Stewart Library

TENURE DOCUMENT

As approved by the Library Faculty April 6, 2012

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to outline the criteria and procedures used to evaluate faculty members for tenure in the Stewart Library. The normal probationary period for faculty members in a tenure-track appointment is six years, with a formal interim review scheduled during the third year and a formal final tenure review scheduled during the sixth year. The time in rank for normal promotion from assistant to associate professor is six years. To be promoted from assistant to associate professor one must either have been granted tenure or be granted tenure at the time of promotion. A candidate who is not granted tenure cannot be advanced in rank (see PPM 8-11). Because the Library is not subdivided into departments, the Library does not have a department level ranking tenure review.

Credentials/Probationary Period

Candidates for tenure must:

1.         Have earned the Masters of Library Science or its equivalent from a program accredited by the American Library Association (see PPM 8-11),

            2.         Hold a tenure track appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher,

3.         Be in the third year of the probationary period for the interim review and in the sixth year of the probationary period for the final tenure review, and

4.         Meet faculty responsibilities, ethics, and standards of professional behavior specified in PPM 9-3 through 9-8.

Based on evidence provided in the candidate’s professional file, evaluators will determine whether or not the candidate has met these requirements (see PPM 8-14).

Competencies

The competencies to be considered during interim and final tenure review fall into three categories:

            Category I: Teaching

            Category II: Scholarship

            Category III: Administrative and/or Professionally Related Service

Competencies in categories I, II, and III are to be rated from unsatisfactory to excellent. Each evaluator will interpret information presented in terms of the expectations of the Library, the candidate’s specific duties as outlined in their Position Description and the candidate’s overall pattern of professional performance.

Evaluation Summary

A written evaluation summary including the rationale for the ratings in each category and a recommendation regarding tenure will be submitted to the candidate with a copy to the University Librarian according to the dated guidelines of the review process (see PPM 8-12 and 8-13). The pattern of ratings must meet or exceed one of the channels described for a positive tenure recommendation:

Ratings

Ratings for each category are to reflect the candidate’s academic career span rather than a single year’s efforts. The ratings mean that the evidence describing the quality and quantity of the candidate's professional efforts support a continuing level of performance judged by the evaluators as unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, or excellent. Ratings assigned for a formal interim (3rd year) review reflect the committee’s judgment of the candidate’s progress towards tenure and should be based on reasonable expectations for a third year faculty member. The interim review is expected to be formative in nature and both the ratings and the committee commentary should provide helpful feedback to the candidate as she/he evaluates priorities in preparation for the final tenure review. A candidate’s recent work at other institutions, while it may be taken into consideration, is not weighted as heavily as work at Weber State University.

General criteria for ratings in all categories are:

Unsatisfactory: Candidates will be rated unsatisfactory who do not meet the minimum requirements of the satisfactory category.

Satisfactory: Candidates will be rated satisfactory if the duties described in their position description are performed in an acceptable manner. Satisfactory means adequate and should not imply undesirable or below average endeavor.

Good: Candidates will be rated good if duties described in their position description are performed consistently in a more than satisfactory manner. Good implies commendable and desirable levels of achievement. A rating of good in any category implies a substantial degree of achievement above satisfactory levels.

Excellent: Candidates will be rated excellent if duties described in the position description are performed consistently in an outstanding manner. Inasmuch as a good rating in any category implies a substantial degree of achievement above satisfactory levels, a rating of excellent in any category implies a substantial degree of achievement above those considered appropriate for a good rating.

Clarifications of the criteria for certain ratings in each category are provided later in this document.

Professional File

Candidates are responsible for updating their professional files according to the dated guidelines of the review process (see PPM 8-12 and 8-13). This file should clearly document the candidate’s teaching, scholarship and administrative and/or professionally related service activities. Candidates should include brief narrative summaries throughout the professional file. Candidates may create an appendix in the professional file for items that are referenced in the narrative summaries. In addition to the standard professional file documentation and the specific evidence mentioned below under each category, the candidate’s professional file should include the following documents that are specific to library faculty:

            1. A copy of the candidate’s position description.

            2. Copies of faculty activity records submitted each academic year by the candidate.

            3. Copies of annual reviews by the University Librarian.

Evaluators should carefully review these additional documents during the review process.

Peer Review Committee Evaluations

Candidates being formally reviewed for tenure must undergo peer review in accordance with the Library’s Peer Review Policy (http://library.weber.edu/libadmin/lppm/peer_review.cfm) and PPM 8-11. A copy of the Peer Review Committee’s report will be added to the candidate’s professional file before the review process begins. It is important to note that the Library Peer Review Committee gathers evidence in all three categories of formal review as defined below and not just teaching.

Definitions of Categories and Criteria

Category I: Teaching

In the Library, teaching includes librarianship and is defined as the processes or behaviors related to organizing and delivering knowledge; evaluating and facilitating learning; and in general, transmitting content to students (see PPM 8-11-E). For purposes of tenure review, teaching is divided into three areas: 1) Instruction, 2) Reference /Information Services and 3) Collection Management/Faculty Liaison. The specific division of duties among these areas for each library faculty member is defined in her/his position description, which is included in the Professional File and should be consulted by evaluators during the review process. Some library faculty positions involve significant administrative duties. Evaluators should take this into account when reviewing the candidate’s performance in this category.

1.         Instruction: Library faculty may be assigned to teach one or more sections of for-credit Library Science courses during each semester of their contract. They may also be assigned to provide general instruction sessions for students in ENG 2010, EDUC 1105 and other general courses. Evidence of performance in this area includes:

            a.         A teaching portfolio, including but not limited to a statement of their teaching philosophy and a collection of sample course syllabi, assignments, exams, etc., along with comments on how these samples reflect and support their teaching philosophy. (Required)

            b.         Summaries of student course evaluations, which are administered each semester for each course taught by the candidate, along with a brief interpretation of these evaluations including comments on both positive results and areas of concern. (Required)

            c.         Participation on relevant library teams and committees.

            d.         Involvement in the evaluation and revision of existing library science courses and the design of new courses.          

            e.         Pedagogical innovations for instruction.

            f.          Teaching general library-related workshops and training sessions.

            g.         Attendance at relevant workshops, seminars, etc.

            h.         Receipt of relevant certificates, awards, etc.

            i.          Other activities appropriate to this area.

2.         Reference/Information Services: Library faculty may also be assigned to provide students and other library users with reference and information services both during scheduled hours at the Reference Desk and on a one-to-one basis as needed. Teaching students and other library users how to find and evaluate information instead of finding it for them is a basic principle of Reference/Information Services in the Stewart Library. Evidence of performance in this area includes:

            a.         Providing proactive, user-oriented reference service.

            b.         Knowledge and application of the reference interview technique.

            c.         Knowledge of reference resources.

            d.         Design of web-based research and how-to guides.

            e.         Sharing of knowledge and expertise through workshops, training sessions, etc., and on a one-to-one basis.

            f.          Involvement on relevant library teams and committees.       

            g.         Attendance at relevant workshops, seminars, etc.

            h.         Receipt of relevant certificates, awards, etc.

            i.          Other activities appropriate to this area.

3.         Collection Management/Faculty Liaison: Finally, library faculty may be assigned collection management/faculty liaison duties in specific subject areas. A primary goal of these activities is to provide students and faculty with the most efficient and effective access possible to information resources necessary to support their instructional and research activities. Evidence of performance in this area includes:

            a.         Consultation with faculty in assigned subject areas regarding library resources in support of existing courses, new courses, new programs, accreditation, etc.

            b.         Overseeing the development and management of information resources in assigned subject areas.

            c.         Delivering course-integrated subject-specific instruction sessions requested by faculty in assigned subject areas.

            d.         Design of web-based research guides in assigned subject areas.

            e.         Providing subject-specific library workshops and training sessions.

            f.          Involvement on relevant library teams and committees.

            g.         Attendance at relevant workshops, seminars, etc.

            h.         Receipt of relevant certifications, awards, etc.

            i.          Other activities appropriate to this area.

Clarification of Ratings for Teaching: Candidates shall be rated good (minimum rating in Channels B, D and E) in this category if they are consistently rated good by students in instruction and good by peers in their primary area(s) of responsibility as defined in their position description. Candidates must also provide evidence of significant additional activities/accomplishments in at least one of the areas of Teaching listed above.

Category II: Scholarship

Scholarship is defined as those activities that contribute to the profession and increase the candidate’s effectiveness as a professor. Candidates are responsible for providing evidence of successful scholarly activities, which may include interdisciplinary scholarship. They are not expected to be equally active in all areas listed below; however, candidates must submit evidence of significant scholarship since arriving at Weber State University. Evidence of performance in scholarship includes:

a.         Refereed publications.

b.         Non-refereed publications.

c.         Papers presented at professional conferences and workshops.

            d.         Professional improvement, such as graduate education beyond the terminal degree, development of new areas of expertise, additional training in existing areas of expertise, or attendance at professional conferences and workshops.

            e.         Projects such as group or individual grants and submission of reports as required.  

            f.          Other activities appropriate to this category.

Clarification of Ratings for Scholarship:

Candidates shall be rated satisfactory in this category if they demonstrate a pattern of scholarly work which includes activities from a minimum of three of the areas of scholarship listed above. To receive a rating of good for the interim review, a candidate must provide evidence of a publication and a research plan for future scholarship. To receive a rating of good for the final tenure review, a candidate must provide evidence of at least one refereed publication since the interim review.

Category III: Administrative and/or Professionally Related Service

Administrative and/or professionally related service is defined as those activities which provide professionally related value to the community, the institution, or professional organizations. It is the candidate’s responsibility to provide evidence of productive service. Candidates are not expected to be equally active in all areas listed below. Evidence of performance in service includes:

a.         Committee assignments at the university or library level with university assignments having more significance than library assignments. Leadership positions on committees are weighted more heavily than membership only.

b.         Administrative responsibilities within the Library or University above and beyond the duties described in the candidate’s position description.

            c.         Leadership positions and/or active participation in professional organizations and similar activities that enhance the reputation of the candidate, the Library, and/or the University.

            d.         Involvement in the planning and organization of professional workshops, meetings, conferences, symposia, etc., that benefit the Library, the University, and/or the library profession.

            e.         Participation in projects that benefit the Library, the University, and/or the library profession

            f.          Professionally-related community activities.

g.         Consulting or otherwise providing professional expertise.

h.         Student advisement activities or serving as an advisor to a student organization.

i.          Other activities appropriate to this category.

Clarification of Ratings for Administrative and/or Professionally Related Service: Candidates shall be rated satisfactory (minimum rating in channels A and D) if they accept and perform in a professional manner duties in at least three areas of service listed above, including at least one committee assignment at the university level (see item a. above).