Demystifying the Promotion & Tenure Processfor ChairsArlene CarneyVice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs

Regents Policy on Faculty TenureInitially adopted in 1945Last change was in 2007Previous version approved in 2001New document – Procedures for Reviewing Candidates for Tenure and/or Promotion: Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty

Implications of ChangesChairs/heads will be working with both the 2001 and the 2007 Faculty Tenure policies for several years.Which version will depend upon the year a probationary faculty member was hired or the year a tenured associate professor was last promoted.

Criteria for TenureSection 7.11 of the Tenure policy- general statement of criteria for the entire universitySection 7.12 of the Tenure policy- refers to the department criteria for tenure and promotion in a unit

Section 7.11 of the Tenure Policy(2001)Basis for awarding indefinite tenure:- “achievements of an individual have demonstrated the individual’spotential to continue to contribute significantly to the mission of the University and to its programs of teaching, research, and service”

Section 7.11 of the Tenure Policy(2007)Basis for awarding indefinite tenure:the determination that each has established and is likely to continue to develop a distinguished record of academic achievement that is the foundation for a national or international reputation or both.

Section 7.11 of the Tenure Policy(2007)Qualitative evaluation of scholarly research or other creative work, teaching, or servicePrimary emphasis on demonstrated scholarly or creative achievement and teaching effectivenessService alone not sufficient

Section 7.11 of the Tenure Policy(2007)Take into account when applicable- interdisciplinary work- public engagement- international activities & initiatives- attention to questions of diversity- technology transfer- other special kinds of professional activity

Section 7.11 of the Tenure Policy(2007)Strong promise of achieving rank of professorOnly modest service expected

Section 9.2 of the Tenure Policy (2007)New sectionPromotion to professorAdded substantially to already distinguished recordEstablished national or international reputationSubstantially more service expected

Section 7.12 of the Tenure Policy (2007)Department statement of criteria for promotion and tenureMust be shown to new faculty according to the tenure policy Should reflect the values of the faculty for promotions and conferral of indefinite tenure

7.12 StatementIndices & standards used to evaluate whether a candidate has met or exceeded criteria of section 7.11Developed by the faculty of a unitApproved by the Dean and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (SVPP)

7.12 StatementAll 7.12 Statements are being revised across the University.Approved by Provost’s office

Changes and FacultyTenure Code Interpretation 6- probationary and tenured faculty can choose the 7.12 statement by which they will be evaluated (old or new)- have one year from time the new 7.12 is approved- each faculty member will sign an agreement about the form to be used

Changes and FacultyProbationary faculty can also choose 7.11 by which they will be evaluated depending upon their date of hire.If hired after June 8, 2007, they are bound by the new Regents Policy on Faculty Tenure.Once promoted to associate professor, bound by new section 9.2 for promotion to professor

Process of Choice of 7.12A memorandum of understanding will be generated by the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs for non-AHC faculty.Each faculty member (probationary and tenured associate professors) will be contacted with a copy to the chair/head and the associate dean of the college.

Process of Choice of 7.12Faculty get a copy of both the old and new 7.12 statement and the old and new Faculty Tenure policy.The e-mail explains the process.Faculty respond with their choice.AHC faculty will be contacted by Assistant Vice President Barbara Brandt in the AHC.

Specific Criteria for TenureTeachingResearchService

Teaching EffectivenessEvaluated in a variety of ways- student ratings- peer observation and evaluation- letters from students- teaching awards- curricular development- syllabi

Professional Distinction in Research, Scholarship, & Creative WorkPeer-reviewed publicationsBooksScholarly presentationsEvidence of impact (citation index)External funding from grantsNational and international venues for artistic work

ServiceProfessional association/offices and committeesEditorial boards of journalsUniversity committeesDepartmental committeesExternal community serviceFaculty advisor

Section 5.5 of Faculty TenureExtension of probationary service is allowed for one year at the request of the probationary faculty:- on the occasion of the birth of that faculty member’s child or adoptive/foster placement of a child with that faculty member

Section 5.5 of Faculty TenureExtension of probationary service is allowed for one year at the request of the probationary faculty:- when the faculty member is a major caregiver for a family member who has an extended serious illness, injury, or debilitating condition (can use this no more than 2 times)

Section 5.5 of Faculty TenureExtension of probationary service is allowed for one year at the request of the probationary faculty:- when the faculty member has an extended serious illness, injury, or debilitating condition

Section 5.5 of Faculty TenureExtended the time window to make the request from 3 months to 12 months of the events giving rise to the claim

Stopping the Tenure ClockForm provided and available on lineGoes from the department chair to the senior vice chancellor Available for both female and male faculty for all areas

Tenure CasesAnnual review of probationary facultyTenured faculty review curriculum vitae and activity reportsAnnual conferences with chair or headCompletion of Form 12Sent to Dean and SVPP

Tenure CasesTenure decision may be made at any time.A decision to terminate the appointment can be made at anytime.

Department Level: DossierSelection of external reviewers- number varies by department & campus- new Procedures document specifies how many reviewers are needed and their backgrounds- selection by both candidate & the department

Department Level: DossierSelection of external reviewers- distinguished scholars in the field- peer institutions- individuals who will write evaluative letters- given enough time- have sufficient materials to evaluate

Department Level: DossierBest practices:- dossier “caseworker”- mentoring or synopsis committee

Department Level: DossierProvide information to the “caseworker” of the dossier- journals & publishers- scholarly & creative venues- conferences

Department Level: DossierProvide information to the “caseworker” of the dossier - accurate list of scheduled & unscheduled teaching- teaching evaluations- teaching materials

Department Level: DossierFinished dossier should be:- clear to the campus readers- complete according to instructions- provide an accurate picture of who you are

College levelEach dean makes a recommendation to the provost about promotion and tenure.Colleges differ in their processes.

Campus LevelP & T committee- made up of senior faculty- across disciplines in the campus- make a recommendation to the senior vice chancellor and chancellor

Provost’s Office ReviewEach dossier is reviewed by several vice provosts.SVPP reviews array of cases with particular emphasis on cases with negative votes or variance in voting.

Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure ProcessPoor annual reviewsSketchy reviewsDo not address the 7.12 criteriaAddress performance issues not in the 7.12Address collegiality issuesAvoid problems until the very end

Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure ProcessDepartmental report at the tenure decision timeIncludes discussion of criteria not in the 7.12 statement or disregards criteria that existIncludes erroneous information

Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure ProcessActions of the chairDoes not share the departmental report with all facultyUses language in the chair’s report that suggests a poor climate for the candidate

Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure ProcessFailure to recognize what extension of the probationary period meansPut the correct probationary year on the President’s Form 12Address the expectation of performance correctly in the annual review (i.e. you cannot expect a year’s progress when the clock is stopped)

Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure ProcessFailure to recognize what extension of the probationary period meansMake sure that you use the language recommended by the provost for external reviewers regarding the length of the probationary period

Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure ProcessChoice of external reviewersChair/head should work with the candidate to choose reviewers.Document this process in the dossier.Choose enough reviewers.Make sure that at least half but no fewer than 4 reviewers have no professional connection with the candidate.

Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure ProcessExtreme care in tenure denial cases or split votesFollow every procedure in the tenure policy, Procedures document, and your 7.12 to the letter.Work with your associate dean and with me about procedure (but not evaluation)

Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure ProcessExtreme care in tenure denial cases or split votesMake sure that the file also reviews the positive performance on criteria in the 7.12 statement.Avoid having duplicate faculty votes. If they happen, have a clear and compelling rationale and document this in the dossier.

Contact for Questions:Arlene CarneyVice Provost for Faculty and AcademicAffairs220 Morrill Hall626-9545carne005@umn.edu

Contact for Questions:Karen Zentner Bacig Associate to the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs 220 Morrill Hall 624-5082