ࡱ>  bjbjVV .<<* ) 555III8I !(I___:::z | | | | | | "S%| 5:::::| 55__ ,:25_5_z :z : ,F _CdXIl"2 f  < < &"&F &5F :::| | ::: ::::&::::::::: : ON TRACK II: Toward Better Mentoring and Personnel Review Practices in CLA 2006 Prepared by the Tenure Track Faculty Task Force of CLA The following suggestions have been developed by the 2005-2006 Tenure-Track Faculty Task Force: Jean Humez (chair); Larry Blum, Tiffany Donaldson, Joan Liem, Tim Sieber, and Nancy Stieber. Our work responds to a charge by Dean Donna Kuizenga last year to explore and disseminate ideas for best practices in mentoring. Because we see mentoring as integrally connected with demystifying the personnel review process, we consider these topics together in this document. In addition to the information generated in our formal survey of tenure-track faculty last year (soon to be available on the ýs new web site), we have drawn upon some reading about mentoring as well as a variety of informal conversations with tenure-track and senior faculty. We also had the benefit of ideas articulated by Lois Rudnick, who led the C.I.T. seminar for tenure-track faculty last spring, and of several department chairs and senior faculty who previewed the document in an earlier draft. We very much hope that this document will be seen as a constructive way of beginning ongoing conversations across and within departments in the ý, among and between senior and tenure-track faculty. We look forward to participating in some of these conversations as part of our committees ongoing commitment to improving CLAs institutional success with faculty recruitment, career development and retention. We have divided the discussion into three parts: (a) suggestions for what departments can do right now to contribute to the well-being and success of their tenure-track faculty; (b) ideas for the future development of mentoring in the ý and in departments; and (c) a suggested method for departments wishing to clarify personnel review criteria and process for their new hires and tenure-track faculty. A. How Departments Can Contribute to the Successful Career Development of CLA Faculty on the Tenure Track. UMB strives for excellence as a teaching-oriented institution serving an unusually diverse student body and as a university in which faculty are highly productive in research; in addition, we expect the faculty to be involved in service activity, which can consist of university-based or community-based service. Since its founding in 1964, UMB has taken pride in being one of the nations relatively small number of public urban universities, and has repeatedly committed itself to an urban mission that involves strong engagement with urban issues and questions, on the local, national and global levels. The College of Liberal Arts encourages its faculty to engage with the urban mission whenever feasible, and to articulate the contributions their work may make to it, whether in research, creative and professional activity, teaching and/or service. Though working in such a setting with wonderful colleagues and students is undoubtedly inspiring to many, tenure-track faculty in CLA nevertheless express a great deal of anxiety about the overall workload and what seem to be exceptionally high expectations of them as caring and skilled teachers during the years in which they are also diligently compiling a tenurable dossier of research, creative or professional activity and service. We all know of talented and dedicated tenure-track faculty who have left the ý prior to the tenure review to take positions at institutions where the teaching load is not as demanding. This kind of voluntary attrition prior to the tenure decision year has actually been higher in recent years than attrition as a result of negative tenure decisions, and such voluntary attrition, at least in recent years, has disproportionately affected faculty of color. At the ý and university level, we hope ultimately to see workload policy changes, such as a reduction in the standard 3-3 teaching load of most tenure-track faculty, or the institution of a pre-tenure paid sabbatical semester similar to that recently adopted at UMass Lowell. Such changes would make it possible to do a better job in diversifying the faculty than we currently do, as well as in supporting tenure-track faculty who also wish to become parents during their tenure-track years. In the meantime, we do have some suggestions for departments as they seek to support their own tenure-track faculty in balancing the multiple demands of teaching, scholarly, creative and professional work, and service. Scheduling of Courses 1. Wherever possible, departments should try to provide pre-tenure faculty with teaching schedules that allow for the possibility of doing research and writing throughout the year. For example, consider a policy of assigning new hires and junior faculty to two day a week teaching schedules, with meetings restricted to one other day per week. 2. While it is important for tenure-track faculty to have the opportunity to teach at different levels (upper and lower division, graduate courses where applicable) and in General Education or other pedagogically challenging courses, it is also important not to ask junior faculty to prepare new courses every year or to spend so much time on curriculum development that they are at a disadvantage in developing their research agenda. 3. Wherever possible, departments should try to give junior faculty no more than two preparations per semester. (We realize that this will not be possible in all cases; where it is not, departments should point out the extra work a three-preparation load involves when writing up personnel reviews.) 4. We strongly urge departments to discuss with new hires the option of banking the two course releases they are given by the ý when hired, to save for a time when research, creative or professional activities are more pressing optimally, in the second or third year. In the case of new hires, who must get a lab or studio set up quickly, it may make the best sense to consider taking the course releases in the first year, of course. 5. New faculty should also be advised about opportunities in the department and ý to get support for working on pedagogical skills, including applying for the C.I.T. seminar during the second or third year at UMB; developing or teaching one or more General Education courses; finding a good teaching mentor among experienced faculty; serving on the personnel committee during its annual review of faculty course materials and student course evaluations. Advising (and Protecting) Tenure-Track Faculty on Service Commitments 1. Departments can provide invaluable guidance to tenure-track faculty in choosing how to fulfill their service obligations strategically, especially during the first two years. Chairs might suggest service opportunities and ask tenure-track faculty to check in with them on a regular basis to discuss service work and possibly make changes in service assignments as a result. 2. We urge chairs to communicate to new hires that it is not the number of committees on which they serve or the number of activities in the larger community in which they are engaged, but the significance of the work and the quality of the faculty members contributions that matter most. 3. Chairs can and probably should play a vital role in helping tenure-track faculty determine how to balance their service work with their teaching and research. While service work is important and expected of all faculty, the demands of internal service and the attractiveness of external service require that junior faculty sometimes say no to invitations for service work beyond a desirable level, in order to protect their time. 4. We suggest that departments consider including tenure-track faculty in the important policy-making departmental committees, as well as in a (non-voting) role in personnel review committees, in order to help junior faculty learn experientially how the department functions and to feel included and respected as a colleague right from the outset. Such participation will also usefully demystify the departments procedures and culture as related to personnel reviews. Supporting Tenure-Track Faculty in Career Development and Personnel Reviews 1. We suggest that departments use the On Track document produced in May 2005 by this committee as a way of initiating a career development and personnel review discussion with newly hired tenure-track faculty. (If you do not already have copies for your faculty, please check the CLA web page or contact  HYPERLINK "mailto:jean.humez@umb.edu" jean.humez@umb.edu.) The department might consider setting up a mentoring committee of its own, which would be charged with overseeing whatever mentoring system the department decides to design. It could make sure that periodic discussions of issues related to career development and mentoring are scheduled. In addition, departments might consult the list of resources at the end of this document for readings related to junior faculty career development and mentoring. 2. Departments can be proactive in helping tenure-track faculty get support for seeking internal and external funding for conference attendance, research grants, and venues for publication and dissemination of research. We suggest that chairs set up at least an annual, and possibly a once-a-semester meeting with tenure-track faculty to discuss the kind of support the faculty member may need in advancing the research agenda. This can also be a role of formal or informal mentors (see section B. below). 3. Departments can explain to junior faculty early in their careers the advantages of creating teaching portfolios as a way of presenting their on-going development as teachers. (See below for more suggestions on this.) 4. Department chairs or personnel committee chairs can be very helpful in explaining the categories of the Annual Faculty Report, and in helping ensure that new tenure-track faculty understand how to fill out this document accurately and completely. It is important that the role of the AFR as a permanent part of the personnel file through all levels of review is appreciated on both sides. 5. Department personnel committees need to give fair and honest feedback to tenure-track faculty on Annual Faculty reports each year, so that the junior faculty can understand clearly how well they are currently meeting expectations and, where there is a problem, what they might need to do in one or more of the areas under review to correct that problem. At the same time, Departmental personnel committees should contextualize student course evaluation ratings in personnel reviews, including the AFR. (For example, faculty who teach large sections, controversial subject matter, or GenEd First Year Seminars sometimes receive lower overall scores in these courses than in others. They should certainly not be penalized in personnel reviews for the challenging kinds of courses they have been asked to teach.) 6. During the spring prior the fourth-year review or tenure review, the department chair or chair of the personnel committee has an important role in meeting with the tenure-track faculty member to demystify the process and discuss the timeline of work necessary for the files and personal statements to be completed by the early fall. Some departments provide junior faculty with models of the Table of Contents and personal statements of others who have recently gone through the review process. (Chairs need to obtain permission in writing in order to share these materials.) If there has not been a major personnel review recently in the department, other models might be obtained through the deans office (again, with permission in writing from the candidate). B. Some Principles For Developing College-wide or Departmental Mentoring Programs. 1. Any formal or informal mentoring programs should be developed in the context of our other institutional efforts to communicate to TT faculty that they are valued members of the community and colleagues right from the beginning. Our primary goal should be retention of these talented and dedicated new faculty we have spent such care recruiting! 2. We should avoid creating an inflexible, one-size-fits all system. The needs and concerns of TT faculty inevitably vary considerably, by size of department, type of department, field, and a host of other variables. 3. Departments should be alert to the special pressures and demands TT faculty of color often face, and seek ways to educate themselves about best mentoring practices from the perspectives of TT faculty of color. See for example Boice (2000), Blackwell (1989), Aguirre (2000), Moody (2004), Turner and Myers (2000), Vargas (2002), Bonilla in Wunsch (1994). 4. TT faculty should be urged to seek out more than one source of mentoring. There are advantages and disadvantages to an assigned mentor system, a senior faculty mentor system, an intra-departmental mentor system, etc, but each TT faculty member should have a clear mentoring structure to use as they wish to. It may be wise to try to create a variety of choices on both department and ý levels, along with a way of coordinating and publicizing these. For example, we could identify distinctive mentoring roles such as research field mentor, service mentor, teaching mentor, peer departmental mentor, senior departmental mentor, and extra-departmental institutional mentor. The ý and departments could then create lists of people who might volunteer for one or more of these roles in a given semester or year. These lists could be made available to new and continuing TT faculty. 5. Mentors need to be people who are highly motivated to mentor, well informed about departmental, field and institutional practices, able to listen well and communicate well, and experienced or trained or both in good mentoring practices. They also need sufficient time to devote to this work, and a sense that the work is really valued by their own departments and by the dean and provost. (Formal mentoring assignments could be listed on the AFR; in some cases they might be recognized and rewarded with release from other committee work.) 6. Recently tenured and even advanced TT faculty may in many cases be at least as effective mentors as senior faculty in leadership positions--both because they are closer to the TT faculty in age and experience, and because they do not represent such an evaluative role. (Again, this is an argument for allowing for TT faculty control over the choice of mentor.) 7. Departments should be proactive in making sure that TT faculty are socially integrated and involved in departmental decision-making. As suggested above, it might be important to involve TT faculty on personnel committees early in their careers, to help demystify the personal review process. TT faculty should also be encouraged to connect with other UMB faculty, especially other TT faculty, through interest networks, and other programs outside their own departments (and this networking and community building should be clearly valued by their departments in personnel reviews). Some TT faculty have found it very useful to participate in research/writing support groups of peers, both inside and outside the university, to help them move along with their work in a supportive setting where they can also get frequent critical feedback. 8. Departments, the ý, and the provost should make sure that the personnel review bodies keep up to date with newer types of scholarship/creative activity, such as technologically sophisticated publication. Senior mentors in particular need to be sure to inform themselves about such trends and avoid giving inappropriate advice. (Our successor committee could help with this, by providing examples of various professional associations guidelines on evaluating digital media activities in personnel reviews, for example.) C. Developing a More Transparent Personnel Review Process in the Departments Many tenure-track faculty members have expressed the desire for more transparency about the expectations they will need to meet to succeed at fourth year and tenure reviews. (Indeed, this was such a clear need expressed last year that our committee postponed work on mentoring to created the On Track document.) Particularly at the departmental level, there is still a very great need for demystification. We would like to encourage departments to take steps to alleviate some of the anxieties of junior faculty by providing opportunities for discussing departmental expectations, the process of evaluation followed by the department, and the standards of judgment that have recently been applied during reviews by the CPC and Provost. If such discussions took a central place in the mentoring of junior faculty, we believe their increased understanding would make the shoals of fourth-year and tenure review easier to navigate. Since there is no single path toward success, these suggestions are premised on the notion that tenure track faculty need an introduction to the departmental culture that determines the multiple criteria and processes of review by which they will be judged. We believe that both junior and senior faculty will benefit from active participation in discussion about the setting of those standards and procedures. One step toward achieving the goal of open and frank discussion of departmental criteria and processes would be to ask the department personnel committee or a special committee to create a written statement of expectations that is specific to the department. Discussion within the department to generate such a statement and discussion about the content of the document once it has been written should be very useful, leading to greater clarification of both the criteria and processes applied during personnel reviews. As well as helping the tenure track faculty understand the expectations of the department, such a statement could be very helpful for the departmental personnel committee in its work. It could also serve the purpose of clarifying to the dean and higher administration the specific, field-based values and standards relevant for judging a faculty member in the departments field. Periodic revision of the statement would foster continued consideration and discussion among the faculty of departmental standards as these develop and change. As of June 2006, discussions are underway between the dean and provost about the possibility of using departmentally-generated statements of expectations as guidelines for administrative judgments during future personnel reviews. At this time it is expected that one CLA department may volunteer to draw up such a document in the fall as a prototype, so that an administrative process can be more concretely designed. (Clearly, departmental documents that are not approved by dean and provost would be problematic, and might actually mislead tenure-track faculty about upper levels of review, and so we do not recommend that individual departments create their own documents until the prototype has been produced and approved.) In the meantime, however, we do strongly encourage CLA departments in general to begin a process of open and comprehensive discussion of departmental expectations of tenure-track faculty. Our successor committee will be happy to come to departmental meetings to answer questions related to the suggestions in this section of our report. We realize that drafting a department statement about expectations for faculty performance poses a number of challenges. In particular, some personnel committees may feel that putting criteria in writing carries a contractual implication. We believe, however, that the departmental statement can be couched in language that makes it clear that the statement merely indicates a range of criteria and not absolute requirements or guarantees. In our view, the advantages to junior faculty of receiving written guidelines outweigh any risk that these will be considered as contractual obligations. Obviously, such a statement would be used as an aid to mentoring tenure track faculty, and certainly not as a substitute for it. We would hope that discussion of the departments statement between and among junior and senior faculty would both strengthen the mentoring process and alleviate much of the unnecessary confusion and concern that tenure track faculty complain of now. To that end, in addition to indicating their criteria for judgment, we suggest that departments provide in their statement an explanation of the departmental procedures used in the annual, fourth year and tenure reviews. In this section we offer some thoughts about the content of departmentally-generated statements of expectations, in discussion or in documentary form. For a written document, each department would probably need to create a comprehensive list of the kinds of evidence of accomplishment that tenure-track faculty are expected to include in fourth-year and tenure-review dossiers. The lists would reflect the values widely acknowledged in that departments own disciplinary or interdisciplinary area.( Any departmental statement would of course clearly include a caveat that no one is expected to achieve all of the kinds of accomplishment listed. For those departments that might like to see a ,hypothetical model of a departmental statement, a sample from another university is available upon request. Please contact jean.humez@umb.edu. 1. Explaining what is expected in Research, Creative or Professional Activity We assume that productive research, creative or professional activity in the ý will take many forms, depending on the discipline or combination of disciplines involved. It would be useful for each department to state the general criteria it applies for judging research/creative work. In the following paragraphs, we provide an overview of what we believe is applicable to most departments. Research, creative or professional activity (as the category is described in the universitys governing personnel document, the Red Book) is broadly construed to include all original inquiry (theoretical, empirical, and applied); systematic analysis and synthesis of problems (both practical and theoretical) that results in original publications; creative activities (such as artistic production); and other professional activity calling upon and demonstrating scholarly or creative expertise. In most cases, departments judge research, creative or professional activity by asking through what scholarly and creative efforts the faculty member is adding to knowledge in the field in which she or he works. Since fields differ markedly in the forms in which research, creative or professional activity is produced, each specialized field requires somewhat different criteria for judging the significance of a faculty members work. However, a very important means of measuring quality in research, creative or professional activity is scrutiny by professional peers who draw conclusions about its creativity, rigor, and value (peer review). Evidence of research, creative or professional activity in almost every field will include written documentation (such as articles, chapters, books, conference papers, reviews and reports) or other products (works of art, computer software, websites). In general, the evidence put forward, should demonstrate: theoretical underpinnings relevant to the current state of the discipline evidence of an understanding of the relevant literature/creative work rich conceptualization of some aspect of the fields problems/issues/questions an approach to scholarly inquiry or applied scholarly activity that is well justified, coherent, and appropriate to its goals a coherent sense of where the work fits within its field and its potential contributions to the fields future development. Taking the above into consideration, we suggest that the department articulate for its field(s) a comparable but specific statement about its criteria for judgment (such as general quantity of accomplishments and quality of venues expected), followed by a listing of the kinds of evidence that would demonstrate fulfillment of those criteria. Some departments may wish to indicate what evidence has proved successful in the past and may make a selection of successful dossiers available to serve as models (with the written permission of the candidate). Since certain types of research, creative or professional activity require more work and some are subject to higher standards of public and peer evaluation than others, the departmental statement might try to indicate the relative value of the various accomplishments. This might be done by listing them in order of relative importance or by establishing categories that identify, for instance, those that require more stringent public scrutiny and therefore are most likely to receive more weight in personnel reviews. Most departments do not apply rigid standards for the number and type of evidence expected at personnel reviews. While tenure track faculty often ask such questions as how many articles/compositions/works of art do I need for fourth year review? departments usually apply a more complex set of criteria. However, unwritten or assumed criteria need to be articulated whenever possibleotherwise, these are often the most opaque to junior faculty. To assess the work, a close review of the candidates personal statement often considers how the candidate describes the threads of meaning and impact of his or her research, creative or professional activity and how she or he reflects on the contribution of that work to the current state of knowledge in the field. Furthermore, the candidates personal statement, curriculum vitae, and portfolio of works (selected by the candidate) may be reviewed by acknowledged external experts in the field in addition to the committee members themselves (external letters are optional and not often used for fourth-year review, though they are required for tenure review). To justify a finding of excellence in research, creative or professional activity, it is generally expected that most if not all of the external reviewers and committee members find the work to represent a significant contribution to the field, with the likelihood of continuing contributions indicated. Some departments regularly make it a practice to consult with faculty in comparable departments to ascertain the standards they apply in the field. Clear articulation of these assessment practices may help tenure track faculty to understand the ways in which the department will judge their accomplishments in research, creative or professional activity. (For further information on current understandings between the deans office and department chairs/program directors on procedures related to major personnel review, see the Appendix ) 2. Explaining what is expected in Teaching and Advising. We recommend that the departmental statement outline the expectations of the department, the ý and the university for teaching, indicate the criteria for excellence, and explain the methods used to gather information about achievement in teaching. Although departments may not vary so much in their values in the teaching arena as in professional/scholarly activity, they should still attempt to be candid about the particular importance attached in this department to different levels or types of teaching (e.g., graduate courses vs. introductory undergraduate courses; discussion-oriented pedagogy vs. lecture; General Education vs. courses required of majors, etc.). The document should explain whether offering Independent Studies, doing Honors, Masters and Doctoral Thesis advising, developing and offering new courses, and other teaching and advising above and beyond the three-course load and regular pre-registration advising are advisable activities that are highly valued in personnel reviews. Some departments encourage tenure-track faculty to keep not only all course materials developed for teaching but also reflections about pedagogical challenges and strategies in a teaching portfolio. This is a way of presenting the teachers ongoing development in a much more substantive and self-reflective way than is typical for most reviews of teaching effectiveness, which are dependent mostly on personnel committee readings of student course evaluations and faculty teaching materials. The department may wish to use this opportunity to develop other methods of supporting the pedagogical skill development of tenure-track (and tenured) faculty, for example by encouraging visits to the classroom by senior colleagues acting in a mentoring rather than evaluative role; by suggesting the use of mid-term course evaluations; or by holding departmental discussions of challenging teaching issues. 3. Explaining what is expected in Service. A clear and detailed statement about the level, kinds and trajectory of service expected as the faculty member proceeds through fourth-year and tenure review is very important. The importance of being able to document not just the fact of service but the quality of the service should be stressed (e.g., detailed testimony from referees as to the particular contribution made; copies of documents drafted; specific letters of thanks from organizations or agencies). (See On Track for record-keeping strategy suggestions for junior faculty.) In some ways clarifying expectations in service in CLA is more challenging than in the other two arenas. For one thing, the AFR categories of service comprise a very broad range of possible activities, some more important in the eyes of particular departments and ýs than others. The TT faculty member in CLA should therefore be given a candid assessment by the department of which departmental, ý and university service activities are most highly valued and most useful as opportunities to make significant contributions. In OnTrack, the tenure track faculty are given the following advice: Although the Red Book gives all three categories equal weight, in practice it is easier to make a compelling case for tenure when both scholarship and teaching are judged excellent. It would be important for the department to be very clear with the tenure track faculty member about the kinds and quality of service, and the trajectory of a service profile that would be truly outstanding. It is also essential to attempt to clarify for the tenure-track faculty as much as possible the distinctions between the AFR categories of professional activity (a form of scholarship, broadly defined) and service to the profession or discipline and professionally related outreach service to the public beyond the university (forms of service). And of course it is also important to distinguish clearly between professionally-related service to the community and individual community service that does not draw upon ones professional expertise. Some departments and interdisciplinary fields place a very high value on kinds of research that involve collaborations between academics and non-academics within public groups outside the university; indeed, some faculty members positions are defined as encouraging and promoting this kind of collaborative research. (Examples might include applied research in social sciences, ethnic studies, or teacher-preparation activities.) If this is the case in your department (or a sub-specialty within your department), it is particularly important to clarify how this work is to be categorized for the purposes of personnel review, both for your TT faculty and for the dean and provost. Selected References and Resources on Mentoring and Faculty Career Development (Based on a bibliography by Jo Ann Moody) Aguirre, A., Jr. 2000. Women and Minority Faculty in the Academic Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bensimon, E., K. Ward, and K. Sanders, 2000. The Department Chairs Role in Developing New Faculty into Teachers and Scholars. Bolton, MA: Anker. Blackshire-Belay, C. 1998. The Status of Minority Faculty Members in the Academy. Academe, July-August, 1998, 30-36. Blackwell, J. 1989. Mentoring: An Action Strategy for Increasing Minority Faculty. Academe, September-October, 8-14. Boice, R., 2000. Advice for New Faculty Members. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bonilla, J., C. Pickeron, and T. Taum. 1994. Peer Mentoring among Graduate Students of Color: Expanding the Mentoring Relationship. In Mentoring Revisited: Making an Impact on Individuals and Institutions, ed., M. Wunsch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cooper, J., and D. Stevens, eds. 2002. Tenure in the Sacred Grove: Issues and Strategies for Women and Minority Faculty. Albany: Statue University of New York Press. Cose, E. 1997. Color-Blind: Seeing Beyond Race in a Race-Obsessed World. New York: HarperCollins. Davis, J. 1994. Coloring the Halls of Ivy: Leadership and Diversity in the Academy. Bolton, MA: Anker. Gainen, J. and R. Boice (eds.) 1993. Building a Diverse Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Garcia, M. 2000. (ed). Succeeding in an Academic Career: A Guide for Faculty of Color. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Guinier, L., and S. Sturm, eds. 2001. Whos Qualified? Boston: Beacon Press. Harleston, B., and M. Knowleds. 1997. Achieving Diversity in the Professoriate: Challenges and Opportunities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Hu-DeHart, E. 1999. Office Politics and Departmental Culture. In Succeeding in an Academic Career: A Guide for Faculty of Color, ed. M. Garcia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Michigan State University. 2001. Best Practices for a Successful Academic Search.  HYPERLINK "http://www.msu.edu/`aacm" http://www.msu.edu/`aacm. Moody, J. 2001. Demystifying the Profession: Helping Junior Faculty Succeed. New Haven, CT: University of New Haven Press. Moody, J. 2004. Faculty Diversity: Problems and Solutions. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Reiss, S. 1997. Nell Painter: Making It as a Woman of Color in the Academy. In Diversity Digest, Fall, 6-7. Rendon, L., and R. Hope. 1996. Educating a New Majority: Transforming Americans Educational System for Diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sanders, K., K. Ward, and E. Bensimon. 1996. The Department Chairs Role in Working with Junior Faculty. Department Chair, Winter, 7-8. Smith, D. 2000. How to Diversify the Faculty. Academe, September-October, 48-52. Sorcinelli, M. 1992. New and Junior Faculty Stress: Research and Responses. In Developing New and Junior Faculty, ed. M. Sorcinelli and A. Austin. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Trower, C. 1999. Alleviating the Torture of the Tenure Track: All It Takes is a Little Show and Tell. Department Chair, Spring, 1999, 1, 16-17. Valverde, L., and L. Castenell Jr. (eds.) 1998. The Multicultural Campus: Strategies for Transforming Higher Education. Turner, C. and S. Myers Jr. 2000. Faculty of Color in Academe: Bittersweet Success. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Vargas, L. 2002. Women Faculty of Color in the White Classroom: Narratives on the Pedagogical Implications of Teacher Diversity. New York: Peter Lang. Appendix May 2005 Memo from Dean Donna Kuizenga, Summarizing Current Practices Agreement with Chairs/Department Heads on Personnel Review Procedures Outside referee letters Letters of invitation should indicate the teaching load, the type of university [research intensive] and ask for an assessment of the quality of the scholarship and the venues in which published and the standing of the candidate in the relevant scholarly community. Referees should be asked to send a current curriculum vitae and to explain their relationship to the candidate. The average number of letters in CLA tenure cases over the last ten years has been between 5 and 8. Thus I expect that you will obtain between 5 and 8 letters. In the past ten years, the outside letters have come approximately half from lists submitted by the candidates and half from lists composed by the department and its personnel committee. I would expect this 50/50 split to continue. In the case of an uneven number of letters, I would expect the additional letter to come from the departments list. The choice of outside reviewers should be such that the resulting case is as unambiguous as possible and not dependant on letters from individuals with close personal or professional relationships to the candidate. Promotion to professor. All evaluators should be sent a full set of materials and should be asked to comment on the whole dossier. In those cases where a faculty members work crosses fields, you may indicate to the evaluator that s/he may want to devote much more detail to that area of expertise, but evaluators should be given the full picture. With rare exceptions, outside reviewers for cases of tenure and promotion to associate professor should be tenured and hold at least the rank of associate professor. Likewise referees for promotion to professor should, with rare exceptions, hold the rank of professor. Dossiers: The research section of the case should have clear separate categories for Published works Works accepted or in press Works in progress Lists of talks and/or conference papers should be separated from written publications Indicate whether each item is refereed or not. Student evaluations of teaching Dossiers for personnel actions should contain a complete set of student evaluations for all courses taught by the candidate for the period under evaluation. While for PMYR full sets of evaluations are not normally sent to the deans office, the department should keep full sets for its own deliberations. Departments should keep evaluations as follows: For assistant professorsall evaluations for all semesters For associate professorsall evaluations for all semesters following tenure and promotion. For full professorsall evaluations for all semesters for 7 years [because of PMYR] Dossiers should contain a clear explanation of the procedures by which student evaluations were solicited, and for each course the number of registered students and the number of evaluations completed. After grades have been turned in, faculty should have the opportunity to review their evaluations. HOWEVER, all evaluations should be returned to the department and kept in the department as per the time frames above. Institutional need must be addressed at all levels in tenure cases. This statement should include information about how the candidates research, teaching and service fit into the Universitys mission. The statement should also detail the affirmative action implications of the candidates presence in the department. ( We gratefully acknowledge the Guidelines for College Faculty Personnel Reviews put out by the Graduate College of Education as a source for some of the language in this document.     ON TRACK IIpage  PAGE 1 R OP##4$@$)))))))77;;sAAEFFF(MlMOP;RS;SqSNWQWn[o[3\4\\~tHhcfh h cHdhdhdhcf) j*h 0JcHdhdhdhcfHhcfh Hhcfh Hhcfh h 0Jjh Ujh U h 6h cHdhdhdhcf hh h h 5- KQRa b  IJij89``$a$9 !!!!q#r#$$K&L&#($(p(q(++--..00`0F3G3L6M6N6668888I:J:==?@nAoADDFFF"G#G$a$``#GHHjLkLPPTTWWzY{Y\\\]]^^sauaadbd``gd `\\]kkkqdrw%wyz !9:ĔbcefhiklƵhr70JmHnHu h 0Jjh 0JU j*h 0J h 0Jjh Ujh U h 6 h 5h &bdddBeq*F & FEƀjFF & FEƀjFF & FEƀjFBeeq*F & FEƀjFoF & FEƀjFF & FEƀjFoҚ(q*F & FEƀjFoF & FEƀjFoF & FEƀjFo(Wwڜq*F & FEƀjFoF & FEƀjFF & FEƀjFoڜpĝq*F & FEƀjFF & FEƀjFF & FEƀjFĝhq*(F & FEƀjFF & FEƀjFoF & FEƀjFoabdeghjkmn,1h. A!"#$% DyK jean.humez@umb.eduyK 4mailto:jean.humez@umb.eduDyK http://www.msu.edu/`aacmyK 2http://www.msu.edu/`aacm^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH:@:  Heading 1$@&5\B@B  Heading 2$@&`6]@@  Heading 3$$@&a$5\::  Heading 4$$@&a$DA`D Default Paragraph FontZiZ  Table Normal :V 4 l4a _H(k (No List >@> Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*DC@D Body Text Indent `4B@"4 Body Text5\4@24 Header  !4 B4 Footer  !.)@Q. Page NumberHR@bH Body Text Indent 2 `6U@q6 Hyperlink >*B*phDD  Balloon TextCJOJQJaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] nS  ))))),\QV90#GbdBe&rْ0(ڜĝRSTUWXYZ[\]^_`abc!!! 9XX$&,!t8@0(  B S  ?u} !!11:2@2TTVv]v}}}}t~y~|~~lq`d&+.4@E T]jr 6><DQZ!&abdeghjkmnbb a/^D(%Wk:;h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ^`OJQJo(h pp^p`OJQJo(oh @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h PP^P`OJQJo(oh   ^ `OJQJo((%W a/r7 @`@Unknown Jean HumezG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx ArialCd*0Lucida Grande?= *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA$BCambria Math"1\\zNN!4d\\3X 2!xx*Suggestions for Departmental Guidelines on Nancy Stieber kelly.ahearn  Oh+'0x  ( 4 @ LX`hp,Suggestions for Departmental Guidelines onNancy StieberNormalkelly.ahearn2Microsoft Office Word@@ @F/dX@F/dX՜.+,D՜.+,X hp|  N\ +Suggestions for Departmental Guidelines on Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA DOhttp://www.msu.edu/`aacm*L0mailto:jean.humez@umb.edu*  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdfghijklnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FCdXData e1Tablem&WordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q