Annual reviews of faculty and Covid

[Dismal]

How much detail is supposed to go into the tenure and promotion review committee's annual assessment for a faculty member dealing with child care issues and pandemic related health problems. I'm under the impression that a statement can be made that the faculty member had  approved extensions of years  on tenure track  and that the faculty submitted a statement describing Covid impacts on productivity, but how many  details beyond that  should be included. The report  concludes that assistant prof is  making good progress toward tenure.

This person is not going up for tenure now but thinks this annual report should really tell the story.
How much detail are others including in these reports.

[Hegemony]

I imagine it would depend on the particulars of your place and how sympathetic the reviewers are likely to be. My inclination would be to mention the degree of severity, but not the particulars. For instance, "the pandemic posed significant obstacles to research and productivity," but not "She had two children under five who could not attend daycare..." and so on. If she needed to travel to do research, or needed interlibrary loan books and interlibrary loan was not functioning, that's the kind of detail I would include.

I think most of us know that details of disrupted caregiving should make a difference, but most of us also know that they will lead some old farts to classify the faculty member as "being on the mommy track" or something similarly prejudicial — so I wouldn't chance it.

[Ruralguy]

I would say a paragraph with some summary of the impacts without mentioning details of her family members or anything like that would be appropriate. You could say that caring for family members during the stressful and impactful times of the pandemic provided a very difficult challenge which she overcame by doing X, or that she did not overcome by doing Y. Do not get into the fact that her daughter got COVID and then her mom needed surgery, etc. Those specifics are perhaps important for her to provide in her own report to make the claims credible, but that doesn't mean that a Char or T&P committee should parrot them.

[Ruralguy]

On seeing Hegemony's answer, maybe that's a better idea. I don't think the review needs to totally eschew these challenges. We should start to accept this is part of being human. We need to meet certain standards for tenure, but we aren't robots (although it might be cool if we were).

[ciao_yall]

On seeing Hegemony's answer, maybe that's a better idea. I don't think the review needs to totally eschew these challenges. We should start to accept this is part of being human. We need to meet certain standards for tenure, but we aren't robots (although it might be cool if we were).

However, being seen as a mommy who can't manage her personal life is different from being a daddy who stepped up for his small children.

The risks to women faculty are too high.

[jerseyjay]

I am not sure I understand the question.

If I understood correctly, a tenure-track faculty member asked for (and received) an extension of their tenure clock for reasons due to Covid. Taking this into account, the person is making good progress.

There are many, many ways that Covid disrupted people's research. Some people got sick, had relatives get sick or die, and had to take care of children. Some people had spouses who lost their jobs, or relatives who moved in.

Most academics had libraries/archives close, international travel cut off, research collaborations disrupted, campuses closed, peer review take longer.

It seems appropriate that the person was able to have an extended tenure clock and I happy they are back on track.

If the person is back on track, I think it would probably be warranted to note that they requested and received an extension due to the Covid pandemic, and now is on track and is likely to meet the requirements to tenure.

I am not sure what there is to be gained by trying to be more specific. That would seem to invite unwelcome comparison. (Dr. Smith is single and young and didn't have to deal with the same problems as Dr. White who is married with three kids and whose spouse was incubated in hospital, so why is Dr. Smith complaining so much?)  The reality of sexism (why is Dr. White so focused on her family instead of her career) are also, well, real.

If the person is not performing as well as would have been expected, it might be okay to explain what other circumstances there are, in a general way. But if the person is meeting the requirements, I would just say that.

My reviews usually said something like:
"Over the last year, Dr. Jay has published X articles, and has another in review, and a book contract. He has served on Y Committees, including chairing one, and has taught a full load to stellar evaluations. I have faith that Dr. Jay will meet the requirements for tenure if he continues at this rate."

So in your case, I might write:
"Dr. Brown asked for a year's extension in the tenure clock because of the disruptions caused by Covid. Despite the challenges posed by these developments, Dr. Brown has continued a strong research agenda, having X articles published,  including in some of the leading journals of their field. If Dr. Brown continues this work they should be on the path of meeting the requirements for tenure. "

I guess, for me, the bottom line is the person is on track, and this should be stated.

[Ruralguy]

I can see now that leaving out any details is probably for the best. Maybe one day we can all stand to be more upfront about such things without seeing it as weakness, but without really knowing, best not to go there.

[pgher]

I can see now that leaving out any details is probably for the best. Maybe one day we can all stand to be more upfront about such things without seeing it as weakness, but without really knowing, best not to go there.

The problem with providing details is, you provide the opportunity for a partially informed, uninvolved person to impose their judgment on whether or not the situation calls for the accommodations given.

[artalot]

I think it also depends on how the review is seen within the tenure process and whether this is a pivotal report (say the three-year review) or an annual report. At my uni the three-year report is seen as setting the stage for tenure or its denial. So, if someone is having problems the tenor of the report is really important.
Also, is the person likely to stay on track given current funding, travel, etc. restrictions? My uni severely curtailed faculty travel funding due to COVID budget issues and it has hurt all of us, but the junior scholars most of all. Our library is also just not buying books anymore. No books + no conference travel = hard to stay up on current trends in the field. If you think that person is on track, I would focus on barriers to them staying on track, not the past.

[Hibush]

I can see now that leaving out any details is probably for the best. Maybe one day we can all stand to be more upfront about such things without seeing it as weakness, but without really knowing, best not to go there.

The problem with providing details is, you provide the opportunity for a partially informed, uninvolved person to impose their judgment on whether or not the situation calls for the accommodations given.

The letter really needs to be presented in a way that preempts such judgment. For instance, saying that there was a plan that was determined to be appropriate to the situation and that the plan was followed.

[teach_write_research]

If you are in the position of writing a supportive letter, or have the ear of someone who is a letter writer, it might be appropriate to acknowledge the institutional barriers or lack of supports that exacerbated the difficulties. Identifying the normative and negative stereotypes that might be carried over from pre-pandemic times could also serve to provide context for the level of progress and success by the candidate.

Like others say, I don't recommend that the candidate speak those truths in their materials. It's not a dialogue and the committee will be in judgment mode. As a candidate, staying silent on something that matters so much is a painful part of the process.