. Lee's other mentor took a less
active role in improving her productivity, suggesting two applications
of her theoretical method that might prove promising. She wrote one
paper designated for a journal suggested by this mentor, who offered
comments before she mailed it off. Benefiting from the advice and
contributions of these senior scholars, Lee managed to get two articles
(one collaborative) accepted in her fourth year. In her fifth year, she
wrote two archival papers, one with her previous collaborator and
another on her own, which were also published. Her mentors complimented
her on greatly improved writing skills.
One mentor, fascinated by Lee's application of
her theories to his subfield, developed and submitted a proposal for
funding based on this method to an agency, citing their joint paper as
the basis for the work. However, Lee was neither consulted nor included
in the development of the proposal or as a co-investigator ( best practices, ethics).
She was visibly upset when she learned of this from another colleague
who commented that he understood that her mentor was now working in the
same field; confronting her mentor, he informed her that there is no
monopoly on good ideas and he was in the best position to develop this
premise within his own subfield. With that, the
mentoring relation ended, but Lee decided to keep the situation it to
herself given the fact that the department chair had recommended this
mentor and was his close associate (gender bias; PTAC surveys; best practices).
Three letters of reference commenting on her tenure and promotion case
were very positive, indicating that her publications posit original,
rigorous theoretical claims. Two others referred to further interesting
applications. The sixth highly positive letter comes from a senior
scholar, known for being Lee's mentor’s first graduate student. By the
time Lee comes up for promotion and tenure, she has published five
scholarly articles (one in Econometrica,
the leading journal in her field, and four applying econometric
analysis to other fields), given an average number of conference
papers, and participated on two department committees. A member of the
promotion and tenure committee questions whether this level of
productivity demonstrated largely within fields other than econometrics
justifies promotion and tenure at the university. Another
member cites that he has input from a former mentor that Dr. Lee is
intelligent but is difficult to communicate with and to work with (bias report on mentoring; best practices). As another member of the committee, how would you respond to these concerns about Lee’s productivity and collegiality?
Project Organization
ADEPT Goals
ADEPT Tool Design
ADEPT Tool Development
ADEPT Project Schedule
ADEPT Minutes
ADEPT Prototypes
Related Links
Georgia Tech Resources
Outside Resources