FSA / ESA 2005 – 2006 Meeting Minutes
20 January 2006
Historian: Rebekah E. Moore
Present:
Hilary Virtanen
Jeana Jorgensen
Rhonda Dass
Mintzi Martinez-Rivera
Luis Rodriguez
Mimi Vidaver
Ed Wolf
Stephanie Fida
Angela Scharfenberger
Deb Justice
Rebekah Moore
Tyron Cooper
Kimberly Marshall-Bohannon
Lanlan (Diana) Kuang
Abdulai Salifu
Rachel González
Liz Burbach
Mack Hagood
Jen Horn
Meryl Krieger
Zilia Estrada
Peter Ermey
Minutes:
Ø Hilary: Essays from last year’s graduate Folklore/Ethnomusicology Conference to be published. Congratulations to participants.
Ø Mintzi on Pushing Boundaries: Rooms are booked and Key note speaker confirmed (Elaine Lawless—she’s been doing research on women’s correctional facilities and will discuss some of the logistics and ethics of documenting in this setting). Still no room confirmed for key note address/jam session. Some possibilities: Mathers, Bear’s Café. Rebekah to follow up on Mathers. Money: Mintzi to ask department how much, CASI grant money.
o Committee: Mintzi, coordinator; Adam, web page design; Jeanna, treasurer; Hilary, publications; Rhonda, advisor; Zilia, gofer.
o Hilary to send out a reminder on deadline for submitting papers.
Ø Deb on Coffeehouse: Traditionally held at Collin’s, but this space isn’t big enough. Other possibilities: a large rehearsal space at the School of Music, Auditorium at Wilkie. Please email Deb if you are interested in helping out.
Ø Deb on Lotus Blossoms: Three artists: Sonas de Mexico (mainly doing workshops), a Vietnamese performing group, and Lakota performer Kevin Locke. Possible spaces for workshops and performances: Hoagey Carmichael Room (for Vietnamese group?), Mathers, etc. Flyers will be created for Lotus Blossoms to be distributed around campus and to classrooms.
Ø Kimberly on Professional Development Series: Will begin in February on Fridays at 12:00. Next installment on publishing in journals. Joint session with Jason Jackson and Daniel Reed to be tentatively held on Feb. 3 at noon. April series: getting books published. Also, a joint workshop series in the works for near-by chapters. The first may focus on leading large ensembles, featuring Dave Harnish whose recent book deals with this topic.
Guest Speaker: Richard Bauman on the Tenure Process
Dr. Bauman is joining us today because of students concerns over the recent denial of tenure to Dr. Pravina Shukla. Dr. Bauman will outline the tenure-track process and illustrate some possible complications to tenure approval.
How tenure works:
Ø How Tenure is Determined: All universities ascribe to standards of the American Association of University Processors designed to give professors job security. Faculty members must be considered for tenure after six years of service. If a faculty member does not receive tenure at this time, then he or she must leave the university. At a Research 1 university (like IU) tenure review focuses on three areas of development: research (publications, etc.), teaching (excellent evaluations, unsolicited letters from students, publications and presentations, workshops on pedagogy), and service (membership in professional societies, committee service, review publications, etc). While it is essential to succeed in all three areas, one cannot get tenure based on exemplary teaching or service. The most important basis at this university for tenure is research. This also depends on the Dean’s philosophy, and the Dean of COAS at IU is primarily concerned with research. He argues that we are all affective teachers and should not be awarded for this alone, but must demonstrate a contribution to the department, college, university, and profession through outstanding research. Therefore, if a faculty member is fairly good in all three areas, or outstanding in teaching and service but satisfactory in research, practically he or she will not receive tenure.
Ø The Tenure Clock: In late spring of the candidate’s fifth year the candidate begins to compile materials for review. These include establishing external referees, preparing the dossier, composing a statement describing his or her philosophy in all three areas for review, assembling publications and reviews of work, etc. (one may ask to be reviewed before the fifth year, but if rejected, then the candidate must leave the university immediately). The research dossier then goes to external referees.12 referees are suggested, 6 from the department and 6 from the candidate. These 12 referees and their comments are reviewed by COAS, and the Dean then selects 4 each from the candidate and the department to be part of the review process. The 8 selected review the research dossier including publications over the course of the summer, examining the candidates quality of work, impact on the field, and prospects for future research. At this time an ad hoc committee within the department also formulates the department’s recommendation and communicates with and assists the candidate. The Chair of the deparment sends a letter of recommendation to the Dean. In the fall, a departmental report is reviewed, as well as a letter from each of the external reviewers and the candidate’s letters. Tenured faculty within the department vote on whether or not to recommend tenure. This report then goes to the COAS tenure committee, chaired by the Dean. The committee meets once a week to review tenure and promotion candidates. One main reader reviews all items within the candidate’s application and presents a report to the committee. The committee discusses and votes on each of the three areas (research, service, teaching). The candidate receives an “outstanding,” “affective,” or “not affective” within each category. Then the committee votes on overall recommendation. The main reader writes a draft report, followed by redress, and then the vote is finalized. The Dean generally endorses the committee and this report is sent to the Dean of Faculties and the entire process is repeated (this is unusual at IU. Generally the candidate is reviewed only once). Most of the time the Dean of Faculties and COAS agree, but sometimes they have opposite outcomes. COAS’s recommendation generally weighs more heavily. The Dean of Faculties is generally more evenhanded in their acceptance of exemplary teaching and service as grounds for tenure approval. Late in the spring semester the two reports are sent in tandem to the Chancellor.
Ø What if Rejected?: If the candidate is rejected by COAS he or she can ask for reconsideration, which will take place in early Spring. The Dean of Faculties therefore does not review the case until the second review is completed by COAS. There is no second shot at tenure if ultimately rejected at IU. Some schools may allow for reapplication, but not here, and rarely can a faculty member stay on as a lecturer. The candidate can serve his or her 7th year, but must then leave the university—this policy relates to the policy of the AAUP. There are provisions for leave of absence (you can stop the clock), but if this is done too often or for too long, this is considered by the Dean.
Ø What Constitutes Research?: This is clearly addressed in the tenure policy. The candidate is reviewed according to the quality of the work, its validity within the department, professional associations, how it has been reviewed, etc. It is also reviewed according to where it is published (based on the hierarchy of journals and publishing companies). The candidate is also reviewed for rate or production (should be publishing throughout his or her career), and the research’s impact on the field. Each department can formulate its own publications guidelines, and COAS is bound to follow these. Folklore and Ethnomusicology recognizes alternative media for publications other than print (such as museum exhibitions, web design, etc.), but all of these publications must be reviewed and assessed in the same manner as print publications. Bottom line, the candidate must publish consistently. If a book is in press, that may be ok, but better if published and reviewed. If being reviewed for publication but not in press, not so good. Caution: The category for creative production in COAS’s tenure review process does not apply to our department. Applicable for the Fine Arts and Theatre. So publications in alternative media must be based on research.
Ø If Rejected, Then Blacklisted?: Denial of tenure does NOT affect one’s chances at future positions. Some may just work at a slower pace, and may accumulate enough publications for tenure at another university given that wider timeframe. Also, tenure process at liberal arts colleges is completely different.