RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION

1
RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION
VANDANA KOHLISOCIOLOGYURC CHAIR 2007 - 2008
2
DISCLAIMER

• THESE SLIDES WERE PREPARED TO FACILITATE
  DISCUSSION AT THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS LEADERSHIP
  ACADEMY.

3
OVERVIEW

• URC MEMBERSHIP AND ROLES
• CHAIRS RESPONSIBILITY IN RTP
• DEANS RESPONSIBILITY IN RTP
• LIST OF URC RECOMMENDATIONS
• FOUR DISCUSSION POINTS
• THREE CASE SCENARIOS

4
UNIVERSITY REVIEW COMMITTEE

• MEMBERSHIP 2 HSS 1 BPA 1 NSM 1 SOE, 1 AT
  LARGE
• CURRENT MEMBERS - TERM ENDING SPRING 2008
• DR. KEN GOBALET (AT LARGE)
• DR. JOYCE KOHL (HSS)
• DR. MOHSEN ATTARAN (BPA)
• CURRENT MEMBERS TERM ENDING SPRING 2009
• DR. JANICE CHAVEZ (SOE)
• DR. JORGE TALAMANTES (NSM)
• DR. VANDANA KOHLI

5
ROLE OF URC

• PROVIDE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT EVALUATION - 3RD
  LEVEL OF REVIEW
• APPROPRIATENESS OF EVALUATIONS AT PRIOR LEVELS OF
  REVIEW
• APPROPRIATENESS OF PROCEDURES USED AT PREVIOUS
  REVIEWS

6
CHAIRS RESPONSIBILITY T/TT FACULTY (HB 305)

• EXTENSION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD (HB 305.1.4
  305.2.2)
• INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE PERFORMANCE REVIEW (HB
  305.4.3 305.6.4)
• RESOLVE DISPUTES OVER SOCI SELECTION (HB 305.4.4)
  
• PREPARATION OF FILE (HB 305.5.1)

7
CHAIRS RESPONSIBILITYTF AND PT FACULTY (HB 306)

• ASSIST IN FILE PREPARATION (HB 306.2.2D)
• REVIEW TF IN GROUP 4 AND GROUP 5 (SOMETIMES) (HB
  306.2.2G AND I)
• INFORM PTR FACULTY OF REVIEW DATES
• MEET WITH DEAN AND PTR TO DISCUSS REVIEW
• MAY PREPARE INDEPEDNENT EVALUATION

8
DEANS RESPONSIBILITY

• LENGTH OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD
• INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE REVIEW
• APPROVE UNIT RTP CRITERIA AND AMICABLY RESOLVE
  CONFLICTS WITH THE UNIT ABOUT THE CRITERIA
• REVIEW AND APPROVE UNIT RTP COMMITTEE COMPOSITION
  THREE WEEKS PRIOR TO THE REVIEW CYCLE(S)

9
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM URC

• Recommendations for early tenure and/or promotion
  should demonstrate HOW the candidate satisfies
  the exceptional criteria.
• Reviews of joint scholarly research should
  indicate the contributions made by all co-authors
  and the candidate undergoing review.
• The Unit and the candidate should ensure that the
  RTP file is organized, complete and accurate.
• Access logs should be signed and dated,
  indicating the reason why the materials in the
  files were viewed.

10
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM URC

• Review of teaching should be holistic including
  SOCIs but not dependent on them, solely.
• Candidates should be evaluated against criteria
  established at the department or Unit level ONLY.
  Update the criteria as needed because you cannot
  use undocumented criteria to evaluate a RTP file.
• Be professional in review letters.

11
URC COMMENTS 1 - 2

• ALL SECTIONS RELATING TO TEACHING, SERVICE, AND
  SCHOLARSHIP SHOULD PROVIDE A SUMMATIVE
  RECOMMENDATION SUCH AS MEETS EXPECTATIONS OR
  SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.
• THE DEPARTMENTAL/UNIT RTP CRITERIA SHOULD really
  BE USED FOR EVALUATING FACULTY .

12
URC COMMENTS 3 - 4

• Evaluate scholarly activities against some
  standard at the department, school, or
  professional level. Help higher levels of review
  understand the relevancy of the scholarship.
  Similarly, teaching should be contextualized.
  For example, it is helpful for higher levels of
  review to know that a class is particularly
  DIFFICULT to teach and students hate taking it
  etc. This is even more important if the
  candidate has not mentioned it in their personal
  statement.
• Encourage faculty members undergoing review to
  write a thoughtful, reflective, and engaging
  personal statement that is not too lengthy. This
  really helps the evaluation process. Currently,
  this is optional in the Handbook.

13
CASE STUDY 1

• Dr. X has an irresistible charm and a delightful
  personality. She is always kind and supportive
  and willing to share her pot of coffee with her
  colleagues. In addition, she has just given birth
  to her first child and we wish her the best of
  luck as she undertakes this new adventure.

14
THINK POINTS CASE 1

• Speaks to the issue of collegiality
• Is it flirting with any of the isms
• What is relevant in the statement and how can we
  keep that in? What is irrelevant?

15
CASE STUDY CASE 2

• Dr. X joined CSUB in Fall 2010. The
  Department/Unit criteria states that a faculty
  member must publish at least one article to
  achieve tenure. Dr. Kohli has published two
  articles in her third year at CSUB. The
  Department/Unit recommends early tenure effective
  Fall 2014.

16
THINK POINTS 2

• Speaks to the issue of early tenure
• Has the Department/Unit demonstrated
  exceptionality in the area of research?
• How should we evaluate this candidate?

17
CASE STUDY 3

• Dr. Xs file is very disorganized. The
  committee could not find a current CV or the
  applicable Unit RTP criteria. In addition, Dr.
  Kohli did not provide a reflective personal
  statement. The scholarship section included
  references to various conference presentations
  but it was not clear to the committee which
  presentations were peer reviewed. Further, Dr.
  Kohli failed to provide a conference program or a
  copy of the paper.

18
THINK POINTS CASE 3

• Speaks to the issue of file organization,
  personal statement, evidence of scholarship,
  relevance of scholarship
• Is this merely a matter of style?
• What should be done? Who is responsible for the
  condition of the file?
• What are some possible outcomes? Are the outcomes
  potentially serious?

19
CONCLUSION

• BE MINDFUL OF THE CONTRACT
• REVIEW THE HANDBOOK AND LOOK FOR UPDATES
  RESULTING FROM SENATE RESOLUTIONS
• REVIEW AND UPDATE RTP CRITERIA IF NECESSARY
• REMEMBER RTP DELIBERATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL!