Faculty Feedback Survey on the SU ADVANCE “Proposed Revised Guidelines for Promotion to Full Professor”

Background & Methods. Many faculty and academic administrators consider Seattle University’s current guidelines for promotion to be problematic. In particular, the expectation of evidence of “national reputation” has been critiqued as being vague and distracting from evaluation of a more representative range of faculty achievements and contributions. One of SU ADVANCE’s central activities is a faculty-driven process resulting in a proposed revised set of guidelines for promotion full professor that are in alignment with the activities that constitute faculty careers in a comprehensive, mission-focused university. In 2020, this process has included:

• Meetings of the SU ADVANCE Task Force (a provost-appointed task force composed of faculty from all colleges and schools with tenure-track faculty) to discuss revisions to the SU faculty promotion guidelines, as well as a faculty-led process for reviewing them;
• Meetings of the Task Force Working Group, composed of Dr. Kristi Lee, Dr. Colette Taylor, and Dr. Jenny Loertscher, to work on the writing and feedback processes involved in the revisions;
• Development of a Qualtrics online feedback survey and our “Proposed Revised Guidelines for Promotion to Full Professor” draft;
• Presentation by Drs. Lee, Loertscher, and Taylor (via Zoom) of our Proposed Revised Guidelines for Promotion to Full Professor” draft to the Academic Assembly on April 27;
• Communication through the Provost’s Office to all 351 tenured/tenure track SU faculty on 27 May 2020, asking for feedback on the guidelines draft, via the refined Qualtrics survey (the survey remained open for 5 weeks);
• Listening sessions to gather more in-depth qualitative feedback on the guidelines draft from deans and associate deans;
• Meetings of the Task Force Working Group throughout the summer to analyze the survey and listening session data and to revise the guidelines in light of that data.

Overview of the Survey and Listening Session Data. Approximately 30% of the tenured and tenure-track faculty responded to the survey (N=116). The following themes emerged from this faculty feedback process:

• A critical mass of faculty understand the benefits of revising guidelines to show clearer mission alignment and an emphasis on integrated faculty professional work – in contrast to the previous guidelines, which addressed distinct categories of service, teaching and research;
• A majority of respondents affirmed that more inclusive guidelines will positively impact faculty and will enable the institution to be more inclusive;
• One survey question we asked was, “Imagine that you are a candidate petitioning for promotion from associate to full professor. What aspect(s) of the proposed revised guidelines for promotion are useful to you as you plan your career trajectory after tenure?” A recurrent thematic response was that the proposed revised guidelines go beyond the “one-size-fits-all” model most universities employ, to allow faculty to “focus on what benefits my students instead of what benefits my career;”
• Faculty, especially deans and others in administrative roles, expressed a need for clearer language in the guidelines draft and for more examples of an “integrated” promotion file;
• A consistently expressed concern was the need for a strong, comprehensive faculty development and mentoring infrastructure to support the new guidelines;
• Similar concern was expressed about the need to train faculty administrators and evaluation committees to be able to competently interpret and apply the guidelines (i.e., to not fall back on traditional assessment norms);
• Concern was expressed around effectively articulating the SU mission and its connection to faculty careers to external reviewers;
• A few respondents expressed worry that the new guidelines will weaken traditional scholarship, will “water down” faculty portfolios, and that “just anyone” will be eligible for promotion;
• Questions were raised about how a revision of the university guidelines will impact guidelines at the level of each college and school (with some expressing a need for stronger correspondence across levels and others worried about university guidelines overriding important college/school processes).

Overall, the feedback we received echoed themes we have been hearing over the past four years of our project work. Many faculty and faculty administrators at Seattle University recognize the need for promotion guidelines that are more representative of our SU mission and the activities that sustain it.

This alignment is integral to the inclusion of diverse faculty experiences, expertise, and activities, as well as to the success of all our students. When fully realized, this focus on integrated faculty careers and mission alignment represents a paradigm shift that elevates decades of hidden work while also continuing to value strong scholarly and professional development. It does not “water down” scholarship, but rather asks of us as teacher-scholars to more clearly articulate the full range of activities that contribute to student success, professional achievement, community engagement and public enhancement, and additional aspects of faculty careers that sustain a vibrant university as part of a wider just, humane world.  At SU ADVANCE, we realize that this shift can only be effective if it’s integrated across the broader university, especially in hiring, faculty development, and evaluation processes. Faculty clearly recognize this need as well, as reflected in the survey and listening session feedback. Accordingly, another central aim of our project is infrastructure planning that includes ongoing leadership training for deans and department chairs to support faculty. This infrastructure planning includes training for evaluation committees as well as workshops for faculty on how to establish purposeful faculty careers and provide compelling evidence for their diverse contributions. 

Stay tuned for the next newsletter, which will include an update on “infrastructure planning.”