Carl O. Hilgarth's Commentary on "Taking a Position of Influence"
Author(s):
Carl O. Hilgarth
I
In my decision to serve or not serve on the review panel for
the summer faculty fellowship program I would have to consider
the following:
- Since I am nationally known for my research, any new
research I do will almost certainly enhance both my status
and that of Western Tech as a research institution.
- Because of my reputation, my participation on the review
panel that will determine the fellowships projects receive
funding will also contribute to the desire of Western Tech to
upgrade its status as a first-rate research institution.
Since I have had little opportunity to do research due to my
teaching load, my response to David Jackson, Vice-President for
Research at Western Tech, is to decline the invitation to serve
on the review panel and submit my proposal for review. I
explain this to the vice-president.
II
On hearing my decision, Vice-President Jackson explains that
while he hasn't worked out all the wrinkles, it doesn't seem
fair that the best people at Western Tech--the ones they want
on the review panel--should not have a chance at the
fellowships. He tells me that I can apply for the fellowship,
and also serve on the review panel as long I am not involved in
the review of my own proposal inferring that this will preserve
the integrity of the research fellowship award process.
I realize that if I were on the panel, my stature and
opinions will certainly influence the award process and leave
it suspect in the eyes of my peers on the faculty, especially
if my proposal receives a fellowship award and another's
doesn't. Participation by other faculty could lead to the same
result. So to me, this suggestion does not really solve the
problem.
I reiterate my interest in the research opportunity and
decline to participate on the panel. Any level of my
participation on a panel involved in reviewing my proposal and
competing proposals could be viewed as a conflict of interest
that could cloud the objectivity and integrity of the process
to upgrade the research status of the institution. I would
suggest to the vice-president that the review panel might be
better, more objective, and more credible if none of the
reviewers were from Western Tech or faculty. And since he said
that he hasn't worked out all of the wrinkles yet, this is
still a very attractive and viable option.