Dear Stetson University Community:

RE: Promotion/Tenure Policies

I wanted to share some observations regarding the promotion and tenure procedures at
Stetson University in hopes that they might start some dialogue on these. Ive now been
involved in several promotion/tenure cases including pre-tenure reviews (i.e. 2nd year reviews) as
well as been through the process myself (successfully!) And I preface my thoughts by saying
these are just the opinions of one person. I have no particular authority other than my good faith
interest in starting a dialogue.

Also, I should say that my comments should in no way be considered a diss toward the
folks who have worked hard to develop the current system. Its clear a lot of good thought and
effort went into it. Although I argue that it is time to consider some changes, I suspect that is a
feature of the university (and academia at large) changing. What works at one time point may
need revision later.

Most of my thoughts focus on transparency issues, clarity and balance of standards, and
streamlining/efficiency. These are presented below in no particular order. Others may also think
of items to add to this list.

1) One issue of concern is the non-transparency of department-level reviews. As I

understand, letters written by individual faculty members as well as the committee
chairs review letter are not shared with the faculty member (although curiously the
chairs review letter is shared with the faculty member during 2nd and 4th year reviews,
so theres some inconsistency there.) Openness of review letters will enhance the
degree to which they are evidence-based, professional and on point. Given that, at
the department level, more senior members are evaluating junior faculty I dont think
the need to protect senior facultys anonymity should supersede transparency.
2) Related to the above, Im not sure individual faculty member letters at the department
committee level are necessary. I have not seen them before at other universities,
though I suppose we cant be unique. However, I think that a single letter written by
the committee chair and approved by the committee members, noting the various
issues discussed, areas of agreement and disagreement, and final vote tally, would
suffice.
3) One problem that Ive observed is that, at least in practice, the standards for research
and service are unbalanced. My impression is that standards for research tend to be
rather minimal, but standards for service fairly dominant (this may be more true at the
professor than associate professor level). From the Faculty Satisfaction Survey from
last year it seemed that many faculty complain about the high service load at Stetson
(and often blame administration for this), but these standards, and faculty
enforcement of the same, would appear to perpetuate this problem. I think this is one
area that is really not working as we bring in more research productive faculty. This
is also an issue where service requirements are fairly minimal on paper (perhaps 15%
or so for most faculty), but the all or nothing P&T evaluation system used by
Stetson (in which one must excel at all three of teaching, research and service) belies
 an evaluation system where all three areas count for 100% of an evaluation. Given
that the research requirements are pretty minimal, the current system would appear to
drive all faculty toward heavy service loads that will interfere with research
productivity. It may be valuable to reconsider a two out of three system (which I
have heard was a previous system) where teaching excellence is a must, but faculty
could be rewarded for focusing more on either research or service (some of each
would still be expected, but faculty would be evaluated for their overall contribution
to Stetson, not negatively evaluated if they have a strength in one area and a weakness
in another.) At present under the current system, a faculty member could win a Nobel
Prize for their research and still be denied promotion if a committee felt they were
weak in service/leadership.
4) The guidelines for service/leadership, overall, appear to be vague. I dont believe
they give much guidance for faculty on what to expect from this and allow too much
flexibility for committees and administrators to either promote or deny a candidate.
Again, Im not suggesting bad faith, only that unclear communication of expectations
inevitably breeds increased human error.
5) Although anecdotal, I have heard from some junior faculty that expectations are not
always clear or made clear to them early on in the time at Stetson, or they may be told
not to worry too much in the early years about the tenure process or research
specifically. Conversely, I am also concerned that some junior faculty, upon
achieving the minimum stated requirements for research may be being told to back
off of research in favor of service from that point forward. I believe, that we can
work harder to make standards clear from day one for junior faculty, as well as to
keep research a priority through the assistant professor years.
6) Although it is important for promotion/tenure standards to have clear
guidelines/goalposts, the current standards keywords system (i.e. rigor, maturity,
evolution) tends to be laborious and confusing. Im not saying things like rigor and
such arent important, just that the keywords system tends to create letters (both by
candidates and reviewers) that are rigid, ill-thought out, and lacking narrative flow
often making them difficult to read/follow. Granted Ive seen a few good letters using
the keywords, but theyve been the exception, at least in my experience. I understand
that this system replaced a kind of free for all in the past, but I think the pendulum
has been swinging too far from pole to pole and the current approach is too rigid. We
need clearly stated objectives and goalposts, but I think the narrative structure of
letters can be a bit more open.
7) The standards in the rubrics can be confusing as well. Often suggested pieces of
evidence show up in more than one place (e.g. invited speaker or paper invitation
shows up under both maturity and recognition for scholarshipthere are a fair
number of these.) Repeating the same pieces across multiple standards is usually a
good indication that theres redundancy in the process.
8) As a minor issue, it may be worth considering having candidates write a single letter
covering research, teaching and service, rather than 3 separate letters (a single letter
seems more typical from my experience).
9) There is some lack of clarity regarding what to do with faculty who begin their
careers at Stetson while already in a senior rank (i.e. associate professor or
equivalent.) Unfortunately, in many circumstances, clarity is not often provided by
 appointment letters. Stetson needs greater clarity regarding this issue, one way or
another. I think committees are trying to deal with this in good faith, but in the
absence of clarity mistakes will be made. I think, again, that its typical to evaluate
senior faculty according to time in rank not time at Stetson and that all activities
related to research, teaching and service would be considered, not just those at
Stetson. However, it would not be unreasonable for Stetson to require some
minimum time at Stetson prior to promotion2-3 years would not seem
unreasonable.
10) Regarding service/leadership, Stetson may wish to reconsider the range of activities
that count toward this category. At present, the evaluation appears to be heavily
weighted toward activities specifically occurring within Stetson campus (committees,
administrative tasks, etc.) While these are certainly important, I think it would
behoove Stetson to consider a wider range of activities, including community service,
service to professional associations, government service, public relations, etc. If it
promotes Stetson at all it should be considered service, and people are going to have
different strengths and weaknesses.

In summary, I believe we can improve our P&T process to a point where were looking
comprehensively at facultys overall contribution and promotion of Stetson University. Stetsons
strengths will come in diversity, including finding ways to capitalize on and encourage peoples
specific skills and assets which will ultimately differ from one person to another. We have a lot
of great folks here and were bringing in a lot of wonderful new faculty and Im sure we can
tweak our P&T system a bit to meet the exciting changes and challenges our university will see
in forthcoming years. I remember being a student here (class of 93!) and what an amazing
experience it was. As always, I am beyond proud to call myself both an alum and faculty
member at this wonderful university and Im excited to see how we take Stetson into the future.

Cordially,
Chris Ferguson
Psychology