Being very old with, I hope, a reputation as a collegial kind of fellow, I get several of these requests each year and your comments about burdens ring true if the task is taken seriously- reading books and articles previously unread, looking at drafts if supplied etc. Tenure is however only one reason for being asked and in recent years, requests for comments about proposals to promote individuals- to endowed chairs for example- or to make appointments are also pretty frequent. One of the most pernicious forms of such enquiry include a demand that the referee "rank" the applicant against a list of academics at comparable stages of their careers. For some time I have refused to do this not least because a good reference is one which speaks to the future as much as it does to past performance. But no less unpleasant is that sense that you are being press-ganged into being a voting member of an appointments or promotion panel rather than the provider of an opinion and hence one who, in physical absentia, can be blamed for outcomes. I protested about this when pushed to "rank" a named candidate against a rather stupid list of comparators for a post in history at a university you name in your blog. My protest got nowhere of course. Amongst the points I made was the frequently compromised confidentiality of such procedures and I feel sure that you, like me, have been confronted by academics who are either grateful for or angry about things written which they most assuredly should never have seen. Unsurprisingly I and I think others are cagey when it comes to such approaches. It's hard work for sure but collegiality in many forms like examination is also hard work. Voicing usable opnions based upon serious research is hard labour plus potential exposure and it's no surprise that many of us resist such invitations.
Being very old with, I hope, a reputation as a collegial kind of fellow, I get several of these requests each year and your comments about burdens ring true if the task is taken seriously- reading books and articles previously unread, looking at drafts if supplied etc. Tenure is however only one reason for being asked and in recent years, requests for comments about proposals to promote individuals- to endowed chairs for example- or to make appointments are also pretty frequent. One of the most pernicious forms of such enquiry include a demand that the referee "rank" the applicant against a list of academics at comparable stages of their careers. For some time I have refused to do this not least because a good reference is one which speaks to the future as much as it does to past performance. But no less unpleasant is that sense that you are being press-ganged into being a voting member of an appointments or promotion panel rather than the provider of an opinion and hence one who, in physical absentia, can be blamed for outcomes. I protested about this when pushed to "rank" a named candidate against a rather stupid list of comparators for a post in history at a university you name in your blog. My protest got nowhere of course. Amongst the points I made was the frequently compromised confidentiality of such procedures and I feel sure that you, like me, have been confronted by academics who are either grateful for or angry about things written which they most assuredly should never have seen. Unsurprisingly I and I think others are cagey when it comes to such approaches. It's hard work for sure but collegiality in many forms like examination is also hard work. Voicing usable opnions based upon serious research is hard labour plus potential exposure and it's no surprise that many of us resist such invitations.