Tenure and Promotion Workshop

Tenure and Promotion Workshop May 7, 2013

Agenda • Welcome and Introductions – Pauline Brandes • Opening Remarks –Wes Pue • Guide to Tenure & Promotion – Deena Rubuliak & George Athans • Senior Appointments Committee – Judith Daniluk • Questions and Discussion

Our Objective • To provide faculty members with an understanding of the tenure and promotion processes. • To support the success of faculty members going forward for tenure and promotion.

Tenure & Promotion • Tenure Streams • Criteria • Tenure Clocks • Promotion Reviews • Procedures • For Assistance…

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

The Criteria The Professorial Stream The Professor of Teaching Stream Service Service Educational Leadership Research Teaching Teaching

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

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

Periodic Review for Promotion

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.

Head’s Meeting • It’s an opportunity to clearly note the strengths, deficiencies and opportunities for improvement • It is also important to receive advice re the CV & other relevant material required for the next review. • The Head & candidate must agree in writing on matters discussed.

The Initial File • Unless otherwise agreed, the faculty member’s dossier and all relevant documentation necessary for review must be submitted by September 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.

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.

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.

Tenure & Promotion Reviews Serious concerns? No Yes

Tenure & Promotion Reviews Negative? Yes

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

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/ • Faculty Association website: www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca/promotiontenure.php • Call us!

Senior Appointments Committee Professor Judith Daniluk, SAC Chair

Senior Appointments Committee • 20 person committee of professors • Representation from all Faculties (includes 2 UBC-O; 1 Faculty Association) • Two Subcommittees: Associate and Professor (meets bi-weekly September through June) • 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

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 • Dean immediately informed of result which is considered “confidential”

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 Your Dossier • Familiarity with thecriteria specific to your rank and promotion • Examples of evidence • External referee selection • Documentation of teaching excellence • UBC curriculum vitae

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)

Professor of Teaching Stream Criteria • Collective Agreement: • Senior Instructor – A. 3.04 • Professor of Teaching – A. 3.05 (SAC Guide – Appendix 1)

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

Senior Instructor A. 3.04 • excellencein teaching • demonstrated educational leadership, involvement in curriculum development and innovation, and other teaching and learning initiatives • contributions to service

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

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

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 andlearning, 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

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 • and 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

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 your 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

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

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

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

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 your area • Provide Head with detailed information on referees • National vs. International?

Teaching EffectivenessA. 4.02; SAC 4.3 • Effectivenessprimary 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

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 • Use dated supplements to update your 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.

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 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, or role in grant • Teaching record is incomplete

Final “Words of Wisdom” • Start early – “hit the ground running” – know what you need to do and be sure to do it (publishing, conference presentations, etc.) • Find a senior mentor familiar with the criteria • Don’t listen to rumors – go to the source for information • Choose your service contributions very carefully • Keep your vitae up to date • Keep track of, & document your successes

Toot Your Own Horn

Tenure and Promotion Workshop