lener.indd Raising the Bar: An Approach to Reviewing and Revising Standards for Professional Achievement for Library Faculty Edward F. Lener, Bruce Pencek, and Susan Ariew The committee revising the retention, promotion, and continued appoint- ment policy in the Virginia Tech libraries took a broad view of its task in articulating its goal, gathering information from internal and external sources, allocating drafting responsibilities, and winning support. The committee’s work revealed an unexpected need and led to an explicit affirmation of professional obligations of librarians to one another. Thus, adoption of the new policy and the principles it embodied became a lever for changes in the organizational culture. hen a college or university seeks to raise promotion and tenure standards for academic faculty, where do its profes- sional employees fit? How can they affect the standards under which they will be judged? For librarians, the nature and ef- fects of higher retention, promotion, and tenure (RPT) standards will depend not only on whether they have faculty status, but also on the nature of that status: librar- ians who are entirely integrated into the academic faculty may have different oppor- tunities to affect RPT standards than librar- ians whose institutions distinguish among classes of faculty.1 Naturally, librarians who are professional employees without faculty status face yet another set of issues. RPT standards reflect the very core of how one’s professional contributions are assessed and valued. They also have important career implications. “Good” standards balance the potential tensions among the needs of the institution, the profession, and the individual. When dra ing standards or making revisions, it is o en a challenge to win assent from all parties due to the complexities involved. Making policy changes in a short time can prove especially problematic—and provides an opportunity. This article de- scribes major elements of a successful re- vision process pursued in 2002 at Virginia Tech. The approaches described here may inform difficult deliberations well beyond one library and university. Edward Lener is College Librarian for the Sciences at the University Libraries of Virginia Tech; e-mail: lener@vt.edu. Bruce Pencek is College Librarian for the Social Sciences; e-mail: bpencek@vt.edu. Susan Ariew is College Librarian for Education and Human Development; e-mail: saa@vt.edu. All were members of the Faculty Affairs Commi ee that addressed the issues presented here. 287 mailto:saa@vt.edu mailto:bpencek@vt.edu mailto:lener@vt.edu 288 College & Research Libraries The commi ee charged with rewriting RPT standards and procedures for library faculty took several lines of action to cre- ate a document that satisfied both a uni- versity-wide mandate and the interests of the librarians. Each approach brought its own set of benefits. An internal needs assessment provided valuable clarifica- tion of faculty concerns at any early stage. Comparative analysis of policies from benchmark libraries yielded examples of well-cra ed principles, practices, and language. A fast-paced dra ing process characterized by individual authorship with collective review fostered innovative thinking and avoided abstraction. Finally, a conscious strategy of consensus-build- ing and open participation led to broader confidence and support among the library faculty as a whole and ultimately resulted in a be er document.2 These new stan- dards were implemented within a few months of their adoption as part of the annual cycle of promotion and continued appointment reviews. Library Faculty Status The “general faculty” at Virginia Tech comprises several classes, each with its own specific role and expectations. Col- legiate (i.e., teaching) faculty make up by far the largest single group. In recognition of the different nature of their positions and responsibilities as “extra-collegiate faculty,” librarians are eligible for “con- tinued appointment” and/or promotion through a process that parallels that used for teaching faculty, on the recommenda- tion of a separate University Promotion and Continued Appointment Commi ee for Extra-Collegiate Faculty. The con- tinued appointment track for librarians confers comparable benefits such as protection of academic freedom and job security. (Prior to 1983, library faculty were awarded tenure under the same rules as collegiate faculty. Those originally July 2004 granted that status retain it.) Teaching and library faculty also participate on equal terms in university governance. Members of the Virginia Tech library faculty hold the conventional academic ranks of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and (full) professor. In the University Libraries, instructors are on an “up or out” track: they must pursue both promotion and continued appointment. Assistant professors who have received continued appointment are encouraged, but not obliged, to seek further promotion. Promotion and tenure policies for collegiate faculty are spelled out in great detail in the university’s Faculty Handbook, with more limited guidelines provided for the extra-collegiate faculties.3 The handbook explicitly acknowledges that library faculty promotion and continued appointment deliberations are governed by a separate document, Procedures on Promotion and Continued Appointment: University Libraries, developed by the Li- brary Faculty Association (LFA) and the dean of libraries, the revision of which is the focus of this article. Mandate At Virginia Tech the impetus to review standards for promotion and continued appointment of librarians began in late 2001, when a university-level ad hoc commi ee on promotion and tenure is- sued a report that recommended further strengthening existing standards and es- tablishing a more consistent set of proce- dures across all colleges and departments. The report emphasized the research and scholarship component of the university’s academic standards, with comparatively li le mention of the areas of teaching, service, and outreach. These recommen- dations reflected the university’s goal to become one of the top thirty American re- search universities (as ranked by National Science Foundation measures of research funding) by 2010.4 Shortly a er the issuance of the report, the university provost sent a directive to all academic units strongly supporting its recommendations. The le er requested that all units review their standards ac- cordingly and seek to “explicitly delineate appropriate measures or indicators of suc- cessful outcomes with respect to research, teaching, and outreach and to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all faculty.”5 All colleges, the University Libraries, and the extension service were asked to prepare re- ports, due in approximately four months’ time, addressing the recommendations of the university ad hoc commi ee’s report and describing how their respective units had implemented them. In early February 2002, the provost’s charge was referred to the library’s Fac- ulty Affairs Commi ee (FAC), an elected, standing commi ee of the LFA. LFA is the formal representative body of the library faculty, comprising all librarians, includ- ing department heads, below the dean and associate dean. Fortuitously, the 2001–2002 FAC brought a wide mix of experiences and perspectives to the task. Members varied in rank and degree of seniority, with one full profes- sor, one associate professor, and three assistant professors. With one exception, all commi ee members had worked in the University Libraries six or more years and had earned continued appointment. Moreover, members were familiar with teaching faculty norms at Virginia Tech and elsewhere concerning promotion and tenure through participation in university governance and other interactions. Process Step One. Gauging Librarian Sentiments Although selected elements and language had been modified and updated from time to time during periodic reviews, Raising the Bar 289 the existing Promotion and Continued Appointment (P&CA) document for the University Libraries had not been subject to any extensive revision since 1989. The FAC began its task by conducting an internal needs assessment using a Web- based questionnaire. (See appendix I.) This proved to be a simple and effective way to gather key background data. In ad- dition to its intended purpose, the survey process provided less tangible, but valu- able, benefits. Cajoling faculty to respond to the survey helped sensitize librarians to the reasons behind the review. Moreover, the responses gave the commi ee a sense of the problems they might encounter in achieving consensus, both within the commi ee and across the library. The first section of the survey pre- sented the primary recommendations of the university Ad Hoc Commi ee on Promotion and Tenure, requesting feed- back about how the University Libraries’ P&CA guidelines could best reflect those recommendations. Open-ended questions asked librarians their views regarding re- search as a P&CA criterion, how to ensure that P&CA expectations and standards be communicated fairly and effectively, and how best to implement measures of successful outcomes. The second section asked for LFA members’ comments and recommendations about the strengths, weaknesses, and ambiguities of the cur- rent P&CA policy and the relationship of the guidelines to the library’s strategic plan. In a final section included for statisti- cal purposes, respondents could indicate current rank, years of service, years of professional experience, and whether they had ever served on the library’s Promotion and Continued Appointment Commi ee, as those variables might affect the respondents’ views. The FAC solicited participation in the survey through mul- tiple channels. Although the nature of 290 College & Research Libraries questions made for a somewhat lengthy survey, the committee emphasized to participants that they needed to complete only those most salient to them. Aside from access controls to prevent anyone from completing the questionnaire more than once, the survey was conducted anonymously. Results, including com- ments, were compiled instantly and could be viewed online. Out of thirty-five librarians, eighteen responded. The response rate was slightly higher among those at the instructor and assistant professor rank than from those at associate professor or above. Nine respondents indicated having sixteen or more years of professional experience and six indicated they had served on the library’s P&CA Commi ee in the past. As expected, the responses varied a great deal. Answers to individual ques- tions varied from a simple “seems OK” to lengthy discourses. The most frequently expressed concern was that the FAC might try to make radical changes to the standards without seeking adequate input prior to a vote of the LFA mem- bership. Several responses emphasized that, regardless of what the university chose to do, it was very important for the library faculty to have standards that would suitably reflect the nature of the profession and the needs of the University Libraries. Despite a general desire to maintain the status quo, many of the respondents identified aspects they believed needed improvement. These provided the com- mi ee points of departure for its delib- erations. For example, one respondent said, “Our procedures for promotion and continued appointment do not com- municate ‘expectations’ very explicitly in terms of measures or indicators. The language right now is vague and needs to be clarified in terms of what candidates need to do.” Another asked for inclusion July 2004 of a checklist and a timetable, especially for junior faculty and new hires. Step Two. Comparing Local Practices with Other Institutions’ Documents The FAC felt a commitment from the start to use comparative analysis and to adapt best practices from other large academic libraries. The commi ee also made refer- ence to the model statement of the ACRL Academic Status Commi ee regarding promotion and tenure issues.6 Thus, at the same time that it was gathering local opinions, the FAC began looking at the promotion and tenure policies of peer institutions (as identified by SCHEV, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia) and of research universities ranked 21 to 30 in 2000 by NSF, a total of thirty-one universities a er duplicate cases were excluded.7 The commi ee created a spreadsheet on which to compile relevant information. (See appendix II.) This “peers and be ers” list included each university’s SCHEV or NSF status, whether it was a land-grant institution, whether it granted tenure or some equivalent to librarians, the ranks li- brarians held, primary criteria for promo- tion and/or tenure, level of professional development support (e.g., formalized mentoring, research funding, sabbaticals), and URLs for their promotion and tenure documentation. Separate fields were available for annotations about library policies and noteworthy university char- acteristics. Seeking to put its comparisons on a common footing, the committee soon added additional columns for 2000 Association of Research Libraries data, including overall rank, professional and staff sizes, and enrollment.8 Each commi ee member was assigned six or seven institutions to investigate. The availability of online promotion and ten- ure documents at many institutions facili- tated rapid data collection and provided the primary source of information. Some online policies, however, were difficult to interpret with confidence insofar as ap- parently relevant documents were pass- word protected. When policies regarding librarian faculty status or tenure options were unclear, position announcements o en provided some clarification. Com- mi ee members also e-mailed requests for additional information when needed. Policy language varied a great deal across institutions and was o en replete with local terminology. Librarian ranks and titles, for example, were not con- sistent, making comparisons difficult. Furthermore, some documentation did not fully define the classifications used, requiring reference instead to general fac- ulty handbooks or other related materials for the institution. Finally, not all of the universities investigated accord faculty status or tenure to librarians. Step Three. Analyzing Collected Data During the analysis phase, the FAC formed a common idea about what prin- ciples any new promotion and continued appointment standards should embody. In particular, the commi ee sought char- acteristics that would make the document equitable and rigorous in substance as well as user oriented (to P&CA commit- tees, to library and university administra- tors, and to candidates). Members shared the results of the internal survey and the comparative analysis by e-mail and in weekly meetings. Face-to-face conver- sation generally proved more efficient, more collegial, and less burdensome than e-mail, given the tight deadlines and the sensitive nature of the issues under discussion. As the commi ee reviewed policies from libraries on its “peers and be ers” list, it struggled with determining what characterized appropriate criteria with regard to local needs. In contrast with Raising the Bar 291 institutions such as North Carolina State University (a traditional benchmark and target for Virginia Tech’s ambitions), the gap between Virginia Tech’s current NSF ranking and its ARL standings is quite broad by any standard. Most notably, Virginia Tech has the smallest professional staff of any ARL library in the United States.9 Despite the university’s aspirations to climb further in the NSF rankings, the commi ee could not assume that Virginia Tech would invest heavily enough in ad- ditional resources, especially personnel, to raise the University Libraries to com- parable levels in the ARL rankings. Absent a sizeable infusion of resources, blindly ratcheting up P&CA standards would have been unrealistic institution- ally and would have drawn the wrath of many members of the LFA. This was espe- cially true regarding higher expectations of what the provost’s mandate called “re- search productivity.” Survey respondents expressed concern that already thinly stretched librarians could be forced to reduce their efforts to provide high-qual- ity services to the academic faculty and students in order to make the time to meet a new quota of publications. Maintaining an appropriate balance among the roles of scholarship, teaching, and service was a key issue facing the commi ee. The 1998 ACRL report Academic Librarianship and the Redefining Scholarship Project addressed some of these concerns and provided a helpful look at the diverse roles that li- brarians now fill.10 Given both the general satisfaction with the basic standards and processes already in place and the overall compatibility of the existing procedures with practices elsewhere, the FAC de- cided to retain and be er codify much of the substance of the existing P&CA document while extensively revising the form and presentation. This process of developing a shared un- derstanding of the ends, available means, 292 College & Research Libraries and rationales facilitated frank, produc- tive discussion in the commi ee during the dra ing phase. In the end, the FAC chose not to base its new document on any a priori model or institution. Rather, discussion of the needs assessment survey and other libraries’ promotion and tenure materials led to a general picture of desir- able enhancements that the commi ee sought to incorporate, including: • an introductory statement of un- derlying principles (inspired by Duke’s document) to guide the interpretation and application of the document; • an acknowledgment of the re- sponsibilities of the senior librarians and supervisors to encourage the professional growth of faculty; • a clearer account of the sequence of review events; • an increased level of detail for re- view criteria and standards; • the elimination of inconsistencies and ambiguities wherever possible, in- cluding a stricter separation of the rules from advisory and situation-specific state- ments. Step Four. Drafting The FAC soon adopted a holistic view of its project rather than a merely incre- mental one. The commi ee recognized that the old P&CA documentation was largely wri en from an insider’s point of view—that of the library’s experienced administrators and senior faculty for whom the procedures were second na- ture. To facilitate its conversion into a policy that would be clear and intelligible to all involved, two members took the ini- tiative to lay out structural changes in the document. A er discussion, early designs with rigorous parallelism for the roles of candidates, commi ees, and administra- tors yielded to a more modest, sequential format intended to simplify access to o en-complex procedural information. July 2004 This initial method of individual dra - ing and collective, highly discursive revi- sion set a pa ern. Armed with internal advice, an appropriate set of external best practices, and consensus on the shape of the new version, members of the commit- tee singly or in pairs took responsibility for reworking sections of the existing document and cra ing the new portions that were envisioned. Members modified and incorporated language from exem- plary documents they found elsewhere. Citations to sources for proposed changes, o en with rationales, queries, observa- tions, and other discussion items, also were included as color-coded annotations in the files of the section dra s. At the next meeting the commi ee hammered out consensus language. Meeting frequently (and o en on short notice), the commi ee developed a complete dra of the new model document ready for presentation to the LFA in just over five weeks. Step Five. Achieving Consensus Discussions within the FAC were intense, but not personalized. Two factors were vital to making the revision process productive rather than incendiary. First, as mentioned, members went into the dra ing with a shared understanding of their goal and of the general means to its realization. Second, they consciously reminded themselves that they were collective, not individual, authors. These strategies defused tension and reduced the tendency for the dra ers to become too firmly entrenched as advo- cates for any proposed text. The commi ee saw that the next crucial challenge would be ge ing the rest of the library faculty to carefully study and com- pare the existing document with the dra proposal and to recommend changes and revisions. From the outset, commit- tee members had updated colleagues and solicited their opinions through the survey, progress reports at monthly LFA meetings, and informal private communi- cations. When the first complete dra of the new P&CA document was ready for broader discussion in late April 2002, the FAC posted it on the LFA Web site and held two public forums with the library faculty. Throughout this period, the com- mi ee emphasized that the document was still in dra form and that the forums were working meetings to incorporate suggestions and changes. At each forum, the committee, led by its chair, provided an overview of its research and reasoning before inviting candid, section-by-section discussion of the dra . Librarians of all ranks and func- tions were present and raised salient ques- tions and points for discussion. Although not LFA members, the dean and associate dean of libraries also were invited and each a ended a forum. Their participation was symbolically as well as practically advantageous, given the centrality of the library administration to acceptance of the new document and implementation of its principles. The public forums provided valuable input to the commi ee as well as helped to build awareness and support. The FAC then worked to reconcile and incorporate suggested changes and corrections into a revised version. A longtime LFA mem- ber outside the commi ee volunteered to proofread and edit the standards for stylistic consistency before issuance of a revised dra . Finally, the LFA held a “first reading” at the regular monthly meeting of the proposed new Procedures on Promotion and Continued Appointment with further discussion and a nonbind- ing vote. The next month’s LFA meeting included a “second reading” and a final, unanimous vote of approval. Outcomes Although seeking to increase the level of specificity in the new document, the Raising the Bar 293 commi ee avoided narrow checklists or quotas. Rather, its goal was to articulate rational, objective principles and process- es that had the flexibility to accommodate individual circumstances and differences. The new document incorporated and transcended the requirements of the provost’s original mandate, notably: • The document became more user- friendly, with events described in a logical sequence and a timetable added. • The spirit of the document changed, with professional growth and the com- mon good emphasized as the goals of the promotion and continued appointment processes and deliberativeness and fair- ness emphasized among the means. • Faculty ranks and professional responsibilities were be er defined, with clearer descriptions for requirements for promotion. • Formal requirements, especially for promotion to full professor, became more rigorous. • Indicators of professional and scholarly achievement required for con- tinued appointment and promotion were made more explicit. • Weak or ambiguous language was revised or dropped. • Greater emphasis was placed on research with weighting of different types more clearly defined. • New types of professional exper- tise, scholarship, and learning were be er taken into account. The sidebar summarizes interviews with library administrators and selected candidates who have recently gone through the promotion and continued appointment process using the new document. Those interviewed largely saw the changes as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Yet, they were in full agree- ment that the new version more clearly communicated to everyone what was expected, and why. This, in turn, provided 294 College & Research Libraries a sound framework for candidates to plan their professional advancement and for committee members, supervisors, and administrators to give useful advice and make more fully informed judgments. Although the process had been initi- ated to comply with a directive from the provost to review an existing policy, the revision actually “raised the bar” in two di- mensions. One was foreseen from the start: the revised rules clarified requirements and more closely aligned institutional expectations of library faculty with those for academic faculty. The other dimension unfolded in the course of research, delib- eration, and discussion: while building on past strengths, the revisions made to the document elevated to the foreground a set of underlying principles and obligations for Virginia Tech librarians. As the document was ratified by unani- mous vote of the LFA, so was the principle that supervisors and senior faculty should assume an active mentoring role. So was the idea that all parties stood to benefit by using the standards as the framework for ongoing conversations about scholarship and professional development. So was the goal that rich narratives that highlight individual strengths, not cookie-cu er formalities, should continue to inform and drive the review process. Conclusion and Implications As a technical example of dra ing and consensus-building, the approaches outlined in this article and the resulting Virginia Tech Promotion and Continued Appointment document may be just as useful to other libraries as the compara- tive analysis of documents from selected institutions proved on this campus. However, the real significance for other libraries seeking to “raise the bar” with regard to their own retention, promotion, and tenure standards may be as a way of looking at policy change and its legacy. July 2004 Upon reflection, the revision articu- lated and reinforced at least three possible perspectives on the policy’s significance and the shi s in organizational culture. Each perspective raises different ques- tions, addresses different kinds of evi- dence, and points to different implications for building on what has been achieved so far. None presents a complete picture, yet each illuminates a part of it. • Was the shift toward mentoring and mutuality the result of the process of revision and adoption—with its intensive schedule, its survey of faculty opinion, its analyses of policies at benchmark univer- sities, and its regular public discussions? If so, perhaps the culture will regress as memories fade and the lesson may be that consciousness-raising activities will be necessary until faculty internalize new norms. • Was the shi the result of the con- tents of the revision—with their greater references to university-wide norms, their inclusion of values and assumption, their flexible criteria, and their natural- istic organization? If so, perhaps formal language and library culture will become mutually reinforcing, and the lesson may be that well-dra ed governance policies can create more than paperwork wrapped in red tape. • Was the shi the result of outside circumstances—with the effects of the personnel changes, commi ee makeup, and recent library and university-wide strategic planning initiatives that took place? If so, perhaps the revised policy was nearly as much a consequence as a cause, and the lesson may be that prog- ress can depend on opportunities of the moment. These perspectives on the impact and interaction of the processes, content, and circumstances surrounding policy change are more than retrospective mus- ings about a lone Virginia Tech initiative. Taken together, they provide a basis for any library to look at its local situation, its internal and external constituencies, and its values and goals. Sidebar: What Happened? When the revised Virginia Tech Libraries’ promotion and continued appointment document had been in place for two years, the authors sought firsthand impressions of the effects of the new document. They interviewed library administrators and selected library faculty. Interviews were done individually, using a semistructured approach with a preset list of questions that focused on the effects the document had on their own and others’ behavior. Interviewees were asked to reflect on their experiences under the old and new rules and to comment on the document as an expression of university and library expectations. Dean of Libraries Eileen Hitching- ham and Associate Dean Don Kenney emphasized the greater clarity of the revised document, both procedurally and, especially, in its explicit articulation of professional growth and mentoring as library goals. They noted that the substance of the processes—commi ee review of heavily narrative evidence of one’s librarianship, scholarship, and service—was not substantially changed from norms and customs dating at least as far back as 1989. Hitchingham noted the importance of greater clarity to her in making the case for library faculty to the university-level commi ee on promotion and continued appointment and other decision makers unfamiliar with the library culture and internal function. “It helps me show how the library answers their questions, such as: What do you value? What’s important? What are some examples of it?” Kenney, who ex officio has chaired the library P&CA Commi ee since 1993, Raising the Bar 295 noted the importance of greater clarity about ends and means to focus commi ee deliberations and recommendations on helping rising library faculty to achieve their professional and scholarly goals. Both said they believe the revision made it easier for candidates, commi ees, and administrators to know what was expected of them at the different stages of the retention, promotion, and continued appointment processes. “Mechanically, it’s made such an improvement,” Hitch- ingham said. “It’s made a stressful process [of structuring one’s dossier] much more straightforward.” On the other hand, both noted, the revised procedures also impose an ob- ligation on candidates to “tell their own stories” persuasively—to articulate their professional goals, relate them to library and university goals, give accounts of their achievements, and substantiate them through meaningful le ers of reference and other documents. They say that values and assumptions language added to the policy encourages the library P&CA Commi ee to tell a cor- relatively rich “story” in its recommenda- tions to the faculty member, to the dean and external audiences, and, they hoped, to the candidates’ supervisors. Neither candidates nor commi ees can hide be- hind formal, one-size-fits-all checklists of performance. The authors identified several librar- ians who had previously gone through the old rules for second- and fourth-year retention review, promotion, and/or con- tinued appointment and had lately “gone up” under the revised rules. Two agreed to be interviewed. Professors A and B praised the new document as a substantial clarification of previous policy at Virginia Tech. Each put the greater explicitness of a local document in a larger context: A noted that promotion and tenure dossiers for librar- 296 College & Research Libraries July 2004 ians in a previous position were “guess as guess can.” B said “the review of what others are doing nationally [that went into the dra ing of the new document] inspires confidence in the process.” Continuity with previous practices allowed them to rework their previous dossiers for the library P&CA process with li le difficulty. They added that they were concerned that newer employees, especially those new to librarianship in a research university, may need more than the document to understand fully what is expected of them. Each noted that the library should offer more thorough orien- tation about university-wide expectations for faculty. Both suggested enhancements to P&CA appendices to promote more consistent and effective dossiers. The more discursive approach to ac- counting for one’s work in the revised policy may be a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it “gives you some latitude depending on the nature of one’s work,” A said, “and it lays it out a li le more clear- ly.” On the other hand, said B, “People tend to read into it what they want.” The revision does not change a po- tential underlying source of inconsis- tency in how candidates are treated, B added. “Rigor comes not only from the document, but also from the commi ee’s interpretation of it.” She also expressed concern that distinctive performance by one candidate may skew commi ee perceptions of the rest of the candidate pool. Moreover, eligibility and election to serve on the P&CA Commi ee were not changed, so the possibilities remain that members themselves may not be familiar with the latest trends in librarianship, may not actively engage in professional development or scholarship, or may hold lower ranks than candidates whose cases they are judging. Conversely, A claimed her recent ex- periences supported the library admin- istration’s faith in the process. “It works both ways—keeping people and ge ing rid of people, as well as helping them do be er.” A and B are also departmental supervi- sors. They noted that the revised document is a useful reference point for evaluat- ing and fostering faculty in their areas. However, both added, related policies for faculty annual evaluations and post- tenure review need to be rewri en—and then administered—to mesh with the let- ter and spirit of the revised P&CA policy. Customarily, the personnel policies have been treated separately, with their own statements of expectations of faculty. A and B said these different rules and procedures have at times impeded supervisors’ ability to guide and correct their subordinates. Notes 1. For an overview and analysis, see Betsy Park and Robert Riggs, “Tenure and Promotion—A Study of Practices by Institutional Type,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (May 1993): 72–77; Virginia Vesper and Gloria Kelley, Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic Librarians: Clip Note #26 (Chicago: ALA, 1997); Carol W. Cubberly, Tenure and Promotion for Academic Librarians: A Guidebook with Advice and Vigne es (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1996); Shannon Cary, “Faculty Rank, Status, and Tenure for Librarians: Current Trends,” College & Research Libraries News 62 (May 2001): 510–11, 520; Pat Weaver-Meyers, “Conflict Resolution: A Case Study about Academic Librarians and Faculty Status,” College & Research Libraries 63 (Jan. 2002): 25–33; Diane. Ruess, “Faculty and Professional Appointments of Academic Librarians: Expanding the Options for Choice,” portal: Libraries and the Academy (Jan. 2004) 75–84. 2. The complete text of the new document developed at the University Libraries at Virginia Tech may be found online at h p://filebox.vt.edu/users/lener/PCA. The original version of the procedures also is provided there for comparative purposes. In addition, one of the working dra s is included because it features details of markup and comments about specific changes. Raising the Bar 297 3. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Office of the Provost, Faculty Handbook (Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Tech). Available online at h p://www.provost.vt.edu/web_pages/fac- ulty_handbook.pdf. 4. ———, Strategic Plan. (Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Tech, 2001). Available online at h p://www. unirel.vt.edu/stratplan/. 5. ———, Office of the Provost, Memorandum, “Recommendations from the Ad Hoc Com- mi ee on Promotion and Tenure,” Jan. 7, 2002. 6. Association of College and Research Libraries, Academic Status Commi ee, “Model State- ment of Criteria and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and University Librarians,” College and Research Libraries News 48 (May 1987): 247–54. Available online at h p://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/standardsguidelines.htm. 7. For a representative example of the data gathered, see appendix II. For the complete comparative analysis spreadsheet of the SCHEV and next-tier NSF universities, see h p://filebox. vt.edu/users/lener/PCA. See also National Science Foundation, Academic Research Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2000 (NSF 02-308) (Arlington, Va.: NSF, Feb. 2002). Available online at h p://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf02308/sectb.htm; Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer- sity, Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis, “Virginia Tech’s Peer Institutions.” Available online at h p://www.irpa.vt.edu/peers.htm. 8. Association of Research Libraries, ARL Statistics, Interactive Edition. Available online at h p://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/arl/index.html. 9. Ibid. 10. For a discussion of the roles of librarians and the faculty reward system, see Association of College and Research Libraries, Task Force on Institutional Priorities and Faculty Rewards, Academic Librarianship and the Redefining Scholarship Project (Chicago: ACRL, 1998). Available online at h p://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/whitepapers/whitepapersreports.htm. 298 College & Research Libraries July 2004 APPENDIX IAPPENDIX I Library Faculty Survey Regarding the PrLibrary Faculty Survey Regarding the Procedurocedures ones on PrPromotion and Continuedomotion and Continued AppointmentAppointment Section 1. Report RecommendationsSection 1. Report Recommendations BelowBelow areare thethe threethree majormajor recommendationsrecommendations ofof thethe AdAd HocHoc CommiCommi eeee onon PromoPromo-- tiontion andand TTenureenure thatthat wwee havhavee beenbeen specificallyspecifically askedasked toto address.address. PleasePlease givgivee usus yyourour tthhoouugghhttss oonn hhooww tthheessee rreellaattee ttoo oouurr ccuurrrreenntt ddooccuummeennttaattiioonn aanndd wwhhaatt yyoouu tthhiinnkk sshhoouulldd be changed to be er meet them.be changed to be er meet them. Recommendation #1Recommendation #1 PromotionPromotion andand tenuretenure expectationsexpectations andand standardsstandards concerningconcerning researchresearch productivityproductivity mustmust reflectreflect VVirginiairginia TTech’ech’ss goalgoal ofof becomingbecoming aa TTopop 3030 researchresearch univuniversityersity.. ElementsElements andand outcomesoutcomes ofof thethe researchresearch enterpriseenterprise vvaluedalued byby VVirginiairginia TTechech shouldshould bebe identifiedidentified byby eacheach department,department, operationalizedoperationalized withinwithin thethe contextcontext ofof thethe department’department’ss missionmission and structure, and refland structure, and reflected in its guidelines for promotion and tenure.ected in its guidelines for promotion and tenure. YYour comments on implementing the abovour comments on implementing the above recommendation:e recommendation: Recommendation #2Recommendation #2 PPrroocceesssseess mmuusstt bbee iinn ppllaaccee ttoo eennssuurree tthhaatt pprroommoottiioonn aanndd tteennuurree eexxppeeccttaattiioonnss aanndd ssttaannddaarrddss aarree ccoommmmuunniiccaatteedd ttoo ffaaccuullttyy ffaaiirrllyy aanndd eeffffeeccttiivveellyy.. GGuuiiddeelliinneess ffoorr pprroommoottiioonn andand tenuretenure mustmust explicitlyexplicitly delineatedelineate appropriateappropriate measuresmeasures oror indicatorsindicators ofof successfulsuccessful outcomes with respect to research, teaching, and outreach.outcomes with respect to research, teaching, and outreach. YYour comments on implementing the abovour comments on implementing the above recommendation:e recommendation: Recommendation #3Recommendation #3 StandardsStandards forfor promotionpromotion ofof facultyfaculty fromfrom associateassociate professorprofessor toto professorprofessor mustmust bebe unun-- equivequivocallyocally upheldupheld andand shouldshould requirerequire evidenceevidence ofof genuinegenuine excellenceexcellence inin twtwoo areas,areas, one of which is research and scholarship.one of which is research and scholarship. YYour comments on implementing the abovour comments on implementing the above recommendation:e recommendation: Section 2. OtherSection 2. Other ConsiderationsConsiderations InIn additionaddition toto thethe specificspecific recommendationsrecommendations ofof thethe report,report, wwee nownow havhavee aa chancechance toto reviewreview andand possiblypossibly modifymodify oror updateupdate otherother sectionssections ofof thethe document.document. ForFor eacheach ofof thethe following categories, please consider the following general questions:following categories, please consider the following general questions: Raising the Bar 299 • What do you consider strengths or aspects of the current policy that you want to see us keep? • What do you consider weaknesses or changes that you would like to see made? • Is there any language in the policy that you find unclear or ambiguous? Review Process and Timetable Criteria for Review—4.2.1 Professional Responsibilities Criteria for Review—4.2.2 Research and Scholarly Activities Criteria for Review—4.2.3 University and Library Service Criteria for Review—4.2.4 Professional Contributions and Services Activities Library Strategic Plan (h p://www.lib.vt.edu/info/stratplan/overview.html) Other Section 3. Statistical Information (Optional) Your current rank:  Instructor  Assistant Professor  Associate Professor  Professor Years of service at Virginia Tech:  >2  2–5  6–10  11–15  15–20  20+ Years of professional experience:  >2  2–5  6–10  11–15  15–20  20+ Have you ever served on the library’s P&CA Commi ee?  Yes  No A P P EN D IX I I S am p le C om p ar at iv e A n al ys is , 2 00 2 B el ow a re r ep re se nt at iv e d at a fo r on e of th e in st it ut io ns o n th e V ir gi ni a Te ch “ pe er s an d b e er s” l is t. T he fu ll sp re ad sh ee t t ha t i nc lu d es a ll th ir ty -o ne a ca d em ic li br ar ie s th at w er e re vi ew ed b y th e Fa cu lt y A ff ai rs C om m i ee a s pa rt o f i ts c om pa ra ti ve a na ly si s m ay b e ac ce ss ed a t h p: // fi le bo x. vt .e d u/ us er s/ le ne r/ P C A D uk e U ni ve rs it y Pe er To p 30 A R L R an k L an d gr an t Fa cu lt y St at us R an ks Te nu re / C on t A pp t P ri m ar y C ri te ri a fo r P & T /C A N ot es o n P & T /C A 22 25 no as si st an t, se ni or a ss is - ta nt , a ss oc i- at e, li br ar ia n co nt in ue d ap po in tm en t hi gh le ve l o f p ro fe ss io na l pe rf or m an ce in a re a of re sp on si bi lit y “b y fa r th e m os t i m po rt an t c ri te - ri on ”; a ls o co ns id er p ro - fe ss io na l a nd a ca d em ic ac hi ev em en t. st at em en t o f u nd er ly - in g pr in ci pl es e xc el le nt ; co m pl ex r ev ie w s ch ed ul e, d et ai ls fo un d in a pp en d ix O th er N ot es # Su pp or t st aff # P ro f. st aff # FT E St ud en ts Po st - te nu re R ev ie w Fo rm al P ro fe ss io na l D ev el op m en t Su pp or t D oc um en ta ti on L ib ra ry M ai n U R L 18 0 12 3 11 ,4 34 h p: // st aff .li b. d uk e. ed u/ la / h p: // w w w .li b. d uk e. ed u/ 300 College & Research Libraries July 2004