Western Union

The Newsletter of the American Association of University Professors at WCSU

Volume 29, Issue 4                                                       March 2004

Twenty-Two Thoughts About Tenure

By Katy Wiss

On Wednesday, 3 December, Ed Hagan of CELT, and I, as AAUP Chapter president, led a discussion on “The Promotion/Tenure Process and The University’s Mission.”  We imagined the discussion as a follow – up to Martin Snyder’s address to the faculty on the tenure and promotion process last fall.  Another reason for the discussion is that it has been about 15 years since the Promotion and Tenure process was last discussed on campus.  All sorts of perceptions and misperceptions abound on what the process is like.  We thought it would be a good time for the faculty to express their ideas.

What follows is a summary of the topics discussed.  I have included some of my own commentary from the perspective of an AAUP member who has been through the process, has heard complaints and concerns about the process, but who has not served on the P&T committee.

About twenty-two people attended.  I believe that we had an honest and reasonable first crack at a discussion of these issues.  These matters are of the greatest consequence to faculty, as our lives do “hang in the balance” of this process.

One of the first concerns expressed was that “P&T is a crapshoot.”  One of the concerns behind that statement is that because there is no substantive feedback from the P &T committee, faculty who are not promoted are often puzzled by what they need to do to get promoted.  A discussion ensued about the difficulty of a committee providing feedback:  how can the myriad reasons for casting a vote be summarized as the perspective of the committee?  There is also a challenge presented by the changing membership of the committee:  the same committee that turns someone down one year will not be in place the following year, and is not bound to the previous committee’s advice or feedback. 

The group discussed the meaning of the terms that are currently used by the P&T for promotions which are currently the only form of feedback:  “not recommended,” “recommended,” and “highly recommend.”  The sense of several members of the group was that it is misleading to get a letter from the P&T committee “recommending” a member, only to find out that this will not likely translate into a positive recommendation by the president.  (In essence a fourth category of “unanimously highly recommended” also exists.)  The argument of the other side of this is that these are rank-ordered categories, with “recommended” not being the highest.  One must infer from that that faculty rated in the other higher categories would be more likely to be promoted. 

An audience member raised the issues of what kind of mentoring a faculty member can expect form the DEC or the department, especially in terms of preparing for tenure.

Some raised the concern that departmental standards are not conveyed to the P&T committee.  Some expressed the idea that the P&T committee should identify those standards.  This raised a discussion of what our standards should be and who should articulate them.  These standards can be conveyed by a department within the content of an evaluation or in departmental by-laws.  Concerns expressed by current or former P&T members included the claim that the DEC does not always do a sufficient job in clarifying the standards of the department to the committee.  For example, DEC’s need to make clear to those outside the field the relative merit of different journals and conferences. 

The necessity for those involved in the process to read the policies in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Faculty Handbook was stated.

In discussing the second category of evaluation, creative activity, one audience member argued that an evaluation of one’s research is too narrow—that we should talk about scholarship, which has a clearer tie to teaching and the University mission.

There was extended discussion about how to evaluate teaching, the first category of evaluation.  Some P&T members expressed skepticism about Student Opinion Surveys and peer observations.  Others were troubled by this, as these are the only two measures of teaching effectiveness mention in the CBA.  Participants expressed concern about what Student Opinion Surveys actually measure.  The issue was raised that there is a perception that peers who work in the department with those they are evaluating are hesitant to be honest in the evaluations because they must work together on a daily basis.  P&T members stated that any statements, especially about teaching, need to be documented by SOS’s and the observation.  A discussion of the best means of compiling and presenting the data ensured, including whether one must include raw data in one’s report.  Some suggested moving to a teaching portfolio model.

Several issues were raised regarding committee membership.  Some suggested that following the unwritten rule of meeting Friday afternoons and evenings eliminates interested parties from serving—including single faculty or those with small children.  There was a discussion of the need to schedule meetings when no classes are scheduled, thus the informal Friday afternoon rule.  Others suggested that rotating meeting times (advertise and meet for two years at one time, and then rotate to another so that people can plan their schedules) would maximize participation.  CUCAS and UPBC operate this way.  Some suggested term limits might help maximize participation across campus.

The discussion was a difficult one, but one that needs to happen.  We are all peers; we work together, and there is no need as one participant said, “to hide behind committees.”  There is no doubt that the whole process is very time consuming:  for the member to put together a file, for the DEC and Deans to write their reports, and for the P&T and the president to make their recommendations. 

I do not believe it is my place as AAUP president to interfere with the governance process.  However, there seem to be some significant differences in perception and concerns about the process, which merit further consideration.  As we continue this discussion, I think it is important that we continue to tie this discussion to our understanding of the University mission. v

_________________________________________________________________________
Remember:  you are the union.