Dubious Faculty Review

[Hegemony]

I've been asked to review someone's promotion file — they already have tenure and are coming up for promotion to full.

I've done a number of these reviews and the people were clearly shoo-ins — plenty of excellent publications and projects, hard-working, good solid scholars.

This person is the first I've seen whose case is somewhat borderline. They published one book before tenure, and now have a second book, but it's a volume co-edited with another scholar, and it's not squarely on a scholarly topic. If the first book were Women in the French Revolution, this one would be Women! Making History In All Ages!, apparently aimed at the undergraduate market.

They have around eight academic articles, but four are co-authored (in a field where this is not common).  And they have a leading role in an online resource of collected encyclopedia-type articles, but the articles are unsigned (making it unclear whether this person is writing many of them), and it's unclear whether this would count as a scholarly endeavor exactly.

I asked the person's university for their promotion criteria, and they just gave me a rather vague paragraph about "active participation in scholarship" and all. The university is an R1 which is maybe in the lower third of R1s. So it's hard for me to tell if this track record is sufficient or not. The person would not be promoted at my place, but maybe this counts as huge productivity at this place?

Any experience with this, O Forumites? What would you do if you were in my shoes?

[Ruralguy]

You could just bail, I suppose, but being summer, they may find it difficult to find a replacement.

You could try to see what others in similar fields at that school have on their CV, though it may not be clear when they were promoted.


But if this is the standard at this R1, then they should probably stop asking for external reviews. It looks more like the standard (maybe a bit higher) at my 100 ish ranked SLAC.


You could just state what you think of the work itself.

[mamselle]

Did they ask you to answer any specific questions, like ranking the person's work in the disciplinary universe or evaluating their contributions to the scholarly community as a whole?

Did they ask directly if the person would be promoted at your site?

Those might allow for some up-front statements, if so.

If not....hmmm....that's more difficult.

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

Eight articles total?

I wouldn't have thought that plus an edited volume and a monograph would suffice for full at any R1. Loads of job candidates in my field have that much already (minus the monograph).

Does this person supervise a ton? Are they being invited to give lots of talks? What do the other full profs at that institution look like?.

[Volhiker78]

My university is probably in same category - lower 1/3 of R1's.  That would be considered extremely low in term of research productivity for a full professor.  If it were me, I'd give my honest feedback regarding number and quality of research productivity and indicate it would be unlikely that they would be promoted at my university.  Unless I was explicitly asked the question, I would avoid saying anything regarding whether they should be promoted at their school.

[onthefringe]

Unless specifically requested, I never say whether someone would be tenured at my institution (and frankly, even if they do specifically ask, I usually try to avoid answering). I figure they are the ones who can balance their expectations and needs, and they need to make their own decisions.

I'm not in a book field, so it's hard for me to judge productivity (but it sounds like others say it's low). In that position I usually acknowledge that the productivity is low for the career stage, do what I can to contextualize the strengths of the work that does exist, point out any obvious mitigating factors in the CV (lots of teaching or service, global pandemic, etc) and call it done.

[Ruralguy]

I would stick to even less than what OntheFringe suggests. Talk about the positives (and maybe the negatives) of the actual work. Maybe mention how that would be received at your school, but don't try to mention extenuating circumstances unless you really have solid information on that.

[pgher]

I have no further advice beyond the wisdom others have shared. However, I'll point out that the candidate's colleagues may feel exactly as you do, but if someone wants to apply for promotion, there is probably no stopping them.

[Hegemony]

Yes, eight articles total. But their CV is cluttered up with a whole bunch of unquantifiable stuff: "Principal editor in online resource," and so on. It's all in one big category on the CV and I had to pick through and find the published articles. Four articles since tenure, two of them co-authored. I know people take variable amounts of time before putting in for promotion to full, but this person has been associate for twelve years.

Their CV is indeed crammed full of stuff, but my impression is that this is someone who achieved tenure and took their foot off the pedal of peer-reviewed scholarship, and instead put a lot of energy into more "helping the discipline" stuff like this online collection of encyclopedia-type articles. That's fine by me, but whether it counts for promotion is a conundrum.

I appreciate pgher's thought that this candidate's colleagues may have the same reservations I do.

Also, the vagueness of what I am supposed to do is part of the problem. I'm supposed to "evaluate." Beyond that it's unclear.

I will describe the work and its weight and positives, such as they are. Thanks, all.

[Ruralguy]

Just evaluate what you see. Any extrapolation beyond that is likely dangerous (not for you, but for the candidate or school, depending on what side your errors tip to).

[lightning]

You were asked to be an external reviewer, so in absence of the university's guidelines for promotion, YOU get to set the standard, with no blowback.

Don't make this any harder than it needs to be, don't second-guess, and just do what they asked you to do.

[kaysixteen]

When evaluating the scholar's professional output, do you have to actually read the articles and book in question, for their merit?  It would seem that x excellent articles would be very much better than x+10 crappy or mediocre ones.   Not all research is done at the same pace, and being brilliant is not something that could be done on cue.

[Hegemony]

Yes, I'm supposed to read it all. The articles seem to be deep explorations of details of mild importance. The book seems chirpy and directed at a non-scholarly audience. Following the advice of you all, I will cast this all in a mostly neutral, faintly positive kind of way.

[mleok]

This case doesn't sound borderline, it sounds like it shouldn't pass muster at any R1. If you haven't already agreed to do so, I would suggest saying no. If you've already agreed, I would say that you should be honest, since it's a promotion to full professor, and the candidate isn't going to lose their job if they get denied, so there is absolutely no need to pull any punches.

[mamselle]

This case doesn't sound borderline, it sounds like it shouldn't pass muster at any R1. If you haven't already agreed to do so, I would suggest saying no. If you've already agreed, I would say that you should be honest, since it's a promotion to full professor, and the candidate isn't going to lose their job if they get denied, so there is absolutely no need to pull any punches.

Glad to see this, it's what I've been thinking but the call itself would be beyond my remit.

You could, it just occurred to me, do what one person I worked for once did. Not saying I liked prepping the mailing, but it was effective...

The person I worked for wrote a bland, honest-enough formal review for someone who'd been dropping the ball for awhile. That was what went to the file.

They sent it with a scathing, very specific, time-and-day problematic analysis in the cover letter to the chair of the reviewing committee, stating very clearly that under no circumstances could they support the individual's continuation in the position. The person left.

Rather cynical, indeed, but they ran a tight ship, knew the chair, and knew they both wanted the same thing--to know exactly where the individual-in-question's demonstrated capabilities lay.

Just a formal way of addressing the quandary, if it's useful.

M.