PTK Faculty Experiences with Promotion

This brief summarizes findings from interviews conducted in Fall 2024 with 27 PTK faculty who recently went through the promotion process. Participants were diverse in terms of gender; race/ethnicity, title series, and unit. All participants went through the promotion process prior to changes to the campus promotion guidelines. Complementing the PTK Working Group Report Summary by UMD OFA in 2023, this brief focuses on PTK faculty experiences with promotion and outlines key takeaways and recommendations intended to inform improvements in the promotion process and support systems for PTK faculty.

Key Takeaways

1. Ambiguous promotion criteria and process: Faculty members reported concerns about unclear criteria and inconsistent promotion processes, including uncertainty about the kinds of evaluators deemed eligible/qualified to assess their work; the components of a strong portfolio; and the timeline for promotion. Because of this ambiguity, faculty members often felt rushed when compiling and preparing dossier materials, leading to undue stress. Echoing the issues identified from the PTK Working Group Report, faculty reported the system of PTK titles does not accurately reflect the work of PTK faculty and is used differently across units, which reinforced the ambiguity of promotion.
2. Recognition of PTK work: Faculty felt their contributions to teaching, research/scholarship, and service were undervalued or insufficiently understood by their colleagues, and in particular, their tenured or tenure-track peers. As such, they tend to receive barriers when seeking support from TTK faculty or feel uneasy having TTK faculty serving on their promotion committees.
3. Lack of mentorship: Many faculty members reported that they lacked formal mentorship in general and guiding voices about the promotion process in particular.
4. Stress and disengagement: Faculty members indicated that because there were few resources available to help them navigate the promotion process, they experienced stress. Moreover, the lack of support led to a sense of isolation and the tendency to become disengaged from UMD.
5. Supportive PTK colleagues: Faculty members highlighted the strongest support that they received in navigating promotion was from other PTK colleagues. Colleagues shared advice, experiences, and resources that helped them navigate the promotion process. At the same time, faculty members often reported that they had to identify these colleagues on their own.
6. Inconsistent experiences across campus: Although many faculty members interviewed reported that they had encountered organizational barriers as they navigated the promotion process; there were pockets of PTK faculty who indicated that their units had been supportive and that the process had been generally positive. This echoes the finding from the PTK Working Group Report that AEP processes are not uniform across units/colleges, but also highlights the varying support systems for PTK faculty have contributed to inconsistent experience on promotion.
7. Recognition of campus reform efforts: In general, faculty have experienced improvement in PTKpromotion. Most faculty members acknowledged the efforts UMD has made to improve PTK promotion processes (e.g., the creation of the AEP Manual for PTK Faculty and the title/series update proposed by the PTK Working Group Report). Faculty members noted the university’s ongoing commitment to make PTK promotion guidelines and policies clearer and more transparent. Even with such reforms, they emphasized that it would be important for UMD to provide units with resources and consistent nudges to ensure that campus guidelines are being consistently implemented.

Recommendations

1. Enhance Recognition of PTK Work: Proactively encourage units to submit nominations for the PTK Excellence Award and encourage TTK faculty to serve on the nomination committee so that they become familiar with their work; Create infographics on the role of PTK faculty to feature in campus outlets; Continue to invest in research/scholarly and/or teaching grants wherein collaborations between TTK and PTK faculty are encouraged.
2. Improve Promotion Guidelines and Criteria: Develop accountability mechanisms and education opportunities to ensure that units know how to create and implement high-quality guidelines and criteria; Encourage units to provide examples of successful promotion materials to help faculty understand the format and standards required; Create feedback mechanisms with PTK faculty to understand how/whether guidelines are being implemented; Provide clearer guidance for adapting unit promotion policy to the AEP manual for PTK faculty.
3. Align Evaluation Criteria and Contracts: Building upon the emphasis on aligning PTK contracts with responsibilities by the PTK Working Group Report, further ensure alignment between PTK evaluation criteria, titles, and faculty contracts, such that each accurately reflects the nature and scope of work; Create accountability to make sure that this alignment exists.
4. Enhance Annual Reviews and Communication: Strengthen the annual review process to focus on PTK faculty's professional development and progress towards promotion; Ensure unit heads communicate promotion timelines and eligibility in a timely manner to avoid delays or confusion.
5. Enhance PTK Mentoring: Create accountability mechanisms to ensure PTK faculty are assigned a mentor; Ensure that unit mentoring plans exist and include PTK faculty; Provide professional development and support to units about PTK mentoring plans; Educate mentors about PTK promotion process and guidelines.