1. How tenure dossiers are evaluated: DTCs (Urban Planning) and UTCs (Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Engineering) Lisa Bornstein Associate Professor School of Urban Planning

2. 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)

3. 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

4. Pitfalls 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! 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!

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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! 10 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’)

11. Thank you (and good luck!)