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 (e.g., 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?
1. What role does Mansour’s gender play in developing her past and
future performance? What advantages or disadvantages related to her
gender accrue to her during her career?
2. Consider the role of service to the university and to the profession
in evaluating Mansour’s case. How much (and in what way) should her
efforts to promote women in science be counted?
3. How might considerations related to gender have affected arguments
presented by her reviewers? Identify positive and negative
considerations.
4. What considerations related to gender affect perceptions of
Mansour’s performance? Identify positive and negative considerations.
5. Consider the roles of the unit promotion and tenure committee and of
the chair in advising Mansour about when to come up for promotion and
tenure. What responsibilities (if any) do these parties have to guide
Mansour’s case toward a positive outcome?
6. Assume that a tenure decision is essentially a “bet” on the academic
potential of an individual based on past performance within a given
context. What information would you like to see in Mansour’s case that
would help you make this decision?
7. What assumptions related to gender influenced your reading of Mansour’s case?
1. Discuss the impact of resources and resource allocation (including
office and lab space) on the careers of young faculty. Identify
positive and negative aspects of resource availability and constraints.
2. Discuss the feedback provided by the chair in annual reviews. Consider: validity, pertinence, impact.
3. With regard to mentoring, do young faculty need mentors? When? Who?
How? Why? What kind? What kind of variation can you envision in both
the receptivity of mentoring and guidance offered?
4. With regard to collaboration, identify the advantages and
disadvantages to collaborating. In particular, address difficulties
related to the assessment of collaboration at the time of tenure and
promotion. What alternative approaches to evaluating collaboration
might be appropriate?
5. Graduate students: Identify means of measuring impact on graduate
students. Consider number, retention, quality, graduation rate,
post-graduate success, satisfaction and appropriate mechanisms
measuring these.
6. What would you like to see in Perez’s record (including letters) that would help you decide on tenure and promotion?
7. How did assumptions about Perez’s ethnicity influence your reading
of his case? Assume that Perez is of Hispanic origin. How could
minority status have affected the evolution of his education and of his
career? Identify positive and negative aspects.
8. How might Perez’s minority status have affected the tenure and
promotion committee and the chair’s evaluation of his case. Identify
positive and negative aspects.
1. What consideration should the promotion and tenure committee give to
Shen’s leave of absence? Her term of modified duties? Her
post-childbirth medical issues?
2. Discuss how variations in performance over a period ought to be
considered in tenure and promotion decisions. Which aspects should be
considered in making this judgment?
3. What assumptions related to Shen’s parental status influenced your reading of this case?
4. How might considerations related to parental status have affected
arguments presented by Shen’s reviewers? Identify positive and negative
considerations.
5. Do you consider that gender and family responsibilities are coupled?
In other words, is there a difference between considering family
responsibilities for cases of male and female faculty members? If so,
how do they differ?
6. What considerations related to parental status affected perceptions
of Shen’s performance? Identify positive and negative considerations.
7. Consider the chair’s role in advising Shen about when to come up for
promotion and tenure. What responsibilities (if any) does the chair
have to guide Shen’s case toward a positive outcome?
8. With regard to mentoring, do young faculty need mentors? When? Who?
How? Why? What kind? What kind of variation can you envision in both
the receptivity of mentoring and guidance offered?
1. What role does Anders’ disability play in developing his past and
future performance profile? What advantages or disadvantages related to
his disability accrue during his career?
2. Discuss the impact of teaching schedule on careers of young faculty.
Identify positive and negative aspects of teaching schedule (schedule,
not load).
3. Discuss how a change of administrator can affect faculty
development. Consider how the different principles articulated by each
of Anders’ chairs regarding teaching schedule and faculty accessibility
could impact the individual and the department.
4. Consider the role of service to the university and to the profession
in evaluating Anders’ case. How much (and in what way) should his
research and service on behalf of the disabled be counted?
5. What assumptions related to disability influenced your reading of Anders’ case?
6. How might considerations related to disability have affected
arguments presented by his reviewers? Identify positive and negative
considerations.
7. What considerations related to disability affect perceptions of
Anders’ performance? Identify positive and negative considerations.
8. Assume that a tenure decision is essentially a “bet” on the academic
potential of an individual based on past performance within a given
context. What information would you like to see in Anders’ case that
would help you make this decision?