Perez redraft

Perez Scenario, COMPRESSED & REVISED draft-in-progress for storyboarding[with notes in brackets]

 

[Scenario with choices and variant outcomes for Perez’s promotion and tenure case, involving personal bias, suspicion of multidisciplinary work, and racism.]

 

Cast of characters: [if included, these descriptions should be on screen with directions]

 

Al Smith, chair of unit reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) committee for the third time, member for the tenth. Does not work in Perez’s area. Has a history of research in a classical, core area of materials engineering well-funded by government and industry.

 

Keith Kulver, member of the committee for the third time. Works in another area of materials that allows some collaboration with chemistry faculty. Significant funding.

 

Jason Dayan, member of the committee for the second time. Works in a traditional core area of materials engineering, often as a collaborator with Smith. Fairly significant funding.

 

& YOU: a recently tenured associate professor serving on the unit RPT for the first time.

 

 

[Functions: Smith--the biased member, Kulver--invoker of policies & procedures, Dayan--generally goes along with bias; YOU--could agree with bias, ignore bias, or challenge bias; one option could be to invoke policies/procedures in an unbiased way]

 

Color Coded Key to Decision/Illumination Points:

Procedural

Bias

Insert Annotated References

Alteration of original document

 

Early Wednesday morning, a fine day in September:

 

PART A: SET UP

A1--Al Smith: "Let's start with Perez. Remember, what we say is confidential."

 

A2--Keith Kulver: "This will be an interesting case."

 

A3--YOU (the user): "Let's just go through this and see."

 

PART B: SCHOLARSHIP

B1--Al Smith: "Let's start with scholarship. All his current grants are interdisciplinary."

 

B2--Jason Dayan: "My main concern about the grants is that he's spending most of the time in chemistry."

 

B3--Al Smith: "Gentlemen, the real issue is that Perez hasn't a clue about what our primary thrusts in materials are. He’s riding the coattails of chemistry with interdisciplinary funding from NSF [link to interdisciplinary bias report, as well as results of GT survey], and I’m not sure how hard that is to get. He isn't project director on any grants listed on the c.v."

 

B4--Keith Kulver: "You shouldn't discount big grants because they are interdisciplinary. Look, he’s published in highly respectable journals and has six graduate students, including four PhD students. There must be some technical 'meat' in his work."

 

B5--Al Smith: "He has raised funding, but not for our department. This is important now because we're coming up for outside evaluation, and we need faculty to bring major funding to us."

 

[FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR USER TO INTERVENE--would this be B6...? YES]

 

YOU: [agree with bias] B6a. "He's been told several times to get grants in core areas. I see too little substance in materials science-oriented research."

[ignore bias] B6b. I choose to remain silent at this point in the conversation.

[challenge bias] B6c. "Forming bridges to other disciplines is as important as bringing money into our department. The number of interdisciplinary grants confirms the value of his research."

[invoke rules] B6d. "Are we discussing scholarship or funding?" [link to best practices, faculty perceptions from survey]

 

[responses depend on user's choice--would this be B7...? YES]

 

IF a, then B7a1--Smith: "He's publishing in chemistry journals more than engineering journals. I am the leading researcher in the same area of engineering he worked on in his graduate and post doc years. But I just don't see a prospect for collaborating with him now."

 

B7a2--Dayan chimes in: "Our school chair agrees that Perez should collaborate with us instead of chemistry faculty. Should we advise him to join chemistry.?"

 

B7a3-- Smith concludes: "We should write this up to convey substandard research performance."

 

IF b (user silent), then B7b Smith: "Kulver, he's in a niche area that might be attractive right now, but it's not one that a lot of us in materials will soon care about. This part of our letter should say his record is not persuasive regarding his long-term funding potential. Agreed?"

 

IF c, then B7c Dayan: "I did notice new requests for proposals at NSF and DoD agencies that emphasize interdisciplinary connections; I have been thinking about this myself."

 

IF d, then B7d1-- Smith: "It’s just hard for me to see how to decouple scholarship and funding – how can you be a scholar in materials engineering without funding?"

 

B7d2--Kulver: "Perez's joint NSF grant and industry funding together are impressive, given that this is a hot new area. The collaboration outside the school and college is good because it leads to increased opportunities and leveraging of new monies to support materials engineering-related work. Perez is mining a vein that has incredible potential, one that can pay off for many of us, and our letter should reward his effort."

 

B7d3--Smith grudgingly agrees.

 

 

PART C--TEACHING

 

C1--Smith: "Let's look at teaching now."

 

C2--Kulver: "His teaching scores are pretty good. Look at these evaluations for that intro course. He did as well as any other assistant professor and better than most.  I notice that he team teaches a course on surface chemistry with several other faculty, so it is very hard to judge the quality of his instruction." [best practices on teaching evaluation, survey results]

 

C3--Dayan: "Who knows how effective he really was until we get those intro students in major courses. Does Perez have high numbers because he caters to students’ sense of humor?  I’ve heard he shows clips from the web at the beginning of each lecture, some of them not very related to his lecture material. Sometimes students mistake that for good teaching." [bias report on age, survey results on culture]

 

C4--Smith: "Yes, if he is concerned about teaching, he ought to encourage retention of majors and appropriate pedagogies. I don't see evidence supporting his ability to attract students in materials. Who knows, as Jason says, what's really going on in the classroom."

 

C5--Kulver: "Well, are these teaching standards--retention of majors and appropriate pedagogies--that we will invoke for everyone?"

 

C6--Smith: "We should. Look at Jones' case: now there's someone who lays out a terrific teaching portfolio. Why can't Perez get help so he can get results like Jones?"

 

[SECOND OPPORTUNITY FOR USER TO INTERVENE--C7]

 

YOU: [agree with bias] C7a. "But we shouldn't directly compare cases. Each case is unique and needs to be seen for its own merits, if we could just find some in Perez's."

[ignore bias] C7b. "Yes, Jones definitely deserves his teaching awards."

[challenge bias] C7c. "Al, you don't like Perez because he disagrees with you about team teaching. You think every man should take of himself about teaching, while he argues for the value of faculty team-teaching intro courses. Based on the summaries of senior exit interviews provided in the curriculum vita (cv), Perez appears to be a gifted teacher."

[invoke rule/procedure/practice] C7d. "But we shouldn't directly compare cases.  Each case is unique and with its own merits.  Perez has documented effective teaching by including the exit interviews, evaluation scores, and student letters supporting an external teaching award." [best practices document]

 

IF a, then C8a--Smith: "I see three of us agree that Perez’s teaching record is difficult to assess, and perhaps marginal."

 

IF b, then C8b--Smith: "Okay, so we'll give Jones great marks in the teaching department and barely pass Perez."

 

IF c, then C8c--Smith: "Team-teaching is too cumbersome to work in the intro course, and I worry about superficial treatment at that stage. But if you all agree that Perez deserves high marks for teaching. I'll go along with noting his high teaching evaluation scores."

 

IF d, then C8d--Smith: "Okay, I guess that if we really look at the documentation provided and not bring our own bias regarding team teaching into play, Perez does a reasonable job of teaching."

 

PART D--ETHNIC BIAS

 

D1--Dayan: "." I feel kind of silly bringing this up, but Perez seems to be adhering to that old adage 'birds of a feather' - you know? Look at who's on his grant team: Lopez, Johnson, Rodriguez, Bahouali

 

D2--Smith: "I see that too. In fact, the engineering education piece Perez wrote focuses on education of minorities. I know there are a lot of programs coming out of Washington to support this kind of thing, but I don’t see much evidence that he has tried to attract funding along those lines.  [service bias report; ethnic bias]  But that’s probably fine, as you often can't do that at the expense of being a first rate researcher."

 

D3--Dayan: "Yeah, research is based purely on merit. You've got to deliver the goods before you get any respect. Bring in the money, attract attention from students. We need more people who make technical contributions rather than write scholarly articles about lack of opportunities."

 

D4--Kulver: "I think there are some things being said here that are pushing the boundaries of appropriate conduct."

 

[THIRD OPPORTUNITY FOR USER TO INTERVENE--D5]

 

YOU: [agree with bias] D5a. "In my view, the education piece should be irrelevant to our judgment of his engineering scholarship because it is an opinion and not research."

[ignore bias] D5b. "I don't think anything is out of bounds in a p & t discussion – this is an entirely confidential matter.  What is said here stays inside these walls."

[challenge bias] D5c. "I agree with Keith that consideration of ethnicity or minority issues has no place in this discussion or in our dealings with Perez. He ought be commended for taking on the service of minority recruitment into engineering and excelling in everything else he does."

[invoke rule/procedure] D5d. "Keith is right. The engineering education essay is a relevant piece of scholarship as it concerns an innovative curriculum in light of ABET 2000.  It appears in a reputable journal and provides some insight into the kind of balance in Perez’s repertoire."

 

IF a, then D6a--Smith: "So we are all agreed that Perez hasn't established the right kind of profile in research, teaching, or service for our department and our university?"

 

IF b, then D6b--Smith: "Yes, being on the same page with our goals is an important element, and maybe he just doesn’t fit with us in terms of research, teaching, or service."

 

IF c, then D6c--Smith: "All I'm saying is that stuff can’t make up for other areas in which his contributions are lacking."

 

IF d, then D6d--Smith: "I hadn't noticed it had anything to do with ABET2000."

 

PART E--CONCLUSION  [probably needs more work to fit recommendation below]

 

E1a (biased summary)-Smith: "Research is substandard.  Teaching is barely adequate. And there's no real service."

 

E1b (less clear)--Smith: "Perez's research funding meets expectations, and his teaching is okay, but he hasn't seemed to have found his niche yet in terms of service.  That’s probably ok at his stage."

 

E1c (no bias)--Kulver: "Well, it seems to me that the majority of us agree that Perez is an outstanding researcher and teacher who has contributed to service in his efforts to improve minority recruitment. Al, you seem to be the outlier."