Skip to content

Comments Sought in Regular Review of Director Robert Calderbank

A university committee is seeking comments as part of a regular performance review of the Rhodes Information Initiative at Duke (iiD) director, Robert Calderbank. Regular reviews of initiative directors are to be conducted in the penultimate year of their term by a committee formed by the provost in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Academic Council. Such a committee has been appointed to review Calderbank, who has served in his post since 2013.

Members of the review committee are:

  • David (Dave) Siegel, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy (chair)
  • Andrew Allen, Professor of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics
  • Katherine Brading, Professor of Philosophy
  • Mark Chaves, Anne Firor Scott Distinguished Professor of Sociology
  • Craig Henriquez, Professor of Biomedical Engineering
  • Jianfeng Lu, Professor of Mathematics
  • Christine Payne, Yoh Family Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science
  • Brian Silliman, Rachel Carson Distinguished Professor of Marine Conservation Biology

An important part of the review process is the solicitation and consideration of comments from the university’s many constituencies. Comments on performance and suggestions for the future are important to the committee’s work.

The charge to the committee poses several questions for the review, including Calderbank’s effectiveness in the following areas:

  • ability to provide intellectual and organizational leadership for an initiative intended to equip Duke to play a leading role in data science
  • ability to develop and foster successful interdisciplinary collaborations with leadership from departments, schools and other units across campus that are directly or indirectly engaged (or have the potential to benefit from engagement) with computational and data analytics
  • effectiveness in engaging faculty from multiple schools and departments in the work of iiD – we are interested in learning why some faculty do engage with iiD while others do not
  • effectiveness in mentoring faculty leaders and pivotal senior and research staff who are responsible for directing key and emerging initiatives in iiD
  • demonstrated commitment to diversity, inclusion and excellencethrough leadership in hiring practices, faculty engagement, the forging of strategic priorities, and the mentoring of staff members
  • administrative competencies regarding effective management of the budget and iiD staff
  • effectiveness in engaging students—both undergraduate and graduate students—in iiD activities and programs
  • overall effectiveness as the leader of a nimble, diverse organization

The committee invites you to share your thoughts by email or letter. Communication should include the nature of your interactions with Director Calderbank so that the committee can understand the context of the comments as fully as possible. The committee will discuss responses, and a summary will be included in the written report to the provost.

The committee would appreciate receiving comments by January 31, 2022.

Ways to respond:

Information collected will be compiled in a report which will be submitted to the provost and the vice provost of interdisciplinary studies at the conclusion of the review. Responses will be kept confidential. While a list of those from whom feedback is received will be part of the record, it will be in an appendix of the report which will not be shared. No comments or observations will be attributed to any individual in any report of the committee.