Transcript Navigating Faculty Relations - University of British Columbia

Reappointment, Tenure
and Promotion Workshop
June 18, 2013
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
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 & Tenure Clocks
Promotion Reviews
Procedures
For Assistance…
4
The Tenure Streams
The Professorial Stream
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
The Professor of Teaching Stream
Instructor I
Senior Instructor
Professor of Teaching
5
The Criteria
The Professorial Stream
The Professor of Teaching Stream
Service
Service
Research
Teaching
Educational
Leadership
Teaching
6
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 & 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
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
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
11
Promotion Reviews
Who can
stop the
process?
Review
Scheduled?
Obligation
to Initiate?
Periodic
Yes
University
Candidate
only
No
Candidate
or the
University
Candidate
or the
University
NonPeriodic
12
Head’s Meeting
 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.
13
Head’s Meeting
It’s 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.
14
The Initial File
 Unless otherwise agreed, the faculty
member’s dossier and all relevant
documentation necessary for review must
be submitted by September 15.
15
Eligibility to be Consulted
•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.
16
Letters of Reference
•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.
17
What referees receive
• 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.
18
Tenure & Promotion Reviews
Department Standing Committee meets after
obtaining letters of reference
Serious
concerns?
Department Standing Committee votes &
recommends to Head
No
Yes
Invited to respond in writing to serious
concerns
19
Tenure & Promotion Reviews
Head recommends to Dean
Head notifies candidate in writing of decision
Negative?
Yes
Invited to respond in writing to Dean
20
Tenure & Promotion Reviews
Dean seeks Faculty Committee vote
Dean recommends to President*
Dean notifies candidate of decision
Negative?
Yes
Invited to respond in writing to President
21
Supplementing the File
The University and the candidate have
the right to supplement the file with new
info at any stage prior to the President’s
decision
22
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
Professor Judith Daniluk, SAC Chair
24
Senior Appointments Committee
20 person committee of professors (meets biweekly 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
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 leaves
delays 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
27
Timing of Submitting Files to SAC





Meeting with candidate by June 30th
Candidate submits dossier by Sept. 15th
Completed dossier with recommendation to
Dean by Dec. 1st
File to SAC by March 31st (end of April at the
latest)
Prioritize – tenure and promotion cases (more
time sensitive)
Head’s and Dean’s 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
(don’t dismiss these)
 Provide details of contextual issues, unique
contributions (e.g. collaborative work, aboriginal
scholarship, etc.)
 Frame case within collective agreement
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
 Result communicated to Dean
31
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
rank and promotion
Examples of evidence
External referee selection
Documentation of teaching excellence
UBC curriculum vitae
33
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
Some Sources of Evidence
 Invited presentations/performances (national &
international)
 Article & grant reviews; editorial board work
 Publications in high-impact venues in the
candidate’s field (provide descriptions, impact
factors, rejection rates)
 Competitive grant funding – as PI and co
 Citations of work; adoption of candidate’s work
 Mentoring and publishing with grad students; grad
students’ career accomplishments
42
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 can’t substitute
for excellence in scholarship and teaching
43
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 candidate’s area
Candidate should provide Head with detailed
information on referees and this should be
included in Head’s letter
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
46
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
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
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
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
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
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
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., CTLTbased programs and communities of practice;
Peer Review of Teaching, etc.)
See Appendix 2 of SAC Guide
54
Referees – Professor of Teaching
Stream
 Senior Instructor/Tenure:
 Familiarity with candidate’s teaching contributions
 Not someone with whom candidate has co-taught
 Outstanding teachers outside candidate’s
Department
 Can be outside UBC, but not required
 Professor of Teaching:
 At least 2 external to UBC; 2 external to candidate’s
Department
 National vs. International? - impact “beyond UBC”
55
Curricula Vitae
 Use UBC format; adapt as needed (see annotated
version in SAC Guide – Appendix 3)
 Explain contributions to collaborative grants & coauthored 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
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.
57
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 peerreviewed publications and those not peerreviewed
 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
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

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/promotiontenu
re.php
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
Key Insights
 Importance
of Teaching
 Sustained Scholarly Activity and
Impact
 Fairness of Review Process
62
Closing Questions??
 As
always…..
Please check the Faculty Relations
website, email, or call us
Thank you!!
63