reappointment, tenure and promotion workshop june 3, 2014
TRANSCRIPT
Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop
June 3, 2014
Agenda
Welcome and Introductions Guide to Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion –
Mark Trowell Senior Appointments Committee – Judith Daniluk Questions and Discussion
2
Our Objective
To provide Heads and Administrators with an understanding of the reappointment, tenure and promotion processes.
To support you in enabling the success of faculty members going forward for reappointment, tenure and promotion.
3
Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion
Tenure Streams Criteria Tenure Promotion Reviews Procedures For Assistance…
4
The Tenure Streams
5
The Professoriate Stream
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor
The Professor of Teaching Stream
Instructor I Senior Instructor Professor of Teaching
The Criteria
6
The Professoriate Stream The Professor of Teaching Stream
Service
Educational Leadership Teaching
Service
TeachingResearch
The Tenure Clock The tenure clock begins on July 1 of the calendar year of
hire Extensions are granted for maternity & parental leaves
(automatic) and sick leaves (on a case by case basis) An individual may only be reviewed one time for tenure All ranks, except Assistant Professor, may be reviewed
early for tenure A tenure track Assistant Professor may be reviewed early
for promotion to Associate Professor and if granted, tenure will be automatic
7
The Tenure Clock
8
The Procedures
The reappointment, tenure & promotionprocedures are set out in
Articles 5 & 9 of Conditions of Appointment for Faculty,
and are supplemented by the Guide to Reappointment, Tenure and
Promotion Procedures at UBC
9
Reappointment Reviews
The process for reappointment reviews is the same as the process for tenure and promotion reviews EXCEPT External letters of reference are only required where
the Head and/or Department are considering a negative recommendation
The President does not consult with the Senior Appointments Committee (SAC)
10
Periodic Review for Promotion
11
Rank Periodic Review Year
Assistant Professor
Year 5
then every 2 years
Associate Professor
Year 5
then every 3 years
Senior Instructor
Year 5
then every 3 years
Promotion Reviews
Review Scheduled?Obligation to Initiate?
Who can stop the
process?
Periodic Yes UniversityCandidate
only
Non-Periodic
NoCandidate
or the University
Candidate or the
University
12
Head’s Meeting
13
By June 30, the Head must meet with all tenure track faculty annually.
For tenured faculty, we encourage annual meetings or, at minimum, at least in the 2 years prior to a promotion review.
Head’s Meeting
14
It is an opportunity to clearly note the strengths, deficiencies and opportunities for improvement
It is also important to receive advice re the CV & other relevant material required for the next review and agree on the framing of the case
The Head & candidate must agree in writing on matters discussed
The Initial File
15
Unless otherwise agreed, the faculty member’s dossier and all relevant documentation necessary for review must be submitted by September 15.
Eligibility to be Consulted
16
The Head must consult with eligible members of the departmental standing committee on all reappointment, tenure and promotion cases.
Each Academic Unit is required to have documented procedures regarding consultation with the departmental standing committee for all reappointment, tenure and promotion cases.
Letters of Reference
17
All tenure and promotion cases require 4 letters of reference.
The candidate provides 4 names, of which 2 must be solicited.
The Head then consults with the departmental standing committee on choosing the final list of referees.
There must always be as many letters from the candidate’s list as the department’s list.
What Referees Receive
18
The letter of request is only accompanied by the candidate’s CV and selected materials relevant for the assessment of scholarly achievements, educational leadership and curriculum development.
Teaching dossiers are usually only included for cases involving Senior Instructor & Professor of Teaching.
Tenure & Promotion Reviews
Department Standing Committee meets after obtaining letters of reference
Department Standing Committee votes & recommends to Head
Invited to respond in writing to serious concerns
19
Serious concerns?
Yes
No
Tenure & Promotion Reviews
Head recommends to Dean
Head notifies candidate in writing of decision
Invited to respond in writing to Dean
20
Negative?
Yes
Tenure & Promotion Reviews
Dean recommends to President*Dean seeks Faculty Committee vote
Dean notifies candidate of decision
Invited to respond in writing to President
21
Negative?
Yes
Supplementing the File
22
The University and the candidate have the right to supplement the file with new info at any stage prior to the President’s
decision
Supplements Must be Dated
For Assistance…
The Collective Agreement, in particular Articles 2 - 5 & 9 of Conditions of Appointment for Faculty
Guide to Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures at UBC for 2012/13
Faculty Relations website: www.hr.ubc.ca/faculty_relations/tenure/
Call us!
23
Senior Appointments Committee
Current SAC Chair: Professor Judith Daniluk
Incoming Chair: Professor Melanie Jones
24
Senior Appointments Committee
20 person committee of professors Representation from all Faculties (includes 2
UBC-O; 1 Faculty Association) Two Subcommittees: Associate and Professor
(members meet weekly September through June)
SAC reviews all tenure, promotion and new appointment files (180-200/year) and makes recommendations to the President
SAC Terms of Reference Advise the President on the merits of individual cases according to: Concepts of procedural fairness Appropriate standards of excellence across
and within faculties and disciplines The Collective Agreement and SAC
guidelines All relevant contextual matters
(A 5.14; Section 12 SAC Guide)
Examples of Contextual Factors
Maternity or parental leaves Delays due to set-up requirements for
research or any other relevant information which may provide insight into timing issues
Candidate’s personal circumstances, if relevant
Discipline- and context-specific opportunities within each department and faculty
Article 5.14e; SAC Guide Section 5.5.1
27
SAC Review ProcessFiles are reviewed in detail for merits & fairness by the Associate or Professor sub-committee membersCases may be deferred pending receipt of additional information or procedural clarification Cases are ranked:
‘A’ – no substantive issues or procedural concerns
‘B’ – negative recommendation by Dean or Head – SAC members have questions for the Dean
(approximately ¼ of all cases)
SAC Full Committee Review
‘A’ cases generally approved without substantive discussion by full SAC cmt.
‘B’ cases require full SAC discussion: Dean joins SAC for discussion of the case Vote is taken in Dean’s absence Dean is immediately informed of the result
which is considered “confidential”
29
Recommendations & Decisions
SAC Chair informs the President of SAC recommendations and votes on each case
Chair provides the President with notes on SAC discussion with the Dean regarding all ‘B’ cases (notes added to candidate’s file)
President makes his recommendation to Board of Governors
Important Considerations in Preparing the Dossier
Familiarity with the criteria specific to stream, rank and promotion
Examples of evidence External referee selection and solicitation Documentation of teaching excellence UBC curriculum vitae
31
Criteria and Evidence in the Professoriate
32
Professoriate Stream Criteria
Collective Agreement:
Assistant Professor – A. 3.06 Associate Professor – A. 3.07 Professor (research stream) – A. 3.08 Tenure – A. 4.01
(SAC Guide – Section 3)
33
Tenure A. 4.01
granted to individuals who have maintained a high standard of performance and show promise of continuing to do so
judged principally on performance in both teaching and scholarly activity
service is important, but cannot compensate for deficiencies in teaching and in scholarly activity
evidence of competence is required both in teaching and in scholarly activity
34
Assistant Professor A. 3.06
evidence of ability in teaching and scholarly activity
involved in scholarly activity is a successful teacher is capable of providing instruction at the
various levels
35
Associate Professor A. 3.07
evidence of successful teaching and scholarly activity beyond that expected of an Assistant Professor
teaching effectiveness (A. 4.02) sustained and productive scholarly activity ability to direct graduate students willingness to participate, and participation
in, the affairs of the Department and the University
36
Professor A. 3.08 meet appropriate standards of excellence and
have wide recognition in the field of their interest
high quality in teaching sustained and productive scholarly activity attained distinction in their discipline participated significantly in academic and
professional affairs NOTE: reserved for those whose contributions are
considered outstanding
37
Sustained Scholarly Contributions – Professorial Stream (A 4.03; Sec 3 Guide)
“scholarly activity" means: research of quality and significance in appropriate fields – distinguished,
creative or professional work of a scholarly nature
the dissemination of the results of that scholarly activity
must be “sustained” over time
Types of Scholarship
“Traditional” scholarship – A 4.03 & 3.1(i) SAC Guide
Scholarship of teaching – A. 4.03(a) & 3.1(ii) SAC Guide
Professional contributions – A.4.03(b) & 3.1(iii) SAC Guide
39
Professional Contributions (A. 4.03 b)
professional/clinical: significant applications of fundamental theory significant forms, & applications of, professional
or clinical practice must be “distinguished” creative, standard-setting – changes practice of
the profession contributions not routinely made by other
professionals in the field
Scholarship of Teaching (A. 4.03 a)
based on broad contributions to the improvement of teaching and learning - beyond excellence in teaching
evidenced by originality or innovation, demonstrable impact in a particular field or discipline, peer reviews, dissemination in the public domain, or substantial and sustained use by others
demonstrated leadership and outstanding stature or expertise
Important Considerations In Framing A Professoriate Case (4.1.1 Guide)
cases may be framed as “blended” professional contributions or scholarship of
teaching may constitute all or a portion of the case for scholarly contributions & significance
must be explicitly stated and considered from the outset, at all levels of the review process
must be capable of assessment – referee assessment of significance & impact is critical
42
Some Sources of Evidence – Professoriate Stream invited presentations/performances (national &
international) article & grant reviews; editorial board work publications in high-impact venues in the field
(provide descriptions, impact factors, etc.) competitive grant funding as PI and co-I citations and adoption of candidate’s work
43
Sources of Evidence, contd.
referees’ verification of impact awards and other forms of recognition comparisons with discipline-specific norms
– venues, grants, publications, authorship, conference participation
mentoring and publishing with grad students; grad students’ career accomplishments
44
Criteria and Evidence in the
Professor of Teaching Stream
45
Professor of Teaching Stream Criteria
Collective Agreement:
Senior Instructor – A. 3.04 Professor of Teaching – A. 3.05 SAC Guide: Appendix 1
46
Professor of Teaching Stream
A distinct career track with different expectations than professorial ranks
requires evidence of excellence in teaching and educational leadership with impact beyond candidate’s own classroom
research productivity is not required excellence in teaching is required but is
not enough 47
Professor of Teaching Stream
discipline and context specific opportunities within each department should be noted re: teaching, educational leadership and service activities
evidence of external visibility and impact should be framed based on opportunities within units (e.g. access to grant & travel funds; teaching loads; etc.)
48
Senior Instructor A. 3.04
excellence in teaching demonstrated educational leadership,
involvement in curriculum development and innovation, and other teaching and learning initiatives
contributions to service
49
Senior Instructor, contd…
“it is expected that Senior Instructors will keep abreast of current developments in their respective disciplines and in the field of teaching and learning”
(SAC Guide, p. 49)
50
Professor of Teaching A. 3.05
outstanding achievement in teaching and educational leadership
distinction in the field of teaching and learning
sustained and innovative contributions to curriculum development, course design and other innovations and initiatives
service to academic profession, University and community
51
Professor of Teaching, contd…
demonstrated “educational leadership and impact beyond one’s own classroom, within the University and, as appropriate, externally in the broader academic community”
demonstrated “impact on student learning and the quality of education at UBC and beyond”
“…scholarly teaching (teaching informed by research/scholarship of teaching and learning) is expected” (SAC Guide p. 48)
52
Examples of Evidence of Educational Leadership (see Appendix 1 of SAC Guide)
formal educational leadership responsibilities within the Department and/or Faculty (e.g., on teaching- and learning-related committees)contributions to substantive curriculum development/redesign (e.g. accreditation)funding obtained for improvement of teaching and learning – new initiativesdevelopment and/or coordination of courses and programs and/or new assessment models/methods
53
Evidence of Educational Leadership application of innovative, research-based
approaches to curriculum and pedagogy application of scholarship of teaching and
learning, including resulting presentations and publications (e.g., articles, abstracts, conference proceedings, poster sessions)
development and dissemination of instructional materials/pubs. (textbooks, training manuals, software)
Evidence of Educational Leadership organization and/or participation in conferences or
educational events focused on teaching and learning within your program, department, faculty, University and/or outside of UBC
contributions to university and faculty-based teaching and learning initiatives (e.g., CTLT-based programs and communities of practice; Peer Review of Teaching, etc.)
contributions to professional training programs (e.g. TA/tutor training)
mentorship of peers and students (“go to” person)
55
Evidence of Educational Leadership evidence of the ability to work individually and
collaboratively to enhance teaching and learning evidence of relationships with other learning units
or institutions that fosters the exchange and development of information and resources on teaching and learning
evidence of reflective teaching and learning practices
evidence of initiatives that advance UBC ability to excel in its teaching and learning mandates
56
Teaching Effectiveness
57
Teaching Effectiveness (A. 4.02; SAC 4.3, Appendix 2)
Effectiveness primary criterion, not popularity command over subject matter familiarity with recent developments preparedness & presentation accessibility to students influence on intellectual & scholarly development
of students willingness to teach range of subject matter and
levels
Evidence of Teaching Excellence teaching awards and nominations beneficial
but not essential (one form of evidence) student evaluations – quantitative and
qualitative peer teaching reviews student supervision – professional, research,
internships, residency, etc. multi-section course coordination professional development activitiesSAC 3.2, 4.3, Appendix 2
59
Documentation of Teaching Effectiveness A. 4.02; Appendix 2 Guide
context is critical - identify norms in your unit/faculty, and how candidate compares
provide quantitative and qualitative summary: All teaching responsibilities Student and peer evaluations Graduate student supervision incl.
expectations Other teaching contributions,
accomplishments, awards, etc. Explanation for low scores
Referees
61
Arm’s Length Requirement (5.4.10 Guide)
persons whose impartiality cannot be doubtedmay not include such categories as relatives, close
personal friends, clients, former graduate thesis advisers, research supervisors
should not include current or former colleagues where conflict of interest cannot be managed, grant co-holders or co-authors
can include former instructors who were not supervisors or professional committee members
Professor of Teaching stream – arm’s length colleagues from within the University may be appropriate
Referees – Professoriate Stream choose well-qualified, arm’s length referees,
preferably from universities/programs with stature comparable to UBC (national; international)
choose referees who are known leaders/experts in candidate’s area
ensure detailed information is provided on referees and their suitability
care should be taken in solicitation letter (note mandatory reviews for tenure)
secure explicit recommendations on T & P solicit additional letters as necessary
Referees – Professor of Teaching Stream
Senior Instructor/Tenure: familiarity with candidate’s teaching
contributions not someone with whom s/he has co-taught outstanding teachers outside your Department can be outside UBC, but not required
Professor of Teaching: at least 2 external to UBC and 2 external to your
Department impact “beyond UBC”
64
Curricula VitaeProfessoriate – Appendix 3 (Guide)
Professor of Teaching Stream – Appendix 4 (Guide)
65
Common Problems with CVs information (e.g., a paper presentation) is duplicated
or repeated in different sections of the CV and publication record
CV is not up to date, is not dated, or is not in UBC format (SAC Guide – Appendices 3 & 4)
excessive inclusion of narrative (8a; 9a) – less is more lack of clarity regarding the candidate’s role and
contributions (pubs, grants, collaborative research and projects)
full information is not provided on grants (competitive vs. non; status of applications), publications (year, page numbers, authors, etc.), or presentations
66
Common Problems with CV’s contd.
candidate’s role in supervising graduate students, residents or post docs is not clear (primary supervisor; co-supervisor; committee member)
failure to properly distinguish between peer-reviewed publications and presentations and those not peer-reviewed
failure to include the dollar value of grants or to indicate the proportion allocated to candidate in case of multiple recipients
teaching record is incomplete
67
Additional Issues and Considerations
68
Timeliness of P & T Review
1. Head meets with candidate by June 30th (A. 5.02 meeting)
2. Candidate submits dossier by Sept. 15th (unless otherwise agreed)
3. Completed dossier with DSPC recommendation to Dean by Dec. 1st
4. Dean’s recommendation to SAC by March 31st (end of April at the latest)
NOTE: Prioritize – mandatory tenure and promotion cases and new appointments (more time sensitive)
Consultation with Dept./Unit
when committee meets to review file: issues with CV or dossier noted (e.g., missing
information, excessive narrative, selection of articles, etc.) and feedback provided to candidate
dossier assessed based on relevant rank and criteria (Sec. 3 Guide; Article 3.04 – 3.08) and framing of case
identification and selection of referees - at minimum an equal # from candidate’s list (Sec 4.5 Guide)
head solicits referees’ assessments (if s/he is arm’s length) (Sample letters: Appendices 5 - 9 Guide)
Head’s and Dean’s Letters
Of critical importance when file is reviewed by SAC: explain review process, referee selection and
assessments, and results of votes provide detailed explanation of any negative votes (don’t
dismiss these) provide details of contextual issues, and candidate’s
unique contributions (e.g. collaborative work, aboriginal scholarship, etc.)
discuss case, based on relevant criteria and collective agreement
(Head’s Letter 5.5.1 & Appendix 10; Dean’s Letter 6.2.1 Guide)
Basis for Appeals (A. 13)
A decision may be appealed: on the ground that it was arrived at
through procedural error on the ground that it was unreasonable
Process Considerations (SAC Guide)
acting Head – co-author etc. (Note 3 - 5.0) timeliness of file (Note 4 – 5.0) documentation of 5.02 meeting (5.2.1) early discussions regarding areas of
scholarly activity – traditional or blended case (5.2.1)
current summative peer review of teaching (5.2 Guide)
eligible members to be consulted (5.4.3)73
Process Considerations (SAC Guide)
selection & solicitation of referees (5.4 a) importance of confidentiality (5.4.22) identification of “serious concerns” and
candidate’s right to respond (5.4.26) separate votes on promotion and tenure in
cases of new appointments (7.7) letters from collaborators (3.1.4) option of “secret ballots” (5.4.23)
74
Additional Issues for Heads Ongoing mentoring of new and junior faculty
regarding: expectations at UBC top journals and presses tri-council funding expectations re: conference participation &
graduate supervision authorship (single; multiple; order)
Overburdening junior faculty with service work Orienting members of DSPC and DACOPAT
Critical Resources
The Collective Agreement, in particular Articles 2-5 & 9 of the Agreement on Conditions of Appointment for Faculty
SAC Guide to Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures at UBC for 2012/13
Faculty Relations website: www.hr.ubc.ca/faculty_relations/tenure/
Faculty Association website: www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca/
promotiontenure.php
Closing Questions??
As always…..Please check the Faculty Relations website, email, or call us.
Thank you!!
77