Credit proposed for work with centers

By MARA MCGINNIS
Reporter Assistant Editor

Teaching and research associated with interdisciplinary centers and institutes would be credited during the promotion and tenure process under recommendations suggested last week by a Faculty Senate committee.

The senate's Tenure and Privileges Committee submitted to the Faculty Senate at the body's first meeting of the academic year on Sept. 7 several suggestions governing how scholarly work in UB's more than 30 interdisciplinary research units could be considered and evaluated in the promotion process.

"We have had problems with the promotion of faculty who have been very active in centers when the department, for whatever reason, does not consider the outside activity as important to the department and thus to the promotion," explained Margaret Acara, professor of pharmacology and toxicology and chair of the committee.

Acara outlined to senators several recommendations drafted by her committee to address the issue:

- Faculty who wish to explore interdisciplinary activities should be encouraged to interact with organized research units, centers and institutes.

- All faculty appointments will continue to be made in departments. Whenever applicable, a faculty member's letter of appointment should contain a description of the faculty member's level of commitment to any unit other than the hiring department(s).

- When a current faculty member wishes to participate in or adjust the level of his or her commitment to the activity of another unit, his or her participation should be discussed with and agreed upon by the department chair and the head of the respective unit.

- Credit for teaching and research associated with other units should be given consideration by the faculty member's department in the promotion process.

The committee also suggested that department chairs consult with the heads of interdisciplinary units as to who to solicit for letters of reference for a candidate for promotion, and to include a letter from the head of the unit in the candidate's dossier.

The head of the unit also would be invited to participate in all discussion of the promotion by the department's voting body of record and may appear at other departmental discussions of the candidate's case.

Some senators raised concerns that the recommendations presented a "restriction of academic privileges," since faculty members would be required to obtain permission from their department chair before participating in the work of another unit.

Judith Adams-Volpe, director of Lockwood Library, said that she thought that in almost all cases, the word "should" in the recommendations should be changed to "will" or "must" because the "wishy-washy" wording "allows the department chairs too much latitude."

But Powhatan Wooldridge, associate research professor in the School of Nursing, suggested that the word "should" remain to give the chair discretion if, under some circumstances, the candidate agrees that he or she would rather not have the chair consider the work. But, he added, to protect the candidate, the "should" could become a "must" at the candidate's request, making it "grievable" if the candidate explicitly requests that the chair consider the work and the chair does not comply.