 |
 |
Guidelines for Joint Academic Appointments at the University
of Michigan
Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President
for Academic Affairs
September 2004
(downloadable PDF
file)
I. Introduction
One of the University of Michigan’s great strengths is its formal commitment
to help faculty move across disciplinary boundaries to undertake innovative intellectual,
scientific, and artistic endeavors and to create new knowledge. When a faculty
member’s sense of academic “home” crosses disciplinary
boundaries, he or she may establish and maintain two or more academic
bases. The schools
or colleges in which the faculty member holds appointments have a responsibility
to help the faculty member to achieve this goal. In the past, faculty
members with joint appointments have sometimes encountered quite different
administrative
processes for faculty appointments in their different academic homes.
When the schools or colleges that share a faculty member have not worked
smoothly
together,
the faculty member or the academic units involved have encountered
confusion, frustration, delay, or conflict.
This document provides a set of principles and guidelines to help the
schools and colleges and the Provost’s Office to make processes
related to joint faculty appointments as clear and direct as those
for faculty with
appointments
in a single school or college. We are focused on the need to appoint,
review, promote, retain, and, in some cases, terminate any tenure-track
or tenured
faculty member who holds a joint academic appointment. The purpose
of these guidelines
is to assist deans, directors, and department chairs in helping faculty
members who hold joint appointments to succeed and thrive at the University
of Michigan.
For the purposes of this document, a faculty member holds a joint academic
appointment if he or she holds two or more regular instructional,
research, or clinical instructional
appointments, including appointments of 0% effort (sometimes called “dry” appointments).
The principles in the policy primarily address joint academic appointments
that a faculty member holds in two or more schools or colleges or other
academic units
(e.g., research centers). Note that some of the principles apply equally
to the situation where a faculty member has a joint appointment in
two (or more)
departments
within a single school or college. However, our main focus is on appointments
that cross two (or more) schools or colleges.
II. Principles
A faculty member who holds a joint appointment is more likely to thrive and succeed
in his or her academic career if his or her schools and colleges observe the
principles below in carrying out their responsibilities to the faculty member.
1. At the beginning of the joint appointment, the deans’ offices and department
chairs (if applicable) of the two (or more) schools or colleges should clarify
and agree on how they will engage in key procedures related to the faculty member’s
academic career.
Together, the appointing schools or colleges should agree on the procedures they
will use to appoint, evaluate, promote, resolve disputes, or change employment
conditions for jointly appointed faculty.
2. Whenever possible, the deans’ offices should agree
on a single joint process for making promotion and tenure decisions
about
the
jointly appointed
faculty member.
A unified process for evaluation for promotion and tenure is the clearest
and simplest way to ensure that both schools and colleges are represented
in the
promotion process while reducing the faculty member’s sense of double jeopardy
from duplicate processes. When it is not possible for the schools and colleges
to agree on a single process, the deans’ offices should discuss
the timing and key elements of the promotion processes in each academic
unit
so that the
overall process can be streamlined, synchronized, and shortened. It
is critical for each school or college to know what the other is doing
and
for the candidate
or faculty member to know what each school or college is doing.
3. One of the schools or colleges should agree to serve as
the “administrative
home.”
Although each school or college must maintain strong links to the jointly appointed
faculty member, one of the involved schools and colleges should be designated
as the administrative home. The administrative home will take the lead responsibility
on personnel issues, central human resources reporting, appointment, promotions,
and coordination of annual performance review, conflict resolution, and changes
in employment. Often, but not always, the administrative home will be the school
with the higher appointment fraction. Everyone involved should know which school
or college is serving as the administrative home.
Simultaneously, each department, academic program, or school/college in which
a faculty member holds a joint academic appointment must share responsibility
for communicating effectively and, where necessary, solving problems with the
other academic unit(s) in which the faculty member also holds an appointment.
4. Each school or college should take deliberate steps to help the jointly appointed
faculty member become integrated into the community.
Each school or college should provide the faculty member with opportunities
to participate broadly in the life of the academic community. Ideally,
the faculty
member will have a substantive role in the scholarly activities and
organizational responsibilities of each department, school, or college
where he or she
has an appointment. It is especially important for the relevant schools
or colleges
to make special efforts on this front when the majority of a faculty
member’s
time is in a research institute but he or she holds tenure elsewhere.
5. A jointly appointed faculty member’s overall effort
and access to resources should be comparable, in total, to faculty
who hold
appointments
in only one
school or college.
The schools and colleges that share faculty members should work together to ensure
that faculty members who hold joint appointments are not excessively burdened
and have access to resources that are comparable to those available to faculty
with single appointments. Such resources may include mentoring, space, equipment,
funding, and access to graduate students.
6. The evaluation procedures of the schools and colleges should
acknowledge the faculty member’s multiple academic commitments
and should take his or her interdisciplinary work into account.
Evaluation procedures that work well for faculty within a single school or college
may need to be modified for faculty members who have joint appointments. In particular,
schools and colleges often need to make special efforts to evaluate the interdisciplinary
work often done by faculty members with joint appointments with a different perspective
than that of single disciplines. Both schools and colleges should make sure the
faculty member understands the evaluation criteria that will be applied to his
or her work.
7. The faculty member who holds a joint appointment must play an active role
in helping the schools and colleges to collaborate effectively.
The faculty member should make the effort to become familiar with each
school’s
or college’s expectations and procedures. If these procedures conflict,
the faculty member should speak up in a timely way. The faculty member often
has information that the department chairs or deans’ offices
do not; the faculty member should inform the relevant administrators
of
issues
that arise
as a result of the joint appointment.
8. When the faculty member runs into problems with the joint
appointment, the deans’ offices of the relevant schools or colleges
should work together to address them.
9. The University supports dry (0% effort) faculty appointments with an expectation
that such appointments convey rights and responsibilities within the school or
college making the appointment.
At the time of making an appointment with 0% effort, the relevant Dean’s
office should clarify expectations about the faculty member’s
rights and responsibilities to the school/college, and should inform
the school
or college
where the faculty member has his or her primary appointment.
III. Recommended
Practices for Joint Faculty Appointments
1. Recruiting and Initial Appointment
A faculty member may acquire a joint appointment in a variety of ways:
• When two or more units create a joint appointment, advertise the position,
and
jointly hire a faculty candidate;
• When two or more units create a joint appointment for a specific prospective
faculty member;
• When a unit that is recruiting a prospective faculty member learns during
the
recruitment process that the faculty member also wants to hold an appointment
in another department or school/college; or
• When a faculty member who already holds a regular instructional or clinical
instructional
appointment wants to add an appointment in another school or college.
In any of these scenarios, the two deans’ offices should create
a general plan for the joint appointment at the time of appointment.
This plan should be
specifically outlined in a formal, written memorandum of understanding that
reflects the agreement between schools and colleges regarding the circumstances
of individual
faculty members. (In the case of a new appointment, the memorandum
of understanding may be appended to the offer letter, or may follow
the
faculty member’s
acceptance of the offer.) The memorandum of understanding should include:
a. Tenure line(s). Specify where the faculty member may hold tenure and at what
fraction.
b. Workload. Discuss expectations with regard to the faculty
member’s teaching,
service, etc. The overall demands on the faculty member should be reasonable
(including the faculty member’s number of advisees, both formal
and informal) and appropriately balanced in terms of the fractional
appointments. The teaching
assignments should be coordinated, and possibilities for cross-listed
courses
should be discussed. Service expectations should be clearly delineated
and coordinated.
c. Criteria for evaluation. To the extent possible, all departments,
schools, or colleges participating in the appointment should define
the standards
and criteria that each of them will use to assess the quality of the
faculty member’s
scholarship or creative activity and teaching. These standards and
criteria should take into account the unique features of interdisciplinary
collaborative
activity
and the differences between or among the units where the faculty member
holds appointments.
d. Access to resources. Discuss and agree on the faculty member’s access
to resources in each school or college (e.g., office space; administrative support;
funding, such as research seed money; mentoring; and graduate student support).
All of the units in which the faculty member holds an appointment should provide
funds to the faculty member in accord with departmental, school, or college practices,
in a way that is proportional to the faculty member’s percentage
of appointment.
e. Allocation of research revenues. The involved centers, departments, schools,
and colleges should agree in advance about how they will handle revenues the
faculty member generates through his or her research, where applicable. This
agreement should be described in the memorandum of understanding.
f. Mentoring. If the appointment is for an untenured faculty member, each school
or college should identify a mentor or advisor for the jointly appointed faculty
member who is familiar with his or her interdisciplinary work. At least once
a year, the joint mentors or advisors should discuss the performance and progress
of the jointly appointed faculty member and meet together with the faculty member
to offer feedback and advice about his or her performance and progress.
g. Designation of the administrative home. For administrative convenience, agree
on which school or college will have responsibility for coordinating efforts
among the academic units (even in the instance of equally divided effort) and
include explicit reference to this in the memorandum of understanding. The administrative
home will take responsibility for providing notification of reviews to the other
school or college and the faculty member, preparing written memoranda of understanding
for distribution to all parties, and providing opportunities for review and renegotiation
of agreements and plans. This designation does not alter the responsibility of
each school or college for good communication with the faculty member or for
responsive problem solving.
h. Timing and conduct of reviews. At the time of the appointment
and in consultation with the faculty member, the deans’ offices should produce a written plan
for conducting reviews (annual and promotional). The plan should be streamlined
as much as possible and include information about timing and any differences
between the schools’ or colleges’ review procedures. If
the units will conduct separate reviews, the department chairs or other
relevant
administrators
should agree how they will communicate effectively throughout the review
process.
In the case of a new assistant professor, the initial memorandum of understanding
may defer, until the third year, making a specific plan for coordinating the
tenure review. See Section III.3.b. Coordinating reviews.
Also see Appendix A: Checklist for a Memorandum
of Understanding For a Joint Academic Appointment.
2. Changes in Appointment
Faculty members who hold joint appointments may wish to change them over the
course of their academic careers at the University. Schools and colleges also
may wish to change the terms of their arrangements with individual faculty members.
These changes may arise because of new opportunities, changes in faculty interests
and focus, or difficulties in the original joint appointment. For any of these
reasons, it is important to create procedures and opportunities for
agreements to be reviewed and renegotiated.
The following are recommended practices related to changes in joint appointments:
a. Making changes in budgeted appointment. The two deans’ offices
should agree in advance, if possible, on the procedures by which the
faculty member
will be allowed to make a shift in a budgeted joint appointment. Before
making a change in a budgeted appointment, a school or college should
consult with
other schools or colleges in which the faculty member holds an appointment.
b. Discontinuing appointments. The deans’ offices should clarify the terms
under which the faculty member would be allowed to discontinue a joint academic
appointment. If an annual or promotional review shows that a given faculty member’s
duties or connections to one of his or her academic appointments have become
attenuated, or if the appointment has become purely ceremonial, the school or
college may wish to discontinue the appointment. If a school or college wishes
to discontinue a joint faculty appointment, the dean’s office
or department chair should consult with the other units in which the
faculty
member holds
an appointment.
c. Faculty right of retreat. If the faculty member holds a 100% tenure commitment
divided between two or more units, it is desirable at the time of the
appointment for one of the units to give the faculty member the option of increasing his
or her appointment to 100% in that unit. When it is not possible for either school
or college to offer this option, the faculty member should be fully informed
about what options are available.
d. Conflict Resolution. The deans’ offices should identify the steps the
faculty member should follow if the faculty member experiences concerns about
the terms of the joint academic appointment and/or the actions of the departments,
schools, or colleges involved. In general, it is recommended that an individual
faculty member’s concerns be expressed at the level of the program or department,
involving the school or college (presumably an associate dean) only if the department’s
efforts to resolve the difficulty prove to be unsatisfactory. If problems
persist, the associate deans in the relevant schools/colleges should
undertake to resolve
them.
If a department, school, or college has concerns about a faculty member’s
performance or conduct, the administrator most knowledgeable about the concern
should handle the difficulty. Each dean’s office has a responsibility to
notify the faculty member’s other school or college of disciplinary
action toward the jointly appointed faculty member.
3. Review Processes
a. Streamlining process. Wherever feasible, the schools or colleges
participating in the review of the faculty member should streamline
the requirements
of the faculty member. For example, one school or college may agree
to accept
the
form the faculty member’s other school or college uses in annual
reviews.
b. Coordinating reviews. It is highly
desirable to coordinate review efforts in a deliberate way, annually
and at each key point in the process of recruiting,
hiring, reviewing, promoting, or terminating the faculty member. If
agreement on tenure review was not specified at the time of the initial
appointment,
then the two deans’ offices should develop a memorandum of understanding
about the process for conducting the tenure review well in advance,
ideally no later
than the time of the third-year review.
c. Conducting annual reviews. Each year, all schools and colleges should review
each faculty member with a budgeted joint appointment with regard to his or her
research, teaching, and service. In the context of these annual reviews, the
dean or department chair should provide feedback to the faculty member about
fulfillment of the expectations, responsibilities, and procedures outlined in
the appointment agreement. When appropriate, the dean or chair should discuss
with the faculty member matters of overall workload and the possibility of shifting
emphasis with regard to research, teaching, or service. Although faculty with
dry (0% effort) appointments are not usually reviewed annually, it is useful
for a school or college to conduct periodic reviews of junior faculty members
who hold a dry joint appointment.
d. Choosing reviewers. Schools and colleges should select reviewers
for tenure and promotion carefully, with the goal of identifying scholars
who
are capable
of looking beyond disciplinary “centers.” In non-traditional, innovative,
and cross-disciplinary research, few people grasp or understand the whole picture
of the faculty member’s academic agenda. Consequently, the jointly
appointed faculty member may be more vulnerable to critique from colleagues
across the
disciplines in which he or she works. Scholars in a single discipline
can be inclined to break down the work into discipline-specific components.
Careful choice of reviewers can mitigate these risks.
Also see Appendix B: Checklist for Reviewing Faculty Members Who Hold
Joint Academic Appointments.
IV. Special Circumstances
1. Untenured Faculty
The recommended practices detailed above apply to all faculty members who hold
joint appointments. The practices described below will help schools and colleges
to address a few key issues that can significantly affect faculty members with
joint appointments who will eventually be eligible for tenure and promotion.
a. At the beginning of the joint appointment, the two or more appointing schools
or colleges should agree whether the faculty member will be able to request a
shift in his or her appointments prior to the tenure and promotion review, and,
if so, what procedures the faculty member should follow to request such a shift.
b. In the case of a new assistant professor, the initial memorandum of understanding
may defer until the third year making a specific plan for coordinating the tenure
review.
c. During the time leading up to a tenure decision, the appointing schools/colleges
must work together to ensure that the faculty member is not unnecessarily burdened
with an excessive workload as a result of the joint appointment.
d. At the time of tenure and promotion review, the appointing schools/colleges
should select appropriate faculty members for the review committee, which will
ideally include one or more faculty members who have done multidisciplinary research
similar to that of the faculty member.
e. At the time of tenure review, the appointing schools/colleges should work
together to ensure that the review committee(s) will not unduly burden the faculty
member. They should agree on a common set of materials, statements, and reviewers
that both schools or colleges can share.
2. Dry Appointments
The University supports dry (0% effort) faculty appointments with an expectation
that such appointments convey rights and responsibilities within the relevant
schools/colleges making the appointment. Below is a list of recommended practices
that apply specifically to dry faculty appointments:
a. The faculty member and the relevant school or college should discuss and agree
on what will be expected of the faculty member, and on what criteria the unit
will use to assess his or her contributions.
b. Any unit in which a faculty member holds a dry appointment should participate
in some way in all stages of each review process for tenure or promotion. Although
the level of participation may vary depending on the circumstances, some involvement
by the unit in which the faculty member holds a dry appointment is strongly recommended.
c. Well in advance of any promotion or tenure review of the faculty member, the
school or college that serves as the administrative home should contact the school
or college in which the faculty member holds a dry appointment to ensure that
they can be represented in an adequate, timely, and consistent way in the review
process.
d. Any school or college in which a faculty member holds a dry appointment should
have full access to all relevant review materials that other schools or colleges
have collected, including external letters and reports from promotion committees.
e. Dry appointments may be discontinued. A faculty member who wants
to discontinue an appointment should notify his or her administrative
home
school or college
before a decision is made. The dean’s office of a school or college
that wishes to discontinue a dry appointment should discuss its intention
with the
other schools or colleges in which the faculty member holds appointments
before a decision is made.
3. Joint Appointments Across a Research Institute and a School or College
Holding an appointment in a research institute or center hinges on
research productivity and other practical matters such as one’s research being aligned with current
research agendas and funding availability. Therefore, the nature of the commitment
differs somewhat from the nature of the faculty member’s appointment
in a school or college. The good practices described below address
such joint appointments:
a. Arrangements for support of the faculty member should be negotiated
on a case-by-case basis. The nature of these arrangements, including
office space,
office support,
and graduate student research assistance will depend on the fraction
of the
faculty member’s appointments and the faculty member’s
particular circumstances. These terms of support should be decided
by the units
in advance and may need
to be renegotiated over time. The faculty member and all involved schools
and colleges should be notified of these arrangements.
b. Before a research institute and a school or college make a new joint faculty
appointment, the offices of the dean/director should decide what tenure retreat
rights the faculty member will have in the relevant school or college.
c. If a faculty member with a joint appointment wants to change the amount of
time allocated to each of the units in which he or she holds an appointment,
the faculty member should discuss these plans with all the relevant units with
which he or she is affiliated.
________________________________________________________________________
A working group developed these guidelines during
the 2003-2004 academic year. The group included: (The list cites the positions
the contributors held at the time.)
Janet A. Weiss, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs and the Mary C. Bromage
Collegiate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Public Policy (Chair of the
working group)
Frank J. Ascione, Associate Dean in the College of Pharmacy and Professor of
Social and Administrative Sciences, College of Pharmacy
James C. Bean, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the College of Engineering
and Professor of Industrial and Operations Engineering
David A. Bloom, Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs in the Medical School and
The Jack Lapides Professor of Urology
John R. Chamberlin, Professor, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
Jeffery R. Frumkin, Assistant Provost and Senior Director of Academic Human Resources
Glenda L. Haskell, Assistant Provost for Academic and Faculty Affairs
Marilyn S. Lantz, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the School of Dentistry
and Professor of Periodontics, Prevention, and Geriatrics, School of Dentistry
(fall term)
Dennis E. Lopatin, Senior Associate Dean in the School of Dentistry and Professor
of Biologic and Materials Sciences, School of Dentistry (winter term)
Abigail J. Stewart, Associate Dean of the College of Literature, Science,
and the Arts and Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies
________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A
Checklist for a Memorandum of Understanding for a Joint Academic Appointment
University of Michigan
At the beginning of a joint appointment, the deans’ offices and department
chairs (if applicable) of the two (or more) schools or colleges should prepare
a memorandum of understanding that clarifies how they will engage in key procedures
related to the faculty member’s appointment and academic career.
For new faculty appointments, the memorandum of understanding may be attached
to the offer letter or sent separately. For a current faculty member who accepts
an additional academic appointment, the two schools and colleges should prepare
the memorandum of understanding at the time of the appointment.
The key issues that such a memorandum should address are listed below.
Rights and Responsibilities
• The key responsibilities of the administrative home
• In which academic unit(s) the tenure line will reside
• Which of the academic units (if any) will extend rights of retreat to
the faculty
member (if any unit)
•
The faculty member’s teaching and service responsibilities in
each academic unit
•
Which unit will serve as the faculty member’s administrative
home
Reviews
•
By what criteria the candidate’s performance will be assessed
•
A brief description of the process and schedule the academic units will follow
(jointly or separately) to review the faculty member’s performance
and progress
• How the units plan to coordinate promotion and tenure reviews
Changes in the Appointment
• Whom the faculty member should contact if he or she wants to renegotiate
the
terms of the joint appointment
• Whom the faculty member should contact if he or she wants to discontinue
an appointment
• (If the faculty candidate is an Assistant Professor) What constraints
will be
in place, if any, for the faculty member to discontinue an academic
appointment prior to any applicable tenure/promotion review
Other Terms/Logistics
• Which of the academic unit(s) will provide office space for the faculty
member
and whom the faculty member should contact for more information
• What rights the candidate has to access policies and resources of the
units involved
• A process for the faculty member to seek resolution of joint appointment
issues
(in most cases, approach the associate deans)
• Allocation of research-related revenue
Appendix B
Checklist for Reviewing Faculty Members Who Hold Joint Academic Appointments
University of Michigan
Annual Reviews
• If possible, the two (or more) deans or department chairs should meet
together
with the faculty member to provide feedback.
•
If a joint meeting is not possible, prior to meeting individually with the faculty
member, the chairs/deans should discuss with each other their perceptions about
the faculty member’s progress.
• If a department chair or dean perceives performance issues, he or she
should communicate the concerns to the other involved chair(s) or dean(s).
In turn,
all involved units should convey the concerns to the relevant associate
deans so they can resolve any joint appointment-related issues.
Reappointment/Promotion/Tenure Reviews
If a candidate is up for reappointment or promotion/tenure in the administrative
home unit, that unit should notify the other unit(s) in which the faculty member
holds an appointment. This should be done before the start of the academic year
in which the review will take place.
The units need to decide whether they will review the faculty member jointly,
which is preferred, or in separate, parallel reviews.
Joint Review (preferred)
•
Does the committee that will review the candidate’s work include
faculty from each unit?
• If the review processes that the school(s) or college(s) in which the
faculty member holds appointments are significantly different from
each other, which
process(es) and time table(s) will be used?
• Has the full set of candidate materials been made available to all promotion/tenure
committees and executive committees?
Separate Parallel Reviews
If the two units will each conduct its own tenure review, they need to minimize
the burden the separate reviews place on the faculty member and also to plan
for a way to reconcile the review results.
• Has the timing been coordinated between the multiple committees?
• Are external letter requests coordinated to avoid multiple requests to
the same
expert?
• Has it been decided a priori how the units will resolve conflicting outcomes?
• Have the associate deans in each school or college communicated with
each other
any feedback to be given the candidate to resolve any conflicts?
• Has the feedback been given to the candidate in an integrated format?
Sequential Reviews
If the units will conduct reviews during sequential academic years,
they need to minimize the burden placed on the faculty member by separate
reviews. The
deans’ offices also need to decide a priori on a plan to reconcile
the review results.
• Will the school or college that reviews the faculty member first share
their
materials with the school or college that does its review second?
•
What promotion materials need to be updated by the school or college that goes
second? Will the school or college that reviews the faculty member second accept
the letters from the first review? (When considering the promotion recommendations
from the school or college that is reviewing the faculty member second, the Provost’s
Office will accept letters done in the preceding year.)
|
| |
|
Events Calendar
