Viewing Results for LFA: Promotion & Continued Appointment Survey

Section 1 � Report Recommendations

Below are the three major recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Promotion and Tenure that we have been specifically asked to address. Please give us your thoughts on how these relate to our current documentation and what you think should be changed to better meet them.

Recommendation #1
Promotion and tenure expectations and standards concerning research productivity must reflect Virginia Tech�s goal of becoming a Top 30 research university. Elements and outcomes of the research enterprise valued by Virginia Tech should be identified by each department, operationalized within the context of the department�s mission and structure, and reflected in its guidelines for promotion and tenure.

Your comments on implementing the above recommendation:

Text Responses (15 for this question)

"As library faculty, we generally do not have access to major research funding that supports the university's goal to reach top 30 research, nor do we support graduate students in the research process. I'm not sure that research productivity should be a major component of our document, after all the type of publication that we may engage in will not contribute to getting there. Our publication efforts will most likely focus on "best practices" - what are we doing well and what have we learned in the process of getting there. I see us playing a major role in supporting the research efforts of the "teaching/research" or research faculty. Purchasing the resources they need to do research and/or finding the information that they need. In addition, one of our major roles will be in instructing graduate students and undergraduate students to be "excellent information gathers"."

"Greater demands for scholarship by teaching faculty, in view of our constrained resources, put a _higher_ premium on effectively providing library services; increasing expectations of research and scholarship by librarians can only come at the expense of service to the larger community of real, trained researchers and scholars. Ex. they are on 9-month contracts, so their time is committed to non-research work only part of the year, but I barely control my own schedule becuase of the demands of colleagues and patrons -- and I don't think the library would start using 9-month contracts."

"I believe that by being good librarians and aiding others in research & scholarship that we support the mission of the university. I don't think our documentation needs to be changed to meet this recommendation--I would need to know more about what librarians do at the other top 30 schools do to fully answer this question--in other words to know how to act like "we're working at a top 30 institution.""

"I think that with a professional staff as small as ours and no offical support for research that it is not only unfair, but detrimental to moral, to expect librarians to do original research. However, I do think that the very nature of our profession supports research in a larger sense. Everything we do to acquire and maintain access to information, every service we provide for faculty and graduate students whether it be teaching someone how to find relevant sources of information or actually finding that information for them supports the research process. Without our activities, research faculty and graduate students would not be as efficient or as effective in their own activities. My guess is that frequently they would miss important pieces of information. What we need to do is to better document how our normal, regular service activities enhance faculty and graduate student research, make them more efficient, save them time, alert them to something they might otherwise have missed, etc. To me, this is the scholarly and essential contribution of librarians -- we just need to make it explicit."

"It would be good to have a clarer sense of how research fits into the library's mission and to have clar support for research as part of individual's agenda. It would also be good to have a clearer notion of what is acceptable as a research contribution at various stages of pc&a as well as how web research and publishing is viewed"

"Our standards are already quite competitive. There is also a good fit in most cases between the criteria and things that are emphasized in the library strategic plan."

"Research and scholarship is defined in the library's P&CA Guidelines and hsould not be down-playedor weakened. Research and scholarship also provides opportunities for personal growth that contributes to improved job performance."

"Research in library science won't help a university's reputation. Having a better library will. Promotion should be based solely upon job effectiveness."

"Since the LFA Faculty Affairs Committee is doing benchmarking on the standards of other Top 30 libraries, it would be good to see what they find out."

"The ULs probably should emphasize research as necessary for promotion, particularly to Associate Professor and Professor. However, research needs to (1) be defined in the context of libraries and (2) there needs to be recognition of the time needed to do publishable research. It makes sense for us to define research in a way that reflects library needs (perhaps similar to extension?). I'm not sure how to reflect the time needs since it appears to be difficult to take time away from jobs that are jam-packed in order to do good research or to take a sabbatical for this purpose."

"This idea sounds like perhaps one with a general mission (top 30) and flexibility as per each department. As such, it sounds like a good idea due to the variation in purpose between extension, lib fac, and teaching fac."

"This recommendation for the research productivity of VT faculty is implemented well by considering the factors already listed in the Library's "Procedures on Promotion and Continued Appointment", section 4.2, "Research and Scholarly Activities""

"We don't really emphasize research in the library. I believe that the comments we currently have are adequate."

"We need to bear in mind that this re-emphasis mainly reflects concern for prestige departments and grants funding. Yes research is important especially at Full but let's not over-react to this."

"We should heed the provost's recommendation to define define research and scholarship broadly."

Recommendation #2
Processes must be in place to ensure that promotion and tenure expectations and standards are communicated to faculty fairly and effectively. Guidelines for promotion and tenure must explicitly delineate appropriate measures or indicators of successful outcomes with respect to research, teaching, and outreach.

Your comments on implementing the above recommendation:

Text Responses (15 for this question)

"As a new hire, my understanding of the p&ca expectations and standards would be clearer if my introduction to the topic occurred after my hire-date. I spent an hour during the interview process hearing about the processes for P&CA. It gave me a very general idea about the expectation s I must fulfill. Now that I am hired and am responsible for fulfulling those expecations, a session discussing it would be most helpful and appreciated - my comprehension would be greater and I'd have the opportunity to ask questions."

"Concrete and easily understood guidelines are kay to success for everyone involved in the process."

"Consistency is very important and being well informed about expectations from the beginning is essential. I think that each new library faculty member should not only recieve the P & CA document, but should also meet with one or more members of the library P & CA committee to learn about expectations. The brief overview that is presented during the interview process (meeting with LFA executive board) is not sufficient. Although the two year review will provide guidance and an outline of expectations for the 4 year and 6 year review, a clear understanding of expecations at the beginning will help new faculty make appropriate choices concerning membership and participation in national, state, and local organizations and ideas or areas of publication. Getting on the right track at the beginning will aviod errors as well as "wasting" two or more years on efforts that may not be appropriate."

"I'm not sure that this is an accurate rendering of the Ad Hoc recommendation. The first sentence is a general statement. But it seems that the second sentence is a specific recommendation that takes place at the departmental level. For some reason that fact has not been included in the above paragraph. Among the teaching faculty I expect that departments have a commonality of expectations. Some departments would expect research grants to be obtained, and laboratories to be equipped. Other departments might have more of an emphasis upon teaching. The recommendation from the Ad Hoc recognizes those department level common expectations and specifically states "At the department level:". It recognizes that there are different criteria for different departments. The omission of this from the above paragraph seems to indicate that in the library the "department level" criteria is not needed. However, I believe that department variations do occur in the library and would be a very important part of specific criteria. Although we in the library do not currently recognize departmental differences in our documentation, it seems we are only able to do so because the criteria are very general, so much so that they can apply to technical services, instruction, collection development, reference. Unless we're willing to break out the criteria and make them specific for different library departments, as the Ad Hoc recommendation seems to suggest is appropriate, I think it would be foolish to try to be more specific than we currently are."

"It would be helpful to have some clearer guidelines. However, it is also important to leave sufficient leeway for those who think/work outside the box and may be exploring new formats."

"Our don't"

"Our procedures for promotion and continued appoinotment do not communicate "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."

"Our process is well ahead of many departments in terms of being well-documented. My experiences both as a candidate and as a P&CA committee member have been very positive. The advisory sessions done for candidates coming up for review by the Associate Dean are also quite helpful in keeping people well informed about what is expected and how to best present themselves."

"Our review cycle every other year provides good guidance from experienced faculty. Note that supervisors frequently do not have the experience to guide faculty through the P&CA process. Faculty need to develop their own mentors."

"Publishing research and scholarship in peer-reviewed journals should be strongly encouraged by the dean and emphasized by the directors/department heads. Publishing should also be recognized publicly and rewarded. The library's P&CA committees thoughtfully advise all librarians whose dossiers they review. The committee's work should not be diluted or undervalued and, as the ad hoc committee's report says, "unequivocally upheld." Library faculty are not exactly like teaching faculty and as the ad hoc report also says, the Provost should "recognize the unique and diverse contributions of faculty [across disciplines--this should include library faculty contributions]."

"The suggestion already made that this be reviewed with new hires (who probably half-listened as candidates) is very wise. As a repeat member of our PCA committee I have had no more trouble interpreting our current criteria than is unavoidable in any situation where criteria for professional performance are specified. I hope we don't try to nail down "how many articles in what kind of journal" in an unrealistically specific way."

"There appears to be some vagueness in the library guidelines and though a checklist approach is NOT a good alternative, there could perhaps be more specificity or examples of what committees are looking for in a dossier. Maybe successful candidates could be asked if they would be willing to have their dossiers used as examples for the following year?"

"This could be accomplished by incorporating Don Kenney's workshop summary into the P & CA document."

"We already have a well-established process in place, and I think the standards and expectations are fairly and effectively communicated. There is always room for improvement, but we should be careful not to delineate the success indicators too explicitly."

"Well, in keeping with my previous comment, we need to devise a means of documenting the contributions of our regular responsibilities to the research process. We are all having to keep a variety of records for our Faculty Activity Reports, there should be material in those that would at least beginning documenting this fact. We should be measured on how well we perform our regular responsiblities because they are what contribute to the overall research process within the University as a whole. And, if someone finds a better way to get useful information into the hands of those who need it -- they should get extra credit (so to speak)."

Recommendation #3
Standards for promotion of faculty to associate professor to professor must be unequivocally upheld and should require evidence of genuine excellence in two areas, one of which is research and scholarship.

Your comments on implementing the above recommendation:

Text Responses (16 for this question)

"As in comments for Recommendation #1, I think we need to have a good definition of what research is in librarianship and should then rework our standards so that research and scholarship are identified as critically important for promotion to associate professor or professor."

"Change our criteria for promotion to professor to say: "In addition to the criteria for the previous rank, the candidate will have made exemplary contributions to the University Libraries and to the profession, through significant research and scholarship" or something to that effect."

"Excellence in carrying out position responsibilities seems to ba a basic requirement for the Libraries. Then need to note what other areas we want to emphasize."

"I agree. However, a vanishingly small number of librarians meet the standard, and those that do aren't necessarily useful in the running of the library. Therefore, librarians should no longer be assigned faculty ranks."

"I can't argue with that. We specify national recognition and should continue to."

"I do not think that this should be interpreted literally in the case of librarians or others whose professional responsibilities are essentially service not original research. This means finding a way to document that excellent service to the process of research and scholarship is a necessary component of the entire process and that without it research and scholarship is not as effective or efficient."

"I don't see this recommendation anywhere. The only thing I see concerns promotion from associate professor to professor. I see nothing about this requirement for promotion to associate professor. Where do you find this recommendation????"

"It's a little vague--what's the difference between "evidence of achievement at the state, regional or national level" for associate professor and "evidence of national reputation and recognition" for full professor. What kinds of publications are required and how are those different from those required of assistant professors?"

"no comment."

"Our standards have been clear to me for all the years I've been here. The P&CA committees have consistently applied these standards as being based on a common understanding of what constitutes quality. It may be that more explicit statements are necessary guide the actions of administrators who may not agree with the standards developed by the faculty, or who may not support faculty status."

"Perhaps some clearer guidelines--does this mean significant number of pubs, a book? How does Internet publicaiton play in?"

"The university P&CA committees should abide by the same guidelines as the university P&T committees. The committees should at least briefly discuss the candidates as each case has merits and this is a way to share that information across units/departments/colleges."

"This is one we will probably need to revise the language for to be in full accordance with university policy. When doing so we need to make sure that "research and scholarship" is broadly defined."

"This may not address the differences between the various types of faculty and their different missions."

"This should be a given. the rank of full professor indicates that excellence in research, teaching and or outreach has been a standand thoughout the faculty members professional life ."

"We should define what we mean in the standards by research and scholarship in terms of measures, expectations, and outcomes. Right now the standards are not as clear as they could be."

Section 2 � Other Considerations

In addition to the specific recommendations of the report we now have a chance to review and update other sections of the document. For each of the following categories please consider the following general questions.

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

Text Responses (14 for this question)

"Generally quite good and clear. Need to empasize that actual schedule may vary from that shown."

"have two different documents. One procedures, and very unrestrictive timetable ( not within two days etc. - follow general university timetable for dates)"

"I presume that to some degree this timetable is set by extra-library polices/requirements. My only thought is that it might be helpful to those librarians who teach if this whole process started early and finished before the semester actually started. A thought more than a formal recommendation."

"I shared my views on our process in an e-mail to Ed Lener. He is welcome to distribute my comments. I'd be happy to send copies to anyone."

"I think that it would be helpful if the workshop for those being considered (2 year reviews, promotion, and continuing appointment) was scheduled in May or June. This would give the faculty member the summer to bring documents together and to organize their dossiers. Another workshop could be held in late August or early September as a review and as an opportunity to review the dossiers and make necessary adjustments and refinements."

"seems ok"

"Take out the specific dates and deadlines in the review process, since they can't always be followed. It sets up false expectations."

"The length of time seems a bit long but perhaps this is due to other professional obligations by all aprties involved in the process. Overall, it is a clear timetable."

"The Timetable is OK but the P&CA committee lately has not been completing its deliberations on time. They should be encouraged to have their recommendations to the dean by the end of the calendar year. Thereview process for librarians who have not yet earned continuing appointment has been effective because the P&CA committee clearly guides candidates and comments on progress to date."

"The timetable is reasonable--however I believe that the process of preparing the dossier would be less stressful if it did not coinside with staff evaluations and the beginning of fall semester -- how about giving the workshop in early July and having the dossier due mid september?"

"The timetable presently lists events as they happen, chronologically. This is slightly confusing as the first item is an event for those up for P&CA. The next items relate to P&CA elections for the committee. It would be clearer to read if there were a timetable for candidates up for promotion and continued appointment and another timetable for the actual committee - election, etc."

"Timetable and process seem appropriate, though if there are changes that could be made that would ensure that our timetable and process are consistent with others on campus that would perhaps be desirable."

"Timetable is fine."

"Too much repetition across different parts of the the PCA documents. Have a single narrative section, with candidates', supervisers', committe's, and dean's tasks and deadlines laid out as separate checklists"

Criteria for Review � 4.2.1 Professional Responsibilities

Text Responses (14 for this question)

"4.2.1 is very clearly stated and seems thorough."

"A very good list"

"Comprehension of the linrary as a total system may be nice in a perfect world but unless more information is provided in a clear and organized manner, I find that I am still trying to figure out some of the inter-workings of the library as a whole."

"Excellent job performance should continue to be the top priority. Elements a - h are appropriate."

"Have criteria as separate document. Need to address how someone who has achieved tenure elsewhere can be designated for tenure at university. Our current practice -- generally not able to be given a position with tenure, is unlike the practice that is applied in other areas of the unviersity."

"I have no particular problem with the section on professional responsibilities. The items listed seem to cover what we do. Although, given the emphasis being placed on library instruction, it might be well to include some kind of criteria for teaching activities -- for those who teach. Not to be applied to those who do not have teaching responsibilities."

"I think they are fine the way they are. You might want to say something about how these criteria are measured (in other words: how does the committee know they are being met?)"

"I think you'll search in vain for better spelled out criteria in Extension or among peer libraries -- not that trying is a bad idea."

"Needs more examples of well-performed tasks, recognizing in text the very different functions of lots of people in different departments. Ex.: not every job can have the outreach expectations as public services librarians. Tie criteria more explicitly to job descriptions.."

"Seems comprehensive. No additional comments"

"Seems generally appropriate, though examples would be helpful. Also clarification as to whether all criteria need to be met, or if this is a menu from which one selects. Also whether or not one area carries more weight than another area. (Ex: If I have LOTS of Professional Contributions and Services Activities but haven't published, does one compensate for the other, or do all need to be represented equally, or is Research and Scholarly Activities where I should be focusing?)"

"seems ok"

"Those need to be clarified more and they also need to be flexible enough to represent what a variety of librarians do in their positions in the library."

"Very comprehensive. Like the broad and open language of the criteria."

Criteria for Review � 4.2.2 Research and Scholarly Activities

Text Responses (14 for this question)

"4.2.2 looks good."

"Adequate. We could be more explicit re substance, peer reviewed, rigor, reputation, or impact of publications but not sure we want to "go there" because not realistic to spell out completely. In my (considerable) experience committees have applied all these criteria pretty consistently over the years."

"electronic publishing ok? clearer notion of quantity expected"

"Element a should include emphasis on peer reviewed publications. In element d attendance at seminars etc. should NOT be here. Continuing professional development and pursuit of additional GRADUATE [a change] degrees should remain."

"Generally OK, though if this is very important to the University perhaps we should beef it up a bit, though in the context of libraries."

"Good."

"How do web pages count? Are they substantial in-house publications? (If not, what are?) Where do research/publication or teaching outside librarianship fall? They are all "other than as part of the ... primary job.""

"I think there needs to be recognition that our publications are not based in reseearch supported by grants but more in line with "best practices"."

"I think this section needs to be re-written, or at least much more clearly defined, in view of the small size of our professional staff, the non-existence of time to engage in research, and the lack of any institutional infrastructure to support librarians doing research. There is no way under the present structure that most librarians can engage in research and still meet their professional job obligations. Librarians seeking continued appointment or promotion should not be penalized for a situation over which they have no control. Given the budget cuts, I do not see this situation getting better. The more probable consequences are that everyone's workload will simply increase. Sure fire recipe for personnel burnout."

"Item C is problematic. Needs to more clearly recognize and reward teaching of for-credit classes or other efforts beyond the norm."

"Kill the entire catagory. It's not worth paying tax dollars for this stuff."

"They are clear, but I don't think how they are applied is consistent or fully clear. How many publications are required? What constitutes a "substantial in-house publication?" I was told that producing a procedures manual or web pages did not count. Does it have to be published in a refereed or peer review journal to count as a "real" publication? What if the librarian wrote a book and published it? Some jobs require more research than others to perform them. Are College Librarians never allowed to count their classes as "scholarship"?"

"This part is vague and needs clarificication. Add examples of scholarly activities and tell candidates what is most important if possible so they can prioritize."

"We say research as evidenced by publications, but usually what we are evaluating are publications that do not describe true research. The type of research publication we require needs to be more explicitely stated, if it is determined that we should be doing real "Research""

Criteria for Review � 4.2.3 University and Library Service

Text Responses (15 for this question)

"4.2.3 Ibid."

"Examples of service activities would be helpful."

"Good."

"Kind of wimpy. (Ex: I've always wondered if Participation in university sponsored seminars or conferences means just showing up for things like ULD seminars or CEUT workshops, in which case it really is a bit meaningless, or must one demonstrates how s/he has put to use the information or knowledge acquired. If the latter, that needs to be stated. Service can mean being named to a university-wide committee and either never showing up or never speaking -- should one be doing something while one serves? Demonstrating impact?)"

"Looks good."

"Might be good to define what we mean by "participation" in university sponsored seminars."

"Real but minor value"

"Reasonable, but quite time-consuming. The amount of time required to serve on committees should be favorably factored into a librarian's evaluation. It is very likely being taken, at least partially, from their own personal time."

"seems ok"

"These are reasonable expectations, however LFA needs to make sure that there is equal opportunity for service on University committees and commissions. Several faculty members serve on one or more and in some instances, faculty members have submitted their names for election to a commission when they are already serving."

"This is pretty straight forward. I don't think we can add much here."

"This part is fine but should come after 4.2.4."

"What about participation in all our damned committees, especially the ad hoc ones?"

"Whatever you do keep the word "service" which does not always equal "participation" or "membership.""

"Would combine these into one service library, university, professional"

Criteria for Review � 4.2.4 Professional Contributions and Services Activities

Text Responses (13 for this question)

""and attending conferences or meetings" should be taken out of professional contributions. Mere attendance is not a contribution or participation, unless the candidate can make a case."

"4.2.4 Ibid."

"A bit vague since Professional can be and is defined in a variety of ways. Perhaps for things that are outside of traditional library organizations, an explanation could be requested -- why is this important to you professionally or to the ULs? (Ex: Do you value my participation in Association of Educational Communication and Technology as greatly as my participation in SLA? Both are professional organizations that are important to me professionally, and both should be weighed equally according to the criteria, but if the review committee doesn't know anything about AECT what will they do with this?)"

"Again, reasonable, but quite time-consuming. And again, librarians who are even mildly active should be given full credit because of the amount of time it takes from their other responsibilities."

"Element a should not include attendance [except perhaps for those who don't yet have continued appointment]. We should value and emphasize active participation."

"Generally good. Should be sure to emphasize "active" participation."

"Good."

"It is good to acknowledge that simply attending professional gatherings, even if not presenting, promotes professional growth, but certainly attending can't count as much for as much contribution to the profession (though it might be more beneficial to the library) as presenting"

"Maybe "participation and service" to strengthen the idea that we aren't vita-padding here, we're doing work."

"Real but minor value"

"seems ok"

"There needs to be some clarification on how participation in professional organizations is viewed. For example, is participation and major contribution to a local or state organization considered important or are efforts at the national level more important. If one is active on that state level only to find out that national activity is more important in P & CA considerations, one might make different choices at the start of a career at VT."

"This is pretty straight forward. I don't think we can add much here."

Library Strategic Plan

Text Responses (9 for this question)

"As far as I am concerned the library's strategic plan re-inforces my point of view that we are a service and support profession; that it is inappropriate and unfair to judge us by the same criteria that are used to judge research faculty. We need to positively affirm what we are -- an intrinsically necessary link in the entire educational and research process, but we are not the same as the teaching faculty or the research faculty. Each of group has it's role in the whole process and should not be judged by the criteria applied the other groups. Sometimes, I think that librarians stay in a state of identity crisis. We should affirm what we are, what our role in the process is (which the strategic plan does nicely), and develop assessment criteria which match our activities and responsibilities -- not someone else's. Nuff said--always risky to get on a soap box :)"

"Good though I'd like to see it grow to include strategies for obtaining the objects of each goal."

"Good."

"I think the Library Strategic Plan is to general to have much impact on the P&CA criteria. However, as we develop strategies for implementing the plan it might have an impact. But right now I don't even see much of a link, even in Goal 7."

"Looks good."

"perhaps there needs to be support of research more clearly included"

"Possibly language about outreach (outside the unversity)and the value of collaboration, since that is mentioned in our strategic plan."

"The plan supports the university plan. The results of the Library Review and the team report will give us additional guidance."

"We have goals & objectives but no strategies. Goals without plans for implementation are useless."

Other

Text Responses (9 for this question)

"Especially if librarian research bemoces more important, the documents must show the reciprocal obligation of the library to the faculty members. Documents much recognize the stages in the professional development of a librarian and expressly identify what the library (supervisers, dean) will do to encourage the development at each stage in each of the three key areas."

"I generally think we have a clearly stated, defensible policy dedicated to the promotion of quality."

"I think the workshops given by Don are quite helpful. It might also be helpful to have some mentoring system if mentoring is not done by supervisers to help people figure out if they are at an appropriate level to try for promotion"

"kindness, tolerance, and a generosity of mind and spirit ought to undergird all that we do."

"Order of the document is sometimes confusing."

"Overall, I think that the documentation is good. A process such as this is likely to cause some stress and confusion. This document requires a few reads to understand the entire picture. This understanding makes the parts more manageable. The support by the Dean's office with P&CA workshops is great and necessary. I tend to agree with the guidelines but wonder how someone can do everything required at a high level of precision and quality considering the time constraints of the work day and the weight of the workload. All aspects (the job in general, committees, publications, current trends, professional orgs, etc.) add up to a great deal of time and effort (which is why many of us love the job and are here). However, I believe that the rate of reward (promotion salary/benefits) does not match the current level of productivity and effort of "today's" librarian and the current standards of the job. We are underrepresented and under salaried group of people who are rewarded for the librarian of the "past" with demands of the present. Librarians are what they are because of the love of the science and not merely driven by promotion and salary. This documentation needs to be clear and truly represent what we do and where we strive to be as a valuable member of the university community. Raising the bar is a good thing but when doing so, remember the other pieces to the puzzle and be sure that it all fits."

"Service on the library's P&CA Committee should be limited to librarians who have been through the process at Virginia Tech within the last ten years and those who have successfully earned the rank of associate professor and professor by applying for and meeting Virginia Tech's criteria.
Suggested clarification of the criteria for promotion at each rank:

Instructor to Assistant Professor: The candidate shows potential for a promising career in librarianship, a record of successful performance of work, and demonstrated potential for a range of professional activity outside the University Libraries in the future.

Assistant Professor to Associate Professor: The candidate demonstrates a promising career in librarianship and the potential for a range of professional activities outside the University Libraries. The candidate shows a record of continued success in the performance of more advanced, complex professional work and in service to the university community. There must be evidence of achievement at the state, regional, or national level and scholarly involvement in the development of original professional contributions.

Associate Professor to Professor: The candidate will have made exemplary contributions to the University Libraries and to the profession. The candidate demonstrates a record of continued success in the performance of more advanced, complex professional work and in service to the university community. In addition to evidence of achievement at the state, regional, or national level, scholarly involvement in the development of original professional contributions is in evidence, as is evidence of a national reputation and recognition for his/her contributions."

"Some places allow librarians to weight the different categories in different proportions, with this being negotiable (between faculty member & supervisor or between faculty member & the committee) My primary concern is that the process be fair, humane, and REALISTIC. I think Don Kenney has done a good job of ensuring fairness and keeping the committees on track.I think we sometimes expect more of people than is humanly possible. I believe that we should be administrative/professional faculty rather than tenure-track. Lastly, filling out this survey has been a rush job--I didn't have adequate time to reflect as much as I would like nor time to read "Gail's document" on tenure standards for librarians."

"The ROLE OF THE PROMOTION AND CONTINUED APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE is probably where I see the greatest need for significant change. I'm not sure that the composition of the committee is appropriate. (Ex: Should people outside of the library be included? Should people who received continuing appointment 50 years ago and never did anything ever again be included?) Candidates need to demonstrate "General knowledge of the profession, including trends, issues, new ideas, and technological changes in librarianship..." but the P&CA Committee may be ignorant of these and so unwilling to consider them. Perhaps candidates for the committee should be asked to present themselves (short presentation or speech or statement of intent or Q&A session) that would allow the voting membership to determine whether or not the individual has a good sense of what is happening in ALL areas of librarianship. Weakest link in the process appears to me to be the P&CA committee selection process and makeup of the committee -- and that's without even getting into ways that voting for committees in the past has been "stacked" in order to select a committee favorable to individual candidates."

Section 3 � Statistical Information (Optional)

Your current rank:

$0%\%$ Associate Professor (0/16 responses)

$56.25%\%$ Assistant Professor (9/16 responses)

$18.75%\%$ Instructor (3/16 responses)

$25%\%$ Professor (4/16 responses)

88.89% of the people who took this survey
(16 / 18) answered this question.

Years of service at Virginia Tech:

$18.75%\%$ <2 (3/16 responses)

$18.75%\%$ 2-5 (3/16 responses)

$37.5%\%$ 6-10 (6/16 responses)

$0%\%$ 11-15 (0/16 responses)

$12.5%\%$ 16-20 (2/16 responses)

$12.5%\%$ >20 (2/16 responses)

88.89% of the people who took this survey
(16 / 18) answered this question.

Years of professional experience:

$6.25%\%$ <2 (1/16 responses)

$12.5%\%$ 2-5 (2/16 responses)

$12.5%\%$ 6-10 (2/16 responses)

$12.5%\%$ 11-15 (2/16 responses)

$6.25%\%$ 16-20 (1/16 responses)

$50%\%$ >20 (8/16 responses)

88.89% of the people who took this survey
(16 / 18) answered this question.

Have you ever served on the Library's P&A Committee?

$35.29%\%$ Yes (6/17 responses)

$64.71%\%$ No (11/17 responses)

94.44% of the people who took this survey
(17 / 18) answered this question.

Thank you
for taking the time to give your input. We will be seeking further input at the March 7th, 2002, LFA meeting and anticipate posting proposed revisions for comment in April.

Library Faculty Affairs Committee

Text Responses (15 for this question)
"As library faculty, we generally do not have access to major research funding that supports the university's goal to reach top 30 research, nor do we support graduate students in the research process. I'm not sure that research productivity should be a major component of our document, after all the type of publication that we may engage in will not contribute to getting there. Our publication efforts will most likely focus on "best practices" - what are we doing well and what have we learned in the process of getting there. I see us playing a major role in supporting the research efforts of the "teaching/research" or research faculty. Purchasing the resources they need to do research and/or finding the information that they need. In addition, one of our major roles will be in instructing graduate students and undergraduate students to be "excellent information gathers"."
"Greater demands for scholarship by teaching faculty, in view of our constrained resources, put a _higher_ premium on effectively providing library services; increasing expectations of research and scholarship by librarians can only come at the expense of service to the larger community of real, trained researchers and scholars. Ex. they are on 9-month contracts, so their time is committed to non-research work only part of the year, but I barely control my own schedule becuase of the demands of colleagues and patrons -- and I don't think the library would start using 9-month contracts."
"I believe that by being good librarians and aiding others in research & scholarship that we support the mission of the university. I don't think our documentation needs to be changed to meet this recommendation--I would need to know more about what librarians do at the other top 30 schools do to fully answer this question--in other words to know how to act like "we're working at a top 30 institution.""
"I think that with a professional staff as small as ours and no offical support for research that it is not only unfair, but detrimental to moral, to expect librarians to do original research. However, I do think that the very nature of our profession supports research in a larger sense. Everything we do to acquire and maintain access to information, every service we provide for faculty and graduate students whether it be teaching someone how to find relevant sources of information or actually finding that information for them supports the research process. Without our activities, research faculty and graduate students would not be as efficient or as effective in their own activities. My guess is that frequently they would miss important pieces of information. What we need to do is to better document how our normal, regular service activities enhance faculty and graduate student research, make them more efficient, save them time, alert them to something they might otherwise have missed, etc. To me, this is the scholarly and essential contribution of librarians -- we just need to make it explicit."
"It would be good to have a clarer sense of how research fits into the library's mission and to have clar support for research as part of individual's agenda. It would also be good to have a clearer notion of what is acceptable as a research contribution at various stages of pc&a as well as how web research and publishing is viewed"
"Our standards are already quite competitive. There is also a good fit in most cases between the criteria and things that are emphasized in the library strategic plan."
"Research and scholarship is defined in the library's P&CA Guidelines and hsould not be down-playedor weakened. Research and scholarship also provides opportunities for personal growth that contributes to improved job performance."
"Research in library science won't help a university's reputation. Having a better library will. Promotion should be based solely upon job effectiveness."
"Since the LFA Faculty Affairs Committee is doing benchmarking on the standards of other Top 30 libraries, it would be good to see what they find out."
"The ULs probably should emphasize research as necessary for promotion, particularly to Associate Professor and Professor. However, research needs to (1) be defined in the context of libraries and (2) there needs to be recognition of the time needed to do publishable research. It makes sense for us to define research in a way that reflects library needs (perhaps similar to extension?). I'm not sure how to reflect the time needs since it appears to be difficult to take time away from jobs that are jam-packed in order to do good research or to take a sabbatical for this purpose."
"This idea sounds like perhaps one with a general mission (top 30) and flexibility as per each department. As such, it sounds like a good idea due to the variation in purpose between extension, lib fac, and teaching fac."
"This recommendation for the research productivity of VT faculty is implemented well by considering the factors already listed in the Library's "Procedures on Promotion and Continued Appointment", section 4.2, "Research and Scholarly Activities""
"We don't really emphasize research in the library. I believe that the comments we currently have are adequate."
"We need to bear in mind that this re-emphasis mainly reflects concern for prestige departments and grants funding. Yes research is important especially at Full but let's not over-react to this."
"We should heed the provost's recommendation to define define research and scholarship broadly."

Text Responses (15 for this question)
"As a new hire, my understanding of the p&ca expectations and standards would be clearer if my introduction to the topic occurred after my hire-date. I spent an hour during the interview process hearing about the processes for P&CA. It gave me a very general idea about the expectation s I must fulfill. Now that I am hired and am responsible for fulfulling those expecations, a session discussing it would be most helpful and appreciated - my comprehension would be greater and I'd have the opportunity to ask questions."
"Concrete and easily understood guidelines are kay to success for everyone involved in the process."
"Consistency is very important and being well informed about expectations from the beginning is essential. I think that each new library faculty member should not only recieve the P & CA document, but should also meet with one or more members of the library P & CA committee to learn about expectations. The brief overview that is presented during the interview process (meeting with LFA executive board) is not sufficient. Although the two year review will provide guidance and an outline of expectations for the 4 year and 6 year review, a clear understanding of expecations at the beginning will help new faculty make appropriate choices concerning membership and participation in national, state, and local organizations and ideas or areas of publication. Getting on the right track at the beginning will aviod errors as well as "wasting" two or more years on efforts that may not be appropriate."
"I'm not sure that this is an accurate rendering of the Ad Hoc recommendation. The first sentence is a general statement. But it seems that the second sentence is a specific recommendation that takes place at the departmental level. For some reason that fact has not been included in the above paragraph. Among the teaching faculty I expect that departments have a commonality of expectations. Some departments would expect research grants to be obtained, and laboratories to be equipped. Other departments might have more of an emphasis upon teaching. The recommendation from the Ad Hoc recognizes those department level common expectations and specifically states "At the department level:". It recognizes that there are different criteria for different departments. The omission of this from the above paragraph seems to indicate that in the library the "department level" criteria is not needed. However, I believe that department variations do occur in the library and would be a very important part of specific criteria. Although we in the library do not currently recognize departmental differences in our documentation, it seems we are only able to do so because the criteria are very general, so much so that they can apply to technical services, instruction, collection development, reference. Unless we're willing to break out the criteria and make them specific for different library departments, as the Ad Hoc recommendation seems to suggest is appropriate, I think it would be foolish to try to be more specific than we currently are."
"It would be helpful to have some clearer guidelines. However, it is also important to leave sufficient leeway for those who think/work outside the box and may be exploring new formats."
"Our don't"
"Our procedures for promotion and continued appoinotment do not communicate "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."
"Our process is well ahead of many departments in terms of being well-documented. My experiences both as a candidate and as a P&CA committee member have been very positive. The advisory sessions done for candidates coming up for review by the Associate Dean are also quite helpful in keeping people well informed about what is expected and how to best present themselves."
"Our review cycle every other year provides good guidance from experienced faculty. Note that supervisors frequently do not have the experience to guide faculty through the P&CA process. Faculty need to develop their own mentors."
"Publishing research and scholarship in peer-reviewed journals should be strongly encouraged by the dean and emphasized by the directors/department heads. Publishing should also be recognized publicly and rewarded. The library's P&CA committees thoughtfully advise all librarians whose dossiers they review. The committee's work should not be diluted or undervalued and, as the ad hoc committee's report says, "unequivocally upheld." Library faculty are not exactly like teaching faculty and as the ad hoc report also says, the Provost should "recognize the unique and diverse contributions of faculty [across disciplines--this should include library faculty contributions]."
"The suggestion already made that this be reviewed with new hires (who probably half-listened as candidates) is very wise. As a repeat member of our PCA committee I have had no more trouble interpreting our current criteria than is unavoidable in any situation where criteria for professional performance are specified. I hope we don't try to nail down "how many articles in what kind of journal" in an unrealistically specific way."
"There appears to be some vagueness in the library guidelines and though a checklist approach is NOT a good alternative, there could perhaps be more specificity or examples of what committees are looking for in a dossier. Maybe successful candidates could be asked if they would be willing to have their dossiers used as examples for the following year?"
"This could be accomplished by incorporating Don Kenney's workshop summary into the P & CA document."
"We already have a well-established process in place, and I think the standards and expectations are fairly and effectively communicated. There is always room for improvement, but we should be careful not to delineate the success indicators too explicitly."
"Well, in keeping with my previous comment, we need to devise a means of documenting the contributions of our regular responsibilities to the research process. We are all having to keep a variety of records for our Faculty Activity Reports, there should be material in those that would at least beginning documenting this fact. We should be measured on how well we perform our regular responsiblities because they are what contribute to the overall research process within the University as a whole. And, if someone finds a better way to get useful information into the hands of those who need it -- they should get extra credit (so to speak)."

Text Responses (16 for this question)
"As in comments for Recommendation #1, I think we need to have a good definition of what research is in librarianship and should then rework our standards so that research and scholarship are identified as critically important for promotion to associate professor or professor."
"Change our criteria for promotion to professor to say: "In addition to the criteria for the previous rank, the candidate will have made exemplary contributions to the University Libraries and to the profession, through significant research and scholarship" or something to that effect."
"Excellence in carrying out position responsibilities seems to ba a basic requirement for the Libraries. Then need to note what other areas we want to emphasize."
"I agree. However, a vanishingly small number of librarians meet the standard, and those that do aren't necessarily useful in the running of the library. Therefore, librarians should no longer be assigned faculty ranks."
"I can't argue with that. We specify national recognition and should continue to."
"I do not think that this should be interpreted literally in the case of librarians or others whose professional responsibilities are essentially service not original research. This means finding a way to document that excellent service to the process of research and scholarship is a necessary component of the entire process and that without it research and scholarship is not as effective or efficient."
"I don't see this recommendation anywhere. The only thing I see concerns promotion from associate professor to professor. I see nothing about this requirement for promotion to associate professor. Where do you find this recommendation????"
"It's a little vague--what's the difference between "evidence of achievement at the state, regional or national level" for associate professor and "evidence of national reputation and recognition" for full professor. What kinds of publications are required and how are those different from those required of assistant professors?"
"no comment."
"Our standards have been clear to me for all the years I've been here. The P&CA committees have consistently applied these standards as being based on a common understanding of what constitutes quality. It may be that more explicit statements are necessary guide the actions of administrators who may not agree with the standards developed by the faculty, or who may not support faculty status."
"Perhaps some clearer guidelines--does this mean significant number of pubs, a book? How does Internet publicaiton play in?"
"The university P&CA committees should abide by the same guidelines as the university P&T committees. The committees should at least briefly discuss the candidates as each case has merits and this is a way to share that information across units/departments/colleges."
"This is one we will probably need to revise the language for to be in full accordance with university policy. When doing so we need to make sure that "research and scholarship" is broadly defined."
"This may not address the differences between the various types of faculty and their different missions."
"This should be a given. the rank of full professor indicates that excellence in research, teaching and or outreach has been a standand thoughout the faculty members professional life ."
"We should define what we mean in the standards by research and scholarship in terms of measures, expectations, and outcomes. Right now the standards are not as clear as they could be."

Text Responses (14 for this question)
"Generally quite good and clear. Need to empasize that actual schedule may vary from that shown."
"have two different documents. One procedures, and very unrestrictive timetable ( not within two days etc. - follow general university timetable for dates)"
"I presume that to some degree this timetable is set by extra-library polices/requirements. My only thought is that it might be helpful to those librarians who teach if this whole process started early and finished before the semester actually started. A thought more than a formal recommendation."
"I shared my views on our process in an e-mail to Ed Lener. He is welcome to distribute my comments. I'd be happy to send copies to anyone."
"I think that it would be helpful if the workshop for those being considered (2 year reviews, promotion, and continuing appointment) was scheduled in May or June. This would give the faculty member the summer to bring documents together and to organize their dossiers. Another workshop could be held in late August or early September as a review and as an opportunity to review the dossiers and make necessary adjustments and refinements."
"seems ok"
"Take out the specific dates and deadlines in the review process, since they can't always be followed. It sets up false expectations."
"The length of time seems a bit long but perhaps this is due to other professional obligations by all aprties involved in the process. Overall, it is a clear timetable."
"The Timetable is OK but the P&CA committee lately has not been completing its deliberations on time. They should be encouraged to have their recommendations to the dean by the end of the calendar year. Thereview process for librarians who have not yet earned continuing appointment has been effective because the P&CA committee clearly guides candidates and comments on progress to date."
"The timetable is reasonable--however I believe that the process of preparing the dossier would be less stressful if it did not coinside with staff evaluations and the beginning of fall semester -- how about giving the workshop in early July and having the dossier due mid september?"
"The timetable presently lists events as they happen, chronologically. This is slightly confusing as the first item is an event for those up for P&CA. The next items relate to P&CA elections for the committee. It would be clearer to read if there were a timetable for candidates up for promotion and continued appointment and another timetable for the actual committee - election, etc."
"Timetable and process seem appropriate, though if there are changes that could be made that would ensure that our timetable and process are consistent with others on campus that would perhaps be desirable."
"Timetable is fine."
"Too much repetition across different parts of the the PCA documents. Have a single narrative section, with candidates', supervisers', committe's, and dean's tasks and deadlines laid out as separate checklists"

Text Responses (14 for this question)
"4.2.1 is very clearly stated and seems thorough."
"A very good list"
"Comprehension of the linrary as a total system may be nice in a perfect world but unless more information is provided in a clear and organized manner, I find that I am still trying to figure out some of the inter-workings of the library as a whole."
"Excellent job performance should continue to be the top priority. Elements a - h are appropriate."
"Have criteria as separate document. Need to address how someone who has achieved tenure elsewhere can be designated for tenure at university. Our current practice -- generally not able to be given a position with tenure, is unlike the practice that is applied in other areas of the unviersity."
"I have no particular problem with the section on professional responsibilities. The items listed seem to cover what we do. Although, given the emphasis being placed on library instruction, it might be well to include some kind of criteria for teaching activities -- for those who teach. Not to be applied to those who do not have teaching responsibilities."
"I think they are fine the way they are. You might want to say something about how these criteria are measured (in other words: how does the committee know they are being met?)"
"I think you'll search in vain for better spelled out criteria in Extension or among peer libraries -- not that trying is a bad idea."
"Needs more examples of well-performed tasks, recognizing in text the very different functions of lots of people in different departments. Ex.: not every job can have the outreach expectations as public services librarians. Tie criteria more explicitly to job descriptions.."
"Seems comprehensive. No additional comments"
"Seems generally appropriate, though examples would be helpful. Also clarification as to whether all criteria need to be met, or if this is a menu from which one selects. Also whether or not one area carries more weight than another area. (Ex: If I have LOTS of Professional Contributions and Services Activities but haven't published, does one compensate for the other, or do all need to be represented equally, or is Research and Scholarly Activities where I should be focusing?)"
"seems ok"
"Those need to be clarified more and they also need to be flexible enough to represent what a variety of librarians do in their positions in the library."
"Very comprehensive. Like the broad and open language of the criteria."

Text Responses (14 for this question)
"4.2.2 looks good."
"Adequate. We could be more explicit re substance, peer reviewed, rigor, reputation, or impact of publications but not sure we want to "go there" because not realistic to spell out completely. In my (considerable) experience committees have applied all these criteria pretty consistently over the years."
"electronic publishing ok? clearer notion of quantity expected"
"Element a should include emphasis on peer reviewed publications. In element d attendance at seminars etc. should NOT be here. Continuing professional development and pursuit of additional GRADUATE [a change] degrees should remain."
"Generally OK, though if this is very important to the University perhaps we should beef it up a bit, though in the context of libraries."
"Good."
"How do web pages count? Are they substantial in-house publications? (If not, what are?) Where do research/publication or teaching outside librarianship fall? They are all "other than as part of the ... primary job.""
"I think there needs to be recognition that our publications are not based in reseearch supported by grants but more in line with "best practices"."
"I think this section needs to be re-written, or at least much more clearly defined, in view of the small size of our professional staff, the non-existence of time to engage in research, and the lack of any institutional infrastructure to support librarians doing research. There is no way under the present structure that most librarians can engage in research and still meet their professional job obligations. Librarians seeking continued appointment or promotion should not be penalized for a situation over which they have no control. Given the budget cuts, I do not see this situation getting better. The more probable consequences are that everyone's workload will simply increase. Sure fire recipe for personnel burnout."
"Item C is problematic. Needs to more clearly recognize and reward teaching of for-credit classes or other efforts beyond the norm."
"Kill the entire catagory. It's not worth paying tax dollars for this stuff."
"They are clear, but I don't think how they are applied is consistent or fully clear. How many publications are required? What constitutes a "substantial in-house publication?" I was told that producing a procedures manual or web pages did not count. Does it have to be published in a refereed or peer review journal to count as a "real" publication? What if the librarian wrote a book and published it? Some jobs require more research than others to perform them. Are College Librarians never allowed to count their classes as "scholarship"?"
"This part is vague and needs clarificication. Add examples of scholarly activities and tell candidates what is most important if possible so they can prioritize."
"We say research as evidenced by publications, but usually what we are evaluating are publications that do not describe true research. The type of research publication we require needs to be more explicitely stated, if it is determined that we should be doing real "Research""

Text Responses (15 for this question)
"4.2.3 Ibid."
"Examples of service activities would be helpful."
"Good."
"Kind of wimpy. (Ex: I've always wondered if Participation in university sponsored seminars or conferences means just showing up for things like ULD seminars or CEUT workshops, in which case it really is a bit meaningless, or must one demonstrates how s/he has put to use the information or knowledge acquired. If the latter, that needs to be stated. Service can mean being named to a university-wide committee and either never showing up or never speaking -- should one be doing something while one serves? Demonstrating impact?)"
"Looks good."
"Might be good to define what we mean by "participation" in university sponsored seminars."
"Real but minor value"
"Reasonable, but quite time-consuming. The amount of time required to serve on committees should be favorably factored into a librarian's evaluation. It is very likely being taken, at least partially, from their own personal time."
"seems ok"
"These are reasonable expectations, however LFA needs to make sure that there is equal opportunity for service on University committees and commissions. Several faculty members serve on one or more and in some instances, faculty members have submitted their names for election to a commission when they are already serving."
"This is pretty straight forward. I don't think we can add much here."
"This part is fine but should come after 4.2.4."
"What about participation in all our damned committees, especially the ad hoc ones?"
"Whatever you do keep the word "service" which does not always equal "participation" or "membership.""
"Would combine these into one service library, university, professional"

Text Responses (13 for this question)
""and attending conferences or meetings" should be taken out of professional contributions. Mere attendance is not a contribution or participation, unless the candidate can make a case."
"4.2.4 Ibid."
"A bit vague since Professional can be and is defined in a variety of ways. Perhaps for things that are outside of traditional library organizations, an explanation could be requested -- why is this important to you professionally or to the ULs? (Ex: Do you value my participation in Association of Educational Communication and Technology as greatly as my participation in SLA? Both are professional organizations that are important to me professionally, and both should be weighed equally according to the criteria, but if the review committee doesn't know anything about AECT what will they do with this?)"
"Again, reasonable, but quite time-consuming. And again, librarians who are even mildly active should be given full credit because of the amount of time it takes from their other responsibilities."
"Element a should not include attendance [except perhaps for those who don't yet have continued appointment]. We should value and emphasize active participation."
"Generally good. Should be sure to emphasize "active" participation."
"Good."
"It is good to acknowledge that simply attending professional gatherings, even if not presenting, promotes professional growth, but certainly attending can't count as much for as much contribution to the profession (though it might be more beneficial to the library) as presenting"
"Maybe "participation and service" to strengthen the idea that we aren't vita-padding here, we're doing work."
"Real but minor value"
"seems ok"
"There needs to be some clarification on how participation in professional organizations is viewed. For example, is participation and major contribution to a local or state organization considered important or are efforts at the national level more important. If one is active on that state level only to find out that national activity is more important in P & CA considerations, one might make different choices at the start of a career at VT."
"This is pretty straight forward. I don't think we can add much here."

Text Responses (9 for this question)
"As far as I am concerned the library's strategic plan re-inforces my point of view that we are a service and support profession; that it is inappropriate and unfair to judge us by the same criteria that are used to judge research faculty. We need to positively affirm what we are -- an intrinsically necessary link in the entire educational and research process, but we are not the same as the teaching faculty or the research faculty. Each of group has it's role in the whole process and should not be judged by the criteria applied the other groups. Sometimes, I think that librarians stay in a state of identity crisis. We should affirm what we are, what our role in the process is (which the strategic plan does nicely), and develop assessment criteria which match our activities and responsibilities -- not someone else's. Nuff said--always risky to get on a soap box :)"
"Good though I'd like to see it grow to include strategies for obtaining the objects of each goal."
"Good."
"I think the Library Strategic Plan is to general to have much impact on the P&CA criteria. However, as we develop strategies for implementing the plan it might have an impact. But right now I don't even see much of a link, even in Goal 7."
"Looks good."
"perhaps there needs to be support of research more clearly included"
"Possibly language about outreach (outside the unversity)and the value of collaboration, since that is mentioned in our strategic plan."
"The plan supports the university plan. The results of the Library Review and the team report will give us additional guidance."
"We have goals & objectives but no strategies. Goals without plans for implementation are useless."

Text Responses (9 for this question)
"Especially if librarian research bemoces more important, the documents must show the reciprocal obligation of the library to the faculty members. Documents much recognize the stages in the professional development of a librarian and expressly identify what the library (supervisers, dean) will do to encourage the development at each stage in each of the three key areas."
"I generally think we have a clearly stated, defensible policy dedicated to the promotion of quality."
"I think the workshops given by Don are quite helpful. It might also be helpful to have some mentoring system if mentoring is not done by supervisers to help people figure out if they are at an appropriate level to try for promotion"
"kindness, tolerance, and a generosity of mind and spirit ought to undergird all that we do."
"Order of the document is sometimes confusing."
"Overall, I think that the documentation is good. A process such as this is likely to cause some stress and confusion. This document requires a few reads to understand the entire picture. This understanding makes the parts more manageable. The support by the Dean's office with P&CA workshops is great and necessary. I tend to agree with the guidelines but wonder how someone can do everything required at a high level of precision and quality considering the time constraints of the work day and the weight of the workload. All aspects (the job in general, committees, publications, current trends, professional orgs, etc.) add up to a great deal of time and effort (which is why many of us love the job and are here). However, I believe that the rate of reward (promotion salary/benefits) does not match the current level of productivity and effort of "today's" librarian and the current standards of the job. We are underrepresented and under salaried group of people who are rewarded for the librarian of the "past" with demands of the present. Librarians are what they are because of the love of the science and not merely driven by promotion and salary. This documentation needs to be clear and truly represent what we do and where we strive to be as a valuable member of the university community. Raising the bar is a good thing but when doing so, remember the other pieces to the puzzle and be sure that it all fits."
"Service on the library's P&CA Committee should be limited to librarians who have been through the process at Virginia Tech within the last ten years and those who have successfully earned the rank of associate professor and professor by applying for and meeting Virginia Tech's criteria. Suggested clarification of the criteria for promotion at each rank: Instructor to Assistant Professor: The candidate shows potential for a promising career in librarianship, a record of successful performance of work, and demonstrated potential for a range of professional activity outside the University Libraries in the future. Assistant Professor to Associate Professor: The candidate demonstrates a promising career in librarianship and the potential for a range of professional activities outside the University Libraries. The candidate shows a record of continued success in the performance of more advanced, complex professional work and in service to the university community. There must be evidence of achievement at the state, regional, or national level and scholarly involvement in the development of original professional contributions. Associate Professor to Professor: The candidate will have made exemplary contributions to the University Libraries and to the profession. The candidate demonstrates a record of continued success in the performance of more advanced, complex professional work and in service to the university community. In addition to evidence of achievement at the state, regional, or national level, scholarly involvement in the development of original professional contributions is in evidence, as is evidence of a national reputation and recognition for his/her contributions."
"Some places allow librarians to weight the different categories in different proportions, with this being negotiable (between faculty member & supervisor or between faculty member & the committee) My primary concern is that the process be fair, humane, and REALISTIC. I think Don Kenney has done a good job of ensuring fairness and keeping the committees on track.I think we sometimes expect more of people than is humanly possible. I believe that we should be administrative/professional faculty rather than tenure-track. Lastly, filling out this survey has been a rush job--I didn't have adequate time to reflect as much as I would like nor time to read "Gail's document" on tenure standards for librarians."
"The ROLE OF THE PROMOTION AND CONTINUED APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE is probably where I see the greatest need for significant change. I'm not sure that the composition of the committee is appropriate. (Ex: Should people outside of the library be included? Should people who received continuing appointment 50 years ago and never did anything ever again be included?) Candidates need to demonstrate "General knowledge of the profession, including trends, issues, new ideas, and technological changes in librarianship..." but the P&CA Committee may be ignorant of these and so unwilling to consider them. Perhaps candidates for the committee should be asked to present themselves (short presentation or speech or statement of intent or Q&A session) that would allow the voting membership to determine whether or not the individual has a good sense of what is happening in ALL areas of librarianship. Weakest link in the process appears to me to be the P&CA committee selection process and makeup of the committee -- and that's without even getting into ways that voting for committees in the past has been "stacked" in order to select a committee favorable to individual candidates."

http://lumiere.lib.vt.edu/surveys/results/view_results.php3
Generated at 05:07 pm on Monday, October 26th, 2015

	$0%\%$	Associate Professor	(0/16 responses)
	$56.25%\%$	Assistant Professor	(9/16 responses)
	$18.75%\%$	Instructor	(3/16 responses)
	$25%\%$	Professor	(4/16 responses)
88.89% of the people who took this survey (16 / 18) answered this question.

	$6.25%\%$	<2	(1/16 responses)
	$12.5%\%$	2-5	(2/16 responses)
	$12.5%\%$	6-10	(2/16 responses)
	$12.5%\%$	11-15	(2/16 responses)
	$6.25%\%$	16-20	(1/16 responses)
	$50%\%$	>20	(8/16 responses)
88.89% of the people who took this survey (16 / 18) answered this question.

	$35.29%\%$	Yes	(6/17 responses)
	$64.71%\%$	No	(11/17 responses)
94.44% of the people who took this survey (17 / 18) answered this question.