Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Workshop June 18 2013

Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop June 18, 2013

Agenda n n n 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 n n 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 n n n Tenure Streams Criteria Tenure & Tenure Clocks Promotion Reviews Procedures For Assistance… 4

The Tenure Streams The Professorial Stream Assistant Professor Associate 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 Research Teaching Educational Leadership Teaching 6

The Tenure Clock n n n 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 n The process for reappointment reviews is the same as the process for tenure and promotion reviews EXCEPT q q 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

Promotion Reviews Who can stop the process? Review Scheduled? Obligation to Initiate? Periodic Yes University Candidate only No Candidate or the University Non. Periodic 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… n n 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 Ø 20 person committee of professors (meets biweekly September through June) Ø Representation from all Faculties (includes 2 UBC-O; 1 Faculty Association) Ø Two Subcommittees: Associate and Professor (meets bi-weekly) Ø 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: Ø Concepts of procedural fairness Ø Appropriate standards of excellence across and within faculties and disciplines Ø The Collective Agreement and SAC guidelines Ø All relevant contextual matters (Article 5. 14 Agreement)

Examples of Contextual Factors Ø maternity or parental leaves Ø delays due to set up requirements for research or any other relevant information which may provide insight into timing issues Ø the candidate’s personal circumstances if relevant Ø Discipline and context specific opportunities within each department and faculty Article 5. 14 e; SAC Guide Section 5. 5. 1 27

Timing of Submitting Files to SAC Ø Ø Ø 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)

Head’s and Dean’s Letters Ø 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 Ø Files are reviewed in detail for merits & fairness by the Associate or Professor SC Ø Cases may be deferred pending additional information or procedural clarification Ø 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 Ø‘A’ cases generally approved without substantive discussion by full SAC Ø‘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 ØSAC Chair informs the President of SAC recommendations and votes on each case ØChair provides the President with notes on SAC discussion with the Dean regarding all ‘B’ cases (notes added to candidate’s file) ØPresident makes his recommendation to Board of Governors

Important Considerations in Preparing the Dossier ØFamiliarity with the criteria specific to rank and promotion ØExamples of evidence ØExternal referee selection ØDocumentation of teaching excellence ØUBC curriculum vitae 33

Professorial Stream Criteria ØCollective 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 n involved in scholarly activity n is a successful teacher n is capable of providing instruction at the various levels n 35

Associate Professor A. 3. 07 evidence of successful teaching and scholarly activity beyond that expected of an Assistant Professor n teaching effectiveness (A. 4. 02) n sustained and productive scholarly activity n ability to direct graduate students n willingness to participate, and participation in, the affairs of the Department and the University n 36

Professor A. 3. 08 NOTE: reserved for those whose contributions are considered outstanding n meet appropriate standards of excellence and have wide recognition in the field of their interest n high quality in teaching n sustained and productive scholarly activity n attained distinction in their discipline n participated significantly in academic and professional affairs 37

Tenure n n 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 Ø"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 Ø“Traditional” Scholarship – A 4. 03 & 3. 1(i) SAC Guide ØScholarship of Teaching – A. 4. 03(a) & 3. 1(ii) SAC Guide ØProfessional Contributions – A. 4. 03(b) & 3. 1(iii) SAC Guide 40

Important Considerations In Framing A Professorial Case Ø Cases may be framed as “blended” Ø Professional Contributions or Scholarship of Teaching may constitute all or a portion of the case for scholarly contributions & significance Ø Must be explicitly stated and considered from the outset, at all levels of the review process Ø Must be capable of assessment – referee assessment of significance & impact is critical 41

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

Sources of Evidence contd. ØReferees’ verification of impact ØAwards and other forms of Recognition ØDiscipline specific norms – venues, grants, publications, authorship, conference participation ØQuality vs. quantity ØService is important, but can’t substitute for excellence in scholarship and teaching 43

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

Teaching Effectiveness Ø Ø Ø Ø 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 Ø Ø Ø 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 ØContext is critical - identify norms in your unit/faculty, and how candidate compares ØProvide 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 ØCollective 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 Ø Three pillars: teaching, educational leadership and service Ø Research productivity is not required Ø Excellence in teaching is not enough Ø 49

Senior Instructor A. 3. 04 ØOld Agreement: teaching excellence and contributions to service ØNew 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 Øoutstanding achievement in teaching and educational leadership Ødistinction in the field of teaching and learning Øsustained and innovative contributions to curriculum development, course design and other innovations and initiatives 51

Examples of Evidence of Educational Leadership Ø Ø 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 Ø Application of scholarship of teaching and learning, including resulting presentations and publications (e. g. , articles, abstracts, conference proceedings, poster sessions) Ø Instructional materials/pubs. (textbooks, training manuals, software development) Ø

Evidence of Educational Leadership contd… Ø Ø 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 Ø 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 Ø Professor of Teaching: § At least 2 external to UBC; 2 external to candidate’s Department § National vs. International? - impact “beyond UBC” 55

Curricula Vitae Ø Use UBC format; adapt as needed (see annotated version in SAC Guide – Appendix 3) Ø Explain contributions to collaborative grants & coauthored publications Ø Consider numbering pubs and presentations Ø Use narrative opportunities to provide context for teaching & scholarship (be concise - 150 words) Ø Pipeline is important – works in progress Ø Candidate should use dated supplements to update file

Common Problems with CVs Ø Information (e. g. , a paper presentation) is duplicated or repeated in different sections of the CV and publication record Ø CV is not up to date or is not dated or is not in UBC format Ø Lack of clarity regarding the candidate’s contributions (pubs, grants, collaborative research Ø Full information is not provided on publications – year, page numbers, authors, etc. 57

Common Problems with CV’s contd. Ø Candidate’s role in supervising graduate students, residents or post docs is not clear (primary supervisor; co-supervisor; committee member? ) Ø Failure to properly distinguish between peerreviewed publications and those not peerreviewed Ø Failure to include the dollar value of grants or to indicate the proportion allocated to the individual in joint grants Ø 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) Ø Overburdening junior faculty with service work Ø Orienting members of DSPC and DACOPAT Ø

Critical Resources Ø Ø 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) q q q q q 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 Ø Importance of Teaching Ø Sustained Scholarly Activity and Impact Ø Fairness of Review Process 62

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