ࡱ>  bjbjVV .<<M^^8.rtttttt"tt>>>fr>r>>>waXT>^0>#"#>#> >tt>#^ g: College of Liberal Arts Tenure-Track Faculty Career Development Task Force Report with Policy Recommendations (June 9, 2005) Members: Jean Humez (Womens Studies), Chair, Alice Carter (Psychology), Kate Hartford (Political Science), Tom OGrady (English), Jack Spence (Associate Dean, ex officio) We are in an era of dramatically changing faculty demographics, with the proportion of senior faculty in the ý decreasing and numbers of newly hired tenure-track faculty increasing. Assistant professors proportion of all tenured and tenure-track faculty has more than doubled, from 14.4% in Fall 1997 to 31% at present, while the absolute number of senior faculty has declined from 178 to 121 (with about a sixth of these on leave at any given time). In the next six years, an average of more than eight junior faculty per year will undergo fourth year review, and another similar number tenure review, in contrast to just over three tenure cases per year in the last six years. The ý and the university are currently investing large numbers of faculty hours (and dollars) to attract and recruit the very highest quality young faculty members, and we have generally been very successful in doing so. Fourteen more searches have ended successfully just this spring. Our next challenge as a ý is to examine comprehensively and honestly how best to promote the career development of this talented new faculty cohort during their strenuous journey on the path to tenure review. Institutional changes in recent years have increased the magnitude and range of demands on faculty time and energy. For example, the decrease in numbers of full-time faculty and the increase in proportions of courses taught by adjunct faculty have meant that full-time faculty face a greater proportion of advising and service responsibilities than in the past. The ýs commitment to excellent teaching and retention of inadequately prepared students has led to the development of courses requiring a very high level of pedagogical sophistication, such as General Education seminars. Staff support at departmental and deans office levels has decreased as clerical and administrative positions have gone unfilled over the lean years. All of these changes have colored the environment into which new tenure-track faculty members enter. Expectations for scholarly productivity are very high, as is appropriate for a research intensive university, yet the typical teaching load of 3 courses per semester remains the norm in the ýa load that is considerably higher than that of many first-class research institutions. (Our current tenure-track faculty members, many of whom took degrees at prestigious universities, are well aware of the different teaching loads at other research-oriented campuses.) In many fields, especially in the Arts and Humanities, external sources of funding are rare and highly competitive, and the pipelines for publishing are increasingly sluggish as university presses become less viable and high-prestige journals may take many months to evaluate manuscripts. Yet there is an increasing emphasis on grant-supported research. (Indeed, the provosts current policy for research-related course buyouts insists that the money come from grants). There are also historical and institutional barriers to good mentoring practices. While we have not yet done a systematic study of mentoring practices across departments, we do know that some departments have not had recent experience with tenure reviews. In these cases, senior faculty are especially hard pressed to provide junior colleagues with up-to-date and appropriate advice, or to appreciate completely the nature of the challenges that new tenure-track faculty face. The university and the ý have recently made some important strides toward better supporting tenure-track facultys research and career development efforts. For example, in the last two or three years newly hired tenure-track faculty began to receive two course releases and start-up funds for research purposes, and this year Dean Kuizenga has created a new ý research fund and announced a new policy of providing an extra course release for tenure-track faculty after completion of the fourth year review. However, the room for improvement remains large, as became clear to the Task Force as a result of its work this semester. Continuing to make significant improvements will be key, we believe, not only for nurturing junior faculty as they begin their professional careers, but also for retaining them over the long term. The immediate occasion for this Task Force was a growing chorus of concern expressed by both senior and junior faculty in the Fall of 2004 about the situation of the growing cohort of new tenure-track faculty. Networks of junior faculty communicated frequently with one another, and occasionally with their senior colleagues, about their rising level of anxiety about personnel reviews. A very common perception among junior faculty seems to be that standards for achieving tenure have increased over the last year or two, while at the same time it is not at all clear what those standards are. Accordingly, Dean Kuizenga convened this task force, asking us to review carefully and make recommendations for improving the current ý policies and procedures for fourth year and tenure review and to identify best practices for departmental mentoring. The Task Force convened in February and has been meeting weekly throughout the spring, gathering and analyzing information on the current perceived problems, in order to suggest necessary changes in the way the ý and the university orient, support, mentor, and prepare junior faculty for personnel review. To look more systematically at the problems from the perspective of current junior faculty, we designed and distributed a survey questionnaire exploring levels of satisfaction with orientation, mentoring, departmental and ý support for research, and information about the 4th year and tenure review process. (See Appendix for the survey instrument and qualitative and quantitative data summaries.) Out of 51 surveys sent out, we received 25 responses, many providing very extended narratives and expressing gratitude for the ýs interest in and attention to their needs. The results show that, for those who responded, we are doing pretty well in some areas, such as welcoming junior faculty to campus, establishing open lines of communication between new faculty and department chairs and the dean, and providing satisfactory teaching schedules. There is also considerable room for improvement. Dissatisfaction was expressed especially with regard to current policies for allocating release time and monetary support for scholarship, and about campus facilities. In a comparison of those who self-identified as minorities and those who did not, two significant differences emerged. Self-designated minority faculty were significantly less satisfied with the allocation of release time for scholarship and with the explanation of the expectations for fourth-year review than were other faculty. No significant gender differences emerged. Before turning to our report on problems and recommendations for changes, we note that there were many positive comments made by junior faculty on the open-ended survey questions. One respondent wrote, for example, I felt as though my transition to UMB was very collegial. I love my department, my colleagues and my teaching. In the face of years of difficult resource issues, my senior colleagues are remarkably generous and caring people. This is UMBs best asset in attracting and retaining juniors. Another said I currently have an excellent chair and have really appreciated efforts on all levels to clarify the review process. Institutional strengths were recognizedfor example, The CIT is greata wonderful resource for juniors! Or: Im pleased to see the campus efforts, though time constraints limit taking advantage. Jr. Faculty Colloquium can foster a climate of intellectual vibrancy on campus. There was also appreciation for changes already in the works: I appreciate that the CLA appears to be making a strong effort regarding junior faculty development. Another said: The amount of research $ for junior faculty has improved. There was realism about the challenges of understaffing in support and administrative offices: I appreciate efforts to expand and improve the office of Research and Sponsored Programs, but much more support is needed to achieve the level of scholarship that is expected. Finally, several respondents expressed optimism at the prospect of an ongoing institutional focus on solving some of problems junior faculty experience: Very grateful for the work of this task forcethe simple process has boosted my attitude re working at UMB. I am hopeful for real structural change. Our overall impression based on these responses, therefore, is that with respect to the matters we asked about, we are not looking at a system in deep troublethough of course there are many things that could and should be done to make the system more transparent and less stressful. Issues of workload are, however, crucial: A reduced teaching load for junior faculty (other than the 1 course reduction in the first year) is absolutely necessary for encouraging scholarship. It is very difficult to find the time to write grants and quality articles when you are teaching 3 and 3. In drawing up our list of general and specific policy recommendations below, we relied heavily on the advice and experience of the tenure-track faculty themselves, as generated by this survey. In addition, we drew on more informal feedback gathered from two or three information-sharing meetings with junior faculty, as well as suggestions from senior colleagues who had substantial relevant experience, either on the College Personnel Committee or as department chairs. We would especially like to thank Diana Burgin, Bob Crossley, Clara Estow, Lois Rudnick, and Art MacEwan for their contributions, and of course the tenure-track faculty members who took the time to share their experiences and thoughts with us. General Recommendations 1. A major finding has been that the tenure-track faculty express of a strong desire for more and better information about the functioning of the university and ý in many areas that affect faculty work lives. The need is especially strongly expressed with regard to personnel reviews. There is clearly a need for a new authoritative institutional document or collection of documents that gathers together in one place and clearly articulates all the information necessary for new faculty to negotiate successfully the complex university, ý and department systems and policies relating to the work environment and to professional development. The Task Force strongly recommends the creation of a comprehensive Faculty Handbook/Website that would include in one place up-to-date information about a whole range of matters all faculty need to know about, from photocopying policy to sources of internal funding for research. Most crucially, clear and transparent guidelines related to preparing for and going through major personnel reviews should be available in this Handbook. Responding to some aspects of this frequently articulated need for more information while still we were working on the report, the Task Force drafted and revised several times an informational document for tenure-track faculty called On Track: Suggestions and Information for Faculty Anticipating Fourth Year or Tenure Review in the College of Liberal Arts. This document was reviewed by department chairs, as well as the dean, before being sent out in final form to the current tenure-track faculty on May 17. But this document has no formal institutional standing, so there is still a need for more work in this area. 2. This Task Force did not have time in one semester to explore fully the existing mentoring systems in the ý. We recommend that a successor committee to this one be appointed to take up the charge of identifying best practices in mentoring. In addition, a successor committee could gather valuable information about how our own policies for supporting faculty research compare with those of comparable research intensive institutions. This kind of information would be important if the university is to tackle the question of whether substantial workload changes (e.g., a pre-tenure sabbatical year, or a reduced course load for tenure-track faculty) are necessary in order to make it feasible for new tenure-track faculty to produce the quality of scholarship expected at such institutions. This seems to us a very serious issue as we contemplate the problem of retaining the excellent faculty we hire. (In the words of one respondent, The need to publish a book while maintaining a 3-3 teaching load is a source of huge anxiety among junior faculty . . . I think the ý should benchmark its expectations against other institutions.) Two other possible functions of a successor committee would be to help oversee implementation of some of the specific recommended policy changes below, and to serve as a non-departmental resource for junior faculty. Specific Recommendations We have divided the specific recommendations into categories corresponding to the questions asked on our questionnaire, and within that, we have recommendations to the provosts office, as well as recommendations to the dean and recommendations to the departments. We have tried to keep the discussion brief, especially where the benefits of the recommendations seemed self-evident and the costs of implementing them very low. I. Coming to UMB Recommendations to provost: a. Designate a trouble-shooter in provosts office to help solve problems related to new facultys interfacing with administrative offices. b. Divide new faculty orientation into several components, and spread it out over a longer time period. Offer a late summer orientation to introduce campus services such as library, photocopying, media equipment in classrooms, and give information on specific people in administrative offices to contact for assistance on particular questions. This could also include a departmental orientation session to deal with immediate concerns related to getting ready for teaching. Another session could be scheduled in the spring to deal with career development questions: research, teaching and service expectations, funding opportunities and career strategies, with talks by recently tenured faculty. c. Create annual opportunities for tenure-track faculty to meet with HR representative on retirement plan and health options, investment opportunities, etc. Recommendations to dean: a. Designate a trouble-shooter in deans office to make sure new CLA faculty do not have problems related to paperwork, getting on the payroll, getting library cards, computer hook-ups in offices, etc. Consider creating a system of making regular individual appointments with new hires during the first year, to ensure a smooth transition. b. Work together with the provosts office on creating the new UMB Faculty Handbook/Web site. c. While this Handbook is being assembled, create and distribute a ý Faculty Handbook of essential information to new hires this fall. This should include all internal sources of research support, including start up money, with clear explanations of how it may be spent. Include guidelines for how to apply for research leaves of absence. Put the Handbook on the university website and advertise it clearly so it is easy to find. Include application forms and deadlines. Update this annually. Recommendations for departments a. Consider creating late-summer departmental orientation programs for newly hired tenure-track faculty. b. Consider creating a Departmental Policies and Procedures handbook for distribution to new hires. This might include instructions on how to purchase and set up a computer, how to make copies if the department has no photocopier, how to use the phone, how to set up to use the administrative databases for student advising and getting course rosters, how to get on university e-mail, how to order needed supplies, what departments will and wont pay for, etc. (Depending on how quickly the comprehensive UMB Faculty Handbook is developed, the departmental faculty handbook might also include how to obtain travel funds for research and other information about internal grants and deadlines for applying for them, etc.) II. First Semester and First Year Recommendations to provost a. Increase clerical/administrative support available to junior faculty, in departments and deans offices. Recommendations to dean a. Make the categories on which start up money may be spent more flexible and make the disbursement of funds easier. Consider simply deposit the funds in an account the junior faculty person can easily access directly. Consider allowing start-up funds to be used toward research in the summer prior to the first semester. b. The ý should consider creating more intellectual and social opportunities to help integrate junior faculty into ý life. This could include providing more support for the Junior Faculty Colloquium series, as well as sponsoring one or two social gatherings each semester in which junior faculty can meet each other beyond departments. Possibly this could be a Deans Luncheon, for example. Make sure to vary the days and times of day, to make it possible for everyone to come to at least one event per semester. c. Improve the communication systems so that new faculty can more readily tap into information about events, opportunities, procedures, etc. Consider using the ý web page for this purpose. d. The dean should encourage departments to develop mentoring opportunities for their new hires right from beginning, and provide some oversight of this mentoring process. We suggest that junior faculty be given a range of mentoring choices, including the possibility of an assigned or chosen senior faculty mentor. Consider a take a new colleague to lunch program subsidized by the ý. At a minimum junior faculty should be able to meet several times a semester, especially in the first year, with an experienced and supportive colleague, to ventilate, ask questions, and get support for teaching and scholarship. As one junior faculty member said on the survey, The staff and faculty in my departmentand across the university, as far as I can tellcould not be more friendly and smart and professional. I have not, however, received any formal mentoring, or even been assigned a mentor. Im not sure if this is something I need to ask for, but Im also not sure if others have mentors and (therefore) whether or not asking is itself a sign of weakness or incompetence. I dont feel weak or incompetent, but occasionally Id like a little mentoring. e. The ý should ask departments to report on their current photocopying policies for tenure-track faculty, and the dean should attempt to eliminate inequities across departments, and in general increase the level of subsidized photocopying services available to faculty for their teaching and research needs. f. The dean should designate a small committee of ý faculty to whom a tenure-track faculty member can come for support or redress, in the event that there is a serious lack of appropriate mentoring or advising at the department level. Recommendations to departments a. Department chairs should make every effort to cluster teaching and other responsibilities for junior faculty in a way that allows them to maximize their time for research. b. Departments should create more to showcase the research of junior faculty, through colloquia and websites and other venues, in addition to the Junior Faculty Colloquium series. c. Chairs should encourage senior faculty to familiarize themselves with the OnTrack document and to use it when recruiting and advising junior colleagues. d. Chairs should inform junior colleagues early and remind them annually about opportunities for campus servicewhat kinds of committees are available, what they do, and how to volunteer for them. (A new Senate Handbook will provide useful information about Senate committees.) e. Chairs should inform faculty each semester about all dates and deadlines for personnel actions, as well as deadlines and procedures for applying for travel funds or internal grants. III. Ongoing Support Recommendation to provost, dean and departments: a. Continue to increase the amount of money set aside for junior faculty research grants. b. Help simplify the bureaucratic procedures faculty face in getting work done. For example, consider allow faculty to order supplies and equipment directly. c. Increase the opportunities for course releases for research, including doing the preliminary work needed for writing major grant proposals. (Consider expanding the present course buy-out policy now restricted to funding by external grants, in order to make it more equitable for faculty in the Humanities and Arts?) d. Increase the support for travel to conferences, by including reimbursement for hotels (perhaps for one conference per year?). Consider allocating base amount for each applicant, to be used at applicants discretion. e. Consider creating a ý-level administrative support person to help with managing external grants. This would be particularly helpful as long as the Office of Sponsored Research Programs is seriously understaffed, as it has been in recent years. f. Continue to work out equitable salary and benefits arrangements for junior faculty who have obtained grants to make sure that they are not placed at a financial disadvantage for their diligence and success. g. Conduct some research on pre-tenure sabbatical policies at comparably research-intensive universities, and consider recommending pre-tenure sabbaticals at UMB. h. Acknowledge and continue to promote the contributions of the Center for the Improvement of Teaching in tenure-track faculty development, and continue to build on that foundation. Encourage junior faculty to discuss teaching issues informally with colleagues, both within departments and across departments. i. Through her review of Annual Faculty Reports, the dean should provide some oversight of the teaching schedules of junior faculty. In cases that might appear to be disadvantageous to the junior faculty member, the dean should ask the department chair to justify the practice. j. The provost, dean and department chairs should encourage all faculty to be aware of the extra problems often faced by faculty of color in getting good mentoring, and in dynamics with students (and colleagues) over race/gender perceptions about competence, authority, etc. IV. Fourth-Year and Tenure Review Recommendations for provost. a. Provide supportive, friendly yearly information sessions for tenure-track faculty on fourth-year and tenure review timelines, procedures, and policies. b. We strongly recommend that procedural guidelines be created that include a strict word count limit on the personal statements faculty write for fourth-year and tenure reviews (e.g., not to exceed 5,000 words). Recommendations for dean. a. The ý should encourage departments to create clear and comprehensive personnel review guidelines, linking expectations for performance to mission, and describing in general terms what is meant by excellence in each category (similar to those of Grad College of Education). b. The provost and dean should make public recent information on fourth year and tenure review success rates. c. The dean should provide a forum at least annually for tenure-track faculty to meet with her, ask questions, and discuss their concerns about the personnel review processes. d. The College Personnel Committee should be asked to create a list of recommendations intended to help departments and candidates improve the presentation of the candidates file, for distribution to personnel committees prior to personnel reviews. e. The dean should select some recent good personal statements of successful fourth-year and tenure-review cases, to make available as models for junior faculty to look at in advance of their own reviews Recommendations to department chairs and department personnel committees: a. Departments should devote at least part of one departmental meeting annually to a discussion of mentoring procedures and personnel review procedures, in order to keep up to date with new policies and procedures at the ý level and give junior colleagues an opportunity to ask questions and express concerns. b. Departments should consider creating a brief document outlining in general but clear terms the departmental expectations for faculty performance in the areas of teaching, scholarly and professional activities, and service. These would be very valuable in helping junior faculty prepare their Annual Faculty Reports and in providing a transparent basis for evaluation during major personnel reviews. (The successor committee to this Task Force might create a template for departments to use if they wish to follow this recommendation.) Appendix I: Survey Questionnaire Appendix II Quantitative Summary of the Junior Faculty Task Force Survey Of the 51 surveys that were distributed, twenty five junior faculty members responded to the survey, including 14 women, 10 men, and 1 respondent who did not specify his or her gender. Six of the respondents self-identified as minority, 16 self-identified as non-minority, and 3 did not respond to the question about minority status. Means and standard deviations for each question with a Likert scale response are presented in Table 1. It is important to note, however, that group means and standard deviations can be misleading. Findings are presented in the following order: 1) the questions that received the highest and lowest general satisfaction ratings across all respondents; 2) questions on which responses varied by minority status; and 3) questions that varied with respect to fourth-year review status (pre-fourth-year review versus post-fourth-year review) are presented. Of note, there were no significant differences in male and female faculty responses, indicating that among the junior faculty, men and women have similar appraisals of life on the UMB campus. Questions with the Highest General Satisfaction Ratings: Junior faculty reported being very satisfied with the following: Departmental teaching schedule (4.2 / 5); Personal and social welcome upon joining the faculty (4.2 / 5); and Communication with their Chairperson (4.2 / 5). Questions with the Lowest General Satisfaction Ratings: Junior faculty reported being least satisfied with the following: Monetary support they received from the College/University (2.7 / 5); College/University release time for scholarship (2.7 /5); College/University release time through grants (2.6 / 5); and Satisfaction with Campus Facilities (2.9 / 5). Minority versus Non-Minority Satisfaction Ratings: Junior faculty who self-identified as minorities were less satisfied with College/University release time for scholarship (the minority mean of 2.2 with a standard deviation of 1.4 is contrasted with the non-minority mean of 3.5 with a standard deviation of 1.0). It is important to note that the minority mean is on the negative end of the satisfaction scale whereas the non-minority mean is just above the neutral point with a positive shift. Junior faculty who self-identified as minorities were also less satisfied with explanations of the 4th year review process (the minority mean of 2.7 and a standard deviation of 0.82 is contrasted with the non-minority mean of 4.0 with a standard deviation of 0.97). Again, faculty who self-identified as minority were negative about the explanations of the 4th year review process that had received whereas non-minority faculty were somewhat positive about the explanations of the 4th year review process that they had received. Fourth-year Review Status: Overall, the junior faculty who indicated that they were pre-fourth-year review gave more positive ratings on several questions than faculty who indicated that they were post-fourth-year review. Specifically, pre-fourth-year review faculty were more satisfied with the orientation to UMB (pre- mean of 3.69 with a standard deviation of 1.2 versus post-mean of 2.5 with a standard deviation of 0.79), and departmental mentoring (pre- mean of 3.9 with a standard deviation of 0.89 versus post-mean of 2.3 with a standard deviation of 1.0). Of note, for these two questions the pre-fourth-year review faculty were on the satisfied side of the scale (ratings above 3.0) and the post-fourth-year review faculty were in the not satisfied range of the scale (ratings below 3.0). In contrast, post-fourth-year review faculty were more satisfied with the explanation of expectations of the fourth-year review process (post- mean of 4.3 with a standard deviation of 1.2 versus pre-mean of 3.2 with a standard deviation of 0.9). There were also non-statistically significant trends (p < .10) for pre-fourth-year review faculty to be more satisfied with their departmental teaching schedule (4.4 versus 3.3), personal-social welcome (4.4 versus 3.5), and the explanation of the Annual Faculty Report review process (3.6 versus 2.5). Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Responses Across all Respondents (1=Not Satisfied; 5=Very Satisfied) QuestionMeanStd. DeviationSatisfaction with College/University Release Time through Grants2.61.0Satisfaction with College/University Monetary Support2.71.3Satisfaction with College/University Release Time Scholarship2.71.3Satisfaction with Campus Facilities2.91.2Satisfaction with Campus Culture3.21.0Satisfaction with Explanation of Review Process AFR3.21.2Satisfaction with Explanation of Expectations of Tenure3.31.2Satisfaction with Orientation3.41.0Satisfaction with Clerical and Logistical Support3.41.3Satisfaction with Human Resources3.61.2Satisfaction with Departmental Mentoring3.61.2Satisfaction with College/University Teaching Support3.60.7Satisfaction with Explanation of Expectations of 4th year3.61.1Satisfaction with Communication with Dean40.8Satisfaction with Department Teaching Schedule4.21.2Satisfaction with Personal Social Welcome4.21.0Satisfaction with Communication with Chair4.20.9 Appendix III. Selected Qualitative Responses on Junior Faculty Task Force Questionnaire (2005) Questions 1-3: Coming to UMass Boston. The orientation was not as helpful as it could have been. Not specific enough in most cases. Too much general info all at once on too many topics. Would be helpful to have 2 orientationsone immediately introducing to campus services and immediate concerns (teaching issues, problem solving) and one later (e.g., beginning of spring) doing more long term things. There was a panel on tenure at the new faculty orientation. Panelists warned incoming faculty to focus on scholarship and be careful about advising and service loads. This was good advice, but impossible in practice given the realities of heavy teaching, advising and service. Other aspects of the orientation (not including benefits) were barely adequate. There were hundreds of things that I had to find out about on my own through trial and error. The orientation was excellent in outlining the benefits available to me and my family. However, I felt it fell short of helping me better understand the tenure process and the expectations for research, scholarship, and service. Although I realize things vary depending on discipline, more concrete instruction/advice would have been helpful. For example, having faculty who had been recently tenured talk about best practices would have been appreciated. The highlight of the orientation was the faculty panel. Maybe a few junior faculty/recent hires could be on that panel to talk about their first year adjustments and give advice. They could even have their own panel. The orientation I received tried to cover too much in too short a time. My suggestions would be to divide the orientation into themes and spread these over a longer period of time. Possible themes would be salary/retirement, teaching issues, funding opportunities, academic expectations and evaluations, etc. My orientation did not address any concerns about scholarship and teaching (including the balance between the two, course reductions and buyouts, etc.) It would be ideal if each new faculty member could have periodic, say once a year or once a semester meeting with a HR rep for the first few years. I dont even know what I dont know when it comes to things like retirement plan options, health care options, investment opportunities (tax-deferred accounts), etc. I was less than satisfied by the introduction, such as it was, to campus facilities and services. It is not always easy to figure out who does what at UMB and we never really got a good introduction of the role of the different offices. It took me four weeks to get an internet connection in my office. Getting a key wasnt easy either. These simple practical matters should not take so much time for new faculty trying to get organized with new courses. I felt overwhelmed and slightly under-informed about things (something I only realized as time went on). It might be that our individual departments can be urged to do some orientation for new faculty as well. I felt very welcomed to the university and my department. The orientation covered a lot of material in an efficient manner. . . . I would suggest a walking tour of these areas (the library, campus center, copy center); this would help orient faculty to the campus and help break up a very long day of sitting. Questions 4-8: First Semester/First Year When I arrived I think its safe to say that if I had expired on the job, two colleagues might have noticed. I was saddled with three new courses meeting three times a week in my first semestera practice that no longer happens in my department. We have great departmental clerical and administrative support. But we have to pay for our own photocopying because of the low departmental budget. This amounts to hundreds of dollars a year out of pocket. Because of scheduling and workload, I NEVER get to see or talk with junior faculty outside my department unless we are serving on the same committee. I have been pleasantly surprised at the degree to which the colleagues in my department have made me feel at home. There is good camaraderie, with genuine interest in what everyone is accomplishing scholastically. I have the good fortune to have found two mentorsone for teaching and one for research. I am very satisfied with the way my department has both welcomed me and provided me with mentoring. The mentoring is informal in nature, but I find the senior and soon-to-be senior faculty more than willing to help me traverse the hurdles of academia. I would simply like to see more junior faculty forums and colloquia. Additionally, I would appreciate it if the junior faculty research presentations could occur on different days/times during the semester. My teaching schedule has prevented me from attending them this and last semester which is very disappointing. My primary difficulty with the initial orientation concerned the absence of any explicit guidelines with regard to research support. For example, when I was negotiating my contract, and indeed until I arrived on campus, I had thought that the start up money would be given to me in a lump sum at the beginning of the first semester. I therefore moved in and set up my office under the assumption I would be getting a check a few weeks later to cover costs. I was shocked when I was told first, that the start up money came out of a general fund that required a great deal of bureaucratic maneuvering to access, and second, that most of my expenses were not covered by it. I havent applied for any internal funding beyond this (i.e. the Healey grant etc.) because I dont trust the fact that the money will actually be forthcoming and I dont want to go into debt like I did at the beginning of my first year. . . .A similar set of guidelines regarding research leave and how to request it would also be useful. Im afraid to apply for larger external grants after hearing stories from my junior faculty colleagues about how they were given grants and had to turn them down because of bureaucratic issues with their departments or with the ý. My department couldnt be more welcoming and supportive. Our clerical staff is very overworked, so it makes sense that we take care of our own photocopying and other paperworkthough the machines are primitive and unreliablewe definitely need paid access to the UMB copying services. I have received very little mentorship. I dont feel like I need a lot of guidance, but when you dont receive any you dont feel very valued. There has been no discussion of teaching schedules, academic expectations, advising, etc. In addition, when I started there was no Department handout on how to make copies, use the phone, order supplies, etc. This simple nitty-gritty stuff eats up valuable hours and could be explained simply in a standard document given to new faculty. It was incredibly frustrating badgering administrative staff with questions and feeling that you were constantly reinventing the wheel. Generally, my department provided good support to me during my first semester, especially regarding teaching load. There is no clerical support to speak of. TAs are not really available, ordering supplies is baroque, research (grant preparation support, in particular) assistance is absent (with the notable exception of the wonderful Stan Bolatin, but now I just realized that he has been disappeared from the ORSP staff pagean alarming development. My department was very accommodating with the teaching schedule and committee assignments during my first year. There really isnt much of a campus or social life at UMB. Very little is done to make new faculty feel welcome and to promote social and intellectual interaction. The junior faculty forum does provide an environment for junior faculty to share their work, as do other working groups. The support for this kind of development should be coupled more consciously with other forms of support. . .it varies by department, with those who have strong advocate-type chairs and senior faculty obtaining more and varied forms of support (e.g., more start-up money, research assistants, salary, course release, etc.). Start-up should be allowed to be used toward summer salaryor else we are forced to work full time for free during the summer, to keep our research programs going, while applying for the ever-harder-to-get major grants. Social development has been fostered by junior faculty colleagues on our own. Ive learned a lot about different opportunities and strategies in informal talks with my peers. They have been extremely important. The lack of funding and difficulty of access to some basic support is a bit of a shock. Specifically, I think the following issues need to be explained more clearly to new faculty: 1) how to purchase and set up your computer and email account; 2) how to do photocopying when the department lacks a photocopier; and 3) if travel to conferences is funded and how to go about getting those funds. A new faculty person coming from another institution or from grad school might be shocked to learn that they will have to pay for their copying at Kinkos and pay for their own travel to conferences. I think the Junior Faculty colloquia are a good step towards creating a cross-campus culture. However, I think there could be a purely social meeting (such as a lunch or pre-dinner drinks at the faculty club) at the beginning of each semester. Questions 9-12: Ongoing support and development Teaching seems undervalued while simultaneously expecting excellence. Although I was granted a CLR in my second semester, and was encouraged by my department to take a CIT seminar (with an attendant CLR), I felt I had to take an unpaid leave in order to make headway in my scholarship. Having come from a campus that paid 100% for travel expenses, even though the system was having a difficult time financially (University of California) I was very surprised and disappointed to see how little is available for travel to conferences to present papers. Additionally, funding was paid very quickly at UC, so that our credit cards were not overly burdened. Even something as simple as our work here as readers for the WPE took a long time to get funded. There seems to be a disconnect between research expectations and research support. Given that most public and private granting institutions have made cutbacks in the money available to applicants and that publishing has become more competitive due to financial constraints in book and journal publishers, junior faculty are even more reliant on their institutions to help support their scholarly work. The internal resources available at UMass doe not appear comparable to other research institutions. Additionally, the teaching load is high when you consider the research expectations. . . .To be honest, I question whether I will be able to be both an excellent teacher/mentor and an excellent scholar given the time and financial restraints (not to mention meeting my service requirements). Finally, I would like the University to consider pre-tenure leaves to give junior faculty the best chance of attaining tenure. Wholly inadequate context for producing publicationslack of course releases, pre-tenure sabbatical, and day to day infrastructure support (as minor as photocopying and travel support to all conference presentations) make doing my job very difficult. I am always overwhelmed. The course release in the first year was really useful. If it were at all possible, though, I would have preferred a regular load the first year and a pre-tenure sabbatical instead. Im hoping that the university will implement pre-tenure leaves comparable to other universities with our research expectations. Its very difficult to find out how to get internal funding/release timewhats available, who is eligible, how to apply, etc. These procedures need clarification. This could be covered at the orientationbetter still, what about a handbook that explains research support? A new faculty handbook would be fabulous. We also need more travel fundsits crucial that we give papers at conferences, and hotels are more expensive than transportation. Im worried that I will be unable to afford to participate in some of the most important conferences in my fieldthese sorts of worries get in the way of our research. There should be course releases to support grant application preparationthere is supposed to be something like this in the proposal support grant, but it is so narrowly defined (only supporting the writing of the grant, that is, just the typing); it doesnt support, for instance, the period during which one needs to collect pilot data in preparation for the typing up of the grant. This may be suited to certain disciplines, but not mine. . . I have no idea how much $ is available to me each semester or each year for travel and I would appreciate transparency on this issue, and I dont have any colleagues at other institutions whose travel is reimbursed sans money for lodging. The most expensive part of any presentation is not travel and not registration, but the cost of the hotel. As a new faculty member eager to build a reputation I can hardly afford to attend more than one conference per year. Thats a problem. Ill build a reputation, but Ill go broke in the process. I am very dissatisfied with the administrative and financial support regarding research activities. There is no centralized source of information. It all is extremely inefficient! It is extremely time consuming to manage grants. There is no incentive to compete to get external funds. There should be a support staff at the ý level. I had no course release when I arrived and the possibility for it has been presented as nearly impossible. If there are opportunities for course release/funds, can they be advertised more clearly? I just did a UMB website search (typing in liberal arts, research, funds, etc.) and couldnt find a page that listed the Colleges grants, deadlines, and application forms. At other institutions Ive worked for, there was an amount of travel funding that was yoursthere was no need to apply for it by a certain deadline. Isnt there some way to implement a system for conference travel that doesnt demand applications? Questions 13-17: Moving through the personnel process It was clear what the submission should look like (format, etc.) but what is expected for positive/exceptional review is not at all clear. The criteria for the AFRs keep changing. It seems every year we have received new guidelines. I am particularly dissatisfied and concerned because the criteria for the tenure review keep changing. I have just completed my 4th year review process and only now learn that departmental service does not count as excellence in service. Now I must demonstrate leadership at the ý level. Nor is it any longer sufficient to have completed a book. In the last year, word has come down that I must show significant process in a project that did not originate in my dissertation research. Given that I have done significant new research in addition to my original dissertation research in order to develop my current book project, I find this new hurdle unsettling. My department chair has been very open about the review process for tenure. Additionally, faculty members in my department have been exceptional resources about the process. However the process beyond my department remains nebulous. For example, I am interested in how often department recommendations get overturned at higher levels. What are the real expectations at higher levels of the university when it comes to tenure. Have standards changed over the last few years and is there an expectation that this trend will continue? I am much clearer now re expectations, but I was not made aware of the degree of publishing expectations during the interviewing process nor during my first yearIve slowly learned how much more is expected by listening to others. I wasnt prepared for Research I type publishing standards. Again, some sort of explicit guidelines with regard to the 4th year review an tenure process (in writingthe meetings are helpful, but a guidebook would be more so) would be nice. Some examples of past tenure files or 4th year reviews that were successful would be useful as well. One suggestion would be have a couple of members of the department designated as junior faculty mentors. In my Department, junior faculty mentorship is left to the Chairs discretion. Often the Chair is not the most knowledgeable person about grants, administrative issues (like maternity leave), and teaching concernsyet no one else is available. This can lead to getting bad advice or no advice at all. I think more explicit discussion of criteria for tenure (including the review process) needs to be offered. Some of the discussions and forums with faculty who have gone through the process of fourth year & tenure review have been somewhat helpful, but the criteria for tenure remain vague and global. In general I think the departments and especially the ý (at the behest of the Dean) has gone out of its way to reassure new faculty about the fairness of the promotion and tenuring process. Im very glad that the administration, at all levels, continues to pay attention to the impressions and concerns of junior faculty. Communication with the departments chair and personnel committee regarding reviews and tenure are fine. I have not heard much from the rest of the university (until a few weeks ago). Until recently, there were no formal conversations around fourth year review and tenure. The lines of communication have been open, but junior faculty must know what questions to ask of our department and dean. There have been informal discussions (and rumors) across the university. Junior faculty and the dean have recently made formal discussions and workshops occur. This is a wonderful development. I do hope departments see this as a way to open up an ongoing dialogue and not feel they must be on the defensive with the questions and concerns junior faculty raise. However, it is not enough that we begin to know more of the details of what will be expected of us and that our department and dean will be there to advocate for us when were up for reviewthere must be more done in the way of support (financial, mentoring, advocating, course release, etc). . . Faculty coming up for tenure now and in the future are clearly required to have a broader and lengthier record of scholarship than those of the prior generation who obtained tenure. Strategies and support must change accordingly. .. and, as I mentioned before, this might require that the older generation of tenured faculty be re-socialized to understand the possibilities of support and strategies that are either available or necessary. I am very lucky in that I have a great department chair. I feel as though the annual review and 4th year review were clearly explained. I feel as though this process has been made as supportive as possible . . . For the tenure process, there could be clearer and more readily accessed guidelines concerning timelines and publication expectations. . . Other issues: There is a severe generation and culture gap in my department between the junior and senior faculty [whose]most serious manifestation is the split attitude toward research. I think it would be helpful to explain to Junior Faculty what Committees there are across campus and how do you get access to them in order to fulfill service requirements. Much as I dislike requirements, it might be healthy to require Jr. Faculty to meet with Chair yearly (or second and fourth year) on progress, to assure that communication occurs. I have had both good and bad experiences at UMB. Generally the Deans Office has been helpful, and I have found this a valuable source of support. My Department has generally been supportive, but folks offer mostly words of encouragement. There need to be more mechanisms in place that really encourage Junior Faculty to be happy and productivethrough feedback on the AFRs, regular meetings on scholarly productivity and concerns, guidance and support in the grant writing process, a sense that Junior Faculty are valued. I have experienced very little frank and open discussion on teaching schedules, criteria for promotion, plans for the Departments future, etc. UMB demands that Junior Faculty find out almost everything on their own, which comes across as being incredibly unsupportive. To be honest, high expectations with a corresponding lack of support, is frustrating and discouraging. The issue of gender/race and teaching, as well as gender/race and support must also be part of the discussion around support and tenure. Its been documented that women, particularly women of color, are viewed, treated and judged differently and more harshly than our male colleaguesby students and other faculty. People of color must also contend with added responsibilities that arent always shared by others. As you know, there are many wonderful aspects of UMBthe mission, the teaching emphasis, the collegialitythat make it a great place to work. I think part of the groups discussion should consider how to maintain and build on these qualities, making them more apparent to new faculty. Finally, I would reiterate the need for a clearer way to list/advertise junior faculty information. Could the College create a web page that listed all talks (including those of the junior colloquium), all grant opportunities, and all tenure process info? . .     Tenure-Track Faculty Career Development Reportpage  PAGE 1 ~'=N=[=v={==C>W>X>r>^BuBNYYbb;dSdahh l-l9lvlppqr8smsuuvvww>w[w{{||}}f}g}}}}}~~C~D~~~~~~~#$NOhCJaJ h>* h5hih5mH sH hihmH sH  h5\ h6] hH*h hCJIKL~, - ()\]""Q$R$''`$a$'))"+#+m-n-;0A0B0Z0[011447788;;x<y<{<|<<<$a$`<B>C>D>W>X>t>u>??AA]B^BwBxBCC.D/D*F+FKFLFFFIII`IIIII=J?JWJXJKKMMvNwNSSCTDT6U7U:UYUZU V VVVaWbWbWyXzX4Y5Y6YMYNYYYYY|Z}Z[[\\]]r^s^__P`Q`iaja~bbbbbbbbbacbc:d;dUdVdteueeeffgg`hahhhiillll l*l+l,l-l9lvlwlpppp0qZqqqqr rKrrr s8s9slsms`$a$$a$ms+u,u>w?wZw[wX{Y{|||} }}} $$Ifa$$If 8^8`}}^}b}f}tnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFX %          &6    44 la]pf}g}}}}tnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]p}}}}}tnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd:$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]p}}~~~tnee $$Ifa$$IfkdW$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]p~~;~?~C~tnee $$Ifa$$Ifkdt$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]pC~D~x~|~~tnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]p~~~~~tnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]p~~~~~tnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]p~~#tnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]p#$FJNtnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$IflFX %    &6    44 la]pNOx|tnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd" $$IflFX %    &6    44 la]ptnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd? $$IflFX %    &6    44 la]ptnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd\ $$IflFX %    &6    44 la]p-/3tnee $$Ifa$$Ifkdy$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]p34klҀӀԀ67\=gg ߹QS+-.<ʹhFM0JmHnHu h0Jjh0JUjhU hH* h6] h5\ h5hCJaJh/34cgktnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]pkltnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]pʀ΀Ҁtnee $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFX %    &6    44 la]pҀӀԀՀր67bc҂ӂtrrrmrrrrrrr$a$kd$$IflFX %       &6    44 la]p ijFG[\ŠÊ,-<=ghab34̐͐AB,-MN23deCEnofg01HIֵ׵/0߹mnstjk+,.<=ST}~,1h/ =!"#$% $$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / /  /  /  / a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / / /  a]p $$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / /  a]p$$If]!vh555#v#v#v:V l &6,555/  / / / /  /  a]p^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH >@>  Heading 1$$@&a$CJ:@:  Heading 2$@&6]:@:  Heading 3$@&5\DA`D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List DC@D Body Text Indent `4@4 Header  !4 4 Footer  !.)@!. Page NumberH2H i Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$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\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]  LLLLLOl'<IbWblms}f}}}~C~~~~#N3kҀmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~@GIO!8@0(  B S  ?Xvx}5ILMd+d k m Npq{4RSe)78G?STj{''''''////m7r7s7799/<0<G<a<b<r<>>>?@@@@DEEEE4EEEJKXLsLtLLOO UUU$UWWWWWXX$XQXRX^^^^cccc d)d-d8d9dEdFdTdef9?PXy twz~jv<3E3u667 7;;/<8<L>X>>>AAAAXB`BEEwF~FKKDLKLZMhM NNNNbOlOzPP9QCQQQQQ}RRSSTTUUsV~VW'WQX\XZZZZZZb[h[;\T\u]|]]]^^__``aaffii k7krrxxyy҅օadÛ33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333FM@`@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial5. .[`)TahomaA$BCambria Math"1h[[fίiwίiw!4d<<3QHX ?i2!xxLFirst Draft of Policy Recommendations from Junior Faculty Task Force (May 1) Jean Humez kelly.ahearnOh+'0 ( H T ` lxPFirst Draft of Policy Recommendations from Junior Faculty Task Force (May 1) Jean HumezNormalkelly.ahearn2Microsoft Office Word@F#@[@Ժ`X@Ժ`Xί՜.+,04 hp|  wi< MFirst Draft of Policy Recommendations from Junior Faculty Task Force (May 1) Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FԡaXData 1Table#WordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q