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.

Preparing Promotion and Tenure Files Department Heads, Office Managers, and Key Support Staff Ken Doxsee Associate Vice Provost For Academic Affairs January 16, 2014

• Preliminary Work o Department Head notifies faculty of eligibility

(or requirement) for upcoming review o Candidate’s contributions to the process o Identification and solicitation of external

reviewers • Department Review

o Personnel Committee – usually report and vote

o Vote by voting faculty (signed, secret ballot) o Department Head report and recommendation

P&T Process and Timetable

Winter of previous year

Early Fall

Spring of previous year

• School/College Review o Personnel or Advisory Committee (elected) –

report and vote o Dean – report and recommendation

• University Review

o Faculty Personnel Committee (elected) – report and vote

o Provost – review and decision

P&T Process and Timetable (cont’d)

Fall/Winter

Winter/ Spring

Decision announcement target date: May 1

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 o Each binder should contain identical information o Completed red, blue and green binders are delivered to Academic Affairs with

supplemental materials for the case. Black binders are kept by the school/college

o (Electronic submission)

P&T Process and Timetable (continued)

P&T Process and Timetable (continued) NOVEMBER 15 • Due date for completed files and supporting materials from departments in the

College Arts and Sciences to be submitted to the Dean. NOVEMBER 30 • Due date for all units (excluding CAS) to submit to Academic Affairs, files and materials

involving tenure cases JANUARY 15 • Deadline for all units (excluding CAS) to submit completed files and supplemental

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

supplemental materials to Academic Affairs. Essential, however, for the vast majority of CAS files to be submitted prior to this date.

Constructing the Dossier

{A review in the approximate order of its construction}

• Signed and dated • Updates permissible – prefer simple list of updates (signed and

dated) rather than a full updated CV • Always include the CV as seen by the external reviewers as

well as any updates

Candidate’s CV

• Full profile (including teaching and service) • Education: Include graduation dates, mentor’s names • Distinguish peer-reviewed publications from other research or

writing activity • Present the complete bibliographic citation in the style

appropriate to your field’s principal journal(s) • Provide full lists of co-authors in the published order • Appropriately sort work in areas other than conventional

publication (e.g., performances, exhibitions, etc.) • Recommended: reverse chronological order

Candidate’s CV (continued)

• Manuscript/accomplishment status o In press: galleys + commitment to publish (volume or

date?) o Accepted: all revisions complete, but not yet in press o Accepted with revisions: revision + editorial decision

required o Revise and resubmit: additional review anticipated o Submitted: no review yet completed

• “The Book” o Signed contract, manuscript complete and accepted, with

no further revision (copy edit/galley proof can be pending)

Candidate’s CV (continued)

• Include section for work in progress • Important in discerning future potential

• Dissertation, other theses, technical reports, working papers, etc. – be clear regarding peer review process

• Electronic publications – ditto • Conferences and other appearances

• Provide full reference to event, date, location • Distinguish (and separate) peer-reviewed • Recommend reverse chronological order • Avoid padding with local contributions (e.g., guest lectures

– place in teaching or service section)

Candidate’s CV (continued)

Candidate’s Statement

• Signed and dated • Updates permissible • Always include the statement as seen by the external

reviewers as well as any updates

• Short: perhaps 5-6 pages • General vs. professional readership

o Balance; display your ability to teach • Accomplishments, current activities, and future plans for

research, teaching, and service • Evidence of contributions to institutional equity and inclusion • Significant focus on research and teaching; less so on service • Consider using the statement to help the reader understand

anything “unusual” in your record o Co-authorship contribution, author order o Gaps

Candidate’s Statement (continued)

Statement of Waiver

• File must contain signed and dated statement by candidate • Retaining full access, or • Waiving all rights of access, or • Partial waiver

• This statement must be completed prior to request for external

evaluations

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]

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]

Sample Partial Waiver Letter from the Candidate

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

Statement of Duties & Responsibilities

• Objective statement

• Purely factual

• Increasingly common practice – provide copy of position description

“Conditions of Appointment” Section

• For tenure cases, must include the most recent contract o documenting time frame for the tenure review o documenting the deadline for the tenure decision

• May include official administrative letters of understanding o evaluation procedure for “split” appointments o limited range of activities on which promotion will be based o credit granted for prior service at other institutions o extended time for tenure for reasons such as pregnancy or

childbirth

“Teaching Evaluations” Section

• Goal is to investigate and evaluate all aspects of an individual’s teaching--large class, small group, graduate seminar, curriculum development. Ph.D., Master’s, or professional student supervision, academic advising, etc. Information on all such activities should be sought.

• Hires from other institutions • Recognize that some materials may not be available • Attempt to include as comprehensive a package as possible

• List of courses taught • Summary table – quantitative evaluations (including class

size, percent response, departmental comparison data) • Sample evaluation form • Copies of all quantitative summaries • Copies of all signed qualitative comments (in supplementary

file) • Peer evaluations

o Pre-tenure: at least one in each of years 3, 4, and 5 o Tenured associate professor: at least one every other year

Teaching – Department Responsibilities

• List of teaching awards • List of supervised students, sorted by kind and including dates

and role (e.g., chair, advisor, committee member) o Postdoc, doctoral dissertation, masters thesis, honors

thesis • No need to list every single independent study course unless

this defines the nature of your teaching effort • Teaching portfolio – not required, but common

o In supplementary file o Syllabi, innovative materials (including electronic), etc. o Illustrative, not exhaustive

Teaching – Candidate’s Responsibilities

Letters from Students

Include both solicited and unsolicited student letters, but only if signed and dated

• Student letters are not required

• Inundation is not needed or desirable

Supplemental File

• Separate folder(s) clearly identified with name of candidate and college/school, or department

• Supplemental teaching evaluation data o One set of printouts and signed statements. Unsigned

narrative student evaluations are unacceptable and should not be included in the file. It is illegal to quote from unsigned evaluations in summary statements prepared for the file.

Supplemental File (continued)

• Evidence of professional activities – collection of supporting documents relating to professional growth, scholarly activities, and creative and artistic achievement

• Publications • 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 • Brief statement on book publishing summarizing standing and explanation of

unusual publishing patterns characteristic of a field. • Teaching portfolio • Service portfolio

Letters of Evaluation

• Candidate may provide list of suggestions • Department independently creates list; if the candidate suggests

reviewer on the department list, that reviewer NOT listed as “suggested by the candidate”

• Reviewers at or above the rank being sought, at comparable institutions

• Department selects external reviewers • Clear majority of “untainted” reviewers • Requested by department head via standard form letter • Avoid directing the witness (“We are trying to get Professor X

promoted”) • Include example of each letter in the dossier

Letters of Evaluation (continued)

• Referees must be notified in advance regarding waiver status

• Ask reviewers to compare candidate with other scholars at comparable stages in their academic careers

• 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 be included in the file

Letters of Evaluation (continued)

• Include both solicited and unsolicited letters

• Written declinations included at the end of section • Reconcile letters received with list of letters solicited on the Promotion

and Tenure Checklist • Place unsolicited letters AFTER solicited letters • Letters from students on teaching and supervision belong in teaching

section

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 months will be most helpful, since we are now preparing all the necessary documents for Dr. Jones’ promotion dossier.

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.

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.

List of Materials Sent to Reviewers

• Candidate’s Statement

• Candidate’s Vita

• Published Work (during period under review) - list • Selected works in progress may be included - list

• Unit’s Promotion and Tenure Criteria

Biographical Sketches of External Reviewers

• Short but complete, with description of the person and their standing in the field, relationship to the candidate, and whether suggested by the candidate or chosen by the Department.

• Do not include vitas here; provide in supplemental file. Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, MIT Chomsky is one of the three or four most important scholars of linguistics in the 20th century. He is the originator (along with his teacher Zellig Hams) of the theoretical framework for linguistic analysis known as “generative linguistics.” Chomsky has no known relationship to the candidate. Selected by the Department

Departmental Committee Recommendation

• Analysis, not just information from the vita

• Strengths and weaknesses relative to department and discipline standards

• Fully present all aspects of the case – analysis, not advocacy

• Context for scholarship/creative practice • Ranking, status of journals, publishers, venues, etc. • Peer reviewed vs. not • Comments on the stature of the external referees • Other information relevant to appraising the candidate’s work • Research grants, fellowships, etc., if normal to the field

• Not size or number of awards but recognition by rigorous competitive review

• Discrepancies in publishing and/or funding record

Departmental Committee Recommendation (cont’d)

• Analysis of candidate’s record of teaching • Statistical data from student evaluations • Address anomalies • Comparisons with rest of department and/or faculty teaching courses of

similar size, character or content • Evaluative summary of signed written students comments • Review and comment on teaching portfolio • Discrepancies between student and peer evaluations

• Analysis of the candidate’s record of service

• Report must be signed by all members of the committee

Department Head’s Evaluation

• Administrative summary of the department’s position on the case • Brief explanation of department’s review process • Clarification of special conditions, duties or obligations • Explanation of who votes • Summary of faculty discussion preceding official vote • Departmental votes secret; only tally revealed to faculty and recorded on

voting summary sheet • Explanation for abstentions or recusals

• Justification for an earlier-than-usual process

• Independent review and appraisal of the case

• Report must be signed.

School/College Personnel Committee Report

• “Secondary reviewers” – in general, lack expertise to review and evaluate the scholarship; focus on overall record, external reviews, and departmental reports

• Criteria employed are those of the school /college /unit

• May request additional information, including additional outside letters

• Each committee member’s vote is recorded and part of the file forwarded

to Academic Affairs

• Independent from department level review – analysis of qualifications relative to school/college standards

• Attempt to address any issues that have been overlooked • Outlying evaluations • Manuscript status • Co-authorship issues • Evidence of independent progress in cases where book is

rooted in dissertation • In early cases, discussion of exceptional merits of case

Dean’s Evaluation & Recommendation

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

• Information presented in the departmental report • General content of outside letters • Summary of recommendations made to date, including Dean’s • Three days’ notification of meeting required • If member of bargaining unit, candidate may bring non-

participating observer or non-participating representative from United Academics

Dean’s Evaluation & Recommendation

• Candidate may request a redacted copy of the Dean’s report. • Redaction should be carried out to obscure reviewer identity at

this stage regardless of waiver status. Academic Affairs can assist with the redaction.

• Do not prepare or provide redacted copies or substantive summaries of any other materials in P&T files

• Requests from faculty member for such materials, generally as part of formal appeal of a negative decision from the Provost, directed to and handled by Academic Affairs

Dean’s Evaluation & Recommendation (Continued)

Evaluation Criteria

Written statement explaining criteria used within the department to evaluate faculty for promotion to associate professor with tenure and to full professor.

Voting Summary

Yes No Abstain

Department Summary Total Faculty: ______ ______ ______ Tenured Faculty: ______ ______ ______ College or School Committee Total Membership: ______ ______ ______ Tenured Faculty: ______ ______ ______

Questions

Ken Doxsee Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs 346-2846 doxsee@uoregon.edu