��«����Ƶ

November 14, 2017

Academic Futures Open Forum: Widening the Aperture in Promotion and Tenure

Moderator:      David Brown

Listener:          Russ Moore

Points made and issues raised included:

1. The current definitions of “Excellence in …” are too narrow or inconsistent in certain situations to evaluate and give guidance for reaching tenure.
   1.  New programs and fields – there is nothing out there at other institutions for comparison.  Highly creative work that is externally recognized as “the top in the field” is not recognized by the university.  New non-traditional disciplines are coming on line all the time, requiring different types of faculty with different practices and values.
   2. Interdisciplinary research – pieces of the work seem unrelated according to traditional definitions, but are in fact part of the whole.
   3. Joint appointments - Some departments have tenure criteria that require work that is far beyond the standards of what other departments require. This is confusing and frustrating, especially for multidisciplinary work. We need some consistency and articulation of standards across units.
2. Why are Open Access publications discouraged or not recognized for tenure? They are still of high quality, are peer reviewed, and can make a bigger impact on humanity by their accessibility to the world at large.
3. We need to do a better job of valuing Service as part of tenure.
   1. If we are taking diversity and inclusion seriously as a university, recognition for service work in these areas would help drive this as an outcome.
   2. The tenure track seems to reward insular faculty more than the faculty who focus on the community at large.
   3. Departments say VCAC does not value service.  VCAC says they take their cues from what the departments value.  We need clarity on what is valued, as the absence of clarity results in opinions based on hearsay.
4. The 40/40/20 definition may be driving behavior that we do not want – instead of evaluating these as separate categories, we could look at a more holistic model.
5.  “Excellence in Teaching” is poorly defined.  It a appears it is highly unlikely anyone can reach tenure with a focus on teaching.  We need a broader, clearer definition of this with an achievable path for tenure.
   1. Why are publishing and external letters such a big part of “Excellence in Teaching”?  It seems like we are trying to apply research norms to teaching.  We need to widen the definition of excellence in teaching and reward those who have the passion and talent in teaching.
   2. The measures associated with teaching for tenure keep shifting year after year. It is difficult to mentor tenure candidates towards a successful outcome.
   3. We need to define tenure path guidelines for teaching that are as diverse as possible.
   4. FCQ’s should take the place of external letters.