SoHE Probationary Faculty Mentoring

This process is made in accordance with the SoHE Guidance and Annual Evaluation for Probationary Faculty.

Formative Discussion

Goal

• Serve as a formative discussion of the Probationary Faculty member’s trajectory in scholarship, teaching, and service
• Provide all SoHE Exec members the opportunity to familiarize themselves with each Assistant Professor’s work in preparation for making an informed vote

When

• Formative Reviews occur during all probationary years except the contract renewal year and the year prior to tenure vote.

Who

• Mentoring committee presents the probationary faculty member’s most recent yearly report and an updated CV at SoHE Exec.

Guiding Questions for SoHE Exec Discussion

• Is the mentoring committee satisfied with the candidate’s plan for early scholarship and funding efforts?
• Is the candidate making relevant and appropriate for stage connections across campus / other networks?
• Is the balance across research, teaching, and service activities appropriate? Any support needed to increase time for scholarship?
• What are the opportunities for development or recognition of the candidate’s work?
• Are there updates from previous Formative Discussions?

Next Steps

• Mentoring and Oversight Committee Chair incorporates feedback into the Probationary Faculty Member’s report and submits it to the Dean’s Office
• The Associate Dean for Research and Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Graduate Education review the revised reports.
• The Dean’s Office emails the final report (with revisions as needed) to the Probationary Faculty Member and the Mentoring and Oversight Committee Chair.

Critical Review Discussion at Exec

(Full Critical Review Process accepted by SoHE Exec on April 10, 2020)

Goal:

• Provide more comprehensive, evaluative feedback about Probationary Faculty member’s scholarship, teaching, and service in preparation for Divisional review.
• Provide additional depth of knowledge for SoHE Exec Members in preparation for tenure vote.

When

• Formative Reviews occur during all probationary years except the contract renewal year and the year prior to tenure vote.

Who

• The Mentoring/Oversight committee seeks input from the Department Chair and Department Exec Committee prior to submitting the dossier for School-level critical review. Both the Chair of the department and the Executive committee of the department should ensure that all critical questions are addressed to the extent possible at the department level before the SoHE’s Critical Review. They should also bring any unresolved concerns to the SoHE Executive Committee meeting for broader discussion. The Chair of the department is responsible for setting a timeline to ensure that the preparation of and feedback on the dossier within the department is done in time for distribution to the Critical Reviewers and the SoHE Executive committee.  
• The Critical Reviewers’ primary role is to critique. Critical Reviewers are charged with looking for things that could be improved and with asking difficult questions at times. Their job is to assume the role of the Divisional Committee and to specifically look for potential issues that the Divisional Committee might raise (i.e., does the dossier reflect a steady progression of independent scholarship or creative accomplishments that speak to this scholar’s standing in the field; is there adequate documentation of teaching).
• Mentoring and Oversight Committee Chair presents the probationary faculty member’s report at the SoHE Exec.

Guiding Questions for SoHE Exec Discussion

• Does the probationary faculty member have steady progression of scholarship or creative accomplishment?
• Has the candidate clearly articulated their program of research and its contribution to their respective field?
• Documenting excellence in research: are there clear indicators of independent scholarship and publications?
  • Are there leading papers/outputs (published, exhibited, submitted, or in prep) that can be sent to reviewers?
  • Is the candidate building a logical audience/potential list of external reviewers?
  • Is the candidate setting a foundation for a promising research trajectory beyond tenure?
• Reviewing progress from last annual report: has progress been made on activities/plans recommended by the mentoring committee? Have any questions or concerns from prior critical reviews been addressed?
• Addressing any concerns/gaps in teaching (primarily) or service.

Next Steps

• Mentoring and Oversight Committee Chair incorporates feedback into the Probationary Faculty Member’s report and submits it to the Dean’s Office
• The Associate Dean for Research and Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Graduate Education review the revised reports.
• The Dean’s Office emails the final report (with revisions as needed) to the Probationary Faculty Member and the Mentoring and Oversight Committee Chair.