Tips to Tenure

Image

This workshop was presented by the Faculty Mentor Program. One workshop was held, and five panelists presided. 33 faculty participated in the workshop.

The panelists provided faculty with perspectives from a variety of viewpoints, including deans, chairs, senior faculty and recently tenured faculty. The presenters each gave advice on the tenure and promotion process, followed by an interactive question and answer format.

The panel included Suzanna Rose (CAS), Grenville Draper (EEV), Timothy Page (PHSW), Jennifer Rehage (EEV), and Jason Pearl (ENG).

Results from the workshop evaluations showed that that faculty agreed the session lived up to their expectations, that they gained clear and concrete guidelines for assistance with the tenure & promotion process, and that they were glad they took the time to participate. All the participants received a handout with tenure resources, as well as the tenure and promotion manual.

Faculty responded that they learned "the importance of support letters and starting early to establish professional contacts," about "making a system to indicate your contributions to papers" and to "try to be more cooperative with other researchers and to use your time wisely." Suggestions for future workshops included "having different sessions that are discipline specific," and to provide "good and bad examples of how people got, and failed to get, their tenure."

Overall, faculty found the Tips to Tenure workshop to be "very helpful," and that "clear, diverse perspectives were shared. The panel was great with faculty coming from various fields and sharing targeted research expectations."

Tenure and Promotion Manual
Tenure and Promotion Forms
2014-2015 Tenure and Promotion Schedule
Tenure and Promotion Support Memo
Faculty Handbook 14-15
Tips for Tenure workshop video

Detailed Evaluation Results for Tips to Tenure Workshop

17 faculty (8 women, 6 men, 3 unknown) completed evaluations out of 33 total participants.

Questions & Responses

This Tips to Tenure session lived up to my expectations
N=17 Mean=4.47 SD=1.01 Range= 1 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

I gained clear and concrete guidelines for assistance with the Tenure & Promotion process.
N=16 Mean=4.31 SD=1.08 Range= 1 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

I am glad I took the time to participate in the session.
N=17 Mean=4.71 SD=.99 Range= 1 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

Questions & Answers:

Please give an example of at least one thing you learned from this workshop and will use in your Tenure & Promotion process. (open-ended)

  • One thing that stuck with me was to ask the chair of my department to put me on a class rotation so that I don’t have any new classes during the 4th and 5th year.
  • The importance of the research statement for the Tenure file. The fact that the candidate needs to start writing it soon and try to circulate the draft among Faculty who can provide meaningful feedback.
  • The importance of support letters and starting early to establish professional contacts.
  • To think carefully on the selection of external reviewers, and the expectation of publication details (authorship, leading author, corresponding, etc.).
  • H index. Timing and getting new students in the lab at appropriate times e.g. when a - student is close to graduating. Definition of external reviewers. The explanation of certain information is needed. The importance of narratives.
  • External letter writers.
  • Annotation of publication.
  • All the speakers gave very informative and helpful presentations.
  • Making a system to indicate your contributions to papers.
  • Think early about external reviewers.
  • I will begin being more protective of my writing time to enhance productivity. I will also continue to build my external network to better position myself for external letters.
  • I learned some details about choosing external letter writers and I realized that I need a letter from my ex-advisers to tell about why we still collaborate.
  • External speaker list.
  • Try being more cooperative with other researchers to use your time wisely.
  • Advice on external reviewers! Expectations for publishing a tenure book.

Is there anything that could have been improved about this session?

  • I think these sessions should be discipline specific. I'm in the humanities and only one of the panelists belonged to this area.
  • More clarity on the external letters.
  • Importance of graduate students (# of Ph.D.s graduated, etc)
  • How to build collaboration.
  • There were no engineers. I' m in engineering so it isn't exactly applied the same.
  • No, it was very well organized.
  • Provide some good and bad examples of how people got and failed to get their tenure - what mistakes they made that could have been avoided.
  • Clear guidelines on department specific requirements.

General Comments about the overall workshop?

  • This is a great idea. Thank you!
  • Excellent. It is the best I have attended recently: clear, diverse perspectives were shared. The panel was great with faculty coming from various fields and sharing targeted research expectations.
  • Thanks for information.
  • Very good. Need longer Q & A.
  • Thank you, very helpful!
  • Good.
  • Thanks.
  • Excellent workshop and very helpful.
  • Informative well-organized. Panelists provided insightful information. Very nice.
  • More.
  • Very helpful.
  • It would be helpful to have a humanities specific workshop. Since expectations are so difficult with the sciences.