Procedural
Bias
Insert Annotated References
Alteration of original document
INTRODUCTION
Sloan: “Let’s now consider Mansour’s case. Keep in mind that this is an early promotion and tenure case. Since I’ve been here, we’ve only had one early case. To be promoted early, the candidate has to be extraordinary in all criteria.”
Wynn and Shaban: agree that extraordinary levels are expected
RESEARCH
Shaban: “From my vantage point, Samia is a good scholar. Look at this award for her research.”
Wynn: “This is an impressive award, but let’s look at the sum total of research.”
Sloan: “She has more publications in top-ranked journals than any other biochemistry faculty in our department.”
Shaban: “She has significant quantity, but we need to examine the quality anyway. Does her best paper, the prizewinner, represent a significant contribution to the field?”
Wynn: “Are you suggesting that the paper isn’t as good as most reviewers have noted?”
Shaban: “Let’s look Reviewer X’s comments. He denies that it has significant value and argues it is not a true contribution.”
Sloan: “All the other reviews are positive. I wonder if the negative reviewer is impartial given the tone of the letter and the focus on that one paper.”
Shaban: “I heard this reviewer is known for writing negative letters. This one seems like it’s a response to only one of Samia’s papers.” [best practices; GT survey results]
Wynn: “I think all reviews have to be weighed carefully. The most positive one spends more time considering Mansour’s service to the profession and not her research. Do we really care that she does so much work for that disciplinary group?”
Shaban: “The most important consideration of this decision is the research.”
Sloan: “Good service alone will not earn promotion and tenure. An early candidate also has to demonstrate a more remarkable profile in research.”
Wynn: “But I want to go back to the letters because they don’t demonstrate that profile of excellent research. The most positive one is from another former student of her mentor. [best practices] Other letters praise the research without understanding it. The negative reviewer is the only one who seems to know the area.”
Shaban: “How do you who know the positive reviewer is?”
Wynn: “I sat on an NSF panel and that positive reviewer told me she knew Samia from graduate school. I believe this to be her.” [best practices – heresay]
FIRST INTERVENTION OF USER
YOU: agree that all letters count
YOU: Decide that the negative one is too negative-discount it
YOU: Decide the positive one is too positive-discount it
YOU: I don’t care what the reviewers say; I’ll judge Mansour’s scholarship
Following on d,
Shaban: “Samia’s research is very visible. We need her to keep up momentum in that area. She really puts us on the map.”
Sloan: “If she doesn’t get early tenure here, some other department will hire her. We have to cover her area, or we won’t be able to continue to offer the PhD in this area.”
TEACHING—bias from students, supported by colleagues
Sloan: “Let’s talk about teaching.”
Shaban: “What I can’t believe is that some students have the audacity to comment on her clothing. Let’s make sure we calibrate our judgment of her teaching accordingly.”
Wynn: “The students are right. She’s in America, so she should dress like an American. I’m glad that she’s changed her wardrobe.”
Sloan: “Mansour has a teaching award. She’s been a good undergraduate teacher, and she is critical to the graduate program. She attracts the best PhD students.”
Shaban: “She’s a good teacher for upper-division undergraduate and graduate courses, but first and second year students seem less comfortable with her.”
Wynn: “Maybe it’s her accent. I sat in on one intro course, and I had trouble understanding everything. But the students seemed engaged.”
Shaban: “We need to calibrate her teaching effectiveness. Considering all course scores, her teaching for the intro courses is average for our department. In graduate courses she does very well.”
SECOND INTERVENTION
YOU: Agree with Shaban that low scores reflect only cultural differences and do not serve as the sole reliable indicator of good teaching.
YOU: Agree with Wynn that low scores are low scores and indicate poor teaching.
YOU: Agree with Sloan that procedures require looking at a broad set of assessment tools. Numbers are only one component of evaluating teaching.
YOU: Agree with Wynn that accent and dress are interfering with her teaching and affect only beginning students.
Sloan: “Okay, we know she’s not going to be the most effective teacher for first year students, but we’re agreed that in general she is an excellent teacher.”
SERVICE
Shaban: “Clearly less has to be discussed about her service, which seems exemplary, both in the university and to the profession.”
Wynn: “But has really contributed in any substantial way to influential committees on campus or among her disciplinary peers? All I see is her interests in women’s issues.”
Sloan: “Given the underrepresentation of women in this field, women’s issues are important. It was the president who put her on these committees, invitations she could hardly refuse.”
Shaban: “Her committee work has not been on the department’s
most important committees, but it’s been useful for each committee to have a
woman.” [bias
report on service]
THIRD INTERVENTION
YOU: agree that service record is adequate
YOU: think that she is too focused on only one service issue and question what has been accomplished
YOU: service record is excellent; working for underrepresented groups is significant