1. Writing Your Self-Review: a LAUC-SD/CAPA workshop Annelise Sklar Teri Vogel November 2015

2. 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

3. Documents you should know about Website for documentation, forms, workshop materials, etc.: https://lisn.ucsd.edu/display/LHR1/Academic+Review 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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: Other Letter(s) Request

12. 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

13. 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

14. You are not a loser If you ran for a position and lost, for example LAUC- SD 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 self- review. 14

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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