Understanding Tenure and Promotion Processes in Academia
Explore the tenure and promotion workshop for faculty members, covering topics like criteria, tenure clock, professorial streams, procedures, and periodic reviews. Gain insights into the tenure and promotion processes to support successful career advancement in academia.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Tenure and Promotion Workshop Research Stream
Agenda Welcome & Opening Remarks Angela Redish & Mark Mac Lean Guide to Tenure & Promotion Mark Trowell & Deena Rubuliak Senior Appointments Committee Melanie Jones Questions and Discussion Closing Remarks May 19, 2016
Our Objective To provide faculty members with an understanding of the tenure and promotion processes. To support the success of faculty members going forward for tenure and promotion. 3 May 19, 2016
Tenure & Promotion Tenure Streams Criteria Tenure & Tenure Clocks Promotion Reviews Procedures For Assistance 4 May 19, 2016
The Tenure Streams The Professorial Stream Acting Assist Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor 5 May 19, 2016
The Criteria The Professorial Stream Service Research Teaching 6 May 19, 2016
The Procedures The reappointment, tenure & promotion procedures 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 ( SAC Guide ) 7 May 19, 2016
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. 8 May 19, 2016
Periodic Review for Promotion & Tenure ? ? ? Rank? Periodic? Review? Year? Tenure? Review? ? ? ? Assistant? Professor? Year? 5? ? Year? 7? then? every? 2? years? ? ? Year? 5? ? then? every? 3? years? ? ? ? Associate? Professor? Year? 5? 9 May 19, 2016
Heads Meeting 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. 10 May 19, 2016
Heads Meeting It s 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. The Head & candidate must agree in writing on matters discussed. 11 May 19, 2016
The Initial File Unless otherwise agreed, the faculty member s dossier and all relevant documentation necessary for review must be submitted by September 15. 12 May 19, 2016
Eligibility to be Consulted 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. 13 May 19, 2016
Letters of Reference 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. 14 May 19, 2016
What referees receive The letter of request is only accompanied by the candidate s CV and selected materials relevant for the assessment of scholarly achievements. Teaching dossiers are usually only included for cases involving Senior Instructor & Professor of Teaching. 15 May 19, 2016
Tenure & Promotion Reviews Department Standing Committee votes & recommends to Head Department Standing Committee meets after obtaining letters of reference Serious concerns? No Yes Invited to respond in writing to serious concerns 16 May 19, 2016
Tenure & Promotion Reviews Head recommends to Dean Head notifies candidate in writing of decision Negative? Yes Invited to respond in writing to Dean 17 May 19, 2016
Tenure & Promotion Reviews Dean seeks Faculty Committee vote Dean recommends to President Senior Appointments Committee Recommendation to President 18 May 19, 2016
Tenure & Promotion Reviews President New Serious concerns? No Yes Invited to respond in writing to President President notifies candidate of decision 19 May 19, 2016
Supplementing the File The University and the candidate have the right to supplement the file with new info at any stage prior to the President s decision. Use dated supplements to update your file! 20 May 19,2016
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 2015/16 Faculty Relations website: www.hr.ubc.ca/faculty_relations/tenure/ Faculty Association website: www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca/promotiontenure.php Call us! 21
Senior Appointments Committee Professor Melanie Jones, SAC Chair 22 May 19, 2016
Senior Appointments Committee 20 person committee of professors Includes representation from the Faculty Association, UBC O and all Faculties at UBC V Two Subcommittees: Associate and Professor (members meet weekly September through June) SAC reviews all tenure, promotion and new appointment files (170-200/year) and makes recommendations to the President 23 May 19, 2016
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 (CA Article 5.14) 24 May 19, 2016
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 the 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 25 May 19, 2016
SAC Review Process Files are reviewed in detail for merits & fairness by the Associate or Professor sub-committee Cases may be deferred pending additional information or procedural clarification Cases are ranked: A no substantive issues or procedural concerns B negative recommendation by Dean conflicting recommendation from Head & Dean SAC members have questions for the Dean (approximately 15% of all cases) 26 May 19, 2016
SAC Full Committee Review A cases generally approved without substantive discussion by full SAC B cases require full SAC discussion: Dean joins SAC for discussion of the case Vote taken in Dean s absence Dean immediately informed of result which is considered confidential 27 May 19, 2016
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 her recommendation to Board of Governors 28 May 19, 2016
Important Considerations In Preparing Your Dossier Familiarity with thecriteria specific to your rank and promotion Examples of evidence External referee selection Documentation of teaching excellence UBC curriculum vitae 29 May 19, 2016
Professorial 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) 30 May 19, 2016
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 service to the academic profession, University & community 31 May 19, 2016
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, University, profession and community 32 May 19, 2016
Professor A. 3.08 NOTE: reserved for those whose contributions are considered outstanding meet appropriate standards of excellence in teaching and scholarly activity high quality in teaching sustained and productive scholarly activity have attained distinction in their discipline have participated significantly in academic and professional affairs 33 May 19, 2016
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 in scholarly activity service is important, but cannot compensate for deficiencies in teaching and in scholarly activity 34 May 19, 2016
Sustained Scholarly Contributions the Professorial Stream "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 (Article 4.03; Section 3 SAC Guide) 35 May 19, 2016
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 36 May 19, 2016
Important Considerations in Framing a Professorial Case 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 37 May 19, 2016
EVIDENCE 38 May 19, 2016
Some Sources of Evidence Professorial Stream Invited presentations/performances (national & international) Article & grant reviews; editorial board work Publications in high-impact venues in the candidate s field (provide descriptions, impact factors, rejection rates) Competitive grant funding as PI and co-I Citations of work; adoption of candidate s work 39 May 19, 2016
Sources of Evidence (contd.) Referees verification of impact Awards and other forms of Recognition Discipline-specific norms venues, grants, publications, authorship, conference participation Mentoring and publishing with grad students; grad students career accomplishments Service is important, but can t substitute for excellence in scholarship and teaching 40 May 19, 2016
REFEREES 41 May 19, 2016
Referees Professorial Stream Choose well-qualified, arm s length referees, preferably from universities/programs with stature comparable to UBC Choose referees who are known leaders/experts in your field Provide Head with detailed information on referees National vs. International?? (rank and specialization/expertise) 42 May 19, 2016
TEACHING EXCELLENCE 43 May 19, 2016
Teaching Effectiveness A. 4.02; SAC 4.3 Effectivenessprimary criterion, not popularity Command over subject matter Familiarity with recent developments Preparedness & presentation Accessibility to students Influence on intellectual & scholarly development of students (mentorship) Willingness to teach range of subject matter and levels 44 May 19, 2016
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 SAC 3.2 & Appendix 2 45 May 19, 2016
CURRICULA VITAE 46 May 19, 2016
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 or is not dated or is not in UBC format Lack of clarity regarding the candidate s contributions (pubs, grants, collaborative research Full information is not provided on publications year, page numbers, authors, etc. 47 May 19, 2016
Common Problems with CVs (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 those not peer-reviewed Failure to include the dollar value of grants or to indicate the proportion allocated to the individual in joint grants Teaching record is incomplete 48 May 19, 2016
Curricula Vitae - Recommendations Use UBC format; adapt as needed (see annotated version in SAC Guide Appendix 3) Explain contributions to collaborative grants & co-authored publications Consider numbering pubs and presentations Use narrative opportunities to provide context for teaching & scholarship (be concise - 150 words) Pipeline is important works in progress Use dated supplements to update your file 49 May 19, 2016
Final Words of Wisdom Start early hit the ground running know what you need to do and be sure to do it (publishing, conference presentations, etc.) Find a senior mentor Don t listen to rumors go to the source for information (CA & SAC Guide) Choose your service contributions very carefully Keep your vitae up to date Keep track of, & document your successes 50 May 19, 2016
