ADEPT Development
Content: Career Accounts (used for web, AV, C&Q, NYC and SM components)
This is a case summary, or unofficial account, of candidate's career. This account is non-coded; annotated, or color-coded versions, are written with biases and procedural issues highlighted, and are used only in the "Cases & Questions" activity.
--------------------------------
Pam Lee
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." 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. 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.
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, 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. 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.
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. As another member of
the committee, how would you respond to these concerns about Lee’s
productivity and collegiality?
Links to this Page
Related Links