COE Mentor Leadership Seminar
November 10, 2017
8:00 – 10:00 a.m.
Attendees: David Hough, Leslie Anderson, Tami Arthaud, Mandy Benedict-Chambers, Gilbert Brown, Jef Cornelius-White, Becky Crowder, Denise Cunningham, Janice Duncan, Kim Finch, David Hough, Steve Jones, Cindy MacGregor, Jim Meyer, Sarah Nixon, Cathy Pearman, Diana Piccolo, Emmett Sawyer, Becky Swearingen, Sharon Lopinot
Dean Hough welcomed everyone. Regarding annual reviews, promotion and tenure, the dean only wants the notebook that goes to the Provost. The assistant professors and mentors have been told and given information on what goes in that notebook. Mentors should periodically review the information with them.
Copies of all department Annual Review/Promotion/Tenure documents are in everyone’s expandable pocket folders. Items required under teaching, service and research are minimum requirements for most departments. There should be more substance to them.
Faculty Advisory Council approved a COE Code of Ethics document yesterday. It is now posted on the COE website. The document has sections on teaching, research/scholarship, service and collegiality. Both mentors and those mentored should be familiar with this document.
A revised Faculty Mentorship Guideline was distributed. The dean used the main mentorship document and integrated information from discussions with Assistant Professors and the mentor group. They stressed the goal of wanting everyone to be successful. In some instances mentors need to be tough and advise more. The dean asked what advice mentors could give to Assistant Professors.
- Support/provide guidance
- Discuss their timeline with them, stay on track
- Be on the same page
- Discuss what is service, what is not
- Make sure they know university procedures
- Remind them of due dates, monitor communications
- Discuss Digital Measures regularly, update productivity
- Be familiar with COE Code of Ethics
- Be familiar with Faculty Handbook, especially as a resource
- Possibly make a list of mentors need to….., Assistant Professors need to….
Responsibilities of Assistant Professors:
- Update productivity through university guidelines
- Articulate, identify goals
- Organize efforts
- Be goal oriented, identify goals
- Share interests
- Where do they want to be in five years
- Have a timeline
- Study department guidelines, bring questions to your mentor
- Develop an action plan in line with your department guidelines
- Update information on Digital Measures regularly
- Be an awesome teacher
- Volunteer for department and college
- Demonstrate initiative and strive for excellence
- Not everything has to happen at once, plan it out
- Set goals that aspire to exceed the guidelines
The dean was asked if information on Digital Measures should be in appointment letters. Everyone thought it or whatever is being used at the time should be included. They also thought it should possibly be added to department documents. The dean asked mentors to work with assistant professors so they understand the university guidelines for productivity. Remind them to keep records of teaching, service and research and to ask questions if needed. Some of this should be at the department head level, such as informing new hires regarding training for Digital Measures and Task Stream, department P/T guideline, and travel.
What if an assistant professor feels someone is asking them to do things they do not want to do, or pressure. A discussion included that there could be miscommunication or misinterpretation which could be resolved through communication. Any concerns should be discussed with the mentor, department head or dean. Regarding communication, concerns need to be discussed in a timely manner to the appropriate level (mentor, department head, and dean).
Assistant Professors need to understand the importance of the Faculty Handbook as a resource. The dean will reinforce this at his Promotion/Tenure faculty meetings. Mentors need to be good colleagues, and ambassadors for their department and college.
There are formal and informal mentorships. Most Assistant Professors prefer informal mentoring. It is the Assistant Professor’s responsibility to seek out colleagues in their college/university if wanted. While a formal mentor program exists, faculty members are encouraged to develop collaborative relationships across the university and in the community in order to enhance professional growth in accordance with policies, procedures and expectations of the faculty members’ home department.
Dean Hough asked for opinions on another topic. What about credit for publications during the new faculty member’s transition time, from date of hire to starting in August. The university will only give credit on publications if it was published while at our university. What about flexibility in giving them credit. Everyone needs to be honest/candid. We could be a little more lenient in the first year. Some thought it should not count for credit if the faculty member has not met the minimum requirements, but only if they exceeded the minimum. Every year prior to tenure is a pre-tenure review for new faculty. We could recognize work in progress prior to the date of hire but may have less merit on their documentation. We could acknowledge potential. It is important for new hires to establish a research agenda as soon as they can. Some do not have any progress in the first six months during which they have their first review.
The next discussion was to add wording to P/T guidelines regarding new faculty’s first review at six months. Faculty do not normally get all satisfactory reviews because they have not been here that long. Another option would be to give the new faculty member a list of what you would like to see by six months, although it would still need to be in a document to be evaluated. Regarding research, what have you done to enact it, do you have an action plan, IRB completed, evidence. Guidelines could include to develop a clear research plan by six months and then their next review at one and a half years should show some evidence. The dean asked if departments would want to tackle this. It was decided that the three department heads, Denise Cunningham, James Satterfield, and Emmett Sawyer would talk to their faculty about this. Even if your department’s guidelines are not up for review this year, you can change them at any time.
The dean said he sees a number of new faculty coming in that have the percentage of effort on papers/presentations they have done. Should we give that consideration? Discussion:
- Sometimes it is required
- Should it be a department decision
- Could be procedural by department
Department heads should discuss all matters broached during today’s MLS with their faculty and urge them to consider revising department RP&T Guidelines to address same.
Meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m.
Next meeting: Friday, December 8, 2017
8:00 – 10:00 a.m.
306 South Avenue
Breakfast will be provided
Submitted by Sharon Lopinot, Exec. Asst. II