University-level Policies and Programs
Review by the CANR RTP Committee
Review at the Dean’s Level
RTP discussions with chair and department-school review committee
Organizing RTP dossiers
Solicitation of external reviews (only for 2nd reappt and prof reviews)
Department-and school-level review of RTP candidates
Submission of RTP dossiers to College
2nd Fri in December
(To go into effect Fall 2011: Preliminary presentation of RTP candidates by CANR chairs and directors to Dean and Directors, Early Fall)
CANR RTP Committee reviews
Very early January
College-level Dean and Director reviews
Late Jan-early Feb
***Initial feedback to candidates re status from chairs-directors to candidates
Early -mid Feb
Revision of dossiers, if needed, with resubmission to College
Submission of dossiers, including Dean's recommendation, to University Committee (Gray, Youatt, Curry)
Dean's meeting with University Committee to review dossiers
***Preliminary decision from Univ review communicated to candidates by chairs-directors
Review of Univ-Ievel decisions by provost, then, president
*'*Final decision communicated to candidates by chairs-directors
late May-early June
Tenure actions taken by MSU Board of Directors
June board meeting
(RTP decisions go into effect July 1 of that year; declinations of first and second reappointments result in position terminations on August 15 of the following year)
(Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion)
Larry Gut (Chair)/ENT/2016
CANR Promotion and Tenure Committee
1. To effectively evaluate a faculty member, the Committee must consider and evaluate three major categories for excellence:
a. an assessment of the faculty member's performance of assigned duties;
b. an assessment of the person's scholarly achievements; and
c, an assessment of the person's service activities.
In conducting assessments, the Committee operates on the premise that faculty excellence is a matter to be judged, not measured.
2. Assigned duties for a faculty member can include research, teaching, extension/outreach and/or administration. Because the college is a collaborative effort, contributions to collaborative works are included in the assessment of performance of assigned duties. Furthermore, it is expected that a faculty member will demonstrate a commitment to standards of intellectual and professional integrity in all aspects of faculty responsibilities. The Committee acknowledges that some faculty positions will be more disciplinary oriented with few additional responsibilities, whereas others may have extensive assigned duties in teaching, extension/outreach, advising) or administration. However, some scholarly activities are expected of all tenure-track faculty members regardless of assigned duties. The Committee assesses performance according toassigned duties,not in relation to the budgetary appointment.
3. In order to evaluate a faculty member, the Committee – following Boyer (1990) and Weiser (1999) defines scholarly achievements as a creative work that is peer-reviewed and publicly disseminated.
As such there are six forms of scholarship:
a) discovery of knowledge;
b) multidisciplinary integration of knowledge;
c) development of new technologies, methods, materials or uses;
d) application of knowledge to problems;
e) dissemination of knowledge; and,
f) interpretation in the arts.
This definition can be applied to teaching, research, extension/outreach, service and administration duties. The Committee is interested not only in how faculty invest their time, the activities ill which they participate, and who they reach, but also in the short, medium and long term results and impacts of the faculty's scholarly efforts.
4. Service activities are implicit in the appointment of all faculty members. A faculty member is expected to demonstrate excellence in service through a continuing commitment to academic professional and public service activities.
5. A faculty member is expected to demonstrate continual involvement in his or her intellectual and performance capabilities by improving his or her effectiveness in teaching, research, extension/outreach) service and/or administration. A faculty member also is expected to make contributions to the collegial environment of his or her academic unit.
Boyer, Ernest L. 1990 Scholarship Reconsidered – Priorities of the Professorate. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion. Michigan State University) East Lansing, Mich. November 2, 1995.
Committee of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Faculty Evaluation Principles,
Scholarly Activity Definition, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, October 25,
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bylaws Annex II: Guidelines for Performance Evaluation of New Tenure System Faculty for Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion, (Approved December 6, 1993; Effective July 1, 1994.) Michigan State University. East Lansing, Mich.
Glassick, Charles E., Mary Taylor Hubers, and Gene L Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship Assessed-
Evaluation of the Professorate. San Francisco; Josey-Bass Publishers.
Weiser, Conrad J. 1999. Final Report to the Kellogg Foundation,October 1998. Oregon State University Workshop. Scholarship Unbound: Reframing Faculty Evaluation and Rewards. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Promotion and Tenure Committee
Review the Principles for Faculty Evaluation that the CANR P&T Committee uses.
Quality not quantity. The Committee emphasizes quality, impact and that the tendency to list everything is not helpful and tends to obscure the more significant.
Top Journals in your field. A part of quality is to publish at least some work in the top journals in your subject area. The Committee looks for that evidence, especially at tenure decision time.
Reflective essay. This is your opportunity to show the quality of your thinking, your vision and the logic for your program, your strategy and implementation, including weaving in what you have achieved to date, your trajectory and where you plan to be in 10 years. The essay should emphasize the intellectual foundation of your work and plan in contrast to reporting or listing what you have done; the later should be well covered in the university forms and your vitae.
Early promotion. The Committee looks [or compelling reasons for this award, a truly an extraordinary record of scholarship. A significantly higher standard of achievement is expected than for promotion in the normal time period for the rank. Life is long and there is no great benefit to the individual and institution to rush its major stages, except for the very exceptional case.
Your area of scholarly excellence. Begin early to think about and develop your topic of excellence, what you will be known for, and articulate this expertise in your documents. For example, your goal is for anyone in your national or international field, if asked, to identify you as a world authority on the subject (modified of course for the culture of excellence in your discipline/assignment area).
Guidelines were prepared by Professor Doug Landis, CANR RTP Committee, Entomology.
These recommendations have been adopted by the CANR RTP Committee
and are used in portfolio reviews.
Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure
Bottom line: Clear evidence that the candidatehas established a program of excellence in the area(s) of major appointment and has at minimum good performance in area(s) of minor appointment.
Generally this will include evidence ofnational recognitionfrom solicited letters with invited presentations at peer universities and national meetings
During Fall Semester 2007 there was a robust discussion of scholarship – what it is and how it might be evaluated – in our College. This discussion was prompted by a call from the Dean's Office: the need to sharpen our ability to fulfill mission-related obligations as we do a better of job of acknowledging and rewarding faculty for the work they do.
While faculty at MSU and CANR are expected to make contributions through research that move the frontiers of knowledge in their respective fields, they also undertake a variety of other work –undergraduate education, graduate education, and an array of Extension outreach and engagement responsibilities, on campus, around the state, across the nation, and all over the world – that often falls outside of the conventional way that we acknowledge and reward faculty for work in the research domain. It appears to some that research has become (or is becoming) the primary frame of reference for evaluating and rewarding faculty work. At issue, then, is how do we judge the quality of work undertaken across the mission (not just in research)? And, what does scholarship look like when it is expressed outside of research?
While these are important questions, it became apparent quickly that there are differences of opinion about what scholarship is and how it might be evaluated across the mission. For example, some saw virtually any work undertaken by faculty members – when that work is prepared and deployed thoughtfully (e.g., teaching an undergraduate class) – as scholarship. Others saw teaching classes as an important scholarly activity, but not as scholarship, which they saw as creating something new for a body of knowledge through peer-validation.
In addition, two primary concerns were expressed about the discussion of scholarship, generally. First, there were concerns that these discussions might lead to “one size fits all” metrics across CANR –applied to everyone, everywhere irrespective of potential differences in the work they do (e.g., teaching a study abroad course vis-a-vis involving students in an engagement experience overseas). In other words, while there is not likely to one answer to any core question (e.g., What is quality of Extension work), there probably are multiple answers to any question, with each answer fitting the nature of the work undertaken and/or the academic context in which it is being exercised. Second, concerns were expressed that emphasizing scholarship across the mission might diminish the value of work associated with teaching classes, doing Extension, and undertaking other non-research roles. If we were to emphasize work associated with scholarship in teaching, for instance, would that emphasis diminish the value of teaching classes? If so, then it might be better 110tto have these discussions at all.
Points of Agreement
Interestingly, while no consensus emerged about how to frame the discussion, including how to define basic terms, there was general agreement about a framework— advanced in first form in September that stayed intact as the semester-long discussion unfolded: 1) for evaluating the quality and impact of teaching, research, and Extension-outreach-engagement activities; and 2) for defining and evaluating the quality and impact of scholarship associated with teaching, research, and Extension-outreach-engagement. Both outcomes seemed to be worthy in intent and outcome. The dual focus is expressed in the text that follows.
In all activities associated with teaching, research and Extension-outreach-engagement, faculty members undertake work that is informed by an academically recognized boyd of knowledge, undertaken in a scholarly manner, and evaluated as having quality with impact.
Scholarship across the mission – irrespective of whether it is associated with teaching, research or Extension-outreach-engagement – involves creating something new and valuable (that is, makes a contribution) in a disciplinary, professional, multidisciplinary, or interdisciplinary field; having the work validated such as by peers; and making the work “public,” that is, is available in an academically legitimate location for use in teaching, research, or Extension-outreach-engagement work.
Undergirding this two-pronged framework-again without much disagreement, although with interpretive differences— were statements authored at various times by faculty committees at the University and CANR levels, respectively.
From MSU policy:
Through its faculty, MSU will create knowledge and find new and innovative ways to extend its applications, to serve Michigan, the nation, and the international community. The faculty must infuse cutting-edge scholarship into the full range of our teaching programs. At MSU, faculty are expected to be both active scholars and student-focused, demons/rating substantial scholarship and ability to promote learning through our on-campus and off-campus education and research programs. The essence of scholarship is the thoughtful discovery, transmission, and application of knowledge, including creative activities, that is based in the ideas and methods of recognized disciplines, professions, and interdisciplinary fields. What qualifies an activity as scholarship is that it be deeply informed by the most recent knowledge in the field, that the knowledge is skillfully interpreted and deployed, and that the activity is carried out with intelligent openness to new information, debate and criticism.
From CANR Promotion and Tenure Committee Policy:
In order to evaluate a faculty member, the Committee defines scholarly achievements as a creative work that is peer reviewed and publicly disseminated. As such there are six forms of scholarship: discovery of knowledge; multidisciplinary integration of knowledge,' development a/flew technologies, methods, materials or uses; application of knowledge to problems; dissemination of knowledge; and interpretation in the arts. This definition can be applied to teaching, research, extension/outreach, service and administration duties. The Committee is interested not only in how faculty invest their time, the activities in which they participate, and who they reach, but also in the short, medium and long term results and impacts of the faculty 's scholarly efforts.
(with specific reference to MSU as a research-intensive, land-grant institution,
with international obligations)
There is clear and abundant evidence that the associate professor
has established himself or herself as an accomplished academic.
1. It is obvious-by declaration, evidence, and reputation-that the associate professor has established her or his "headline" of academic focus. Focus represents a targeted area of scholarship for which one is known, a domain in which a scholarly reputation is built. The associate professor's reputation is substantiated by high-quality, nationally (and/or internationally) competitive work in at least one dimension of the academic mission.
2. There is abundant evidence that all assignments are being undertaken with attention to scholarly quality and with work completed on a timely basis. Put another way, there are no apparent weaknesses in any of the primary areas of responsibility. The faculty member is perceived to be competent and has her or his "act together."
3. There is widespread recognition of collegial engagement and contributions. The faculty member works collaboratively with peer and takes on and completes (with quality) assignments in teams. This includes project work, team-teaching, and governance and related aSSignments at the unit level and beyond. In taking on these assignments, the associate professor is viewed by many peers and others (e.g., administrators) as an academic leader-a person who (with time) will have senior standing in the Academy.
4. There is evidence of contributions being made to students-undergraduate and/or graduate. These contributions include guest lecturing, teaching courses, serving as a club advisor, and mentoring-advising graduate students.
5. There is a strong conviction that the faculty member "is on the right track" with a high probability of experiencing a positive review at time of promotion to professor. Weaknesses in 1-4 are noted at the time of promotion to associate professor ... unless it is felt that the burden of evidence suggests against a reasonable chance of success at the time of the next review.
This policy was issued by the Office a/the Provost on March 1, 2011 (to be effective Fall semester 2011); it reflects advice by the Faculty Council and the University Committee all Faculty Affairs
Academic Human Resources Policy
Each college shall implement a formal menta ring program by August 16,2011. As a part of the college program, colleges may also require that each department or school develop its own unit level· mentoring program. Effective mentoring is important to enhancing academic excellence and building a progressively stronger faculty composed of members who meet continuously higher standards and are competitive nationally and internationally. Mentoring programs will help the University achieve its goals for a high·quality faculty, diversity, inclusive excellence, and a respectful, positive work environment in which all members of the University community can thrive. While the responsibility for career development and success is ultimately that of the individual faculty member, opportunity, mentoring and the degree of environmental support that is available can affect success.
There are many forms of mentoring programs and no single model will meet the needs of all units or individuals. Each college (and/or unit) should develop a program that is most relevant to its needs based upon evidence based best practices. The practices and procedures in colleges may vary; however, all college mentoring programs must incorporate, at a minimum, the principles included below.
1 For faculty members with joint appointments, there should be one mentoring plan for the faculty member, coordinated among the units, with leadership from the faculty member's lead unit.
2 Faculty members need different kinds of mentoring at different stages of their career. Initially, at minimum, colleges are expected to provide a mentoring program for pre·tenure, tenure system faculty, and build upon the program as capacity allows. This might include, for example, the addition of associate professors, HP faculty, or fixed term faculty for whom there is a long·term commitment.
3 Colleges, units and mentors should demonstrate sensitivity to potentially different challenges faced by diverse faculty induding women, persons of color, and other facets of identity.
4 Conflicts of interest should be minimized, confidentiality protected, and all faculty members provided an environment in which they can address concerns without fear of retribution.
5 A faculty member may choose not to have a mentor.
6 Mentoring policies should be clearly communicated to all faculty members, and efforts must be made to ensure that there is clarity of both expectations and roles for all parties.
CANR is committed to the professional development and successful advancement of its faculty members. Toward that end, steps need to be taken to ensure that faculty reviews are conducted annually at the unit level (to include written assessments given to faculty members) and that faculty members are informed about the measures and indicators that will be used to evaluate their performance.
In addition, the College believes that effective faculty mentoring is an important component that contributes to successful professional development. Effective mentoring involves activities undertaken at the university, college, and unit levels. University policy requires that all colleges have a formal and substantive mentoring program for pre-tenure, tenure-stream faculty.
CANR recognizes the central role that academic units play in enabling faculty development and it also respects the variation in disciplines-professions and missions across academic units in the College. With those points in mind, academic units will play the primary role in establishing formal and substantive mentoring for pre-tenure, tenure stream faculty members; and this mentoring will continue through the time of advancement to the rank of professor. Mentoring will also be available to fixed-term faculty members who hold the ranks of assistant professor and associate professor; and academic specialists who are appointed in the Continuing System, but who have not as yet earned Continuing Status.
The goals of department/school mentoring may vary by academic unit, but at a minimum should:
The mentoring approach may vary among academic units, but must include the following elements:
Support for mentoring CANR faculty members will be provided under the leadership and direction of the CANR Director of Faculty Development (DFD), who will also be responsible for the development and regular review of the policy. The DFD will also have responsibility for ensuring that all faculty members are informed about faculty development programs in CANR and at MSU. This support will include:
The DFD will also serve as a confidential source available to all CANR faculty members —to serve as a resource (by identifying appropriate individuals with relevant expertise for advice/consultation for professional development) and/or by discussing sensitive issues with CANR faculty members at the faculty members’ invitation.
Review and Evaluation
The effectiveness of the college and unit mentoring programs will be assessed at an interval not to exceed 5 years.
The Reflective Essay is an integral part of the reappointment, tenure and promotion process at virtually all universities. The reason for its universal importance is that "a capacity for ret1ection and self-evaluation ... is a critical ingredient in a professor's life" (McGovern, p. 96).
As such, the Reflective Essay holds a unique position in the candidate's dossier of supporting evidence. The CV (curriculum vitae) and Form D--no matter what the length--will be read and discussed by reviewers. Consequently, the Reflective Essay should not be a summary of evidence presented in those documents. Instead, the Reflective Essay is "an opportunity to weave a tapestry of understanding of [your] scholarly pursuits "(Smith, p. ii).
Intent and Use
The Reflective Essay serves as the "key orienting and organizing element of the [dossier]" (Froh, et. al. p. 108) with the purpose of "providing a frame of reference 01' context for the items submitted to the committee" (Diamond,
p. 24). Consequently, the Re!1ectivc Essay is the primary opportunity the candidate will have to convey the nature and meaning of her/his scholarly work and philosophy to those reviewers from his/her and other disciplines (Millis, p. 69).
Above all, the Reflective Essay should (a) convey the candidate’s vision of herself/himself as a maturing or mature scholar (including describing one's scholarly niche); (b) communicate the contributions made during the reporting period in advancing toward that vision; (e) provide an indication (evidence) of the impact of the candidate's scholarly efforts; and (d) show development-evolution of the candidate's scholarship.
The objective of the Reflective Essay "is to convey as much depth and richness as possible by [employing] selective evidence of [scholarly) accomplishments" (Froh, et. al., p. 106). Above all, candidates should remember that the Ref1ective Essay is "a reflection of the care [the candidate) take(s) in communicating scholarship" (Smith, p. il).
The preparation of the Reflective Essay should begin early in one's MSU--CANR career, and should be updated on a periodic basis throughout the reporting period (c. g., during the annual evaluation process). Approaching it this manner will enable the candidate to prepare a document that represents a more accurate and convincing expression of the evolution of one's scholarly development. With all of this in mind, here are 8 guidelines for the development of a Rf1ective Essay:
Remember..., the Reflective Essay is the candidate's opportunity to communicate the quality of thinking, vision and logic of the program, strategy and implementation--incorporating what has been achieved to date; the trajectory of the program; and the targets and milestones anticipated in the next 10 years, The Essay must emphasize the intellectual foundation of the work and plans for the future. The Essay must not be a reporting or listing of what has been done in the past; this is well covered in Form D and the CV.
Border, Laura L.B. "The Socratic Portfolio: A Guide for Future Faculty," PSOnline, 35(4): 739-742.
Diamond, Robert M, Preparing for Promotion and Tenure Review: A Faculty Guide, Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, 1995.
Froh, Robert C, Petcr J, Gray, and Leo M, Lambert. "Representing Faculty Work: The Professional Portfolio," In New Directions in Higher Education: Recognizing Faculty Work, Reward Systems for the Year 2000, edited by Robert M, Diamond and Bronwyn E, Adam, Number 81, Spring 1993, pp, 97-110.
McGovern, Thomas V, "Self-Evaluation: Composing an Academic Life Narrative," In Evaluating Faculty Performance: A Practical Guide /0 Assessing Teaching, Research, and Service, edited by Peter Seldin, Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, 2006, pp, 96-110.
Millis, Barbara J. "Shaping the Reflective P01ifolio: A Philosophical Look at the Mentoring Role," Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 6(1): 1995, 65-73.
Seldin, Peter. The Teaching Portfolio: A Practical Guide to Improved Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, 1991.
Smith, Terra L. "Documenting the New American Scholarship: Tenure and Promotion Dossier Narratives," Higher Education Clearinghouse, Education Resources Information Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education, 2003.
Zubizarrela, John. "The Professional Portfolio: Expanding the Value of Portfolio Development." In Evaluating Faculty Performance: A Practical Guide to Assessing Teaching, Research, and Service, edited by Peter Seldin. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, 2006, pp. 201-216.