PTAC CASES for ADEPT June 2003
Color Coded Key toDecision/Illumination Points in PTAC Cases without Storylines:
Procedural
Bias
Insert annotated references as indicated
Modifications to original text are underlined
[Issues: significance of letters of reference and what kind of service counts]
Samia Mansour, Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the Johns HopkinsUniversity, was hired as an assistant professor by the Department of PhysicalSciences at a prestigious research university. Mansourâs research field has long been centralto the university; she joined a number of colleagues who do similar andcomplementary work in the same field. Her start-up package was slightly better than average; she had fouroffers to consider at leading universities. Mansour was immediately asked to participate in a campus committeecharged to study why so few women are employed in science during her firstyear. In her second and third years, shewas invited to serve on two similar committees at the university level. (bias report on committee assignments)
During her first three years at the university, Mansour produced an extraordinary number of publications inthe top-ranked journals in her field, including one prize-winning paper. Shewrote most of her papers with a small group of faculty and graduate students,but some represented collaborations with just one or two individuals, typicallygraduate students.
Mansourâs funding level as anassistant professor was within the average range for her field and slightlyhigher than the departmental average. She was able to secure a lab budget based on a National ScienceFoundation (NSF) grant for new faculty in her area as well as some traininggrants for individual graduate students. She also partnered with colleagues in developing novel methods of drugdelivery on a moderate grant from a pharmaceutical company.
In her third year, she won an NSF Faculty Early CareerDevelopment Award, largely for writing one paper that garnered much nationalattention for its novel approach to a particular problem. Near the beginning of her fourth year, shewas notified by the NSF that she was selected as a recipient of the prestigiousPresidential Early Career Award (PCASE).
Her undergraduate and graduate students generally awardedher good teaching scores. Evaluationsfor the intro-level undergraduate course earned some negative comments from afew students about her casual attire; as a result, Mansourupgraded her wardrobe and began to wear tailored clothing. She attracted excellent graduate students toher lab, encouraging some undergraduates to continue graduate study at theuniversity and welcoming new graduate students. At the end of her third year, she was nominated for a college teachingaward by the undergraduate coordinator with a recommendation from the graduatedirector who cited her ãdedicationä and ãlong hours of working in her lab alongwith graduate students.ä
In addition to her work on womenâs issues, Mansour was appointed to a number of unit and collegecommittees concerning visiting speakers, honors, and searches. She became especially active in aprofessional society and in her collegeâs network for junior faculty insciences, for which she helped organize a session on grant-writing for newfaculty. Issues concerning women in her unit, and tosome extent in sciences more generally, fell on her shoulders, as manifested bynumerous invitations by chairs and deans at her university to address studentand alumni groups. (add referenceon bias in terms of service activities for women and minorities).
During her fourth year, Mansourconsulted with her chair about coming up for an early decision on promotion andtenure. (add reference on guidelines for decidinghow to come up for P&T and who makes final decision). As she hadestablished a body of work and a set of achievements comparable to orexceeding others in her field in her unit, she and her chair were confidentof her chances to be promoted and receive tenure on this acceleratedschedule. He had found her agreeable toserve in a broad range of roles at his request and considered this along withher PECASE as indicative of well-balanced roles and strong scholarlypotential.
At the beginning of her fifth year, Mansourâscase came up for review in her department. The lettersof reference in her promotion and tenure dossier were generally good, exceptfor one taking issue with her celebrated paper. (add references for guidelines for selecting referencesand considering all references in deliberations). The one negativereview avoided addressing Mansourâs entire scholarlyoutput; instead, the reviewer took an extremely hostile approach to theargument of the celebrated paper. Onemember of the promotion and tenure committee noted that this review was sodetailed that it could have been published as an oppositional argument in ajournal along with Mansourâs paper. This revieweralso commented negatively about Mansourâs style ofpresenting papers at meetings of a professional society, raising somesuspicions of a personal grudge. Another reviewer commented as much on the value of Mansourâs service to the profession, especially for womenin her field, as on the value of her scholarly research. (add bias references regarding views ofscholarly contributions of women in the sciences and engineering).
The unit promotion and tenure committee is split aboutwhether to emphasize the negative review or the one privileging service andwhether Mansourâs case should be forwarded to thenext level. One member expresses theview that her case should be eliminated from further consideration this year,ideally by having the chair of the department speak with Mansourabout the negative review so the candidate can withdraw the dossier. This member suggests that next year thehostile reviewer and the one who supplied the review focusing on Mansourâs service should not be invited to submit reviewsand that her case would have a better chance of success if it comes upaccording to schedule, rather than early. (add reference on guidelines for how to consider negativeletters of reference in committee reports).
As a member of the unit-level promotion and tenurecommittee, what consideration would you give these reviews in evaluating Mansourâs scholarship and career? What would you suggest regarding whether Mansourâs case ought to be considered early or during thenext year?
[Issues: evaluation of collaborative research, constraints regarding courses/labequipment, graduate students]
Jamie Perez, Ph.D. in Materials Science andEngineering from MIT, joins a prestigious research university as a tenure-trackassistant professor after completing post-docs at Berkeley andNorthwestern. At the time of hiring, thesearch committee notes a one-year gap between post-docs, a time when Perezstudied as a Fulbright Scholar at a European university. Support for his faculty slot is earmarkedfrom the Deanâs office for the first two years of the appointment by virtue ofan underrepresented faculty hiring initiative.
Perezâs start-up package was average for faculty in thatunit, but there are some glitches in finding adequate lab space andequipment. While he had been verbally assured duringhis negotiations that he could share the lab of a senior professor, Perez istold upon arrival by the senior faculty member in his interest group that thesenior faculty memberâs group has priority, and he has limited Perez and hisstudents to two hours per week in that lab. (add reference to guidelines on writtenagreements in hiring package). The chair then sent an e-mail toPerez about a change of plans, suggesting that he share a lab with another entering assistantprofessor (references on age bias and mentoring) untilthe following year, when the senior colleague moved to a new building oncampus. Although somewhat constraining to the research programs of bothindividuals, this logistical arrangement encouraged the two new colleagues tocollaborate on a small research project with some industry funding while alsocontinuing their individual research agendas. Thechair recommended at the first annual review that Perez ãpay greater attentionto research funding in areas more closely linked to the unitâs focusä and ãtryharderä to attract graduate students. (add reference to guidelines for feedbackfrom chair and consistency, best practices).
In year 2 Perez established a functioning independent lab,attracting a small number of graduate students, and published a paper in ajournal about teaching undergraduates and one (with two collaborators) in asignificant journal. The small amount ofindustry funding for collaborative research continued, and Perez was againcounseled by his chair during the annual review to pursue more funding. In year3 Perez coauthored papers in two important journals and worked as the solematerials science and engineering faculty member on a multidisciplinary projectwith four other faculty members from different engineering and scienceunits. The collaborative, five-yearproject attracted $5 million funding from the National Science Foundation andsupported one post doc and three graduate students in Perezâs lab. During this period Perez taught only relatively largeundergraduate service classes, as senior professors in his interest groupclaimed the specialty and advanced courses in his area. (add referenceson mentoring)
The third-year review of Perezâs work resulted in a somewhatmixed evaluation. The school chair counseled Perez to ãkeep up the good workwith teaching and serviceä but expressed his concern that Perez had not beenable to secure more than a minimum amount of individual funding (add referenceson bias against interdisciplinary research) despite a veryreasonable record of publication in top quality journals. The chair was also concerned that Perez hadtrouble retaining the more marginal graduate students assigned him (the more promisingstudents were assigned to the most senior faculty in the same interest group).(addreferences on mentoring) During his review meeting, Perez requestedthat his chair exercise leadership over the interest group so that he can teachgraduate courses in his field and therefore attract more and better graduatestudents. The chair suggested thatperhaps Perez ãinstead ought to consider devoting more time to individualresearch, especially in an area more closely relatedä to the unitâs interests andstrategic plans (add references on bias against interdisciplinaryresearch) to supplement his collaborative work. The chair also expressed concern that Perezwas not playing a leadership role in the interaction with other departments onthe large NSF grant.
By the time of tenure review, it is clear that Perez did notemphasize pursuing any individual grant funding, as his chair suggested. Perez remained a popular teacher, accordingto evaluations of MSE majors, and a valued advisor as attested by some graduatestudents. He was somewhat more inclined than otherfaculty members in the unit to take on certain advising and other committeeresponsibilities. (add referenceson mentoring) Although heattracted little individual funding, Perez was able to keep up a moderatelyactive and fairly well funded research program in an area not well developed inthe unit because of the multi-disciplinary collaboration.
In the unit promotion and tenure committee, questions areraised regarding Perezâs future funding potential as an individual researcher,as a teacher of graduate students, and the value of his area of research forthe unit. As a member of the committee,how would you respond to these concerns and ensure that Perez receive a fairhearing?
[Issues: fluctuating productivity, leave of absence inprobationary period]
Patty Shen, Ph.D. inComputational and Neural Systems from the California Institute of Technology,entered a prestigious research university as an assistant professor. She specialized in distributed computing andcomputation in neural and biological systems within the biomedical engineeringgroup. Her start-up package was higherthan average as her field was relatively new and required the purchase of somefairly expensive parallel computing and visualization equipment. Because Shen considered a competingoffer, the department engaged in a bidding war to induce her to accept theappointment. Three other assistant professors in closely related areas werehired in the same year with packages not as generous as Shenâs. (reinforce definition of bias as personalpreference, rather than meeting institutional objectives related to increasingfraction of female faculty) At the end of Shenâsfirst year, her chair complimented her on establishing ãa good rapportä withher graduate students and for her success in publishing two papers based on hergroupâs work, with two more in press.
Publishing additional papers in Nature, Neuron,The Journal of Computational Biology, Current Biology, andelsewhere, Shen continued her steady publicationrecord through her next two years. Shealso took on responsibility for teaching one of the core courses for theundergraduate program and for introducing a key new graduate course in herarea, earning above average and excellent evaluation scores from students. Exit interviews of seniors conducted by thechair indicated that all students appreciated Shenâsthorough approach and that many, especially women, found her to be a valuablerole model. (add references on mentoring)
In her third year, Shen won an NSFFaculty Early Career Award. In addition, during her probationary period, Shen and two junior colleagues, along with two seniorprofessors, developed a new center in biocognitiveprocessing that was nurtured by the university before attracting a good deal ofNational Science Foundation funding.
Anticipating the birth of a child during the summerfollowing her third academic year at the university, Shenrequested during the prior spring two considerations: to receive an unpaidleave of absence during the subsequent fall term and to be released fromteaching duties during the following spring under provisions of theuniversityâs Active Services Modified Duties Procedure. (add references on leave of absence guidelines and familypolicies) In lieu of teachingresponsibilities in the spring, she proposed to design a new elective forupper-division students in her field and to continue working with the centerthat she helped develop. Her requestswere granted, thereby stopping her tenure clock for one year.
During the year of her leave of absence and modifiedduties, Shen laid out plans for the new course andpublished two papers that had been in process. Unanticipated post-childbirth medical complications necessitated a longperiod of medical therapy, and she was unable to devote much time to herresearch during the time away from teaching as she was also coping with thedemands of an infant. A private person, Shen did not share information about her medical conditionwith her colleagues, excepting her chair and dean whose confidence wasrequested because Shen needed them to support herneed for a particular schedule and for a limited set of service responsibilities. (add discussion on rights to privacy, guidelines andresponsibilities ö Shen was within bounds)
During the following year, Shenâsofficial fourth year of service, she returned to teaching and earned speakinginvitations at European and Asian seminars. It is in this year (the year afterher child is born) that her publication record revealed a demonstrable gap: shehad not submitted any publications and none were published in that year. Her own medical problems diminished herability to mount focused technical efforts in the year following herleave.
By her official fifth year, Shenâsmedical problems abated, and she was able to accelerate her researchproductivity. In this year, shepublished and prepared more papers than any other professor in her unit and shereceived excellent evaluations from her undergraduate and graduate students,although she was able to contribute only minimal service efforts to her departmentgiven her family schedule. (add referenceson service) As hertenure clock was stopped for one year, Shen wouldhave come up for tenure in her official fifth year. Because of the earlier gap in her publication, her chairadvised her instead to wait until the following year (her official sixth) tocome up for promotion and tenure evaluation. Somewhat reluctantly, Shen agreed. (add guidelinesfrom handbook, best practices)
By the time she came up for tenure (in her official sixthyear and seven years after entering the university), her rate of publicationdramatically increases, and her total record÷in terms of the quantity and thequality of scholarly papers, her teaching evaluations and contributions, andher service--resembles those of the other assistant professors coming up forevaluation at the same time. Lettersfrom reviewers indicated that Shen has a strongscholarly reputation and that her work has key significance for her field. One reviewer mentioned Shenâsmedical difficulties following childbirth, an admission surprising thecommittee members who had not been previously informed. (add referenceson race and ethnicity ö cultural differences) Some committee members had noted in earlier, initial committeediscussions that Shen seemed to ãappear anddisappearä on the scene through the years, recalling lengthy periods in whichshe was not in attendance at faculty meetings and retreats. (add references on gender bias) Her involvementin faculty committees was minimal as well.
Her original cohort had already earned promotion and tenure,but Shenâs stopping of the tenure clock for one yearand her decision to wait until her second opportunity delayed her case anotheryear. As a member of her school promotion and tenure committee, how would yourespond to concerns raised by another member that Shenhas taken too much time to get to the same place as others under evaluationthat year, that she may have accelerated her productivity over the past 12-14months simply to be more competitive in the tenure process, and that she mightnot be able to sustain such productivity in the future?
[Issues: disability, change of department administration,and teaching schedule]
Carl Anders, Ph.D. in Computer Science from IndianaUniversity, accepted an appointment as an assistant professor in the Departmentof Computer Science of a prestigious research university after a two-yearpost-doctoral appointment at the University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign. Anders negotiated carefully with the university regardingspecific needs based on his disability, a cervical spinal cord injury limitingarm function. He used a power wheelchair for mobility and could not drive so heremained dependent on public (bus) and paratransit(private) transportation. Anders had recurrent pressure ulcers that he managedby 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, helimited his on-campus time to 6 ¸ hours per day. At home, he was able to workfrom his bed to which he could transfer by using a ceiling-mounted lift. Thispermitted him to work longer hours at home than he could work on campus. (add handbook or legal requirements onaccommodation of disabilities)
The department chair hiring Anders assuredhim that the university's computer science department had great flexibilityregarding course schedules and that the size of the faculty permitted thescheduler to meet individual needs regarding day/time of course meetings. Anders insisted on having a clause in hiscontract indicating the department would do all in its power to reasonablyaccommodate Anders' disability by scheduling courses within the period of 10am-4 pm, preferably on a two-day schedule. This schedule assured that Anders would be able to travel efficientlyvia public transportation by avoiding a longer rush hour commute that wouldtake a physical toll on him.
During his first three years at theuniversity, the department scheduled Anders for a graduate course and anundergraduate course, within his preferred time period and generally accordingto a two-day schedule, but sometimes with the graduate course scheduled for athird day. In this time, Anderspublished more than the average faculty member each year, eventually producing35 papers, co-authoring a book with a colleague from another university, andorganizing program committees for significant conferences. He also partnered with his collaborator on anindustry grant to work on accessible computing interfaces for the legallyblind. Anders' teaching evaluations wereexcellent; students reported that he frequently met with them on-campus on histeaching days, and encouraged them to use email, to phone, or to visit him athis home office by appointment on other days. He served in his second year on adepartmental search committee and in his third year on the university'sPresidential Commission for the Disabled.
Anders' work schedule did not cause anycontroversy during the period prior to his third-year review. He generally spent three days working oncampus. His office and lab were made accessible for a power wheelchair and onlyminor computer equipment purchases were needed to permit Anders to use themeffectively. The other two weekdays (plus weekends) he worked from his homeoffice 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 normalschedule, scheduling paratransit at his own expense.
Anders' third-year critical review garneredhim a very favorable evaluation from the departmental committee and praise fromhis outgoing chair. His colleaguesremarked on the originality of his research, his dedication to his students,and his continuing, fruitful collaboration with his colleague, which wasexpected to lead to the creation of a university center on adaptivetechnologies 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 dominatedby the need to save money and use resources wisely, the new chair did not feelbound to honor any previous commitments made to individual faculty, andpronounced a ãclean slateä on policies and procedures. As a result, thedepartment scheduler was instructed to make sure the classrooms were usedefficiently and to treat the faculty the same. Under the new protocol, faculty would alternate two-day and three-dayteaching schedules depending on the term. In addition, all faculty members were enjoined to workfrom their department offices except during periods of vacation or professionaltravel to better serve the mission of on-campus instruction and advisement. Anders immediately set an appointment to discuss his needs and requestfor reasonable accommodation with the new chair. He was assured by the chairthat although she understood the difficulties of his situation and wassupportive of his arrangement to work from home occasionally, ãit would not berightä for the department to accommodate his needs to teach on specific days ona permanent basis and that he would need to make his requests each term. Anders consulted with the campus office ondisability; the human resources representative accordingly spoke with Andersâchair to explain that the department ought to do all it could to accommodateAndersâ need for a restricted schedule, even if it meant that other faculty(i.e., those without disabilities) might not have their scheduling preferencesmet. This negotiation improved Andersâschedule, but he noticed that his relationship with his chair became lesscordial.
By the time ofpromotion and tenure, Anders' record looked more erratic than it had at thetime of critical review. Letters ofreference indicated that his work, especially the earlier papers, were highlyregarded and even "inspirational" for others in his field. Hisoverall publishing productivity was below average, as his productivity haddiminished significantly in the last two years. The center (which he co-directed) garnered some funding from industryaffiliates and alumni, but not extensive levels. His teaching scores had also dipped. In terms when he was on a three-day schedulewith classes offered early in the morning or later at night, students reportedthat Anders was often late or had to leave early and appeared clipped andbrusque, encouraging students to use email to correspond rather than to meetwith him outside of class. Some members of the committee had heard Anders complain aboutthe change of departmental leadership in terms of a breach of agreement, butconsultation with the unit chair did not bear out any substance to this line ofargument ö she indicated that he received special considerations of scheduleflexibility and office hours compared with other faculty. (add guidelinesfrom best practices on how to handle extraneous information beyond vita anddirect statements)
At the promotion andtenure committee meeting, one member notes that some graduate students hadcomplained about Andersâ lack of accessibility. Others recall that the chair had commented on Anders notattending a number of departmental lunches and other events related to hisareas of research and that he was not often in his office. (add bias study on disabilities; alsoperhaps family responsibilities)
As amember of the promotion and tenure committee evaluating Anders, how would yourespond to the concern that his record demonstrates diminished productivity andthat he was not a team player in the departmental efforts to achieve excellence?
[Issues: how technology gets evaluated in socialsciences, promotion to full professor, age]
Sophia Richards, having earned her Ph.D. in Scienceand Technology Studies from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, joined aprestigious research university after spending six years doing development workwith the Carnegie Foundation. Herresearch described how changing electronic technologies affected the formationof world markets; her particular specialization concerned electronic bankinterfaces in southeastern Asian economies. By the time she joined the university, she had established a body ofresearch (in terms of quantity and quality) equivalent to that of an associateprofessor, so her initial university appointment was made at that level, butshe was a decade older than the typical beginning associate professor.
Richards earned tenure in her second year at the university,as she continued her previous high rate of productivity measured by citedpapers and funding. In her first fouryears, the number of her papers, their citations, and the amount of funding shereceived were among the highest in her college. She typically taught the introductory course in Asian area studies, anupper division undergraduate course in Asian microeconomics, and a graduatecourse on science, technology, and developing nations. Students flocked to hercourses and provided her universally excellent teaching scores.
In her fifth year, Richards was awarded funding from theRockefeller Foundation to establish a lecture series and to support somefellowships in southeast Asian economics for graduate students to collaboratewith her on research. She alsodesignated some funds to buy her out from some undergraduate teaching.
Connected with the Rockefeller project, Richards establisheda website to publish research on technological breakthroughs in internationaleconomies, and proceeded to develop it into the only electronic journal in thefield. Although all of her previous work appeared inprint journals, she began to publish about 30-40% of her papers through thewebsite as of her fifth year at the university. (refer to bias report on forums forpublishing)
In her sixth year, Richards built on her development successwith Rockefeller by securing a substantial endowment from alumnus Gregory Chan,who had never before donated to the institution. Chan was impressed with her scholarship, hercoordination of the Rockefeller lecture series, and her energy and diligence inexpanding the curriculum in international studies of science andtechnology. He designated the endowmentfor a distinguished chair for a scholar in technologies of markets to be namedat some near future date.
During that same year, Richards became more involved withthe web journal, publishing two-thirds of her papers electronically on her ownweb journal. Richards came up forpromotion to full professor based on her new work [20 articles on the websiteand 10 additional papers in scholarly print journals], the Rockefeller grant,and having fostered the endowment. It iswidely understood that such a promotion is necessary for her to be eligible forthe Chan chair. There are rumors among faculty in her collegethat some sort of deal has been made with Chan that Richards should be awardedthe Chan chair. (add best practices on dealing with rumors)
Although Richardsâ record was generally regarded as withinthe acceptable range for a promotion to full professor, several concerns wereraised by members of the promotion committee regarding whether she has reliedtoo closely on her Carnegie contacts in receiving the Rockefeller funds,whether her scholarship has recently slipped in that much of it appeared on thewebsite the Rockefeller project sponsors (some faculty express concerns whether those papers areproperly reviewed in the context of an electronic journal that she edits) (refer to biasreport on forums for publishing)
, and whether she has tried to leverage the system inrecruiting a large donation for a chair that seems designed for her. (add gender bias report information)How wouldyou consider such concerns in the context of evaluating whether Richards oughtto be promoted to full professor?
[Issues: soft vs. hard research, joint appointment,advanced assistant professor]
Robert Sorel, PhD fromCornell in Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, with a dissertation oncomputational methods for modeling ion propulsion systems for deep spaceexploration, joined the faculty of a prestigious research university as anadvanced assistant professor jointly appointed to AE/ME (primary appointment inAE), after working four years in AE/ME at Princeton. Sorelmoved to the new university for personal and professional reasons. He desired to move his family closer toextended family, and he wanted to collaborate more closely with the AE/MEresearch center on propulsion systems.
Sorelâs research field is fairlynew to the university, recently attracting attention to the work of a number ofhighly regarded researchers from respected programs of engineering and physics.After being at the university for one year, he published a paper with twocolleagues and four graduate students in a top-tier journal. After two years at his new university, Sorel and collaborators attract a great deal of funding,some from NSF and some from the aerospace industry. They published their results in three of thetop journals in the field on a consistent basis. Sorel published ata rate somewhat above that of his peers in such journals, but he maintained afunding level twice the average per capita funding in the AE department overthe past four years.
The youthful, exuberant Sorel anda collaborator shared an award for a paper in his second year at the newuniversity from a division of his professional society. The focus on their work earns Sorel a number of invitations to speak at internationalsymposia, and sometimes other team members.
The success of their modeling effort encouraged Sorelâs team to start up a company consulting with aviationmanufacturers. Although Sorel requested a one-year leave of absence to develop thecompany, his chair refused to grant it, citing the need for Sorelto establish himself at this university. The team nevertheless manages to spin off a company, which Sorel directs in his hours off campus.
Never assigned undergraduate courses, Soreltaught only graduate students specializing in his field. He received excellent evaluations from arelatively small number of students, who comment on how much they enjoy thecompetitive but social atmosphere of his classes and lab. He also advised a student receiving beststudent paper from professional society.
Sorel served as a member ofdepartmental speakersâ committee. Mostmembers of his unit regarded him as a difficult person to work with and madeevery attempt to avoid collaborations in teaching and research. He was not appointed to any other unitcommittees, nor has he been appointed to higher-level committees outside theunit.
Letters of reference for Sorelprovided at the time of promotion and tenure were very positive, noting hisquick start in a cutting-edge field and the significance of his research. Two prominent potential referees that Soreldid not know personally declined the opportunity to send letters, citing timeissues. (add guidelines in interpreting letters ofreference from best practices)
Discussion in the unit-level promotion and tenure committeecentered on the intrinsic value of Sorelâs work,questioning whether the computer modeling he was personally credited withdeveloping was as significant as the ãhand-pickedä reviewers (add guidelines from best practices)suggest and whether this kind of research was ãsubstantialä enough to earntenure (addguidelines on best practices for unit level peer review). One member also raised the issue of Sorelâsdifficult personality as a problem affecting the scheduling of undergraduatecourses and his lack of service contributions. (bias report on committee/service assignment; addreference to collegiality ö paper by Stanley Fish?) Another membercited discomfort with Sorelâs manner of socializingwith graduate students, hosting frequent social events with them, dressingcasually like them, and spending considerably less times in social settingswith faculty in the department, attending receptions for prominent seminarspeakers, and so forth. (link to surveyö GT culture, importance of social networking). This point was not picked up for further discussion. The committee chair recollects information he had heardat lunch about Sorelâs startup company and how it hadbeen pursued against the wishes of the department chair; the committee chairsuggested that perhaps Sorel needed to decide wherehe wanted to devote his interests and energy ö in academia or industry. (link to surveyon entrpreneurship; best practices for dealing withrumors) As Sorel was notinvolved in committee work or in undergraduate education, some committeemembers see him as lacking interest in the basic mission of the university. (add bias report on service appointments; best practicesguidelines).
As a member of the committee, how would you respond toconcerns that Sorelâs research is perhaps toospecialized and lacks novelty, that he is very difficult to work with, and thatsome references apparently were not interested enough for some reason to writeon his behalf?
[Issues: publication venues, order of listing of authors,contribution to articles]
Arthur Stevens, Associate Professor in MechanicalEngineering working in the area of automatic control systems, came up forpromotion to full professor after five years in grade. He published 35 articlesduring his 10 years at the university; 17 of these articles appeared inconference proceedings. One of hisarticles won a best paper award within an ASME session devoted to noveladvances in control of smart structures. Stevens was almost always listed as last author of his collaborativepublications, except for two papers listing him as first author. His collaborators were almost all graduatestudents. He never published anarticle, book, or conference proceeding as the sole author. He applied for one provisional patent in hissixth year, but did not pursue the full patent agreement when it came to term.
Regarded as a capable, confident teacher who offered a rangeof required and elective courses needed by the unit, Stevensâ teaching averageson his student evaluations ranged from 3.8 to 4.2 in undergraduate courses andfrom 4.3 to 4.5 in graduate courses (on a five-point scale). A number of undergraduates remark on evaluationsranging over recent years that Stevens is ãvery accessibleä and an ãinterestinglecturerä who provides ãwonderful illustrations and graphicsä to get across hispoints. Although he has been nominatedfor his schoolâs teaching award, he has never received it. He carries the load in teaching courses inhis area. Graduate students in hisresearch group attest to his willingness to advise them regarding careerprospects in academe and industry. Somestudents express amazement at his accessibility compared with other faculty.
Stevens managed to support his research group with a steadyfunding level of $200,000 per annum average, slightly below departmentnorms. (PTAC survey results on importance offunding as measure of intellectual products). He was a good citizen,serving diligently and effectively on several different school-levelcommittees. As a good deal of his research has commercialapplication, much of his funding has come from industrial sources. (bias on funding sources, basic versus applied).
Stevens never served on university-level committees, nor didhe take leadership roles in scholarly and professional organizations, althoughhis collaborative articles have established his international researchreputation in the field; two of the five articles submitted with his promotiondossier were termed ãbreakthroughä and ãnow classicä by two externalreviewers. One committee member comments that it isher understanding that his field is fairly specialized and small, so it ispossible that the reviewers are too familiar with the candidate; she points outthat both glowing reviews come from faculty who shared the same graduateinstitution as Stevens. (best practices on entertaining letters of reference)
Some members of the school-level promotion and tenurecommittee endorse promoting Stevens to full professor because he is a goodcitizen and a ãgood guy.ä (bias report on gender) They argue that if hedoes not get promoted it might upset him and there is no point of that. Others question whether his publicationrecord is adequate for such a promotion. One member is concerned that 17 journal articles in ten years ãis notcompetitive,ä as many current applicants who have done post docs already have5-10. Another member is concerned that only halfof Stevensâ papers are from refereed journal articles (best practiceson intellectual products; PTAC survey results), while yet another member argues that as thelast author, Stevens had little technical input into these papers (add bias reporton order of references; PTAC survey findings). As a member of the committee, how would yourespond to these concerns and ensure that Stevens receives a fair evaluation?
[Issues: fluctuating productivity of a maturing scholar,ethnic/cultural differences]
Pam Lee, Ph.D. in Economics from the University ofChicago, was hired by a prestigious research universityâs management program toteach econometrics. Although she is oneof a dozen economists on campus, she is only the third econometrician andreplaces a retiring star in the field, someone considered an anchor of agraduate program ranked in the top three in the nation. Leeâs very prominentgraduate advisor highly recommended her as his best student in the past decade,indicating that her dissertation was ãgroundbreakingä and ãrevolutionaryä increating a new theoretical model for the field.
A deferential, somewhat quiet person unless probed about herresearch, Lee had a rocky start with her university colleagues andstudents. Some undergraduates complainedto the undergraduate coordinator about her accent, and some graduate studentsreported that Lee is ãtoo rigorousä ãespecially concerning statisticalanalysisä. Althoughthe preponderance of faculty in the department see Lee as merely ãyoungä and ãalittle shy,ä two faculty members express concerns to the chair during her firstterm about Leeâs ãinability to socializeä and ãfit in.ä (bias report on ethnicity, race) The chair, also an Asian immigrant, regardedLee as undergoing the typical adjustment period of a new faculty memberstruggling to shift from star graduate student to novice teacher while keepingup a high research profile. The chairencouraged a sympathetic senior faculty, not directly in her research area, tomentor her (bias report on mentoring; best practices). After an initial lunch meeting with Lee tooffer his mentoring input, the senior faculty member drifted away from thearrangement, too busy to set appointments.
During her first three years at the university, Leepresented four conference papers on sophisticated, technically rigorousstatistical analysis methods, complementing the work she did in herdissertation; she also published one journal paper based on herdissertation. She improved herundergraduate and graduate teaching ratings by working with professionals atthe university center for teaching and managed to attract two graduate studentsto work closely with her. She also expandeddepartmental offerings in her field and created a sequence of two undergraduatecourses in econometrics. (bias report on mentoring).
At the time of her third-year critical review, her chairconveyed the review committeeâs warning about her lack of publications. He encouraged her to stay in touch with himand to work closely with two other colleagues ãto generate more papers.ä After being initially taken aback by thiscriticism, Lee agreed with her chair that she would ãappreciate someadvice.ä She sought out faculty her chair helpedidentify as her mentors (bias reports on mentoring, gender), sharingtwo new conference papers with them and asking them for editorial criticism andguidance on improving her publication record.
Although the two mentors worked in different fields, theyrecognized that Leeâs papers were hampered by her awkward written English andher tendency to rely solely on complex formulas to demonstrate herarguments. One suggested that Leeimprove her grammar and general writing skills by studying an Englishcomposition text, and the other encouraged her to read The Wall StreetJournal and some American novels to develop a more fluid style. They also encouraged Lee to think aboutapplications of her theoretical models to their fields, finance andmacroeconomics.
Lee worked hard to improve her English and accepted theoffer to collaborate on an article with one mentor. He devoted time during the process ofco-writing to show her how to put together a scholarly argument, and he helpedher understand how they could manage the journal reviewersâ comments inrevision. Leeâs other mentor took a lessactive role in improving her productivity, suggesting two applications of hertheoretical 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 fourthyear. In her fifth year, she wrote twoarchival papers, one with her previous collaborator and another on her own,which were also published. Her mentorscomplimented her on greatly improved writing skills.
One mentor, fascinated by Leeâs application of hertheories to his subfield, developed and submitted a proposal for funding basedon this method to an agency, citing their joint paper as the basis for thework. However, Lee was neither consultednor included in the development of the proposal or as a co-investigator. ( best practices, ethics) She was visibly upset when she learned of this from anothercolleague who commented that he understood that her mentor was now working inthe same field; confronting her mentor, he informed her that there is nomonopoly on good ideas and he was in the best position to develop this premisewithin his own subfield. With that, thementoring relation ended, but Lee decided to keep the situation it to herselfgiven the fact that the department chair had recommended this mentor and washis close associate. (report on gender bias; PTAC surveys; best practices)
Three letters of reference commenting on her tenure andpromotion case were very positive, indicating that her publications positoriginal, rigorous theoretical claims. Two others referred to further interesting applications. The sixth highly positive letter comes from asenior scholar, known for being Leeâs mentorâs first graduate student. By thetime Lee comes up for promotion and tenure, she has published five scholarlyarticles (one in Econometrica, the leadingjournal in her field, and four applying econometric analysis to other fields),given an average number of conference papers, and participated on twodepartment committees. A member of thepromotion and tenure committee questions whether this level of productivitydemonstrated largely within fields other than econometrics justifies promotionand tenure at the university. Another membercites that he has input from a former mentor that Dr. Lee is intelligent but isdifficult to communicate with and to work with. (bias report on mentoring; best practices) As another member of the committee, how wouldyou respond to these concerns about Leeâs productivity and collegiality?
[Issues: international reputation and spousal concerns]
Helen Clemens, Ph.D. in Mathematics from New YorkUniversity, joined a prestigious research university as an assistant professorof mathematics, specializing in differential equations related toself-organizational phenomena and chaos. She was hired the same year and in thesame department as her husband Joseph Smith, an up-and-coming star in settheory and fractals who was hired after working three years as an assistantprofessor at Yale University.
Clemens quickly established a reputation as an excellentteacher of mathematics majors. Herupper-division course in her specialty field became one of the departmentâsmost popular courses for majors. Shealso became known as an accessible graduate advisor who took great care inmentoring her studentsâ professional development.
Clemens was invited to give many international presentationsin her area and to become a member of a significant number of conferenceprogram committees. (gender bias report; service bias; best practices) She was also a frequent speaker atmeetings of physicists interested in application of her mathematical tools tophysical systems. Some of her university colleagues in other research areassuggested that her frequent invitations to participate in workshops and paneldiscussions reflected diversity needs rather than acknowledging herintellectual acumen. (report on gender bias) Others claimed she rode on the coattails of herhusband, her sometimes collaborator. WhileClemensâ international experiences were prestigious, they often required her totravel to Europe for meetings. She wasconsequently less accessible to colleagues than most peers. Most of her time on campus was spent teachingcourses, advising students, or serving on institute-level committees.
By the time of her third year critical review, she publishedonly five articles, albeit in important journals. Her husband collaborated on two of these; onone, Clemens was first author, and on the other he was first author. Their achievements were the subject of anarticle in The Chronicle of Higher Education about successful couples inthe sciences. Clemens and Smith werealso profiled in national newspaper articles focusing on emerging connectionsbetween biology and mathematics. Smithhad established strong interactions with the biology department in applyingconcepts of fractals to complex hierarchical cell structures. The committeeconsidering her third year critical review recommended warning her toaccelerate publication. Her chair advisesClemens to ãconcentrate more on publishing and less on publicizing.ä (report on gender bias; PTAC survey onconference versus journal articles; best practices)
In her next two years, Clemens worked hard to publish insignificant refereed journals, producing four papers (one in tandem with herhusband) and three articles in conference proceedings. In addition, she was listed as co-PI on oneof his grants.
In coming up for promotion and tenure, Clemens wasconsidered an excellent teacher by undergraduates and graduate students and anexcellent mentor of women students. Herpublication record was a bit below average, but her citation rate was higherthan average, and she was well known in Europe, for example. Letters from reviewers, two of them prominentEuropean mathematicians, characterized her individual work as ãvery good,äãsubstantial,ä and ãfirst-rate.ä Articles written collaboratively with her husband were cited as ãhighlyinfluentialä and ãamazing.ä There wereno negative reviews.
Questions arise in the unit-level promotion and tenurecommittee regarding whether Clemensâ record of individual productivity meetsthe minimum standard (clarity of standard - best practices) and whether herproductivity and the impact of her work depend on her husband. One member wonders if Smith (already tenuredand promoted) will leave if Clemens does not get tenure. (report on gender bias; best practices) As amember of the committee, how would you respond to these concerns?