Lisa Bornstein Associate Professor School of Urban Planning

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 Poorly prepared dossier • Sloppy, wordy, disorganized, repetitive • Research areas and contributions unclear • Teaching and supervision unclear or inaccurate • Presentation of service perfunctory 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! 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

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

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! • 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!)