Workshop on P & T for probationary faculty March 19, 2008

Acknowledgments Presenters: Tom Haffie Louise Milligan Zhifeng Ding Mark Daley Support: New Faculty Network Steering Group Pam Brown

Dean’s perspective  Chairs all P & T Committees in Science  In last 1.5 yrs., has presided over 34 cases

Your file is you Your P&T file introduces the Committee to you. First impressions are important. It is how the Committee gets to know you as an academic. It is the basis on which your application is assessed. A well-prepared file is anticipated by Committees, an ill-prepared file is an annoyance that impedes the process.

Purpose of Workshop - to guide probationary faculty in preparation of best possible P & T file - to discuss aspects of the P & T process of interest to participants

Elements of well-prepared file It includes all relevant activities. It has no glaring omissions. It is well organized and easy to read. It avoids unnecessary repetition. It has been mentored. It does not assume that readers of the file are experts or mind readers.

Who reads your file? 1. Your referees (assess your research). [typically 5 people], 2. P & T Committee (assesses everything). [8 people] 3. Provost (assesses everything). [2 people] TOTAL: 15 people, only 4 of whom are from your Dept.

Referees a)At arm’s length (generally NSERC rules) b)Some/many may not know you personally  this is OK c)It is important that majority are familiar with your research program and publications d)Referees who have no prior knowledge of your research are at a disadvantage compared to those who are familiar

P & T Committee 7 colleagues + Dean (as Chair): 4 from your Dept. (3 tenured + Chair) 1 from another Science Dept. 2 from other Faculties

Office of Provost Files initially read by Vice-Provost and subsequently by Provost

Some pitfalls to avoid  No detailed explanation of contributions to co- authored publications  Not indicating grad students/PDFs in author lists of publications  Omitting a section or subsection of the P&T file.  Not providing basic information about grants (dates, PI vs. co-PI vs. investigator, $ values attributed to individual, annual dollar amount, etc.)  Not providing dates of activities, appointments, etc.

Teaching Dossier Courses Outlines Ratings Students Supervised

Teaching Dossier: Information Flow in Context  Teaching Philosophy  Specific contributions/Innovations  Diverse evidence of effectiveness  Professional Development  Educational Leadership  Research on Teaching

NAME of INSTRUCTOR: Subject Course # Section # Subject Course # Section # Subject Course # Section # Acad. Year Term Enrolment # Responses Question 1 Question 2 …….. Question 14 Avg. of 1-14 Quest. 15 (effect.) Quest. 16 (learning)

Service: P&T 40% Teaching ( 2 days/week ) 20% Service ( 1 day/week) 40% Research (2 days/week)

“...the significance accorded to Teaching and Research shall be approximately equal and, in all cases, each shall be accorded greater significance than Service While a candidate must have achieved a satisfactory record of performance in Service, the meritorious performance of these duties shall not compensate for an insufficiently strong record of performance in Teaching or Research. However, an unsatisfactory record of performance in Service contributions may be an important factor in the denial of Tenure and/or Promotion.” Service Dossier Clause 4.2, P&T Article

Service Dossier Your role in… Departmental Faculty University Community –Review manuscripts, grants, etc. –Organize conferences, workshops –Grant selection committees

Service Dossier Short narrative –Highlight achievements –Comment on philosophy “ Sunshine” comments