FACULTY

APPLYING FOR

TENURE

Peter van Beek

AF&T Committee member, FAUW

Credits: Sally Gunz (AF&T Past

Chair)2017

• official representative of all regular faculty

• committee of FAUW

• assists with any employment related problem

• approximately 10−15 members representing all faculties

• contacts:

• Christopher Small, cgsmall@uwaterloo.ca, x35541

• Katie Damphouse, mcdampho@uwaterloo.ca, x32352

FAUW & AF&T

THE ROLE OF AF&T

• renewal of appointments

• tenure and promotion applications

• academic misconduct & research ethics concerns

• annual evaluation concerns

• discipline & letters of reprimand

• governance

• harassment

• intellectual property

• member-member disputes

• sabbatical, medical, parental and other leaves

• salary anomalies

• accommodation—the legal duty to accommodate disabilities, where disabilities is in the broadest sense

THE ROLE OF AF&T

TENURE AND PROMOTION

DECISION PROCESS

DTPC FTPC UTPC President

Tribunal

• DTPC constituted• chaired by department Chair, a voting member

• FTPC constituted (often)• chaired by Dean, a voting member

• notice of intent to apply due (to department Chair)

• candidate’s promotion brief due

• names of at least three arms-length external referees due

APPROXIMATE TIMELINE

• DTPC meets and proposes list of referees

• list of referees is agreed upon

• letters sent to potential external referees (by Dean)

• DTPC meets and considers case

• you may need to be around for this

• FTPC meets and considers case

• you may need to be around for this

APPROXIMATE TIMELINE

• UTPC meets and considers case

• decision from President on case

• if needed, tribunals meet

APPROXIMATE TIMELINE

• consider asking colleagues that you respect to stand for election

• bias or apprehension of bias

• perceived conflict of interest

DTPC & FTPC COMMITTEES

1. Curriculum vitae

2. Copies of relevant scholarly work

3. Candidate's statement

4. Any other relevant information the candidate feels may be useful

• annual performance reviews

• probationary reappointment letter

• teaching evaluations and comparative information

CANDIDATE’S

TENURE BRIEF

• scholarship• contributions to multi-authored papers (if you are not supervisor or

corresponding author)• quality of publication venues• citations

• teaching• graduate supervision, undergrad supervision: including in progress,

plus where are they now?• CTE programs and workshops attended• course evaluation summary (compare against departmental average

for each course)

• any time you get good news, bring it to the attention of the relevant committee and it will become part of the tenure brief

1. CURRICULUM VITAE

TENURE BRIEF

• be guided by departmental and faculty norms

• usually 3 − 5 papers

• scholarship is broadly defined in Policy 77

• best work

• ideally in peer reviewed, high quality venues

• evidence of establishing an independent research program

• papers with students

• sole-authored papers

• multi-authored papers but you are corresponding author or can

rightfully claim a major contribution; document your contribution but be

aware of the “Matthew effect”

2. RELEVANT SCHOLARLY

WORK

TENURE BRIEF

• usually 2‒4 pages

• length varies by faculty/discipline; some faculties impose precise page limits

• some faculties have templates; otherwise get a successful example as a template

3. CANDIDATE’S STATEMENT

TENURE BRIEF

• convey why your research is interesting and important• consider quotes from referee reports

• impact on practice, impact on subsequent research

• address any productivity gaps, delays in research

• address continuing productivity, what’s in the pipeline, strategic plan

• convey your enthusiasm for teaching

• address any poor teaching evaluations, what you have done to correct it• never blame the students or claim, e.g., it is because you have “high standards”

• can be short, cv for extra detail

3. CANDIDATE’S STATEMENT

TENURE BRIEF

• contributions to multi-authored papers (if not on CV)

• quality of publication venues (if not on CV)

• citations

• course evaluation summary and comparison numbers (if not on CV)

• teaching dossier

• peer teaching evaluations

• your chair may arrange these; if not, ask to have a peer teaching evaluation

4. OTHER INFORMATION

TENURE BRIEF

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES

A department in

Engineering

A department in

Science

A department in

Arts

CV Free form, but

suggestions for

inclusion

Free form Required format

Scholarly work 3−5 papers Exactly 5 papers Recommend 3−4 of

your best work, but

may send more if

you wish

Candidate’s

statement

Research, teaching,

service in a max. of

5 pages. No

additional template.

Research, teaching,

service in 3−5 pages.

Template also includes

tables for annual

performance reviews,

papers counts,

funding, student

evaluations.

Research,

teaching, service in

3 pages:

2 + ½ +½. No

additional template.

• arms-length• yes: research colleague, attend same conferences but not collaborators

• no: co-author, former supervisor

• credible, nationally and internationally recognized scholars

• generally: high rank, experienced, diligent

• Candidate provides names of at least three external referees

• more is better: 5 – 6 names

• DTPC normally suggests additional reviewer names

• Pool of potential referees is shown to candidate

EXTERNAL REFEREES

• bias or apprehension of bias

• perceived conflict of interest

• perceived unsuitability

• candidate, DTPC, & FTPC members must not contact referees

• only your Dean contacts referees

• asks them to assess candidate’s work and compare it with others recently promoted at their institutions or institutions comparable to ours

EXTERNAL REFEREES

• no decision is made

• candidate given complete, redacted copy of promotion file, including written explanation of nature of reservations

• candidate may provide written response and meet with DTPC

• recommendations:

• immediately contact AF&T committee

• respond, attend in person accompanied by AF&T member

• candidate informed in writing, including basis for decision

• case forwarded to FTPC

DTPC PROCESS

• no decision is made

• candidate given complete, redacted copy of promotion file, including nature of reservations

• candidate may provide written response and meet with FTPC

• recommendations:

• immediately contact AF&T committee, if you haven’t already

• respond, attend in person accompanied by AF&T committee member

• candidate informed in writing, including basis for decision

• case forwarded to UTPC

FTPC PROCESS

• no opportunity at this stage for candidate to respond to concerns

• President informed of recommendation

• UTPC is only advisory to the President

• if decision is positive: congratulations!

• if decision is negative (it’s possible for all previous levels to be positive but President’s decision negative)

• immediately contact AF&T committee

• you may appeal to a three-person tribunal

• tribunal considers case de novo, follows principles of natural justice

UTPC PROCESS

“The expectations for the granting of tenure are: a record as a good teacher committed to academic and pedagogical excellence; a record of high-quality and peer-assessed scholarly or creative work (normally demonstrated by publication or presentation in suitable academic or artistic forums); and a record of professional, university or community service.”

“Particular attention will be paid to assessing the likelihood that candidates will continue their scholarly activities once tenure has been awarded.”

STANDARDS FOR TENURE

POLICY 77

“The granting of tenure normally will require a record of strong

performance in both scholarship and teaching, with satisfactory

performance in service.”

“However, a candidate may also qualify for appointment as a tenured

Associate Professor by virtue of very strong performance in scholarship

or teaching with at least satisfactory performance in the other two areas.”

STANDARDS FOR TENURE

POLICY 77

• originality, quality and impact matter

• quality of venue often matters

• well reviewed books by reputable publishers

• peer reviewed, high quality conference proceedings

• grants (especially Tri-Agency grants)

• recently tenured at comparable departments at other institutions

• recently tenured (last 3–4 years) in your department

• talk to your chair: am I on track?

SCHOLARSHIP

STANDARDS FOR TENURE

• considerable weight is placed on student evaluations of teaching

• supplement student evaluations with peer teaching evaluations

• in some departments, grad supervision may be evaluated under research

• number of grad students

• progress of grad students: published, graduated, placed

• but many new faculty have difficulties with undergrad teaching

• seek help: CTE, teaching courses & workshops, colleagues, chair

TEACHING

STANDARDS FOR TENURE

• most departments shield tenure-track faculty from major internal service

• but be aware of the pitfall of doing too much service

• heavy service never overcomes deficiencies in research or teaching

SERVICE

STANDARDS FOR TENURE

TIMELINE

1st probationary term 2nd probationary term Apply for tenure

start end (June 30) start (July 1) end (June 30) option 1 option 2

Jan 1, 2013 2016 2016 2019 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2018

Feb 1, 2013 2016 2016 2019 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2018

Mar 1, 2013 2016 2016 2019 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2018

Apr 1, 2013 2016 2016 2019 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2018

May 1, 2013 2016 2016 2019 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2018

Jun 1, 2013 2016 2016 2019 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2018

Jul 1, 2013 2016 2016 2019 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2018

Aug 1, 2013 2016 2016 2019 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2018

Sep 1, 2013 2016 2016 2019 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2018

Oct 1, 2013 2017 2017 2020 July 1, 2018 July 1, 2019

Nov 1, 2013 2017 2017 2020 July 1, 2018 July 1, 2019

Dec 1, 2013 2017 2017 2020 July 1, 2018 July 1, 2019

• time to tenure decision extended by one year on request to Dean

• seriously impacted ability to fulfil duties for a significant stretch of time

• contact Linda Brogden, RN, in Occupational Health

TENURE CLOCK EXTENSIONS

• Have you taken pre-tenure sabbatical leave?

• Have you addressed any concerns?

• expressed in your probationary reappointment letter

• expressed by students; i.e., poor teaching evaluations

• Have you discussed it with your mentor?

• Have you discussed it with your chair?

DECIDING WHETHER TO

APPLY

• uwaterloo.ca/fauw

• Policy 76 — Faculty Appointments

• Policy 77 — Tenure and Promotion of Faculty Members

• Memorandum of agreement, article 13.5, annual performance reviews

• Annual performance review guidelines (faculty or department)

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES