PTAC Goals & Deliverables

1. P&T ADVANCE COMMITTEE (PTAC)Georgia Tech NSFADVANCE ConferenceApril 23, 2003David L. McDowell, PTAC Chair

2. 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

3. 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 ManagementMarie Thursby College of ComputingDana Randall College of ArchitectureDoug Allen ADVANCE Liaison: Mary Hunt, Tabitha Barnette, Beth Gourbiere, Carol Colatrella, GT ADVANCE professors

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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 unfairdistortion of judgment in favor of or against a person or thing <the common bias against overweight people>.

10. Definition of Bias BIAS - implies an unreasonedandunfairdistortion 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

11. Possible Venues for Bias Perhaps obvious • Gender • Race • Ethnicity • Age • Disability

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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 Web-based tool

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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