Transcript ADVANCE Committee for Promotion and Tenure Assessment and

P&T ADVANCE COMMITTEE
(PTAC)
Georgia Tech NSF
ADVANCE Conference
April 20, 2004
David L. McDowell, PTAC Chair
PTAC Goals & Deliverables

Identify measures that can improve our P&T
processes across the board – making a great place
better


Provide foundations for more consistency of the
structure and methodology of P&T committees
Deliverables


Written report, August 2003
Web-based Awareness of Decisions in Evaluating Promotion
and Tenure (ADEPT) instrument, initial version, August
2003; release in 2004 for general use
Membership
Ivan Allan College
Willie Belton, Associate Professor, Economics
College of Sciences
Jeannette Yen: Applied Physiology, Biology, Psychology
Mustafa El-Sayad: Chemistry and biochemistry, Mathematics, Physics
College of Engineering
Paul Benkeser –BME, T&FE
J. Carlos Santamarina - CEE, AE, ChE
Ronald Schafer – ECE, ISYE
Dave McDowell – ME, MSE (CHAIR)
Dupree College of Management
Marie Thursby
College of Computing
Dana Randall
College of Architecture
Doug Allen
ADVANCE Liaison: Mary Hunt, Tabitha Barnette, Beth Gourbiere, Carol
Colatrella, GT ADVANCE professors
Timeline










PTAC charged by J-L Chameau in August 2002
Studied various forms of bias in Fall 2002
Gathered information from units in Nov. 2002-Jan. 2003
Started developing case studies in Feb. 2003
Working with LCC on web-based architecture for P&T Mentoring
Instrument
Developed PTAC survey in Jan-Feb. 2003, released April 10
Case study breakout groups at April 23-25 ADVANCE
conference
PTAC Subcommittees working on:
 Case studies
 Revised best practices document
Target date of Aug. 1 for first generation software or CD-ROM
Target date end of Aug. 2003 for first draft written report
Consistency of P&T Processes
What it means:








Consistent committee structure (i.e., peer level and unit level)
Consistent methods of appointment of members of committees
Consistent method of requesting letters of reference and
guidelines for dealing with them
Consistency in guidelines for RPT Committee communications
with unit chair
Clarity of guidelines for preparing packages across units
Clarity of expectations within units/colleges
Clear sense of ethics and high standards in all aspects of
committee appointments, case deliberations, requests for
information, and transmittal of results at all levels of the Institute
Process itself is completely open, transparent – deliberations
are not
Clarity, Transparency
Professor Stanley Fish put it as follows: [1]


This means, first of all, laying down the tenure procedures
and requirements with a clarity that approaches the condition
of transparency. These procedures and requirements should
not only be published; they should be explained to each junior
faculty member at least once a year; and, given that the
explanation will be necessarily general and even abstract, its
annual repetition must be supplemented by a candid written
assessment of the progress the aspiring assistant professor
has or has not made.
__________________
[1] Stanley Fish, “Somebody Back There Didn’t Like Me,” Chronicle of Higher
Education, September 13, 2002.
Consistency of P&T Processes
What it doesn’t mean:




A prescription for uniform expectations of performance or activity
profiles among or within disciplines
Inflexible rules that exclude ranges of faculty endeavor
An attempt to funnel faculty views concerning P&T cases
through narrow filters
An attempt to constrain individuality of various units


Example: request for reference letters can be quite individualized
but should stress the need for the same type of information in the
process, consistent with the same institutional guidelines
Example: faculty in engineering and economics are expected to
have vastly different, field dependent ideas concerning scholarship
and contributions – PTAC is not concerned with such diversity
Definition of Bias
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of
temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and
sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an
instance of such prejudiced (1) : deviation of the
expected value of a statistical estimate from the
quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced
into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging
one outcome or answer over others
Definition of Bias
synonyms PREDILECTION, PREPOSSESSION,
PREJUDICE, BIAS mean an attitude of mind that
predisposes one to favor something. PREDILECTION
implies a strong liking deriving from one's
temperament or experience <a predilection for horror
movies>. PREPOSSESSION suggests a fixed
conception likely to preclude objective judgment of
anything counter to it <a prepossession against
technology>. PREJUDICE usually implies an
unfavorable prepossession and connotes a feeling
rooted in suspicion, fear, or intolerance <a mindless
prejudice against the unfamiliar>. BIAS implies an
unreasoned and unfair distortion of judgment in favor
of or against a person or thing <the common bias
against overweight people>.
Definition of Bias
BIAS - implies an unreasoned and unfair distortion of judgment in favor of
or against a person or thing
On this basis,

reasoned policies or actions based on open faculty deliberations, or

consistently derived, explained, publicized and applied institutional
objectives
are not typically biased in the sense of this standard definition,
although some individuals may not agree with them.
Bias involves unreasoned judgments or actions that reflect preferences or
predilections.
PTAC is concerned, in part, with how such unreasoned and unfair
distortion of judgment might affect both faculty development and case
deliberations in P&T processes, and how to identify and deal with this
Possible Venues for Bias
Perhaps obvious





Gender
Race
Ethnicity
Age
Disability
Possible Venues for Bias
Perhaps not so obvious…predilections toward:






engaging in interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary
research
teaming versus independent investigation
forums for publishing and presentation
utility and expectations of mentoring processes
entrepreneurial activities
design and synthesis oriented research
Possible Venues for Bias
Perhaps not so obvious…methods for






selecting mentors and means of guidance
assigning graduate students
allocating financial and equipment resources
assigning committees
selecting review committees and their
composition/representation
selecting references and dealing with input
from references
PTAC Survey



Finalized following PTAC pre-testing and considerable input from
assessment experts (Mary Frank Fox and Joseph Hoey, OARS)
On-line survey instrument implemented by OIT and OARS –
administered starting April 10 for period of one month
Questions are clustered as follows:

resource allocation and success

mentoring and networking

perception of evaluative methods and procedures

interdisciplinary collaborations

entrepreneurship

environment/culture of GT

demographic information
Best Practices



Review existing best practices document from
Exec. Board ad hoc Committee, circa 2000
Consider input from various aspects of PTAC
studies to date, leaving “handles” to insert input
from current faculty survey
Updated best practices document being
developed by PTAC subcommittee chaired by
Paul Benkeser
Case Studies



PTAC is working with Carol Colatrella, LCC to identify
and develop case studies
Engaged:
 Mary Ann Westfall, an IDT graduate student
 Laura Ferguson
Appointed a sub-committee chaired by Marie Thursby
to assist with case study brainstorming, development
and evaluation in view of its importance to Webbased tool
Web-Based ADEPT Instrument

This interactive, web-based instrument will contain the following
content developed by the PTAC committee, Fox, Colatrella, etc.
(with input from faculty at ADVANCE conference):
 Case studies
 Survey information
 Results of bias studies
 Best practices recommendations

AUDIENCE:
 Potential P&T Committee members in units
 Faculty candidates for P&T
ADEPT Learning Objectives
Candidates will use the instrument:

--to learn the components of a dossier

--to understand the nuances of an "information rich" dossier

--to understand the process of selecting top five intellectual
products and describing contributions clearly

--to understand importance of references for future P&T
evaluations

to become familiar with the schedule of the P&T process

--to understand expectations of P&T committees

--to reduce anxiety concerning the process by being prepared

--to appreciate institutional goals of maintaining high standards,
fairly applied
ADEPT Learning Objectives
Committee members will use the instrument:

--to emulate best practices in processes of establishing committees
and making P & T evaluations

--to be mindful of appropriate steps/actions in process in
communicating opinions/decisions within and beyond the
committee

--to recognize potential for bias in others & self

--to avoid bias to the degree possible in their own decisions and in
contributions to committee deliberations

--to respond constructively to evidence of or potential for bias in
others

--to become familiar with research on various forms of bias,
including those that are subtle and some not so subtle

--to appreciate institutional goals of maintaining high standards,
fairly applied
Plan for Case Study Breakouts
2:30-4:30/4:50 pm – Breakout Sessions
Goals:
• Identify and explore various issues related to faculty
development, guidance, support and potential bias in
P&T decision-making processes
• Provide feedback to PTAC regarding degree of
realism, illustrative utility and suggestions to improve
these case studies, to be developed later into
interactive modules in ADEPT
Plan for Case Study Breakouts
2:30-4:30/4:50 pm – Breakout Sessions
2:30-2:50 pm – Facilitator orientation of case studies;
reading
2:50-3:15 pm – Discussion of case specific information &
reactions, Case I
3:15-3:40 pm - Discussion of case specific information &
reactions, Case II
NOTE: one individual to serve as scribe to record all
discussion information
3:40 pm – Reconvene into large group
3:45 pm – ?? - Presentations of 2-3 outstanding discussion
bullets by each facilitator; overall group
discussion regarding case studies and bias
issues