1

Preparing Promotion and Tenure Files

A Workshop for Department Heads, Office

Managers, and Key Support Staff

Office of Academic AffairsBarbara Altmann15 January, 2013

Materials presented are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute official University rules, policies or practices, or interpretations or summaries of such rules, policies or practices. No warranties or representations are made as to the accuracy of any information presented. Any discrepancy between the information presented here and the official rules and policies of the University of Oregon and the Oregon University System is not intended to and does not alter or amend the official rules and policies.

Starting points Most tenure and promotion cases at UO are

successful

Preparation for tenure and promotion begins with hire

Annual and third-year reviews for untenured faculty are crucial

Good mentoring matters

May 14, 2008 Promotion & Tenure 101 2

3

P&T Process and Timetable

Dept. Review•Personnel committee: (usually) report and (often) vote

•Vote by voting faculty (signed, secret ballot)

•Dept. head: report and recommendation

School/College Review•Personnel committee (elected) report and vote

•Dean: report and recommendation

University Review

•Faculty Personnel Committee (elected) : report and vote

•Provost: review and decision

Early Fall

Late Fall/ Early Winter

Winter/Spring

Anticipated decision: May 1 (legal date: June 15)Tenure cases: alwaysPromotions only: almost always

Preliminary Work •Candidate prepares file

•Identification and solicitation of external reviewers

Spring

4

SEPTEMBER 15 • Due date for all deans to submit to Academic Affairs, a list of those in the school/college being considered for promotion and/or tenure.

• Subsequent revisions may be made

• Upon receipt of list, Academic Affairs delivers sets of binders to each school/college to be filled with the required elements of the case  

• Each binder should contain identical information • Completed red, blue and green binders are delivered to Academic Affairs with supplemental materials for the case. Black binders are kept for the school/college   

NOVEMBER 15 • Due date for completed files and supporting materials from departments in the College Arts and Sciences to be submitted to the Dean. 

Timetable

5

Timetable (continued)

 NOVEMBER 30• Due date for all units (excluding CAS) to submit to Academic Affairs, files and materials involving sixth-year cases and other cases where a negative decision would lead to giving a terminal notice

• Note that each unit may have its own earlier deadline for internal review   

 JANUARY 15• Deadline for all units (excluding CAS) to submit completed files and supplemental materials to Academic Affairs

• Note that each unit may have its own earlier deadline for internal review  

 MARCH 15• Deadline for the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) to submit completed files and supplemental materials to Academic Affairs 

• Note that CAS may have its own earlier deadlines for internal review

 

6

7

Candidate’s Statement

• Personal statement of scholarly, scientific, professional or artistic accomplishments, goals, and plans

• Written for evaluation by faculty colleagues outside the candidate’s field

• Describes how recent scholarly, professional, or artistic activities relate to long-term goals

• Addresses how activities in the areas of research, teaching, and service are integrated

• Five pages or so

• Needs to be signed and dated

8

Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae

• Education• Include title of dissertation and name of supervisor if Ph.D. was earned

• Professional experience• Honors• Grants• Publications

• List all coauthors in the same order as on the publication• Exact titles• Inclusive page numbers• Journal names • Separate refereed versus non-refereed contributions on publications list

•Work under consideration•Work in progress•Teaching•Service

•Must be signed and dated

9

Statement of Waiver

• Candidates may waive their right of access to confidential letters of reference

• Names of reviewers cannot be revealed to the candidate

• File must contain signed statement by candidate selecting one of the following options:

• Retaining full access• Waiving all rights of access• Partial waiver

[See sample letters in Appendix.]

10

Departmental Committee Recommendation (outline)

• Explanatory report providing analysis different from that obtained from the vita

• Evaluates strengths and weaknesses relative to department and discipline standards

• Fully presents all aspects of the case - analysis, not advocacy

• Explanatory comments on the journals or publishers used by the candidate

• Comment on research grants, fellowships, etc., if normal to the field

• Analysis of the candidate’s record of teaching

• Must be signed by all members of the committee

11

Department Head’s Evaluation and Responsibilities (outline)

• Requests and accumulates outside letters of evaluation and identifies the relationship of all referees to the candidate

• Ensures internal and external written evaluations and recommendations present a fair picture

• Submits a report to the file• Administrative summary of the department’s position

• Department head’s independent evaluation of the case

• Analyses of teaching, research, scholarship, activities and service• Recommendation does not need not coincide with any others • Strengths and weaknesses – analysis more important than advocacy

• Report from the Department Head must be signed.

12

List of Materials Sent to Reviewers • Published Articles (example)

2003. “The politics of Alienation: Nonvoting and Support for Third-Party Candidates Among 18-30 Year Olds,” Social Science Journal, Vol. 40, No.1: 23-45.

• Book Manuscripts (example) In Press. The Myth of the Independent voter in US. Politics. New York: St. Martin’s. [This manuscript has been completed and is in production. The finished manuscript and the contract for the book can be found in the supplemental file.]

• Candidate’s Statement

• Candidate’s Vita

13

Biographical Sketches of External Reviewers – Guidelines

•Keep the bios short but complete: description of the person and his/her standing in the field, relationship to the candidate, and whether suggested by the candidate or chosen by the Department.

•Do not include vitas here; include in supplemental file.

•Select an appropriate and strong panel. Remember that the UO is an AAU research university.

14

Statement of Duties and Responsibilities

• Objective statement

• Purely factual

• Summarizes the candidate’s duties and his/her qualifications for the performance of those duties

Evaluation Criteria

• Written statement explaining criteria used

within the department to evaluate faculty for

promotion to associate professor with tenure

and to full professor.

15

School/College Personnel Committee Report

• First opportunity for independent evaluation• “secondary reviewers” – do not have the expertise to review and evaluate the scholarship and instead focus on the candidate’s record, external reviews, and the reports generated at the department level

• The criteria employed are those of the school /college

• May request additional information from the department including additional outside letters

• Each committee member’s vote is recorded and becomes part of the file forwarded to Academic Affairs.

16

• Dean’s evaluation is independent from department level review – analysis relative to school/college standards. Makes a recommendation on the case.

• Dean (or associate dean) meets with candidate after dossier reviewed at school/college level and before submission of file to Academic Affairs

• If candidate has waived access to the dossier, the dean shall • Inform candidate how many of his/her nominated referees responded, how many other referees were contacted and how many responded • No referee identified by name unless the candidate has not waived access and wishes to examine the contents (which the dean will allow)

• Dean will provide written version of the oral summary upon request

• Redacted copies or summaries of materials in P&T files should not be prepared at the school/college level and given to faculty during or after meeting with the dean

• Dean’s report indicates which outside referees (usually a maximum of 6-7) proposed by candidate and which chosen by the department/college – majority should be by department

Dean’s Evaluation & Recommendation (outline)

17

“External Letters” Section of File

Guidelines

•Include both solicited and unsolicited letters (if any - rare but do occasionally appear)

•Written refusal should be included at the end of the set

• Be sure to reconcile the letters received with the list of letters solicited on the Promotion and Tenure Checklist

• Include unsolicited letters AFTER solicited letters

• Note that letters from students on teaching and supervision should be included in the teaching section

18

“Conditions of Appointment” Section • Must include the most recent “Notice of Appointment and Contract” form

• documenting time frame for the tenure review • documenting the deadline for the tenure decision

• May include official administrative letters of understanding

• Range of activities on which promotion will be based• Credit granted for prior service at other institutions• Extended time for tenure for reasons such as pregnancy or childbirth

19

“Teaching Evaluations” Section• Shared responsibility to improve evaluation procedures of teaching

• Goal is to investigate and evaluate all aspects of an individual’s teaching: large class, small group, graduate seminar; curriculum development; Ph.D., Masters, or professional student supervision; academic advising; etc.

• Summaries of student evaluations should be included in each folder

• List of all courses taught• Sample of evaluation forms• Class size• Percentage responding• Data for comparison with the departmental staff• Departmental policies on administering surveys

These materials must not be prepared by the candidate

20

Evaluations of Teaching Should Include: (outline)

• Statistical analysis of student evaluations

• Evaluative summary of teaching prepared by department head, review committee chair, or senior faculty members, (never by candidate)

• Detailed reports of classroom visitations, and peer evaluations of teaching

• Evaluation of exams, syllabi, assignments and feedback provide

• List of all post-doctoral Fellows, Ph.D., Masters, and undergraduate students who have carried out independent research/scholarship with the candidate

21

College of Arts & Sciences Checklist for Teaching Evaluations Please include this checklist at the front of the teaching section in the primary file. Files with an incomplete checklist will be returned to the department for cornp1etion.

_____ List of all courses taught, including term and enrollment, instructor and department mean scores for the two required questions from the course evaluation report, and any departmental or other teaching awards (included in the primary file).

_____ List of all supervised dissertations, theses, and undergraduate honors papers (included in the primary file).

____ Quantitative student evaluations, including both a summary page with relevant comparative data (in the primary file) and the full course evaluations (normally included in an auxiliary file). Include all evaluated courses since first appointment or last promotion, with a minimum of ten representative courses required (unless fewer have been taught at the University). Beginning in 1996-97, faculty legislation requires that all courses with more than 10 students be evaluated, using the standard form. Written comments from all courses with fewer than 10 students.

_____ Signed student course evaluations (included in the auxiliary file), and where possible letters from supervised students (included in the primary file).

____ Peer evaluations, based on classroom visitations (included in the primary file). From 1996-97 on, assistant professors must receive at least one peer evaluation in each of the three years before the tenure review. Associate professors must have a peer evaluation for at least one course every other year.

____ At least one summative evaluation based upon all available materials should be included in the primary file. Please indicate below where the primary summative evaluation is included (e.g., committee report, department head report, teaching section):

_____ Sample course materials (e.g., syllabi, tests, homework assignments, and the like, which are normally included in the auxiliary file).

22

Peer Evaluations

Guidelines

• Assistant Professors — At least one peer evaluation for each of the last three years before promotion and tenure review

• Associate Professors — At least one peer evaluation for at least one course every other year

23

Letters from Students

Guidelines

• Include both solicited and unsolicited student letters

• Student letters are not required

24

Supplemental File

• Supplemental teaching evaluation data• One set of the printouts and signed statements should be included in a separate folder identified with name of candidate and college/school, or department. • Unsigned narrative student evaluations are unacceptable and should not be included in the file. Illegal to quote from unsigned evaluations in summary statements prepared for the file. • Letters evaluating teaching from postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, or others with first-hand information about teaching

• Evidence of professional activities• Supporting documents relating to professional growth, scholarly activities, and creative and artistic achievement• Publications• Reprints• Papers• Programs of recitals• Design portfolios • Other relevant materials, including work in progress • Brief statements summarizing the relative standings of professional journals and whether or not papers in them are reviewed

25

Q&A

Appendix

May 14, 2008 Promotion & Tenure 101 26

27

Department Head’s Evaluation and Responsibilities (detailed)• Requests and accumulates outside letters of evaluation and identifies the relationship of all referees to the candidate

• Ensures internal and external written evaluations and recommendations present a fair picture

• Submits a report to the file• An administrative summary of the department’s position on the case

• Brief explanation of department’s review process • Clarification of special conditions, duties or obligations of the faculty member• Explanation of who in the department is eligible to vote on the candidate• Summary of the faculty discussion preceding the official vote• Votes at department level on tenure cases must be secret with only the tally revealed to faculty and recorded on the voting summary sheet• Explanation for abstentions and/why some faculty may not have participated in the process (e.g., spouse, sabbatical, etc.)

• Department head’s independent evaluation of the case• Analyses of teaching, research, scholarship, activities and service• Recommendation does not need not coincide with any others • Strengths and weaknesses – analysis more important than advocacy• Avoid duplicating material, especially quotes from external letters• Independently analyze discrepancies in the external letters • Reason behind department head’s conclusions as to the merits of the case• If scholarship rooted in dissertation, discuss the relationship of published work with the dissertation - it is especially helpful to know the degree to which new research has been incorporated with previous work.

• Report from the Department Head must be signed.

28

Departmental Committee Recommendation (detailed)• Explanatory report providing analysis different from that obtained from the vita

• Evaluates strengths and weaknesses relative to department and discipline standards

• Fully presents all aspects of the case - analysis, not advocacy

• Explanatory comments on the journals or publishers used by the candidate • Indicate the ranking of the journals• Which articles are refereed and which not• Other information relevant to appraising the candidate’s published works - analogous evaluations of artistic or creative efforts not in published form• Where appropriate, comments on the stature of the external referees are helpful

• Comment on research grants, fellowships, etc., if normal to the field• Not size or number of awards but recognition by rigorous competitive review• Explain any discrepancies in this area and the publishing record

• Analysis of the candidate’s record of teaching• Discuss effective ways to analyze and present statistical data resulting from student evaluations • make meaningful comparisons of the candidate with the rest of the department and/or to faculty teaching courses of similar size, character or content• Read all signed written comments submitted by students and provide an evaluative summary of these written statements• Review and comment on all materials submitted by the candidate (i.e. teaching portfolio) documenting his or her teaching activities• Discuss any discrepancies between student and peer evaluations

• The report of the Departmental Committee must be signed by all members of the committee

29

• Independent from department level review- analysis relative to school /college standards • Dean (or associate dean) meets with candidate after dossier reviewed at school/college level and before submission of file to Academic Affairs

• Ensures candidate is aware of dossier’s contents prior to university-level review

• Information presented in the department report• General content of outside letters• Summary of recommendations made to date, including that of the dean

• If candidate has waived access to the dossier, the dean shall • Inform candidate how many of his/her nominated referees responded, how many other referees were contacted and how many responded • No referee identified by name unless the candidate has not waived access and wishes to examine the contents (which the dean will allow)

•Dean will provide written version of the oral summary upon request• Typically no more than 1-2 pages in length• Must be an accurate reflection of the oral summary• Must not be a detailed summary of any report, evaluation or letter in the dossier

• Redacted copies or summaries of materials in P&T files should not be prepared at the school/college level and given to faculty during or after meeting with the dean

• Requests from faculty member for such materials (to prepare a formal appeal of a negative decision from the Provost) will be handled by Academic Affairs

Dean’s Evaluation and Recommendation (detailed)

30

Sample Partial Waiver Letter from the Candidate

Candidate waives the right of access to external letters, but retains full access to letters from individuals affiliated with the UO.

Dear [whoever is assembling the file]:

I have been informed of my rights of access, pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 351065 (Sect. 3,4,5,6) effective 1995, to the full evaluative tile being prepared for consideration of my case for promotion [and/or indefinite tenure, as appropriate]. However, it is my view that external referees’ evaluations should he kept confidential.

Consequently, I hereby waive in advance my legal right of access to see the evaluative materials submitted by all referees external to the University of Oregon in conjunction with my promotion [and or tenure] review. I make this waver with full knowledge of my legal rights under Oregon Law and without duress.

I wish, however, to retain my legal right of access to all letters submitted by individuals affiliated with the University of Oregon.

You should feel free to inform prospective external referees that I have submitted this partial wavier and have agreed voluntarily to forego any legal rights of’ access to these materials which I possess under Oregon Law.

Sincerely, [Candidate]

31

Sample Full Waiver Letter From the Candidate

Dear [whoever is assembling the file]:

I have been informed of my rights of access, pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 351065 (Sect. 3,4,5,6) effective 1995, to the full evaluative file being prepared for consideration of my case for promotion [and/or indefinite tenure, as appropriate]. However, it is my view that referees’ evaluations should be kept confidential.

Consequently, I hereby waive in advance my legal right of access to see the evaluative materials submitted by all referees in conjunction with my promotion [and or tenure] review. I make this waiver with full knowledge of my legal rights under Oregon Law and without duress.

You should feel free to inform prospective referees that I have submitted this waiver and agreed voluntarily to forego any legal rights of access to these materials which I possess under Oregon Law.

Sincerely, [Candidate]

32

Sample Paragraph Waiving Access

Although Oregon law permits full access of a faculty member to his or her personnel files, Dr. Jones has voluntarily waived in advance [his/her] legal right of access to [the appropriate items a defined by the candidate’s specific waiver], with the expectation that this waiver will enable referees to prepare thorough and candid letters. Since this waiver has been reviewed for its legality, I can assure you that the University will not disclose your letter to the candidate, although we cannot predict whether challenge in a court might result in such disclosure. With the waiver, however, Dr. Jones retains [his her] right to request a substantive summary of all evaluative remarks, carefully edited to avoid disclosure of the identity of the referee.

33

Sample Non-Waiver Letter from the Candidate

Dear [whoever is assembling the file]:

I have been informed of my rights of access, pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 351065 (Sect. 3,4,5,6) effective 1995, to the full evaluative file being prepared for consideration of my case for promotion [and/or indefinite tenure, as appropriate], and of the possibility of waiving this right for certain categories of material.

I wish to retain my legal right of access to all materials in my file. Sincerely, [Candidate]

34

Sample Paragraph Retaining Full Access

In as much as Oregon law permits full access of a faculty member to his or her personnel files, I must tell you that your letter will be seen by Dr. Jones should [he she] request access to [his/her] file.

35

Sample Request for Evaluation Letter to External Referees Dear Professor _______________________: Dr. John/June Jones of our Department of Phrenology is being considered for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor with indefinite tenure. Such promotions are made only after consulting specialists in the appropriate discipline, both at the University of Oregon and elsewhere.

Your name has been submitted as one who could provide a useful evaluation of Dr. Jones’ professional achievements and reputation. I shall be grateful if you could write a letter to me, outlining what you know of [his/her] scholarship, research, accomplishments, publications, and general stature within the profession. A comparison of Dr. Jones with the best associate professors in the same field would be appreciated. If possible, please indicate if Dr. Jones would meet requirements for promotion (or tenure) at your current institution. We recognize that the granting of tenure involves prediction and assessment of potential; if you have any special observations about Dr. Jones in that area, we would be pleased to receive them. [Requests for information on specific points can be included here.] I enclose a bibliography and curriculum vitae for your convenience and copies of publications for your specific evaluation.

INSERT EITHER RETAIN ACCESS or WAIVER PARAGRAPH HERE

Your reply to this letter within the next two weeks will be most helpful, since we are now preparing all the necessary documents for Dr. Jones’ promotion dossier.

36

Request for Letters of Evaluation •

• Requested by department head from individuals both on and off campus via standard form letter - preferably from comparable institutions / reviewers at or above rank being considered. (Variations permissible - non-standard letters reviewed by Academic Affairs prior to being sent.)

• Sample of standard and all non-standard letters must be included in file

• Avoid leading statements, e.g. “We want to get Professor X promoted”

• Indicate which materials will be sent to each referee

• Referees must be notified in request whether candidate chooses open or closed file

• Ask reviewers to compare candidate with others at comparable stage

• Ask reviewers to indicate whether, in their opinion, assuming satisfactory teaching and service, the candidate would achieve tenure and/or promotion at their institutions

• Referees must indicate special relationships to the candidate, e.g., dissertation supervisor, research collaborator, co-author, etc.

• All letters received must he included in the file, including those which are negative, neutral or simply indicate unwillingness (inability) to offer a judgment

37

Evaluations of Teaching Should Include: (detailed)Statistical analysis of student evaluations:Faculty legislation of May 1996, requires that “the statistical analysis of course evaluations shall include the mean rate scores for all questions relevant to teaching and learning. The reports shall include raw mean scores for the faculty member and the department. It shall also include other valid mechanisms which compare each course and/or instructor to composite scores of the entire department. Where feasible, departments are strongly encouraged to include raw scores and comparators to course offerings of a similar size and level, and/or to the same or similar courses in the recent years.” The legislation does not define or prescribe the “valid mechanisms” used to compare the faculty member with the mean for the department. Such comparators should, where feasible, provide an indication of the statistical uncertainty (e.g. standard deviation) of the mean raw scores. Submission of z-scores is not prohibited by this legislation.

The May 1996 legislation requires that quantitative student questionnaires be used to evaluate all courses taught by tenure-track faculty with enrollments greater than 10 students, and written comments shall be solicited from students in ALL courses. All available teaching data and summaries should be part of the file, not just a selection of the material

An evaluative summary of teaching prepared by the department head, the review committee chairperson, or senior faculty members, and never by the candidate.

38

Detailed reports of classroom visitations, and peer evaluations of teaching, are especially informative. Faculty legislation of May 1996 requires at least one peer evaluation for each assistant professor during each of the three years preceding the promotion tenure review. Associate professors are to have peer evaluations conducted for at least one course every other year. Reports of all available peer observations and evaluations should he included in the file. A thorough evaluation of course materials (examinations and assessment of course syllabi, comments on expectations of students and the nature of feedback provided)

A list of all students who have carried out independent research/scholarship with the candidate: post-doctoral Fellows, Ph.D.. Master’s, and undergraduates. Indicate the years in which degrees were received and current place status of employment if available. Add commentary that gives perspective on the candidate in guiding these types of Fellows or students and compare with typical pattern of such education in the field.

Evaluations of Teaching Should Also Include: (detailed – continued)