Skip to main content
Indiana University
IULFC Faculty Standards Committee, 2001-02 Report

Bob Noel, IUB, Chair; Cheryl Truesdell, IPFW

Primary Charge: Follow-up with recent mid-tenure review librarians about the mid-tenure process and identify concerns and areas for improvement.

The committee met once in the Spring of 2002 at the IPFW Library. One difficulty for this committee was that the former Chair of the committee left IU in 2001 and we had little transition information; for example, we had problems finding a copy of the previous year's annual report. We did manage to get a copy of the survey questions from Human Resources. HR offered the names of system-wide librarians that had recently been through the mid-tenure review.

According to Librarian's Handbook, "The purpose of the mid-tenure review is to provide guidance to librarians as they progress toward promotion and tenure; therefore the review is optional rather than mandatory." The following individuals opted to go through the review: Randall S. Halverson, Julie Mcgowan, Jo Mcclamroch, Scott A. Opasik, and Moira Smith. The committee removed the names of the respondents in the survey below. The Promotion & Tenure Committee conducts the mid-tenure review. In general, the responses were positive and there seems to be no indication that any changes need to be made to the mid-tenure review process.

The IULFC Faculty Standards Committee gave a report at Librarian's Day in Indianapolis in May, 2002.

Comments gather May 13 - May 16, 2002

Survey Questions and Responses

1. Was the mid-tenure review process helpful?

Yes. The review process was very helpful in terms of feedback on activities made by an IU-sysem-wide committee taking a look as one's progress, accomplishments, etc. in terms of expectations used in the P&T process.

Yes, the committee pointed out areas of strength and weakness. They gave me a good idea of where I stood and where I needed to be.

Yes.
Yes.

2. Were the comments you received specific enough?

Yes, specific activities and roles were discussed in the results. This was especially helpful for major activities -- to ensure that this kind of investment of time is appropriate.

Yes, enough guidance that I knew what I must do. The committee was specific in what I should do to improve my weak areas.

Yes.
Yes.

3. Did the comments apply to criteria as stated in the Handbook or were the other sets of criteria in use?

The comments were made in regard to criteria stated in the Handbook.

Yes, the comments spoke only about performance, service, and professional development.

They used the criteria in the Handbook explicitly.

In part.

4. What did you want to know from the mid-tenure review process and were not told?

After attending a number of P&T workshops, the process and its purpose were clear. One area that might receive added attention is feedback on additional requirements and expectations for the dossier document. For example, although documentation is not emphasized in the mid-tenure process, some feedback on areas that will ultimately require letters of recommendation, etc. may help candidates begin the process of creating the dossier. However, this kind of information often is included in P&T orientation presentations; this approach may be adequate.

Nothing. They left nothing out.

(no response)

Nothing.

5. Do you have any other comments about the mid-tenure review process?

It was quite worthwhile. Given the lengthy period in moving from untenured to tenured librarian, having this feedback "en route" is very important in getting a sense of commitments that are appropriate, and perhaps areas to give greater emphasis. The mid-tenure review feedback not only increases confidence in moving toward promotion and tenure, but it is valuable in finding ways to improve as a librarian immediately (during day to day activities).

I am glad I did it.

I was looking for reassurance, from an objective source, that I was on track; and I received that. The process of submitting a mid-tenure review file was not onerous, but it was useful because it got me thinking about my case in the terms that P&T committees use. As a result I began organizing my vita and materials along those lines as well, which helped when I was preparing my promotion dossier for real last year.

Our primary issues with mid-tenure review are the same issues we have with the review process in general. The fact that we are trying to fit medical librarians into a university library mold. We have certain requirements for the medical school which don't directly conflict with those for academic librarians in general, but do result in confusion and duplication of effort.

Respectfully submitted 7/31/02