Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop

1. Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop June 3, 2014

2. Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Guide to Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion – Mark Trowell • Senior Appointments Committee – Judith Daniluk • Questions and Discussion

3. 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.

4. Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion • Tenure Streams • Criteria • Tenure • Promotion Reviews • Procedures • For Assistance…

5. The Tenure Streams The Professoriate Stream Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor The Professor of Teaching Stream Instructor I Senior Instructor Professor of Teaching

6. The Criteria The Professoriate Stream The Professor of Teaching Stream Service Service Educational Leadership Research Teaching Teaching

7. 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

8. The Tenure Clock

9. 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

10. 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)

11. Periodic Review for Promotion

12. Promotion Reviews

13. 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.

14. Head’s Meeting • It is 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 and agree on the framing of the case • The Head & candidate must agree in writing on matters discussed

15. The Initial File • Unless otherwise agreed, the faculty member’s dossier and all relevant documentation necessary for review must be submitted by September 15.

16. 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.

17. 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. • There must always be as many letters from the candidate’s list as the department’s list.

18. 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, educational leadership and curriculum development. • Teaching dossiers are usually only included for cases involving Senior Instructor & Professor of Teaching.

19. Tenure & Promotion Reviews Serious concerns? No Yes

20. Tenure & Promotion Reviews Negative? Yes

21. Tenure & Promotion Reviews Negative? Yes

22. 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 Supplements Must be Dated

23. 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!

24. Senior Appointments Committee Current SAC Chair: Professor Judith Daniluk Incoming Chair: Professor Melanie Jones

25. Senior Appointments Committee • 20 person committee of professors • Representation from all Faculties (includes 2 UBC-O; 1 Faculty Association) • Two Subcommittees: Associate and Professor (members meet weekly September through June) • SAC reviews all tenure, promotion and new appointment files (180-200/year) and makes recommendations to the President

26. 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 • (A 5.14; Section 12 SAC Guide)

27. 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 • 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

28. SAC Review Process • Files are reviewed in detail for merits & fairness by the Associate or Professor sub-committee members • Cases may be deferred pending receipt of additional information or procedural clarification • Cases are ranked: ‘A’– no substantive issues or procedural concerns ‘B’– negative recommendation by Dean or Head – SAC members have questions for the Dean (approximately ¼ of all cases)

29. SAC Full Committee Review • ‘A’ cases generally approved without substantive discussion by full SAC cmt. • ‘B’ cases require full SAC discussion: • Dean joins SAC for discussion of the case • Vote is taken in Dean’s absence • Dean is immediately informed of the result which is considered “confidential”

30. 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

31. Important Considerations in Preparing the Dossier • Familiarity with thecriteria specific to stream, rank and promotion • Examples of evidence • External referee selection and solicitation • Documentation of teaching excellence • UBC curriculum vitae

32. Criteria and Evidence in the Professoriate

33. Professoriate 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. 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 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. Professor A. 3.08 • 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 NOTE: reserved for those whose contributions are considered outstanding

38. Sustained Scholarly Contributions – Professorial Stream (A 4.03; Sec 3 Guide) • “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 • must be “sustained” over time

39. 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. Professional Contributions(A. 4.03 b) • professional/clinical: • significant applications of fundamental theory • significant forms, & applications of, professional or clinical practice • must be “distinguished” • creative, standard-setting – changes practice of the profession • contributions notroutinely made by other professionals in the field

41. Scholarship of Teaching (A. 4.03 a) • based on broad contributions to the improvement of teaching and learning - beyondexcellence in teaching • evidenced by originality or innovation, demonstrable impact in a particular field or discipline, peer reviews, dissemination in the public domain, or substantial and sustained use by others • demonstrated leadership and outstanding stature or expertise

42. Important Considerations In Framing A Professoriate Case (4.1.1 Guide) • 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

43. Some Sources of Evidence – Professoriate Stream • invited presentations/performances (national & international) • article & grant reviews; editorial board work • publications in high-impact venues in the field (provide descriptions, impact factors, etc.) • competitive grant funding as PI and co-I • citations and adoption of candidate’s work

44. Sources of Evidence, contd. • referees’ verification of impact • awards and other forms of recognition • comparisons with discipline-specific norms – venues, grants, publications, authorship, conference participation • mentoring and publishing with grad students; grad students’ career accomplishments

45. Criteria and Evidence in the Professor of Teaching Stream

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

47. Professor of Teaching Stream • A distinct career track with different expectations than professorial ranks • requires evidence of excellence in teaching and educational leadership with impact beyond candidate’s own classroom • research productivity is not required • excellence in teaching is required but is not enough

48. Professor of Teaching Stream • discipline and context specific opportunities within each department should be noted re: teaching, educational leadership and service activities • evidence of external visibility and impact should be framed based on opportunities within units (e.g. access to grant & travel funds; teaching loads; etc.)

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

50. Senior Instructor, contd… • “it is expected that Senior Instructors will keep abreast of current developments in their respective disciplines and in the field of teaching and learning” (SAC Guide, p. 49)