Meeting on Evaluating Extension Promotion & Tenure Dossiers

1. Meeting on EvaluatingExtension Promotion & TenureDossiers June 23, 2006

2. Objective of Meeting • Help faculty with extension appointments to better prepare dossiers for the promotion and tenure process • Help faculty on P&T committees better understand how to evaluate promotion dossiers, particularly regarding • Assessment of program impact • Weighing program impact versus scholarship

3. Agenda – Issues to be Addressed • How does one define an extension program? • How critical is impact assessment in the P&T process? What is the relationship between impact assessment and scholarship? • Evaluation of case studies • How does one go about measuring impact of extension programs? • Expectations for scholarship between on-campus and off-campus faculty • Common weaknesses of dossiers

4. Panel Members • Department Level • Russ Karow, Head Crop and Soil Science • Anita Azarenko, Head Horticulture • Rick Fletcher, Benton County Chair • College Level • Stella Coakley, Associate Dean • Roy Arnold, Senior Associate Dean • University Level • Scott Reed, Dean of Extension • Becky Johnson, Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs

5. Contact Information • If you are following the presentation via videostream and have a question, email bill.braunworth@oregonstate.edu • Handouts will be posted on-line at the CAS website see: for Faculty; Information for faculty related to promotion and tenure; at: http://agsci.oregonstate.edu/admin/pt.html

6. Keep in Mind… • The last 15 minutes of the meeting will be spent addressing two questions: • What will you be taking away from this meeting? • What else needs to be said?

7. Case Studies

8. Case Study #1 A horticulture extension specialist is located in Umatilla County. She is at a branch experiment station with an animal scientist and a weed scientist. Her position is 100% extension. Her program responsibilities are to conduct scholarly work (15%), provide service (5%), and conduct outreach programs that impact row crop farmers in the Columbia Basin (80%). She has an excellent outreach program, it is having significant positive impact on the producers in the region. She has done an excellent job documenting this impact in her dossier. Because so much focus has been placed on her outreach program, she has only a few refereed journal articles in relatively low quality journals co-authored with the weed scientist. Having no horticulture colleagues with whom to do high quality publishable research has also been a major factor in her lack of published research output.

9. Dept./Chair Level Comments on Case #1 “Don’t know the nature of her contributions to science – did she create new information and share it with peers? This can be done in a number of ways, including journal articles. If she truly has documented impact, it may tilt her towards successful tenure” “Probably grant indefinite tenure. Additional information [needed]: Other peer-reviewed extension publications used by colleagues nationally? The peer-review process? Is she invited by peers to communicate aspects of her outreach program for them to emulate/use? [Has she secured] competitive grant funding? Her role in the research that resulted in publication.” “Assuming the person’s position description included allowance for publication of numbered extension publications as having similar weight in the scholarship area, as is allowed under OSU’s description of scholarship, and such publications were part of the excellent outreach program – this case is a definite yes.”

10. College Level Comments on Case #1 “Undecided, but leaning for tenure. I would need to see the description of expectations for scholarship in the candidate’s position description and more information on how the candidate’s work has been communicated and validated by peers. Although refereed publications may be limited, are there other peer-reviewed contributions?” “Sounds supportable but outreach would have to be very clearly substantiated and validated by peers.”

11. University level Comments on Case #1 “A recommendation on a tenure/promotion decision is deliberative and by design involves group process and interpretation by a peer group, typically performed by a promotion and tenure committee at the departmental, college or university level. Thus, in the absence of a candidate’s statement, outside letters, complete dossier and conversation, it is difficult to formulate an independent vote. [Leaning] for [promotion/tenure]. Based upon a 15% scholarship assignment and a few refereed journal publications. [More information needed is ] specific information on the distinctiveness of publication in the journals indicated. Relationship between assigned subject matter and contents of journal publications. Observations of peers in letters of reference. Faculty observations of collegiality and professional integrity per OSU P&T guidelines.” “Undecided. There appears to be good documentation that the 80% of her job devoted to teaching/outreach is excellent. I would want more information about the scholarship aspects of her dossier. The P&T guidelines state that scholarship is ‘intellectual work whose significance is validated by peers and which is communicated.’ The documentation of impact on producers is not enough to satisfy this definition. Has she had this work validated by peers? Has she communicated it beyond the University? If she has presented her work at conferences or in non-refereed outlets, then I would want to know the same kinds of things I would know about a refereed journal (who were the peers, was it a blind peer review, how selective was the process, how many people attend the conference/read the paper, how prestigious was the conference/publication series, etc. ‘A few refereed journal articles’ is ‘a few’ more than we often see for these types of positions. But I would still want to know the relative contribution of this faculty member to the publications (P&T guidelines state: When work that is the product of joint effort is presented as evidence of scholarship, clarification of the candidate’s role in the joint effort should be provided in the dossier), and the quality of articles as commented on by external reviewers.”

12. Summary Analysis • Dept/Chair level • Leaning toward tenure • Open to peer-reviewed extension publications • Publications tied to program with measured impact • Quality of publications not mentioned as issue • Validation by peers mentioned by all three • College level • Leaning toward tenure • “How has work been validated by peers?” • Responses pretty short • University level • Leaning toward tenure, but more cautious • Seeking a lot more information about case than other two groups • Letters, collegiality, professional integrity, quality of publications and presentations • Validation of peers also mentioned by both

13. Questions/Observations Generated by Responses • Quality of publications not mentioned at department level (by those with professional expertise to judge them) but is an issue at the university level (where they are in the weakest position to judge quality) • Can P&T be granted to without refereed journal articles? • Can position descriptions be written so as to not require refereed journal articles?

14. Case Study #2 A small grains extension specialist is located on campus at OSU. He is housed in the Department of Crop and Soil Science. His position is 100% extension. His program responsibilities are to conduct scholarly work (15%), provide service (5%) and conduct outreach programs that impact wheat, barley, oats, triticale and other small grains produced throughout the state (80%). He has an excellent research record, due to collaborations with graduate students and faculty on campus. He has published several quality papers in the best journals in the agronomy profession, with several other papers published in other refereed and nonrefereed outlets. His publication record is comparable to that of research/teaching faculty on campus. However, because he is so focused on his research activities, he has done only limited outreach work in the state. This has included timely response to field faculty who call with questions. Consequently, few small grain producers know he exists and fewer still have attended his presentations. As a result, he has not been able to provide much in the way of documented evidence to show that his outreach program has had an impact out in the state.

15. Dept./Chair Level Comments on Case #2 “I might agree that he meets the scholarly requirement for tenure, but is not performing his job description, so would not vote to tenure him. Position description is an important consideration in tenure decisions. Why did he not do what his position description required?” “This person would not get tenure. 80% of his job is to conduct outreach and [he] does not appear to have accomplished this.” “Some specialists work extensively through county faculty versus being in the limelight themselves. If this is the case and county faculty can document impact of cooperative programs, then I vote yes. If the stated mode of operation was obvious at the three year mark and we did nothing as a department to suggest a change of direction, then I vote yes. If the person was not working through county agents and was told to do so or to become more visible himself at the three year mark plus/minus, then we have a problem.”

16. College Level Comments on Case #2 “Undecided, but leaning against tenure, primarily because of a failure to demonstrate excellence in the performance of assigned duties. I would need to see the description of expectations in the candidate’s position description and more specific information regarding the candidate’s Extension program and evidence of its impacts.” “Should have had lots of ‘warning’ on performance well before this point; a formal three year review should have documented and laid out the situation such that it was addressed then. Or the position description/expectation changes.”

17. University level Comments on Case #2 “A recommendation on a tenure/promotion decision is deliberative and by design involves group process and interpretation by a peer group, typically performed by a promotion and tenure committee at the departmental, college or university level. Thus, in the absence of a candidate’s statement, outside letters, complete dossier and conversation, it is difficult to formulate an independent vote. This depends [on] the guidance (if any) provided as a part of annual reviews. Performance in assigned duties seems essential for consideration of tenure in an Extension assignment. In the absence of sufficient performance in assigned duties (impact) and without any corrective action on the part of university leadership, it is a conundrum. This candidate appears to be working outside of their position description. I would like to see copies of annual performance review documentation, faculty observations of collegiality and professional integrity, and outside letters per OSU P&T guidelines.” “Undecided. There appears to be good documentation that the 15% of his job devoted to scholarship is excellent. If his position description said that for the 80% outreach he was supposed to provide programs that impact small grains production, then I would want more information about whether his publications and work with field faculty has had an impact on small grains production. I’d want to see if his position description says he is supposed to interact directly with producers, or whether he is supposed to work through other field faculty. Basically, I would critically evaluate whether he was doing the things listed in his position description under ’80% outreach’ and whether he was doing them well. The fact that few small grain producers know he exists would not be a criteria unless the position description stated that he needed to work directly with these producers. However, he would need to document the impact that was called for in the position description.”

18. Summary Analysis • Dept/Chair level • Two of three vote against tenure, third supports tenure if mode of operation is consistent with program and is effective, or if administrators/faculty did not make an effort to help faculty member change direction • College level • One leaning against tenure, other unclear but also raises question about administrators working to get position changed or change in mode of operation • University level • Both undecided on tenure decision. Again, both concerned about mismatch between job description and behavior. Both wanting more information about guidance provided by department to guide faculty member and documentation of extension program impact.

19. Questions Generated by Responses • Is the 3 year review a requirement or recommendation within the OSU P&T system? • Why is the 3 year review mentioned as a remedy with the second case but not the first? • What responsibility does the candidate have in the tenure process? If the position description says one thing and the faculty member does another, and the department head does nothing about it, is the university obligated to tenure this candidate?