|
Introduction
Background
Cases
Jered
Johns:
Case
#1
Teresa
Thomas:
Case
#2
Chair,
Personnel Committee #1
Chair,
Personnel Committee #2
Department
Chair #1
Dean
#1
Dean
#2
Maricela
Guzman:
Case
#3
Sherry
Richer:
Case
#4
Harrison
Spenser:
Case
#5
Resources
CCCC
Promotion and Tenure Guidelines for Work with Technology
CCCC
Statement of Professional Guidance
CCCC
Statement on Scholarship in Composition
MLA
Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages
MLA
Guidelines for the Institutional Support of and Access to IT for Faculty
Members and Students
|
Characterization of Institution
"Research Intensive" institution (the new name for what used
to be Research II, I think).
Characterization of Department
Ph.D. granted in Rhetoric & Witing
M.F.A., granted in Literature
M.A. granted in Literature
M.A. TESL
M.A. granted in Tech Writin,
B.A. programs, full array
How would this case turn out in your department?
At your university/college?
The departmental recommendation would be positive, I believe.
This is partly because the department is quite diverse (grad programs
in Comp & rhet, TESL, tech writing and creative writing as well as
lit); because the Rhetoric & Writing PhD program emphasizes writing
pedagogy; and because there has been a track record of strong non-print
publication by at least two faculty whose cases were not as singlemindedly
non-print as in this case.
Given questions and demands for back-up documentation when the department
has recommended people heavy in non-print work, I'd expect "TeresaThomas"
to have a much tougher time with the College Personnel Committee than with
the Department.
What are the Department Chair's responsibilities
toward Thomas?
Which did she/he fulfill? Fail?
The chair seems to have assummed too much: that "Teresa" would
draw the same meanings she did from the mid-term report, that she would
act on that meaning by getting some things in literal print. And
the Chair seems to have had one non-directive conference and then let the
matter go for (what?) two years. The first failure is being inexplict,
both in the conference and in not having written recommendations.
The second seems to be lack of follow-up.
What are the Personnel Committee's
responsibilities toward
Thomas? Which did they fulfill?
Fail?
N/A
What are the responsibilities of the Dean?
Which did she/he fulfill? Fail?
N/A
What are Thomas's responsibilities?
Which did she/he fulfill? Fail?
Teresa Thomas" probably fulfilled all her responsibilites--strong
teaching, good research and publishing, even grants--AS SHE
UNDERSTOOD them. If the Chair failed to be explict about finetuning
those responsibilities for her, she seems to have failed to check her understanding
against other things in the department. Given the split view of non-paper
publishing in the three evaluations and given the Chair's general words
about a few print publications, she should have had some questions about
her understanding and she should have asked questions. And, over
the next couple years, she should have initiated some contact with the
Chair about what she was doing with her publishing.
What went wrong? What went right?
...[I]t isn't clear that anything is wrong: the non-print record
"Teresa" has by the last paragraph could be so strong that department skeptics
are convinced. But it could go the other way too: those who
were dubious about non-print publishing two years earlier might take her
paper-free record of scholarship and teachhing as evidence of rebeliousness
and uncollegiality and see "Teresa" as a good person not to have as a tenured-faculty
colleague.
My approach as a Chair would be to take a cautious approach: to
assume that things might be sticky for the candidate and to be more
proactive on her behalf. So..., I'd suggest that this candidate and
chair read a couple chapters about the matter in Academic Advancement
in Composition Studies (Erlbaum, 1997):
"Preparing Yourself for Successful Tenure Review" 117-27)
"Mentor and Evaluator: The Chair's Role in Promotion and Tenure
Review (147-65)
See <http://personal.bgsu.edu/~richgeb/book.html>
for information about:
Academic Advancement in Composition Studies: Scholarship,
Publication, Promotion, Tenure (Erlbaum, 1997), edited by Richard Gebhardt
and Barbara Genelle Smith Gebhard
|