Transcript Lisa Bornstein, Engineering

How tenure dossiers are evaluated:
DTCs (Urban Planning) and UTCs (Faculty of Arts,
Faculty of Engineering)
Lisa Bornstein
Associate Professor
School of Urban Planning
My experience
• Own tenure process in Urban Planning, Faculty of
Engineering
• DTCs: School of Urban Planning
• UTC: Faculty of Arts, 2 years
• UTC: Faculty of Engineering, 2 years
• Presentation by Ghyslaine McClure, Civ Eng (2012)
Criteria for tenure
• Demonstrated evidence of successful performance
• Meeting the criteria expected of your reference group(s)
• Excellence in at least two of the three areas (research,
teaching, service) with at least satisfactory performance
in the third
• Most candidates (approx. 85-90%) at McGill are
successful
Pitfalls
Poorly prepared dossier
•
•
•
•
Sloppy, wordy, disorganized, repetitive
Research areas and contributions unclear
Teaching and supervision unclear or inaccurate
Presentation of service perfunctory
Negative assessments
• Letters from external evaluators
• Poor relations with/reports from those in your unit
• Problem issues identified at reappointment or in
teaching evaluations and left unaddressed!
Weak response to DTC/UTC ‘tending to a negative’
• Poorly prepared presentation and supplementary material
• MAUT can help. But talk to others & practice as well!
The tenure dossier
Prepare:
 Find out the current and specific tenure criteria of your
discipline (find a mentor!)
 Choose your external reviewers cautiously
 If there are problems, address them
 Provide clear evidence of your superior performance
 Prepare high-quality, readable documents





style, format and tone matter (time consuming – start early)
write for your audience (avoid jargon, equations, and the like)
be concise
avoid double counting (be strategic…)
review and have others review your document
The DTC
• Assess research, teaching and service (dossier + external
letters)
• Have a clear idea of criteria for the specific field
• May have insight into the ‘quality of performance’ via
direct observations and involvement
• ‘Fit with the unit’ and ‘contribution to the unit’
• Improvement
• Can explain ‘anomalies’ in DTC report
• teaching & committee load, doctoral students, publication route,
priorities of unit
• Not always positive in assessment
• Opportunity for you to supplement & clarify dossier
The UTC
• Chaired by Dean of the Faculty
• Multi-disciplinary composition
• Fundamentally on your side
• Assess research, teaching and service
• dossier + external letters + DTC report + any additional material from
a ‘tending to a negative’ proces)
• Standards of unit + demonstrated performance (not potential)
• Recognition of variations across and within fields
• Wider definitions of contribution (e.g., inter-disciplinarity)
‘Tending to negative’ letter is an opportunity for
you to respond to concerns
For superior performance in research
Criteria vary in different disciplines
• Quantity and quality of publications
• Target number of publications
• Impact factors (?) – use if helpful to your case
• Publication routes & authorship conventions vary – explain yours if
it is atypical
•
•
•
•
Development of an independent research agenda
Contribution to the field(s)
Recognition in your field(s): invited talks, citations
Canadian grants, at least one as PI
• in Engineering: NSERC Discovery Grant, FQRNT New Researcher
Grant, other NSERC, FQRNT, SSHRC, FQRSC
• Evidence of mentorship and/or collaboration
• Applied, professional, ‘artistic’ research
8
For superior performance in teaching
• Teaching load and course evaluation scores
• make the best analysis possible; check specific scores (e.g., “I
learned a lot in this course”); point out improvement and/or
measures taken to address weaknesses; explain anomalies
• Show curriculum development, innovative methods
• Graduate student supervision and co-supervision
• Numbers, progress of students, mentorship (co-authorship or
conference presentation)
• Other training, teaching, supervision, mentorship activities
• Try to make sure you have graduated a few PhDs.
• If hasn’t happened, explain as positively as possible
9
For superior performance in service
• Service defined in different ways in the Faculty (& elsewhere)
• University committees
• Quality of service more important than quantity here
• Membership in professional association
• Outstanding service will not compensate for reasonable
research or poor teaching but does count!
Typical valued activities:
• Contributions to the academic community e.g., reviews for journals;
PhD examination committees outside your unit; active membership in
technical associations (local, Canadian & international); organisation
of conference sessions
• Contributions to or engagement with the external ‘lay’ community
(government, community, professionals, ‘industry’)
10
Thank you (and good luck!)