Tenure and Promotion Workshop

May 7, 2013

Agenda

Welcome and Introductions – Pauline Brandes Opening Remarks –Wes Pue Guide to Tenure & Promotion – Deena Rubuliak &

George Athans Senior Appointments Committee – Judith Daniluk Questions and Discussion

2

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

Tenure & Promotion

Tenure Streams Criteria 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 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

8

Periodic Review for Promotion

9

Head’s Meeting

10

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

11

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.

The Initial File

12

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

13

• 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

14

• 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

15

• 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

16

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

17

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

18

Negative?

Yes

Supplementing the File

19

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/

Faculty Association website:www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca/promotiontenure.php

Call us!

20

Senior Appointments Committee

Professor Judith Daniluk, SAC Chair

21

Senior Appointments Committee

20 person committee of professors Representation from all Faculties (includes 2

UBC-O; 1 Faculty Association) Two Subcommittees: Associate and Professor

(meets bi-weekly September through June)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

24

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 Dean immediately informed of result

which is considered “confidential”

26

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 Your Dossier

Familiarity with the criteria specific to your rank and promotion

Examples of evidenceExternal referee selectionDocumentation of teaching excellenceUBC curriculum vitae

28

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)

29

Professor of Teaching Stream Criteria

Collective Agreement:

Senior Instructor – A. 3.04 Professor of Teaching – A. 3.05(SAC Guide – Appendix 1)

30

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

31

Senior Instructor A. 3.04

excellence in teachingdemonstrated educational leadership,

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

contributions to service

32

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

33

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

34

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 Guide36

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

• and 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

38

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 your 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

39

Some Sources of Evidence

Invited presentations/performances (national & international)

Article & grant reviews; editorial board work Publications in high-impact venues in your field

(provide descriptions, impact factors, rejection rates) Competitive grant funding – as PI and co Citations of your work; adoption of your work Mentoring and publishing with grad students; grad

students’ career accomplishments 40

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 teaching41

Referees – Professor of Teaching Stream Senior Instructor/Tenure:

Familiarity with your teaching contributions Not someone with whom you have co-taught Outstanding teachers outside your Department Can be outside UBC, but not required

Professor of Teaching: At least 2 external to UBC; 2 external to your

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

42

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 area

Provide Head with detailed information on referees

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 activities

SAC 3.2 & Appendix 2 45

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 progressUse dated supplements to update your 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.

47

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, or role in grant

Teaching record is incomplete48

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 familiar with the criteriaDon’t listen to rumors – go to the source for

informationChoose your service contributions very carefullyKeep your vitae up to dateKeep track of, & document your successes

49

Toot Your Own Horn

50

Key Insights

Importance of Teaching

Scholarly Activity

Fairness of Review Process

51

Closing Questions??

As always….. Please check the Faculty Relations website,

email, or call Contact the Faculty Association for

assistance

Thank you!!

52