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.
--------------------------------
Carl Anders
Computer Science
ISSUES: disability, change of department administration, and teaching schedule
Carl Anders , Ph.D. in Computer Science from Indiana University,
accepted an appointment as an assistant professor in the Department of
Computer Science of a prestigious research university after a two-year
post-doctoral appointment at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. Anders negotiated carefully with the university
regarding specific needs based on his disability, a cervical spinal
cord injury limiting arm function. He used a power wheelchair for
mobility and could not drive so he remained dependent on public (bus)
and paratransit (private) transportation. Anders had recurrent pressure
ulcers that he managed by limiting his sitting time. Because he could
not transfer independently, Anders avoided sitting more than 8 hours at
a time. Because his bus commute was 45 minutes, he limited his
on-campus time to 6 1⁄2 hours per day. At home, he was able to work
from his bed to which he could transfer by using a ceiling-mounted
lift. This permitted him to work longer hours at home than he could
work on campus.
The department chair hiring Anders assured him that the university's
computer science department had great flexibility regarding course
schedules and that the size of the faculty permitted the scheduler to
meet individual needs regarding day/time of course meetings. Anders
insisted on having a clause in his contract indicating the department
would do all in its power to reasonably accommodate Anders' disability
by scheduling courses within the period of 10 am - 4 pm, preferably on
a two-day schedule. This schedule assured that Anders would be able to
travel efficiently via public transportation by avoiding a longer rush
hour commute that would take a physical toll on him.
During his first three years at the university, the department
scheduled Anders for a graduate course and an undergraduate course,
within his preferred time period and generally according to a two-day
schedule, but sometimes with the graduate course scheduled for a third
day. In this time, Anders published more than the average faculty
member each year, eventually producing 35 papers, co-authoring a book
with a colleague from another university, and organizing program
committees for significant conferences. He also partnered with his
collaborator on an industry grant to work on accessible computing
interfaces for the legally blind. Anders' teaching evaluations were
excellent; students reported that he frequently met with them on-campus
on his teaching days, and encouraged them to use email, to phone, or to
visit him at his home office by appointment on other days. He served in
his second year on a departmental search committee and in his third
year on the university's Presidential Commission for the Disabled.
Anders' work schedule did not cause any controversy during the period
prior to his third-year review. He generally spent three days working
on campus. His office and lab were made accessible for a power
wheelchair and only minor computer equipment purchases were needed to
permit Anders to use them effectively. The other two weekdays (plus
weekends) he worked from his home office 10 miles from campus. On
occasion (perhaps three or four times each term) he would come to
special department, interest group, and committee meetings and other
events outside of his normal schedule, scheduling paratransit at his
own expense.
Anders' third-year critical review garnered him a very favorable
evaluation from the departmental committee and praise from his outgoing
chair. His colleagues remarked on the originality of his research, his
dedication to his students, and his continuing, fruitful collaboration
with his colleague, which was expected to lead to the creation of a
university center on adaptive technologies for human-machine interfaces.
During Anders' fourth year at the university, the department welcomed a
new chair, hired from outside the institution. Facing a period of
budget problems dominated by the need to save money and use resources
wisely, the new chair did not feel bound to honor any previous
commitments made to individual faculty, and pronounced a “clean slate”
on policies and procedures. As a result, the department scheduler was
instructed to make sure the classrooms were used efficiently and to
treat the faculty the same. Under the new protocol, faculty would
alternate two-day and three-day teaching schedules depending on the
term. In addition, all faculty members were enjoined to work from their
department offices except during periods of vacation or professional
travel to better serve the mission of on-campus instruction and
advisement. Anders immediately set an appointment to discuss his needs
and request for reasonable accommodation with the new chair. He was
assured by the chair that although she understood the difficulties of
his situation and was supportive of his arrangement to work from home
occasionally, “it would not be right” for the department to accommodate
his needs to teach on specific days on a permanent basis and that he
would need to make his requests each term. Anders consulted with the
campus office on disability; the human resources representative
accordingly spoke with Anders’ chair to explain that the department
ought to do all it could to accommodate Anders’ need for a restricted
schedule, even if it meant that other faculty (i.e., those without
disabilities) might not have their scheduling preferences met. This
negotiation improved Anders’ schedule, but he noticed that his
relationship with his chair became less cordial.
By the time of promotion and tenure, Anders' record looked more erratic
than it had at the time of critical review. Letters of reference
indicated that his work, especially the earlier papers, were highly
regarded and even "inspirational" for others in his field. His overall
publishing productivity was below average, as his productivity had
diminished significantly in the last two years. The center (which he
co-directed) garnered some funding from industry affiliates and alumni,
but not extensive levels. His teaching scores had also dipped. In terms
when he was on a three-day schedule with classes offered early in the
morning or later at night, students reported that Anders was often late
or had to leave early and appeared clipped and brusque, encouraging
students to use email to correspond rather than to meet with him
outside of class. Some members of the committee had heard Anders
complain about the change of departmental leadership in terms of a
breach of agreement, but consultation with the unit chair did not bear
out any substance to this line of argument – she indicated that he
received special considerations of schedule flexibility and office
hours compared with other faculty.
At the promotion and tenure committee meeting, one member notes that
some graduate students had complained about Anders’ lack of
accessibility. Others recall that the chair had commented on Anders not
attending a number of departmental lunches and other events related to
his areas of research and that he was not often in his office.
As a member of the promotion and tenure committee evaluating Anders,
how would you respond to the concern that his record demonstrates
diminished productivity and that he was not a team player in the
departmental efforts to achieve excellence?
Project Organization
ADEPT Goals
ADEPT Tool Design
ADEPT Tool Development
ADEPT Project Schedule
ADEPT Minutes
ADEPT Prototypes
Links to this Page
Related Links