8. Career Path and Promotion
In contrast to renewal, promotion of NTT faculty has been rare, and promotion criteria, when they exist at all, have not been clearly spelled out. The main problems, and first steps for addressing them at different colleges, are as follows:
- Faculty with standard professorial titles have often been expected to meet the same research expectations as T/TT faculty, while teaching a heavier load and lacking the benefit of start-up research funding or occasional teaching-load reduction. The School of Management and Metropolitan College have established guidelines for NTT faculty promotion that take into account the specific needs of the college and the role of NTT faculty, and lay the ground rules for a transparent evaluation process in the future.
- Promotion criteria for clinical faculty do not exist in all colleges. SAR and SSW have Faculty Expectations documents for clinical faculty that provide more details about the type and scope of scholarly work expected for promotion.
- Most colleges do not have an explicitly defined career path for Lecturers and research faculty. SMG has established guidelines for promotion of Lecturers that include the number of years a faculty member must stay in rank before applying for promotion, as well as broad salary scales. CGS faculty, as noted above, all held standard professorial titles until this year; but at the conclusion of the 2008/2009 academic year, the titles of 17 existing faculty appointments were changed from Assistant Professor to Lecturer or Senior Lecturer. In the College of Arts & Sciences, faculty have held the same title of Lecturer irrespective of merit or years of service. CAS has announced the gradual phase-in of a promotional ladder for Lecturers that includes the ranks of Senior Lecturer and Senior Lecturer–Master Level; criteria for promotion are based on merit rather than on seniority. (The rank of Master Lecturer, which the Faculty Handbook stipulates as requiring 10 years’ experience, could not be included at this point because this level mandates a much higher salary than current funding levels allow CAS to offer. The Provost’s Office is working with CAS to identify resources and create a number of Master Lectureships that will be appropriate to support the Lecturer career path.) The creation of this new career track for non-tenure-track faculty at CAS and CGS, for instance, raises new concerns and questions for consideration: Will there be funding for all who deserve a promotion to Senior or Master Lecturer or only a limited number of slots that will force a choice between equally deserving applicants? Will Lecturers afforded “senior” status be included in the promotional review process of their peers? To what extent will they be included with their tenured colleagues in policy- and decision-making procedures?
Recommendations:
- Promotion of NTT faculty should be based on the Faculty Expectations of the individual colleges as approved by the University Provost. These Faculty Expectations documents should be specific, stringent, and detailed in describing all criteria for renewal and for promotion. The expectations for NTT faculty should take into account the specific needs of the college as well as differences in the job descriptions of NTT and T/TT, such as differences in teaching loads, advisory duties, program or curriculum coordination responsibilities, among others. These discrepancies may lead to different expectations for promotion for NTT and T/TT faculty at the professorial rank working in the same field but in different colleges. However, tenure status cannot be the sole basis for different promotion expectations within the same college. That is, there should be no difference in expectations for promotion for NTT and T/TT faculty of the same rank and title working in the same college.
- Schools and colleges should spell out the criteria and process for promotion and appointment of NTT faculty with modified (clinical and research) professorial titles and lecturer titles as distinct from NTT or T/TT faculty with standard professorial titles. The differences must be explained in carefully worded and specific phrasing.
- The promotion of NTT faculty with unmodified professorial titles should differ procedurally from the promotion of NTT with modified professorial titles:
- Promotion of faculty with unmodified professorial titles should follow the procedure specified in the BU Faculty Handbook for T/TT faculty with those titles. The University Appointment, Promotion & Tenure Committee (UAPT) should, however,
- base their decision on the NTT Faculty Expectations of the college, not on expectations for T/TT faculty or faculty expectations at other colleges;
- ensure representation and/or input from NTT faculty who hold the same or higher rank as the one considered for promotion.
- The promotion reviews of faculty with modified professorial titles should continue to follow the current approach, i.e., they should be conducted at the department and college level, and the recommendations of these reviews forwarded directly to the University Provost, eschewing a UAPT evaluation. The individual schools and colleges should develop policies and procedures recommended and approved by the faculty and by the dean that specify the review process, including composition of the committee, requirements for dossier, letters, timetable, etc.
- Promotion of faculty with unmodified professorial titles should follow the procedure specified in the BU Faculty Handbook for T/TT faculty with those titles. The University Appointment, Promotion & Tenure Committee (UAPT) should, however,
- Non-tenure-track faculty are eligible for promotion after sufficient length of service, and the decision to stand for promotion may be initiated by the faculty member. There is no rigid schedule for promotion but usually a minimal length of service in rank before promotion is expected. The recommendations of the Task Force for typical minimum lengths at a given rank are summarized in Table 2 below.
- The promotion procedures should ensure appropriate representation of NTT faculty at each stage in the review and decision process of individual promotion cases.
- Salary raises for promotion should be provided outside the merit pool, as has been recently established.
Table 2: Promotion of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
Primary: teaching, pedagogy, admin. service in program
Secondary: professional activities, publications |
Lecturer | Senior Lecturer
After five years’ experience as Lecturer or equivalent, or earlier if initiated by chair/dean |
Master Lecturer
After ten years’ experience, or earlier if initiated by chair/dean |
Traditional triad:
teaching—research—service weighted according to college Faculty Expectations |
Asst. Professor
PhD or equivalent required |
Assoc. Professor
After six years’ experience as Asst. Prof. or equivalent, or earlier if initiated by chair/dean |
Professor
no minimal years of service expected; application when ready |
Emphasis on teaching & program development/ service
Research: not exempt but as defined in the college Faculty Expectations |
Clinical Asst. Professor
PhD or equivalent required |
Clinical Assoc. Professor
After six years’ experience as Clinical Asst. Prof. or equivalent, or earlier if initiated by chair/dean |
Clinical Professor
no minimal years of service expected; application when ready |
Exclusively research;
grant funded(3) |
Research Asst. Professor
PhD or equivalent required |
Research Assoc. Professor
After six years’ experience as Research Asst. Prof. or equivalent, or earlier if initiated by chair/dean |
Research Professor
no minimal years of service expected; application when ready |
Emphasis on teaching & program development/ service
Research: not exempt but as defined in the college Faculty Expectations |
n/a | Assoc. Prof. of the Practice
PhD not required |
Prof. of the Practice
PhD not required; no minimal years of service expected; application when ready |
3. For research faculty the problem of ensuring that promotion is related to an appropriate salary increase is especially challenging. Research faculty are responsible for securing funding for salaries and all other expenditures necessary for supporting the research. A decrease in funding may require that the faculty accept a reduced FTE percentage (e.g., 75% FTE to maintain benefit eligibility) or a lower base salary. Thus, promotion, even when deserved and granted, may not lead to additional compensation.