When to refuse tenure and promotion external review request?

[quasihumanist]

The title basically says it.

Under what circumstances might one not agree to do one when requested?

How familiar do you need to be with the applicant's area of research?

How familiar do you need to be with the applicant's context, meaning the kind of institution they are at and what reasonable expectations would be?

How many is too many for you to be doing?  How many should you feel obligated to do over the course of a year or two?  Over the course of a career?

What if you think the applicant's area of research is bullshit but are aware that other people legitimately disagree?

[Katrina Gulliver]

You're free to say no for whatever reason you like. Obviously most would agree there's a level of community service/goodwill that is part of being willing to do them, but you're not obligated.

[Ruralguy]

If you really feel that the candidate's research area is bs you should probably bow out.

Other reasons: not really liking the person much,  various COI issues, not being familiar with the candidate's area of research.

I don't think you should do this if the mission of your university is very different from the candidate's school, and you have never worked at such a school.

I can't really speak to frequency, though I don't think you should feel compelled to multiples per year. That seems like a lot.

[polly_mer]

If you really feel that the candidate's research area is bs you should probably bow out.

I go both ways on that one.  If the unsuspecting public is harmed by objectively bad science, then one has an obligation to point out the harm.  If it's really a matter of opinion and there are good cases all around, then that's different.

Questions not asked in the original OP:

* How many other senior scholars can legitimately review this work? 

f you're one of 10 in the world, then that's a difference case from having most institutions having someone close enough in the field.  However, even if you are one of 10 people in the world, you have no obligation to be doing this once per month during prime season.  You have responsibilities to your own students and proteges.

* How well do you know the person in question and is it really important to you to help their career?

If you're having coffee at conferences three times a year and consider this person a close colleague you'd like to keep seeing for the next 20 years, then that's a different situation than you read an article once and asked a question at one conference three years ago.  One would hope that people going up for tenure would have not be stooping to that level of contact.  I certainly wouldn't be doing multiple reviews a year for people who are very tangential.

[spork]

I was contacted about reviewing a tenure file for someone working at a major research university within a two-week deadline. I asked how much I would be compensated. I got a huffy response saying that the department didn't provide compensation. So I said no.

[Hibush]

* What if you think the applicant's area of research is bullshit but are aware that other people legitimately disagree?

You should  take on this example if you are candid and objective. Depending on the facts, you could say things like:

"The department elected to hire  a specialist in an area of research I think is bullshit. That said, the candidate is producing high-quality/average/low-quality bullshit. Evidence in the portfolio that leads me to that judgement..."

"The department hired someone to provide strength in a particular discipline and the candidate seems to have chosen a particular angle that I think is bullshit. As a consequence of their rationale for pursuing this angle, I don't believe they have potential to become a world-class scholar/credible teacher/productive practitioner in the discipline. The reasoning they provide in the portfolio..."


Reviews like that can be helpful in that the department can choose to follow your reasoning or not. If the department sentiment is along the lines of #2 above, then your review will be valuable. If the department has bet its future on being the pre-eminent place for bullshit studies, then they will likely dismiss your judgement of the line of research but use your assessment of how well the candidate is pursuing that line of research.

[saramago]

I am unable to answer most of your questions, but in terms of number, I do about 2-3 per year, and more than 5 does seem like too many.
And if you have such a low opinion of the individual's research as to call it BS, I do think you should decline.

[lightning]

If you really feel that the candidate's research area is bs you should probably bow out.

I go both ways on that one.  If the unsuspecting public is harmed by objectively bad science, then one has an obligation to point out the harm.  If it's really a matter of opinion and there are good cases all around, then that's different.

Questions not asked in the original OP:

* How many other senior scholars can legitimately review this work? 

f you're one of 10 in the world, then that's a difference case from having most institutions having someone close enough in the field.  However, even if you are one of 10 people in the world, you have no obligation to be doing this once per month during prime season.  You have responsibilities to your own students and proteges.

* How well do you know the person in question and is it really important to you to help their career?

If you're having coffee at conferences three times a year and consider this person a close colleague you'd like to keep seeing for the next 20 years, then that's a different situation than you read an article once and asked a question at one conference three years ago.  One would hope that people going up for tenure would have not be stooping to that level of contact.  I certainly wouldn't be doing multiple reviews a year for people who are very tangential.

I'm reviewing a case right now, and the tenure committee chair made it clear to me that I should decline to review, if I know the candidate too well. I didn't ask the chair to elaborate on what he/she meant by that. I'm guessing that the tenure committee chair wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to write a superfluous LOR (like the useless kind one sees in the application file of job applicants applying for a tenure-track vacancy).

[Vkw10]

Refuse a request when you are unable to write an objective review, either because you have a close personal relationship with candidate or because you despise the candidate and/or their research area.

Refuse a request when you can't schedule a minimum of four hours for it before the due date, because four hours is the absolute minimum you'll need to review research and compose an objective assessment. I've never done one in four hours, even when I was quite familiar with the person's work, but some of you may be faster readers and writers than I am.

Refuse a request when you look at candidate's research area and can't name at least five other potential reviewers. If I know the area well enough to renew, I can name a few scholars who I'd ask to review.

I consider two reviews a year obligatory. Five people wrote reviews for me. We request six for every tenure candidate and won't proceed without four. Writing two a year myself seems a modest payback. I have done as many as six in a year, but doing six was too many given my other obligations.

[arty_]

I refuse when I'm already writing two in the given semester, or if I'm on sabbatical. I don't decline if the research is bad, because I sure wish people would write honest letters for the occasional weak candidate we have. Having said that, I've only encountered one candidate for whom I was obliged to write a letter of non-support- it felt really icky, but it was the only honest response possible from my reading of the material.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm guessing that the tenure committee chair wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to write a superfluous LOR (like the useless kind one sees in the application file of job applicants applying for a tenure-track vacancy).

Oh Polly.  You are a doodle.

[arcturus]

Wahoo Redux - unless you think lightning and polly_mer are the same person, you have misattributed the quote...

[Wahoo Redux]

Wahoo Redux - unless you think lightning and polly_mer are the same person, you have misattributed the quote...

D'oh!  My apologies, Polly.  I did not look closely enough. That just sounded like something you would say.

Lightening, you are a doodle.

Carry on.

[lightning]

Wahoo Redux - unless you think lightning and polly_mer are the same person, you have misattributed the quote...

D'oh!  My apologies, Polly.  I did not look closely enough. That just sounded like something you would say.

Lightening, you are a doodle.

Carry on.

Polly would never say what I say about LORs from applicants for tenure track vacancies. Polly likes LORs. I can't bear to read them.

And, we're definitely not the same person.

[Wahoo Redux]

Wahoo Redux - unless you think lightning and polly_mer are the same person, you have misattributed the quote...

D'oh!  My apologies, Polly.  I did not look closely enough. That just sounded like something you would say.

Lightening, you are a doodle.

Carry on.

Polly would never say what I say about LORs from applicants for tenure track vacancies. Polly likes LORs. I can't bear to read them.

And, we're definitely not the same person.

My bad.  Apologies.