Newburger, Craig

English

University of Central Florida (UCF): STARS (Showcase of Text, Archives, Research & Scholarship)

JACA * January 1997JACA1(1997): 76-78"Other-campus'' FacultyParticipation in the Tenure/Promotion Review Process:External Validation for InternalDecision MakingCRAIG NEWBURGERRECENTLY, a peer review committee chair from a "Big 8" university speech com-munication department invited me to serve as one of four "other campus" evalua-tors for a tenure candidate's dossier. At first I was flattered, and, of course, acceptedthe invitation. Upon further consideration, I asked colleagues how common it is to use"other-campus" evaluators (our campus student population approaching five thousand doesnot use outside evaluators). Initial reactions ranged from "They want to deny someonetenure and are seeking outside support to "It's pretty common at larger universities."Wanting to investigate further, I contacted a friend on the Purdue University faculty(where I received my doctorate) and found out that the inclusion of as many as five "other-campus" evaluators is standard operating procedure for their tenure/promotion reviews. Ithen called Steve Duck, chair of the Communication Studies Department at the Universityof Iowa, and learned that, typically, at least three outside evaluators are used for their ten-ure/promotion reviews. Both Purdue's and Iowa's communication studies doctoral programshave been listed among those with "Top Ratings" (Edwards, Watson, & Barker, 1988).The inquiries further revealed that the use of "other-campus" evaluators for tenure and/or promotion candidates' dossiers is regarded as somewhat common at larger graduate de-gree granting institutions. The methodology for generating a list of potential "other-cam-pus" evaluators is similar for Purdue, Iowa, and the "Big 8" university. In each case both themembers ofthe committee and the candidate put forward a list of names of potential evalu-ators and a combined list emerges that reflects both the committee's and candidate's choices.Ultimately, the peer review committee makes the choices regarding the composition of thefinal list. Professor Duck cautioned that attention must be directed toward ascertainingwhether any linkages exist between candidates and preferred "other-campus" faculty thatcould potentially bias the evaluative process (e.g., previous co-author, co-faculty member,graduate school peer).76JACA ^ ^ NewburgerBefore any institution embarks on the course to include this review dimension as partof its local in-house tenure/promotion decision-making process, some matters of potentialcontroversy must be considered. First, the confidentiality of peer evaluation informationwas not upheld in a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling.In University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 110 S. CT. 577 (1990), the Courtdenied that either the First Amendment or a common law "academicfreedom privilege" permitted the university to withhold from a plaintiffalleging sex discrimination in a tenure denial the confidential peerevaluations for her and five male faculty In Pennsylvania, the EEOChad subpoenaed the confide;itial peer evaluations, and the legal issue posedwas whether the subpoena should be enforced. Although the universityargued that "collegiality would be destroyed" if no privilege were created.Justice Harry Blackman disagreed. Writing for a unanimous court, henoted that Title VII contained no language excluding peer evaluationsfrom discovery, and the EEOC's need for relevant information was notdiminished simply because the defendant in this case was a university. . . . "Although it is possible that some evaluators may be less candid asthe possibility of disclosure increases, others may simply ground theirevaluations in specific examples and illustrations in order to deflectpotential claims of bias or unfairness (110 S. Ct. at 588)."Although the case involved access to this information by the EEOC, ratherthan by a private plaintiff, it is likely that the case will be interpreted topermit plaintiffs to see letters from outside evaluators, writtenrecommendations of department or other committees, and otherinformation relevant to a negative employment decision" (Kaplin & Lee,1990, pp. 95-96; see also. Lee, 1990).An obvious conclusion to be drawn from this litigation is that both in-house and "other-campus" evaluators for tenure and/or promotion candidates' dossiers should be wary ofclaims that their comments will ultimately be confidential. Some protection may comefrom candidates signing a waiver of their right to examine such documents, but cautionshould be exercised when confidentiality is an issue."Other-campus" faculty should consider several additional issues before accepting aninvitation to evaluate another institution's tenure/promotion candidate's dossier. What youare being asked to evaluate should be a relevant concern. If you are being asked, for ex-ample, to assess a person's publications and stature in a scholarly area where you are "widely"regarded to have expertise, most would regard that as reasonable. Questions requiring out-side reviewers to make recommendations about candidates' performances in areas that aboundwith intangibles, however, are a matter for concern. A candidate who served as originalauthor of a grant proposal for corporate funding of a center for reducing speaker apprehen-sion, for example, where the proposal was awarded funding in the neighborhood of fiftythousand dollars annually over a period of five years, has accomplished something. What ifthe institution where the proposal author serves values published research as the paramountgauge regarding a tenure and/or promotion candidate's prospects? Additionally, what if thiscandidate produced no publications as an outcome of a half-decade of data gathering fromthe center? Surely, the outside reviewer can offer an assessment and a recommendation, butone that would require qualifiers, as the intangibles associated with local valuation of ac-quisition of grant funds versus research publications are beyond the purview ofthe outsidereviewer.77JACA January 1997Additional issues that merit consideration involve how many outside reviewers shouldbe invited for a particular tenure/promotion evaluation and what are the departmental anduniversity standard operating procedures regarding the selection and use of "other-campus"faculty. There may be no magic number of outside reviewers required for the evaluativeprocess to be credible, but the number "one" would certainly be suspect. Further, an exami-nation of departmental and university standard operating procedures may be revealing re-garding: how lists of desirable "other campus" reviewers are determined (peer review com-mittee members versus candidate involvement); how the final winnowing down to thoseinitially invited is accomplished; what happens when refusals are received (go to the nextname on the list?); how reviewer confidentiality is handled; etc.As the number of university, tenure and/or promotion reviews becomes increasinglyconcerned with quantitative and qualitative judgments (i.e., scholarship and publication),the elevation ofthe impartiality ofthe final "committee" decision through the inclusion of"other-campus" reviewers will become increasingly popular. As with any aspect ofthe peerreview process, alteration of existing standard operating procedures to include this evalua-tive dimension will require scrupulous examination.REFERENCES AND NOTESCraig Newburger (Ph.D., Purdue University, 1983) is Associate Professor, Department ofArts and Communication, Christopher Newport University, Newport News, VA 23606-2998.The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Dean Virginia S. Purtle, ChristopherNewport University, for her insights and resource-sharing regarding legal implications as-sociated with the use of "other campus" reviewers.Edwards, R., Watson, K. W, & Barker, L. L. (1988). Highly regarded doctoral programs inselected areas of communication: 1987. Communication Education, 31, 263-269.Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (1990). The law of higher education. National Association ofCollege and University Attorneys.Lee, B. A. (1990). Peer review confidentiality: Is it still possible? National Association ofCollege and University Attorneys.78

Other-campus  Faculty Participation in the Tenure/Promotion Review Process: External Validation for Internal Decision Making

https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=jaca

Other-campus Faculty Participation in the Tenure/Promotion Review Process: External Validation for Internal Decision Making

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Central Florida (UCF): STARS (Showcase of Text, Archives, Research & Scholarship)