Serving on an academic search committee is one of the most significant
roles that one can play as a professor. Interestingly, there are a lot
of misconceptions about such service, most of which revolve around the
concepts of representation (that is whether a member of the committee is
the representative of some academic unit or polity) and confidentiality
(preserving the integrity of the search).
What follows are my thoughts on these matters. They are by no means the
final word–just the results of my own learning experiences with the
additional pointers from my academic parents (in both senses of the word
parent).
First, it’s often the case, that when one is asked to serve on a search,
one’s first thought is that one is representing one’s colleagues in the
selection process. While this is true to an extent–yes, one is supposed
to think about what type of individual would be a best fit for one’s
department–it’s definitely *not* the case that one is there to
represent the consensus of colleagues on the dossier/application files.
Rather, the the search committee member’s role is to render his or her
own best judgment, realizing that colleagues (and perhaps one’s Chair)
have selected one to do so–it’s like being nominated and confirmed for
a judgeship: we don’t expect John Roberts to poll President Bush and the
other senior members of the administration on cases before him, even
though he clearly was selected by them and in some sense is representing
their ideas on the Court.
This leads directly to the idea of confidentiality. It’s extraordinarily
important not to discuss the search with one’s colleagues who are not
serving also on the search committee. Preserving this confidentiality
preserves the very integrity of the search. It prevents the application
of raw political power (at least at the level of the Committee) in the
selection process, while at the same time protecting the applicants
themselves–who may wish their job search to be secret from their own
colleagues and peers.
Interestingly this doesn’t preclude a bit of detective work with regards
to candidates. It *is* appropriate to make phone calls and ask
professional colleagues (generally at outside institutions) about
candidates–this is a critical addition to the information provided in
letters. At the same time, there’s a bit of judgment required here,
since such inquiries can often compromise the confidentiality of the
candidate’s application.
I’ll try to cover promotion and tenure as a topic very soon.
Jim
Discoverers and Discoveries 