An Advisory Statement on Avoiding Bias to Promote Fairness in Promotion and Tenure Decisions

The process of faculty promotion, including granting of tenure, should be fair and equitable to all candidates. Marquette University values a diverse and inclusive community of teachers and scholars. Results of many recent studies, however, support the view that achieving and maintaining this vision can be hindered by obstacles that can disproportionately affect faculty from underrepresented groups. Everyone involved in the promotion and tenure process at Marquette should be familiar with these obstacles so that each candidate for promotion receives a fair and equitable evaluation. The purpose of this document is to provide a brief overview of unconscious bias regarding gender, race, nationality, sexuality and other factors comprising individual identities.

Multiple Sources of Evidence

The University Committee on Faculty Promotions and Tenure believes candidate reviews benefit when multiple sources of evidence are provided for review within each of the dossier categories (research, teaching and service). When multiple sources of evidence are available, reviewers are able to consider the preponderance of evidence, rather than evidence emanating from a singular or limited set of sources. As such, the University Committee on Faculty Promotions and Tenure urges department, college, and school administrators to ensure required data, such as annual (or periodic) reviews and peer reviews of teaching, are collected during the years leading up to dossier preparation. Doing so will decrease the reliance on and potential bias associated with any single source of evidence.

Student Evaluations

Student evaluations of teaching, such as the Marquette Online Course Evaluation System (“MOCES”), constitute an important part of the promotion and tenure dossier for all faculty at Marquette. The goal of these evaluations is to provide a standardized, quantitative comparison of teaching effectiveness within and across disciplines. However, studies of similar evaluation methods at universities worldwide have demonstrated that factors such as gender, race, nationality, sexuality, and the intersection of these identity factors, for example, can bias these scores. We urge those reviewing dossiers to be aware of students’ unconscious or conscious bias. For your reference, below are selected studies that detail these challenges.

Given the potential for bias, whether conscious or unconscious, in student evaluations of teaching for faculty in the relevant categories, we urge caution in placing undue emphasis on MOCES scores when evaluating faculty teaching, and recommend that the potential for bias, as well as alternative explanations, such as teaching content that is seen as challenging to students’ assumptions or beliefs, be considered when interpreting student evaluation scores.

Service Expectations

Female faculty and those from underrepresented groups often have a larger service load. Some of the service can be documented, such as service on committees, but members from marginalized groups often also do more "invisible service." For example, faculty of color are often sought out by students of color for informal mentoring sessions or advice on navigating the college years. These faculty also typically face greater expectations to serve on committees addressing diversity. Finally, faculty of color often play disproportionate roles in community outreach for the University. We urge all those who review dossiers to be aware of potential inequities in service. For your reference, below are selected studies that document these challenges.

Scholarship

Bias can also extend to the evaluation of scholarship. A recent review article (in the neuroscience journal Neuron) concluded that gender bias affects “every aspect of academia,” including lower citation rates of articles by women compared to men in some fields, for example. Research on issues related to diversity (e.g., gender, sexual identity, health disparities, racism) has also historically been undervalued in some disciplines. We urge that these factors be taken into consideration when evaluating the scholarship of candidates. Below are selected studies that document these challenges.

This document was unanimously approved by the University Committee on Faculty Promotions and Tenure May 8, 2024 and subsequently endorsed by the Provost on May 23, 2024.

Back to Promotion and Tenure Guidelines