1

R&T Task Force Charge

Original Text by Robert Bulman, 5/1/2017; revised by the Senate, 11/2017-02/2018.

1. Selection of the Task Force members

Membership on the Task Force will be limited to tenured faculty at the Associate Professor or Full Professor level. Preference will be given to individuals who have significant experience with the R&T process, such as department chairs and those who have previously served on the R&T Committee. Current R&T Committee members will not be eligible to serve on the Task Force.

The Task Force will consist of 11 faculty members: two representatives per school plus three at-large members. Ideally, the members will include faculty across undergraduate and graduate programs, newly tenured associate professors, seasoned associate professors, newly promoted full professors, and seasoned full professors. The 11 members should include several who have taught in Seminar and January Term. There should be a rough gender balance and the task force should be racially/ethnically diverse. While untenured faculty are not represented on the Task Force, their input should be solicited and collected in multiple ways during the process.

Faculty may be nominated to serve on the Task Force by the Provost, the Deans, or by individual faculty members. Faculty may also self-nominate. The final composition of the Task Force will be determined and formally approved by the Academic Senate.

Nominations will be submitted via e-mail to Cathe Michalosky, and the deadline for nominations will be 5:00 pm on Friday, December 15, 2017. The Senate will finalize, and formally approve, the composition of the Task Force no later than the general meeting on February 21, 2018.

After the Task Force membership is established, their first order of business will be to elect / select a chair, who will then organize the overall schedule and delegate specific work assignments.

Membership on the Task Force will be considered “intensive workload” service for 2018-19, exempting members from other College-wide elected committee service in that year.In addition, a budget will be available to cover relevant costs: conference travel, guest speakers, external reviewers, etc.

2. Task Force Activities

The Task Force activities will be split into three separate phases: (i) background research, (ii) identification of underlying goals and the optimal R&T criteria needed to achieve those goals, and (iii) specific implementation protocols. After each phase is complete the Task Force will submit a written report to the Senate that summarizes the work of that phase (i.e., what was learned, or what the Task Force is recommending in terms of formal College policy). The Senate will then deliberate on the report and formally accept or reject its conclusions or recommendations.

Phase 1: Background Research

1.Using currently available data, statistically summarize previous SMC R&T tenure and promotion decisions, focusing on questions like those that follow. (The focus here is on description of patterns in the statistics. If deeper analysis--demographic or otherwise--seems necessary, consultation with legal counsel will be necessary, in order to preserve the privacy of parties involved, as the numbers in question may be small.)

  1. What percent get tenured? Promoted? Any race or gender patterns? Differences by school? How long (average number of years) to get tenured, promoted?
  2. How many negative R&T decisions get appealed to the Grievance Committee or result in external lawsuits? How many of these negative decisions are subsequently overturned?
  3. What is the comparison of these numbers to national trends?

2.Review peer institutions’ R&T criteria and processes (e.g., USF, Santa Clara, UOP, USD, other Lasallian Universities), as well as “best R&T practices” for schools with our general characteristics.

3.Conduct additional research to assess views and opinions of R&T criteria and processes.

  1. The task force should work with IR to conduct a survey and focus groups to collect representative data from all schools and all ranks of faculty, including untenured assistant and associate professors.
  2. Interview the provost, deans, previous R&T chairs, and long-serving committee members to assess their opinions of and recommendations for R&T criteria and processes.
  3. Work with student leaders (e.g., ASSMC, Student R&T Committee) to gather student input about R&T process.

Phase 2: Underlying Goals, R&T Criteria

1.Identify the characteristics that we want in our faculty, and consider how R&T criteria can best be used to “shape” the faculty in the desired manner.

2.Specific criteria questions might include, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. Should each area – teaching, scholarship, service -- continue to be weighted equally?
  2. Should strength in one area compensate for weakness in another?
  3. Should the Faculty Handbook language be more specific about teaching, scholarship, and service expectations?
  4. Should rank and tenure criteria be measured more objectively (i.e., x number of publications, y number of committees, explicit numerical targets for student evaluations, etc.)?
  5. How should we measure the “effectiveness” of teaching? What makes one’s teaching “highly effective”?
  6. How should the R&T Committee use student evaluations?
  7. Should contributions to Collegiate Seminar, January Term, and the Core Curriculum (specifically Community Engagement) be expected as evidence of “the development of courses appropriate…to the general education program of the College”?
  8. What is the precise meaning of “peer review,” “scholarly achievement,” and “significant scholarly achievement”?
  9. To what extent should “impact factors” and other measures of journal selectivity be included in assessments of scholarship?
  10. What value should non-peer reviewed scholarship have in the R&T process?
  11. What is the precise meaning of “effective service” and “highly effective service?” (This should include discussion of “elected vs. appointed” service.)
  12. What role should student advising play in measurement of service?
  13. How should we measure one’s commitment to the “aims and ideals of the college?” Should R&T criteria speak explicitly to things like the Strategic Plan, Inclusive Excellence, and/or the Mission: Lasallian, Catholic, Liberal Arts?
  14. How should we measure “ability to work well with colleagues”?
  15. How should we measure the “needs of the College and the department”?
  16. Should our R&T process include an explicit external review for tenure and/or full professor candidates?
  17. Should different schools/departments/programs offer their own R&T criteria?For instance, how do expectations such as “scholarly academic” status in SEBA affect R&T? Should teaching, service, or scholarship expectations be considered differently in different schools?

3.Other related questions which may be appropriate to Phase 2, but may be considered in Phase 3:

  1. What role, if any, should students play in the R&T process?
  2. Is it possible to simplify the Form A?
  3. Should we develop a substantial mentoring system?
  4. Should our R&T process undergo periodic reviews – perhaps every 5 years, similar to our current program reviews? If so, how shouldthis process work?
  5. What is the optimal sequencing of R&T reviews? Should we eliminate one or more of the interim reviews? Should we continue to allow candidates to apply for promotion to associate prior to the tenure decision?
  6. Should we implement post-professor reviews?
  7. SMC has a number of faculty who are “stuck” at the top of the associate rank. Is this also seen at our peer institutions? Does this mean that our expectations for tenure are too “easy” while our expectations for full professor are too “hard?” What should be done to support these faculty? What does the existing data say about the makeup of this “stuck” group and the reasons for it?

Phase 3: Specific Implementation Protocols

Phase 3 will commence after the recommendations produced by the Task Force in Phase 2 have been deliberated, and subsequently accepted or rejected, by the Academic Senate. The purpose of Phase 3 will be to convert the goals / objectives from Phase 2 into explicit FHB language, and to identify the resources and protocols that are needed to bring the Phase 2 “wish list” to fruition. Phase 3 will also address the timeline over which the (potentially) new R&T criteria will be implemented. Candidates who are in the middle of their R&T reviews and were hired according to the current set of R&T criteria and protocols may need to be allowed to continue to use those same criteria and protocols as they progress up the R&T ladder. (A specific answer to this question, formulated in consultation with legal counsel, if necessary, needs to be recommended by the Task Force.)

Related questions might include:

1.Is the current size of the R&T Committee appropriate?

2.Is the current course release adequate to cover the workload of thoseserving on the R&T Committee?

3.Does the R&T Chair need more than a single course release?

4.Should additional support staff (Institutional Research, Library, etc.) be added to the R&T Committee to provide relevant expertise (statistical analyses of student evaluation data, assessments of journal selectivity and peer-review mechanisms, etc.)?

5.Should we move the timeline for R&T elections to the fall (for the following academic year) in order to alleviate pressure on elected committee ballots and course scheduling?

3. Timeline

Phase 1 should be completed during the spring of 2018, with the report to the Senate arriving no later than the General Meeting on May 16, 2018. Phase 2 should be completed during the fall of 2018, with the report to the Senate arriving no later than the General Meeting in December of 2018. Phase 3 should be completed during the spring of 2019, with the report to the Senate arriving no later than the General Meeting in May of 2019.