Docstoc

Tenure and Promotion “Skeleton” for Nipissing University

Document Sample
Tenure and Promotion “Skeleton” for Nipissing University Powered By Docstoc
					Tenure and Promotion “Skeleton”
    for Nipissing University




               Approved by the

Special Joint Committee on Tenure and Promotion




               February 6, 2008
                                                                                                  1



                                           Introduction

The awarding of tenure and promotion to faculty is among the most important decisions rendered
by a university. It is central to the building of a professoriate based on measures of excellence in
the three primary functions of the faculty: teaching, research and scholarship (including creative
works), and service to the university. There has been considerable discussion at Nipissing
University over the past years about the process for reviewing and approving applications for
tenure and promotion. Under the Letter of Agreement that was approved by the four stakeholder
groups (namely Nipissing University, NUFA, Senate and the Board) the Special Joint Committee
(SJC) has been charged with developing a new process and new procedures for assessing and
awarding tenure and promotion, including an appropriate appeal process. In developing these
recommendations, the Letter of Agreement requires the SJC to engage in wide consultation with
the four stakeholder groups.

This document is a revised version of the first discussion paper that was circulated by the SJC
and incorporates many of the comments and suggestions provided by the four stakeholder
groups. This document has been approved by the Special Joint Committee in its deliberations on
a new tenure and promotion process for Nipissing University.



  Members of the SJC on Tenure and Promotion and their respective stakeholder group

                        Peter Ricketts (Senior Administration) – Co-chair
                               Larry Patriquin (NUFA) – Co-chair
                             Douglas Parker (Senior Administration)
                                    Mumbi Kariuki (NUFA)
                                   Roland Kilpatrick (Board)
                                   Tracey O’Donnell (Board)
                                      Doug Franks (Senate)
                                     Murat Tuncali (Senate)
                                                                                                   2


             Nipissing University – Current Tenure and Promotion “Skeleton”


Senate-level Committees

(1) Tenure and Promotion Committees

According to the Senate Guidelines for Appointment, Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion (B-
II-2), membership on the Tenure and Promotion Committees is as follows:

(a) There is an Arts and Science Tenure and Promotions Committee and an Education Tenure
and Promotions Committee. Normally, all members hold the rank of Associate Professor or
Professor.

(b) The Arts and Science Tenure and Promotions Committee is composed of four members: (i)
three members of the Faculty of Arts and Science; and (ii) one member of the Faculty of
Education.

(c) The Education Tenure and Promotions Committee is composed of four members: (i) three
members of the Faculty of Education; and (ii) one member of the Faculty of Arts and Science.

(2) Faculty Assessment Sub-committees

According to the Senate Guidelines for Appointment, Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion (B-
II-1), membership on Faculty Assessment Sub-committees is as follows:

(i) Faculty Assessment Sub-committee (Arts and Science)

All tenure or promotion Assessment Subcommittees for candidates in the Faculty of Arts and
Science are composed of six members as follows: (i) the Chair, who is the Dean of the Faculty of
Arts and Science (non-voting); (ii) the candidate’s designate, selected by the candidate; and (iii)
the members of the Arts and Science Tenure and Promotions Committee.

(ii) Faculty Assessment Sub-committee (Education)

All tenure or promotion Assessment Subcommittees for candidates in the Faculty of Education
are composed of six members as follows: (i) the Chair, who is the Dean of the Faculty of
Education (non-voting); (ii) the candidate’s designate, selected by the candidate; and (iii) the
members of the Education Tenure and Promotions Committee.
                                                                                                 3


Senate-level Appeal Committee

Seven members the Chair of APT and three elected, tenured Senators from each of the
Faculty of Arts & Science and the Faculty of Education.




Consolidated Committee (of the Board of Governors)

Eight members three Board representatives from the Academic Affairs Committee; one Board
of Governors representative; two Senate representatives (one from Arts & Science and one from
Education); one representative of the Faculty Association; and the President, who acts as Chair.




Appeals Committee of the Consolidated Committee

Three members the President, the Chair of the Board of Governors, and the Chair of the
Senate APT Committee.


Senate Bylaw # 54: Appointments, Promotions and Tenure Committee

Membership (Eight members) :

1. The Dean of Arts and Science;

2. The Dean of Education;

3. One student Senator;

4. Two Senators from each Faculty (four in total), excluding the Senate Representatives to the
Board, to be elected as follows:

    a) an Arts & Science representative, designated to serve on all Assessment Subcommittees
    for Arts & Science candidates, i.e. the “Arts & Science for Arts & Science” member;

    b) an Arts & Science representative, designated to serve on all Assessment Subcommittees
    for Education candidates, i.e. the “Arts & Science for Education” member;

    c) an Education representative, designated to serve on all Assessment Subcommittees for
    Arts & Science candidates, i.e. the “Education for Arts & Science” member, and
                                                                                                    4

    d) an Education representative, designated to serve on all Assessment Subcommittees for
    Education candidates, i.e. the “Education for Education” member; and

5. One Senator from either Faculty, excluding the Senate Representatives to the Board, who is
tenured and holds the rank of Associate Professor or above, to be elected and designated to serve
as Chair of the Committee.


          What Can We Learn from “Skeletons” at Other Canadian Universities?

A survey of 24 universities in Canada suggests the following:

   •   The tenure and promotion skeleton involves, in general, a two-stage process that begins
       with a departmental-level committee or a faculty-level committee then moves up to a
       university-level committee. From there, the recommendation goes to the President who
       makes a decision or a recommendation to the Board of Governors. An opportunity for an
       Appeal is provided, usually either before of after the recommendation or decision of the
       President.

   •   At the departmental/faculty level, it is typical that tenure-track and tenured faculty are
       eligible to participate and vote (with some restrictions). Usually elections are held,
       though sometimes all members of a department are involved in making decisions (in
       cases where there is a departmental-level committee). Participation on the university-
       level committee is generally open to all tenured faculty regardless of rank. Participation
       on the Appeals Committee is usually restricted to tenured Associate Professors and Full
       Professors.

   •   It is common for a Departmental/Faculty Review Committee with too few members to
       have members from cognate/related disciplines appointed to the Committee to bring the
       membership up to the required minimum.

   •   The university-level committee is almost never duplicated or divided in any way. The
       exceptions appear to be Ottawa, Lakehead and Nipissing, where committees are divided
       by faculty, and Laurentian, where they are divided by language. In a few cases, a
       university will have separate committees for tenure and promotion (as does Trent,
       Carleton, Ryerson and Brandon).

   •   The university-level committee rarely employs sub-committees to vet applications (the
       exceptions are Ryerson, UPEI and Nipissing). At almost all universities in Canada, a
       single university-level Committee makes recommendations on all tenure and promotion
       applications.

   •   With a few exceptions (Windsor, Saint Mary’s and Mount Allison), academic
       administrators do not play a role in the peer review component of the tenure and
       promotion process (see Tables 1 and 2). They typically serve as non-voting Chairs of
       committees. Academic administrators usually provide separate input into the
                                                                                              5

    proceedings, and are dealt with separately from but in conjunction with the peer-review
    committee assessment of the candidate.

•   With rare exceptions, students do not have a vote in the tenure and promotion process.
    Windsor is the only case where student representatives are required at both the
    departmental level and the university level; Trent and King’s are the only two, in addition
    to Windsor, where student representatives are required at the university level; and at
    Queen’s, Trent and York, students may have representation at the departmental level.
    (See Tables 1 and 3 for a summary of student participation in university-level
    committees.) The general absence of students on tenure and promotion committees could
    be for the following reasons: (1) students, like administrators, are not peers; (2) students
    might be subject to reprisals for decisions made and could be pressured by administrators
    or faculty on how to vote; and (3) students might not be qualified to makes decisions on
    tenure and promotion (given that some faculty find it challenging to make such decisions
    on cases outside their area of disciplinary expertise).

•   Members of the Board of Governors are rarely directly involved in the process (in a
    survey of 24 universities, the exceptions were Winnipeg, Ottawa and Nipissing).
    Normally any Board authority or responsibility for awarding tenure and/or promotion is
    delegated to the President as the Chief Executive Officer of the University.

•   The Appeals Committee sometimes hears cases before the President makes a
    recommendation/decision and sometimes after he/she makes a recommendation/decision.

•   Membership on Appeals Committees tends to be ad hoc; the committee is formed when
    an appeal is about to be heard. However, such committees are occasionally standing
    committees, with a fixed membership chosen at the beginning of the year.

•   Appeals Committees generally consist of three faculty members, with one appointed by
    the President of the University, one appointed by the Faculty Association, and one
    appointed by mutual agreement of the President and the Association (or chosen by
    mutual agreement by the first two appointees). Occasionally, all three are appointed by
    mutual agreement of the President and the Association.
                                                                                                                   6


                                                     TABLE 1

             Voting Members on University-level Tenure and Promotion Committees


University                          Faculty                     Administrators             Students        Total

Algoma                              6                           0                          0               6
Brock                               6                           1                          0               7
King’s                              5                           0                          1               6
Lakehead                            8                           1                          0               9
Laurentian                          6                           0                          0               6
Ottawa                              5                           0                          0               5
Trent                               8                           2                          2               12
Western                             7                           0                          0               7
Wilfrid Laurier                     5                           2                          0               7
Windsor                             5                           6                          3               14
Acadia                              6                           1                          0               7
Saint Mary’s                        3                           2                          0               5
Mount Saint Vincent                 4                           0                          0               4
Mount Allison                       4                           3                          0               7
St. Thomas                          6                           0                          0               6
UPEI                                4                           1                          0               5
Brandon                             7                           2                          0               9
Winnipeg                            10                          0                          0               10
UNBC                                5                           2                          0               7


Notes: Some universities were not included in Table 1, because the exact membership of their committees was not
clear from their guidelines. For example, at Carleton, the Faculty Committee on Tenure contains the Dean, the chairs
of all departments, and one member from each of the departmental committees on tenure.

For all universities, it was assumed that members listed as ex-officio have non-voting status.




                                                     TABLE 2

  Administration Voting Members on University-level Tenure and Promotion Committees


              Number of Voting Members                        Number of Universities

                           0                                             8
                           1                                             4
                           2                                             5
                           3 or more                                     2
                                                                                                    7


                                            TABLE 3

     Student Voting Members on University-level Tenure and Promotion Committees


            Number of Voting Members               Number of Universities

                      0                                     16
                      1                                      1
                      2                                      1
                      3                                      1



    Proposed Structure for Nipissing University’s New Tenure and Promotion Process

The following “skeleton” for Nipissing is presented by the SJC as a proposal on how a new
tenure and promotion process might work at Nipissing. It mirrors typical practice at universities,
but also addresses specific requirements for Nipissing. For example, it does not include a
departmental/division level of review because most of our departments are simply too small to
provide the necessary critical mass and objectivity required for such evaluations. Also, the
proposed process maintains the use of external reviews for both tenure and promotion as this
provides for a broader, arm’s length assessment from peers within the disciplinary area of the
candidate.

Given the lessons to be learned from other universities, the following is a proposed skeleton for
Nipissing. Note: This skeleton assumes that Nipissing University has three faculties (Arts &
Science, Education, and Applied and Professional Studies) at the time of establishing the new
process and procedures.



             Nipissing University – Proposed Tenure and Promotion “Skeleton”


Faculty Review Committee (FRC)

Each Faculty will have a Faculty Review Committee (FRC) with six members: the Associate
Dean of the Faculty or a Dean or Associate Dean from another Faculty, who shall be Chair, and
five tenured or tenure-track members of any rank from the Faculty who will have voting rights.
Aside from the Dean (or the Associate Dean), the FRC members will be elected by the tenured
and tenure-track Members from within that Faculty. The Deans (or the Associate Deans) will be
the Chairs of the FRCs and their role of is to ensure that all procedures are followed. The Chair
will only vote in the case of a tie.
                                                                                                  8

For the Faculty of Arts and Science’s FRC, no more than one member may be from the same
department. For the Faculty of Applied and Professional Studies’ FRC, no more than two
members may be from the same school or department. For the Faculty of Education’s FRC,
members shall be elected from the entire Faculty.

An FRC must have five voting members and two alternates. The two individuals who finish sixth
and seventh in the election for an FRC will serve as alternates (and, if necessary, the alternate
who finished sixth will be appointed to the FRC first). The alternates will not participate in the
deliberations or decision-making of an FRC unless there is a vacancy, in which case an alternate
will be appointed to an FRC as a member with voting rights. If an FRC does not have five
members, after consultation with his/her Faculty, the Dean will appoint as many members as are
required with related expertise from outside the Faculty to sit as members of the FRC and to
serve as alternates.

The FRC reviews each candidate, including the Dean’s written report, and makes
recommendations on each candidate to the URC. The FRC will make one of the following
recommendations:

                      For promotion: either that the candidate be promoted or not be promoted
                      For tenure: that tenure be granted; that tenure be denied; or (for candidates
                      who have not been previously deferred) that consideration for tenure be
                      deferred for a period of two years.




University Review Committee (URC)

The University Review Committee (URC) will have eight members: the Vice-President,
Academic and Research, one Dean appointed by the President, and six faculty members. All
members will have voting rights except for the Chair, who shall have a casting vote in the case of
a tied vote.

Six of these Members will represent the academic diversity of the University with the following
distribution:

Education                            2

Applied & Professional Schools       1

Arts and Science (Social Science)    1

Arts and Science (Humanities)        1

Arts and Science (Science)           1
                                                                                                      9

URC Members representing a Faculty will be tenured and elected by the tenured and tenure-track
faculty members from within that Faculty. The Vice-President, Academic and Research, will be
the Chair of the URC, and will vote only in the case of a tie.

The URC will also have six tenured alternates, who shall be the runner-up in the election for
each of the academic groups listed. The alternates will not participate in the deliberations or
decision-making of the URC unless there is a vacancy, in which case an alternate will be
appointed to the URC as a member with voting rights. A vacancy may occur because a member
is unable to attend the URC meeting or is in a conflict of interest regarding a specific candidate.
When an alternate attends a URC meeting as a voting member, that alternate will be the voting
member for all subsequent URC meetings on those candidates considered. This is to ensure that
the membership of the URC remains constant for any individual candidate.

The URC shall have one alternate Dean, appointed by the President, who shall serve when the
candidate is from the Faculty of the Dean serving on the URC.

NUFA shall have the right to appoint a member of the bargaining unit to be present as an
observer at all meetings of the University Review Committee. The Observer may not participate
in any manner in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have the right to communicate
his/her observations to the Chair between meetings or, if deemed necessary, to request a recess in
the proceedings of a given meeting for the purpose of communicating with the Chair of the
Committee.

The URC reviews the files and recommendations submitted from the FRCs and the written
recommendations for each candidate submitted by the Dean of the candidate’s Faculty. The URC
will review the procedures followed in each case, and determine whether or not the correct
procedures have been followed. The URC may send a file back to the FRC for reconsideration if
it finds that procedures have been violated in such a manner as to affect the recommendation of
the FRC.

Following its review of procedures, the URC submits recommendations on each candidate to the
President and will make one of the following recommendations:

                       For promotion: either that the candidate be promoted or not be promoted
                       For tenure: that tenure be granted; that tenure be denied; or (for candidates
                       who have not been previously deferred) that consideration for tenure be
                       deferred for a period of two years.




University Review Appeal Committee (URAC)

The candidate may appeal a negative decision of the URC (a URC recommendation to defer
tenure is not appealable) on one or more of the following alleged grounds:
                                                                                                    10

       (i)      procedural irregularity or defect in the application of, or failure to apply, the
                tenure and promotion procedures (Article 25);

       (ii)     discrimination within the meaning of Article 12 (Non-Discrimination);

       (iii)    a violation or violations of academic freedom within the meaning of Article 17
                (Academic Freedom and Academic Responsibility); or

        (iv)   improper application of the prevailing norms for tenure and/or promotion.
.
Such an appeal will be heard by the University Review Appeal Committee (URAC), which will
be a standing committee.

The URAC will review the recommendation of the URC, and will recommend to the President
that either:

                   •   The URC’s negative recommendation be upheld; or
                   •   The URC’s negative recommendation be changed to a positive
                       recommendation;
                   •   The URC’s negative recommendation on tenure be changed to a deferral
                       of tenure for two years

The URAC is comprised of three members all must be tenured faculty members (Associate or
Full Professors). One is appointed by the President, one is appointed by the Faculty Association,
and one is appointed jointly by the President and the Association to serve as Chair. No more than
one member may be appointed from any Faculty


The President

The President reviews the full file including the recommendations of the URC, the FRC, and
when applicable the URAC, and makes one of the following decisions on behalf of the Board:

                       For promotion: either that the candidate be promoted or not be promoted
                       For tenure: that tenure be granted; that tenure be denied; or (for candidates
                       who have not been previously deferred) that consideration for tenure be
                       deferred for a period of two years.

The President shall write a written report justifying a negative decision. Where the President
overturns a recommendation of the URC and/or the URAC, the report will present clear reasons
why the President does not consider that recommendation to be acceptable.
                                                                                                   11


Grievance

If the President overturns a positive recommendation on tenure (including a recommendation for
deferral) or promotion by the URC and/or the URAC, the candidate may consult with NUFA on
whether or not the Association will grieve the decision of the President. A decision by the
President to defer consideration for tenure is not subject to grievance.

A grievance may be filed by the Association only on one or more of the following alleged
grounds:

       (v)     procedural irregularity or defect in the application of, or failure to apply, the
               tenure and promotion procedures (Article 25);

       (vi)    discrimination within the meaning of Article 12 (Non-Discrimination);

       (vii)   a violation or violations of academic freedom within the meaning of Article 17
               (Academic Freedom and Academic Responsibility); or

       (viii) improper application of the prevailing norms for tenure and/or promotion.

It is agreed that the prevailing norms for tenure and promotion referred to in (iv) will be those
established as of the date of implementation of the new process and procedures for assessing and
awarding tenure and promotion.

If NUFA decides to grieve the President’s decision, the Association will make an appeal to the
University Review Appeals Board.

A Member may not be granted tenure or promotion as a direct result of a grievance. Rather, the
remedy sought (and, if successful, awarded) in any such grievance by the Association will be
limited to a requirement that the application be reconsidered, with specific instructions to ensure
that the circumstances which led to the grievance will be appropriately addressed.




University Review Appeals Board (URAB)

   (a) If the President denies tenure or promotion, the candidate may consult with the
       Association on whether or not to grieve the decision to the University Review Appeals
       Board (URAB).

   (b) The URAB is an ad hoc Board consisting of an arbitrator, appointed in accordance with
       Article 38.8, and two other members who will be full-time or retired faculty at the rank of
       Professor who work or have worked at another Canadian university. The two other
       members will be jointly appointed to the URAB by the President of the University and
       the President of the Association. The arbitrator will chair the URAB.
                                                                                                12

(c) A decision may be grieved and appealed to the URAB on the following alleged grounds:

   (i)     procedural irregularity or defect in the application of, or failure to apply, the
           tenure and promotion procedures (Article 25);

   (ii)    discrimination within the meaning of Article 12 (Non-Discrimination);

   (iii)   a violation or violations of academic freedom within the meaning of Article 17
           (Academic Freedom and Academic Responsibility); or

   (iv)    improper application of the prevailing norms for tenure and/or promotion.

(d) It is agreed that the prevailing norms for tenure and promotion referred to in (c) (iv) will
    be those established as of the date of implementation of the new process and procedures
    for assessing and awarding tenure and promotion.

(e) A Member may not be granted tenure or promotion as a direct result of a grievance.
    Rather, the remedy sought (and, if successful, awarded) in any such grievance by the
    Association will be limited to a requirement that the application be reconsidered, with
    specific instructions to ensure that the circumstances which led to the grievance will be
    appropriately addressed.

(f) The URAB will review the appeal and make one of the following decisions:

   (i)     Dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the President;
   (ii)    Determine that the appeal has merit but that the final decision was not affected by
           the matter, and uphold the decision of the President;
   (iii)   Determine that the appeal has merit and affected the outcome of the final
           decision, in which case the URAB will identify the error or errors, give specific
           directions as to what is to be done on the reconsideration, and direct that the
           matter in question be reconsidered commencing at the level of consideration at
           which the error or errors occurred. In so ordering, the URAB will provide specific
           instructions to ensure that the circumstances which led to the grievance will be
           appropriately addressed.

(g) The URAB may not make a recommendation that tenure or promotion be awarded, only
    that the decision be reconsidered.

(h) A unanimous or a majority recommendation of the URAB will be sent to the Board for
    implementation.

(i) The costs of the URAB will be shared equally by the University and the Association.
    Each party is responsible for any costs involved in the preparation of its cases.
                                                                                                  13


The Board of Governors

The Board of Governors delegates its authority under the Nipissing University Act to the
President as the CEO of the University. Except in the case of a decision of a URAB (as described
above), the Board shall not normally be involved in any of the discussions regarding decisions on
tenure and promotion. The President shall provide an annual report to the Executive Committee
of the Board on all decisions rendered regarding tenure and promotion. This report is provided
for information purposes only. A statistical summary of the annual report (with all names
removed) shall be provided to the Annual General Meeting of the Board for information.

In the case of a decision by the URAB:

   Following the receipt of the decision by the URAB, the Board Executive Committee will
   review the decision at an in camera meeting.

               i)      Where the decision of the URAB is to dismiss the appeal, the Board shall
                       confirm the original decision of the President;
               ii)     Where the decision of the URAB is to uphold the appeal and provides
                       directions for reconsideration of the case, the Board Executive shall
                       instruct the President to ensure that the reconsideration is carried out in
                       accordance with the directions of the URAB.

   Following that reconsideration, the final decision on the case will be made by the Board
   Executive Committee.

Decisions of the Board Executive Committee regarding tenure and promotion will be reported to
the full Board at the next closed session following the decision.

                                   General Membership Rules

Members of the URC (including alternates) must not serve on any FRC (including as alternates)
or URAC.

Members must not serve on any FRC (including as alternates), URC (including as alternates), or
the URCA in any year in which they have applied for tenure or promotion.

Members may serve on up to two FRCs in any year – in their own Faculty and a second FRC to
which they have been appointed by a Dean (to raise the number on an FRC to five).

The President of the Association and the Association’s Grievance Officers must not sit on any
FRC (including as alternates) the URC (including as alternates), or the URAC.

No Member of the URAC, URC or FRC may take part in the assessment of a candidate with
whom they have a professional and/or personal relationship that would be cause for a conflict of
interest. Any such relationship shall be declared by the Member, and the Committee shall
determine whether or not the relationship constitutes a conflict of interest. In such decisions, the
                                                                                               14

Committee will err on the side of caution. In the case of FRCs, a Member may request that a
conflict of interest decision be made by the Vice-President, Academic and Research. In the case
of the URC, a Member may request that the decision on conflict of interest be made by the
President of the University. In the case of the URAC, a Member may request that the decision on
conflict of interest be made jointly by the President of the University and the President of the
Association.

In any year, the entire complement of members on the FRC (including alternates), the URC
(including alternates), and the URAC may include only one person from any group of two or
more persons who have a close personal relationship (including, but not limited to, spouses,
parents and children, and siblings), with the exception that such individuals may serve on
separate FRCs.


The following figure presents the proposed process for tenure and promotion review at Nipissing
University.
15
                                                                                                     16


Old and New Skeletons Compared

Under the old Nipissing skeleton, 31 individuals, some with dual roles, were potentially required
each year to participate in the process as follows (with 22 faculty members elected by Senate):

       Appeals Committee of Consolidated Committee                   1*
       Consolidated Committee                                        8
       Senate APT Appeals Committee                                  6
       Senate APT Committee                                          8
       Senate APT Sub-Committee (Arts and Science)                   4 **
       Senate APT Sub-committee (Education)                          4 **

       * The President of the University and the Chair of APT were counted earlier in the process.

       ** The Deans were counted at the Senate APT Committee level.

In any one case, 27 individuals could vote on an application (if an application is appealed at both
the Senate APT and Consolidated Committee levels). This includes 5 members of an APT Sub-
committee, 7 members of the APT Committee (excluding the Dean, who chaired the APT Sub-
committee), 6 members of the Senate-level Appeal Committee (excluding the Chair of APT, who
participated earlier), 8 members of the Consolidated Committee, and 1 member of the Appeal
Committee of the Consolidated Committee (excluding the President and the Chair of APT, who
participated earlier).

Under the proposed Nipissing skeleton, 21 individuals, none with dual roles, will be the
maximum number required each year to vote on an application as follows (with 6 faculty
members elected by the faculty to serve as members of the URC and 5 members elected within a
Faculty to serve on its FRC):

       University Review Appeals Board (URAB)                                 3 (all external)
       President of the University                                            1
       URAC                                                                   3
       University Review Committee (URC)                                      8
       Faculty Review Committee (FRC)                                         6

       TOTAL                                                                 21
                                                                              17



            Appendix: List of Universities Surveyed




       Ontario                      Outside Ontario

       Algoma UC                    Acadia
       Brock                        Brandon
       Carleton                     Mount Allison
       Kings UC                     Mount Saint Vincent
       Lakehead                     Saint Mary’s
       Laurentian                   St. Thomas
       Nipissing                    UNBC
       Ottawa                       UPEI
       Queen’s                      Winnipeg
       Ryerson
       Trent
       Western
       Wilfrid Laurier
       Windsor
       York

Plus a survey of Tenure and Promotion processes at 42 Canadian universities
conducted by CAUBO.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:9
posted:3/24/2010
language:English
pages:18