| This report is a revised Spring 2005 version of the document prepared by the Committee on the Status of Women and Ethnic Minorities (SWEM) in April, 1983. A 1987 version was prepared by the SWEM Committee in collaboration with the Office of the Faculty Assistant for the Status of Women. A revised edition was published in 1989, and in 1996. This 2005 edition substantially updates the 1996 version. | |
| Disclaimer: Friendly Guidance vs. the Official Final Word The Academic Personnel Manual provides an official formal description of the structure of academic reviewing (see Academic Personnel Manual, sections 210 and 220). The intent of this booklet is to highlight and explain more informally key aspects of the procedure which are sometimes misunderstood. It has not been authorized or approved as an official or complete academic personnel manual of the University of California or the Berkeley campus. Although this booklet attempts to reflect the most recent revisions of the rules governing academic personnel, these policies are frequently modified. Therefore, this booklet does not represent nor should it be relied upon as the official or complete statement of the academic personnel rules, regulations, and policies of the University of California. The Academic Personnel Manual (“APM”) is the official, complete, and up to date statement of the academic personnel rules, regulations, and policies of the University of California. |
|
Contributors to the Updated Report: A special thanks to Academic Personnel Director Patti Owen for her kind assistance and expert advice. |
|
| I. The Tenure Review Process II. Professional Development Tasks Critical for Tenure Preparation III. Record-keeping about your accomplishments IV. Resources Available--Whom to Go to for Help V. Special Issues Facing Women and Minority Faculty VI. Appendix |
|
| I. The Tenure Review Process | |
Policies and procedures governing appointment and promotion can be found in the Manual of the Academic Senate, Bylaw 55, and the APM. In the APM, particular attention should be given to Sections 210-1d: Criteria for Appointment, Promotion, and Appraisal, and 220-80: Recommendations and Review: General Procedures. |
|
| Timeline | |
|
The tenure process actually begins at the time of your initial hiring. You are carefully reviewed and approved appointment reflects a decision that you have the potential to be tenured in your sixth year. You may choose to come up for review earlier, given previous positions or accelerated progress, or you may request a delay in the review until your seventh year (see Timeline, Appendix A, and Promotion Review Process, Appendix B). The schedule for review may also be altered in the event that you require a delay due to childbirth/childcare (see section, Conflict of Career and Child Rearing, below, for a more detailed discussion). It is important to note that unless the University affirmatively acts to terminate your employment earlier, you are entitled to a full eight year employment at the University without tenure regardless of the level at which your initial appointment was made. Individuals who are hired at the more advanced steps of the assistant professor ladder are still entitled to the full period before tenure review, if they so desire. (However, if your prior service was at another UC campus, that time would count as part of your full period of tenure review.) Because the tenure process starts immediately, we strongly recommend that you develop a mentor relationship with a senior member of your department as soon as possible. You should ask this individual to give you specific ideas about expectations for tenure in your field and department, and to help guide you through both the mid-career and tenure review process. |
| Mic-Career Review | |
| A critical appraisal point prior to the actual tenure evaluation is the Mid-Career Review, which typically occurs in the first semester of your fourth year. (See section, Conflict of Career and Child-Rearing below, for discussion of delaying this review due to childbirth/childcare.) Its purpose is to help the department and the candidate identify merits and weaknesses before it is too late to improve the record. In a few cases, the outcome of these reviews is non-reappointment; nearly always the candidate is reappointed with advice about facets of performance that need improvement or change. It is a good chance for the department to review the candidate’s work since initial appointment, and can be used constructively by candidates to start collegial conversations they may not have had as yet. The Mid-Career Review may also be used as an opportunity to alert your department to circumstances that may have temporarily inhibited your productivity. There are cases in which relatively critical Mid-Career Reviews have been followed by tenure promotions. Thus, it is important to put the Mid-Career Review in perspective. Sometimes, early productivity is slowed down by the time-consuming steps of establishing certain types of data sets or by the urgent demands of pregnancy, childbirth, and infant care. Given the constraints, a “mid-career” review after only three years of new work, and at so early a point in one’s career, can be discouraging. However, given more time and the feedback about the strengths and weaknesses in one’s case, the candidate can work to develop a strong overall record by tenure review time. If you feel a problem is developing that the department cannot handle well, you can consult with the Associate Vice-Provost for Faculty Equity. This opportunity continues as you approach the tenure decision. | |
| Your Role in Preparing for Tenure Review | |
| In preparation for your review, you will be requested to put together a packet of materials (see Appendix C for examples, but also consult with your Chair and mentor), including: (a) all of your yearly bio-bibliographies; (b) a statement describing your research, teaching, professional activities, and service, in sufficient detail; (c) a complete set of published and unpublished work. The final packet will also include (d) recommendations of outside reviewers to evaluate your work. There is a schedule of dates for the submission of personnel recommendations. You need to know the schedule and be ready to submit your own materials on time - usually late in the spring of your fifth year, or the term prior to the semester in which your Final Appraisal is set to occur. But for tenure cases there is considerable flexibility about information that comes in late, e.g., news of awards or of acceptance of written work for publication. Be sure to check that all the materials you prepare for both the departmental review committee and the outside reviewers are accurate and complete. | |
| The tenure review process considers many different aspects of your work as a professor. These include your carefully developed statement of your record in research or other creative work. Publications, awards and honors, teaching, administrative activities, professional activities, University service, and public service are all an important part of the tenure review process It is essential that you analyze the progression of your work, emphasize its unique contributions to your particular field, and highlight future directions in your work. Even if your chair does not ask you to prepare your own statement about your record, you can offer to submit one. Given that the criteria of evaluation vary somewhat from department to department, you should discuss these criteria with your Chair and with friendly mentors or advisers early on in your career. Then you will know the places where you should be publishing and the realistic weighing of the various formal criteria as they are used in your own department. | |
| Your Department’s Role In the Process | |
| The tenure review process occurs in a number of phases. The first phase of review is by your department. Although the Handbook for Faculty Members outlines a standard set of procedures and criteria, these can vary somewhat from unit to unit. The chair of the department plays a central role in the implementation of this review process. It is a good idea to consult with the Chair at the beginning of the process. | |
| Departments vary in the degree to which the individual participates in the preparation of the case, in the criteria for evaluation, and in the actual procedures of review. These variances in practice (e.g., some departments have standing committees for tenure review, others are ad hoc, some faculty votes are by secret ballot, others in open meetings) are usually the product of differences among the disciplines or department size, but can occasionally go beyond the bounds of acceptable practice. (See section below, If You Have Problems With the Departmental Review.) | |
| For the outside reviewers, your department should prepare packets of your published and unpublished work, including an updated vita and a. statement describing your research, teaching, professional activities, and service. All of this will be sent, along with a letter from the chair, to outside reviewers. It is critical that the outside reviewers have copies of your work for their evaluation. You should find out which staff member is assembling these packets, and confirm with that person that the packets are complete. The reviewers will be asked to make comparative assessments of your achievements in your field (e.g., are you among the top people in your cohort?), supporting their evaluation with specific analyses of your specific works. You should consider sending out copies of your publications to many potential reviewers for some time before coming up for tenure. (Actually, making important colleagues aware of your work is a good idea at all times.) | |
| For the departmental review, the Chair normally establishes a departmental ad hoc review committee. After the departmental committee has submitted its report and prior to the departmental review, you can ask for redacted copies (with confidential information removed) of the departmental committee report and the letters of recommendation. | |
| Usually, the report is discussed at a department meeting of tenured faculty, without your presence, followed by a departmental vote. Your Chair should apprise you of the outcome of this vote and provide a redacted report of the departmental case. (This would be good time to refer to Appendices A and B.) The Chair then reports on the departmental vote and discussion in a letter that will accompany the departmental report. A detailed accounting of the actual vote, with absences and abstentions, is included, along with material providing context and background that people outside the field might not know, or explaining how the Dept. weighed various pros and cons. The Chair can also write a personal letter of recommendation for inclusion in the review file. You may not have access to this letter until the review has gone through the University review process, although the Chair is often willing to share it earlier. When your case is forwarded, you may (and should, if there seems to be any problem) request the redacted departmental recommendation. The redacted copy should be your complete file, except for references that would disclose the identities of the members of the reviewers. You may also see the departmental checklist of materials that are included in your dossier. |
|
| If You Have Problems With the Departmental Review | |
| If you feel that aspects of your work have been misrepresented, misunderstood, or omitted, or if you feel that the review process has violated APM guidelines, you may respond in a written statement that will accompany the materials in subsequent review levels. Again, departments and chairs vary in how they handle these procedures, with sometimes quite different opportunities for candidates to correct misperceptions. (See Appendix E, Candidate’s Rights.) | |
| If you feel that aspects of your work have been misrepresented, misunderstood, or omitted, or if you feel that the review process has violated APM guidelines, you may respond in a written statement that will accompany the materials in subsequent review levels. Again, departments and chairs vary in how they handle these procedures, with sometimes quite different opportunities for candidates to correct misperceptions. (See Appendix E, Candidate’s Rights.) | |
| If you believe special problems exist in your case, you should notify the Associate Vice-Provost for Faculty Equity or the Ombudspersons for Academic Personnel. Such problems include prejudice on the part of the chair, conflicts due to internal departmental politics (e.g., competition over lab space or an especially desirable graduate student), and hostility because you have refused a sexual advance. It is important to handle such problems professionally, and this can be done with the help of the Associate Vice-Provost for Faculty Equity and/or the Ombudsperson. | |
Ideally, you will have a unanimous positive vote from the department, a strong letter of recommendation from the Chair, and strong outside letters that evaluate your contributions and place you at the top end of your field, compared to others at a similar career stage. If all of these factors are present, you have a strong case. If one or more of these factors is not so strong, then your case is more worrisome, but not necessarily negative. A more serious situation exists if the department vote is negative, which is often a signal to terminate the appointment. However, even in this situation you have a right to ask for an ad hoc review outside of the department (see the next section). It would be wise to consult with the Associate Vice-Provost for Faculty Equity or Ombudsperson before taking this step. Campus Review |
|
Upon leaving the department, the case is sent to the Dean, who appraises it and adds his/her own letter of recommendation to the file. The Dean will appraise and interpret the departmental vote (split votes are difficult) on the basis of his/her evaluation of the evidence. A campus ad hoc committee is then appointed. This committee plays a crucial role in the tenure review. Its basic task is one of evaluation—have you met the expectations inherent in the decision to hire you? This committee reviews your entire case. Thus, it is important that you prepare your materials with an eye toward this audience as well as the departmental one. Keep in mind that it is possible that some of the committee members will not have primary expertise in your field, and that all committee members will be looking for clear guidelines both from you, your department, and from outside reviewers as to the significance of your scholarly contributions. |
|
| The membership of the ad hoc committee is confidential, but you can have some influence on its composition by notifying your Chair prior to your case leaving the department if there are any individuals who are so personally antipathetic to you or your work as to be considered prejudiced. If you are in an unusual specialty, you could advise as to the ranges of expertise and sources of persons appropriate to review your work. These counsels may or may not be followed, and the availability and other responsibilities of faculty always constrain who can serve. | |
| The ad hoc committee writes its own report, which is forwarded to the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee deliberates on the basis of the entire case and makes a recommendation to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Faculty Welfare, who reviews the entire file, including the minutes of the Budget Committee, and sends a recommendation to the Executive Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor regarding the candidate’s proposed tenure. For cases involving women or minority faculty, the Associate Vice-Provost for Faculty Equity also reviews the recommendation. | |
| The case then goes to Office of Academic Personnel, where it is reviewed to ensure that the requisite information is accurate and present in the file. It is then sent forward to the Academic Senate Committee on Budget and Interdepartmental Relations (Budget Committee). The Budget Committee is appointed by a committee of faculty (the Committee On Committees), which is elected by the campus-wide affiliation of UC Berkeley professors known as the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. The Budget Committee comprises tenured faculty and, among other charges, makes recommendations to the Office of the Chancellor about appointments, merit increases, and promotions. The deliberations of this committee are confidential. Upon receiving the candidate’s case, the Budget Committee recommends a slate of faculty to serve on the campus ad hoc committee. In those cases involving women or minority faculty, the Executive Vice Chancellor consults with the Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity. For promotions to tenure and new tenured appointments, the ad hoc committee will consist of at least three faculty members, one of whom will be from your own department. For more difficult cases, the ad hoc committee may have five members. In any case, the need to convene all these committees means that the process can take quite a lot of time. Even a normal tenure case with full support by all can consume most of a year. | |
| If You Have Problems With the Campus Review | |
| Where a candidate is recommended for non-reappointment, the candidate has the right to request a review of that recommendation by an ad hoc committee appointed for that purpose. For any candidate whose tenure is not recommended by the department (where there was a negative department vote, and particularly in cases where there has been a split vote at the departmental level), the administration will request a letter stating whether the appointment of an ad hoc committee is desired. Any candidate in this situation has the right to an ad hoc review at the campus level and should discuss this option with his/her Chair, Dean, and/or the Associate Vice Provost(also see Appendix E, “Candidate’s Rights” ). | |
| If the decision of the Vice Provost at this point is different from the recommendation of the department or Dean, e.g., to deny tenure when the department has recommended tenure, a preliminary assessment takes place. A letter outlining the preliminary assessment is sent, usually to the Dean and Chair, who will in turn, inform you. At this point, you have a right to receive redacted copies of the complete review file, including the campus ad hoc committee report and the Budget Committee minutes. You will have 10 working days from the date you receive notice of the adverse preliminary assessment to provide a response to the issues raised during the review. The Chair and Dean can also provide additional information for final consideration by the Budget Committee and the Vice Provost. If the additional material has not changed the recommendation, the Chancellor will issue the final decision. If the Vice Provost and/or the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost or the Chancellor disagrees with the Budget Committee’s recommendation, the case can be sent back to that Committee for reconsideration. If the positions of the administration and the Budget Committee remain opposed, the Chancellor can reject the advice of the Budget Committee, although the Budget Committee’s recommendation is upheld with very few exceptions. Thus, the tenure decision is typically and primarily a faculty-derived decision, rather than an administrative one. It should be noted that the recommendations of the ad hoc committee, the Budget Committee, and the Chancellor are revealed to the candidate as one decision. Appeals and new evidence can result in reversals of earlier decisions. It is important to consider what new information may have developed since the case went forward, as it could be crucial to a reassessment of the case and the decisions. | |
| Confidentiality is a controlling factor at all levels. You have a right to obtain a redacted copy of material in your file, at many points in the review process. The statements transmitted by the department Chair, Dean, and the Budget Committee are all confidential. Breaches of confidence are subject to disciplinary action. Confidentiality is believed to ensure candid evaluations, yet it can also hide biased evaluations. State law (SB 251) was intended to require full disclosure of material in files, but the University has interpreted this as the right to a redacted copy of your file documents, in order to protect the confidentiality of the reviewers. | |
| APM 160-20 b.(1) enumerates which documents are considered confidential academic review records to which you do not have access. | |
| II. Professional Development Tasks Critical for Tenure Preparation | |
| Making Research a Priority | |
| Your research accomplishments will be the primary basis for your evaluation and promotion to tenure. A common mistake is to let teaching functions organize one’s daily life and to fit in research and scholarly activities on the side. It is also a serious mistake, however, to imagine that the quality of your teaching does not count at all. The more productive approach, and an essential aspect of your preparation for tenure, is to organize your year around your own research and scholarly accomplishments, while delivering a good teaching product. Further, develop an overall five-year plan for your scholarly development, with each year spent working toward a subset of the overall goals. Plan for what you want to accomplish by the Mid-Career Review, and for what you need to have completed by the time of tenure evaluation. Successful plans include the following: | |
(1) Develop your agenda not only around semesters and courses, but also around the best times to collect data, around deadlines for conference and grant submissions, and around the best times to write. For example, if you are faced with particularly heavy teaching responsibilities one semester, how can you use your time weekly to collect data or to do your library research, so that when more open blocks of time become available, you are ready to begin writing? |
|
(2) Leave weekly blocks of time to work on your own research activities. Do not give them up under any circumstances. Keep a set number of hours open for students, but do not deviate from your research schedule. Some people work best in whole day blocks of time; others find mornings the best time to write. Schedule classes, meetings and appointments with these considerations in mind, making sure you earmark sufficient, as well as high quality, time for your own scholarly activities. Do not use these precious blocks of time to read your mail or answer correspondence or finish other work that has spilled over into the time allotted for your own research. Guard your research times as if they were actual appointments that cannot be broken |
|
(3) Plan for some leave time in order to maximize your opportunities to write. Apply for one of the University grants in the junior ladder Faculty Development Program, which provide release time from teaching: Career Development Grant, the Junior Faculty Mentor Program, or Regents’ Junior Faculty Fellowship. Information regarding these and other grants is available from the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Faculty Welfare. In addition to such funded release time, you can draw on your sabbatical time before tenure and take a semester’s leave, or you can take a leave without pay, if you can manage it financially. All of these leaves ensure an uninterrupted period of time in which to complete a body of work. See below for further information regarding available grants. |
|
Research Grants |
|
| It is important to obtain intramural or extramural research funding
for your work. The Academic Senate Committee on Research (COR) offers
competitive grant opportunities for junior faculty, and a basic $1,000
non-competitive research grant. The committee’s primary grant
cycle occurs in spring. There is a fall call for proposals for faculty
appointed effective July 1, or who were away from campus in the spring.
For assistant and associate professors COR provides travel grants
of up to $800 to attend conferences to present research. Assistant
professors in the first two years of their tenure-track appointment
may attend a conference without the requirement of presenting research.
Information on the committee’s programs may be found on the
Academic Senate website: http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/committees/COR.html
The University also offers Campus Biomedical Research grants (up to approximately $6,000). Combined with the University Work Study program, where you carry only 20-30% of the cost of a graduate or undergraduate student working on your project, these seed money grants can go a long way. These smaller sources of funds are useful for beginning new work and preparation for larger grant applications. Outside grant funds, if obtained, can buy you release time to work on your research (contact the Sponsored Projects Office for information about such grants http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/. Further, fellowship awards can earn you a semester, summer, or year for writing. Colleagues in your field are a good source of information for the types of awards available. |
|
| Developing a Scholarly Program | |
| Your scholarly contributions will be evaluated for evidence of impact on the field (for example, work that opens new lines of investigation), or exhibits independence, originality, or substantial growth in an existing area. Each discipline varies in terms of what kind of scholarly contribution is most valued—whether it be a book or journal articles, empirical or theoretical work. Your colleagues can advise you about these criteria of achievement. You must choose wisely about shaping the direction and scope of your scholarly activities. If books are the expected norm, be sure to write books. If journal articles in peer refereed journals are valued, concentrate on those. Similarly, publication of your dissertation is a mandatory first step in some fields, but is considered less critical in others. Tenure review is based on new work after you have been hired. Accordingly, it is essential that there is clear evidence of your UC Berkeley-based research program. If the majority of your work is done in collaboration with someone else (in particular, someone senior to yourself), it will be difficult to evaluate and will raise questions about the nature of your independent contribution. In any collaborative work, you should be prepared to relate and document which aspects of the work are predominantly your contributions. Some fields may expect some sole-authored contributions; be sure to understand what is expected. If your work is in newly defined, unconventional, or interdisciplinary fields, it also will be more difficult to evaluate. In order to maintain your scholarly credentials while working at these new frontiers, you should consider publishing some “mainstream” contributions, or be sure that acknowledged experts will vouch for your work’s significance. Alternatively, you should be prepared to directly demonstrate its impact on its area. | |
| Preparing for Publication | |
| You will have to make choices about when to publish, what to publish, and where to publish. Again, your colleagues are your most valuable resources in making these decisions. In general, it is important to publish your work as soon as you can so that wide groups of scholars may learn about it, cite it, and provide constructive feedback that will help you shape your future work. Do not wait until all of your work is completely finished before earmarking a piece of it for professional communication. In that way, you begin the process of building visibility, and you keep the door open for important critiques to which you may need to respond in your work. Prepare your work for the most respected publications in your field. Do not settle for journals or publishers of lesser quality, since their prestige influences the assessment of your reputation. In some fields, invited chapters may not count as much as articles in refereed journals, because chapters do not undergo the rigorous peer review that journals require. Publication of popular books and textbooks may generate independent income, but they may not count heavily in your tenure review. The writing of textbooks is viewed as a teaching activity, rather than research, unless there is clear evidence of your textbook’s scholarly contributions. If you are in a field where none of the above is that important, be sure to learn from your colleagues what scholarly or creative productions they will use in evaluating your work APM Policy 210-1d(2) provides guidelines for evaluation of Research and Creative Work. |
|
| Building Relationships: Increasing Your Visibility as a Scholar | |
| While it is helpful to develop collegial relationships with other faculty, it is important to remember that a strong record of research and teaching will be given much greater weight than successful networking when it comes time for promotion or tenure review. The realms of relationship-building described below are listed in order of importance. Within your department. It is important to get to know your colleagues in your department. When the department votes on your promotion, your colleagues’ familiarity with you and your work is vital. This familiarity is not just based on their taking the time to read your work. If they have the sense of you as a lively, responsive, thinking scholar, they will take a favorable stance in reading the review committee’s report. Colleagues are important to you in many other ways besides the departmental vote. They can talk over your ideas with you; advise on the best places to publish your work; read and criticize your first drafts; encourage you about what is new and valuable enough in your work to write up formally; and suggest your name for important conferences. |
|
| How can you get to know your colleagues? Take them out for lunch or coffee. Talk with them about their recent work. Ask their advice about the directions you are taking in your own work. If there are colloquia in the department, volunteer to give a presentation, especially if you’re planning to present a talk at a professional meeting you can make a “dry run” to the department. Serve on departmental committees, but do not do so at the sacrifice of your first priority: research. Co-teach with an older colleague: you will learn from each other (but be sure you have an independent teaching and writing record). If you would like a colleague to read an early draft of a paper, (a) pick someone who is known for friendly and constructive criticism, and (b) try to lighten the burden by asking for specific help (e.g., “I’d especially like your comments on pages five to nine”). Be sure to provide copies of some of your work to relevant colleagues as a matter of course. | |
| At least annually you should talk with your Chair about important professional choices and about the criteria for promotion and “normal” productivity. If the Chair does not suggest a meeting, you should request an appointment to discuss these matters. You need to keep the chair informed about your accomplishments—the research you are doing, the meetings you are attending, the papers submitted, and the invitations received. You might, for example, go over your Bio-bibliography for the past year with your Chair and ask for suggestions for the coming year. Keep in mind the important role that the Chair plays in the tenure review process. In a sense, you are the person who can best help the Chair compile a convincing case on your behalf. | |
| Within the university community. It is important to get to know your colleagues outside of your department, particularly those who do work that is relevant to your own. Not only are they another source of advice and feedback about your work, but they can help make you and your work more widely known on campus (e.g., inviting you to give a talk in their department or sub area, or recommending you for membership on important committees). Moreover, they are likely to be in the pool of outside faculty who will be asked to serve on your ad hoc committee. It is important to remember that, in the tenure review, the departmental vote is not the only vote. The review and vote by the ad hoc committee is crucial to the final outcome. The Academic Senate occasionally sponsors informal events for young faculty to become acquainted with each other and the University. | |
| Beyond the University Community. Assessment of your national reputation as a scholar is an important part of the tenure review process. Gaining such a reputation during a relatively short time period before review, typically five years, requires careful planning. There are several things you can do to increase the visibility of your work. Publishing your work in highly regarded journals, for example, is clearly important. Send copies of your papers to people whom you cite, and who would be interested in your work. Maintaining a webpage citing all your work, and placing it in a favorable context, has become almost a requirement. Participating in conferences and other professional meetings also helps you to establish contacts. Presenting papers at these meetings (requiring less lead time than journal publication) can make your work more widely known. However, keep in mind that in most fields conference papers are not weighted as heavily in the tenure review process as are publications in refereed journals. Small meetings where you can engage in serious intellectual discussion with colleagues can often be more helpful than larger, more anonymous meetings for establishing contacts with a national network of colleagues. To a lesser extent, you will be assessed on the steps you have taken that will build your international reputation as a scholar. | |
| Remember that, in the tenure review assessment of your professional reputation, you will be asked to recommend three to six potential outside reviewers. These reviewers should be senior faculty (preferably full professors) at well-regarded universities. It will be to your benefit if you and your work are already known to them. Having international contacts is usually well-regarded. | |
| III. Record-keeping about your accomplishments | |
| You should begin immediately to maintain ample and detailed records on which you can draw when you need to prepare documentation for promotions and merit increases. Carefully complete the Bio-Bibliographical form (see sample bio-bibliography form, Appendix C) each summer. Put the form on your computer so that you can readily access and update your records. It is much easier to create a contemporaneous on-going record of these data than to attempt to recall accurately the past several years’ of somewhat forgettable information at review time. Be sure that your department has a full vita, with a record of your professional career and publications that dates back to the beginning of your work, not just to your UC appointment. | |
| Professional Reputation | |
| In addition to reporting all of your publications, colloquia, etc., list information that shows how much you are in demand. (Even if you declined an offer, the invitation may be an honor.) Bear in mind that many people do not feel fully able to judge your work for themselves. If somebody they respect says it is good (and why) or wants you to participate in a professional meeting, then the prestige of that person accrues to your glory (prestige by association). Keep a record of all requests to speak; to contribute to books, special journal issues, and panels; to reprint your articles in books. Also keep copies of all reviews of your work, important citations, and letters of praise. If someone who is influential gives you oral praise, try to get a letter in your file. If you receive a “feeler” about a job, keep a complete record, including date and time and caller, even if you do not plan to proceed further. For some fields, it may be useful to check the Citation Index or a similar online resource to find out how often your work is being cited and by whom. Grants and fellowships are also good indicators of professional reputation (see Appendix C). | |
| If these activities sound too self-important, remember that your department, the ad hoc committee, and the Budget Committee have a very difficult job to do in their qualitative assessment of junior faculty. They must rely heavily on indicators of the quality as well as the quantity of your contributions to your field. They depend on ways to gauge the increasing scope of reputation as you move up. Therefore, evidence of national or international acclaim should be collected at all stages of your career. In professional schools and colleges the quality of professional competence in practice of the profession is considered, and should therefore be carefully documented. | |
| Drafts and Publications | |
| For both your tenure review and your mid-career review, include all of your scholarly published material, not just the most recent (see Appendix C). Work that is in press can be counted as published material (but any publication can only be counted once). For your tenure review, you can also include completed drafts and work that has been submitted for publication (but not yet been accepted), or that is otherwise in progress. You should seek advice as to whether you should include works in progress as evidence of productivity. At the time of your mid-career review, you will probably be asked to outline your scholarly plans for the next few years preceding the tenure review. Be realistic. Do not put exaggerated hopes or pie-in-the-sky into print. If you say you will accomplish X, Y, and Z, and then you do not, it may count against you. | |
| Teaching | |
| A standardized set of teaching criteria and examples of evidence of teaching effectiveness, set forth in detail at APM 210 d.(1), are used by the Deans, Provosts, and the Budget Committee to evaluate a candidate’s teaching record. There is also a campus policy on the evaluation of teaching on the Web at http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/evaluation.html. The criteria include the candidate’s command of the subject; continuous growth in the subject field; ability to organize course material and present it with force and logic; capacity to awaken in students an awareness of the relationship to other fields of knowledge; fostering of student independence and capability to reason; spirit and enthusiasm which vitalize the candidate’s learning and teaching; ability to arouse beginning students’ curiosity, to encourage high standards, to stimulate advanced students to creative work; personal attributes as they affect teaching and students; extent and skill of the candidate’s participation in the general guidance, mentoring, and advising of students; and, effectiveness in creating an academic environment that is open and encouraging to all students. Familiarize yourself with all of the criteria, and be sure to gather evidence with respect to your performance along these dimensions. | |
| The list of your formal courses will be in the department records. Be sure that this record is accurate (see Appendix C). For example, if you co-teach, check that your name is included and you are credited for the course. Keep your own file of individual tutoring and 190-290 series offerings. Keep a good set of qualitative records to show your concern with teaching: course outlines, reading lists; extra instructional materials; evidence of work in development of new courses; and, work on textbooks. You should keep a record of your involvement in theses (doctoral, masters, and undergraduate honors) and qualifying examination committees. These records should include names and dates of exams for which you serve as a reader, and the titles of masters and doctoral degrees advised. Your department will keep a partial record, but will not know about service outside your department or on other campuses. | |
| Be sure to have student teaching evaluations for all of your courses. In addition, you should request that the department peer-review your teaching. Ask to give colloquia to display your lecturing abilities. Give guest lectures in your colleagues’ classes. If initial teaching evaluations were poor, create a record that shows your efforts to improve those criticized skills. Call the Office of Educational Development (2-6392). They exist to help you evaluate and improve your teaching skills. Visit classes. Get help from colleagues known to be good teachers. Then, be sure to get new evaluations before your review. Your efforts will speak for you. | |
| Your teaching may also be evaluated from student letters, professional status of former students, and number and quality of dissertations directed by you. The campuswide standards for how many graduate students you should have vary for tenured and non-tenured faculty and vary with the discipline, but tend to be lower among junior faculty. Joint publications with students are usually a service to both you and the student. APM 210-1-d(1) provides guidelines for evaluation of teaching. | |
| Administrative. Professional, and Public Service Activities | |
| Keep records of all your committee, consultant, and public service work. If products resulted from your work, include these in your materials (e.g., in the development of a new program, include a program description). Solicit letters for your file concerning the nature of your contribution. Search for evidence of your effectiveness and impact. Once a year you will receive from the Academic Senate a list of a multitude of opportunities to serve on campuswide faculty committees. Again, while it may be helpful to your argument for tenure to have a record of administrative, professional, and public service, it is important to remember that a strong record of research and teaching will be given much greater weight than administrative, professional and public service activities when it comes time for promotion or tenure review. APM 210-1-d(4) provides guidelines for evaluation of University and Public Service |
|
| IV. Resources Available—Whom to Go for Help | |
| Department members. Mentors in your field or department can give you the best advice about journals, meetings, and criteria for promotion. Keep in mind that the first vote on your tenure case takes place within the department. | |
| Chair. Make sure that the chair knows what you are doing (research, articles submitted, meetings attended, invitations received). Keep the chair aware of your progress, and get advice from him/her when you need it. | |
| Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity. (2-1935) He or she is a faculty member who advises faculty, develops and recommends diversity programs, monitors and reviews recruitment and selection, and reviews all cases for advancement of minorities and women. The Associate Vice Provost has access to all relevant personnel files and can provide information and advice regarding process issues affecting your case. | |
| Ombudspersons for Academic Personnel. (2-7213) This is a committee of up to five faculty members, each of whom individually handle complaints regarding actions of other faculty, University officers, students, or staff. Appointments with the Ombudsperson can be arranged through the Office of the Academic Senate. | |
| Dean. If you are a member of the Letters and Science faculty and think there is some problem in the department’s treatment of you, you can go to the divisional dean. If you are in the faculty of the Professional Schools, you can go to your dean or to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Faculty Welfare. The dean has to appraise your progress too, and so it is important that the dean be aware of your situation. For example, if you think there is personal bias in the department, discuss the problem with the dean. In some cases, your best allies are in adjacent departments or research units who report to the same dean. For Letters and Science Faculty, the Vice Provost is the next up the line from your Dean. | |
| Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure (P&T). (2-7213) If you think that your rights or privileges have been violated during the course of your review, you may file a grievance with this Committee. P&T will first conduct an informal preliminary investigation of the grievance, including an examination of the complete academic personnel file. If there is merit to the charges, the Committee will try to resolve the matter informally. If this is unsuccessful, P&T will then institute a formal procedure of notifying the Administration that the grievance appears to have merit. It will hold a pre-hearing conference with the grievant and an Administrative officer in an attempt to reach a settlement under the supervision of the Committee. If these efforts prove fruitless, P&T will conduct a formal hearing, and will then present a set of recommendations to the Chancellor. | |
| If you suspect you are being treated unfairly, utilize all the channels for informal inquiry available before submitting a formal complaint. People are inclined to be helpful on a voluntary basis, but are more likely to become defensive under outside scrutiny. Be judicious about the order of actions. The risk of both great expense and professional ostracism exists. Obtain advice before taking the most extreme steps. | |
| V. Special Issues Facing Women and Minority Faculty | |
| The promotion system in large research universities was designed for highly ambitious researchers willing to work many hours per week, attentive to the criteria of achievement of their professions, and able to discard or subordinate other preferences. It was not designed for busy family members, or for citizens whose priority is to translate science or scholarship into public decision-making and service. This aggressive career pattern is predicated upon being single, or the availability of a partner to support career development, freedom from the tasks of child rearing to ensure uninterrupted periods of work, and freedom to make geographical moves to obtain the finest training opportunities and appropriate advancement. Few married women have had this freedom or this set of supports. More frequently today one may have a working mate who is not able to play the traditional role of academic helpmate. The following discusses some of the constraints that women and minority faculty members face when trying to advance professionally in this majority, male-dominated work world. A variety of options are offered that are available for dealing with these constraints. | |
| Conflict of Career and Child-Rearing | |
| The intense period of early career development is often precisely the time, from both a biological and a psychological standpoint, that a faculty member might want to start a family or might already be taking care of young children. Hence, having children and “making it” in a career are on a collision course for women (and increasingly for men who play active roles in child rearing). When a woman combines a demanding full-time academic job with pregnancy, childbirth, and continued responsibility for raising children, she will face some serious conflicts. Although we have a long way to go before childbearing and career patterns will more easily fit together, there are several options available to help reduce these conflicts somewhat. (See http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/tenclock.html) | |
| An untenured faculty parent who provides substantial care for a newly arrived child can apply to have up to one year of service time ignored in the calculation of what is called “in grade service time” toward the eight year pre-tenure limit. Stoppage of the clock will result in an equivalent delay of mid-career review or final appraisal, if applicable. Two years of stoppage is currently the maximum, irrespective of how many children arrive during the parent’s eight-year probationary period. It is not necessary to have taken any kind of leave in order to be eligible for tenure-clock stopping if you certify that you have substantial responsibility for providing care. Further, application for the stoppage must be made within 2 years of the birth or adoption and cannot be made in the year of the anticipated review. Application is made via a form sent through your Chair and Dean. If your Chair is not particularly informed or helpful about these issues, be sure to consult with the Vice-Provost for Faculty Equity. | |
| Conflict of Career and Child-Rearing | |
| Leave policies. Under the general heading of “leave” there are many types and provisions in the Academic Personnel Manual 700 Series. The four most pertinent types all apply to any number of births and/or adoptions, before or after tenure. | |
Child bearing leave must be granted to you upon your request. This leave may be for the period before, during, and after childbirth. It is normally six weeks in duration, but may be extended if required for medical reasons. Once your sick leave is exhausted, you may be eligible to receive temporary disability pay if you are physically unable to return to work. Childbearing leave is available only to mothers giving birth. Generally, it is not available to mothers on nine-month appointments who give birth during the summer, unless some part of the six week leave (or medically necessitated extended leave) would normally include some portion of the nine month appointment period. |
|
Incapacitating complications during or after pregnancy are treated in the same manner as any other illness and come under sick leave or disability. Incapacitating complications are not considered as requiring leave for child bearing or child rearing. Again, only mothers giving birth are eligible for this leave. |
|
Active service-modified duties (ASMD) is a semester of reduced duties. You may request one semester of ASMD for each child. It is available to either the father or the mother of a birthed or adopted child, provided that s/he has substantial responsibility for the care of the child. The period of ASMD is at full pay. The timing of the ASMD and nature of the reduced duties should be negotiated with the Chair of the department as far in advance of the proposed leave as possible (but no less than three months in advance). A typical reduction might provide that in the semester following the arrival of the child, the parent will not be required to meet regularly scheduled classes, but will continue to be available to meet graduate students, or to hold office hours, or similar duties. The faculty member normally applies for ASMD through the Chair and Dean. The completed form should include a brief description of the arrangements made with the Chair about reduction in duties. The ASMD must be completed one year following the birth or adoption. The ASMD is included as service toward your eight-year probationary period unless you make a positive request that it should not. |
|
Parental leave without pay is also an option. Leave that is longer than one semester, but less than one year, will automatically be excluded from service toward the eight -year period unless the faculty member informs the Chair of the department in writing-before, during, or within one semester after the leave- that it should not be excluded from the service period. |
|
| Regular and temporary half-time appointments. It is also possible to obtain a regularized half-time faculty appointment. If you do so, you relinquish the other half-FTE and may never recover it. If you take a half-time unpaid leave temporarily, the effects are reversible. For some people, a half-time position is a great help in ensuring enough time for research, writing, and family life. For other people, a half-time leave does not work out because so many of the demands on one’s time cannot be easily split in half. In either case, the promotion clock continues as if the person were full-time. Before you take a half-time appointment, please be sure you understand what will be expected of you in the areas of research, teaching, and service. The application form for leaves connected to Childbearing/Childrearing is available at: http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/forms.html. Policies and procedures regarding parental leave can be found at APM 133-17 e.-i., 710-8 a. and 760-0 to 760-30. |
|
| Relative Absence of Role Models/Mentors | |
| Women and minority males learn the role of university professor in a world of predominantly white male colleagues. In most fields, and in most university settings, it is rare to find full professors, deans, chancellors, and journal editors who are women or minorities. The under-representation of women and minorities in university departments can place a spotlight on them and their performance, straining their interaction with white male colleagues, contributing to misperceptions by others of their accomplishments, and serving to isolate them professionally and emotionally. The relative absence of other women and minority males in leadership positions lessens the opportunities for the modeling of productive behaviors, and may reduce the professional opportunities offered or known about. | |
| Given this reality, women and minority males have different opportunities for professional development in their fields than their white male counterparts. Information about grants, the politics of a department, or opportunities for participation in professional activities, are often shared with younger colleagues upon meeting them in social settings, at the squash court ,or in a poker game - settings where these groups may have less access. Lacking power and access to the occasions in which power is shared, these groups are offered differential opportunities for participation in the academic world. | |
| The University has responded to this issue by developing programs to facilitate the mentor relationship. | |
The Faculty Mentor Program. This program was designed to ensure that junior faculty, particularly women and minorities who feel isolated in some departments, are linked with knowledgeable and sensitive senior faculty in the same department, or another department if the research area is related. The program provides a small amount of money for research-related expenses of the junior faculty person in the mentor arrangement. However, the major thrust of the program is to provide a supportive arrangement to assist and encourage junior faculty, reduce their feelings of isolation, and inform them about university and departmental procedures and expectations for promotion. Requests to participate in the program and receive research funds should be directed to the Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity, 200 California Hall (2-1935). The request should be signed by the mentor, junior faculty member, and department chair. |
|
Distinguished Teachers Mentor Program. Faculty recipients of the Distinguished Teaching Award are paired with new assistant professors to help new faculty to become acquainted with the campus and its resources. The program is designed to provide a supportive atmosphere in which new faculty members can discuss issues related to research, teaching, and university life. Experienced senior faculty members are matched with new assistant professors based on similarities of fields and possible interests. This is a voluntary and informal relationship that aims to assist the professional development of the new faculty member. If you wish to participate in this program, contact the Office of Educational Development, 403 Sproul Hall (2-6392). |
|
American Association of University Women (A.A.U.W.). This is a national organization dedicated to promoting education and equity for women and girls. A.A.U.W. may be a resource for (among other things) contacting and developing mentoring and collegial relationships. You may reach the Berkeley chapter of the A.A.U.W at (510) 528-3284. |
|
Association of Academic Women (A.A.W.). This is an organization of Berkeley women faculty, including non-ladder rank lecturers and researchers. It organizes forums and publishes a newsletter on issues affecting women faculty on this campus. A.A.W. may be a resource for contacting and developing mentoring and collegial relationships. The Chair (and contact telephone number) changes annually. Current contact information may be obtained from the Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity (2-1935). |
|
Faculty Development Program. The University has recognized that women and minority faculty are often called upon to devote a disproportionate amount of time on departmental, campus-wide, and community activities. Although the University and the wider community benefit from the non-research activities of junior faculty, the burden of involvement often diverts attention away from the creative activities and scholarship necessary for promotion. The Faculty Development Program was designed to support the research development of such faculty and strengthen their opportunity for promotion to tenure. The Program awards two types of research grants: the Junior Faculty Mentor Grant (awards of up to $800 to support research done in cooperation with a senior faculty member), and the Career Development Grant (one semester of paid release time to devote to research activities). For application information, contact the Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity (2-1935). |
|
| Extra Professional Demands | |
| Women and minority faculty tend to be in very high demand. They are invited to serve on many committees, since there is often pressure to diversify committee membership. They are asked to give many talks and to teach certain courses, all because there is a need to have their perspective represented. There is also demand from the broader community for involvement and expertise. These obligations can be time consuming, especially for minority faculty members who can find themselves easily diverted from research by requests for consultation, expert testimony, community boards, etc. In addition, women tend to be particularly responsive to requests for advising and service. Over-commitment to service limits research development and the opportunity for promotion. Given these extra demands, and their own responsiveness to it, women and minority faculty need to work harder to ensure uninterrupted periods for writing. Saying “no” is often hard, but untenured women and minority faculty will probably need to turn down some requests for their services | |
| Berkeley’s diverse student population is a double-edged sword for minority and women professors. The cultural richness and community support brings with it demands for access to faculty whose numbers aren’t reflective of the student population. Therefore, a disproportionate demand for counseling, mentoring, and administrative service is placed upon women and minority faculty, whose numbers are concentrated in the ranks of junior professors. Your success in balancing these benefits and demands will be critical to your achievement of tenure or promotion | |
| Teaching loads need to be reconsidered—not only how many, but which courses you teach. It is fair to request a reduced load from the Chair, particularly if it is close to tenure time. The accommodations that may be granted by your Chair will depend somewhat on the size of your department. It may be politic first to inquire of your Chair what he or she considers reasonable, and what has been the general practice in this regard. It is important to teach some graduate courses giving you access to graduate students who could become involved in your work, and to increase your research productivity. Within rational limits, it is more important to chair dissertation committees than to serve as a second or third member. On the other hand, a candidate is expected to generate a “normal” teaching record. Explore carefully the implications of how you go about your request. | |
| You can also ask for relief from committee assignments and advising functions. Do not let yourself be drawn too much into doing your department’s administrative work, or even into university administration before you have tenure. If you find yourself being the token woman or minority member, turn down some invitations. To add extra clout to your “no” response, get your department chair to decline the invitations on your behalf. If you are asked to serve on a national committee, and want to accept (national committees provide evidence of a national reputation), you might get the department to trade that for department service. When you are asked to serve on a committee, you may need to bargain for the conditions you want. When you need to turn down a request for service, try saying something like, “Thank you for thinking of me, but I already have made a number of service commitments this year and must decline your invitation.” | |
| Finally, it is important to note that there is now new language in APM 210d which explicitly rewards service or teaching efforts which advance the diversity agenda of the University. Be sure to document and take credit for such service. | |
| Differential Treatment | |
| In male-dominated careers, women may become aware that their status as a numerical minority (and as female) affects how they are perceived. As women, their comments and actions are sometimes subtly, and often unintentionally, interpreted differently. Ethnic minority faculty members, both male and female, also experience many forms of differential treatment that may undermine their self-confidence or make them feel like uninvited guests at a private club. Other faculty members may perceive them as “affirmative action” hires, with various deleterious effects. They may be excluded from informal and formal social activities, where important information is shared. They may not be offered career-enhancing opportunities in the same way as their colleagues. Finally, they may be expected to deal with all the issues related to minority students, leaving less time to deal with aspects of their career that will be given greater weight in the advancement process. These patterns of differential treatment may be subtle or blatant, are generally unintentional, and are often unnoticed by the majority. But if present, these behaviors can impair the performance of women and minority faculty members. Faculty members who find they are subject to these problems should seek advice about handling them by talking to their mentor, sympathetic colleagues, Chair, or the appropriate responsible campus officials. Take action sooner rather than later. | |
| The Effect of Outside Offers on Advancement | |
| Historically, women who have a spouse/partner are more likely than men to be geographically tied to the area in which they live. Given the needs of two careers, women have not felt as free to consider job moves actively. Women faculty may be less likely to receive outside job offers because of this presumed lack of mobility. Women are less likely to initiate this process unless they are sure they want to leave. Yet accelerations of position, salary, or resources are often the result of leveraging outside offers, and many faculty have taken advantage of this. This is an insidious problem that is deeply rooted in the way the University has done business in the past, and only recently has serious thought begun to be applied to the inequities it can create. New campus policies on salary-setting for untenured faculty members have greatly reduced the impact of these issues on the salaries of untenured faculty (though it’s still very much a problem for current faculty at higher ranks). See http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/policy.on.jr.fac.sal.html One option (but it is a limited one) is to initiate a Career Equity Review if a faculty member finds that they are seriously behind relative to colleagues who have demonstrably similar records of research, teaching, and service. This can only address issues of rank step; it does not apply to salary differentials. If outside interest is expressed, it should be documented and brought to the Chair’s attention. Further, opportunities to study or to work at other locations critical to one’s area of work, however short-term, should be actively explored. | |
| VI. APPENDIX | |
APPENDIX ITEM A. “Tenure Timeline” (Chart) C. Sample Bio-Bibliography: http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/forms/biobib.doc Table 1. Sample Statement of Classroom Teaching D. “Time Off Or Extensions To The Tenure Clock” (Chart) |
|
| . | |