Skip to main content
Log in

Honest Evaluation in the Academy

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Honesty is widely understood as an ethical imperative in science and scholarship. This article examines the operation of this ethic in an area crucial to academe but which has not received sufficient attention: faculty review of candidates seeking appointment to academic rank—in hiring and promotion—in U.S. higher education organizations. Confidentiality is a professional norm indicative of these faculty assessments. By turn, academic freedom is exercised by speaking without fear of retribution, but it is handicapped to the extent that breaches of confidentiality—an instance of professional deviance—cause a group to censor speech. The article investigates the conditions under which honesty is undermined and confidentiality transgressed in review proceedings. In addition, three social-institutional forces are theorized to account for lack of honesty in this central practice of academic life. A situation wherein honesty is systemically inhibited renders the legitimacy of academic organizations in question. The argument articulates a path of reform by spelling-out appointment criteria, professional ethics, and the means of their enforcement to maximize requisite behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The word department is used to encompass organizational units of higher education institutions in which hiring and promotion decisions are rendered by a faculty closest to a candidate for hire or promotion.

  2. This discussion draws heavily on the very helpful insights provided by reviewer 2.

  3. These recourses need not involve de-anonymizing individuals and their comments (i.e., breach of confidentiality). The objective (or so one might gather) is to remedy an outcome alleged to be unjustified, not to “punish” individuals who made various remarks that a candidate or others find displeasing. The fact that recourse may often involve de-anonymization merely announces motivations of a candidate, head, or others beyond changing an outcome that an aggrieved party wishes to change.

References

  • Abbott, Andrew. 1991. The Future of Professions: Occupation and Expertise in the Age of Organization. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 8: 17–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association of University Professors. 2015a. 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure. In American Association of University Professors: Policy Documents and Reports, 11th Edition, 3–12. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • American Association of University Professors. 2015b. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. In American Association of University Professors: Policy Documents and Reports, 11th Edition, 13–19. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • American Association of University Professors. 2015c. On the Relationship of Faculty Governance to Academic Freedom. In American Association of University Professors: Policy Documents and Reports, 11th Edition, 123–125. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Anderson, Melissa, Marta A. Shaw, Nicholas H. Steneck, Erin Konkle, and Teakehito Kamata. 2013. Research Integrity and Misconduct in the Academic Profession. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, ed. Michael B. Paulsen, 217–261. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, Blake E., and Vikas Anand. 2003. The Normalization of Corruption in Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 25: 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, Tony, and Paul R. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, Marianne, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2007. Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal. American Economic Review 94(4): 991–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, Peter M. 1973. The Organization of Academic Work. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, Lutz, Christophe Weymouth, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2010. A Content Analysis of Referees’ Comments: How do Comments on Manuscripts Rejected by a High-impact Journal and Later Published in Either a Low- or High-impact Journal Differ? Scientometrics 83(2): 493–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, John M., ed. 1999. Perspectives on Scholarly Misconduct in the Sciences. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Bradley, and Jason Manning. 2017. The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castilla, Emilio J., and Stephan Benard. 2010. The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 55: 543–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, Ellen S., and Susan O. White. 1990. Legal Socialization: A Study of Norms and Rules. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1: 139–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubreuil, Laurent. 2020. September. Against the Erosion of Academic Freedom by Identity Politics. Harper’s: Nonconforming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, Emile. [1897] 1951. Suicide. Translated by John A. Spalding and George Simpson. New York: Free Press.

  • Durkheim, Emile. 1957. Professional Ethics and Civic Morals. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaherty, Colleen. 2013. Voting in Secret. Inside Higher Ed. November 22, 2013. Downloaded March 26, 2020.

  • Fox, Mary Frank. 2015. Gender and Clarity of Evaluation among Academic Scientists in Research Universities. Science, Technology, and Human Values 40(4): 487–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freidson, Eliot. 1970. Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furedi, Frank. 2017. What’s Happened to the University? A Sociological Exploration of its Infantilisation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode, William J. 1967. The Protection of the Inept. American Sociological Review 32: 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, Jonathan, and Greg Lukianoff. 2018. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, V. Lee, and David Rauma. 1995. Social Psychology of Deviance and Law. In Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, ed. Karen S. Cook, Gary Alan Fine, and James S. House, 524–547. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, Jeffrey, and Geoffrey R. Stone. 2017. The New Censorship on Campus. Chronicle of Higher Education. June 5, 2017.

  • Hermanowicz, Joseph C. 2013. The Culture of Mediocrity. Minerva 51(3): 363–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermanowicz, Joseph C. 2021. Introduction: Problems and Prospects. In Challenges to Academic Freedom. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Hout, Michael. 2020. Featured Commentary: President-Elect. In Sociology of Education Section Newsletter 23(2—March): 3. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association.

  • Hughes, Everett C. 1958. License and Mandate. In Men and Their Work, 78–87. New York: Free Press.

  • Johnson, Terence J. 1972. Professions and Power. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, David R., and Elaine Howard Ecklund. 2016. Ethical Ambiguity in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 22: 989–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, David R., and Joseph C. Hermanowicz. 2017. Peer Review: From ‘Sacred Ideals’ to ‘Profane Realities.’ In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, ed. Michael B. Paulson, 485–527. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuran, Timur. 1995. Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFollette, Marcel C. 1992. Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. Scott, and Mary Frank Fox. 1995. Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism. Annual Review of Sociology 21: 45–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maio, Gregory R., James M. Olson, Mark M. Bernard, and Michelle A. Luke. 2006. Ideologies, Values, Attitudes, and Behavior. In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. John DeLameter, 283–308. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, Peggy. 1989. White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, https://psychology.umbc.edu/files/2016/10/White-Privilege_McIntosh-1989.pdf

  • Merton, Robert K. 1973a. The Normative Structure of Science. In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, 267–278. Edited and with an Introduction by Norman W. Storer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Article originally published in 1942.

  • Merton, Robert K.. 1973b. Priorities in Scientific Discovery. In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, 286–324. Edited and with an Introduction by Norman W. Storer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Article originally published in 1957.

  • Musselin, Christine. 2010. The Market for Academics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patai, Daphne, and Noretta Koertge. 2003. Professing Feminism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, Orlando. 2006. Being and Blackness: A Review of We Who Are Dark by Tommie Shelby and Creating Black Americans by Nell Irvin Painter. New York Review of Books.

  • Poskanzer, Steven G. 2002. Higher Education Law: The Faculty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, David B. 2007. The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ross-Hellauer, Tony, Arvid Deppe, and Birgit Schmidt. 2017. Survey on Open Peer Review: Attitudes and Experiences Amongst Editors, Authors and Reviewers. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaverien, Anna. 2019. Oxford Professor is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts to Hobby Lobby. New York Times, October 16, 2019. Downloaded March 24, 2020.

  • Schneider, Leonid. 2015. Too Much to be Nothing? Labor Journal 3: 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, Sarah, and Justine Tinkler. 2020. Sexual Harassment and the Rationales for Punishment. Footnotes 48(1): 5&7. Newsletter of the American Sociological Association.

  • Shils, Edward. 1983. The Academic Ethic. Minerva 20(1–2): 1–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Jeffrey Aaron, and Amna Khalid. 2016. The Rise of ‘Bias Response Teams’ on Campus. The New Republic, https://newrepublic.com/article/132195/rise-bias-response-teams-campus.

  • Sonnert, Gerhard, and Gerald Holton. 1995. Gender Differences in Science Careers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subbarraman, Nidhi. 2020. Harvard Chemistry Chief’s Arrest Over China Links Shocks Researchers. Nature, February 3, 2020. Accessed March 20, 2020.

  • Tiede, Hans-Joerg. 2020. Personal communication. February 5, 2020.

  • Tilcsik, András. 2011. Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 112(5): 1297–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trow, Martin. 1974. Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. In General Report on the Conference on Future Structures of Post-Secondary Education, 55–101. Paris: OECD. Reprinted in Martin Trow (2010), Twentieth-Century Higher Education: Elite to Mass to Universal, 88–142. Edited by Michael Burrage. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Twale, Darla J., and Barbara M. DeLuca. 2008. Faculty Incivility: The Rise of Academic Bully Culture and What to do about It. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, Diane. 1997. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Kathryn B., and Linda Grant. 1996. Gender and Academic Publishing. In John C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , vol. 11, 172–212.

  • Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society, eds. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Wennerås, Christine, and Agnes Wold. 1997. Nepotism and Sexism in Peer Review. Nature 387(6631): 341–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerubavel, Eviatar. 2006. The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, John M. 1968. Public Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, Harriet, and Robert K. Merton. 1971. Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System. Minerva 9(1): 66–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph C. Hermanowicz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hermanowicz, J.C. Honest Evaluation in the Academy. Minerva 59, 311–329 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09434-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09434-9

Navigation