- clear, well organized criteria,
- illustrative elements of the practices included in each criterion,
- an explanation of the evidence that can be used to demonstrate that an individual has met a criterion (generally from multiple sources), and
- a description of the standard at which individuals must meet the established criteria for tenure and specific levels of promotion.
Why use the Framework approach?
To help:
- clarify standards and process for new and progressing faculty members
- offer faculty members the best possible chance to make their case for promotion or tenure based on their unique situation, strengths, principles and practices
- establish decision-making processes that are clear, systematic, as consistent as possible, and also flexible enough to reflect the diversity of practice within disciplines
- create departmental RTP documents that reflect the level of sophistication of committee discussion
- ensure that departmental standards are clear to UCAPT, external referees, and, should it be necessary, to external arbitrators
- communicate and value the effort, thought, commitment and skill that faculty bring to their scholarly responsibilities
Criteria
- Overview
- Teaching Evaluation Framework
- Research Evaluation Framework
- Service Evaluation Framework
- Strategies for Adapting the Framework
- Example Summary Document: Criteria and Indicators Only
UCAPT - Approved RTP Criteria
The following is a list of currently UCAPT approved criteria for renewal, tenure, and promotion (RTP). RTP criteria are unique to each academic unit, and reflects the diversity of academic, educational, scholarly, and professional expectations within their various disciplines. RTP criteria should also outline how other important considerations relevant to RTP will be addressed, and in particular, how to provide for equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).
In developing RTP criteria, it can be helpful to refer to RTP criteria developed by cognate disciplines as a starting point.
The following criteria that have been identified with an asterisk (*) are recommended as potential references for academic units that are beginning or updating their own RTP efforts.
Criteria identified with two asterisks (**) include significant discussion pertaining to EDI.
- Communication, Media and Film
(approved March 1, 2021)
- Computer Science
(approved June 12, 2019)
- (*) Dramatic Art
(re-approved December 14, 2021)
- (*) Dramatic Art – AAS
(re-approved December 14, 2021)
- (**) English and Creative Writing (approved May 11, 2022)
- Education
(approved May 13, 2020 - reapproved December 14, 2021)
- FAHSS – AAS
(approved June 24, 2021)
- (*) History
(approved June 15, 2018)
- (**) Kinesiology
(approved October 4, 2021)
- (**) Law
(reapproved March 1, 2021)
- Mathematics and Statistics (approved December 14, 2021)
- Philosophy
(approved June 24, 2021 - reapproved March 29, 2022)
- Physics (approved May 11, 2022)
- Political Science
(approved January 30, 2020 - reapproved December 14, 2021)
- Psychology
(approved July 2020 - reapproved December 14, 2021)
- School of the Environment
(approved July 22, 2020)
- (*) School of the Environment – AAS
(approved July 22, 2020)
- Social Work
(reapproved October 4, 2021)
- Social Work - AAS (reapproved October 4, 2021
- Women's and Gender Studies
(approved June 24, 2021 - reapproved December 14, 2021
Sessional Lecturer Provost-Approved Criteria
- Philosophy
(approved June 24, 2021)
- Women's and Gender Studies
(approved June 24, 2021)
Standards
- Strategies for Developing Summary Departmental Standards
- Sample Research Evaluation Rubric
- Sample Teaching Evaluation Rubric
- Sample Single-Level Summary Standard (Teaching)
- Sample Multiple-Level Summary Standard (Research)
- Sample Multiple-Level Summary Standard (Teaching) (legal size document)
Other Working Documents
- Blank Teaching Evaluation Rubric
- Blank Single-Level Summary Standard (Teaching)
- Blank Multiple-Level Summary Standard (Teaching)
- Teaching Evaluation Framework Working Document
- Blank Research Criteria Framework
- Blank Research Criteria Rubric
- Research Criteria Working Document
Explanatory note regarding adapting materials
We are very happy to work with committees and departments to explore how these materials can be adapted to your needs. Please contact Edwin Tam for more information. The Centre for Teaching and Learning is also available for consultation about developing teaching criteria and standards.