Results for Tier 2 Chairs Transition Survey

The majority of Tier 2 Canada Research Chairs will complete their second term within the next few years. To better understand the two-tier system’s impact on the attraction and retention of emerging researchers, the Chairs Secretariat is committed to working with institutions to monitor the career paths of these Tier 2 Chairs as they transition into new roles and responsibilities within their respective institutions.

In February 2015, the Chairs Secretariat conducted a short survey with participating institutions to identify specific practices and challenges they face with regards to the transition and retention of Tier 2 chairholders following their second terms.

The Chairs Secretariat wishes to sincerely thank all of the institutions that took the time to respond to the survey. A summary of the results and key findings can be found below:

1. Descriptive Results

• Seventy-three institutions were approached; the response rate was 63 per cent, with 46 institutions completing the survey.
• Twenty-four per cent of the respondents were large^{Footnote 1} institutions, 15 per cent were medium institutions and 61 per cent were small institutions.

2. Discussing a Transition Plan with Tier 2 Chairholders

• Regardless of size, the majority of institutions (65 per cent) reported discussing the issue of transition with their Tier 2 chairholders at some point during their two terms.
• Large and medium institutions tend to hold such discussions at various times during a Chair’s two terms, but the majority of small institutions do so during the second term.
• The majority of small and medium institutions consider such discussions important in establishing a plan for career progression and development, balancing workload between teaching and research, and identifying alternate sources of research funding.
• The majority of large institutions, on the other hand, believe such discussions are primarily important in managing long-term expectations among Tier 2 Chairs.
• At large institutions, discussions about Tier 2 Chair transitions seem to be held mainly by faculty deans and department heads, with vice-presidents of research filling the same role at small institutions. Among medium institutions, discussions are split between department heads and vice-presidents of research.
• The discussions mainly focus on issues of salary and on changes to teaching responsibilities following the completion of the Tier 2 Chairs’ second term. At medium and large institutions, the discussion also includes Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP) rules on advancement, as well as the availability of, and policies surrounding, advancement opportunities at the institution.

3. Planning and Implementing Tier 2 Chair Transitions

• Half the institutions reported that the transition process of their Tier 2 Chairs following the end of their 10-year term is informally managed on a case-by-case basis with a given chairholder. 
• In 43 per cent of medium institutions and 55 per cent of large institutions, individual departments and faculties manage the transition through an ad-hoc plan.

• Tier 2 chairholders and possibilities of advancement
  • One-third of the institutions reported that they allow advancement of Tier 2 Chairs to Tier 1 positions. On the other hand, 15 per cent of the institutions reported that while they do not proactively encourage advancement of Tier 2 Chairs to Tier 1 positions, they do informally allow such moves.
  • Thirteen per cent of the institutions reported that allowing advancement depends primarily on the availability of a vacant Tier 1 position.
  • The majority of institutions reported that the quality of the Chair's research and track record are taken into consideration while making the decision for advancement.
  • One-third of the institutions reported that they would consider advancing a Tier 2 Chair to a Tier 1 position if that chair’s research continued to be aligned with the institution’s strategic priorities.
• Special programs and positions for Tier 2 chairholders following their second term
  • When asked whether they already have, or plan to create, any special programs or specific positions to support the transition process for Tier 2 Chairs, 48 per cent of the institutions reported they either have not created such programs and positions, or they have no such plans at this time.
  • The remaining 52 per cent reported they would consider creating, or have already created, such programs/positions.
  • Out of this 52 per cent, almost half reported that they either have created, or are planning to create, an institutional equivalent of a CRC to accommodate transitioning Tier 2 Chairs. The majority of respondents indicating such plans or existing positions were from large and medium institutions.
  • More than a thirty per cent of these institutions reported that while they have no special programs or positions currently in place, the topic merits further discussion.
  • Asked whether they currently provide, or plan to provide, additional support— beyond that normally provided to faculty members—to facilitate Tier 2 chairholders’ transition, more than half of the institutions reported they have no such plans, and that any  form of support would be offered on a competitive basis and open to all faculty members.
  • Almost 25 per cent, however, would consider providing Tier 2 chairholders protected time to continue their research with minimal disruption.
• Leaving Institutions after the second term
  • Only three institutions reported that a Tier 2 chairholder had left their institution following the completion of their second term. (Note: This low attrition rate corresponds with the results of an internal analysis conducted by the Chairs Secretariat, which showed that the majority of Tier 2 chairs stay at their host institutions after their second terms).

4. Challenges Faced by Institutions in Facilitating Tier 2 Chairholders’ Transition

Institutions identified several challenges in facilitating the transition of Tier 2 Chairs following their second term, namely:

• covering salary stipends, research allocation and offering teaching breaks, given limited institutional resources;
• increases in teaching responsibilities impacting the time available to conduct research; and
• managing the long-term expectations of Tier 2 Chairs.

See Figure 1 for more detail on the challenges identified by the institutions.

5. Lessons Learned Regarding Tier 2 Chairs’ Transition

Respondents listed the following lessons learned:

• A proactive plan is important in managing the transition process for Tier 2 Chairs.
• To better manage expectations, Tier 2 Chairs must be made aware, early in the process, of their roles and responsibilities following the completion of their terms.
• Institutions should consider possible approaches to help transitioning Tier 2 Chairs maintain momentum and ensure continued productivity following the completion of their second term. Possible approaches could include providing alternate means of formally recognizing the achievements of their highly-qualified Tier 2 researchers, and/or encouraging a gradual return to teaching duties.

Note: Institutions are encouraged to develop a succession plan for their Tier 2 Chairs. In keeping  with the principles of fairness and transparency, institutions should establish clear criteria that determine whether a chair will be nominated for renewal and/or advancement to a Tier 1 Chair, and communicate these criteria to all chairholders at the beginning of their terms.

See Figure 2 below for additional details on the “lessons learned.”