Resent from the TP list.
D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:49:41 -0700
To: tomorrows-professor@lists.Stanford.EDU
From: Rick Reis <reis@stanford.edu>
Subject: TP Msg. #668 RISING ABOVE COGNITIVE ERRORS: GUIDELINES FOR
SEARCH, TENURE REVIEW, AND OTHER EVALUATION COMMITTEES
"Cognitive scientists are proving definitively=20
that many of the selection and evaluation tasks=20
we undertake on a daily basis are alarmingly=20
"contaminated." The contaminants-what can be=20
generically termed cognitive shortcuts and=20
errors-are present in academia as we gather and=20
sort through information, interpret it, and then=20
come to decisions and evaluations about, for=20
instance, job candidates, tenure and promotion=20
cases, grant and fellowship applicants."
* * * * * *
TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR(SM) MAILING LIST
desk-top faculty development one hundred times a year
Over 24,750 subscribers
Over 650 postings
Over 650 academic institutions
Over 100 countries
Sponsored by
THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
http://ctl.stanford.edu
An archive of all past postings=20
(with a two week delay) can be found at:
http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/index.shtml
* * * * *
Folks:
The posting below looks at a "number of cognitive=20
errors and shortcuts routinely and unwittingly=20
made by individual evaluators, and then casts=20
light on seven common dysfunctions within=20
academic organizations that can and usually do=20
intensify the severity of the cognitive errors."=20
It is by JoAnn Moody, a national diversity=20
consultant who works with a variety of campuses.=20
It is from "Rising Above Cognitive Errors:=20
Guidelines for Search, Tenure Review, and other=20
Evaluation Committees" which was released in=20
April 2005. More information can be found at her=20
website: [www.DiversityOnCampus.com].
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Faculty as Mentor
Tomorrow's Academia
---------------------------------------------=20
1,458 words=20
------------------------------------------
RISING ABOVE COGNITIVE ERRORS: GUIDELINES=20
FOR SEARCH, TENURE REVIEW, AND
OTHER EVALUATION COMMITTEES
JoAnn Moody, PhD, JD
National Diversity Consultant
Director, Northeast Consortium for Faculty Diversity
Cognitive scientists are proving definitively=20
that many of the selection and evaluation tasks=20
we undertake on a daily basis are alarmingly=20
"contaminated." The contaminants-what can be=20
generically termed cognitive shortcuts and=20
errors-are present in academia as we gather and=20
sort through information, interpret it, and then=20
come to decisions and evaluations about, for=20
instance, job candidates, tenure and promotion=20
cases, grant and fellowship applicants.
During these intense cognitive processes, all or=20
most of us unwittingly commit a variety of errors=20
and automatically take shortcuts. If we are=20
rushed and distracted, then the errors and=20
shortcuts multiply. In such situations, it is=20
easy to appreciate the humor and truth in the=20
epigram: "Search committees represent academia at=20
its most dysfunctional." When those involved in=20
searches are not given the opportunity to be=20
thorough, deliberate, and careful in their=20
decision-making, then dysfunction will result.
The tenure review process, especially when=20
rushed, can also reveal colleges and universities=20
at their most disappointing. The=20
behind-closed-doors process is at times corrupted=20
by a number of "small-minded" actions, such as=20
"back-scratching, institutional politics, envy,=20
nepotism, spite, or personal hostility" expressed=20
and acted out against the tenure candidate by one=20
or more members of the review committee.
My Purpose. Evaluators and decision-makers in=20
higher education, I maintain, should become aware=20
of the typical cognitive errors that can prevent=20
their reaching fair and sound judgments. Once=20
aware of these errors, the power-holders should=20
learn to rise above them.
In Part I, I discuss fifteen cognitive errors and=20
shortcuts routinely and unwittingly made by=20
individual evaluators, and then I cast light on=20
seven common dysfunctions within academic=20
organizations that can and usually do intensify=20
the severity of the cognitive errors.
In Part II, I set forth concrete steps for rising=20
above or preventing these errors as well as=20
concrete steps for reducing the organizational=20
dysfunctions.
Part III contains several Discussion Scenarios=20
(practice exercises) that can be used by=20
individual readers, search and tenure/promotion=20
committees, department chairs and deans, and=20
indeed entire academic departments, to hone their=20
skills=8A..
Excerpts from the Cognitive Errors Section of the Monograph=8A
3. Cognitive Error: Raising the Bar.
This error, related to negative stereotyping,=20
involves raising requirements for a job during=20
the very process of searching. The raising is=20
felt to be necessary because of the=20
decision-maker's realization that the candidate=20
is a member of a group thought to be incompetent=20
and suspect.
You might hear: Say, don't we need more writing=20
samples from Latorya? I know we asked for only=20
three samples from applicants. But I'd feel=20
better if we had a few more in this case. I just=20
want to make really sure she's qualified.
A second instance: Another committee member=20
agrees and says, Well, I wish Latorya had a=20
doctorate from Princeton or somewhere like that.=20
Can't we decide right now that a candidate has to=20
be from the Ivy League?
My point is that raising the bar is unfair and=20
yet unwittingly and repeatedly done in academia.=20
Unfortunately, power-holders don't stop to ponder=20
why they may be uncomfortable and why they desire=20
both more evidence and more qualifications for=20
one candidate but not for another.
4. Cognitive Error: Elitism.
This error involves feeling superior or wanting=20
to feel superior. Elitism (also known as=20
snobbery) could take this form: downgrading on=20
the basis of the candidate's undergraduate or=20
doctoral campuses, regional accent, dress,=20
jewelry, social class, ethnic background, and so=20
on (Moody, Padilla). A search committee member=20
might complain: She's so very Southern--I'm not=20
sure I can stand that syrupy accent. And I always=20
associate that kind of accent with illiteracy. Or=20
conversely, giving extra points on the basis of=20
the candidate's alma mater, accent, dress, or=20
other items can be a manifestation of elitism. A=20
search committee member might observe about a=20
candidate: Isn't it nice to hear his English=20
accent? That's worth a million to me.
Another example: Fearing that a non-immigrant=20
minority colleague will somehow lessen the=20
quality and standing of the department, a=20
committee member might say: Well, shouldn't we=20
always ask if a particular hire like Dewayne is=20
likely to bolster our place in the ratings wars?=20
I don't think that's so unreasonable.
Another example: Are we sure Ricardo will be=20
productive enough to keep up with our publishing=20
standards? I'm not so sure.
Elitism can, of course, prompt a committee member=20
to feel validated because the candidate will=20
bring some extra snob appeal. I think Les's=20
doctorate from Stanford is just the kind of boost=20
in prestige that we could use around here. I see=20
no reason why we can't take the Stanford degree=20
at face value and forego the so-called=20
'weighting' of what Les has done at Stanford with=20
what the other candidates have accomplished at=20
their hard-scrabble places. To me, that's an=20
awful waste of our time.
7. Cognitive Error: Good Fit/Bad Fit.
Increasingly, search committees and tenure review=20
committees consider whether a job candidate would=20
be a good or bad fit for their department. While=20
it is necessary for a job candidate to be able to=20
meet the programmatic needs of the department and=20
students as well as the academic specifications=20
of the position description, this is not what is=20
usually meant by good or bad fit. Instead, "fit"=20
can be translated to mean "will I feel=20
comfortable and culturally at ease with this new=20
hire or will I have to learn some new ways to=20
relate to this hire?"
In other words, the longing to clone and to stay=20
as a mono-culture within the department may be=20
prompting the complaint that the candidate "just=20
won't fit with us." The same longing to clone can=20
appear in tenure reviews when the tenure=20
candidate is faulted for not being collegial.=20
Clearly, rampant subjectivity and arbitrariness=20
can be invited into committee deliberations when=20
the question is asked: "Is this a good fit?"
You may overhear: Well, I think Mercedes doesn't=20
deserve tenure. We've lived with her long enough=20
to know that she's really very, very different=20
from the rest of us. To be blunt, she's just not=20
the kind of person I like to spend time with,=20
especially socially. She's never going to become=20
a soccer mom, if you know what I mean.
Another search example: Francisco will stick out=20
in our department, as I'm sure everyone here=20
senses. Won't he be hard to relate to? He's just=20
too different from the rest of us. We've got a=20
bad fit here, I think. On the other hand, Jerry=20
will be great for us. He can hit the ground=20
running and will be able to read our minds-well,=20
at least most of the time. That's the beauty of=20
his coming here. He'll fit right in to everything.
14. Premature Ranking/Digging In.
All too often, evaluators rush to give numerical=20
preferences to the candidates or applicants they=20
are considering. I often wonder if this=20
rush-to-ranking relieves evaluators and falsely=20
assures them that they have now escaped both=20
personal subjectivity and embarrassing=20
vulnerability to cognitive errors. Perhaps they=20
finally feel they have achieved objectivity and=20
fairness. After all, a ranking, a number,=20
indicates objectivity! At least this is the way=20
many of us academics unfortunately seem to reason.
The superficial rush to rank candidates leads=20
evaluators to prematurely state their position=20
(he's number one, in my view); close their minds=20
to new evidence; and then defend their stated=20
position to the death. Rather than developing a=20
pool of acceptable and qualified candidates and=20
then comparing, contrasting, and mulling over=20
candidates' different strengths with one's=20
colleagues, some evaluators prefer to simplify=20
their task.
Here is one illustration of premature ranking and=20
digging in: Well, I don't want to waste time here=20
by summarizing each candidate's strengths and=20
weaknesses, as the provost suggested. That seems=20
to me just a useless writing exercise proposed by=20
an overzealous former English professor. I've got=20
enough evidence to make up my mind about who=20
should be number one, number two, and number=20
three. I just hope we can hire number one and not=20
be stuck with any of the others.
Another illustration: Let's go through the=20
categories we're using and assign points from=20
each category to each of the serious candidates=20
for this job. I totally trust everyone here so=20
you don't have to give me subtle or complicated=20
reasons for your points. With this approach, we=20
just quickly add up the points and we've got a=20
decision on our first choice-all in twenty-five=20
minutes or less.
In other words, rushing to rank will eliminate=20
the need for engagement with colleagues in=20
higher-order thinking, sifting through and=20
interpreting evidence, comparing and contrasting,=20
and "weighting" the importance of evidence.=20
Rushing to rank easily leads to rushing to=20
judgment.
* * * * * * * *
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by
addressing an e-mail message to:
<Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>
Do NOT put anything in the SUBJECT line but in the body of the message t=
ype:
subscribe tomorrows-professor
* * * * * * * *
To UNSUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor send the following e-mail
message
to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>
unsubscribe tomorrows-professor
----
-++**=3D=3D--++**=3D=3D--++**=3D=3D--++**=3D=3D--++**=3D=3D--++**=3D=3D--= ++**=3D=3D This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list server. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message body of "unsubscribe tomorrows-professor" to majordomo@lists.stan= ford.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jun 09 2009 - 05:00:12 EDT