1. Demystifying the Promotion & Tenure Processfor Chairs Arlene Carney Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs

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

3. Implications of Changes Chairs/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.

4. Criteria for Tenure Section 7.11 of the Tenure policy- general statement of criteria for the entire university Section 7.12 of the Tenure policy- refers to the department criteria for tenure and promotion in a unit

5. 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”

6. 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.

7. Section 7.11 of the Tenure Policy(2007) Qualitative evaluation of scholarly research or other creative work, teaching, or service Primary emphasis on demonstrated scholarly or creative achievement and teaching effectiveness Service alone not sufficient

8. 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

9. Section 7.11 of the Tenure Policy(2007) Strong promise of achieving rank of professor Only modest service expected

10. Section 9.2 of the Tenure Policy (2007) New section Promotion to professor Added substantially to already distinguished record Established national or international reputation Substantially more service expected

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

12. 7.12 Statement Indices & standards used to evaluate whether a candidate has met or exceeded criteria of section 7.11 Developed by the faculty of a unit Approved by the Dean and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (SVPP)

13. 7.12 Statement All 7.12 Statements are being revised across the University. Approved by Provost’s office

14. Changes and Faculty Tenure 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

15. Changes and Faculty Probationary 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

16. Process of Choice of 7.12 A 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.

17. Process of Choice of 7.12 Faculty 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.

18. Specific Criteria for Tenure Teaching Research Service

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

20. Professional Distinction in Research, Scholarship, & Creative Work Peer-reviewed publications Books Scholarly presentations Evidence of impact (citation index) External funding from grants National and international venues for artistic work

21. Service Professional association/offices and committees Editorial boards of journals University committees Departmental committees External community service Faculty advisor

22. Section 5.5 of Faculty Tenure Extension 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

23. Section 5.5 of Faculty Tenure Extension 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)

24. Section 5.5 of Faculty Tenure Extension 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

25. Section 5.5 of Faculty Tenure Extended the time window to make the request from 3 months to 12 months of the events giving rise to the claim

26. Stopping the Tenure Clock Form provided and available on line Goes from the department chair to the senior vice chancellor Available for both female and male faculty for all areas

27. Tenure Cases Annual review of probationary faculty Tenured faculty review curriculum vitae and activity reports Annual conferences with chair or head Completion of Form 12 Sent to Dean and SVPP

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

29. Department Level: Dossier Selection 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

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

31. Department Level: Dossier Best practices:- dossier “caseworker”- mentoring or synopsis committee

32. Department Level: Dossier Provide information to the “caseworker” of the dossier- journals & publishers- scholarly & creative venues- conferences

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

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

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

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

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

38. Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure Process Poor annual reviews Sketchy reviews Do not address the 7.12 criteria Address performance issues not in the 7.12 Address collegiality issues Avoid problems until the very end

39. Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure Process Departmental report at the tenure decision time Includes discussion of criteria not in the 7.12 statement or disregards criteria that exist Includes erroneous information

40. Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure Process Actions of the chair Does not share the departmental report with all faculty Uses language in the chair’s report that suggests a poor climate for the candidate

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

42. Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure Process Failure to recognize what extension of the probationary period means Make sure that you use the language recommended by the provost for external reviewers regarding the length of the probationary period

43. Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure Process Choice of external reviewers Chair/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.

44. Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure Process Extreme care in tenure denial cases or split votes Follow 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)

45. Most Common Departmental Errors in the Tenure Process Extreme care in tenure denial cases or split votes Make 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.

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

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