PTAC CASES for the ADVANCE Conference

PTAC CASES for the ADVANCE Conference April 2003

Rationale: Clarity and communication of standards regarding evaluation assists candidates and committees. Discussing plausible narratives of fictional candidates offers the opportunity for individuals to explore and analyze the norms used in developing careers and evaluating colleagues.

List of Cases/Issues:

Samia Mansour

Jamie Perez

Patty Shen

Carl Anders

Questions for discussion:

1. What aspect of promotion and tenure evaluation is at issue in the case and is it adequately outlined? (e.g. interdisciplinary research, collegiality, fluctuating productivity, leave of absence, letters of reference, web publications, order of authors, collaborative research, graduate students, etc.)?

2. Does the case clarify general standards of the discipline regarding scholarly output, teaching, and service? Are more specific stated norms or particular documents needed to consider the candidate's record? (i.e., how many articles does someone in this field usually write before tenure?) What else would you like to see to facilitate your decision-making?

3. Do the evaluation issues and situations in the case fit other disciplines? (All disciplines?) How does studying the case help individuals better understand the evaluation issues?

4. What bias issues appear in the case? (race, ethnicity, sexism, disability, personal, subfield, etc.) Does the case plausibly indicate the status of bias in relation to evaluation of the candidate? Does the case suggest ways to identify bias and/or to reduce its effect in decision-making?

5. Has the candidate received appropriate resources, including mentoring? What else could have been done? By whom? Would these additional elements demand infra-structural changes/support?

6. Does this case suggest negative criticism of what should NOT be done by any candidate, unit, or committee? What problems do you see? Does the case outline or suggest any positive modes of actions undertaken by the candidate, unit, or committee?

7. Given the circumstances outlined in the case, how should committee members be disposed to view the candidate?

8. What emotions and perceptions are evoked in reading through the case that influence your evaluation?

9. How should committees weigh past performance on a bet of future performance with regard to the tenure decision?

Link to this Page

PTAC Drafts of Additional Cases

Project Organization

ADEPT Goals
ADEPT Tool Design
ADEPT Tool Development
ADEPT Project Schedule
ADEPT Minutes
ADEPT Prototypes