Information for FA members going up for RPT this fall

Dear Members,

I’m writing to provide some additional information for those of you going up for reappointment, tenure and promotion this fall.  As was discussed at the Town Halls prior to ratification of the new Collective Agreement, based on the new CA, members whose SEL surveys have a 50% or lower response rate will not be expected to provide frequencies in their RPT files, but will instead be expected to provide formative reflections on how they used SEL to develop and improve their teaching.  Since the deadline for submitting your RPT files is getting pretty close, we have come to an agreement with the administration that for this fall’s RPT process only, you can choose to either simply use SEL results as you would have done using the previous CA, OR you can use the new language.  A more detailed description of these two options, and some examples of formative reflections, are attached.

The other issue I wanted to draw your attention to is particularly intended for faculty members in the research stream, as well as those within the teaching stream who include material under the definition of research  within their scholarly activity.

In general, you should be submitting your file based on the research expectations in your current Unit Standard.  However, it may be useful for you to be aware that there are some new categories of what work can be evaluated under research that have been added to the new Collective Agreement, that you can now also reference in your RPT file, if you wish to do so.

The new language is highlighted — see below:

25.19   Research will be evaluated, using a range of quantitative and qualitative measures, in alignment with the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment (DORA) and principles of responsible research assessment, in accordance with the FEP and Unit Standard, in all possible manifestations and may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• a)    peer-reviewed publications and scholarly papers, especially insofar as they reveal the quality of Research, including alternate and emerging forms of Scholarship and digital contexts;
• b)    other forms of creative achievement in areas that are directly relevant to a Faculty Member’s discipline;
• c)    awards and fellowships granted by the University and institutions other than the University;
• d)    funding attracted for research and creative works;
• e)    evidence of active research pursuit, which may include applications to external funding bodies where such applications demonstrate the development or extension of a sustained research or creative agenda;
• f)    public scholarship (e.g., writing research-informed texts, articles or media pieces for non-academic audiences, and delivering public lectures);
• g)    open scholarship, including data sets, code, articles, chapters, methods, and pre-registration of experimental protocols;
• h)    documented activities, outputs and impact, related to community-engaged Scholarship, including the development of long-term relationships with communities;
• i)     documented activities related to the scholarship of teaching and learning;
• j)     recognition of appointments to professional and scholarly adjudicatory or review boards or councils at federal, provincial and university levels;
• k)    recognition by learned and professional societies;
• l)     evidence of reputation for scholarship that the Faculty Member establishes among professional colleagues at the University and at other academic and professional institutions; and
• m)   evidence of impact on policy and practice developments, including qualitative indicators of these impacts.

25.20   The evaluation of Research will be conducted on the basis of a Faculty Member’s curriculum vitae, except where otherwise provided for in this Agreement.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

 

All the very best,

 

Lynne

[sent to Members August 14, 2026]