COE Mentor Leadership Seminar
September 22, 2017
8:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Attendees: David Hough, Gilbert Brown, James Sottile, Denise Cunningham, James Meyer, Cathy Pearman, Joan Test, Diana Piccolo, Mandy Benedict-Chambers, Kim Roam Kim Finch, Sascha Mowery, Jennifer Rojas-McWhinney, Chloe Bolyard, Tammi Davis, Elizabeth King, Stefanie Livers, Brittany Wittenberg, Jon Turner, Bill Agnew, Linda Garrison-Kane, Tami Arthaud, Jef Cornelius-White, Emmett Sawyer, Steve Jones, David Goodwin, Sarah Nixon, Becky Swearingen, Becky Crowder, Reesha Adamson, Paul Maddox, Taryne Mingo, Maia Moore, Michele Smith, Ximena Uribe-Zarain, Kimberly Stormer, Tuesda Roberts, Alex-Jean Charles, Kayla Lewis, Pamela Correll, Mary Lynne Golden, Rose Lee, Sharon Lopinot
Dean Hough welcomed everyone. Mentors, assistant professors, chairs of department P/T committees, department heads and the associated deans attended the meeting. The dean asked a faculty member from each table to discuss topics from the August meeting.
- It is important to have research projects capable of being completed in a reasonable amount of time. Also recommended to have a partner/team. By doing this there is not too much pressure on just one person.
- It is important from the committee level, department head level and dean level, to understand all of the criteria. If changes are made to criteria, everyone needs to be informed. Assistant Professors will use the P/T document in place at the time of hire in their notebook unless there is a more current document and they decide to use that.
- Assist/discuss with the mentee the three categories: Teaching, Research, and Service. Share/inform them of resources available and how to navigate the system.
- Keep people in their skill sets. Research should enhance teaching. Discuss how you can help your mentee and how you will do it.
- Make sure everyone has clarity on the criteria and understands everything. If they do not, and you are not sure of what to do, let them know who they can go to.
- Decide how you will implement your mentoring plan with your mentee. Be sure you are honest and do not just pass people through the system. The purpose is to have mentees be successful.
Mary Lynne Golden, Executive Assistant IV, to the Provost, discussed what information goes in the main binder that is given to the department committee, department head, dean, and Provost. She reminded everyone that she, Provost Frank Einhellig and Deputy Provost Chris Craig are available and welcome to help anyone. She told Associate Professors to start thinking now about how they will organize their binders. They need to be familiar with their departments P/T guidelines; know what they need to do. Faculty can go by the guidelines given to them when hired or current document if there have been changes made. All binders have tabbed dividers. Plastic coversheets are not required, but can be used for documentation if wanted. Do not worry about the plastic sheets blending in with the tabbed dividers. Mary Lynne discussed the only information that is put in the main binder. The order for the main binder is:
- The original application form is the first document and put in front of everything (no tab for this). This is located on the Provost website.
- Next is the matrix, which is a three-column chart with 1) the requirement, 2) what you did regarding the requirement, and 3) where backup documentation can be found in your documentation binders (which you can have one each for teaching, service and research documentation, or however you want to organize it). The documentation binders will stay in the department head’s office and requested if the department committee, department head, dean or Provost want to look at them.
- Next is a 3 – 5 page personal summary statement, summarizing accomplishments, background, goals, and plans. Documentation on what you did as far as research, teaching, and service and what you are doing to work toward it and/or improve it. Your mentor, department head, or dean can help you with this. The Provost Office staff is also available.
- Next tab is for your current vita.
- The next three tabs are for your annual progress reviews from: Department Committee, Department Head and Dean. You will have one for each year. Mary Lynne said if you are unable to find some of the documents, to check with your department head or dean. They should have copies of all progress reviews. A note that the reviews have to be signed/dated by you within 3 days. You can add a reply to any or all reports that can be placed in your notebook.
- Next tab is for external review letters if you are going for promotion. You will not see these letters. They will be added by the department head upon receipt of your binder. After the decision is made by the Provost, the letters are sent back to the dean to keep in your personnel records. At that point, you can ask to look at them.
- The last tab is for your department P/T guidelines being used for evaluation.
The dean gave his perspective on this process. Documentation for the three categories should be organized, but he only wants the main binder that goes to the Provost’s Office. If he wants to see documentation, he will do so through the department head’s office. For teaching, there are mainly student evaluations for documentation. He would like the departments to consider exploring ways to include information such as how instructors help students improve, perhaps by including written comments on student work. For research, the dean looks for quality research or scholarship. Quality can be examined by noting differences in the amount of effort required to produce published research or works of scholarship in journals that have a rigorous submission, review, and revision processes; documented acceptance rates; robust circulation; and respected reputations. Faculty questioned why Digital Measures could not be used for this information. Mary Lynne replied that the Provost’s Office is not there yet and needs paper documentation. Regarding service, the dean recommended departments give consideration to the amount of work volunteered as a committee member, including attendance, levels of participation, and documented products/outcomes.
Denise Cunningham went over what she looks at as a department head. She wants to see the documentation/supporting materials. Make sure you specifically note how to locate the documentation in your matrix in your main binder.
The dean gave everyone 20 minutes to discuss this process at their tables and then ask questions/comment to the group.
- Those going for tenure would like clear expectations, more clarity on what is required, and evidence of what it would look like.
- After a question regarding the personal summary statement, Mary Lynne told everyone that they do not need three separate documents for the three categories, but one three – five-page summary. You can write information on the categories within the document.
- Would like committees, department heads, and dean to all be on the same page as far as reviewing documentation.
- Know what everyone expects.
- What counts as service and to take responsibility for your service.
- Suggested the department personnel committees meet prior to starting reviews to make sure all are on the same page and know what to expect.
- Suggested for peers to possibly sit in while mentees are teaching to provide feedback.
- Everyone needs to be able to ask and find answers to any questions/concerns.
The dean reiterated that the departmental committee, department head, and dean only make recommendations. Only the Provost makes the decision on tenure/promotion.
Michele Smith spoke on the draft mentoring plan, which she emailed to everyone this morning. Everyone was also sent the document prior to the meeting. The document was developed in the Spring of 2017 during a Faculty Advisory Council meeting because there was a lot of discussion regarding what mentors do, what is required, and there is no policy regarding this. A task force was formed. The document is a living document. Michele asked should we adopt the current draft or a version of it. Would it help for everyone to be on the same page. The document could always be updated as needed. Dean Hough asked mentors if they wanted us to invest in this. Comments:
- We do not need an outside consultant as long as mentors are on the same page.
- There should be an opportunity for a planning session for mentors to look for consistency.
- Meetings to discuss what mentors do and mentees need.
- Mentees look at their department for various strengths. If that works, there is no need to go outside the department.
- Being a mentor is much larger than just working on documentation. They need to help mentees develop. It should be an expectation to mentor.
- Regarding who assigns the mentor, what if the relationship does not work? Mentors need to be invested to help faculty move through the tenure/promotion process. Mentors need to want to be a mentor and invest their time. Michele said there is information on mentors/mentees not working out in the draft document and the topic was discussed at the August meeting.
- Some new faculty does not have an assigned mentor. Everyone needs to have one. It is counterproductive if you do not have one.
Dean Hough said the University does not require mentors. Do we want a plan for our college? We could address things internally. Michele went on to say this would strengthen the college as a whole. It is powerful to see the mentorship role as an assistant/associate/full professor. The document sets a larger framework.
Jim Meyer motioned to approve to circulate the document to the entire college for feedback. There was a second. The motioned passed. The dean will send the document out asking for feedback in the next Hough Post and then we will move forward.
Faculty Advisory Council members also had been working on a draft Code of Ethics for the college. Kim Finch, Becky Swearingen and Melissa Schotthofer were on the task force. Everyone was sent the document in advance to review prior to this meeting. The dean asked everyone to discuss it at his or her table and have someone give the group their thoughts.
- For the sake of alignment/consistence, use language from ORI/IRB.
- There are templates available regarding co-authorship that may be of interest to look at.
- It is understandable to have ethics for research and service, but concerns regarding teaching and collegiality.
- Not sure if we need it. How would it be implemented and would it apply to the tenure/promotion process.
- Would like to see it flushed out a little bit. Suggested looking at documents from comparable groups.
- Add APA guidelines; ethical leadership.
Dean Hough asked the group if they wanted the COE FAC Task Force to continue working on a Code of Ethics for consideration by the College. The group was split: some wanted a Code of Ethics that would compel colleagues not to put undue pressure on untenured faculty. Others did not want a Code of Ethics because they said it would not be enforceable. The group generally agreed that the FAC Code of Ethics Task Force should identify professional organizations’ Ethics documents and create a position paper indicating that all faculty should follow whichever Code most directly impacts them. This issue will be addressed at the next FAC meeting.
Mentors will continue to meet through December/January. Assistant Professors will meet monthly for P/T discussions. Instructors/Clinical Instructors are doing the same.
The dean will meet with Sharon and send information out on the meetings through December.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Submitted by Sharon Lopinot, Exec. Assistant II