Tenure Recommendations
Provisions and criteria for the granting of tenure are set out in the Collective Agreement,
Section III.6. The following guidelines have been approved by COAP. They are designed
to assist chairs and colleagues in the preparation of a tenure recommendation.
Faculty hired at the Assistant Professor rank are normally considered for tenure in the
fifth year of their probationary appointment. Faculty hired at the Assistant Professor rank
may be considered for early tenure in the third year of their probationary appointment.
Early tenure is awarded based on a determination that “outstanding scholarship has been
demonstrated” (see III.6.2.3 and III.6.3.2). Faculty hired at the Associate Professor rank
are considered for tenure in the third year of their probationary appointment (see
III.6.2.1);
For members on probationary appointments who have prior service in limited term
appointments at Trent, their tenure date will be specified in their letters of appointment,
according to III.6.2.4;
Members who are at B6 or higher on the salary grid in the year in which they are
considered for tenure are to be simultaneously considered for promotion to Associate
Professor. Unless there is an overriding failure to perform administrative service
(including departmental1 and university committee work, with the exceptions noted in
IV.2.1.4.2), the granting of tenure entails promotion to Associate Professor (see III.8.1.5);
Except in exceptional circumstances, recommendations for tenure are to be based on
the candidate’s research2 and teaching since the start of the candidate’s probationary
appointment at Trent;
Departments are to establish tenure committees as required (see III.6.4.1). Except in
cases where there are fewer than six probationary and tenured members in a department
(see III.6.4.1 ii)), tenure committees shall consist of the Chair of the department, as nonvoting Chair of the committee, three departmental members elected by the departmental
committee, and one faculty member appointed by the Dean (see III.6.4.1 (i)). The Dean
will appoint the faculty member external to the department after having received
suggestions of several names from the Chair. Departments may elect to have up to two
student members on the tenure committee in addition to the five faculty members. Where
the department has elected to have student participation on the tenure committee, any
existing or proposed procedures shall be reviewed, in consultation with the Dean (see
II.6.4.1);
1 All
references to “department” are intended to cover both undergraduate departments and undergraduate
programs.
2 In some cases creative professional work may be considered as part of the candidate’s research output. In
such cases, the candidate and the Chair should demonstrate the calibre of the creative work (for example,
by citing its juried and/or professionally curated status and/or by providing reviews) and its relation to the
candidate’s academic appointment.
Faculty who hold cross-appointments in more than one department will be considered
for tenure by a tenure committee in their home unit (see III.14.4). The tenure committee
must seek input on the candidate’s teaching, research, and service (as appropriate) from
the non-home unit (see III.14.4). If the candidate requests it, a representative from the
nonhome unit will be included on the tenure committee, with full voting rights (see
III.14.4).
This representative from the non-home unit will be in addition to the regularly constituted
tenure committee, and will be chosen by the Dean in consultation with the Chairs of the
two departments and the candidate;
See Chairs’ calendar (http://www.trentu.ca/deansoffice/calendar.php) for annual
deadline for submission of recommendations for tenure;
The Chair should alert the candidate that his/her tenure hearing has commenced, and
the candidate should be given at least four weeks to prepare a dossier for submission to
the tenure committee (see III.6.4.3). The dossier should include a current CV indicating
clearly research and teaching accomplishments since the start of the probationary
appointment at Trent; copies of publications; evidence of conference presentations;
manuscripts under consideration and evidence of their status; evidence of grant
applications; a research prospectus explaining the coherence of the candidate’s research
project(s) and future direction(s); course syllabi; teaching evaluations; lab manuals and/or
course packs, as appropriate; evidence of reading course, honours, and/or graduate
supervision, as appropriate; evidence of curricular or pedagogical development; evidence
of nominations for teaching awards, etc.; and other documentation as relevant. In
addition, the candidate should include a covering letter which serves as a guide to the
candidate’s dossier for members of the tenure committee and COAP;
The Chair of the tenure committee should contact between forty and sixty students
(including graduate students, as appropriate) whom the candidate has taught while at
Trent, requesting comments on the candidate’s teaching. (In cases where the candidate
has taught fewer than fifty students, the Chair of the tenure committee should contact as
many students as possible.) Approximately half of the students should be named by the
candidate, and approximately half by the tenure committee. The students should not be
registered in any course taught by the candidate during the current academic year.
Students should be asked to comment on some or all of the following: the course
organization and the instructor’s presentation of the materials; the intellectual stimulation
provided by the course and/or the instructor; the availability and helpfulness of the
instructor, including the adequacy of feedback; the overall quality of the course; the
quality of reading course, honours thesis, and/or graduate supervision, as appropriate.
3 In
the case of procedures governing the soliciting of views of external assessors for “traditional Aboriginal
knowledge scholars” and “dual tradition scholars” in Indigenous Studies, please see Appendices II and III
respectively of the Indigenous Studies tenure criteria.
Students should be told that it is university practice to ensure that their letters are treated
in confidence by the relevant committees (tenure committee and COAP), unless as a
result of an appeal process legal and/or contractual proceedings require otherwise;
In cases where external assessors’ views are sought, the candidate should name one
external assessor and the tenure committee should name the other.3 Prior to settling on its
choice of external assessor, the tenure committee should, through its Chair, give the
candidate the opportunity to indicate, in confidence to the Chair, up to one person whom
he/she wishes to be excluded from the tenure committee’s list of potential external
assessors. The external assessors should be at least senior Associate Professors or
equivalent, should have an academic background that makes them well-placed to
comment on the candidate’s research, and must be at arm’s length from the candidate
(i.e., not a supervisor, collaborator, student, family member, or friend of the candidate, or
of an immediate family member of the candidate). The tenure committee, through its
Chair, is responsible for ensuring that the external assessors are at arm’s length. This
should be confirmed in the Chair’s letter to COAP documenting procedure if it is not
addressed in the assessor’s letter;
The Chair should write to the external assessors, enclosing an up-to-date CV for the
candidate that highlights accomplishments since start of the probationary appointment at
Trent as well as a research dossier prepared by the candidate. The Chair should request
comments on the candidate’s scholarship and scholarly promise (see III.6.4.3). The
relevant departmental tenure criteria and the relevant language from the CA should be
included. Assessors should be told that it is university practice to ensure that their letters
are treated in confidence by the relevant committees (tenure committee and COAP)
unless as a result of an appeal process legal and/or contractual proceedings require
otherwise;
Members of the candidate’s department should be provided with the opportunity to
comment on the candidate’s teaching and/or research. In order that their judgments be
well-founded, they should be provided with access to the non-confidential parts of the
candidate’s tenure file. Confidential materials include teaching evaluations and any
letters by students, faculty, or externals written with the expectation of confidentiality.
Candidates may, if they so choose, give express written consent to have their teaching
evaluations made available to members of their department not on the tenure committee;
The Chair may contact members of the university outside the candidate’s home
department to comment on the candidate’s teaching and/or research. The candidate
should be provided with the opportunity to suggest names of colleagues to the Chair
and/or to approve the list proposed by the tenure committee. If members are asked to
comment on a candidate’s research, they should be provided with access to the
candidate’s research dossier. If members are asked to comment on a candidate’s teaching,
they should make explicit in their letter in what capacity they are familiar with the
candidate’s teaching;
COAP values letters from departmental and university colleagues. Colleagues should
be encouraged to submit letters to the tenure committee commenting on the candidate’s
teaching materials (syllabi, assignments, exams, and other materials as relevant), on their
own experience of the candidate in the classroom, as relevant, on the candidate’s
contributions to curricular discussions, and on the importance of the candidate’s research
output and its relation to the candidate’s future research plans;
Tenure committees are “to pay principal regard to scholarship and scholarly promise. In
order to qualify for tenure, the candidate must be judged to have demonstrated high
quality in both teaching and research, including fulfilling the applicable duties and
responsibilities referenced in Article IV.1.1. i) and ii)” (see III.6.4.2);
Recommendations are to be made in accordance with III.6.4.2 and approved
departmental tenure criteria;
Where any reservations were expressed by a departmental personnel committee in its
recommendation of a candidate for a probationary reappointment and were
communicated in writing to the candidate and COAP at the time of reappointment, these
reservations are to be addressed by the tenure committee (see III.6.3.5);
In the case of a positive recommendation by the tenure committee, the Chair is to
forward the recommendation of the tenure committee along with his/her own
recommendation to the Dean. The recommendation should include all documentation and
correspondence considered by the tenure committee (see III.6.4.5). The Chair’s letter
must provide a detailed presentation of the case for a positive recommendation for tenure.
For example, the assessment that the candidate’s teaching is of high quality should
include a summary evaluation of material submitted documenting the candidate’s
teaching performance, and the assessment that the candidate’s research is of high quality
should include an evaluation of the calibre of the journals, conferences, or publishers
which support the candidate’s research. The Chair’s submission must additionally include
a report on the procedures followed by the tenure committee (see III.6.4.3);
In cases where the candidate is simultaneously being recommended for promotion to
Associate Professor (see III.8.1.5), the Chair’s recommendation should also address the
candidate’s contributions to service, bearing in mind the candidate’s option to be exempt
from service on University and Senate committees during the first four years of a
probationary appointment (see IV.2.1.4.2);
If the tenure committee has serious reservations about the candidate’s qualifications for
tenure, the Chair is to inform the candidate, and set out in writing the reasons for the
tenure committee’s reservations. The candidate may request reconsideration by the tenure
committee before it makes its recommendation to the Chair. The candidate shall be told
of the recommendation the Chair intends to forward to COAP (see III.6.4.3);
Members of COAP will review the candidate’s teaching materials, research materials,
all other supporting materials considered by the tenure committee, and the Chair’s
recommendation to the Dean;
See III.6.4.5 for procedures governing requests for reconsideration by COAP;
Members of COAP will, by formal vote, make a recommendation to the Dean. The
Dean shall not vote. The Dean shall make a recommendation to the President;
Tenure decisions are made by the Board, following a recommendation from the
President, following a recommendation from the Dean, following a recommendation
from COAP, following a recommendation from the Chair of the departmental tenure
committee. following a recommendation from the departmental tenure committee;
See III.6.4.6 for procedures governing decisions to deny tenure;
Tenure decisions take effect on July 1 following the successful recommendation (see
III.6.4.4);
Tenure decisions do not result in salary increases;
With the exception of teaching evaluations, any confidential materials returned to the
department from the Dean’s Office should be kept for one year and then shredded. The
dossier prepared by the candidate, including the teaching evaluations, should be returned
to the candidate.
Discussed at Faculty Board January 2008
Approved by COAP February 2008