Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop June 3, 2014

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