Annual R & T Forum 2007 University Committee on Rank and Tenure Prof. Patrick Borchers (2874) Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Cam E. Enarson (2300) Vice President for Health Sciences Dr. Gail M. Jensen (2870) Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Devendra K. Agrawal (Medicine-Basic)(2938) Dr. Murray J. Casey (Medicine-Clinical) (4414) Dr. Thomas F. Coffey (Arts and Sciences) (2546)(Secretary) Dr. Joan Eckerson (Arts and Sciences) (2090) Dr. Elizabeth A. Furlong (Nursing) (2012) Prof. Raneta J. Mack (Law) (5582) Dr. Ronald Flinn (Business Administration) (2063) Dr. Neil S. Norton (Dentistry) (5002) Dr. Michael C. Makoid (Pharm. & Health Prof.)(2952)(Chair)

New Process for 2007 Compare and contrast –Comparing new and old Assessment of –Teaching –Scholarship –Service –Clinical activities (if applicable) –Contrasting new and old Point system replaced with descriptions of expectations. Tenure separated from promotion

New Process does not mean new requirements The University still maintains the same high standards for tenure and promotion. The specific required activities that would have resulted in a successful bid for tenure and or promotion in previous years will result in a successful bid in subsequent years.

Tenure Tenure is the right, subject to the conditions and provisions of Section H., of a faculty member to automatic renewal of the appointment at the end of its term under conditions at least equal to those which prevailed during the expiring term provided the material conditions of service are the same.

Tenure is awarded on the basis of: 1.successful performance of the terms of the faculty members job description as stated in the initial contract or subsequently amended by mutual agreement between the faculty member and the university; 2.a record of achievement at Creighton University; 3.a record of achievement at previous institutions, provided the record of achievement has continued while at Creighton University; 4.an expectation that the record of achievement will be maintained or expanded in the future ; and 5.the determination that the granting of tenure fits into the Mission, needs, plans and goals of the Department, the College or School, and the University.

Trends are critical As with any activity, the most likely predictor of future performance is past performance.

Promotion Promotion is the advancement in rank from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and from Associate Professor to Professor.

Promotion to the rank of associate professor is awarded on the basis of: 1.demonstrated consistent effectiveness in teaching; 2.an emerging record of recognized scholarly achievement that contributes to ones discipline(s): 3.evidence of active service consistent with the Mission of Creighton University; and 4.an emerging record of regionally recognized clinical activity consistent with the Mission of Creighton University, if appropriate to the candidates position.

Promotion to the rank of professor is awarded on the basis of: 1.a consistent record of distinguished teaching ; 2.an established record of nationally recognized scholarly achievement that contributes to ones discipline(s); 3.evidence of recognized leadership in service, consistent with the Mission of Creighton University; and 4.a record of nationally recognized clinical activity consistent with the Mission of Creighton (as applicable)

Promotion Assistant to Associate Associate to Professor Teaching Consistent Effectiveness Consistent Distinguished Effectiveness Scholarship Emerging Record Established Nationally Recognized Service Active Service Recognized Leadership Clinical (if appropriate) Emerging Regional Record Established Nationally Recognized

CRITERIA FOR GRANTING TENURE AND AWARDING PROMOTION The school or college, either in the aggregate or by department, establishes the standards for tenure and standards for promotion in fulfillment of the University criteria listed above.

Tenure and promotion are distinct entities. Candidates for tenure and promotion may be awarded tenure without promotion or promotion without tenure.

Non-tenured faculty on tenure track serves in a probationary status but has the same academic freedom as tenured faculty members. probationary period normally extends through seven years. tenure review shall precede the seventh year. A faculty member not granted tenure by the end of his or her sixth year will be given a one-year terminal contract. During the period of this terminal contract, the faculty member may reapply for the granting of tenure pursuant to the normal timetable.

Non-tenured faculty on tenure track Seek tenured faculty mentor (not mandatory). –If your department does not have a formal mentoring program, pick colleagues who are recognized for: Teaching Scholarship Service And invite them to monitor and critically evaluate your performance early in your career.

Procedures: Initiation Any member of the Teaching-Research or Clinician-Educator Faculty, including the prospective candidate, may initiate and sponsor any member of the Teaching- Research or Clinician-Educator Faculty for the conferral of tenure or for advancement in rank.

Normal Time Table June 1 – Notify Dean of intention to be considered and provide contact information for your referees. Begin collecting materials and preparing dossier. September 30 - Deadline for submission by the Deans of the names of the candidates to the University Committee October 31 - Deadline for completion of dossiers in the Deans Office December 10 - Deadline for completion of reviews by the relevant College/School Rank and Tenure Committee January 10 - Deadline for submission by the Dean of all material to the University Committee on Rank and Tenure March 1 – Deadline for submission of recommendations by the University Committee on Rank and Tenure to the University President March 31 – Announcement by the President of all promotions and grants of tenure and notification of all denials

Demonstration of Achievement The mixture of achievements in teaching, research, service, and clinical varies. Generally speaking, - the more achievements a candidate exhibits and - the greater the degree to which the candidate exhibits these achievements, - the higher the evaluation of the candidate

Responsibility for Presentation of Achievement The candidates credentials should specifically detail achievements and development in each of the areas to be evaluated. It is the responsibility of the candidate and of the candidates sponsor(s) to ensure that the significance of achievements and activities is clear to the Committees on Rank and Tenure

Responsibility for Presentation of Achievement Evaluators (Select carefully) –If academic, should be at least the rank of which you seek. –Capable of critical evaluation Not a crony Not friends Not graduate mentor –Ask evaluator to give a systematic assessment of your dossier in relation to the schools guidelines. –Tell the committee your reasons for picking this referee (e.g., special credentials, research focus, etc.).

Dossier Preparation The University Committee on Rank and Tenure Maintains and Publishes* Suggestions for Preparing Dossiers Copies available * Handbook for Faculty 2005 Section III.G.7.i.

Dossier The Candidates responsibility: Curriculum Vitae as outlined in Handbook for Faculty 2005 Section III.G.7.b.i. Faculty Profile (strongly recommended) Teaching Scholarship Clinical Activity Names of at least 6 (but no more than 12) peer references (at least two of which must be outside the University) Names of at least 6 student references Copies of Student evaluations Additional materials as appropriate

The Candidates responsibility… Assume the committee doesnt know you or your discipline. Advocate for yourself. Now is not the time for false (or even sincere) modesty. Tell them –Who you are. –What you do. –Why what you do is critical to the university. –How what you do has made an impact on your discipline.

Dossier The Candidates responsibility (continued): Copies of representative –Monographs –Books –Articles –Reviews –Abstracts –Scholarly papers Submit two copies of the dossier to the Dean by October 31. List items in each section from the most recent to the earliest. Avoid unnecessary repetition of items in different sections.

Dossier What is added to the dossier: Departmental Chairs letter of evaluation Student input Peer references Evaluation by the College or School Rank and Tenure Committee Evaluation by the Dean Recommendation of the University Committee on Rank and Tenure

Demonstration of Achievement in Teaching Ordinarily evaluated on the basis of evidence from supervisors, peers and students. Demonstration of achievement in teaching may include… Range of courses taught Course development Instructional innovation Curriculum design Continuing work toward keeping current in the field Teaching awards Student success after graduation

The Candidates responsibility… Show trends of improvement in teaching: Review a concern from an early evaluation, Document what you did to address it, then Show the result of the change. Explain any inconsistency in evaluations. Graphical Summations of quantitative data are useful. Tell the committee about your: –Teaching philosophy, –Teaching Responsibilities, –New courses taught, –Teaching innovations

Demonstration of Achievement in Scholarship Ordinarily demonstrated by some combination of the following types of achievements: Publication of books, reviews and articles Delivery of scholarly papers Activity in scholarly societies Artistic exhibits and performances Appointments as editor, reviewer, referee Acceptance of patents, procedures and methods Consulting activity

Demonstration of Achievement in Scholarship The contribution of the author, the significance of the work and the prestige of the publication forum are all taken into consideration in this area. In most disciplines, original work, critically reviewed by peers, is heavily weighted.

The Candidates responsibility… Show trends in scholarly performance –Steady flow of scholarship is better than a flood before the deadline; show also what is in the pipeline to illustrate trajectory. Document the impact of your scholarship on your discipline. (selection of evaluators is critical.) Document impact of the journals in which you publish. Readership and selectivity might be used to evaluate the journal.

Demonstration of Achievement in Scholarship Electronic publishing also may be cited by a faculty member, if germane to the discipline. The responsibility of demonstrating the quality and significance of the publication forum and the individual work remains with the faculty candidate. Quality and significance shall be judged by the usual criteria, such as peer review and quality of the publishing site.

Demonstration of Achievement in Clinical Proficiency Evidence from supervisors, peers, house-staff and appropriate students Number and type of referrals Case load Awards Case outcomes Special competencies Certifications

The Candidates responsibility… Show trends in clinical performance Document the impact of your clinical activities on your discipline. (selection of evaluators is essential.)

Demonstration of Achievement in Service Service may include the following: Professional (regional, national, international) University College or School Departmental Community Church Volunteer activity

The Candidates responsibility… Show trends in service performance, e.g. Moving from member of assigned committee to chair of elected committee Becoming a leader in your disciplines organizations Document the impact of your service activities on your school, your discipline and your community.

University Committee on Rank and Tenure 9 Elected Members 2 Arts and Sciences 2 Medicine (Basic Science and Clinical) 1 Business Administration 1 Dentistry 1 Law 1 Nursing 1 Pharmacy and Health Professions 3 Ex-Officio Members Vice President for Academic Affairs Vice President for Health Sciences Dean of the Graduate School

How the University Committee on Rank and Tenure Works Each committee member reads each dossier before the meeting and Prepares evaluation for discussion on –Teaching, –Scholarship, –Service and –Clinical activity (if appropriate).

How the University Committee on Rank and Tenure Works Thorough discussion of dossiers Secret ballot voting The Committees recommendations are ultimately submitted to the University President, who makes the final decisions

Reasons for denial Failure to demonstrate sufficient evidence in one or more of the following areas: Service to the University, the Profession and the Community Teaching effectiveness Scholarly achievement Clinical effectiveness (where applicable)

Thank you for your attention ANY QUESTIONS?