'Discrimination against academics and career implications of student evaluations: university policy versus legal compliance' by Troy Heffernan and Paul Harpur in (2023) Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education comments
Across the international higher education sector, existing studies highlight that student evaluations of courses and teaching are biased and prejudiced towards academics and can cause mental distress. Yet student evaluation data is often used as part of faculty hiring, firing, promotion, award and grant decisions. That a data source known to be prejudiced and biased is used for employment and career decisions raises questions around whether these university policies are discriminatory towards university staff. This paper investigates these questions via an analysis of: a) what are the common university policies relating to evaluation data collection and its use, b) are these policies leaving academics exposed to discrimination, and c) what types of policies may be leaving universities liable to legal ramifications due to non-compliance with anti-discrimination and workplace health and safety laws? The work demonstrates why most institutions are operating outside the bounds of the law, highlights to academics what types of policies may fail to meet discrimination and workplace laws, and informs university leaders of the actions that may be exposing their universities to legal implications for failing to protect their staff. ...
This paper examines university policies surrounding the collection of student evaluations of courses and teaching (abbreviated to SETs). The work investigates how this data is provided to those teaching the courses, how it is used to influence the career progression of academic staff, and even employment hiring and firing decisions (Jones, Gaffney-Rhys, and Jones 2014; Heffernan 2022a, 2022b). These policies are then tested against current discrimination laws, and workplace health and safety laws, to determine what policies adhere to current employee protection laws, and what policies are potentially failing to protect academic staff, and thus leaving universities open to legal ramifications.
The paper begins with a literature review and assessment of what researchers currently know regarding the prejudice behind SETs, and the evidence that SET data negatively impacts on the career prospects of every academic, but particularly of women and other marginalised academics. The paper next provides a detailed policy analysis of university approaches to SET data use relating to staff employment, promotion and wellbeing. The policies are then analysed for compliance with anti-discrimination and workplace health and safety laws. The paper examines policies from Australian universities, and compares these datasets with Australian federal, state and territory laws. However, the findings are not unique to Australia as Australia’s employer/employee anti-discrimination and workplace health and safety laws are similar to those found in many other international legal jurisdictions, including some within the Global South, as Australia is part of the International Labour Organisation’s Occupational Safety and Health Convention (Ratifications of C155 - Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981). The Convention includes 76 nations and states, and, despite differences, provides a framework of duties placed on employers to protect their employees from harm. Many other governments, such as the United Kingdom and several others in Europe, have specific equality acts and laws which place these institutions with a greater legal responsibility than those in Australia (Harpur, 2014; Harpur & James, 2017). The work highlights to universities internationally the types of policies that are likely to attract legal attention from discriminated staff, and helps academics globally determine if they have been adequately protected by their employer.
The paper finds that most universities do not specifically reference their statutory obligations when managing SETs, and nor do their policies concerning SETs and their use meet legal compliance. All universities are nonetheless bound by anti-discrimination and workplace health and safety laws, and have a range of responses to fulfill their legal compliance obligations. Therefore, we argue that anti-discrimination and workplace health and safety laws need to be re-considered when developing university student evaluation processes.
