This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 18:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of EconomicEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vece20

Peer to Peer: Right and WrongLessons for DepartmentReviewsHirschel Kasper aa Oberlin College hirschel.kasper@oberlin.eduPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Hirschel Kasper (2005) Peer to Peer: Right and Wrong Lessonsfor Department Reviews, The Journal of Economic Education, 36:2, 185-197, DOI:10.3200/JECE.36.2.185-197

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JECE.36.2.185-197

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Spring 2005 185

Peer to Peer: Right and WrongLessons for Department Reviews

Hirschel Kasper

Abstract: The author describes his experience with the process of peer reviews byeconomists of economics departments. On the bases of roughly 20 reviews ofdepartments in the public and private sectors over two decades, he discusses howthe process works and what can be accomplished by it and identifies some pitfallsthat should be avoided. He offers lessons that are illustrated by actual examplesof the effectiveness and mistakes of the process.

Key words: academic assessment, economic education, peer reviewJEL codes: A11, A2, I21, J44

During the past two decades, it has become increasingly common for collegesand universities to invite external review committees to examine and assess theirdepartments. Once, external reviews were reserved for departments in eitherunrestrained controversy about the appropriate direction(s) for the discipline ortorn apart by nasty internal politics. Today, the practice of department review isso widespread among public and private institutions that many academic econo-mists are likely to receive either an invitation to review another department or findtheir own department subject to review by others.

This article describes the department review process in an attempt to informfaculty and, thereby, ease the concerns of departments being reviewed and ofeconomists invited to be reviewers. I offer suggestions and warnings.1 Thesecomments are based largely on one person’s experience, so readers should usetheir own experiences to add to, or subtract from, this description.2

Hirschel Kasper is a professor of economics at Oberlin College (e-mail: hirschel.kasper@oberlin.edu). He appreciates the comments and helpful suggestions of Charles Clotfelter, David Colander,Ronald Ehrenberg, Daniel Hamermesh, W. Lee Hansen, and John Siegfried.

In this section, the Journal of Economic Education publishes survey articles,international and institutional comparisons, and analytical studies on the eco-nomics curriculum, instructional materials, practices in teaching, and academiceconimics.

WILLIAM WALSTAD, Section Editor

Features and Information

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Necessarily, reviews of departments are difficult to separate from considera-tions of faculty achievements. Reviews that inquire about a department’s variedpersonalities, ambitions, and collective aspirations are disconcerting, even wor-rying, to faculty, regardless of whether they harbor hidden skeletons or maintainsimmering feuds. Yet a department review is merely that. It is a professionalassessment of the department as a whole, at a moment in time, not an evaluationof each faculty member.

Some observers have graded and ranked departments (Conroy et al. 1995) and the professional accomplishments of their members by alternative criteria,including citation counts (Laband 1985; Liebowitz and Palmer 1984). Othershave offered useful prescriptions on how to write (McCloskey 2000), publish(Hamermesh 1992), and referee journal articles (Hamermesh 1993; Thomson2001), but no economists seem to have formally addressed the questions that ariseinvolving department reviews.3 A department review is open to consider allaspects of a department’s activities, not just its publication of refereed articles.

The following discussion is chronologic, starting with the composition of thereview committee and closing with the different ways the reviewers’ report(almost always written) is addressed on the campus. From start to finish, thereview process lasts from 3 to 18 months, depending on institutional practices.

HOMEWORK

The review process generally has three stages: (1) the recovery and discussionof institutional data on matters such as the curriculum, enrollment trends, and thefaculty’s professional activities; (2) a committee visit to the campus; and (3) dis-cussions of the committee’s tentative reactions and a subsequent written report,with recommendations. This process leads to a fourth stage—consideration of thecommittee’s report by on-campus committee(s) and a department response(s) thataddresses or ignores the committee’s observations and recommendations. Itmakes sense for departments to raise and structure issues with an eye to the likelyconsequences at that fourth stage. Tied as they are, each stage merits some discussion.

After a department agrees with its administration to a peer review, it has threesubstantial tasks: (1) select the members of the review committee, usually in con-junction with an administration officer; (2) gather the necessary backgroundmaterial to describe itself; and (3) write a covering statement that notes the issuesit wants to ensure will be examined, whether they merit applause or generate par-ticular concern. Together, these materials offer a picture of the department’s aspi-rations, achievements, and problems.

Arranging the Committee

The committee is most often composed of three people; never fewer than two,seldom more than five.4 The people selected to serve on the committee are moreimportant than its size. The department will ordinarily nominate names to the administration, so it should suggest names of people whose comments will

186 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

be respected, if not always accepted, by at least the department and, secondarily,the administration.5

Review committees always include academic economists, but beyond that, theircomposition varies widely. The typical committee is composed entirely of aca-demic economists, but some institutions elect to include their own graduates,trustees, or general friends who have some connection with the institution, regard-less of whether they are professional economists. The academic economists mayknow each other but so may the nonacademics.6 One three-person committee wascomposed of two distinguished alumni from the business world and trustees of thecollege, plus an academic economist. Another committee included two academiceconomists, one a graduate of the institution. A third instance included one ofeach: a distinguished graduate from the business world, an academic economistwho was also an alumnus, and an academic with no previous ties to the institution.

Problems seldom arise from asking former faculty to return for fear they knowtoo much or have special relations with faculty or staff. My experience has beenthat they always lent insightful objectivity to the committee’s perspective.7 Theyoften appreciated on-campus problems that were not otherwise obvious. Noneharbored grudges; none played to hidden agendas nor offered unreasonable rec-ommendations. On the other hand, with one minor exception, no departmentseemed able to take advantage of their reviewer’s alumni relationship.8

The responsibility for assessing the department’s curriculum and professionalactivity falls on the academic economists in inverse proportion to their numberson the review committee. The task of composing the committee’s written reportalso falls to academics, although in one case the report was drafted by a venturecapitalist accustomed to writing critiques.9 There are good reasons to suggest aparticular person to serve as a reviewer. Compared with the administrators, whomay play an oversight role in selecting the committee, the department has a morethorough vision of the interests and leanings of all the economists who are poten-tial reviewers. There are bad reasons to select someone, too. The selection ofclose friends or those who are (or have been) joint authors may taint the processand undermine any recommendations.

Faculty should use their inside information to nominate economists who areexpected to be sympathetic to, and likely support, the faculty’s general views andgoals, just as administrators often suspect. From a tactical point, that meansavoiding people known to have a strong commitment to ideas or directions thedepartment agrees are inappropriate. The opportunity cost is too high to choosesomeone who is unlikely to be able to persuade the department or administra-tion.10 A committee of applied microeconomists can be too easily dismissed forhaving inadequate authority to judge the necessary strengths and directions formacroeconomics. A well-published economist, who had not chaired a dissertationcommittee in more than a decade, may not be the best person to offer soundadvice on strengthening a graduate program. Regardless of their teaching orresearch interests, the committee, as a whole, should exhibit some expertise onthe issues most important to the department.

The various strengths within departments may be reflected in the compositionof the committee, but so may internal tensions. Where theorists dominate, the

Spring 2005 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

committee may be overly weighted by theorists. In another instance, a committeewitnessed the results of a decision by a 15-person department to strongly encour-age every member, regardless of field, to use the same narrowly specialized quan-titative approach to all their research. When a committee recommended thedepartment be open to varied research methods, a few faculty stalwarts faulted thedepartment for failing to stack the committee.

Committee members who are attuned to personal relations on campus and pro-fessional interests in the larger academic community are less likely to do harm,inadvertently or otherwise, and may do some good. If an institution, religious orotherwise, has assigned itself a clear and unique mission, it is appropriate that thecommittee observe and appreciate that mission.11 Should the committee makerecommendations that are reasonable and beneficial to the department, it willhave helped for those recommendations to have come from reviewers who are noteasily dismissed for inappropriate or irrelevant reasons.

Committee members should not feel torn between their responsibilities to theinstitution and to the department. Nominally, they have been selected by the insti-tution, their final report will be delivered to the institution, and they receive anhonorarium from the institution. On the other hand, the academics are, and othercommittee members may be, professional economists like the faculty. Committeemembers were nominated in the first instance by the faculty. After their visit, thecommittee members may start to work with someone from the department; theadministrators are usually long forgotten. It is reasonable to resolve any imaginedconflict of interest by accepting the argument that whatever helps the departmenthelps the institution.

Explain the Data

After the committee’s membership is arranged, the department must compilebackground materials to describe itself. A covering letter or “Statement ofPurpose” can guide the committee through the data and highlight importantissues. The reflection and analysis that go into preparing the statement produces,by that process, such a thorough review of the department that some observersregard the external peer review as merely a necessary needle to obtain the oftenmore valuable internal review.

Much too often, departments are directed to include a mission statement, lead-ing the writer(s) to articulate unnecessarily artificial, sometimes inconsistent,expectations for, and visions of, faculty careers. As a rule, committees expect themission of any department, no matter how complex, to be subsumed within thatof the institution.12

The task of compiling the different materials may warrant being sharedwithin the department. In addition to faculty vitae, the materials ordinarilyinclude data on five to seven-year trends in faculty size, course enrollments(with syllabi), number of undergraduate majors and applicants to the graduateprogram, graduate acceptance and completion rates (with first employer), budg-ets, size of grants and sponsoring agencies, reports of external rankings, andother materials to complete the picture the department wishes to portray.

188 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Seminars, sponsored conferences, public talks, and similar department activitiesmay be listed, at least for the previous year. Departments, especially at collegesand small universities, may itemize faculty service to the institution and depart-ment.13 A new item being categorized and reported are changes in teachingstyle, especially technological innovations in the classroom. The materials mayinclude (usually unhelpful) letters from recent graduates (or majors) about thestrengths and problems of the department. Nothing is too trivial or irrelevant toreport if the department takes pride in it or is cause for contention.

Preparation of the statement, with the department’s accomplishments, aspira-tions, and concerns, can provoke unnecessary discord, because it is so difficult tocapture on paper the nuances and accommodations that enable faculty to workcollectively. Those writing the statement should be sensitive to the possibility thata colleague’s quirks, when placed on paper, can create or foment lasting depart-ment crevices and cliques.

The department’s statement establishes a list of items that warrant the commit-tee’s review and comment. Its statement may also describe its difficulties,whether in attracting faculty, students, or grants, securing sufficient budgetarysupport, or relations with other campus departments. On occasion, the commit-tee’s visit may generate a willingness to resolve some matters ahead of time.However, issues, such as whether a department is more appropriately housed inthe university’s College of Business or its College of Arts and Science, dependless on general principles than on local politics and budgets.

To many it may seem entirely reasonable to expect the committee to have noeffect on the department, but my experience has been that the committee’s rec-ommendations always fixed at least one problem, although not always the mostcritical or the most difficult, nor even the issue the committee felt it resolved best.Reviews open opportunities to reconsider department practices and may spur anidea that was not obvious before. Something is always made better.

The most common department request (plea?) is for more staff.14 If commit-tees are to convince institutions of that need, the department must prepare per-suasive arguments because normally there is strong administrative resistance toadditional faculty. In one case, at the time the committee members were invited,they were told they could recommend anything they believed appropriate,except additional faculty. (Some potential reviewers may have declined to servein that case.)

One new staffing twist is a request to convert current adjunct and part-timepositions, formerly temporary and few in number, into regular tenure-track lines.An administrator told one committee that the department could have as many asthree of the five new faculty positions the committee intended to recommend, butthat all three would have to be adjunct positions, without tenure status ever. Thecommittee, with members loyal to the principles of tenure and reluctant to sup-port a precedent for the entire campus, chose to recommend the department’srequest for five new tenure-track positions. As a result, in the following threeyears, the department received funds for only one new adjunct position, leavingthe department’s faculty and students short-changed but the committee’s princi-ples intact.

Spring 2005 189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

CAMPUS VISIT

The committee’s visit to the campus seldom lasts more than three consecutivedays, so there is much flexibility in selecting dates for the visit.15 The visit oftenbegins with a joint meeting of the committee members with an academic officer ofthe institution, such as dean, provost, or the president, depending on the institution.An administrator “charges” the committee by asking it to look at certain issues,some that may have been mentioned already in the department’s statement. Two top-ics that commonly interest administrators are faculty research and inter-disciplinaryteaching.16 Regardless of any overlap with the department’s statement of its issues,the committee will be expected to address the entirety of the administration’s“charge,” either orally before it leaves the campus or in its written report.

During its visit, the committee will try to meet with as many as possible of thedepartment’s faculty, selected students, and, when it might prove useful, facultyor staff from departments aligned with the department, such as mathematics andpolitics. It may also seek to meet with members of associated research or policycenters. Administrative concerns about overlapping curricula may be reason totalk with faculty in statistics or mathematics. Recommendations in such areas arecontroversial if administrators, often insensitive to disciplinary nuances and prerequisites, abhor duplication, whereas faculty prefer specialization.

When the committee meets with members of economics faculty, it is expectedto probe issues that were raised either in the department’s statement or the admin-istration’s charge. These interviews help the committee understand how facultymembers relate to the department and the role of individual faculty in strength-ening or limiting the department’s success.

The committee ordinarily meets as a group with each faculty member, but itmay split up to examine physical facilities, such as data labs, libraries, andresearch centers.

Where practical, interviews with each faculty member can allow the committeeto explore and gauge each member’s understanding of issues. Even if meetingscan not be scheduled with every faculty member, the committee should be flexi-ble enough to meet with anyone, even teaching assistants, who exhibit a need totalk. Seldom do faculty merely gripe; more likely they report matters that eitherstrike them as personally significant but were not incorporated in the department’sstatement, or else arose in the department after the background materials wereprepared. Sometimes faculty use the committee’s confidence to elaborate pointsthat either are sensitive or were “papered over” in the department’s statement.17

Faculty may raise issues about personnel and staffing, course structure andenrollment, research support and success, or collegiality. A diplomatic committeemight even want to deliver an appropriate message back to the faculty member.Committee members should feel free to probe, but not to pry.

Meetings with the faculty also enable the committee to gauge support for itspossible recommendations. The meetings identify those faculty with commonviews of department goals or problems. Those political headcounts can frame acommittee’s recommendations, although I have never known a committee tochoose one recommendation rather than another merely because some group

190 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

within the department favored it. Still, committees are unlikely to pursue theideas of one or two in a 30-member department, unless they are strongly of thesame view.

As the committee meets more faculty members during the course of its visit, itsquestions tend to be better focused. Faculty members interviewed toward the end ofits visit may be asked more pointed questions, even though those questions are sel-dom well thought out. Unsuspecting faculty may be misled into hasty inferences.

Personal interviews are not appropriate vehicles to carry bad news to anyindividual faculty member. Nor is the committee the appropriate body to adviseon personal questions of tenure or promotion, regardless of whether they areasked by senior faculty or administrators. The review’s purpose is to commenton issues of policy, even if some policy recommendations cast a shadow on per-sonnel matters. Every invitation to offer a view on any specific person shouldbe declined.18

A commitment to avoid individual personnel issues protects the committee’sintegrity and preserves its ability to fulfill its purpose. If the committee recom-mends strong and immediate steps to strengthen teaching or research in, forexample, economic theory, it may likely cause the on-the-ground theorists to feelunappreciated, and the untenured theory faculty threatened. Thus, the commit-tee’s recommendations should always steer very clear of specific people. Doingotherwise will make a difficult situation worse.

THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS

The committee is responsible for two, more often three, reports: preliminaryand tentative oral reports each to the department and the administration, and acomprehensive written report, usually sent to the administration.

Thoughtful, off-the-cuff oral reports enable the department and the administra-tion to learn the committee’s on-the-ground impressions. They are generally pre-sented separately to the administration and to the department, reflecting both thedifferent concerns of each audience and a decent observance of and respect forconfidentiality. The ensuing discussions with each group may clarify certain mat-ters, thereby better targeting the written report.

Oral Report to Administration

Administrators often request a short oral review of the committee’s findings,especially its likely answers to the administrators’ initial charge. This meetingprovides an opportunity for an exchange of views and can make the written reportmore persuasive. Committee members should be ready to expand on issues wherethe administrators find the committee’s views either surprising or distasteful.Administrators may even redirect the committee from its initial inclinations toalternatives when, for one institutional reason or another, the intended sugges-tions are inappropriate or unworkable. The committee can deflect any inquiriesabout recent faculty appointments by explaining the range of expectations andstandards within the discipline.

Spring 2005 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

This meeting can provide an opportunity to alert the institution to issues thatmay not have been articulated persuasively. In one instance, faculty memberscomplained that they could not use external grants to “buy back” any of theirteaching obligations. However, when the committee gave its oral report to theadministration and objected to the apparent prohibition, it was told there were nosuch limits on the use of external grants. Its written report then detailed theabsence of the prohibition.19

Oral Report to Department

The oral report to the department should address the prime issues raised in thedepartment’s statement, plus any additional matters the committee regards asimportant to talk about. In large departments, the committee’s audience is oftensenior faculty or an executive committee, including the chair; in smaller depart-ments, it may be the entire faculty. The committee’s comments tend to be forth-right and diplomatic because each faculty member feels personally andprofessionally vulnerable, regardless of tenure. Department fissures can widenwith an ill-expressed thought.

Most faculty feel personally tied to, not distant from, department issues: Anunsuccessful personnel search may be construed to reflect badly on faculty in thatspecialty; observance of curricula gaps or redundancies may be regarded as pro-fessional victories or defeats; failure to place graduates at top institutions mayreflect poorly on the department’s placement officer.

The committee needs to recognize local as well as national strengths to reas-sure the entire faculty that its best foot has been put forward and been noticed.20

Departments are understandably more eager to announce their strengths than torevise any weaknesses, but the review may yield new ideas to minimize the effectof perceived problems. One relatively young tenured faculty member had lostinterest in research but had become active in the local business community. Withthe committee’s encouragement, the person transferred from the department tomanage the institution’s outreach business center, seemingly a Pareto optimal res-olution. However, at a small liberal arts college that offered no business-orientedcourses, there seemed no clever way to rescue another economist (and a trustee’sson) who built a successful accounting practice “on the side” after he lost inter-est in economic analysis.

A continuing source of contention is the time that faculty spend in paid econom-ics consulting. Consulting opportunities for some faculty members are plentiful,lucrative, and interesting, but if interest in teaching and traditional economicresearch is set aside, they may be nearly impossible to regain. Such issues mayrequire a push from outsiders to offer an acceptable resolution. For example, newor restructured courses in managerial economics, corporate strategy, or law and eco-nomics can provide a curricula outlet for faculty who might be willing to redirectsome of their consulting efforts, or even to view such courses as investments in theirown consulting. Similarly, the department and institution may be willing, for salarypurposes, to reconsider the prestige value of journals that specialize in appliedresearch, or decide to regard consulting as good publicity for the institution. More

192 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

difficult, though, may be the human relations problems that arise because consult-ing opportunities are not equal across the specialties within economics.

Written Committee Report

To prepare for its written report, the committee may obtain examples of earlierreports that were particularly useful, without regard to the specific discipline. Oldreports can assist the committee in gauging the institution’s preferred detail, style,and length.21 Ordinarily, a single written report is sent to the administration,which, in turn, forwards it to the department.22 The report should be written so itsintended audience receives a coherent, if nuanced, message, regardless of howfactual and bland the report may appear to readers who are not familiar with thedepartment. If the department lacks sufficient resources, the committee shouldsay so clearly; if the department’s own allocation of its resources is problematic,it should say so diplomatically.

The task of writing the report is done either by allocating the major topicsamong the committee members, so each writes a first draft on specific topics, orby having the first draft written by a single person. Sharing the task is much eas-ier with electronic mail, provided platforms and software are also shared. Thecommittee should seek general agreement ahead of time on what it wants to sayabout each item that is important to the department or the institution. Regardlessof who drafts which sections, unwarranted comments can be deleted during therevision process to make the report consistent with the committee’s overall view.

Faculty, more than administrators, are anxious about the report’s findings andsuggestions, but a 60-day deadline is not impractical. Everyone, faculty andadministrators, should know the deadline, although no committee is ever held toit (financially or otherwise).23

The committee’s report should try to address each policy issue raised in thedepartment’s statement, the administrators’ introductory meeting, and, whereappropriate, by individual faculty. The committee may offer its assessments ofissues and specific recommendations and a menu of suggestions. It need not feelembarrassed if it cannot be helpful on every topic, but it should not allow thereport to imply that important issues were not considered. If the committee can-not agree on a specific recommendation, the report may list alternative recom-mendations, without attribution.

The most striking aspect of the review process is the recognition that the reportalmost always causes change. The report is seldom one that gathers dust. It maylead to some changes almost immediately; other changes may not appear untilafter a few years. Some changes flow directly from the committee’s consideredjudgment; others may stem from the report’s parenthetical observations.Departments may even make a change so the next review committee will be lessconfused. Obviously, local circumstances dictate whether the report bringschanges in significant items, such as budgets, allocation of funds, staffing, andleave policies, or merely public relations and letterhead styles.

Yet, surprisingly, one cannot predict which, or how, suggestions will beadopted. For example, at one small college a strong and seemingly important

Spring 2005 193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

recommendation to increase faculty size in macroeconomics was ignored,whereas an observation that a faculty member may want to leave the departmentto start a small preprofessional program was heartily embraced. In a more seri-ous case, a committee supported the initiation of an M.A., rather than a Ph.D.,program at a midsized private university, provided it was in the field where therealready was a core of respected faculty. The university agreed to the M.A. pro-gram, but thereafter imposed unusually stringent tenure requirements on thosefaculty member who specialized in other fields.24

Committees may also fill information gaps and, from their multi-campus per-spective, protect departments from unfair judgements. Small colleges with littlerecent hiring experience can learn about current salaries and identify strong Ph.D.programs, or even learn of faculty reportedly interested in moving. In recenttimes, committees have reassured many institutions that the decline in theirundergraduate economics enrollment mirrored declines at most other institutionsand was not necessarily the fault of their local faculty or their teaching methods(Kasper 1996; Siegfried 2002).

Even minor recommendations can be useful. One committee recommendedthat a department shift the focus of its introductory course from what is wrongwith economics to what economics analysis does, even if it meant that senior fac-ulty taught other courses. In that case, the younger faculty had not yet found apersuasive way to demonstrate their views until the committee suggested that stu-dents need to learn ideas before they criticize them. Elsewhere, faculty com-plained that undergraduates did not learn economics because they never didempirical analysis, so a committee recommended that the economics major bereorganized so undergraduate econometrics could be studied by the junior year,allowing students in their senior year to demonstrate their analytical competence.

The committee’s recommendations may be rejected by the department oradministration or both, either implicitly or explicitly. One committee suggestedor that an economics department, housed in the university’s College of Business,might reverse the decline in quality and the quality of its majors if it publicizedthe department’s activities in the Arts and Science college. The universityobjected because the idea would merely reshuffle the existing number of majors.

THE AFTER-EFFECTS OF REVIEW

Committees should expect their report to be read more bluntly and criticallythan it intended. The absence of any give-and-take during the writing of the reportmeans that its readers can impose their own interpretations on the committee’swords. The optimal balance between clarity and diplomacy depends on the issueand the strength of the committee’s views.

The report is submitted to an administrative officer, usually the one who initiallyorganized the committee. Thereafter, procedures differ across institutions. Copiesof the report may be sent to other administrative offices, as well as back to thedepartment; copies may also be forwarded to campus committees involved withpersonnel or curricula. Seldom does the review committee know or care muchabout campus processes for distributing the report beyond the administration and

194 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

department. Nonetheless, the report will likely be read by people and groups thecommittee did not meet. Clarity and tact can limit unintended reactions.

The committee’s resolutions to problems may be regarded as infeasible by thedepartment, administration, or both. Committees know little or nothing aboutbudget allocations. They often recommend more faculty, sometimes even in iden-tified fields, only to learn later that others argued that additional departmentresources might exacerbate the current excess demand by students for faculty.Minor suggestions may be seized upon to make changes related only tangentiallyto the committee’s idea. In one case, a report’s most noticeable effect was therevision of course numbers so higher numbers always indicated more advancedcourses.

Committee members should feel no personal distress at how the report isimplemented. Personal relations within the department and institution often guideits implementation. Suggestions to strengthen the department may be resisted fornumerous reasons. On the other hand, a committee’s recommendations cannotmake a department do anything it does not want to do. The committee’s languagemay inadvertently arouse otherwise latent arguments within the department, suchas: the appropriate attention to be given theory as opposed to empirical courses;the frontiers of macroeconomics (for graduate or undergraduate education); andthe actual on-campus importance of research and scholarly activity. Unsolvableissues, tangled with personalities, are probably best confined to the department’soral report.25

The report may even alleviate worries about issues within the discipline. Twodecades ago, one university administration criticized its economics faculty for notpursuing cutting-edge research on the predicted Malthusian depletion ofresources. However, when the administration learned that the committee mem-bers’ research was much like that of its own faculty, it felt reassured and eased itspressure on the faculty. In a similar vein, a prestigious college doubted that start-ing salaries for economists were much higher than the institution paid to attractnew faculty in the humanities. The visiting committee described the salary struc-tures at their own institutions and persuaded the college that salaries actually dif-fered across disciplines.

Finally, regardless of how insightful the committee’s report, none of its aca-demic members are apt to be invited to return for an encore. In that respect, neweyes and views are always better. Returnees are apt to question why their initialrecommendations were not followed and perhaps muddy the waters for new opin-ions. However, committee members from industry and foundations are morelikely to be invited back, especially if they have a continuing relation with theinstitution.

FINAL COMMENT

Peer reviews allow committee members to become more familiar with the waysother departments operate. Their visits put teaching and research problems in acomparative light, and might make the committee members more useful andunderstanding at their home institutions. To the extent that there is less mobility

Spring 2005 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

today within the economics profession and, perhaps, less exchange of ideas aboutprofessional lives than at some earlier period, the review process helps both thereviewers and the reviewed gain a wider understanding of the discipline.

NOTES

1. The author has reviewed in one way or another more than 15 economics departments, in the pub-lic and private sectors, at selective colleges and mid-sized research and Ph.D.-granting universi-ties, and is a member of a department that has been reviewed three times.

2. My comments incorporate the experiences of colleagues who read an earlier draft.3. For a similar effort in political science, see Dawson (1989).4. The lead time between when committee members are invited and when they visit the campus

varies between two and six months so, because there is seldom any urgency to the visit, travelcosts and distance are of little weight in choosing members of the committee.

5. Because a review constitutes service to the profession, and committee members receive an hono-rarium, not a fee, ordinarily there need be no worry that anyone will shirk responsibility.

6. When invited, it is neither impolite nor inappropriate to inquire who the other members will be.No one is made better off by inviting inevitable squabblers.

7. The request to serve on a committee should not serve as a disguised job interview, nor be regardedas such an opportunity by the invitee.

8. I know of no instance where any committee member tried to advance a personal agenda, althoughsome institutions take the opportunity to showcase their students.

9. Committee reports seldom contain dissents, so whoever does the actual writing, or even coordi-nates the drafts of the other committee members, can influence the report’s language and tone.

10. Few opportunities exist for most economists to demonstrate their views about the profession,including the teaching curricula, nature and quality of research and teaching skills, and links tothe larger world, so oftentimes those views must be inferred.

11. It makes sense, for example, for an avowedly Christian institution to make sure some committeemembers are intellectually sympathetic to its purposes.

12. In unusual situations, there may be a difference in the curricula or the orientation of the depart-ment and the institution, such as when the department is exclusively an undergraduate operationwithin the confines of a Ph.D.-granting university, or the opposite, the only department on cam-pus offering a viable graduate program.

13. The size of the institution is not always well reflected by the size of its economics department.Many large, public institutions have surprisingly small economics departments.

14. During part of the 1990s, the request was to retain or restore the usual faculty size.15. In one case, a two-person committee took less than an afternoon to discuss and offer alternative

resolutions to a single curriculum problem that bothered a small department at a midsized publicuniversity. Nonetheless, the department tried for two months afterward to involve both membersin the continuing restructure of its entire curriculum.

16. Seldom is the absence of interdisciplinary activity merely the result of unrealized opportunities. Theabsence of interdisciplinary activity usually reflects strongly held views by one party or another.

17. On occasion, women may confide that they are asked to serve on too many campus committeesbecause there are so few women on the faculty. Committees can effectively forward such com-plaints as their own recommendation without jeopardizing anyone’s good will.

18. This rule should be followed without deviation, especially because committee members will rec-ognize that they are always subject to being made scapegoats for adverse decisions, should some-one want to do that.

19. The confusion may have reflected the fact that in the past, few faculty members felt it importantto obtain grants, but in the meantime the university became more ambitious about grant seeking.

20. Should the committee conclude that a prized department strength or weakness is unwarranted,misplaced, or irrelevant, the oral report is a good opportunity to clarify the matter.

21. Departments may offer committees abbreviated or edited versions of previous reports as part ofthe background materials.

22. The committee’s report may also be sent to relevant campus committees, such as a curriculum,graduate, or policy committee.

23. I know of no report in economics that was not eventually submitted, but other disciplines havebeen less fortunate.

24. Today, the university offers a Ph.D. in the specialized field of economics, with a healthy enrollment.

196 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

25. For determining annual salary increases, some departments elect to scale scholarly achievementsby awarding points for each accomplishment as a means of horizontal fairness. New proceduresalmost always generate new inequities requiring professional discretion.

REFERENCES

Conroy, M. E., R. Dusansky, D. Drukker, and A. Kildegaard. 1995. The productivity of economicsdepartments in the U.S.: Publication in the core journals. Journal of Economic Literature 33(December): 1966–71.

Dawson, P. 1989. Review of undergraduate departments: An external reviewer’s perspective. PS:Political Science and Politics 22 (March): 63–66.

Hamermesh, D. S. 1992. The young economists’ guide to professional etiquette. Journal of EconomicPerspectives 6 (Spring): 169–79.

________ . 1993. Professional etiquette for the mature economist. American Economic Review 83 (May):34–38.

Kasper, H. 1996. The undergraduate revolt against economics. Unpublished manuscript, OberlinCollege, Ohio.

Laband, D. N. 1985. An evaluation of 50 “ranked” economics departments—by quantity and qualityof faculty publications and graduate student placement and research success. Southern EconomicJournal 52 (July): 216–40.

Liebowitz, S. J., and J. P. Palmer. 1984. Assessing the relative impacts of economics journals. Journalof Economic Literature 22 (March): 77–88.

McCloskey, D. N. 2000. Economical writing. 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Siegfried, J. 2002. Trends in undergraduate economics degrees, 1991 to 2001. Journal of Economic

Education 33 (3): 291–94.Thomson, W. 2001. A guide for the young economists. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Spring 2005 197

How is this publication thinking about the future?

For more information, call

1-800-521-0600, ext. 2888 (US) or 01-734-761-4700 (International)www.il.proquest.com

From

By becoming part of the past. This publication is available from ProQuestInformation and Learning in one or more of the following ways:

• Online, via the ProQuest® information service• Microform• CD-ROM• Via database licensing

Microform & PrintElectronic Databases Chadwyck-Healey Curriculum Products

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

09 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014