Writing Your Self-Review:
a LAUC-SD/CAPA workshop
Annelise Sklar
Teri Vogel
November 2015
Objectives
• An overview of the peer review process as it
relates to the self-review.
• Guidance in writing the self-review section of the
review file.
• Guidance for categorizing your professional
responsibilities and activities according to the
APM/ARPM criteria.
2
Documents you should know about
Website for documentation, forms, workshop materials, etc.:
https://lisn.ucsd.edu/display/LHR1/Academic+Review
(LHR Resources  Academic Review)
• APM. Academic Personnel Manual – the policy manual for
academic appointees in the UC system
• ARPM. Academic Review Procedures Manual – the
procedures manual for LAUC-SD (UCSD Librarians)
• MOU. Memorandum of Understanding between UC-AFT and
UC
3
Criteria
 I. Review of Professional Performance
 I.A. Professional competence and quality of
service within the library
 I.B. Professional activity outside the library
 I.C. University and Library-related public service
 I.D. Research and other creative work
 II. Professional Growth and Continuing
Professional Education
ARPM III D.1a-III D.3 – based on APM 360-10-b.(1) through 10-b.(4)
4
Criteria to be used in specific
situations
• III. Other Factors Related to Performance
– Additional factors not addressed in I.A-D or II.
– This section is used infrequently in self reviews.
– If you had an extended absence or any other
unusual circumstance you feel had a bearing on
your performance during the review period.
5
Criteria to be used in specific
situations
• Career Overview
• This section is only necessary in cases of
promotion.
• Up to 2 additional pages. No more.
• Use this section to describe your career arc and
highlight your professional successes and growth.
• As in the Self Review narrative, please be concise
and focus on what is most important. Be selective!
(You may include as many details as you like in
your Academic Biography.)
6
Before you write your self-review
• Examine materials in your review packet for accuracy
(dates of employment, rank, salary, etc.)
• Discuss the range of options with your Program
Director and/or delegated evaluation writer, if
appropriate.
• You may request redacted reference letters from
LHR.
• Look at previous UL and CAPA letters.
7
Before you write your self-review:
Academic Biography
• NEW FORM, posted to LiSN
– Changes to Section III (Bibliography)
– Separate peer-reviewed (part A) from non-peer reviewed (part B).
•
•
•
•
•
Do not submit any actual material (articles, books).
Do not attach a resume or CV.
This form stays with you throughout your career.
Any standard bibliographic citation format is acceptable.
List memberships and continuing education here to save room
in the self-review (no page limit here).
• Remember to sign and date it.
8
Before you write your self-review:
Reference Letter(s) Request
• You suggest letter-writers, but the PD makes the decision
• Think strategically:
– Consider the letters for this file in the context of the whole
career. Don’t get letters from the same people as before;
breadth and variety is good.
– Think especially about B-C-D and areas where the PD
doesn’t have firsthand information
– Limit letter requests !
– Carefully describe specific area to be addressed.
9
Before you write your self-review:
Other Letter(s) Request
• Required Secondary Evaluator?
- Split between two (or more) assignments, then any
other PD is required to write a Secondary Evaluation
- Internal to the Library or UC Library System (otherwise
reference request)
- Initiated by PD
10
Before you write your self-review:
Other Letter(s) Request
• Optional Secondary Evaluator?
₋ If your PD may not have sufficient knowledge of your
responsibilities
₋ When you believe that some aspect of your job
performance will not be evaluated sufficiently
elsewhere in your file
₋ Persons Internal to the Library or UC Library System
₋ May be initiated by Candidate, Secondary Evaluator or
the PD
11
Before you write your Self-Review:
Position Description
• Update your Position Description in consultation with
your Program Director
• The Position Description is be one page in length,
reflecting your job as discussed in Criterion I.A.
• Responsibilities in the position description should add up
to 100%.
• Professional development, conferences, and creative
work do not count in this 100%.
12
Structure of the self-review
• No more than 5 pages
• Bulleted list of accomplishments categorized according to
Criteria I. A-D and II (~1-2 pages)
• Per ARPM IV C4.d, narrative discussion of no more than
the three most significant activities in I.A and no more
than three activities from among I.B-D (~3-4 pages)
• Activities in I.A should match your Position Description –
• Use the Academic Biography to save space
• When is the career overview necessary?
13
You are not a loser
• If you ran for a position and lost, for example LAUCSD Member-at-Large, you may include the fact that
you were on the ballot in your self-review.
• If you wrote a grant proposal and the grant was not
awarded, you may include both facts in your selfreview.
14
No double dipping
• If you conduct research and write a publication that
will not be published until the next review cycle, you
may write about the research and writing in the
current self-review narrative.
• However, if you choose to write about the work in
this narrative, you should not write about in the
narrative of your next self-review. Simply add it to
your list of publications.
• This also applies to work done for a conference
program when the work is done in one review cycle
and the program is held in another.
15
Tips for developing the narrative
• Those who review your file are your Program
Director (and anyone delegated to write part of your
review), CAPA, possibly an Ad Hoc, and the
Administrative Team.
• Do not assume that any reviewer knows you or
knows the importance of your work.
• Avoid jargon and acronyms. Spell out acronyms the
first time used in both bulleted list and narrative.
• Be succinct and to the point.
• Include only activity that falls within the period
under review.
16
Tips for developing the narrative
• Be honest. Don’t overstate, but don’t be overly
modest.
• Use the first person pronoun, active voice, and short
sentences.
• The so-what factor: describe why your activities are
important.
• Relate what you did to the specific criteria.
• All decisions and recommendations will be based only
on the material in your review file.
• Give context to URLs. There is no guarantee that they
will be followed.
17
Criteria for advancement through the
librarian series
• There is a correlation between the rank and
what is expected in Criteria I.A through I.D.
• While the primary emphasis is on Criterion I.A,
there is an expectation of increased
accomplishment in Criteria I.B, I.C or I.D as a
candidate moves up through the ranks.
• You will be compared to your peers at similar
rank.
18
Career Overview Statements for
Promotion
• Discussion of the entire relevant career history is
required.
• It is responsibility of the Candidate, the Program
Director and any designated evaluation writer to
work together to present a thorough picture of
the entire career history.
19
Finally…
• Report only activities from the period under
review.
• Be succinct, to the point, and honest.
• Feel free to share your self-review with a more
experienced colleague and/or ask to see theirs.
• Get your self-review in on time.
GOOD LUCK!
20
Reminder about Ad Hocs
• All those in the librarian series with Career
Status are eligible to serve on Ad Hocs.
• There are many files this year and you will
probably serve on an Ad Hoc.
• An Ad Hoc is review group and is as important
as the other reviewers.
• The responsibilities of an Ad Hoc may be
found in ARPM IV.D 2-4.
21