Promotion within an academic institution is often a key component of a career; however, there are often barriers to successful applications. A streamlined and transparent process can assist faculty members in their goals of obtaining promotion, leading to greater security and satisfaction. This paper describes a methodology designed at a local level to maximize opportunities for success, in the hope that others may learn from the experience and advocate for similar changes within their own institutions.La promotion dans une établissement universitaire est souvent un élément clé dans la carrière. Or, les candidats se heurtent à bien des obstacles. Un processus simplifié et transparent peut aider les membres du corps professoral à atteindre leurs objectifs de promotion et leur apporter davantage de sécurité et de satisfaction. Cet article décrit la méthodologie que nous avons conçue localement pour maximiser les chances de réussite, dans l’espoir que notre expérience puisse être utile à d’autres enseignants qui souhaiteraient prôner des changements similaires au sein de leur établissement

Field, Simon

English

University of Calgary Journal Hosting

  147 Canadian Medical Education Journal     Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process  Sept conseils pour l’instauration d’un processus de promotion efficace  Simon Field1 1Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada Correspondence to: Simon Field MD, M.Ed; Department of Emergency Medicine, QEII Health Sciences Centre, 1796 Summer Street, Halifax, NS B3H 3A7 Canada; email: simonfield@dal.ca Published ahead of issue: March 31, 2021; published: June 30, 2021. CMEJ 2021, 12(3)   Available at http://www.cmej.ca © 2021 Field; licensee Synergies Partners https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.71638. This is an Open Journal Systems article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is cited.              Introduction For many clinicians, pursuit of an academic career is an aspiration from early on, whereas others develop academic interests later in their careers. Academic rank within a university is highly valued by both individuals and their institutions, and actively developing a portfolio with a goal towards promotion is frequently part of performance review processes.1 A lack of structure can be a significant barrier to efficiency and transparency, which can lead to poor interest in both applying for and participating in the promotions process. We wish to share our experience in developing a structure which has enhanced the promotions experience.   1. Clarify the institutional promotions process Institutions should have clear guidelines for faculty.2 In our institution, we acknowledged that many promotions policies were aimed at non-clinical faculties and faculty members (e.g., requirements for research output), and so new guidelines were developed to recognize the different challenges that clinical faculty face and allow other achievements, such as involvement in quality assurance processes or receipt of teaching awards, to be considered as part of the process for the Faculty of Medicine. Universities typically have a hierarchical system of academic ranks, with increasing expectations and standards for promotion to progressively higher ranks. These are reflected in the various policies produced for our Faculty. Our institution permits candidates to select a category in which to apply, depending on their primary role Black Ice Abstract Promotion within an academic institution is often a key component of a career; however, there are often barriers to successful applications. A streamlined and transparent process can assist faculty members in their goals of obtaining promotion, leading to greater security and satisfaction. This paper describes a methodology designed at a local level to maximize opportunities for success, in the hope that others may learn from the experience and advocate for similar changes within their own institutions. Résumé La promotion dans une établissement universitaire est souvent un élément clé dans la carrière. Or, les candidats se heurtent à bien des obstacles. Un processus simplifié et transparent peut aider les membres du corps professoral à atteindre leurs objectifs de promotion et leur apporter davantage de sécurité et de satisfaction. Cet article décrit la méthodologie que nous avons conçue localement pour maximiser les chances de réussite, dans l’espoir que notre expérience puisse être utile à d’autres enseignants qui souhaiteraient prôner des changements similaires au sein de leur établissement. CANADIAN MEDICAL EDUCATION JOURNAL 2021, 12(3)  148 (Clinician-Teacher, Clinician-Researcher, Clinician-Educator or Clinician-Administrator). See Figure 1 for an example of a University policy document outlining standards for promotion, which incorporates domains targeting clinical faculty members.  Figure 1. Excerpt from University document outlining Standards for promotion to Associate Professor for clinical faculty members 2. Develop and maintain appropriate administrative and logistical support Departments and institutions should ensure that they have allocated adequate resources, both human and logistical, and created realistic time allocations to enable the administrators to complete their assigned tasks. Promotions are typically a drawn-out process; our process begins with a call for applications in September, with a cut-off date for submissions of the following June. Applications are collated, references are gathered, and the Committee meets and adjudicates decisions in November of the second year, with recommendations being made to the Dean and eventually the Senate of the University, and final official promotion being made in July of the following year – 22 months after the initial application had begun. Administrative staff with experience and a clear mandate for supporting promotions can ensure that faculty members are kept abreast of developments, references sourced in time, and that timelines are met, in order to avoid delays and having to wait for another promotions cycle. 3. Create appropriate faculty development resources  Faculty development is key to success in promotion; faculty require guidance on the various steps and requirements and will often need coaching on practical tips such as developing a teaching portfolio and selecting the correct referees.3 Our institution holds regular sessions, both live and via recorded webinars, by a faculty member with expertise in this area, which has greatly improved success across our faculty.  We have created guidelines for referees, to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided, and referees are explicitly requested to speak objectively to the information contained in the candidate’s portfolio as opposed to their specific knowledge of the candidate. We review both internal and external references and ensure that their recommendations are valid and that stated criteria for promotion are being followed. 4. Recruit a representative committee to adjudicate applications Promotions should be judged by a representative sample of peers and colleagues. Our committee has membership consisting of all academic ranks within our institution (Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor) in an attempt to create diversity on the panel. As we have a distributed faculty, we have also ensured that we have representation from more than one site.4 This has encouraged faculty from across our multiple sites to feel represented and apply for both committee membership and for promotion. Our Faculty has a commitment to promoting Equity and Diversity, in both recruitment and promotion, and actively seeks opportunities for under-represented groups when considering promotion. This is included in the mandate of the faculty development expert, who is able to assist members in developing their portfolio and maximizing chances for success. Our department aims to promote a diverse range of worthy candidates and actively encourages faculty members to seek promotion. Faculty members may utilize the established tools and resources to maximize their chances of successful promotion.      1   To be promoted to Associate Professor within the Faculty of Medicine as a Clinician Educator, you must either: 1. Fulfill ALL essential Transmission and Transformation of Knowledge (Academic Education) criteria, and some of the additional criteria (first Table below) 2. If the above has not been met, then also fulfill MANY essential and additional criteria of Application of Knowledge (Academic Practice) (second Table below) Transmission and Transformation of Knowledge (Academic Education) – Associate Professorship  ESSENTIAL STANDARDS NOTES OUTPUT 1. Regularly and consistently publishes innovative educational research or methodology: a. Consistently as a primary author (first/second/last, or with explanation)  b. In peer-reviewed regional/national/international education journals.    2. Development of an innovative curriculum/program noted for its excellence as a learning environment by formal evaluation.   3. Regularly and consistently presents educational observations/research/program description at regional/national/international meetings.   4. Teaches a variety of learners (undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate, peer, continuing or public education (including media interviews)).  RECOGNITION 1. Receives grants with an education mandate.   2. Very good to excellent evaluations of teaching/educational activities by learners, peers, and/or external agencies.  INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITMENT 1. Administrative teaching contribution within the University.   ADDITIONAL STANDARDS  OUTPUT 1. Effectively mentors others in the conduct of education related activities.   2. Development of learning resources (e.g., textbooks, computer programs, etc.) which have been widely employed nationally or internationally.  RECOGNITION 1. Extended experience, by invitation, to present to a wide academic audience where the focus is on education (regionally, nationally or internationally) including undergraduate, postgraduate, graduate, continuing or public education.    2. Consistent productivity by directly supervised trainees (during and post supervision).   3. Recipient of faculty, university or external teaching award.  INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITMENT 1. Administrative teaching contribution with a provincial/national/international agency/organization.   2. Organizes national/international education meetings and/or symposia.   CANADIAN MEDICAL EDUCATION JOURNAL 2021, 12(3)  149 5. Utilize technology to optimize committee meetings Promotions Committee meetings can be long and arduous; we have increasingly utilized technology to visualize results (see #6) and thus streamline meetings, as well as to hold virtual meetings via videoconferencing. This allows us to include a more geographically diverse membership (see #4 above) and to maximize the use of our time. Efficient meetings have led to faster decision-making and to greater satisfaction and engagement amongst committee members. 6. Develop a rubric for adjudicating applications We have created a requirement for candidates to complete a survey tool prior to official submission of their application. This allows them to gauge their current status and obtain a realistic sense of their likelihood of success, which in turn reduces the potential for disappointment from a failed application. The tool uses a similar rubric to that used during adjudication, which simplifies and harmonizes the process. We feel that the most important development has been the use of a rubric for both self-study by candidates and adjudication by committee members. We assigned four categories of assessment under each standard – “Does not meet,” “Needs more work,” “Meets,” and “Exceeds.” Each of these was then allocated a colour code, which creates a readily analyzable matrix. During committee meetings, substantial discussion is only required for those areas which demonstrate significant deviation between members; if there is general agreement that a standard has been met, then little further discussion is required and more time can be spent on areas where there is less congruency of opinion. See Figure 2 for an example from a rubric from a successful application. Coloured cells demonstrate various opinions from committee members, and highlight areas requiring further detailed discussion.  7. Provide and solicit feedback  It is always difficult to explain the rationale for a declined application to an unsuccessful candidate; there is frustration at the amount of time and effort spent, and frequently a difficulty in explaining the rationale behind the decision, as candidates may not always self-assess themselves in congruence with the committee members. By using the self-study tool and the assessment rubric, especially when they are using the same colour-coding schematic, the decision can be easily visualized and therefore more clearly explained and hopefully understood, and coaching provided aimed at successful promotion in future. We request feedback from candidates, whether they are successful or unsuccessful, in an attempt at continuous quality improvement. We try to incorporate their suggestions, particularly around the self-study and adjudication rubrics, for the benefit of future applicants and committee members. This approach has led to a greater appreciation of the work of the committee and increased interest in involvement in the process. We suggest that Promotions Committees engage in data-gathering, to determine some or all of the following: proportion of faculty members at various academic ranks and categories; demographics of applicants, linked to academic rank; and proportion of successful first-time applicants. This can help guide the overall process of targeting and encouraging individuals for promotion. Conclusion Utilizing these guidelines particularly the use of rubrics, can 1) improve and enhance existing processes used to determine promotion in an academic environment, 2) maximize opportunities for success and reduce disappointment, and 3) lead to a more rewarding experience for all those involved in it.  Conflicts of Interest: None declared Acknowledgement: The author wishes to thank Kathleen White for her assistance.  CANADIAN MEDICAL EDUCATION JOURNAL 2021, 12(3)  150  Figure 2. Excerpt from Promotions Committee Adjudication Rubric for successful candidate to Associate Professor  References 1. Papaconstantinou H, Lairmore T. 2006. Academic appointment and the process of promotion and tenure. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 19(3):143-147. https://doi.org/10.1055%2Fs-2006-948026 2. Lubitz R. 1997. Guidelines for promotion of clinician-educators. J Gen Int Med. 12(S2):71-78. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.12.s2.10.x 3. Kuhn GJ. 2004. Faculty Development: the educator’s portfolio: Its preparation, uses, and value in academic medicine. Acad Emerg Med. 11(3):307–311. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2003.11.003 4. Levinson W, Kaufman K, Bickel J. 1993. Part-time faculty in academic medicine: Present status and future challenges. Ann Int Med. 119(3):220-225. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-119-3-199308010-00008  

Sept conseils pour l’instauration d’un processus de promotion efficace

https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/download/71638/54815

Sept conseils pour l’instauration d’un processus de promotion efficace

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Calgary Journal Hosting