Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop

June 18, 2013

Agenda

Welcome and Introductions Guide to Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion –

Fran Watters & Mark Trowell Senior Appointments Committee – Judith Daniluk Insights – Fran Watters 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 & Tenure Clocks Promotion Reviews Procedures For Assistance…

4

The Tenure Streams

5

The Professorial Stream

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor

The Professor of Teaching Stream

Instructor I Senior Instructor Professor of Teaching

The Criteria

6

The Professorial 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 University Candidate only

Non-Periodic No

Candidate 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’s an opportunity to clearly note the strengths, deficiencies and opportunities for improvement

It is also important to provide advice re the CV & other relevant material required for the next review.

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.

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.

• 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

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

Professor Judith Daniluk, SAC Chair

24

Senior Appointments Committee

20 person committee of professors (meets bi-weekly September through June)

Representation from all Faculties (includes 2 UBC-O; 1 Faculty Association)

Two Subcommittees: Associate and Professor (meets bi-weekly)

Reviews all tenure and promotion files (approx. 180/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 (Article 5.14 Agreement)

Examples of Contextual Factors maternity or parental leavesdelays 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

27

Timing of Submitting Files to SAC

Meeting with candidate by June 30th

Candidate submits dossier by Sept. 15th Completed dossier with recommendation to

Dean by Dec. 1st

File to SAC by March 31st (end of April at the latest)

Prioritize – tenure and promotion cases (more time sensitive)

Head’s and Dean’s Letters

Of critical importance when file is reviewed by SAC: Explain process, referee selection and assessment,

and results of vote Provide detailed explanation of any negative votes

(don’t dismiss these) Provide details of contextual issues, unique

contributions (e.g. collaborative work, aboriginal scholarship, etc.)

Frame case within collective agreement

SAC Review Process

Files are reviewed in detail for merits & fairness by the Associate or Professor SC

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 ¼ of all cases)

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 Result communicated to Dean

31

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 rank and promotion

Examples of evidenceExternal referee selectionDocumentation of teaching excellenceUBC curriculum vitae

33

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)

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

NOTE: reserved for those whose contributions are considered outstanding 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

37

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

evidence of competence is required both in teaching and in scholarly activity

38

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)

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

40

Important Considerations In Framing A Professorial CaseCases 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

41

Some Sources of Evidence Invited presentations/performances (national &

international)Article & grant reviews; editorial board workPublications in high-impact venues in the candidate’s field

(provide descriptions, impact factors, rejection rates)Competitive grant funding – as PI and coCitations of work; adoption of candidate’s workMentoring and publishing with grad students; grad

students’ career accomplishments

42

Sources of Evidence contd.

Referees’ verification of impactAwards and other forms of RecognitionDiscipline specific norms – venues, grants,

publications, authorship, conference participation

Quality vs. quantityService is important, but can’t substitute for

excellence in scholarship and teaching

43

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 candidate’s area

Candidate should provide Head with detailed information on referees and this should be included in Head’s letter

National vs. International?

Teaching Effectiveness A. 4.02; SAC 4.3

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 & Appendix 2

46

Documentation of Teaching Effectiveness A. 4.02Context is critical - identify norms in your

unit/faculty, and how candidate comparesProvide quantitative and qualitative summary

and assessment of: All teaching responsibilities Student and peer evaluations Graduate student supervision incl. expectations Other teaching contributions,

accomplishments, awards, etc. Explanation for low scores

Professor of Teaching Stream Criteria

Collective Agreement: Senior Instructor (2010 criteria) -

A. 3.04 Professor of Teaching – A. 3.05

(SAC Guide – Appendix 1)

48

Professor of Teaching Stream

A distinct career track with different expectations than traditional professorial ranks

Three pillars: teaching, educational leadership and service

Research productivity is not required Excellence in teaching is not enough

49

Senior Instructor A. 3.04

Old Agreement: teaching excellence and contributions to service

New Agreement (2010): excellence in teaching demonstrated educational leadership,

involvement in curriculum development and innovation, and other teaching and learning initiatives

contributions to service50

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

51

Examples of Evidence of Educational Leadership

Formal educational leadership responsibilities within the Department and/or Faculty (e.g., on teaching and learning related committees)

Contributions to substantive curriculum development/redesign

Funding obtained for improvement of teaching and learning

Development and/or coordination of courses and programs

52

Evidence of Educational Leadership contd…

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)

Instructional materials/pubs. (textbooks, training manuals, software development)

Evidence of Educational Leadership contd…

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.)

See Appendix 2 of SAC Guide

54

Referees – Professor of Teaching Stream Senior Instructor/Tenure:

Familiarity with candidate’s teaching contributions Not someone with whom candidate has co-taught Outstanding teachers outside candidate’s

Department Can be outside UBC, but not required

Professor of Teaching: At least 2 external to UBC; 2 external to candidate’s

Department National vs. International? - impact “beyond UBC”

55

Curricula VitaeUse UBC format; adapt as needed (see annotated

version in SAC Guide – Appendix 3)Explain contributions to collaborative grants & co-

authored publicationsConsider numbering pubs and presentationsUse narrative opportunities to provide context for

teaching & scholarship (be concise - 150 words)Pipeline is important – works in progressCandidate should use dated supplements to

update file

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.

57

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 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

58

Important 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

Process Considerations (SAC Guide) Acting Head – co-author etc. (Note 3 - 5.0) Timeliness of file (Note 4 – 5.0) Importance of 5.02 meeting (5.2.1) Early discussions regarding areas of scholarly

activity – single or blended case (5.2.1) Eligible members to be consulted (5.4.3) Selection of referees (5.4.4 a) Importance of confidentiality (5.4.22) Identification of “serious concerns” (5.4.26) Separate votes on promotion and tenure (5.4.27) Initial appointments – separate vote – rank/tenure

61

Key Insights

Importance of Teaching Sustained Scholarly Activity and

Impact Fairness of Review Process

62

Closing Questions??

As always…..Please check the Faculty Relations website, email, or call us

Thank you!!

63