You've read the tenure criteria, but a few phrases still feel like they were written for people who already know the answer. You need a conversation that makes the expectations clearer, without turning department folklore into a second rulebook.
The handbook recommends asking chairs and experienced colleagues focused questions. Bring the official guidance and a few examples from your work. Use six questions to move past 'Am I doing enough?'
1. What would useful evidence look like for this criterion?
Point to a particular requirement and ask how reviewers can understand it through your work. A teaching criterion might call for more context than a table of student feedback. A research criterion may need an explanation of your contribution to a joint project.
2. How should I explain my publication choices?
Ask what information helps readers assess the relevance and contribution of outlets in your field. Bring an actual journal or publication type to discuss. Avoid converting an illustrative example into a universal minimum or preferred list unless the applicable guidance establishes one.
3. Which teaching evidence should I begin collecting now?
Ask about required observations, evaluations, course records, and other permitted evidence. Some materials take time to arrange. Find out who initiates the process and what documentation is retained.
4. How should service fit my current assignment?
Discuss the expected scope and where your contribution would be useful. Ask about the time required before agreeing to a role. If new duties are added, clarify how they relate to existing responsibilities and the record you'll be expected to explain.
5. Which advice should I check against current procedures?
Colleagues can offer valuable experience, especially when they know the recent process. But an earlier successful review may have followed different instructions. Ask where to verify a point that seems inconsistent with the written guidance.
6. What should I work on before our next check-in?
End with a priority you can act on and a realistic time to revisit it. Ask for clarification if the recommendation stays broad. 'Explain this contribution more clearly' and 'develop more evidence' call for different next steps.
Bring one example that makes the uncertainty visible
If you're unsure how to describe collaborative work, bring a short account of your role in a real project. If teaching evidence is the issue, bring the claim you want to support and the materials you currently have. A concrete example gives the chair something to assess beyond your general level of confidence.
You can ask whether the problem is the work, the evidence, or the explanation. Those answers lead to different actions. An unclear paragraph may need revision; a missing required observation may need to be arranged; a developing project may need a realistic milestone.
Keep the conversation focused on understanding expectations rather than obtaining a promise about the eventual decision. A chair's advice can guide planning without substituting for the formal review. Before leaving, identify the next action you will take and any point that still needs confirmation from the office responsible for the procedure.
After the conversation, write down what you understood, which points were advice, and which requirements were confirmed. Send a short recap where useful. Reassurance can be encouraging, but a clear action list will help you make the next month count.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, pp. 24-25.
