Questions on Tenure and Promotion: Perspectives from Full Professors

May 29, 2018

This is the second of our two part series of Q&As on tenure and promotion. In part one, a panel of associate professors answered readers’ questions on how they prepared for the tenure process. Here, three full professors respond to questions on preparing for the T&P process. Our respondents are Scott P. Ardoin of the University of Georgia, Matthew K. Burns of the University of Missouri, and Kent McIntosh of the University of Oregon.1. What are critical components of strong cover letters or personal statements? Many pre-tenure faculty report receiving little guidance or conflicting information about how to craft compelling materials and wonder if the letters/statements should be a narrative recitation of one’s CV, an argument for one’s impact in the field, or something else. Scott: I would not recommend regurgitating one’s vitae, as the committee will have access to the vitae. However, highlight your strongest pieces.  Help readers understand how your work is connected and that you have one or more clear lines of research.  Explain how their institution will enable you to extend upon your lines of research.  Focus on how you will be expanding your research.  Committees want to know that you have a reasonable  future research plan.Matt: The primary purpose of the personal statement is to tell your story. For research, that means that you discuss the themes of your research and use the statement to spell out your programmatic line. For teaching and service, you also want to show how you have been strategic and programmatic. If you have received feedback and/or training, then discuss what changes that you have made due to the training, and the results (e.g., higher student ratings). This is also the opportunity to discuss your teaching philosophy (e.g., research as pedagogy, community of learners, etc.). I would suggest that you exactly do not narratively recite your CV.2. Many scholars are stymied by the task of describing their teaching and service, particularly in institutions where research is the primary focus. What are your thoughts on how early career scholars can articulate and substantiate their teaching effectiveness beyond course evaluation data, as well as describe their contributions to institutional and professional service?Scott:  If you can have a colleague observe your teaching and provide you with a commentary/summary of your research you can include quotes from their summary.  If you are already at an institution make it clear that you have published with your students.  Instruction goes beyond the classroom.3. What are the most common mistakes you see among individuals preparing their tenure dossiers?Scott: Writing a good dossier requires one to be proud of their work. Point out all of the great things that you have done.  Be pompous.  This is one time that it is expected.  Some people make the mistake of thinking that others understand their research and will understand how their studies are tied to each other.  Help your readers to understand your work and the link between your publications.Matt: They emphasize quantity over quality. For example, a candidate might have 20 publications in lower-tiered journals, which would be a weaker case than 10 to 12 publications in top-tier journals. They also submit grants at the expense of writing articles. I suggest talking to your department chair and mentor about this, but I have told junior faculty to stop submitting grants and start writing up the data that they already have.

4. Candidates for tenure are often asked to identify potential external reviewers. What strategies do you recommend for creating a list of potential reviewers, particularly in light of university rules prohibiting reviews by senior scholars with whom the candidate has an existing relationship or mandating anti-tampering/non-contact with reviewers? Should tenure candidates include a mix of associate and full professors as potential reviewers? When is it appropriate for a candidate to request that individuals be excluded as reviewers and how might that be done? Scott: Talk to other senior level people in your department for suggestions and/or call your advisor for recommendations.  Good reviewers are key and some people simply are not all that nice.  You want to make sure you get someone who is nice.  Realize that your graduate advisor is still vested in you, so contact your advisor for suggestions and ask your advisor to review all of your materials for you.  Ask for assistance.5. Many pre-tenure faculty feel like they are sprinting for six to seven years in hopes of gaining tenure and promotion to associate professor. However, the next step, going from associate to full professor, seems an even more daunting process for many. Do you have any advice for early career scholars about things they can do now, to not only increase the likelihood that they will attain the rank of associate, but to carry that momentum forward to prevent being a ‘career associate’ or stalling out after achieving tenure?Scott: Don’t make the mistake of getting too involved in service work.  You have to get your research done. Make sure that you are conducting research that you love, this will help you to keep up your dedication to your research.  If you are doing your research because you love it instead of doing it to get tenured, you are not going to slow down.  Research should be fun.Kent: For me, it’s always been about establishing routines for getting research done. Some carve out big blocks of time and hold them sacred. I don’t usually have that luxury, so I break down my research/writing projects into small tasks and try to complete at least one done each day. I try to do it first thing in the morning, before I open my email. That way I know I will get it done.Matt: First, tenure should never be your goal. Researchers who see tenure as the goal wind up as a career associate professors. Second, find the faculty members in your department who always vote no (every department has them), and take them out for lunch. Ask them what a tenured member of the department looks like. Not, “how many pubs?” or “in what journals should I publish?” Instead, present it more generally. Then, during the same conversation, ask them to tell you about what a full professor looks like as well. Third, seek leadership opportunities. The primary difference, in my opinion, is leadership. Your scholarship will speak for itself. Don’t hesitate to promote your research (social media is great for that), but you should be strategic in other areas as well. In your 5th year and later, start looking for leadership opportunities. Don’t serve on committees, chair them.6. Some early career scholars may consider pursuing early tenure. What considerations would you offer for pre-tenure faculty who want to be evaluated for tenure before the end of their tenure clocks?Scott: My first suggestion would be not to do it.  What good is it going to be for you.  Your options for jobs will decrease with promotion and tenure (there are not many associate level faculty openings). If you go up early you are going to be held to higher standards because you are saying you are better than everyone else.  Just wait.  If you think your vitae is good enough to go up early, then you don’t need to be worried about tenure, so the rational that you just want to get over the pressure of tenure is not a rational one.  Just wait.   If you just want a raise, consider applying for a job elsewhere.  Maybe you will find there is a better job out there.  Getting an offer will help your university to recognize how valuable you are.Kent: Check your university policies and ask those who will be writing the departmental/college letter for you. Some university committees simply look at the total body of work and judge it regardless of the time period. Others will expect a lot more, and there is an institutional bias against those who go up early. If you doubt it in any way, it’s much better to go up on the regular timeframe, unless your case is stellar and you foresee a slowdown before then (e.g., having a baby).Matt: That is very difficult. Most universities have language that represents a potential early tenure case. At my university, the candidate must be “rare and exceptional,” neither of which are defined, but the terms imply an extremely high bar. I suggest talking to your department chair and mentor as soon as you think it is something that you want to consider.7. Some tenure candidates will be denied tenure and/or promotion at their institution. What recommendations do you have for dealing with this possibility and outcome should it occur?Scott: Consider going to a university that places greater value on teaching.We thank all of our panelists for sharing their perspectives on this topic! What other questions do you have on tenure and promotion?

Playing the Long Game: Q&A with Dr. Dowdy on Planning Early for Full Professorship

May 29, 2018

by Daniel L. Gadke, Mississippi State University and Bryn Harris, University of Colorado Denver with Erin Dowdy, University of California Santa BarbaraAs early career academics, we are often hyper-focused on tenure and promotion from assistant to associate rank. Once tenure and promotion are obtained, the entire landscape of our academic position may change. With the time constraints often associated on the road to associate rank now gone, the path moving forward may look quite different for many individuals. Some academics may not be concerned with pursuing full, while others may not aspire to the rank. For those interested in the road to full professorship, reaching the associate rank may not even be the half way point. That being said, it is essential for early career scholars interested in full professorship to conceptualize their academic duties from a long-term perspective, setting themselves on a full rank trajectory early in their careers. Fortunately, as early career scholars we have models such as Dr. Erin Dowdy to show us how this is best done. Dr. Dowdy offers sound advice while answering questions on planning early for full professorship, as well as the difference between promotion from assistant to associate and associate to full.1. What advice would you give yourself as an assistant professor to best align your early career with a full professor trajectory?My best advice for a career in academia, regardless of rank, is to pursue what you are truly passionate about. In addition, find people that you enjoy working with and be a good collaborator and colleague. I find that working with people you enjoy, and working to solve problems that matter to you, is the best recipe for continued productivity with regards to all aspects of being a professor.2. What is something that you would have done differently as an early career faculty to prepare yourself for full professorship?I wish I had dedicated the time early in my career applying for grants, fellowships, and extramural funding opportunities that are only available to early career scholars. These early career grants provide rich opportunities for establishing a funding record, oftentimes accompanied by training or mentorship, that will set you up nicely for the continued funding and research productivity expected of a full professor.3. What were the biggest differences between going up for associate rank and preparing for full? Honestly, it is much less stressful. You already have reached a major milestone obtaining tenure so it feels less like your job is on the line.4. How did your program of research/teaching/service differ as an assistant professor prepping for associate and an associate prepping for full? As an associate professor, I had increased expectations for service and grant funding. I took on additional service activities that I hoped I would enjoy in addition to benefiting the profession (e.g., as Associate Editor for School Psychology Review), my department (e.g., chairing the Admissions Committee), and the University (e.g., serving on the university-wide Graduate Council). I also devoted more time to grant writing and working to establish international connections. There was always the requirement for research productivity, and teaching expectations remained relatively stable.5. Based on your own experience, what would you consider a reasonable timeline between associate and full? Why? I think this likely differs for everyone, but at my university we have a step system where you are expected to go up for review every two years as an associate professor. I think that 6 years between assistant and associate is a great goal, but it likely depends on expectations at your university. I’d recommend consulting with a full professor at your university that you trust.6. How did you know you were ready to apply for full?When I was up for review, I consulted with colleagues both at my university and at other universities. I asked them to candidly review my materials as they would for an external review and indicate if they would recommend that I apply for full. I also critically evaluated my productivity in terms of research, service, teaching, and mentorship….and basically, just decided to go for it. As I indicated above, it was a less stressful/high stakes decision so I figured the worst that could happen would be that I would just get to keep my job as an associate professor.7. Is mentorship as essential as an associate professor as it is to an assistant professor? If no, why? If so, how? How might the mentorship needs of an associate professor differ from an assistant professor?I still strongly believe in the value of mentorship and collaboration at every level. Now, with more junior colleagues in our department I am enjoying the role of mentoring others – even when I feel like I’m still the junior faculty in need of mentorship. As an associate professor, I started to feel like I was more in a role of collaborator and contributor rather than simply a mentee. But whatever you call it, try to work with people you like and who are willing and able to consult with you and offer you professional advice.8. What are reasonable expectations/responsibilities to assume as an associate professor still keeping in mind the need to reach full professor rank.A solid line of research and continued research productivity is highly valued at my university. For me, it was critical to protect a significant amount of time each week to be able to think and write. But beyond work, balance is key. I know that I won’t be happy and feel fulfilled if I don’t take plenty of time to recharge and enjoy time with family and friends. There are likely many different avenues to reaching full, so I would suggest playing your strengths and also realizing that you can continue to have a long career after reaching full professor. Professorship is a marathon, and you need to find ways to enjoy the run along the way.

Questions on Tenure and Promotion: Perspectives of Associate Professors

March 19, 2018

Many of our readers are graduate students and new faculty concerned about tenure. We queried our pre-tenure members for their questions about promotion and tenure, then sought the perspectives of midcareer and senior scholars in school psychology. In the first installment of our three part series on tenure and promotion, three associate professors respond to questions about preparing for the review process. Our respondents are Jamilia Blake of Texas A&M, Michael Sulkowski of the University of Arizona, and Amanda Sullivan of the University of Minnesota.1. Many pre-tenure faculty report receiving little guidance or conflicting information about how to craft compelling materials and wonder if the letters/statements should be a narrative recitation of one’s CV, an argument for one’s impact in the field, or something else. How did you approach the task of preparing your cover letter/personal statements for your tenure dossier? Jamilia: The candidate statement (personal statement) should highlight the key contributions your research, teaching, and service is making to the field and as such should be narrative document.  Your CV provides a quantitative account of what you have accomplished in a set amount of time.  I often think of my CV as my personal reference list.  However, your candidate statement is qualitative and provides the context for your work.  It should not merely be a narrative recount of your CV.  It is your opportunity to bring attention to themes in your work that you feel are important and will eventually have impact on the field.  It is your space to discuss how your work shows promise for changing school psychology practice and research.  Everything stated in your candidate statement should be supported by evidence from your CV or supporting documents (e.g., I have # articles that speak to this work; name specific articles; I received X grant/award for this work).  I also look at the candidate statement as a way to help your reviewers make sense of your CV, your candidate statement will help reviewers and your colleagues determine what you deem is important in your work and will influence what they will focus on. To prepare for this task, I asked my mentoring committee (two full professors) to identify individuals in my department who they felt like had a strong packet when they were being considered for promotion and tenure.  I then went to those individuals and requested to review their candidate statements (most agreed, some did not).  I reviewed their statements along with their CVs to see how they captured the essence of their work.  Beyond helping me determine what was important to focus on, doing so also gave me a general idea of how my department/college wanted candidate statements formatted.  I also looked at my CV and reorganized by publications by topic so I could more easily see the themes in my work.  From there, I decided which aspects of my work I was most proud of and fully captured my intellectual contribution to the field.  This helped me with selecting representative publications I would include in my dossier.  It also assisted me with more fully describing the quality of my work and contribution to the field in my candidate statement.  I must be honest in saying that some of the publications I identified as my representative publications were not my most well-cited publications, but they were the publications that I felt most proud of, fully demonstrated my ability as a researcher to independently engage in high quality scholarship, and I believed would eventually make an impression on the field.   Then I met with my mentoring team to discuss what I planned to include in my statement and the representative publications that I felt best captured this work.  Once I received their feedback, I began writing my draft. With each version of my draft, I asked my mentoring team and senior colleagues at my institution that I trusted (both within my department and outside my department) to review my candidate statement and give me feedback.  I went through multiple drafts (at least 5 or 6) before it was ready.Michael: I approached the task by trying to describe a clear line/lines of research and then describing how my teaching and service related to my research. Having an integrated statement makes it look like you’ve been intentional and organized with what you have done to be competitive for tenure, even if it feels like your research, teaching, and service efforts are a bit disjointed. Also, it is important to have several senior faculty who are not part of the T&P process review the statement and offer constructive feedback. Lastly, I think it helps to bolster the narrative statement by infusing it with quantitative productivity metrics such as the H-index, i-10 index, and total number of times your work has been cited.Amanda: I think it’s really important to tailoring the statement and other materials to your specific context. Together, the CV and statements should speak to tenurability in your current position. For me, that meant becoming familiar with my department tenure code, the college tenure guidelines, and the university tenure code, along with the department and college vision/mission. This is something I did very early on—before I accepted the position since it was part of my decision to join my current university. I had conversations during my campus visit about expectations for tenure and promotion. I’m fortunate to be in a place that has an annual review process in which the materials are very similar to those used for promotion (sans external reviews) so I was prompted to develop my statements early (October of my first year!) and revisit annually. This process may not be in place in  many institutions, but early career scholars can start early in crafting their story so that it can be a guide for activities pre-tenure rather than something crafted post hoc.That said, when I refined those materials for my tenure dossier, I revised the statements somewhat to speak to a broader audience since the documents were going to be read by many individuals outside my unit, including external reviewers, the college T&P committee, the dean, and university administrators as the dossier went through the process. Rather than writing exclusively to school psychology faculty or my department colleagues, I tried to gear the statements toward a general academic audience, many of whom I assumed would have no idea what school psychology was, let alone my position within the field. This forced me to think very carefully about how I worded things and how I described my contributions and potential impact. I tried to explain to a lay audience the goals of my work and the relevance to educational systems, situating my scholarship and teaching in particular in a broader social context for readers outside of my field. I also tried linking explicitly back to relevant elements of the unit and university tenure codes by using the phrasing from those documents and describing how my activities aligned with or embodied those expectations. As Jamilia noted, I tried to help readers understand the information provided in my CV, assuming that they wouldn’t necessarily draw the same conclusions that I would (or hoped they would) about what everything meant or how it fit together. Instead, I used my statements to explain activities and describe linkages between them—to tell the story I wanted them to take away from reviewing my materials.My department didn’t provide much guidance on structure or length so I tried to find a middle ground based on the requirements of other departments in my college (which ranged from a few hundred words per domain to a 10 page limit) and struck a middle ground. I started my research statement with a general description of my research interests/strands and the goals of that work, then for each of the three strands described, I explained the importance of the general area of scholarship, my specific projects with citations, and the value of it plus any recognition received. In my teaching statement, I briefly described my teaching philosophy, including specific practices used, then I summarized my activities in classroom teaching, advising/mentoring, and collaborations with students following a basic structure of goals, methods, and outcomes with a tables of supporting data for each subsection and links to my scholarship whenever possible. My service statement was much of the same—goals, activities, outcomes—with discussion of how activities were an extension of my scholarship and teaching.2. Pre-tenure faculty also often wonder what else to include in a dossier beyond these cover letters or personal statements. That is, how should one compile ‘evidence’ of accomplishments warranting tenure and promotion, particularly when faced with the seemingly daunting task of filling a file box, binder, or other vessel with tangible markers of ones’ professional accomplishments. How did you assemble your dossier beyond CVs, cover letters/statements, and representative publications?Jamilia: My institution had specific instructions regarding what materials to include in my dossier; however, there were additional items (which were optional) that I included to support the statements I made in my candidate statement. At minimum, you should include your CV, three representative publications that best captures your work and the eventual impact you will have on the field, and your teaching evaluations.  After including these essential pieces, I would review your candidate statement again and consider what items will further support the claims you make in your statement that are not listed on your CV.  For example, I might include a list of the impact factor of journals and rejection rates for the journals I publish in as well as my h-index.  For journals without impact factors, I would look into software that generates citation/mention indexes (e.g., a media-based form of google scholar) to see how often your work was mentioned/referenced/cited in non-peer reviewed outlets.  If I identified that I was doing an area of work that few have studied, I might summarize a literature search of the work in my area  (e.g., include a screen shot of the number of articles published on that topic in the last 5 years) to illustrate my contribution to this body of work. Another way of doing this is to reference recent meta-analyses/systematic literature reviews that have called for additional research in my area of expertise to illustrate how my scholarship fills this gap.  If I mention in my statement that I engage in high quality teaching practices, I might include sample student comments about my teaching from my teaching evaluations that speak to this or a copy of a peer observation and evaluation of my teaching.Michael: If you have them, it is good to include physical copies of written/co-authored books. Also, if allowed, adding collaborator letters can help augment external letters. Often, letters from students can be added to a teaching portfolio to give life to the TCE reports and selected student statements. Similarly, it can be helpful to include letters from senior faculty who have observed/evaluated your teaching effectiveness in class or at a workshop. Lastly, syllabi for newly developed/modified classes and novel teaching or instructional resources/curricula/technologies often can highlight innovative teaching.Amanda: I looked to the policies for mention of the type of activities considered under scholarship, teaching and service and basically kept those in mind as I went about my work. I created a folder in my email and on my drive where I could save anything relevant such as unsolicited feedback on teaching, scholarship, or service (e.g., notes/letters of appreciation students, users of research, presentation attendees, editors, etc.). Instead of it being a time consuming process in the summer before my dossier went forward, it was literally 3-10 seconds here and there over several years. If a reader sent a note of appreciation about an article, I dropped it into the T&P folder after replying. When an article was published, I saved the PDF to the T&P subfolder for pubs. Of course, I also had files of each project, grant applications, presentations, and course materials so I could draw from those when needed . Then, when the time came to assemble my dossier, I just printed and sifted into the appropriate file folders in my tenure box. Since my department didn’t provide much guidance on what to include, I erred on the side of putting in anything internal reviewers might want to see so for research I had file folders for peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, other pubs, presentations, grant proposals, and honors/awards/acknowledgment. For teaching, I had syllabi, student products, evaluation data, observations, and other feedback. Service was sparser by comparison, but had any certificates of appreciation/honors/awards, and any other miscellaneous documentation I’d accumulated (e.g., emails of appreciation from participants in events).3. Many scholars are especially stymied by the task of describing their teaching and service, particularly in institutions where research is the primary focus. Our readers are often concerned about supplementing teaching evaluation data, of which there are notable limitations, but are unsure of what types of data or documentation are appropriate to include. What did you do in your letter/statement to articulate your teaching effectiveness?Jamilia: Yes, this is perhaps the most challenging aspect of the dossier to address.  I recommend including peer evaluations of your teaching and statements from students about your teaching extracted from teaching evaluations to document the effectiveness of your teaching beyond traditional teaching evaluations. To do this, I would identify the faculty in your department who are deemed as the most accomplished teachers (e.g., received teaching awards, have high teaching evaluations) and request that they observe and provide an evaluation of your teaching.  I would use these peer evaluations a progress monitoring tool, if you will, to improve your teaching as well as a method to document your teaching quality.  I would include these peer evaluations of your teaching (one or two per class) as an additional attachment in your dossier.  I would reference not only that you voluntarily participated in peer teaching observations but how you used the information to improve/enhance your teaching in your statement. I would also conduct multiple teaching evaluations throughout the semester/quarter with your students (e.g., midterm and post-term) and for each evaluation, I would ask students to leave comments.  I recommend using midterm teaching evaluations for two purposes: as a form of formative assessment to identify ways to improve/enhance your teaching during that semester so long as it does not create an undue burden on students and as another method for documenting the quality of your teaching.  I would include a summary of student’s statements about your teaching in a table in your dossier and reference this table in your candidate statement as well.Michael: I created a table that compared my TCE ratings for various categories to the college mean ratings. Additionally, I talked about how I developed a new course consistent with my research/scholarship and modified existing courses to better approximate advancements in the field and best practices. It can also help to discuss how your teaching and service has helped with the health of the program, department, college, or academic unit. For example, you can highlight accreditation-related work, taking on additional advisement or teaching responsibilities, or committee work that you did to ensure that things continued to run smoothly.Amanda: At my institution, the tenure policy describes teaching as including classroom instruction, supervision, advising, mentoring, and professional learning provided to the community, so I oriented my teaching statement and documentation broadly in recognition of all of the different activities that are encapsulated. I included tables summarizing course evaluation data, student research activities (co-authored presentation and publications), and progress to degree. My tenure box included other documentation/certificates from any professional learning undertaken to improve teaching; syllabi; artifacts of student learning; and ratings and write-ups from teaching observations. A resource I found very helpful was a university webpage on evidence of teaching effectiveness, since our Provost for academic affairs discouraged reliance on course evaluation data and instead recommended other tools and artifacts to include (i.e., peer evaluation of syllabi, student artifacts, classroom observation). Even if your unit doesn’t provide guidance, seek info from higher levels of the university.4. Based upon your experience, what types of service were most valued when your materials were evaluated? To what degree did you emphasize service to the profession versus service to the university? Within your service to the university, at what level of service was viewed most favorably (i.e., program, department, college, or university)? Jamilia: I emphasized both.  My department goes to great lengths to protect Assistant Professors from over committing to service.  As such, my department values service to the program/department more so than to the college and University for Assistant Professors.  In terms of national service, my department saw memberships on journal editorial boards and participation in national service organization executive committees as appropriate level of service for an Assistant Professor.  I discussed my invitation to serve as an editorial board member and as ad-hoc reviewer for prominent journals as evidence of my national service in my statement.  I also explained in detail what my participation and leadership on program and department level committees within my institution entailed.  I described how my conducting in-service presentations for various community stakeholders and local school districts was a form of program/department, and University service because doing so fostered University-community relationships and collaborations that ultimately assisted the program and department in securing and maintaining practicum sites and supervisors for our students. Moreover, these presentations contributed the dissemination of knowledge regarding evidence-based practices.Michael: Regarding service, I’ve heard that non-university service should suggest that your work is having a state or national impact as you move up to the associate professor rank. Regarding university service, I think it is probably best to illustrate that you’re a good team player and were successful in the work you did.Amanda: In my department, both internal and external service are valued, but service to the profession, especially that related to scholarship (editorial activities, grant reviewing) and community engagement, are highly valued pre-tenure, and there’s some expectation that pre-tenure faculty are shielded from excessive internal service. That’s not the case everywhere. Hopefully, learning about service expectations happened early—as in before accepting a position or very early on so that activities would be somewhat aligned with expectations. I don’t mean to suggest that the tenure policy should determine all of one’s professional activities, but realistically speaking, I think there should at least be some effort to align activities and relative effort with expectations for tenure and promotion if you want to be successful at an institution. Institutions and units vary in the relative value placed on different kinds of service pre- and post-tenure, so it’s helpful to find out early and be strategic to the extent that makes sense for one’s broader, long-term career goals. My department’s tenure policy described a variety of kinds of service from international to departmental, but specifically highlighted discipline-specific and institutional service in evaluation of pre-tenure faculty, so I organized my service statement to describe discipline-specific service (e.g., professional organizations, journals, centers) and institutional (university, college, department).5. Candidates for tenure are often asked to identify potential external reviewers. What strategies did you use, or would you recommend, for creating a list of potential reviewers, particularly in light of university rules prohibiting reviews by senior scholars with whom the candidate has an existing relationship or mandating anti-tampering/non-contact with reviewers? Should tenure candidates include a mix of associate and full professors as potential reviewers? If appropriate, how did you (or would you have) handled asking certain scholars to be excluded as reviewers?  Jamilia: Again, this depends on your institution.  My proposed list of external reviewers were a mix of Associate and Full Professors, but mainly Full Professors.  I selected individuals who I felt had some expertise in my scholarship and so could speak to my contributions to the field with that respect. However, my program and department also offered a list of external reviewers.  Per my University’s process, I was not informed of the final list of external reviewers that were invited to review my packet.  My department head invited external reviewers to review my packet so I had no contact with the external reviewers throughout the tenure and promotion process.  However, after I was notified about the decision regarding my tenure and promotion, I was able to see who drafted my letters and all were full professors.Michael: I looked for full professors who I haven’t worked with who would still be aware of and likely think favorably of my work. In addition, I selected people who seemed like reasonable people that had positive reputations in the field. Furthermore, it is important to select people who are at universities with similar or higher Carnegie Foundation Classification rankings or people who are holding important roles in the field such as being the lead editor of a flagship journal or holding a distinguished chair position.Amanda: My college’s tenure guidelines specified that external reviewers should be full professors, but that exceptional associate professors could be included, and that individuals should be recognized scholars in the field from peer institutions. Former mentors and co-authors/investigators were excluded. I was also told that my department’s preference was for fulls with exceptional recognition or appointments (e.g., journal editors, endowed chairs, fellows, upper admin). Reviewers were going to be asked to comment on 4 prompts: the impact of my work, it’s quality, whether I’d met expectations for tenure, and performance relative to peers, so I kept all of this in mind when considering who to propose. I generated a list of potential reviewers who I thought would be well situated to review my scholarship (the first two prompts), as well as those I thought could review my overall career development (the latter two prompt).I wasn’t involved in requesting letters, and didn’t know who ended up being chosen until well after letters were received, so the expectation for no contact was easy. My institution also allowed opportunity to veto potential reviewers for conflicts of interest. In my case, I asked for an individual to be omitted because I knew the person had a highly contentious relationship with one of my mentors. In another case I asked for a person to be omitted because I thought our scholarship was highly dissimilar (topically, theoretically, methodologically)  and because they didn’t have the appointments sought to allow more of a birds-eye evaluation of my contributions and performance relative to peers in the field.6. After tenure dossiers are submitted, most candidates face several months’ wait before a decision will be rendered. What strategies do you recommend for navigating this process and the uncertainty it entails?Jamilia: I would advise any candidate who is waiting on their tenure and promotion results to continue to focus on their scholarship and to remember that there is a space for their work in the field.  I would encourage all candidates going up to consider what is in the realm of their control.  I believe that the only thing you have control over in your career, but especially during the tenure and promotion process, is your productivity (e.g., what you produce and how much you produce) and the way you present your work (e.g., journal outlets you choose). You cannot change what you did before you submitted your packet/dossier nor you can you control what reviewers will say or think about your work, so do not consume yourself with these matters.  Instead, focus on what you do have control over.  I would advise you to spend your energy and time on publishing and engaging in high quality research that is meaningful to you while you await your tenure and promotion decision.  This will do two things.  First, it will reinforce that you are a strong and committed scholar to those around you and two it will enhance your portfolio and CV for future opportunities that may come your way.Michael: Take a little time off, relax a bit, take up a new hobby, travel, start a new novel/TV series, etc.Amanda: One of my favorite pieces of advice received was “Just do good work.” This came from a senior scholar who’d joined UMN at the same time I did when we were chatting at our university’s new faculty orientation. Worried about starting a new position? Just do good work. Not sure how to handle department drama? Just do good work. Worried about measuring up to others? Just do good work. Anxious about P&T? Just do good work. Worrying won’t change anything, so I just focus on what I could control: continuing to do good work. I know ‘good work’ can be unpacked in a variety of ways and may mean different things to different people, but I like the simplicity of the idea of just doing what you believe is good work. Worst case scenario: you eventually go somewhere else to do that good work, but would that really be so bad if the current place didn’t value or recognize the work you’d been doing and presumably wanted to do?7. Some early career scholars may consider pursuing early tenure. What considerations would you offer for pre-tenure faculty who want to be evaluated for tenure before the end of their tenure clocks or probationary periods?Jamilia: I would speak to my department head/college level administration about what the timeline requirements are for submitting your packet/dossier for tenure and promotion to be sure that you are clear on your University policy.  Then I would speak to senior faculty to assess the culture/faculty attitudes surrounding people submitting their packets/dossier early.  From there, I would have someone external to your University who is well-respected in your specific area of expertise and who is from a comparable institution (e.g., based on Carnegie ratings/AAU membership) that will not be a potential external reviewer critique your packet/dossier. I would ask this person to evaluate your materials and give you an honest assessment of whether you would receive tenure at their institution. I would ask them to offer specific recommendations to strengthen your packet/dossier.  With this information, you can make an assessment as to whether you should submit your packet early or spend the additional time on your clock building a stronger portfolio.Michael: I decided to do this at the recommendation or my dean and through consultation with other senior faculty members (in school psychology and related fields). Also, before pulling the trigger, I compared my productivity to associate professors at peer institutions to see how I stacked up.Amanda: First, does institution allow it? Some don’t. But if the institution does allow it and decisions of tenure are to be based on meeting specific criteria, it’s important to be clear on what they are and how your record compares. It can be helpful to consider the profiles of recently tenured faculty and to consult senior faculty and unit and college administrators. Expect a diversity of perspectives and look for convergence. Know how you’ll be evaluated relative to tenure policy and what prompts external reviewers will be given so that you can self-evaluate relative to those. Before making the decision, I consulted senior colleagues, paid attention to cases from the few years before I was considering going up, including cases where tenure was denied in my college. It’s something I had at the back of my mind when I started my position having come from a few years at another institution, but beyond learning about the policies and expectations, my focus was just on doing good work. Then at my fourth year annual review, I asked for feedback on my readiness to go up. Since it was favorable, I did.Have you had a different experience at your institution? Do you have tips or strategies to share? Comment below.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

October 24, 2017Ours is a field where open positions can abound, as we see this year, and where faculty roles, expectations, opportunities, and challenges can vary substantially across different types of institutions (e.g., public v. private, R1 v. teaching) and programs (doctoral only, specialist only, combined). Some scholars will spend their entire careers in a single institution, but many will not.Readers asked that the ECF tackle the topic of how to make the decision to remain in one’s current position or move on to a new one. We reached out to several early and mid-career scholars to discuss how they’ve dealt with this decision, sometimes repeatedly.When you made the decision to leave, what were the primary factors that motivated the choice?Professor A: Leaving for a new position was a really difficult choice. I was fortunate to be at a university where I was both happy and productive. I wasn’t looking to move, however my current position was one of those dream jobs we all have somewhere in the back of our minds. I decided to apply to just this position and see what happened. When offered the job, my spouse and I had discussed at length the pros and cons of the move, and if the short term pain (e.g., moving, starting new jobs, selling/buying a home) would be worth the long term gain. Ultimately, the opportunity to be at a really strong program with collaborative colleagues and research supports, an ideal geographic location with low cost of living, and career opportunities for both my spouse and I solidified the decision to leave.Professor B: There was a combination of personal and professional factors that lead to the decision to leave my previous institution. When I took my first assistant professor position, I was geographically-bound.  My spouse and I moved to be near family to assist with a family business in a rural area.  There were two institutions with school psychology training programs within a commuting distance (i.e., 50 miles), both of which were hiring the year I was searching!  I was thrilled to be offered a position. The position came with heavy teaching load with high service expectations (which is typical of a teaching-focused university) and I wished to have more time for research and writing, but I learned so much from my fellow faculty while there and greatly appreciated the experience. After teaching at the institution for four years, my spouse’s presence in the family business was no longer essential so we made the decision to move.  We hoped to move before our children (three under the age of 8) reached middle school when moving could have been a more difficult transition. Professionally, I wanted more time for research and sought out positions that valued and protected time for research, primarily R1 institutions.  Though I expected to be in the first (teaching-focused) institution for my whole career, I enjoyed writing and research so was able to be productive despite the high teaching and service expectations, which allowed me to be a competitive applicant.  Overall, the decision to leave was not motivated by dissatisfaction with the position, but a personal change that enabled a professional goal to come true. Professor C: My first position wasn’t my ideal for many reasons (e.g., administrative issues, local political and economic climate), but I had amazing colleagues and great collaborations with some of the local school systems, so it was somewhere I could do the work I was passionate about and feel supported by the people I worked with directly. Quite unexpectedly, the opportunity came to join my current program. It wasn’t actually anything I’d ever even thought about, but there were several compelling advantages: the program orientation and vision were a great fit for my own ideals as a school psych trainer and scholar; the research infrastructure is exceptionally researcher-friendly; students were highly dedicated to research; upper administration was heavily invested in the program; and the faculty seemed genuinely welcoming and supportive of me as an early career scholar; there were numerous resources to support my professional development that I didn’t have available in my first institution, among other things. Ultimately, it was the potential join a program that could really elevate my scholarship and overall professional development that drove my decision to move. Despite the inconveniences that came with moving, my partner was onboard because of all the advantages it conferred for my professional advancement.How did you navigate the processes involved in applying for positions, interviewing, and eventually leaving with your immediate colleagues, administrators, and others in your previous program?Professor A: Having already secured an academic position, many of my application materials needed to be updated but not completely rewritten. Before applying, I reached out to trusted mentors and colleagues to get as much information as possible in determining if my perception of the new job was consistent with theirs. I was under no illusion that the grass would be greener (just a different shade), and I wanted to gain an understanding of what “quirks” existed as they do at all universities. Interviewing was a bit more challenging as I had to work around my teaching schedule and various meetings. Fortunately, my new university was very accommodating in working around my commitments, and I was able to make a relatively quick trip. Notifying colleagues and administrators was much more difficult. I was upfront in notifying a trusted colleague or two when I received the invitation to interview, as I did not want any decision to come as a complete surprise. I was also in communication with these colleagues as I deliberated, and they offered advice and support when weighing my options. Informing and “negotiating” with upper administration was a miserable, but unavoidable experience. I recommend to anyone in a similar position to only engage in discussions with administration if there is something they can provide (e.g., large raise, different program role) that may change your decision. The most difficult conversation was informing my graduate students on my research team. I emphasized that I would always be a call or email away, and that I expected (and do!) maintain collaborative relationships with them. Because grad students may take the decision the hardest, I pre-arranged with colleagues opportunities for student meetings to debrief and plan for the eventual transition.   Professor B: Since I enjoyed my colleagues at the first position, the process of applying, interviewing, and leaving was very difficult for me.  I felt guilty about leaving and the strain it would be on the remaining faculty, so much so that I would get nervous anytime I was around my fellow school psychology faculty or department chair.  For me, personally, I felt much better once I told them I was searching for a new position and explained the reason.  They all wished me well and two of the senior faculty even wrote letters of recommendation.  I received advice that there was no need to tell other faculty and the chair beforehand, but I felt great relief once I did.  I suspect I felt relieved because I had solid, friendly relationships with them and felt as if I was withholding a great secret. During the interviewing process, I tried to schedule interviews on non-teaching days. On one occasion, my interview trip overlapped with a teaching day, so I created an online lecture and assignment so students would not miss content that week.  Once I accepted the position at the new institution, I notified all the other (non-school psychology) faculty in my department.  As I finished out the academic year, I was sure to finish up all service obligations and notify department, college, and university committee chairs that I was leaving. The months between when I let my colleagues and students know I was leaving and the time of my departure were a bit awkward and bittersweet. Awkward because there were discussions about who would do the things I was involved in, bitter because I was going to miss my colleagues and it is stressful to move a family of five, and sweet because I had such a great experience there but was simultaneously looking forward to a fresh start in a place where research was more valued.Professor C:When I left my first institution, I was open with my immediate colleagues from the outset of the process and they were very supportive. The administrative issues in our college and university meant we’d long been discussing the implications of various decisions for our program and our individual professional trajectories, and they’d been concerned about what certain constraints meant for me as the most junior member of the group. Thankfully, that meant that they were great sounding boards when I was considering other opportunities. They were able to discuss the process and how I could handle things with students and administrators. Ultimately, I decided not loop in anyone beyond my program until I handed in my letter of resignation to the dean because early in the process, I realized I was not going to stay. The process of being on the market was time consuming, but my teaching schedule made it possible to accommodate lots of travel without much rearranging of commitments (and resultant sharing with others). In addition to interviewing in my new program, I applied and visited a few others, so there was a stretch at the beginning of spring semester where every week I’d teach my classes at the beginning of the week and fly out for the 2-day interviews during the second half of the week. Things didn’t slow down when the contract was signed because in the later part of the semester, I was preparing for the move, including trips out to my new city for house hunting, and trying to graduate as many of my advisees as possible. One of my biggest reservations about the move was leaving the doc students I’d been working with and creating considerable burden for my colleagues since we were a small program. Thankfully, I was able to negotiate with both my old and new institutions support to finish the remainder of my students in the following year (e.g., non-salary appointment and travel funds). When you made the decision to stay, what were the primary factors that motivated the choice?Professor C: Now in my second institution, I’ve had opportunities to go elsewhere and each triggers really careful decisions of what I might gain professionally, and to a lesser extent, in my personal life, from the potential move, as well as what I would be giving up. I have to ask myself how it could elevate my scholarship, teaching and mentoring of students, and other professional activities. What resources and opportunities does the new position have that my current doesn’t? Particularly when faced with opportunities outside of school psychology programs, I’ve had to consider what it would mean for me as a scholar and teacher/mentor not to be involved in the preparation of future school psychologists. In multiple instances, that was the deciding factor for me, because despite considerable additional resources to support my scholarship, the move would mean not being a graduate educator in school psychology, and I realized that was a part of my professional identity and activities I did not want to give up. Professor D: I went on the job market with every intention of leaving my current institution. However, in the end, I chose to stay. Although I was happy in my position, there were some significant problems at my institution that led me to look elsewhere. I received another offer, and I planned to accept it. However, after honestly explaining my reasons for wanting to leave to the administration, I learned that they had already begun to address some of the concerns and committed in writing to addressing others. There were already major departmental changes underway that I was previously unaware of. This changed the context of my decision. In addition, my college offered a competitive counter-offer, which, in the end, I accepted.Sometimes staying where you are can nonetheless come with changes or added benefits. What benefits, if any, were there for you in staying?Professor C: The tangible benefit was in salary, but through conversations with my unit and college administrators I gained better understanding of their values and goals, appreciation for my professional contributions, and a feeling that my voice was heard and respected. Discussing potentially leaving was a very uncomfortable experience, but after the process, I felt much more empowered to speak up not just within my program, but in the department and college as well, and when I have concerns about leadership and policy I can go to the administrators and speak very frankly about my concerns and be candid about what I need to be successful in order to continue my career here. Professor D: I was able to negotiate a variety of perks (e.g., salary, course reductions, and additional in-kind supports to fund graduate students on my grants). I also received additional mentorship and support in the tenure process which was something that I needed. Overall, I am happy with my decision to stay. It is important to note that I had grants, and I had done a significant amount of service to support the administration in reaching their goals before going to them for a counter-offer. If that were not the case, I expect that the outcome would have been different.What recommendations or observations (e.g., lessons learned) would you like to share with others who face the decision to stay in or leave their current position, including those who might be considering other opportunities right now?Professor A: Moving can seem daunting, especially if you are happy and comfortable in your current position. However, the inconvenience and difficulties of the process can absolutely be worth it when considering a long term move where you can grow as a professional and person. I recommend to communicate often with trusted colleagues to obtain objective opinions on anything from research opportunities to cost of living. Consider the non-job related costs of moving (selling a house, changing kids’ schools, potentially losing a retirement match if you are not vested). Most importantly, we work in a small and connected profession so always remain positive and collegial throughout. Professor B: Ultimately, though I felt guilty that I was leaving holes that needed to be filled, I knew the decision to move was the best and I had to keep that in mind.I found it very helpful to have colleagues outside of my institution that I could call on with questions and support.  A graduate school friend was my sounding board because she had gone through the process of leaving her school psychologist position for academia the previous year.  Former professors helped me keep the big picture in mind and talked through the “politics” of leaving. I would recommend tapping into your social support network as you make these big decisions. I do not have other fabulous recommendations that would work for all situations, but recommend that you face the process of deciding to move in the way that works best for you.  For me, I felt “icky” about not telling my close colleagues I was searching (thus the nervous feeling and stomach knots I felt when in their presence) and I felt such relief after telling them. For others, they would want to keep that information to themselves until everything was finalized.  I do not think there is a right or wrong way to do it, but of course you should notify your supervisor as soon as you have decided so they can begin the process of filling your teaching and service obligations.  I found “The Academic Job Search Handbook” by Vick, Furlong, and Lurie to be a wonderful resource for the entire job search process.  There is also a section in one chapter focused on how to gracefully leave a job after you have accepted a new position, which was helpful as well.Professor C: I’ve tried to adopt a long term perspective in considering any moves. I don’t think there’s such a thing as a perfect position or a perfect institution, and even a near-perfect position can be less so as contextual issues change. I try to consider whether the things that might motivate my openness to move are short-term or fairly intractable issues. For instance, in many institutions, an unsupportive administrator can be a problem for a few years assuming there are term limits, but the institutional culture and infrastructure is less malleable. The sheer abundance of open positions can make it hard not to wonder if things might be better elsewhere, so having a broad network of colleagues at all career stages where we can discuss experiences and challenges is helpful. There are so many potential commonalities and nuances across institutions that makes it difficult to know what to expect from one place to another, to say nothing of all of the interpersonal factors that can contribute to a wonderful or dreadful professional experience. My biggest recommendation is to talk to others – peers, mentors, colleagues, search committees, administrators – to gather as much data as possible to understand the opportunities and challenges in your current position and elsewhere.Professor D: I think that it is important to be open-minded but also to realize that the grass is not always greener on the other side. Each institution has its strengths and challenges, and it is important to consider the extent to which the priorities and mission of your institution are consistent with your own career goals. Also, never go to your administration to ask for a counter-offer unless you are ready to walk and accept the other position. Sometimes, the administration will make a competitive counter-offer. Sometimes, they will not. Be prepared either way. Thanks to all our contributors for sharing their frank perspectives.Early career scholars and others considering going on the market the first or second time in 2018-19 may be interested in the NASP mini-skills session, Navigating Job Searches: Finding Your First -or Second- Faculty Position. 

Transitioning from Graduate School to Academia: Advice from Early Career Scholars

September 13, 2017

By Ethan Van Norman, Georgia State University, with panelists Stacy-Ann January, University of South Carolina; Dave Klingbeil, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; and Wesley Sims, Wichita State UniversityPrevious blog posts described how to navigate the application and interview processes to land an academic job. Whether you are starting at your new position this year (Congratulations!) or plan on entering academia in the near future, the process of transitioning from graduate school or applied practice to academia presents a unique set of challenges. In this blog post we have asked a panel of early career scholars to offer their advice on transitioning to a faculty positions. We will hear from three faculty members who each took different paths to obtaining their current position and are at different phases in their academic careers. Without further ado let’s meet the panel.1.  Please introduce yourself and provide a brief overview of your path to obtaining your current tenure-track position.Hi! My name is Stacy-Ann January [SAJ] and I am an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina in the school psychology Ph.D. program. Prior to beginning this position in August 2016, I completed a 2-year postdoctoral research fellowship at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln that was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences. During my postdoc, I worked on a variety of projects from secondary analysis to ongoing intervention efficacy trials. In addition to an emphasis on publishing manuscripts, I focused on developing skills related to advanced methodology and statistics as well as grant writing and management. I am a proud graduate of the school psychology program at the University of Georgia.My name is Dave Klingbeil [DK] and I obtained my PhD from the University of Minnesota. I completed my predoctoral internship at the Louisiana School Psychology Internship Consortium. I started in my current academic position, at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, in August 2013.I am Wesley Sims [WS], Ph.D., NCSP and I am an Assistant Professor at Wichita State University. My path to my current position began in 2002 when I entered my practitioner level training program at the University of Massachusetts Boston. I was a practicing school psychologist in the St. Louis for several years before returning to graduate school in 2012 at the University of Missouri. While at Mizzou, I continued to work as a practitioner and consultant before beginning an APPIC accredited pre-doctoral internship in New Orleans, LA. Upon completion of my internship with the Louisiana School Psychology Internship Consortium (LASPIC), I accepted a 9-month appointment as a Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Alabama. I joined the school psychology program at WSU at the conclusion of my time with Alabama.2. What have you observed as the biggest challenge in transitioning to your current tenure track position that you wished you had known before you started? What advice can you offer to the readers of this blog to address those challenges?SAJ: The biggest challenge in my transition to a tenure-track faculty member was the shift from being in a position where 100% of my time was devoted to research to one that required a balance of research, teaching, and service. Although I had some experience as an instructor of record as a graduate student, I knew being a tenure-track faculty member would be a different experience. After having conversations with others who made a similar transition, I developed a plan to help. It involved doing a lot of course prep in the summer before starting my position. Still, I was surprised at the amount of time it takes to prep and manage a course. My advice to readers is to start prepping a course soon after you know you will be teaching it. Don’t underestimate how much time it will take. If you are in a position where research excellence is emphasized for tenure and promotion, then be careful not to spend too much time on teaching. Yes, you should be a good instructor. But it is important, especially during your first year or two, to have an appropriate balance of research and teaching activities, so that you can demonstrate research productivity.I would also suggest that readers seek out their institution’s Center for Teaching Excellence (or similar entity) as they will likely have great resources that you could use. This is especially relevant if you have not taught a class independently before. Finally, if possible, don’t reinvent the wheel. If you are teaching a class that has been taught before, find out who has taught the course previously and see what materials (e.g., syllabus, presentation slides) they may be willing to share with you. Even if you don’t do exactly what they do, it would be a great starting point.DK: I think the biggest challenge for me was balancing the demands on my time. In graduate school, my time felt more structured. Starting at UWM, I felt I had fewer concrete demands on your time. Teaching two graduate level classes requires approximately 5 hours per week (face-to-face time) but figuring out how to balance preparing for class, ensuring you have enough productive time for research, and any other demands your first couple of years was certainly a challenge. I would guess most people receive the advice to “focus on research” but that wasn’t all that easy for me to operationally define. I think it is important for people to take the first year and try different things in your classes. Assigning a short (~2 pages) reflection paper on the readings each week may result in you reading the same number of pages per student as a 25-page term paper. You may prefer to grade everything all at once and spend that time on research during the semester, or to spend a couple hours reading things (preferably when you aren’t able to be productive research wise) weekly so that you don’t lose a larger chunk of your time grading. Structuring peer feedback activities (i.e., making this a graded class component) can also help you save your own time dealing with editing and grammatical issues. I have also found that I prefer to teach in the evening because I can spend the morning/afternoon preparing for class (or honestly 4 hours the day before, plus most of the next day during Year 1/2). And, when I am finished teaching I rarely feel like doing much else. So grading quizzes or reading reflection papers is something palatable. The next day is then yours to do with as you wish (at least theoretically).WS: I believe the biggest challenge in transitioning to my current position has been the limited amount of time I have to do what I want to do, primarily writing. There has been a steady stream of new class preps, committee meetings, orientations, trainings, program meetings, department meetings, new faculty meetings, college meetings, kick offs, student meetings, getting to know new coworkers, mentoring meetings, etc. I’m grateful that my immediate coworkers, particularly my mentor, were understanding and supportive of all the different directions I was being pulled. As uncomfortable as it was initially, I have learned to close my office door and dedicate specific time to my work. My recommendations for others is to get to work as early as possible (before everyone else), schedule writing time as if it were a class, and learn to be okay closing your door to limit distracting conversations. If it’s really important, they’ll knock.3. At most institutions, the decision to grant promotion and tenure is based upon an applicant’s accomplishments in the areas of research, teaching, and service. Many would argue that research accomplishments skew that decision. Further, many participants at ECF events frequently seek advice to remain productive with their research. Do you have any recommendations for early career faculty to ensure that they maintain active research agendas particularly in the first few years of their new position?SAJ: First and foremost, you should know your institution’s (and unit’s) Tenure & Promotion guidelines well. Then, spend your time in accordance with those guidelines. You can also consult with trusted individuals at your institution about how best to proportion your time.I have a few recommendations for maintaining research productivity. First, make time for it and engage in self-management of your time. I cannot underscore the importance about being intentional about it. Each semester, I create a list of research tasks I want to complete and by when. Each week, I make a general plan for my time, when and how much time I’m going to spend doing research, teaching, and service activities. I also keep track of my time using a program/app called Toggl (many other programs are available). I started with 3 broad categories (research, teaching, service) and then kept track of everything I did related to those categories. Each week, Toggl sends me an email with a breakdown of how I spent my time during the previous week. I review it to make sure I stay on track with my goals and adjust as necessary. It is also reinforcing when I see that I met or exceeded my research goals.Second, create short and long-term research goals, and take steps to move towards them. You may have to write a research statement when applying for a faculty job, revisit that statement, and revise it if necessary. Likewise, find a way to easily keep track of your study ideas. For example, there are programs/apps (e.g., Endnote) that like you write down your ideas on the go, and sync them across your devices. Then, follow through with your ideas. When working on one study think about what the next study would be, and then go for it.Finally, I think another key to being productive is to develop and maintain collaborative relationships with other researchers in your area. When at conferences or other events, meet people. Follow-up with them and find ways to collaborate. One great way to do this is SPRCC. I was involved in the 2017 SPRCC and would highly recommend that early career scholars apply for the next one, which will be in 2019 before the NASP convention.DK: My advice is to figure out when (and where) you are the most productive. At the end of my second year, a mid-career scholar recommended the book How to Write a Lot (Silvia, 2007), which I found to be helpful. A helpful recommendation was to experiment (as well as set behavioral goals with clear operational definitions) which really helped me increase my productivity.I write best late at night, when there are far fewer distractions. I also tend to be more productive when I write almost every day for 1-2 hours (not always attainable), rather than trying to protect two full days for “research time”. For others, the most productive space may be completely different. You may write best right away in the morning, or (for folks with children) when the house is quiet because everyone is napping. Experiment until you find something that works for you. I can write more between 10 pm and 1 am than I could between 9 to 5. Now I fill my days with things that will help me be productive at night such as clearing other stuff off my plate, preparing for class, or making time for the necessary research support activities (e.g., data cleaning, statistical analyses, reading other articles for a literature review). I also found that your calendar will fill up with stuff during the day (despite our best efforts to keep things clear) so writing in the morning before you come in or in the evening may allow you to keep that time protected.Another thing that helped me was collaborating with peers. My productivity rate significantly increased when I started collaborating with peers from graduate school, internship, folks you meet at NASP, etc. Personally, I think it makes the entire process more enjoyable and hopefully will lead to better research questions and stimulate future research as you and your collaborators think through things together.WS: In short, make research a priority! Beyond the strategies mentioned earlier, I have found activities to promote accountability have been extremely helpful in maintaining my research work. More specifically, I borrowed an activity that was modeled by my mentors at Mizzou. Shortly after arriving at Wichita State, I started a paper writing power hour (PWPH). I invited faculty and students from my department and some faculty from other departments to attend. Each Friday our PWPH group meets to set new weekly writing goals and check in on goals set the week before. PWPH is a set time each week for participants to report progress towards research writing goals. There is some accountability (stating I will do something out loud in front of others), but it serves primarily as a support system and organization tool. It also allows participants to bounce ideas of one another as well as networking and collaboration opportunities. In my case, as the organizer of the group, I believe it served to help establish my reputation as a respectable, contributing, and motivated member of my department.4. Related to the previous question, service is often viewed as an important component of one’s dossier but not as essential as research. How have you approached service at your current (or former) position so that you demonstrated you engage in service, without letting it consume all of your time?SAJ: I have been largely protected from departmental and university service at this stage of my career. The service that I have engaged in has been primarily on editorial boards and with Division 16. My strategy has been to engage in service that is enjoyable and beneficial and/or engage in service that is time limited. For instance, last year I served as a poster session rater for a university-sponsored student research conference. The time commitment was about an hour and a half and I was able to have a record of service to the university during my first year. Also, having a mentor or someone in your department that can help protect you from service is a great thing. These individuals can give you advice about how to respond to requests for serving on committees, and, if you must serve on committees, which ones would be best to serve on.DK: The senior faculty at my institution definitely kept me protected from service my first two years. Unfortunately, that may or may not be the case for everyone. If that isn’t what you are currently experiencing, my suggestion is to find a mid-career or senior faculty member (perhaps via the ECF), external to your University, that you feel comfortable asking questions to. I feel like productive senior scholars say to “just say no” to service but that is much easier said than done (at least for me). If you can get a second opinion from someone you respect, it might be much easier to say, “I’m good on committee work for now.” Your university may also have something similar (UW-Milwaukee has a confidential faculty mentoring program where I was assigned to a tenured faculty mentor during my first year).Outside of that, try to find service activities that are at least marginally related to your research. If you serve as an ad-hoc reviewer, you may find yourself reading manuscripts that are at least related to your own work (but obviously don’t overdo it). Depending on your university requirements, community service activities may include things where you can get your students in local schools providing free services under your supervision (e.g., conducting screenings, providing evidence-based interventions for struggling students). If you that leads to a relationship with the school that will allow you to conduct research in the future, then even better.WS: First, my approach to service has been to trust the advice of my department head and mentor. I have sought their input about which and how many service activities are manageable. Also, I have only involved myself in service activities that are necessary. I also recommend picking selectively and strategically if possible. If there’s a committee working on something you’re passionate about or is important to you, target it for participation. As the only tenure track faculty member in the program currently, I have been forced to attend committee meetings to represent my program. Although I have attended several committee meeting physically, I have managed to avoid leaving with any major responsibilities. Don’t hesitate to play the “new person” or “still learning” card. Thus far, my passive participation has allowed me to serve on the committee without taking on terribly taxing responsibilities as a result of this service.5. A previous ECF blog post discussed the issue of imposter syndrome. A faculty member at my (Van Norman) current institution told me when I started that in many ways I was more similar to my students than the other faculty in the department. Do you have any recommendations for new faculty members dealing with imposter syndrome, particularly as it applies to interacting, instructing, and mentoring students?SAJ: I think the blogpost on imposter syndrome has some great recommendations. It may be helpful to remind yourself that you have the knowledge and experience that comes with having a Ph.D. There is a lot that students can (and should) learn from you. For the courses you are teaching, remember that you are the expert in that topic area. And if there is something you don’t know, admit it and get back with students on the appropriate response. As for mentoring and interacting with students, I think it is important to maintain appropriate boundaries. One way to do this is to be friendly, but not be friends with your students. You can be effective in mentoring them, teaching them what they need to know without becoming a friend.DK: I myself am still learning to mentor students (particularly with research) so I’ll stick to the first two. Again, I think connecting with other assistant professors who you know might help you design courses and activities (and let’s be honest, deal with student situations) that help you decrease the negative effects of imposter syndrome…whatever those effects may be.Also, shamelessly borrow good ideas you recall from your experience as a graduate student. Think about what you liked in your classes or things your previous mentors did that you liked. Then apply your own spin to make those things yours…if it doesn’t work try something else the following week. Sometimes class doesn’t go well…I try to figure out why, adjust what I can, and move on. I also learned quickly just how different/important cohorts in your program are. So things you try Year 1 may not work nearly as well as Year 2. But, if you’re doing the best you can, in the face of all the competing demands on your time, I’m not sure what else you can do.With the exception of completing all of the coursework, completing hundreds (or more) of hours of practica in multiple settings, completing a 2,000-hour internship, potentially working in the field for some time or completing a post-doc; conducting research, and finishing your dissertation…you are more similar to the students than the senior faculty. I am not sure that’s always a bad thing. I think the challenge is more about how to convey your experiences to students in a meaningful way, rather than not knowing enough information.WS: Fake it ‘til ya make it! Unfortunately, I completely understand this feeling. Something I have struggled with, but now appreciate has been maintaining formality in student interactions. It felt pretentious to continue to have students call me “Dr. Sims.” While initially awkward, erring on the side of formality has helped me develop a new sense of identity and tamp down the uncertainty and self-doubt of imposter syndrome. I hope to get to a point when this level of formality can be abandoned with some students, particularly those that work with me outside the classroom more regularly (e.g., teaching and research assistants).6. Thank you for your time in answering these questions. Please feel free to share any parting thoughts/advice that you didn’t have a chance to discuss earlier.SAJ: One more thing I’d like to mention is that I think it is important to have strong mentorship as an early career scholar. I have been fortunate to have received great mentorship, and is part of the reason why I have been successful. As opposed to having a single mentor, I encourage readers to have network of mentors both inside and outside of your institution. They should also provide mentorship in a range of areas, for instance within and outside of your area of research. This way, you can receive mentorship from individuals with a variety of perspectives and areas of expertise.WS: Each system or organization will have its politics. Inevitably, you will find yourself in a situation that will pull you into the politics of your new program, department, college, or institution if you let it. Do all you can to steer clear of getting involved in battles between people or competing agendas that likely started long before your arrival. I will pass on some of the best advice I’ve received about the politics of a new to you job. I was advised to keep my head down, work hard, and don’t get involved. This approach has paid off. On a more positive note, find faculty friends. In your program, department, or beyond, find people that you can socialize with at and outside of work. These relationships will be invaluable over time.Thank you to the panelists for offering your insights! In concluding the blogpost, I would like to turn our readers attention to previous posts that hit upon much of themes brought up by each panelist. Namely, previous blog posts that delve deeper into the issues of politely declining requests from colleagues and administrators (i.e., giving yourself the power to say no) and managing class prep time (hint: do not spend so much time prepping for class) should be particularly helpful.The responses from the current panel offer several new insights, particularly in regards to maximizing ones time to conduct research. First, service (particularly within your university) should not be the foci of one’s efforts early on. Hopefully the faculty in your program are protecting you from time intensive commitments during your first few years. In the event where service is required beyond service to the profession (i.e., editorial board membership, state/national organizations, etc.), one should try to at least choose a task that one is passionate about and has the benefit of being high visibility/low effort. Relatedly, do not feel compelled to volunteer for additional tasks once on those committees, particularly larger college of university committees, when playing the “new” card is forgivable this early on in one’s career. Second, determining when you are most productive at writing and protecting that time is paramount. It may be reinforcing to check off an administrative or grading task from a to-do list, but adds nothing to one’s research dossier.In closing, it is important to highlight that impostor syndrome happens to almost everyone. At this stage in our careers we do not have to have every answer to every question that comes our away. We should not be afraid to seek out advice from mentors and other assistant professors to handle challenging situations as we set out on the long road to promotion and tenure.Do you have other pieces of advice? Or are you seeking advice on a topic not covered in this post? Feel free to comment below or on the ECF Facebook page!

Preventing Academic Burnout

January 24, 2017

By: Amanda B. Nickerson, Ph.D.Professor and Director, Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York“The 40-year-old burnout: Why I gave up tenure for a yet-to-be-determined career”http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-40-Year-Old-Burnout/237979/prompted Bryn and Amanda to invite me to write a blog about the topic of burnout and resiliency, which I am so pleased to do! Before describing burnout (and more importantly, things we can do to build resilience and avoid burnout), I want to give a shout out to the other excellent Early Career Forum blogs that address related topics such as work-life balance, being efficient, fostering partnerships, saying no, and academic parenthood.Burnout, a term coined by Freudenberguer (1974) and evolved from the work of Christina Maslach and colleagues; involves:·      Emotional exhaustion (feeling emotionally overextended and exhausted by work)·      Depersonalization (detachment or cynicism toward clients, students, or others served at work)·      Lack of personal accomplishment (dissatisfaction, feelings of incompetence or lack of success at work)Professionals who experience burnout often suffer from physical (headaches, fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, pain) and psychological (low self-efficacy, depression) symptoms, which can take a great personal and professional toll.Although your image of burnout may be of a checked out professor who should have retired long ago, hardworking and ambitious early career faculty members are not immune. With increasing demands for research, teaching, and service in academia, the work can seem limitless. When the semester is in full swing (and I am behind on grading and facing deadlines for grants, manuscript revisions, committee work, journal reviews, and conference presentations), I often think, “if anyone asks me to do one more thing, I might go off the deep end!” Thankfully, it hasn’t happened (yet), and I can honestly say that going into my 15th year in academia, I still love the career I have chosen. Thankfully, there are many things we can do to enhance our resilience and prevent burnout. As school psychology faculty members, you are probably familiar with many of these…and you probably teach them to others. Of course the challenges becomes to practice what we preach! Below I list a few that are most helpful for me.Reframe. You know this one – the almighty, ever-helpful cognitive restructuring (identify a maladaptive thought and instead view and experience the idea as more positive).Example: receiving a decision of Reject – Revise and Resubmit.Maladaptive thought: “I was rejected.”Reframe: [after acceptable first reaction of cursing the reviewers and feeling beaten down] “The reviewers saw merit in my work and making these revisions will make this a stronger contribution.”Find your Peeps. Surround yourself with social support. Collaboration makes the work better and more fun. The School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference is a great venue for meeting others with similar research interests. Within your department and across the country, there are people with whom you can collaborate that can make life easier and more enjoyable. Others may not be collaborators, but could be potential mentors or just coffee break buddies. I also find it helpful to engage in social media outlets that make me laugh about our shared reality (e.g., “Shit Academics Say”) or offer social support and advice (e.g. social media outlets such as “Academic Mamas” on Facebook). Having people outside of our work lives is even more important, so cherish and make time for family and friends.Work when it works.  So everyone knows that the joke about academia is that we can choose the 60 hours per week we work, but this is truly a luxury (did I mention how much I like reframing?). Some people find that carving out an hour or two each morning to write before checking e-mail or doing anything else works for them. Others can pull all-nighters to crank out a manuscript. I have learned that if I am feeling exhausted and spent, I am not productive – and when the mood strikes to work/write, I should seize it as I can be extremely productive in one hour when the timing is right.What are your “go to” strategies for self-care, building resilience, and preventing burnout? I would love to hear your thoughts. Even though I am no longer an early career faculty member, I learn a lot from the ideas, blogs, and interchanges through the Early Career Forum, so keep up the great work. It makes me optimistic about the future of school psychology with you all as emerging leaders!

Serving on an Editorial Board Pretenure

November 17, 2016

Michelle K. Demaray, Ph.D. Professor, Northern Illinois University; Editor, Journal of School PsychologyThe SSSP Early Career Forum invited me to speak to early career scholars about the editorial process at the 2016 APA convention.  I am following up on that meeting with a blog about getting involved with journal editorial boards.  To organize the blog, I wrote it around several questions that I think early career scholars may have about involvement with editorial boards.Should I be involved with a journal’s editorial board pretenure?Yes, I would recommend getting involved with an editorial board pretenure.  However, I think it is especially important to balance your time in this stage of your career.  So, serving on an editorial board should not take precedent over developing your own research program.  I can remember being frustrated at certain times pretenure because I was spending valuable time completing a review and not working on my own research.  Another consideration is if you want to serve on one or multiple boards given your time constraints – I recommend one pretenture.  If you are focusing on your research, there should be a natural progression to being involved with editorial boards as you will be invited to review given your developing expertise in your research area.  If you are able to find the balance, however, having editorial board experience may help demonstrate your leadership in the field at a national level when you go up for tenure.  It is also a great way to get to know others in the field.  Additionally, I think it is an excellent learning experience.How can I get involved with an editorial board?  Editors are always looking for good reviewers.  If you are interested in getting involved with a board, I recommend emailing or talking to an Editor and letting them know about your willingness to review and your areas of expertise.  Don’t be offended if they do not put you on the board right away.  They may ask you to serve as an ad hoc reviewer.  Serving as an ad hoc reviewer is one way to demonstrate your reviewing skills and get a “foot in the door.”  I also think it is helpful to contact Associate Editors (AE) that do work in your area and let them know that you are willing to review for them.  The AEs will be the ones inviting reviewers and would love to know of someone who is eager to review and who has expertise in a specific area.  Often AEs will pass on the names of strong ad hoc reviewers to the journal’s editor and ask for them to be added to the board.What are Associate Editors/Editors looking for in a good reviewer?  This is a broad question and the answer may vary across editors.  However, in general, I think two things are important: (a) promptness and editorial board etiquette, and (b) quality reviews.I think promptness is really important.  Associate Editors are handling many papers so they really appreciate it when someone responds to an invitation to review a manuscript quickly and turns in a review on time.  Sometimes the worst part of the job for me is finding people to agree to do the reviews or following up with people who were late.  So, being timely is much appreciated.  I also had no idea until I was an Associate Editor that all those details of your performance are tracked (e.g., how long it takes you to respond to an invite, how many times you decline invites, how many days, on average, it takes you to complete a review).  Thus, you want to be sure to perform in a timely manner if you want to continue to be utilized on the board.  Other good editorial board etiquette is to make sure you are completing the expected number of reviews in a year as a board member.  It is fine to decline invitations to review (and maybe even a good decision at times), but you do not want to over decline and not compete the expected number of reviews. Lastly, it is highly expected that you complete a review for a resubmission when you reviewed the original submission.  It can be frustrating for AEs when reviewers decline to review a resubmission because they rely on the follow up feedback from initial reviewers.  Promptness and good etiquette will make you a well-liked and utilized board member.The other really important part of being a successful reviewer is completing a quality review.  A helpful review makes the AEs job so much easier.  For me, the most helpful reviews are thorough and written in a constructive and positive tone.  It is not helpful if you are overly negative or rude in the feedback.  In fact, it is appreciated if you point out a few strengths of the manuscript.  I also find reviews that focused on many minor details (e.g., grammar and APA style) not as helpful as reviews that focused on the big picture – the overall quality of the paper--and raised specific issues or concerns in each section of the paper.After you compete a review be sure to read over the other reviewers’ comments to compare your feedback to the other reviewers.  I always find reading through the decision letters and other reviewers’ feedback an excellent learning experience. To become a better reviewer you may want to get some mentorship.  For example, have a colleague provide you feedback on your review.  Feel free to ask an Editor or AE for some sample reviewer letters that they view as a good strong examples. In addition, you are welcome to ask an AE for feedback on your review.If you are prompt and provide a quality review, I can almost guarantee that Editors will want you on their board forever!

Archived Webinar - Demystifying Academia: Faculty Roles and Opportunities

September 30, 2016

Thanks to everyone who participated in the Division 16 webinar, Demystifying Academia: Faculty Roles and Opportunities. Bryn and I were very pleased to join Prerna Arora and Jacquie Brown in talking about how to prepare for faculty positions in school psychology. If you have any questions that weren't answered during the webinar, feel free to post them in the comment section here, and we'll respond soon. Listen to the full webinar here.

Battling Imposter Syndrome in Academia

June 16, 2016

By guest blogger, Ima Syke Many months ago, following a reader request, I was tapped to guest blog on the topic of Imposter Syndrome (cue internal voice asking, “Am I worthy of writing this post? Did they ask me to write it because they know I don’t belong here? How did they figure me out?”). I’ve been assured the invitation had nothing to do with anyone’s perceptions of my inadequacy but rather a belief that I could do a great job and hopefully help many others similarly plagued by this type of pesky internal monologue. So here goes…Imposter Syndrome is generally defined as a collection of feelings of inadequacy that are prevalent despite success. Researchers have found this is more prevalent among women, graduate students, academics and interestingly, among those with evident success. This topic interested me for personal reasons; I have battled with aspects of Imposter Syndrome for years. While this is not a DSM diagnosis, it has impacted my career in academia in various ways. Let me give you a few examples from my professional life, hopefully others can relate.Recently, I sat in a meeting with a group of fellow academics as we prepare to write a large-scale collaborative grant. As I hear what other people can contribute to the data collection, writing the grant and other key aspects of this work, I wonder, “What can I contribute that others can’t?” and “My section will not be nearly as strong as theirs” and countless other comments revolving around self-doubt that ran through my mind. In other situations, I have remained silent during conversations that directly relate to my teaching or research for fear of “intellectual fraudulence.” And don’t even get me started regarding reading vitas! Others with Imposter Syndrome may feel like “luck” has more to do with their success than ability, or they may downplay their success. While I logically know that these behaviors hinder my productivity, collaborative relationships, and ultimately my perception in academia, I also never knew how to change these feelings until working on this blog post.Like any good academic, I started my assignment by doing research (i.e., investigating what has already been written on this topic). Perhaps unsurprisingly, Imposter Syndrome has been addressed in numerous academic magazines and blogs because it is all too common. Below are some strategies I have found in the literature for battling Imposter Syndrome.Recognize it within yourself and in others. Imposter Syndrome does not necessarily relate to low self-esteem or confidence; these are two different issues. If you suffer from chronic self-doubt and feelings of intellectual fraudulence, these are signs that you are battling Imposter Syndrome. If you see these traits in others, acknowledge what you see and allow for conversation on this topic.Regularly remind yourself of your accomplishments. Create lists or email folders of accomplishments and refer to them when these feelings of inadequacy strike. Part of Imposter Syndrome is the inability to internalize accomplishments, even when highly successful.Become keenly aware of your strengths. Learn what you excel in and utilize these abilities often, especially in collaborative relationships. This will heighten feelings related to your usefulness and contribution. Utilize others to help you with this task as it may be challenging for some to identify personal accomplishments.Discuss Imposter Syndrome with your students. Recognize patterns within the classroom (such as comments from students that may indicate these feelings) and have open discussions about this topic. Furthermore, talk with your students about how you overcame your own doubts or how you are still working to overcome them.Seek support. People who have Imposter Syndrome may find benefit in seeking therapy to improve their coping mechanisms. Group therapy might be particularly beneficial as relating to others and their experiences and coping strategies can be powerful.If you are interested in learning more about how to overcome this problem, Academic Coaching and Writingis offering a free webinar, Managing Imposter Syndrome in Academia, on June 30th, 2016.Additional resources on this topic:Feel Like a Fraud by Kirsten Weir in APA’s gradPSYCH MagazineFaking It: Women, Academic, and Impostor Syndrome by Kate Bahn in VitaeThe Imposter Syndrome, or, as my Mother told me: “Just Because Everyone Else is an Asshole, it Doesn’t Make you a Fraud” by Phyllis Rippeyoung for The Professor Is In‘I’m not worthy!’ – Imposter Syndrome in Academia by Jay Daniel Thompson for The Research WhispererAn Academic With Imposter Syndrome by Joseph Kasper in the Chronicle of Higher EducationDo you have any further coping strategies for imposter syndrome? What works – and doesn’t work – for you? Don’t be afraid to share. You are not alone.

Give Yourself the Gift of No

December 14, 2015As an early career scholar, you have a finite amount of time so there reaches a point where saying yes to one thing means saying no to another—or where you risk overburdening yourself to the point where your performance in many or all areas of work suffers.  Saying yes to x often means less time for y. This becomes problematic when x is a nonessential, unwanted task and y is a highly valued or necessary task (e.g., writing).  Ideally, such decisions are driven by your professional and personal goals in conjunction with institutional expectations, especially if you are concerned about promotion and tenure. Maintaining any sense of balance in one’s professional roles and with one’s personal life will likely require accepting that we cannot and do not have to do everything. Often, this requires releasing ourselves of unrealistic expectations of personal perfection and pleasing everyone around us. Further, protecting the time needed to do well the things you need and want to do will require learning to say no to other nonessential opportunities and tasks.Learning to say no first requires identifying your priorities so that you can easily identify requests and opportunities inconsistent with those priorities. After identifying priorities it can be helpful to build time for necessary and desired tasks into you schedule and calendar. Just as you block out time for commitments to others (e.g., class, advising appointments, committee meetings), you should schedule time for commitments to yourself to better account for your time and to ensure necessary or desired tasks do not fall by the wayside. This is especially important with research and writing time since these are often the first to be sacrificed when faced with competing demands. For many scholars, these are also the highest priority. I routinely schedule writing time on my calendar. Treating these times as nonnegotiable helps to ensure you don't abandon this priority. Few of us would accept competing appointments when we are scheduled to teach, but it is not uncommon to accept competing appointments when we plan to write even though it is counterproductive in both the short and long term.For those who have difficulty saying no, I have a colleague who admitted she notates writing time on her calendar as meetings with administrators so that others who view her calendar won't consider infringing on the time and to remind herself of the importance of these appointments. A similar strategy may work for you if you are concerned that your commitment to research time won't be accepted or respected by colleagues. The important thing is to carefully guard your time so that other activities don't crowd out your priorities and prevent you from being productive and efficient.Another strategy that can make it easier to say no is giving yourself a minimum amount of time to consider any request or invitation. For instances, I know other EC scholars who wait at least 24 hours before responding to invitation or request for time or involvement. This disrupts an otherwise automatic tendency to say yes to everything and provides the time needed to reflect on whether an opportunity or request is consistent with one’s priorities and availability. Rather than blindly saying yes to everything, consider the potential benefits and costs, including the impact on your other work. Mentors and more senior scholars can provide valuable guidance in this decision process.You will also have to accept the need to practice pleasantly and unapologetically saying no. Some people are incredibly uncomfortable with the possibility of disappointing others or are so conflict-avoidant they would rather say yes to everything than risk that discomfort, only to fall short on their own goals. Still others are motivated by some mistaken belief that they are so important that others need them to the point that they cannot say no. This is very rarely the case. Once you've accepted that there are times when you can and should say no, do so simply and unapologetically. It's okay to say no without offering any more justification than you are simply unavailable. That is generally all the requester needs or is entitled to know. Practice saying, "Thank you for the invitation, but I am not available at this time." Or "Thank you for this opportunity, but I'm unavailable." When justification is needed, it can be helpful to link you refusal to you job duties or tenure expectations, or to have a senior colleague--generally your program or area coordinator-- back up your decision (e.g., "My program coordinator advised me against taking on additional service activities at this time."). Certainly some individuals may make requests that you shouldn't refuse, but don't assume every request they make is one of those. Instead, ask for time to consult with your colleagues and verify your availability and then speak with more senior colleagues and/or you program/area coordinator who can help you evaluate the request, and, when appropriate, plan your refusal. At times, your coordinator may want to say no on your behalf depending on who the requester is in order to more convincingly state your need to focus on your priorities.Another helpful strategy for people who tend to reflexively say yes is to remind yourself that no is the default decision unless you can identify sufficient professional or personal benefits to saying yes. For a few years, I posted a small note on my computer that read, "Just say no." For me this visual reminder was needed to counter my knee jerk reaction to accept every research and service opportunity that came my way. In the end, it saved me a lot of unwanted stress and time.In the end, learning and practicing saying no is necessary to bring strategic in managing your time and commitments.  Time management is key to being efficient and productive and avoiding overextension and burnout.  Chances are you'll enjoy your work more when you are judicious with your time. Be kind to yourself by giving the gift of allowing yourself to say no when appropriate.