An Examination of Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Policies and
Procedures at the SUNY College at Oneonta and Other Institutions
A Report from
The Task Force on Renewal, Tenure and Promotion
Submitted to
Dr. Nancy Kleniewski
President
Dr. Maria Thompson
Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs
Dr. Paul Bischoff
Presiding Officer of the College Senate
November 4, 2013
Outline
I.
Preface
II.
Task Force Formation, Charge and Process
III.
Current Process for Renewal, Tenure and Promotion
A. Current Process for Contract Renewal
B. Current Process for Tenure and Promotion
IV.
Summary of Information for Renewal, Tenure and Promotion at Other Institutions
A. Developing Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Guidelines
B. Mentoring
C. Evaluation
D. The Language of Renewal, Tenure and Promotion
V.
Summary
2
I. Preface
This report summarizes the findings of the SUNY Oneonta Task Force on Renewal, Tenure and
Promotion (RTP). The task force was formed in March 2013 after consultation with SUNY
Oneonta administration and the Steering Committee of the College Senate. The charge of the
task force was to examine RTP policies and procedures at SUNY Oneonta and to identify
noteworthy examples of RTP policies and procedures at other institutions and report our
findings to the President, Provost, and Presiding Officer of the College Senate. To this end we
provide observations and examples rather than make recommendations in this report. From
our review it became clear that many colleges reviewing or revising their RTP policies and
procedures devoted two or more years to a process that involved a wide representation of
individuals from across their respective campuses and produced a guidance document of 30-40
pages. Furthermore, the institutional mission and what was in the best interest of recruiting,
developing and retaining excellent faculty guided changes to RTP policies and practices.
II. Task Force Membership, Charge and Process
The membership of the task force consists of both Senate appointed and Administrative
members. The members are as follows:
Renee Walker (Associate Professor and Chair of the Anthropology Department), Cochair and Presiding Officer of the Senate at the time the Task force was established;
Lisa Wenck (Senior Executive Employee Services Officer), Co-chair;
Donna Vogler (Associate Professor and Chair of the Biology Department), Senate
appointee;
William Proulx (Associate Professor, Human Ecology), Senate appointee;
Alexander Thomas, (Associate Professor of Sociology and Interim Dean of Behavioral
and Applied Science at the time the Task force was established);
James Ebert (Distinguished Teaching Professor, Chair of the Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences Department and Interim Dean of Science and Social Science at the time the
Task force was established;
3
The Provost in consultation with the Steering Committee of the College Senate charged the task
force with the following:
“This task force is a joint administration and faculty committee that is
charged to serve as a fact-finding body that will provide data to the
College President and Chair of the College Senate on matters related to
renewal, tenure and promotion of full-time faculty. The purpose of the
committee is to provide information that will lead to better transparency
and consistency in the renewal, tenure and promotion process at SUNY
Oneonta. The committee shall submit a report to the College President
and Chair of the College Senate no later than September 30, 2013 that
contains the following information:
 Summarizing information from organizations that have
examined best practices for renewal, tenure and promotion
(such as AAUP).
 Gathering information on SUNY-wide practices for renewal,
tenure and promotion and how other campuses interpret the
Board of Trustee’s policies.
 Define issues related to renewal, tenure and promotion on
our campus that need to be addressed.”
At its initial meeting in the spring of 2013 the task force decided it would focus on gathering
information about RTP policies and practices that were noteworthy for their clarity, fairness,
transparency, and consistency. Also, the task force held to the charge that it was a preliminary,
fact-finding body that would not be making specific recommendations. Finally, based on the
charge received, the task force chose to focus its research on policies and practices related to
faculty holding the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. The task
force believes however, that library faculty, lecturers and part-time faculty may also benefit
from the information provided in this report.
Task force members met bi-weekly, sometimes weekly, from April to August to share
information and discuss next steps. During these discussions it was decided that the task force
would benefit from having conversations with other stakeholders, as time would permit.
Meetings were held with the Provost, deans of the new schools who were available, and
members of the current Promotion and Tenure Committee. Prior to each meeting, a list of
questions was provided to the guests to help facilitate and focus the conversations. The lists of
questions presented to the guest(s) are included below:
4
Provost Maria Thompson:
1. How did the contract renewal process work at your previous institution (both technical
steps and people’s perceptions of the process)?
2. How did the promotion and tenure process work at your previous institution (both
technical steps and people’s perceptions of the process)?
3. Where do you see challenges in the current processes based on your experiences?
4. What would you like to see in the files and letters (what was lacking, what was missing)?
5. Is there a best practice that you would like to see us have in our processes?
Deans: Wade Thomas, David Yen, and Susan Turell
1. Where do you see challenges in the current processes based on your experiences and
conversations you have had with faculty?
2. How did the renewal, tenure and promotion process work at your previous institution?
3. Is there a best practice that you would like to see us have in our processes?
Members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee: Gwen Crane (Chair) and William O'Dea
1. Where do you see challenges in the current processes based on your experiences?
2. What would you like to see in the files and letters (what was lacking, what was
missing)?
3. Is there a best practice that you would like to see us have in our processes?
During October the task force finalized its report for presentation to the President, Provost, and
Presiding Officer of the Senate.
5
III. Current Process for Renewal, Tenure and Promotion at SUNY Oneonta
The task force decided that it would be the most useful to report its findings about the current
SUNY Oneonta process in table format. The first table presents information related to term
contract renewal and the second reports process and issues related to tenure and promotion.
Current Process for Term Contract Renewals
Stages
Hiring
New Faculty Orientation
Process and Issues
Candidates obtain information about RTP from various
sources including individual faculty, search committees,
department chair and administrators. The deans have
stressed the categories of “teaching, scholarship, service”
with emphasis on teaching but noting that there should
be sufficient activity and performance in all three areas
for tenure. New faculty frequently receive inconsistent
information about RTP policies, procedures and criteria
during the hiring process.
First Year
During orientation, the Board of Trustees guidelines are
discussed and interpreted through the standard
“teaching, scholarship, service.” Teaching is noted as the
most important component—faculty will not be tenured
without evidence of strong teaching. Service includes
department and college service at the core, but can
include service to the community as well. Scholarship is
noted within the context of discipline-specific guidelines
and faculty are told they should consult with their
department chair. While the Board of Trustees criteria
are available in the College Handbook there appears to
be considerable overlap in the trustees criteria of
scholarship, mastery of subject matter and continued
growth as presently interpreted by the College. For
example, mastery of subject matter may be considered
earning the terminal degree. However, in some cases
mastery of subject is a matter of keeping up with
disciplinary standards through research or some other
mechanism. Similarly, continual growth is often
demonstrated through research or other such projects.
6
Assignment of College Mentor
New faculty receive a letter from Human Resources
regarding the assignment of a college mentor. Some new
faculty may not realize the benefits of engaging with a
mentor from outside their department.
Assignment of Departmental
Mentor
Departmental mentoring varies across campus. Currently,
there is not a uniform faculty mentoring program at the
department level. Some departments have a formal
mentoring process while others are informal. Variation
in mentoring among departments creates possible
inconsistencies and inequities.
Guidance and Assistance
Contract Renewals
The mandatory date of notification for initial two-year
contracts makes it necessary for new faculty to begin
assembling their contract renewal dossier almost
immediately after arriving on campus. This puts
additional stress on new faculty and provides very little
time for them to accumulate sufficient evidence for their
dossier. It also provides very little time for departments
to evaluate new faculty.
There is inconsistency regarding how and when new
faculty receive guidance for their first renewal.
Assistance with preparation of the dossier is provided at
the department level and varies across campus. Some
departments have a formal system for providing
assistance whereas others expect new faculty to find
assistance on their own.
The level of assistance provided by department
secretaries to new faculty up for contract renewal varies.
Variation in the guidance and assistance and provided by
departments may create inequities during the renewal
process.
7
Notification of Renewal-related
Dates
The Academic Administrative Calendar is sent to
department chairs by Academic Affairs. The current
format of the Academic Administrative Calendar makes
interpreting the information on the calendar very
difficult.
The dean notifies department chairs when dossiers are
due in the dean’s office. The department is responsible
for establishing and communicating deadlines to
candidates. How renewal-related dates and deadlines
are communicated to new faculty varies across
departments.
Peer Observations
Department Reviews and
Recommendations
Variation in notification of dates and deadlines among
departments may create inequities during the renewal
process.
The procedures and practices for peer observations vary
across the campus. Some departments have formal
structures coordinated by the department chair or
personnel committee whereas others have an informal
system. The college does not provide formal professional
development opportunities for conducting peer
observations.
Variation and inconsistency in peer observation may
create inequities during the renewal process.
The content and structure of department
recommendation letters vary by department. Some
chair letters essentially provide a statement of
agreement with other recommendations but provide no
other insights. Other department chairs offer additional
insights that interpret the faculty member’s performance
according to the nuances of the candidate’s discipline.
Also, some letters utilize the criteria of the Board of
Trustees as a structuring mechanism, whereas others do
not.
The college does not consistently provide professional
development opportunities for department chairs with
regards to writing recommendations letters.
8
Variation in the content and structure of department
recommendation letters creates possible inequities.
Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC)
Review and Recommendation
DACs use the Board of Trustees’ criteria to assess the
dossier and provide feedback to the faculty member for
areas of improvement prior to the next renewal
application or tenure and/or promotion application.
Charges to DACs vary among schools.
DAC recommendations and feedback from previous
reviews are not available for the next review making it
difficult for DACs to determine if improvements have
been made.
DAC letters are initially drafted by one member using an
agreed upon format (e.g. Board of Trustees criteria) and
then vetted through the whole committee. Therefore,
letters from a given DAC are generally consistent, but
there is no mechanism to ensure consistency from one
DAC to another.
Dean Review and
Recommendation
Deans use the Board of Trustees criteria in evaluating
dossiers. The letter from the dean conveys a
recommendation but no evaluative feedback is provided.
Provost Review and
Recommendation
The Provost uses the Board of Trustees criteria in
evaluating dossiers. The letter from the Provost conveys
a recommendation but no evaluative feedback is
provided.
President Review
The President uses the Board of Trustees criteria in
evaluating dossiers. The candidate receives a letter
stating that their dossier is in the President’s office and
they have five days to review each recommendation and
9
write a response, if so desired. The letter from the
President communicates a decision of renewal or nonrenewal.
Other Issues
Renewal cycle
The typical renewal cycle for SUNY Oneonta is three 2year contracts, followed by a 1-year contract. Renewal
terms may be up to 3 years, but this is generally not done
at SUNY Oneonta. The typical renewal cycle may
disadvantage some faculty.
Criteria in evaluating dossiers
The criteria used by Departments and DACs for
evaluating renewal dossiers and providing feedback to
candidates may not be consistent with the criteria used
for evaluating dossiers for tenure and promotion.
Consequently, a faculty member may meet the criteria
for renewal but may not be informed or given guidance
or encouragement towards achieving the additional
criteria for tenure and promotion.
Some candidates may not understand that they can
provide additional information or clarification for the
next level of review in response to any official
recommendations.
Candidate Response
10
Current Process for Tenure and Promotion
Stages
Candidates submit their dossier for
Tenure and/or Promotion to Associate
Professor
Department Review and
Recommendation
Process and Issues
As currently structured, the dossier is prepared
at the beginning of the 6th year. Assistance with
preparation of the dossier varies from
department to department. It is unclear how
many years of a candidate’s contributions should
be included in the dossier. Variation among
departments creates possible inequities.
The content and structure of department
recommendation letters vary by department.
Some chair letters essentially provide a
statement of agreement with other
recommendations but provide no other insights.
Other department chairs offer additional insights
that interpret the faculty member’s performance
according to the nuances of the candidate’s
discipline. Also, some letters utilize the criteria
of the Board of Trustees as a structuring
mechanism, whereas others do not.
The college does not consistently provide
professional development opportunities for
department chairs with regards to writing
recommendations letters.
Variation in the content and structure of
department recommendation letters creates
possible inequities.
Provost’s Committee on Promotion and
Tenure and Dean’s Review and
Recommendation
Copies of the dossier go simultaneously to the
Provost’s Committee on Promotion and Tenure
and to the candidate’s dean.
The Promotion and Tenure Committee submits a
letter of recommendation to the Provost. There
is concern that the criteria used by the
11
Promotion and Tenure Committee may be
different from those used by the deans and the
DACs.
Deans use the Board of Trustees criteria in
evaluating dossiers. The dean submits a letter of
recommendation to the Provost. The letter from
the dean conveys the recommendation, but no
evaluative feedback is provided.
Provost Review and Recommendation
President Review and Decision
SUNY System Administration
Some candidates may be recommended for
tenure, but not promotion. There are no clear
guidelines regarding the criteria for achieving
tenure and how they differ from promotion.
The Provost uses the Board of Trustees criteria in
evaluating dossiers. The Provost submits a letter
of recommendation to the President. The letter
from the Provost conveys a recommendation but
no evaluative feedback is provided.
The President uses the Board of Trustees criteria
in evaluating dossiers. The candidate receives a
letter stating that their dossier is in the
President’s office and they have five days to
review the material and write a response, if so
desired. Candidate receives a letter from the
President communicating a decision about
tenure and promotion, if applicable.
Candidate receives a letter from System
Administration on receiving continuing
appointment.
Other Issues
Candidate Response
Some candidates may not understand that they
can provide additional information or
clarification for the next level of review in
response to any official recommendations.
12
Promotion to Full Professor
Salary increases associated with promotions may
not incentivize some qualified faculty to go
through the process.
Clarification of Service
The valuing of college and community service as
distinct from professional discipline-related
service and engaged scholarship is unclear. Lack
of clarity about the differences and the lack of
consistency in evaluating these activities create
uncertainty and possible inequities.
IV. Summary of Practices for Renewal, Tenure and Promotion at other Institutions
Recently, many institutions have embarked on a thorough examination of their RTP guidelines
and practices with the intent of enhancing clarity, consistency, transparency and fairness. As
such, a variety of guidelines and examples now exist. The following represents a sampling of
RTP guidelines and practices from SUNY and non-SUNY institutions of varying sizes. They are
presented for consideration as SUNY Oneonta develops and revises its RTP guidelines and
practices. The task force does not, however, suggest that these practices be plucked in their
entirety and simply be adopted by SUNY Oneonta. Rather, the task force believes it is
important that our institution strive to create and adopt guidelines and practices that fit and
best serve our institution and faculty.
A. Developing Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Guidelines
Many institutions that have developed or revised their RTP guidelines began the process with a
task force involving a wide representation of individuals from across their respective campuses.
These processes culminated two to four years later with a guidance document of 30-40 pages
(not including sometimes extensive appendices). SUNY institutions that have recently revised
their guidelines include SUNY Albany, Fredonia, Binghamton, Buffalo State, and New Paltz.
The following elements characterize the development of a comprehensive set of RTP
guidelines:
1. A group involving broad representation from campus developed the guidelines. In some
institutions the group included senior administration, academic administration, faculty
from all ranks, union representation and faculty governance representatives;
13
2. Guidelines were developed in an open and transparent manner with input sought from
different constituencies and obtained through various ways including surveys and open
meetings;
3. Special attention was given to junior faculty concerns and barriers to renewal, tenure
and promotion.
The following elements enhanced clarity, consistency, transparency, fairness and accessibility of
the guidelines:
1. Unambiguous procedures for renewal, tenure and promotion. Some guidelines also
included annual evaluations of chairs and adjuncts. Criteria for merit-pay increases were
included.
2. Examples or broad descriptions of the evidence needed to demonstrate excellence in
teaching, scholarship and service common to the institution (as opposed to specific to a
discipline) are available. The standards or criteria can be tailored to each academic rank
at the institution.
3. Information to enhance clarity or ease of use (e.g. glossary of relevant terms, website
or appendix with forms, checklists, or examples of dossier format);
4. Standardized forms are used for peer observation and/or teaching evaluation;
5. Information regarding the process for stopping the tenure clock and/or claiming prior
service is provided.
The following institutions have distinctive elements in their guidelines that are noteworthy for
promoting clarity, consistency, transparency and fairness:
1. University of Albany CLUE Final Report
University of Albany’s Career Leadership & University Excellence (CLUE) planning group
developed a guidance document for promotion and tenure. This 2012 report
summarizes renewal, tenure and promotion practices at University of Albany and a brief
survey of peer institutions and provides recommendations for improving SUNY Albany’s
process. The format of this document is especially clear and comprehensively covers
most of the PT&R procedures we share with any SUNY institution. Other content,
however, is specific to research institutions and would not apply entirely to a
comprehensive college with our mission. Their format is one of the better templates for
a guidance document.
14
2. University of Wyoming- Pythian paper on Promotion to Full Professor
University of Wyoming: Best Practices for Promotion to full Professor: Philosophy,
Standards, Strategies and Best Practices for Candidates. C. McCracken-Flesher. 2010.
Whereas this document focuses only on a single stage of promotion, it contextualizes
the standards and criteria for promotion to full professor in relation to the institution’s
mission statement. Central to this approach is a statement that defines the academic
tenor of the institution. At the end of the 13-page document is a discussion of the
careers of those who would prefer to remain at the associate professor level at the
institution.
3. Hamilton College departmental criteria for tenure and promotion:
Departmental and disciplinary interpretations of the institution’s overarching guidelines
are provided as part of the Academic Affairs website. Each of the 24 departments has
their own criteria for teaching, scholarship and service for tenure at each level of
promotion. According to their website, the purpose of these separate guidance
documents is to “articulate discipline-specific expectations for candidates, bring
consistency to communication on tenure and promotion expectations among
department members and candidates, and aid in the evaluation of materials presented
in personnel cases”.
B. Mentoring
Increasingly, mentoring is considered necessary for the recruitment, retention and
development of excellent faculty1. Typically, mentors are established faculty who utilize their
expertise and knowledge to guide less experienced colleagues in all areas of their career. This
can be accomplished through to one degree or another through informal and formal
mentoring2. Informal mentoring is a cooperative relationship between faculty that occurs
naturally and voluntarily with no oversight or formal structure or evaluation. Formal mentoring
on the other hand is a relationship between mentors and mentees that is arranged and
managed, usually by the institution. While natural and voluntary relationships are often seen
as being the most valuable, they are also the most variable with regards to the quality of the
mentoring and which faculty benefit from it. Formal mentoring on the other hand introduces
1
Betty J. Harton. The Importance of Mentoring in Recruiting and Retaining Junior Faculty.
http://www.aana.com/newsandjournal/Documents/p189-195.pdf
2
University of California Berkeley. Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. Faculty Mentoring.
http://diversity.berkeley.edu/faculty-mentoring
15
greater consistency and works to ensure that mentoring is a fully open and inclusive process3.
The following factors influence the effectiveness of mentoring4:
1. The culture of the institution including:
a. the involvement of institutional leaders (President, Provost, Deans, Chairs);
b. the value and level of recognition given to mentoring (annual reports, merit and
promotion, awards);
c. the availability of mentoring resources (checklists, online materials and
information, training activities and resources);
d. the comprehensive nature of mentoring (one-on-one, workshops, committees,
etc.).
2. The following four suggestions relate specifically to mentoring junior faculty5:
a. Make the expectations and criteria for promotion clear;
b. Facilitate the acquisition of resources to meet these expectations;
c. Give frequent and accurate feedback;
d. Reduce the impediments to progress towards promotion.
3. Other important elements include6:
a. How soon mentoring begins;
b. The frequency of interactions between mentor and mentee;
c. Using a team approach (multiple mentors, cross-disciplinary, interdepartmental);
3
Faculty Mentoring at the University of Minnesota. President’s Emerging Leaders Program.
http://www.academic.umn.edu/provost/faculty/pdf/PELMentorReport.pdf
4
University of Albany Mentoring Best Practices: A Handbook.
http://www.albany.edu/academics/mentoring.best.practices.chapter1.shtml
5
Mentoring New Faculty: Advice to Department Chairs CSWP Gazette, 13(1), 1 (August, 1993).
6
Faculty Mentoring at the University of Minnesota. President’s Emerging Leaders Program.
http://www.academic.umn.edu/provost/faculty/pdf/PELMentorReport.pdf
16
d. The process for matching mentors and mentees.
The following links represent a sampling of noteworthy mentoring programs and resources:
1. University of Virginia -University Teaching Fellows Program
2. University at Albany –Best Practices in Mentoring for Colleges and Departments
3. University of Michigan Resources on Faculty Mentoring
4. Exemplary Junior Faculty Mentoring Programs
5. Washington State University Faculty Mentoring Guidelines
B. Evaluation
Renewal, tenure and promotion processes involve sequential evaluations of candidates, the
purpose of which is to examine the candidate from multiple perspectives to determine if they
have met the criteria for renewal, tenure or promotion. The process is necessarily redundant
with multiple academic units evaluating the same evidence, and justifying a decision to
recommend or not recommend a candidate for renewal, tenure or promotion. For this reason
especially, it is essential that each unit or evaluator in the process be aware of their specific role
and limitations in the evaluation process.
The following provides a listing of structural elements that impact the evaluation of candidates:
1. Roles of individual administrators and of committees at each step of the review process
(may be linked to the timeline for review in the academic calendar);
2. Composition of review committees, including size, representation and voting status;
3. Consistency of the internal letters and teaching evaluations (e.g. the use of rubrics or
standardized forms);
4. Solicitation of external letters (an institution may require that such letters be solicited
by the department and serve primarily as an evaluation by an objective third party.
Alternately these may be solicited by the candidate and used as supporting evidence);
5. Evaluation of faculty in interdisciplinary programs and those with joint appointments
(this can be handled via memoranda of understanding (MOU) that clarify who writes the
chair’s letter or it is addressed through the composition of the review committee where
multiple divisions are involved);
17
6. Materials required as part of the dossier (institutions vary tremendously in regulating
the size and content of supporting information. This may be less of an issue with
electronic submission);
7. The grievance process: what opportunities exist, how informed the candidate is of the
process, and the limitations of any appeals.
The following links represent a sampling of noteworthy guidelines and resources:
1. Buffalo State Guidelines for Renewal, Promotion and Continuing Appointment
Like many other guidelines for renewal, tenure and promotion this website outlines the process
and types of documents needed in the dossier. The website is distinctive in that it also clarifies
the role that each evaluator plays, and the responsibilities of the personnel committee chair,
the dean and the departmental chair. It provides guidance on what aspects should be included
in the chair’s letter and who takes responsibility for soliciting external letters.
2. University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Taskforce-on-Future-Promotion-and-TenurePolicies-and-Practices-FINAL-REPORT
This document includes a section (pp. 10-16) covering the evaluation of faculty in
interdisciplinary programs or who have dual appointments. The focus is on establishing an
MOU early on, and having suitable representation on review committees.
D. The Language of Renewal, Tenure and Promotion (RTP)
Renewal, tenure and promotion terms and phrases often have different meanings among
faculty and administrators and often vary by institution. A lack of clarity, consistency, and
transparency surrounding the definitions and meanings of RTP-related terms may create
uncertainty and confusion about the process. Consequently, it is important that all faculty and
administrators possess a clear understanding of the language used in the RTP process at their
institution. To address this, many campuses have taken on the challenge of developing a
glossary of RTP terms and phrases for their institution. Below is a sampling of guidelines that
contain a glossary of RTP-related definitions and meanings.
1. Georgia Regents University Promotion and Tenure Policies – Glossary of Promotion and
Tenure Terms.
2. The University of North Carolina Greensboro Community Engagement Initiative –
Community Engagement Terms and Definitions
3. Stanford University's Academic Glossary
18
Rethinking Scholarship
One of the key terms in the RTP process is the term scholarship. In 1990 Ernest Boyer proposed
that scholarly activity be expanded beyond the traditional research and publication model to
include other activities related to the integration of knowledge, the application of knowledge,
and the teaching of knowledge7. Since that time many institutions have adopted the Boyer
model and expanded the definition of scholarship on their campus to include other forms of
scholarly activities besides original research and peer-review publications. However, in 2006
Robert M. Diamond, President of the National Academy for Academic Leadership, in an essay
titled “Tenure and Promotion: The Next Iteration” states the following:
“Unfortunately today, despite the active involvement of academic leaders and faculty at
institutions throughout the country, many of the problems identified over a decade ago
still prevail. On many campuses there still exists a significant disconnection between
what institutions say is important and what they reward. Research and publication
remain the primary criteria used in promotion and tenure decisions with far less
importance still being given to teaching and community service activities.”8
Along with the discussion about scholarship has come a growing expectation that faculty will
use their time, resources and expertise to engage their local communities9,10. Yet, at the same
time that faculty are expected to increase their service to the community it is clear there is a
growing expectation at SUNY Oneonta that faculty will increase their scholarly activities
including competing for external grants and awards. What isn’t clear is what forms of
scholarship and service will be recognized and valued in RTP reviews and decisions leaving
many SUNY Oneonta faculty uncertain about the value of their work. Many institutions have
grappled with these very questions. One example is the work of the Taskforce on Future
Promotion and Tenure Policies and Practices at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
The task force was formed "to address three current trends in the mission and role of the public
university have prompted the review and recommendations offered here: (1) calls for increased
7
Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, 1990.
8
Robert M. Diamond. Tenure and Promotion: The Next Iteration. The National Academy For Academic Leadership
Readings. 1996 http://www.thenationalacademy.org/readings/tenpromo.html
9
SUNY College at Oneonta Strategic Plan: Community Partnerships.
http://www.oneonta.edu/strategicplan/objectives/community.asp
10
The Power of SUNY. Six Big Ideas. SUNY and the Vibrant Community. Increase Campus Community Engagement.
http://www.suny.edu/Board_of_Trustees/webcastdocs/Vibrant Communities PPT.pdf
19
engagement with the public, (2) new forms of scholarly work, and (3) increased scholarly
activity across disciplinary lines." 11 Another relevant resource is the book by O’Meara and Rice
titled “Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship.”12
V. Summary
The Task Force on Renewal, Tenure and Promotion has fulfilled its charge as a fact-finding body.
The task force researched and collected information on RTP practices at SUNY Oneonta and
other organizations and reports these without endorsing any specific practices. A consistent
finding was other institutions that evaluated and revised RTP policies and practices used a
multi-year process that involved multiple constituencies. It is our hope that the resources
provided in this document will be useful as SUNY Oneonta moves forward with a RTP process
that is clear, consistent, transparent, and fair.
2.
11
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Taskforce-on-Future-Promotion-and-TenurePolicies-and-Practices-FINAL-REPORT
12
KerryAnn O’Meara and R. Eugene Rice. Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of
Scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
20