Up or Out: Issues in Negative Promotion Decisions Linda M. Boxer, Vice Dean Cheryl Gore-Felton, OAA Associate Dean Jim Brooks, OAA Associate Dean

Outline of Topics UTL Examples for Consideration for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure #1 Low scholarly productivity #2 Very poor teaching and mentoring (Note that these are fictional examples) NTL-R Promotion Criteria Overview of Appeal Process

UTL Example #1 p1 At reappointment, 1 senior author manuscript in low-tier specialty journal and 1 first author publication with postdoc advisor Very few invited talks Just obtained R01

UTL Example #1 p2 Referee letters moderately positive but from previous mentors and a collaborator at Stanford

UTL Example #1 p3 Some classroom teaching 1 grad student in lab and 4 postdocs Letters from trainees are fine

UTL Example #1 p4 How should this faculty member be counseled?

UTL Example #1 p5 Counseling memo should clearly state that scholarly productivity is low, and trajectory toward promotion is not good Plan for meetings with chair/chief and mentor quarterly to assess progress Consider sabbatical to focus on research (after reappointment can borrow up to 3 months) Help with invitations to speak on research results Continue classroom teaching, mentoring trainees

UTL Example #1 p6 Annual counseling memos continued to document the need for more scholarly productivity, invited presentations, and formal classroom teaching

UTL Example #1 p7 End of the 6th year (time to launch review): 2 additional senior author publications in specialty journals 2 additional manuscripts with former postdoc advisor in higher impact journals Candidate is preparing a manuscript to submit to a high impact journal

UTL Example #1 p8 Trainees: 1 current grad student, 3 postdocs Grants: R01, project PI on P01 (senior faculty member is overall PI of P01)

UTL Example #1 p9 Letters from referees: Several are brief and mostly positive but do not discuss accomplishments or rank with peers Four did not write stating that they did not know the candidate Other letters are lukewarm to very negative with poor ranking compared to peers

UTL Example #1 p10 What is the likelihood of successful promotion to Associate Professor with tenure?

UTL Promotion Criteria-Research Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure will be reserved for an individual who has achieved true distinction in research and who is not only recognized among the best in his/her cohort in a broadly defined field but also likely to become one of the very best in the field

UTL Promotion Criteria-Teaching The candidate should be capable of sustaining a first-rate teaching program There should be evidence that the candidate will successfully continue to fill the programmatic need for which the appointment is made and make meritorious contributions to his/her discipline and to the School

UTL Example #1: Discussion of Issues Productivity is very low, and it will be difficult for referees to say that the candidate is one of the best scholars at his/her level of professional development in a broad field Too late to assess impact of manuscript being prepared now (requires time after publication to determine impact on field)

UTL Example #1: Discussion of Issues cont’d True distinction in scholarship requires innovative, cutting-edge research on important questions in the field that breaks new ground, changes the way the field is viewed, broadens our understanding of the field or opens up new methods or new areas of investigation

UTL Example #1: Discussion of Issues cont’d Scholarship should have the fundamental impact on the field that is expected from the best scholars in the field

UTL Example #1: Discussion of Issues-Recognition in Field Very few invited talks, publications in low-tier journals Receipt of national peer-reviewed grants is a measure of recognition in the field, but may speak more to promise than actual accomplishment

UTL Example #1: Discussion of Issues-Scholarly Independence Investigative independence is expected since it can be a useful marker of substantive scholarly contributions Difficult to demonstrate when most important publications are with previous postdoc mentor

UTL Example #1 What was the outcome of the promotion review?

UTL Example #1 Questions Questions or discussion?

UTL Example #2-p1 At reappointment, 3 senior author publications in excellent journals and several collaborative publications Increase in the number of invited talks each year Has R01 and DOD grants

UTL Example #2-p2 Classroom teaching with average evaluations, no issues Trainees: 3 grad students (all current), 4 postdocs (2 current, 2 former)

UTL Example #2-p3 Referee letters very positive Difficult to obtain trainee letters (remember that all current and former trainees are solicited) 2 grad students wrote very brief letters 1 current postdoc wrote (only in lab for ~6 months)

UTL Example #2-p4 1 former postdoc wrote a very negative letter (left the lab after 1 year, described strained interactions with the faculty member who because angry and belittled the postdoc and other lab members)

UTL Example #2-p5 How should this faculty member be counseled?

UTL Example #2-p6 Counseling memo stated that scholarship is on a good trajectory, continue to publish impactful papers, give invited talks, plan grant submissions as another measure of standing in the field Classroom teaching ok but work to improve interactions with students in classes

UTL Example #2-p7 Research mentor: need to improve interaction style with trainees, maintain professionalism, communicate expectations clearly and give appropriate feedback and assistance Be available for consultation on their work Regular meeting with mentor to discuss trainees; annual feedback will be obtained

UTL Example #2-p8 Annual counseling emphasized the need for continued scholarship and national recognition, professionalism with trainees, open and positive mentoring style

UTL Example #2-p9 End of the 6th year (time to launch review) 6 additional senior author publications (2 in very high impact journals) Has another R01 Multiple invited national and international talks

UTL Example #2-p10 Trainees: No current grad students (one former student left after 2 years and transferred to another lab, one left with masters degree) Lack of grad students could be reflective of negative view of lab among graduate students 4 current postdocs, 3 postdocs left the lab earlier than anticipated

UTL Example #2-p11 Referee letters are positive to very positive; compare candidate favorably with peers Trainees (all current and former solicited): Brief letters from 1 former grad student and 2 current postdocs who each note that the atmosphere in the lab can be tense, note concerns about angry outbursts from faculty member

UTL Example #2-p12 Trainees cont’d: 1 current postdoc did not reply and 1 requested a confidential conversation 3 former postdocs requested confidential conversation and 1 did not reply 2 former grad students requested confidential conversations

UTL Example #2-p13 Themes from confidential conversations: Treated with a lack of respect, outbursts of anger Expected to work long hours in lab 7 days/wk Instructed that they should not talk to anyone outside of the lab Were not allowed to go to meetings to present research results

UTL Example #2-p14 Themes from confidential conversations: Lack of clear advice and frequent changing of research topics Multiple disputes over authorship Fear of retaliation if concerns were voiced Often did not respond to requests for assistance or to meet Several made decisions to move out of research

UTL Example #2-p15 What is the likelihood of successful promotion to Associate Professor with tenure?

Teaching and Professionalism Criteria The candidate should be capable of sustaining a first-rate teaching program Factors considered in assessing teaching performance include (but are not limited to) the following: knowledge of the material; clarity of exposition; style of interaction with students; availability; professionalism; institutional compliance and ethics

Teaching Criteria cont’d Effective communication skills; helpfulness in learning; ability to stimulate further education; ability to work effectively as part of the teaching team

Respectful Workplace Provide a work environment that is conducive to teaching and learning and research Respect each person’s worth and dignity Faculty members, in particular, are expected to treat all members of the Stanford Community with civility, respect and courtesy, and with an awareness of the potential impact of their behavior on staff, students, and other faculty members

UTL Example #2: Discussion of Issues Teaching and mentoring: Issues with style of interaction with trainees Lack of availability Lack of helpfulness in learning and ability to stimulate further learning Difficulty with communication Lack of professionalism Does not treat trainees with civility, respect and courtesy

UTL Example #2 What was the outcome of the promotion review?

UTL Example #2 Questions Questions or discussion?

Other Issues for UTL Decent publications and funding but almost no invited talks; referee letters all say they never heard of the candidate Basic scientist in a clinical department—same standards as basic scientist in a basic department; often see no formal course teaching, and this kind of teaching is expected for the UTL Large number of referees do not write

Other Issues for UTL cont’d Many publications in high impact journals but very collaborative with almost no first or last author publications Research and teaching are fine but candidate is a clinician with poor clinical evaluations Referees don’t know the comparison peers Failure to obtain referee letters from truly independent experts Peers and referees are not leaders in the field at institutions comparable to Stanford (or peers don’t have tenure)

UTL Questions Questions or discussion on UTL promotion?

NTL-R Promotion The bar for promotion is just as high as in the UTL The candidate must be one of the very best scholars at his or her level of professional development in the relevant field and likely to become one of the very best in the field The research field may be narrower than for the UTL

NTL-R Promotion Criteria Investigative independence is expected since it can be a useful marker of substantive scholarly contributions Peer-reviewed articles are required, and it is expected that contributions will be made through senior authorship or through substantive contributions

NTL-R Promotion Criteria (cont’d) The quality of scholarship will generally be reflected in peer-reviewed grants and contracts, which are an important indicator of success in the field Grants are also the source of funding that is a prerequisite for appointment in the Research Line

NTL-R Promotion Criteria-Scholarship Factors to consider: Scholarly activity and productivity; impact, innovation and creativity Recognition in the field True distinction in research Ability to work effectively as part of a research team, if relevant

NTL-R Promotion Criteria-Teaching There is no formal teaching obligation But NTL-R faculty often teach actively in their research labs, and they may teach courses Expectations: A positive style of interaction with students Availability and professionalism Effective communication skills Helpfulness in learning

NTL-R Promotion Criteria-Respectful Workplace Faculty members are expected to treat all members of the Stanford community with civility, respect, and courtesy with an awareness of the potential impact of their behavior on staff, students and other faculty There is a shared commitment to respect each person’s worth and dignity

NTL-R Issues Many publications in high impact journals but very collaborative with almost no first or last author publications Research and teaching are fine but candidate is a clinician with poor clinical evaluations Referees don’t know the comparison peers Failure to obtain referee letters from truly independent experts Peers and referees are not leaders in the field at institutions comparable to Stanford

NTL-R Issues cont’d Many referees do not write Very few invited talks Referees do not know the candidate No or very little grant funding (a requirement for NTL-R) Issues with professionalism or poor mentorship skills

NTL-R Questions on NTL-R?

Best Advice for Successful Promotion At least annually: full counseling and assessment of performance in all missions Honest feedback for need to improve with plan to assist with improvement If you’re not sure if there is an issue or what to advise, please talk to us at OAA

Definition of an Appeal An appeal is a written request for review of a decision made by a person (or group) acting in an official University capacity The purpose of the appeal process is to determine whether appropriate procedures were followed in making certain academic decisions It is not to reevaluate the merit of the decisions themselves

Standard for Decision The standard for deciding the appeal is limited to determining whether there were procedural errors (such as the failure to bring proper facts and criteria to bear on a decision or the introduction of improper facts and criteria or the existence of other procedural defects) that substantially affected the outcome of the decision

Timeline The appellant should file their written appeal to the Provost within 60 days of being notified of the decision The appellant may request a redacted version of the long form from OAA The appeal process is lengthy and typically takes 8 months to >1 year

The Appeal Process The Provost may grant the appeal, remand the matter back to the School or Department, or refer it directly to the Advisory Board Before making one of these choices, the Provost may also appoint a Fact-Finder to investigate the matter and report back to the Provost

Typical Appeal Process The Provost will usually appoint a Fact-Finder who will meet with people involved in the decision process Upon receipt of the Fact-Finder’s report, the Provost will usually refer it to the Ad Board The Ad Board will make a recommendation to the Provost

Typical Appeal Process (cont’d) The Provost will make a decision to grant or deny the appeal or on occasion may refer the matter back to the School The Provost informs the appellant of the decision Within 30 days after receipt of the Provost’s decision, the appellant may request further review by the President

Typical Appeal Process (cont’d-2) The President may decline the request, consider the appeal, or make inquiries as the President deems appropriate After examination of the matter, the President’s decision will be conveyed to the appellant and is final

Numbers of Appeals The Provost’s office receives 6-10 appeals per year, most commonly on decisions on reappointment or promotion In addition, the Provost’s office handles between 10-15 inquiries per year, including faculty disputes/discipline

Common Reasons for Appeals Bias or gender discrimination claims; Fact-Finder will look for patterns of treatment Involvement of faculty in the review process who had conflicts with the candidate Information not considered Departure from the usual Department or School procedures

Invalid Reasons for an Appeal Inadequate mentoring or counseling We don’t want this to be the situation for any faculty member, but it is up to the faculty member to be informed on the criteria for promotion and to plan his/her activities to meet the criteria Inappropriate referee and/or peer set Candidate does not know who the referees and peers are

Invalid Reasons for an Appeal (cont’d) Challenge to the merit of the decision If the decision is one that a reasonable person would have made, it is very unlikely to be overturned The Provost will not substitute his/her judgment on the merit of the decision for that of the committees that made the decision