P&T ADVANCE COMMITTEE (PTAC)

 Georgia Tech NSF

ADVANCE ConferenceApril 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

MembershipIvan Allan College

Willie Belton, Associate Professor, EconomicsCollege of Sciences Jeannette Yen: Applied Physiology, Biology, Psychology

Mustafa El-Sayad: Chemistry and biochemistry, Mathematics, PhysicsCollege of Engineering

Paul Benkeser –BME, T&FEJ. Carlos Santamarina - CEE, AE, ChE Ronald Schafer – ECE, ISYE Dave McDowell – ME, MSE (CHAIR)

Dupree College of ManagementMarie Thursby

College of ComputingDana Randall

College of ArchitectureDoug Allen

ADVANCE Liaison: Mary Hunt, Tabitha Barnette, Beth Gourbiere, Carol Colatrella, GT ADVANCE professors

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

Timeline

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

Consistency of P&T Processes

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.

Clarity, Transparency

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

Consistency of P&T Processes

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 Biassynonyms 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 BiasBIAS - 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

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

PTAC Survey

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

Best Practices

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 Web-based tool

Case Studies

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

Web-Based ADEPT Instrument

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

ADEPT Learning Objectives

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 group3:45 pm – ?? - Presentations of 2-3 outstanding discussion

bullets by each facilitator; overall group discussion regarding case

studies and bias issues