What Matters in Tenure Decisionsin the College: Unofficial Advice

Michael Knapp & a Cast of Thousands

April 10, 2015

At Another Time and in Another Place….

DH: So what do I need to do to get tenure in this college? [Not UW/COE]

Dr. W: It’s simple. Here is a list of 6 journals. They are widely considered the top ones. Just get two articles per year into them—that’s about a dozen by the time you’re up for a tenure vote. And you’re in… Miss that mark and you won’t last long in this place.

June 3, 2011

The Burning Questions

June 3, 2011

What matters in tenure decisions

in this College?

What do I need to do—and show

in a promotion file—

to get there?

There are Answers….

• At least 35 different ones [the number of senior faculty]

• ….and they don’t all agree. [Need they?]

. But there are central tendencies, and predictable

differences of view….

• ….unofficially represented in a document: “What Matters in Tenure Decisions: Unofficial Advice to Junior Faculty about the Tenure File”

June 3, 2011

UW’s Criterion

June 3, 2011

“Appointment to the rank of Associate Professor

requires a record of substantial success

in both teaching and research…”

(UW Faculty code 24-34A).

The “Unofficial Advice” Document and Where it Came From

June 3, 2011

What it purports to represent: The actual, collective criteria, operative across assistant-to-associate promotions in the last two decades in this College, within a conceptual organizer that seeks to capture how we think and act.

Where it comes from:• A read of all of the assistant promotion files + votes in 20 years• Participation on 6-8 promotion committees (assistant) and 6-7 more (associate to full)• Participation in college-wide promotion discussion meetings

What it isn’t:• Systematic peer-refereed research• A consensus document

Central Claims of the Document

• No single set of criteria come into play in this College, nor are there measures or indicators upon which there is complete agreement.

• There are many possible—and different—tenurable promotion files.

• Assessors pay attention to Research, Teaching, and Service—in that order (with greatest weight placed on the Research, and least on Service).

June 3, 2011

Who Matters in Tenure Decisions

Subcommittee for

Promotion Review External Reviewers

Committee (SPR) (in comparable R-1s)

COE Senior

Faculty

The Dean

College Advisory

Council (CAC)

University Provost

Review Committee

June 3, 2011

What Matters in Scholarship

June 3, 2011

Supervisory Leadership for Learning Improvement

Your publication record will be considered in light of three different standards, which cannot all be maximized....

Quality of contribution to

scholarly literature and discourse

Impact (actual, potential) on

practice, policy, and public discourse

Productivity (quantity and regularity of

production) to date and prospects for the

furture

The Quality Standard

Assessors are likely to pay attention to—

1. The importance (by their lights) of what you study

2. The theoretical and technical sophistication of the research

3. The generativity of the research

4. The coherence of your research program

5. The independence of your research

June 3, 2011

Likely indicators:

• Publication in refereed outlets

(especially “good” ones)

• Solo or lead authorship

• Testimony by Significant Others (e.g.,

External Reviewers)

• Evidence your work is used by scholars

• Receipt of funding through

competitive sources

• Awards and other forms of recognition

The Impact Standard

Assessors are likely to pay attention to—

1. Cogency and accessibility to practitioner, policy, or public audiences

2. Relevance to pressing concerns

3. Grounding in high-quality investigations, analysis

4. Reach to key audiences, users

5. Educative value

June 3, 2011

Likely indicators:

• Publication in wide-circulation practice-

focused outlets (esp. “good” ones)

• Solo or lead authorship

• Testimony by Significant Others (e.g,

prominent practitioners)

• Evidence your work is used by

practitioners, policymakers, etc.

• Receipt of funding for “applied” or

“engaged” scholarship”

• Awards and other forms of recognition

The Productivity Standard

Assessors are likely to pay attention to—

1. Quantity of scholarly production (at least up to a threshold)

2. Regularity of scholarly production

3. Frequency and amount of support for scholarly work

4. Prospects for continued production after tenure

June 3, 2011

Likely indicators:

• Count of refereed articles/products

(especially in “good” outlets)

• Count of other kinds of scholarly

products

• Timing of publications (e.g., regularity

over time)

• Amount of money secured as a Principal

Investigator or Co-Investigator

• Work under review in refereed journals

or other evidence of work in progress.

What Matters in Teaching….

Assessors are likely to pay attention to—

1. Quality of your “intended” curriculum

2. Quality of response to your “enacted” curriculum

3. Contribution to the full range of college and programmatic instructional needs

June 3, 2011

Likely indicators:

• Quality of syllabi and other aspects of

instructional planning

• Quality of student engagement,

interaction, treatment of diversity, etc. in

the classroom

• Use of powerful pedagogies and

technologies

• Demand for your courses and

numbers/SCH enrolling in them

• Student ratings, evaluations

• Balance/coverage of important course

needs

…and Advising

Assessors are likely to pay attention to--

•The quality of mentoring you provide your advisees or supervisory committee students—e.g., indicated by the advisees’ progress towards degrees, socialization into scholarly/professional communities, demand for your mentorship….

•Proportional contribution to overall College or programmatic advising needs (allowing for relatively light loads for junior faculty– e.g., indicated by your taking a “fair share” of advisees, advising both doctoral and Masters students, regular participation on supervisory committees ….

June 3, 2011

What Matters in Service

1. Good citizenship in the College…

2. Good citizenship in the University…

3. Good citizenship in the local and state community…

4. Contribution to the profession…

5. Contribution to the nation…

June 3, 2011

Seeking a Whole that is Greater than the Sum of the Parts

This College community appears to value--

Integration (e.g. files in which research, teaching, and service inform each other)

Balance (e.g., files in which different kinds of contributions and accomplishments are appropriately balanced)

Connection (e.g., files that demonstrate connectedness to College priorities, interaction with different people and programs)

Visibility (e.g., files that document work of all kinds that attracts attention internally and externally)

June 3, 2011