“RPES as a Legitimate Evaluation System” versus “RPES as an ARS Tool of Discrimination”

FACTS ABOUT RPES

1. •   The Research Position Evaluation System (RPES) is the process used to promote (or hold back)
   

       research scientists within the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

1. •   Scientists prepare their accomplishments according to specific written guidelines, as described in
   

       the RPES writeup manual

1. •   A scientist’s RPES scores are based on the Research Grade Evaluation Guide (RGEG) and these
   

        scores determine the salary levels for research scientists in the ARS

1. •   The InDepth Reviewer never contacts the scientist being evaluated, but instead questions their
   

         supervisor and co-workers using ARS-232 (ReviewerWorksheet)

PROBLEMS WITH RPES

1. •   The RPE (promotion) System is based on the RGEG manual, which contains no objective,
   

          measurable criteria. 

    [How can scientists be judged fairly using only subjective measures?]

1. •   ARS statistics indicate that women research scientists are not recruited, promoted, and/or retained
   

           at the same rate as their male peers.

    [How can we persuade those who have risen in rank within a biased

     system to ever initiate a “fair” (objective and measurable) method

     for judging ARS research scientists?]

1. •   When I discussed the RPE (promotion) System with ARS personnel, the RPE supporters couldn’t
   

            recognize (or wouldn’t admit) that the system is subjective. [See an example]

THE SOLUTION

           Increase the accuracy of the system used to promote research scientists within the ARS by:

                    -  Incorporating the h-index system, which offers a more objective, measurable

                       method for comparing a scientist’s impact, rather than relying on the “opinions” of

                       supervisors and co-workers. [Other systems exist for decreasing biases when deciding promotions.]

                    -  Restricting RPES panel membership to exclude employees who have discrimination

                       complaints lodged against them from every female research scientist in their unit.

                             [Embarrassingly, the ARS did not adopt this suggestion when it was at issue from 2007 until present.]

                    -  Establishing defined criteria so that every research scientist knows (from day-to-day)

                        whether they’re on track to be promoted. [This can be easily accomplished by introducing a

                              promotion system based on objective, measurable criteria that are made available to every scientist.]

                    -  Eliminating the RPES veil of secrecy to encourage honest, ethical promotion decisions by

                       those who have already benefitted from the subjectivity of the RPE system.

                             [Federal GS levels are a matter of public record, so secrecy does not benefit the scientist being evaluated.]

                    -  Establishing an effective mentoring system for new scientists to compensate for

                       supervisors who cannot (or will not) perform their agency-assigned mentoring duties

THE REALITY OF RPES  (case studies)