You Decide
You Decide
“RPES as a Legitimate Evaluation System” versus “RPES as an ARS Tool of Discrimination”
FACTS ABOUT RPES
• The Research Position Evaluation System (RPES) is the process used to promote (or hold back)
research scientists within the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
• Scientists prepare their accomplishments according to specific written guidelines, as described in
• 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
• The InDepth Reviewer never contacts the scientist being evaluated, but instead questions their
supervisor and co-workers using ARS-232 (ReviewerWorksheet)
PROBLEMS WITH RPES
• 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?]
• 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?]
• 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)