/
OREGON
STAle
UNIVERSITY
FAC.U l TY" FO ~!-:l.M.,"~APE~~;.~
..:·,i<"
''-'.(, •. ,
'.
:'~~'-,<--;;:'-
FEBRUARY 1973
--"·:·"~·:D'_:O:---;!
PANDORA'S BOX
The January Faculty Forum discussion of anonymous student evaluations of
t€a~ching staff op~ns a whole pand ora's Box of possir.1lities which are in complete
harmony with the egalitarian concepts that characterize the Jacobin democracy of
Ollr present sociecy,
Everything
The concept can be expressed in two words:
~valuate
If it is right and proper that anonymous student evaluation of teachin~
staff is germane to University operations. then it is equally proper that
anonymous student evaluation of all other staff, e.g. administrative, service,
maintenance. and research, is equally germane. And if it is proner that student
evaluations are en~oura~ed. it is equally prooer that staff evaluations be en­
courap.ed.
If it is proper that anonymous evaluations are included in a teacher's
it is mandatory that similar evaluations he included in every staff
member~ and student's file.
Anything less is discrimination of the most arrant
sort.
Furthermore. all relevant data derived from these evaluations should be
published in the Barometer and posted on broadsheets for the information of all.
OnlY tn this way can the l'niversity rain a proper insig.ht into its apoearance
and relevance.
file,
But for adequate evaluation, the process should not stop here. Departments.
offices and aRencies shnuld also be evaluated anonymously; not only by the
students, but bv the staff. Every facet of the Vniversity should be involved so
that the benefits of anonymous critical review could be shared by everyone to the
end that University operations would be improved and stren~thened by this particu­
lar form of catharsis.
r.onsider what could be accomplished:
An incredibly detailed amount of in?ut would be generated that would provide
employment for numerous evaluators, clerks. civil servants, and computer techni­
cians who are not presently on the Vniversity staff (not to mention the custodial
technicians and the environ~ental pollution specialists who ~ould be needed to
dispose of the paper).
New construction ~ould be required to store the records. and conceivably a
computerized data bAnk ~ould have to be established to retrieve relevant data
for researchers, investigators, and morbidly curious individuals.
Numerous entirely new ad hoc committees cOlll<l he ;:J"?l"'ointeJ to considel"
various aspects of the evaluation and prepare sunmaries, recommenG remedial
Page 2
action, and consider future possibilities for extra?o]Htion of the evalu?-tion data.
t.\
Oimin\ltion of student anc'l staff effort to obtain data [JS'cessary to p:enerate
de!:1onstrations, oarades, and counter-demonstrations .... oul rl be facilitated.
Similarly, legislative investigations "'ould be aided ane! ?ubJic interest groups­
representing voters, taxpayers and taxpaying agencies could obtain insi?,nts
into University orf.anizstion and operation not otherwise available.
And before anyone would realize what had harrened the acadenlC year ~ould
be over ;lnd the University \,'ould be ready for the next ro\md of anor.y-::::ous evalua­
tion. This could go on indefinitely since there ere 1':::".J<'::'5 ':>;lOugh chanres in
st3.ff. students and agencies to require new evaluations .
. : ~Perha.p~ the best thin~s that could occur from this activity ';..Io'Jld b= that
it ""auld keep stud~nts occupied without the necessity for the::rr to study; and
yould keep staff occupied ..,ithout the necessity for them to ad~inister. te3ch.
research, or perform nomal housekeepin~. ronceivahly t:-:ese. evaluative activities
could continue until the University crumbled into dust fran lack of ccnventional
activity, or until the taxpayers got tired of "'at ching th.e a..,using s?€ c tEtcle of
Education undressing herself in public and decided to spend their money on ~ore
eSLn~tic and appropriAte burlesque.
However, I like to think that there is a vnriant in this particular
Pandora's Box. As cL:tssicists may recall, the last thin~ in the or1 ... 1n-31 box ­
after all the plagues and pests t-rere l<Josed upon the ~orld - was hope. In this
box - hopefully - the first thin~ released would be the hope that we are sane
eno'Jgh to recognize that an egalitarian approach to an essE':ltially authoritariai1
structure 1s stupid and futile and productive of nothin~ but chaos and disruotion.
'
C·'.
Jesse F. Rone
Veterinary ~edicioe
J.:muary 18. 1973
r
'--- .
February 1973 OSU Facultv Forum Papers
Page 3
DECISION-MAKING IN PROMOTION AND
TENURE CASES
In reaching decisions concerning promotion and/or
appointment to indefinite tenure of faculty menbers, the
faculty and administration of a modern university face
severe problems. These arise.from:
.
1) the several demands (teachlng, research) and servlce) that
a faculty member must meet. The relative importance and the
identi,fication of these roles are not well defined.
2) the difficulty in obtaining and evaluating evidence
regarding the past performance of the candidate in these areas.
3) the even greater difficulty in estimating future performance
(an evaluation generally considered critical for tenure
appointment) of the candidate in each of these areas.
The a'J.thors'have participated, at Oregon State and other
universities, in many such decisions.
The gravity of the
problem hdS caused us to give it considerable thought and we
suggest t''lat the difficulties in making such decisions
fairly and justly and in a well-documented fashion require more
rational public discussion than has' been the cas,= thus far.
We wish to add at the outset that, although in our experience
the process in general leads to acceptable decisions, it
contains the ri5k for major errors and that such errors arc
not uncommon.
Before proceeding further, we wish to state that we assume
at all levels that the faculty member performs, at least
nominally, the formal duties required of his function such
as teaching courses assigned -to him, presenting in these courses
subject ~atter relevant to the course and of required minimal
quality, meeting his students and discharging his share of the
departmental functions.
It is only with respect to the first of the three problem
areas ouclined above that the rules of procedure of a university
give much help.
In most 'large land grant universities general
policy holds that all three areas of activity are of importance.
There appears to be a consensus that truly outstanding perfor­
mance in all three is not to be expected of any individual and
that a healthy university faCUlty will have a spectrum of
abilities over this range. Thus, some individuals may be truly
outstanding researchers, average teacher's and perfoI'm only
limited l1servicell functions.
Others may exhibit relatively
little research productivity, but be trUly iIlspiring teachers
or contribute strongly in service to university, state and
country.
The large university needs all types and each and the
whole benefit from interaction with the others.
However, two
general :rules seem to apply) especially in consideration for
tenure:
Page 4
February 1973 OSU faculty Forum
Pap~rs
1) SOITte campe"tence 1.'1 every ~lrea 15 e:(pectcd.
2) Outstanding performance ill at least one 2-reC'- J.S ffiG.nda.tor~/,
The real problems,of course, arise in jlldging what is me3nt
by "outstanding".
Let us consider' tea·.::r~ing and rese2-y'ch
separately, for the sources of infor-!:,ation and %~thods of
evaluation are quite differeIlt.
We shall no·t discuss ·the
evaluation of service functiorls, for ir seems to \JS tllat ttlese
are more easily defined and measured ann, s."ince t~~achin.s and
reseilr:::h are the basic func·tions of a university, play 2­
SOlnewtlat secondary role in ·the evaluation.
Teac~linO"
- T'lere are _no univeY'sally
acce.;:'~~ej
me3.SUI.'''-cS
of
_ _ _ _2
.
.
.
.
good teaching,
Thel~e are, at course, 01).1..11JO)l::-, a:-; to '..J ricJ.l.:
~information should be sought.
Some ',.joule! r2I'! \.lpcn stl!.J.C:'nt
evaluiltion whil~ others main'i:aill tIlat SUC~l evalu21:iorJ~ are
worthless, especially if obtained at the t.iw(--: i:~,E' COJrs(--: \oJd3
taught.
ThE'. student's immediate reaction to a c::;t:rs<? may bea!.'
little relation to what he h~tS learned or ilill r·~tain) and
objec.tive methods for evaluating the long-ter", lc::.arning in the
diverse classes of a university do not exist. A stucy of
COllsiderable interest in this respect, !)llblisl'led by ;'1. end a.
Rodin in lISciencell (vol. 177(4055), p. 1154-1J.60, 1972),
concludes that the correlation bet\ole~n qllality teachinf, of
endur'ing value and student evaluation can be' rleg(~tive. Others
tend to rely on evaluation J)y colleagues and departlaent heads,
but many would point out that this depends largel.y on hearsay
and is bin sed by the socia.l rel-:ltionships t;.lithin A. cle.pa:c'tment.
It may be noted that the situation is fur'ther coraplicatec1 by
significant differences in teaching :lY'ocedures between
undergraduate and graduate courS8S.
11any instructors are not
equally proficient at both.
Thus, it comes dO\oln to this: only the rl';:-;nr~~abl'l good
teacher or the abysmally poor one can be easily ider!tified.
Consequently, facu11:y panels and administrators orlly really
consider teaching al::,ility in such insta'lces. \·;hile this is
unfortunate, there is little else they can do.
IJeDartment
heads, in recommending faculty members for :promo~:i~n or tenure l
will routinely report that "X" is a good teacher".
~jo one
can say nay, but the very uniformity of t:he res:>onse renders
it of little use.
­
Research - Here the evidence is more concrete but the
eva1uatiorl of it still difficult.
Theevidence consists of
two SOy·ts:
publications describing the research, and the
evaluation of the research by colleagues within and outside
the uni.vers.ity.
We note that the status of an individual
e,r::,ong his peers nationally and internationally is a £'unction,
not only of his pUblished research paper's, but also of other,
less concrete components stIch as the stimulation in wri~ten
and spoken word provided to his colleagues, his degrE!e of
leadership in developing research, his willjngness to cooperate
and share and many other imponderabilia.
\
\
(
\
February 1937 OSU Faculty Forum Papers
Page 5
It is often sllspected that "countirlg!! o~ p~blicat~or,s is
the pr'incipal critel'ion il~l~lieci by administrators, b~t ~rl our
exoerience the evaluation 15 fllmost always ~ore sootllstlcated.
And this it must be because:
a) Publication of a paper in a journal :or which it must
be passed upon by referees prior to pUblication is more
t::eaningful than publication in media IN'hich aut:JJ.1.atically accept
\.Ihatever is oresented.
Even within the set of ~efereed
journals it ls widely acknowledged -that there are several
levels of excellerlce and rigol' in each fi~ld. Henc?) it is
not just a questiun of llOW much was published, but also where.
b) The number and length of papers that :nust be pUblished
for a comparable contribution to knowledge varies \>Jidely tr'om
cliscipline to di.scipline and E~ven changes with tlLe evolution
of a single field of endeavor.
For Example, a biochemi_st may
routinelY Dublish five or six short papers Dsr year) a
mathernat-iclan one or' even less, yet both may be contributing
equally to scholarship.
In a higllly competitive field, the
scllolar may opt for frequent brief pUblications to serve his
field better, wher'ee.s in a more leisurely one contributions
tend to be more cOr.Jpl~ehensive) longer, and less frequent.
c) The style of irldividuals varies in a way which bears no
r-elationship to thei::.' overall impCict on human I..:nowledge:
some
;)resent their D~terial in many small p~lckage5. others arB
tlonored for only a few m~jor (~ontributj.ons in 2 lifetime.
Some
::-lay seek out problems that are clifficul t and time-co!1:.;urning to
solve and carry a la_rge risk of failure while others mold
their careers from mcJI'e rapid and sure undertrlkings) some limes
even with a calcul~ting eye on the realities of academic life.
For these reasons) a record of publicatiorl alone is
difficult to judge.
Even more important, it is insufficient.
The value of a scholar to a university derives largely from the
quality of the colleagues and students he attracts to the
university, and the way he inspires them, by teaching and
~xample, to seek the tru-th above all else.
1'hu5) to judge his
value we must look to the respect he commands a~ong his peers
in his ot.,.n and related fields in and outside bis university.
lOt is fillt enoL:g]1 tllat he be higllly l'cgarded locally; the
university will not grow through internal nutual backpatting)
and the dangers inherent in small closed communities are
obvious.
Thus 1 the admir,istration and faCUlty panels must turn
to outside evaluation.
A new problem then arises.
How are L~e ev~luators to be
chosen? Very often those who make this decision are not
themf:elves expert in the field of the candidate.
Because of
this, there is fx'equcnt reliance upon indiv~duals s~lggested by
the department in question and by the candidate himself.
ThE:('(~
are obvious dangers here, but if the reviewers are chosen from
a vari.ety of schools in good standing, are not close per'sonaI
friends of the candidate and exhibit theJ:1seL"='3 the ma.rkings of
uary 1973 OSU
ra~ulty
Foru~
P2?~rS
errlinence in their field, aIle uSllally feels ['(')a •.iveI·j' :~a:~_
One thing is clear: such autsidr:>: referees '[.'1'")'1:']0 2 ~'..I:..:\_~.~:J~~e
r'eliable index of the stature of ·t~le CilGdidat i.!~ h:.~ :i~},:~ tl1an
dny local review.
In case of doubt, t~'~is ~s rtls 2~vici L _c:~
ShOuld be listened to.
All such means of evaluation leay~ Oile q~e:~t~()n ~~:![~.:~!:~ed:
'...rill the candidate in the future per'[(;!':lt:..., c:: 2,~711'>,,~'" 2C:'c,-:.:.s-:~er:t
',,lith his Dast record? tile sublilj,t l hal ~:l'~!"'~~ .:" :'(';:ll~! :-.'.::l ,·i0.y to
ascer·tain-tllis, that aJ.l opinions arc g~less2S, ;~n~: ~'!~I ·:~.0Y
should be disregarded.
Every univer'sit:; lias ~·;!~~)i.es of p~~)~le
'...rho have at some point simply stoppcli b'2l.-::g ~;~'(Jd'lC~i'/'~ ~:'. 2
~cholarl~' manner, and of others who llave ll~e~-::~ct2.jJ_y calg~!t ~'ir£.
Even the device of looking fOl' !'eCerlt lap~es "~'~ h;I:'S:~ c:
activity tllrns out) under close scruti~y, to b~ ~:;relia~~0.
Scholar'ship and research) eSl)€!cially ill SDC~ '~~ld~, 2~e ~~t
production-line oriented. A pll)'sicist may> I()'~ ~%~'-!~:e)
direct his inter'ests to neH kinds of p{·I)bl,::r:~s;:."d r,:;':...::':!.",-,;,
several years of reorientation before· h!.:' b~gi:,s ~~O'.ir; tc
Droduce. A mathematician rnav encounter uncx-=-_·,-~C?~_':!'-: d:::fi(;:J~.:i':O'~
in the development of a line' c,f analye::is '.-.'~'i~:~; ~,;;"'! ~>=:::'::;;,'i "',""
for mon.-ths or discover) ""hen ail !las been ')['c..~~<-\t. tc Co.
successful end, that a coJ.league el";e-,,,her'c, ~~'!.'.-·:::_~'!~C(.-Jn::::: "L0 .... :.",
has just developed the same and alreadj publis:-~2d :'..t. }.;-~ 13.s:
dllalysis, an estimate of future perfOrma!lC~ is ~ntir'ely
:;)!'edicated upon judgement of his past perforr::.2.;:('~'
The system of dpc.ision~ma}-.ing as C)l..lt1.j.!:~d ::::t.~,)·:0, 320;-::::;,
inefficient and frallght wi·th possibilitj of 2r~·8!'. I~~:~2':~r, ~·t
::'5 not easy to see how it can be improved, 2.1".(:. Y'2E:_rS G~ '?f'~ort
':Jy those involved in the process have not ::oeste'::' ~ed j" 2.::;"
significant changes.
It must also be sai.d th~I·7 l~ t~e ~.cl~n,
it has been used with success by tlle fllust outs~~:ndin7
universities.
Indeed. it is the mark of the w,,<:k ~~i';,::';"siti:2s
to disregard these criteria, in particular' th~ outside !)E0r
review, and to rely strongly on internal jUd6e~2nt by c;lledg~es
or administrators, or on llighly codi.fiable crit~ri.a such as
seniority, teaching load, grant dollars, nur!lbe2 of ?h.'J. students
and similar quantifiable parameter's.
In 'the lO~lg run, the
starlding of a scholar and of his university a~'~ what t11ev 3~'e :\~
the eyes of the outside expert beholder, Hhethi';:::" he jUdg~s 1::-')
the quality of scholarly output or by the quali::y 2.,~d ~;ur:;'be;'- of
zraduates. Only at their peril can universities Dlac2 their
o~]n internal judgenlent of the quality of personnei an~ Drodllct
~ver that of the world they live in.
.
3
C","
, \
K.
E.
Vi3...r,. HOlde
professor- of
, 7
3ic?n;E;:.~~
(