Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop June 18, 2013.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop June 18, 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop June 18, 2013

2 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

3 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

4 Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion Tenure Streams Criteria Tenure & Tenure Clocks Promotion Reviews Procedures For Assistance… 4

5 The Tenure Streams 5 The Professorial Stream Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor The Professor of Teaching Stream Instructor I Senior Instructor Professor of Teaching

6 The Criteria 6 The Professorial StreamThe Professor of Teaching Stream Service Educational Leadership Teaching Service TeachingResearch

7 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

8 The Tenure Clock 8

9 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 9

10 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

11 Periodic Review for Promotion 11

12 Promotion Reviews ReviewScheduled? Obligation to Initiate? Who can stop the process? PeriodicYesUniversity Candidate only Non- Periodic No Candidate or the University 12

13 Heads 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.

14 Heads Meeting 14 Its 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.

15 The Initial File 15 Unless otherwise agreed, the faculty members dossier and all relevant documentation necessary for review must be submitted by September 15.

16 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.

17 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.

18 What referees receive 18 The letter of request is only accompanied by the candidates 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.

19 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

20 Tenure & Promotion Reviews Head recommends to Dean Head notifies candidate in writing of decision Invited to respond in writing to Dean 20 Negative? Yes

21 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

22 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 Presidents decision

23 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: Call us! 23

24 Senior Appointments Committee Professor Judith Daniluk, SAC Chair 24

25 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

26 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)

27 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 candidates personal circumstances if relevant Discipline and context specific opportunities within each department and faculty Article 5.14e; SAC Guide Section 5.5.1 27

28 Timing of Submitting Files to SAC Meeting with candidate by June 30 th Candidate submits dossier by Sept. 15 th Completed dossier with recommendation to Dean by Dec. 1 st File to SAC by March 31 st (end of April at the latest) Prioritize – tenure and promotion cases (more time sensitive)

29 Heads and Deans 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 (dont dismiss these) Provide details of contextual issues, unique contributions (e.g. collaborative work, aboriginal scholarship, etc.) Frame case within collective agreement

30 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)

31 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 Deans absence Result communicated to Dean 31

32 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 candidates file) President makes his recommendation to Board of Governors

33 Important Considerations in Preparing the Dossier Familiarity with the criteria specific to rank and promotion Examples of evidence External referee selection Documentation of teaching excellence UBC curriculum vitae 33

34 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

35 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

36 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

37 ProfessorA. 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

38 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

39 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)

40 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

41 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 41

42 Some Sources of Evidence Invited presentations/performances (national & international) Article & grant reviews; editorial board work Publications in high-impact venues in the candidates field (provide descriptions, impact factors, rejection rates) Competitive grant funding – as PI and co Citations of work; adoption of candidates work Mentoring and publishing with grad students; grad students career accomplishments 42

43 Sources of Evidence contd. Referees verification of impact Awards and other forms of Recognition Discipline specific norms – venues, grants, publications, authorship, conference participation Quality vs. quantity Service is important, but cant substitute for excellence in scholarship and teaching 43

44 Referees – Professorial Stream Choose well-qualified, arms length referees, preferably from universities/programs with stature comparable to UBC Choose referees who are known leaders/experts in candidates area Candidate should provide Head with detailed information on referees and this should be included in Heads letter National vs. International?

45 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

46 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 activitie s SAC 3.2 & Appendix 2 46

47 Documentation of Teaching Effectiveness A. 4.02 Context is critical - identify norms in your unit/faculty, and how candidate compares Provide 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

48 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

49 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

50 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 service 50

51 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

52 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

53 Evidence of Educational Leade rship 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)

54 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

55 Referees – Professor of Teaching Stream Senior Instructor/Tenure: Familiarity with candidates teaching contributions Not someone with whom candidate has co-taught Outstanding teachers outside candidates Department Can be outside UBC, but not required Professor of Teaching: At least 2 external to UBC; 2 external to candidates Department National vs. International? - impact beyond UBC 55

56 Curricula Vitae 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 Candidate should use dated supplements to update file

57 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 candidates contributions (pubs, grants, collaborative research Full information is not provided on publications – year, page numbers, authors, etc. 57

58 Common Problems with CVs contd. Candidates 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

59 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

60 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: Faculty Association website: re.php

61 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

62 Key Insights Importance of Teaching Sustained Scholarly Activity and Impact Fairness of Review Process 62

63 Closing Questions?? As always….. Please check the Faculty Relations website, email, or call us Thank you!! 63

Download ppt "Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop June 18, 2013."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google