new standards,
new confusion?
New University Standards for tenure and promotion were approved by the URC in November 2025. We encourage you to examine and assess these new standards carefully in the context of your own department and/or college standards.
a higher bar
Although the university standards are supposed to be the minimum, the new standards have created higher bars in more than one category. This situation is likely to cause problems because there is sometimes confusion about how to proceed when standards at different levels conflict. The Collective Agreement stipulates that approved department standards take precedence over college standards and approved college standards take precedence over university standards. Keep this in mind as your unit makes changes to and applies your own current standards.
Below, we outline just a few of the changes to University Standards of which you should be aware.
Category 2. Teaching Ability and Performance
The 2025 University Standards introduce a new expectation for Category 2: candidates “should highlight reflection and iterative growth” in their self assessment. This phrase is undefined, which will likely lead to inconsistent application. Decide in advance what your unit will accept as evidence of “iterative” growth. For current assessments, document explicitly what you have accepted as evidence of that growth in each candidate’s performance. When revising your standards, define clearly what will count as acceptable evidence going forward.
The 2025 Standards also introduce new specific requirements by rank in Category 2.
Tenure as Assistant Professor or Assistant Professor of Teaching: For tenure to be recommended, there must be compelling evidence of satisfactory teaching performance beyond that expected at appointment. The evidence will demonstrate a commitment to performance that is consistent with the University’s intent to provide excellent academic programs. The evidence will demonstrate ongoing professional development and reflexivity for teaching improvement.
If University Standards might be applied by the CRC or URC (if, for example, your college standards do not specify particular requirements for evidence), consider such uncertainties as: what if the candidate was appointed specifically because they were an excellent teacher at the point of appointment? How is satisfactory performance beyond that to be measured?
Tenure as or Promotion to Associate Professor or Associate Professor of Teaching: For the award of tenure or promotion to be recommended, the evidence will demonstrate a record of performance that is consistent with the University’s commitment to providing excellent academic programs above that expected at the rank of Assistant Professor or Assistant Professor of Teaching, as appropriate. The evidence will demonstrate that the candidate is knowledgeable of current developments in their respective discipline(s), and in the field of teaching and learning and ongoing professional development and reflexivity for teaching improvement.
Consider how a candidate demonstrates consistency with the university’s commitment to providing excellent academic programs. What is the relationship between teaching a class and delivering a program in this context? How would a candidate demonstrate a record of performance above what is expected at their own rank as Assistant Professor? Consider what is appropriate in terms of the requirement for a candidate to perform at a higher level than is expected for their own rank. Consider as well: how extensive must a candidate’s knowledge in the field of teaching and learning be, beyond mastery of their own?
Tenure as or Promotion to Professor or Professor of Teaching: For the award of tenure or promotion to be recommended, the evidence will demonstrate a record of performance that is consistent with the University’s commitment to providing excellent academic programs above that expected at the rank of Associate Professor or Associate Professor of Teaching, as appropriate. The evidence will demonstrate that the candidate is contributing to the University’s commitment to offer excellent instructional programs. The evidence will demonstrate that the candidate is knowledgeable of current developments in their respective discipline(s), and in the field of teaching and learning, and demonstrates the implementation of this knowledge in teaching performance.
As above. Consider as well whether your unit distinguishes between “consistent with the University’s commitment to providing excellent academic programs” and “contributing to the University’s commitment to offer excellent instructional programs.” In assessments, be explicit in terms of your unit’s expectations.
evidence deemed
necessary
Category 4. Research, Scholarly and/or Artistic Work
A significant change was introduced in the 2025 University Standards for RSAW. 2011 Standards state that: “the primary and essential evidence in this category is publication in reputable peer-reviewed outlets or, in the case of performance or artistic work, presentation in reputable peer-reviewed venues.” 2025 Standards state that: “Primary and essential sources of evidence are indicated and deemed necessary.”
This is a fundamental change to our standards for tenure and promotion, with wide-ranging implications. “Primary and essential” evidence is that which represents a fundamental core of RSAW activity; adding “deemed necessary” means now that those activities are absolutely required, without exception.
In the new standards, primary and essential evidence “must include,” in the case of Artistic Work, “Presentation in appropriate peer-reviewed venues such as exhibitions and performances and publications” (all three?). In the case of Research and Scholarly Work, it must include “Publication in appropriate peer-reviewed outlets.” The change from “reputable” to “appropriate” may at first glance seem to add flexibility or inclusivity. But who determines what is appropriate? and how do they make that determination? There is no clear external standard to determine appropriateness: this vagueness permits a committee to find fault, even with reputable venues.
secondary evidence
Another change with significant repercussions is the relegation of many different kinds of work and output to a “secondary” position. The new Table III explicitly excludes from what is “deemed necessary” numerous outputs that are currently acceptable on their own in department and college standards: patents, IP, copyrighted materials, software, web-based content, teaching or training materials derived from research, and so on. This change appears to raise the bar for RSAW in a number of units since it is in addition to what is deemed necessary. For example, Computer Science standards for tenure and for promotion to Associate state: “If there are no accepted papers arising from this research there must be other unequivocal evidence of productive research at the University of Saskatchewan such as papers presented at meetings, technical reports, patents or copyrights obtained as a result of research, or theses written under the faculty member’s supervision.” Another example is the recently approved College of Education Standards that now conflict: “For work to be considered towards this standard, it must usually be shared in the public realm (exceptions to sharing in the public realm may include embargos, safeguarding participants, etc. which the candidate can outline) – in print or in other appropriate media (including oral transmission) – and subject to external peer review (which can be described in more detail by the candidate).”
Secondary suggests “less than.” What weight will be put on primary versus secondary evidence when colleges and departments do not differentiate between them?
The table also lists “Additional secondary evidence for Indigenous and/or community engaged work,” including “Publication or other forms of dissemination of research findings that demonstrate the impact of the research with Indigenous Peoples and/or community(ies).” This statement explicitly relegates such work to lesser standing in an explicitly hierarchical model of knowledge production and dissemination, one that many units have been moving away from in this university’s efforts toward reconciliation.
promotion to full professor
The addition of a sentence to Category 4 and Category 5 essentially states that a U of S standard is that not everyone will be promoted to the rank of full professor: “Promotion to this rank is neither automatic nor based on years of service.” How this will play out in application is uncertain, but should not promotion be “automatic” if the standards have been met? Distinguishing promotion to Professor (not automatic) from promotion to Associate Professor indicates that cases will be examined in a different way at different ranks. The language leaves “automatic” open to interpretation: it can mean the same as “inevitable,” or “assured,” or “certain.” In what situations is promotion not certain, given that the standards are met?
minimum acceptable standards
Going forward: in developing and applying standards at all levels, you should pay close attention to Article 15.10 of the Collective Agreement.
The Collective Agreement specifies that “the criteria for the award of tenure may differ from department to department and from College to College as a result of conditions that are internal and external to the University. In all cases, the University standards are the minimum acceptable standards of performance.” The higher University Standards should not trigger colleges and departments to raise their own standards in accordance. Because you are the experts in your own discipline, your unit’s own standards should be the most exacting, and should conform with your own disciplinary expectations and outcomes. This is why the Agreement specifies that “different standards may be set by departments and Colleges in keeping with their own particular circumstances.”
what takes precedence
The Collective Agreement also specifies that approved department standards take precedence over college standards, and approved college standards take precedence over university standards. “Takes precedence over” means that, where one standard conflicts with another, the approved standards of the lower unit prevail. However, there appears to be some confusion about what this language means.
To be clear, take, as an example, Category 6: “Contributions to the Administrative or Extension Responsibilities of the Department, College, University.”
College standards specify that:
the candidate must have made contributions at the department, the college, and university levels.
Department standards specify that:
contributions at the college level are a minimum requirement, while serving as chair of a college committee or as a member of a university committee can indicate superior performance.
In this scenario, department standards apply and there is no requirement for service above the college level because the approved department standards take precedence.
Negative outcomes for tenure and promotion cases are possible due to conflicting expectations in university, college, and department standards.
Please take some time to read the new standards and consider your unit’s approach to advising candidates and making these important decisions as these processes play out through the upcoming academic year.