oct08b.indd


the
way
I
see
it


Kathleen A. Hanna, Ann O’Bryan, Kevin F. Petsche 

Our excellent adventure 
A
somewhat
irreverent
look
at
how
three
tenure
track
librarians
prepared

their
dossiers
and
lived
to
tell
about
it



We are tenure track librarians at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianap­
olis (IUPUI) University Library who formed a 
“Dossier Support Group” to help 1) streamline 
the intensive tenure dossier writing process, 
2) navigate the convoluted—and constantly 
changing—dossier preparation guidelines 
and routing procedures, and 3) provide mu­
tual support during the months leading up to 
the submission of our final documentation in 
the summer of 2007. 

We also bought weekly lottery tickets be­
cause, well, everybody needs a backup plan. 

Come together, right now 
We began the tenure track at the IUPUI Uni­
versity Library at approximately the same time 
and, as “classmates” discovered, we often had 
similar questions about writing our annual 
reviews, the third­year review (a sort of mini 
tenure dossier), and facets of the promotion 
and tenure (P&T) processes. Our informal 
discussions evolved into a more organized 
support group that met over lunch several 
times in the months leading up to our third­
year reviews; we found that our combined 
strengths were beneficial to all of us. We noted 
questions needing clarification, pooled our 
information resources (people, documents, 
etc.), and compared notes. Also, we found 
that just getting together created a supportive, 
encouraging environment. We reconstituted 
the support group in February 2007 as we 
prepared to tackle our tenure dossiers. 

Pros, cons 
Getting together gave us a chance to vent 
our frustrations and anxieties, find humor in 

the midst of stress, and just plain social­
ize. We decided right from the start to buy 
lottery tickets, contributing a dollar once 
or twice a week (the Hoosier Lottery has 
twice­weekly drawings). We were giddy 
with visions of striking it rich, being pro­
filed in the local media as “that group of 
librarians” who won millions, and retiring 
before having to complete and submit our 
dossiers. Being somewhat mathematically 
challenged, we knew our hopes for wealth 
were slim, especially since Kevin Petsche 
volunteered to purchase tickets and he’d 
never played the lottery in his life. 

The support group did have its draw­
backs. We were sometimes intimidated 
because everyone else’s accomplishments 
sounded so much more impressive than 
our own and, although we could share 
information and experiences, we could not 
actively collaborate on the actual writing 
of our dossiers. Sadly, we also lost one 
of our “classmates” to another academic 
library by mid­summer. We thought this a 
rather extreme measure to take to avoid 
completing a dossier. 

If you can keep your wits about you 
Tenure­seeking librarians on the IUPUI 
campus are required to adhere to the In­

Kathleen A. Hanna is professional programs/Center 
for Teaching and Learning assistant librarian, e-mail: 
kgreatba@iupui.edu, Ann O’Bryan is bibliographic 
and metadata services associate librarian, e-mail: 
aobr yan@iupui.edu, Kevin F. Petsche is head of 
acquisitions, e-mail: kpetsche@iupui.ed, at Indiana 
University-Purdue University Indianapolis 
© 2008 Kathleen A. Hanna, Ann O’Bryan, Kevin F. Petsche 

C&RL News October 2008  554 

mailto:kpetsche@iupui.ed
mailto:aobryan@iupui.edu
mailto:kgreatba@iupui.edu


diana
University
Purdue
University
India­
napolis
 Dean
 of
 the
 Faculties’
 Guidelines

for
 Preparing
 and
 Reviewing
 Promotion

and
 Tenure
 Dossiers,
 reviewed and up­
dated annually by a campus committee, 
which normally has at least one librarian 
as a member. Due to the appointment of a 
new dean of faculties and multiple incon­
sistencies in the guidelines, the document 
was in continual flux during the months 
we were preparing our dossiers. 

The Guidelines attempt to separate 
criteria for teaching faculty and librarians, 
but inadequately addresses the very real 
distinctions between them. For example, 
teaching faculty are evaluated on “research, 
scholarship, and creative activity” versus 
the librarians’ “professional development” 
activities. Also, the format for the
curricu­
lum
 vitae for librarians turned out to be 
our “best guess” as to how to satisfy the 
P&T committee’s requirements and still 
represent the complexity of a librarian’s 
accomplishments and contributions. 

In a sharp departure from previous 
procedures, the new IUPUI dean of facul­
ties wanted all dossiers to include solic­
ited letters from external reviewers from 
comparable institutions—a practice that 
is becoming routine, although generally 
these reviewers are paid an honorarium. 
Letters were also solicited from the deans 
of schools on the IUPUI campus to whom 
we three act as liaisons. The deans needed 
to pass this chore along to their colleagues, 
since we normally work with the teaching 
faculty of schools and departments, rather 
than the deans. 

To add to our shock and awe, the IU­
PUI librarians were debating whether to 
change dossier routing procedures to end 
the practice of sending our dossiers to an 
all­campus librarian review committee at 
the main campus in Bloomington (we’re 
tenured on our own campus only and not 
IU system wide). The routing procedure 
finally ended up as: 

• University Library Primary Peer Re­
view Committee 

• Team Leader (immediate supervisor) 
• IUPUI Librarians Promotion and Ten­

ure Committee 
• Dean of University Library 

Continued by the usual routing of all 
faculty dossiers: 

• Campus Promotion and Tenure Com­
mittee IUPUI Dean of Faculties 

• IUPUI Vice President/Chancellor 
• IU Office of the President 
• IU Board of Trustees 

We did have the option of submitting 
our dossiers under the Guidelines in effect 
at the time we received our appointment, 
but no one could fi nd them. 

It was at this point the Dossier Support 
Group decided it would hold its meetings 
across the street at the sports bar. 

One associate dean offered more helpful 
advice: focus on the content of the dossier 
that we could control and deal with format­
ting and other specific issues later. 

You can hide, but you can’t run 
All three of us have multiple team responsi­
bilities—which include instruction, supervi­
sion, technology, and special projects—so 
writing and compiling our dossiers was not 
an urgent “to do” item until we could no 
longer avoid it. The daily workload doesn’t 
grind to a halt simply because you have 
“just one more thing” to do. 

Our coping strategies included: 
• Understanding from the outset that 

this is by nature a drawn out, stressful, and 
normal event in a tenure­track librarian’s 
career. It’s important to maintain (or adopt) 
positive habits that facilitate riding it out 
with health and humor intact. 

• Pooling questions about the dossier 
process, preparation guidelines and proto­
cols, and designating one group member 
to seek out the answers and report back 
at the next meeting or via e­mail. 

• Investing heavily in prewriting prepa­
ration time to gather documentation (often 

October 2008  555 C&RL News 



scattered in folders and electronic fi les) 
and reread annual reviews from the past fi ve 
years. This often resulted in mutterings such 
as, “I don’t remember giving that conference 
presentation in ’02 . . . .” 

• Obtaining permission to read the suc­
cessful dossiers of previously tenured librar­
ians to get a feel for how people with varied 
position descriptions highlighted different 
aspects of their careers. 

• Chunking dossier content into smaller 
sections and tackling the easiest parts fi rst. 
This allowed us to work on some areas of 
our dossiers during short spans of time, as 
our schedules permitted. It proved especially 
helpful while writing our vitae and during the 
polishing phase of writing. 

• Temporarily cutting back on some ser­
vice or professional development activities, 
such as meetings or conferences that required 
out­of­state travel. This proved fairly easy to 
do during the summer months. 

• Sequestering ourselves in our offi ces by 
blocking out full or half days on our calendars 
and selectively declining meetings, allowing 
phone calls to go to voice mail, and closing 
Outlook e­mail. We were a tad miffed to 
discover that no one really seemed to notice 
we were missing. 

• Working from home. (Kevin Petsche 
excelled in this environment in which he 
communed with nature from his back porch, 
drank unlimited cups of coffee, and worked 
in his jammies.) 

Thank you for your support 
IUPUI libraries provide several support 
structures for newly appointed librarians as 
they begin their careers and move through 
the P&T process. 

We begin by identifying a mentor, who can 
be someone within our team department or 
library, or from outside our unit. Some of us 
found that a mentor outside our immediate 
team was more helpful in that we were con­
tinuously challenged to explain the choices 
we made for our activities along our career 
path. This helped to keep us focused on our 
professional visions. 

We are required to submit a formal annual 
review and a third­year cumulative review, 
which are immensely helpful in providing peer 
feedback and direction. It also allows us to 
stay in sync with our supervisor’s expectation 
of excellence in performance. 

The chairs of the University Library Primary 
Peer Review Committee and IUPUI Librarians 
Promotion and Tenure Committee are always 
available to answer questions on dossier con­
tent and formatting and the review process. 

Moreover, at least once a year, the IUPUI 
Librarians Promotion and Tenure Committee 
gives presentations on the P&T process and 
structuring the dossier. These workshops help 
keep us informed about changing expectations 
requirements as well as campus and university 
trends for our dossiers. 

That group of librarians: lessons 
learned 

• Don’t get so caught up in the require­
ments of daily job performance that you lose 
track of professional goals. It’s important to 
begin thinking about career direction and the 
dossier that will result at the end of the proba­
tionary period starting from Day One. 

• Take advantage of opportunities for 
feedback from colleagues. It’s natural for this 
evaluative process to feel intimidating, espe­
cially with so much riding on the outcome, 
but view the process as helpful, rather than 
punitive. Ask that such feedback be in writ­
ing. (This is also a professional courtesy that 
candidates should offer others.). 

• Don’t be shy about asking for feedback 
from teaching faculty in the form of letters 
and e­mails. Letters that specifi cally address 
the librarian’s contribution or a measurable 
impact are most useful. 

• Save all documentation that might be 
even remotely useful in building your case and 
keep it organized in one location. Anything 
having to do with job performance is obvious, 
but messages highlighting specifi c exemplary 
work or appreciation of professional service 
activities are also important. 

• Buy lottery tickets, because, well, you 
never know! 

C&RL News October 2008  556