Promotion and Tenure Dossier Preparation: Annual Training for

Departmental Support Staff

May 23, repeated on June 2 2016

Cindy Devine, Office of Faculty Affairs

Please sign the attendance log (being circulated) before you leave today.

Reference Tools

• Office of Faculty Affairs Website – http://www.pennstatehershey.org/web/facultyaffairs/home/promotion

• GURU – download PSU University mandated P&T Forms

• HR-23 P&T Administrative Guidelines – mandates policy and procedure of promotion and tenure for Penn State

2016-2017 Deadlines

http://www.pennstatehershey.org/web/facultyaffairs/home/promotion

• Review the Dean’s Office deadlines and set internal departmental deadlines to meet them

• It is important to communicate internal departmental deadlines to faculty

What’s New? New Tenure Clock is effective July 1, 2016 Tenure-track faculty hired July 1, 2016 or thereafter will be on the 10-year tenure clock - Provisional tenure reviews in years 3 and 6; final in year 9 Tenure-track faculty hired prior to July 1, 2016 have a one-time option to switch to the 10-year clock - Chair confirms decision in writing before July 1, 2016 (send signed form to Cindy Devine) - Faculty who opt to switch will be notified in writing of new review schedule Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) available on OFA website

The Dossier: Order of Assembly • Promotion and Tenure Form • Biographical Data Form • COM Effort Allocation Page • COM Promotion and Tenure: Statement of the Dean of COM • Department P&T Criteria • Candidate’s Narrative Statement • Candidate’s Signature Statement • Scholarship of Teaching and Learning • Patient Care Activities • Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments • Service and the Scholarship of Service • External Letters of Assessment (confidential to the candidate!) • Statements of Evaluation by Review Committees and

Administrators

Promotion and Tenure Form • AKA, “the face page”. GURU form, available on OFA website • Separate page prepared for each action (i.e. reviewed for

promotion as well as tenure during the same year) • All sections at top of form (above shaded area) to be completed. If

not applicable, indicate as such • Include joint appointment in rank & title and department fields • Graduate Faculty Status – if unsure, check with Graduate Education

Office

• Date of Stay of Provisional Tenure – only report AY approved (e.g.

July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016)

– provide no details about circumstances regarding stay

• “Department” Signature Section – department committee chair and department chair check-off applicable recommendation box, sign and date before submitting dossier to Dean’s Office

Biographical Data Form

• GURU-downloaded form, available on OFA website

• Complete all sections. If need to continue on to a second page, that is okay

• Previous sabbaticals section- if not applicable, mark as ‘not applicable’ - don’t leave blank

COM Effort Allocation Page • Download from OFA website – COM form is

different than other PSU campuses

• Candidate completes. If candidate has questions about effort, should discuss with Division Chief or Dept. Chair. Typically % shadows what is reported on HR-40

• % must total 100%

• % reflects how effort is allocated across mission areas

• Don’t forget service percentage!

Promotion and Tenure: Statement of the Dean of the COM

• College of Medicine criteria

• Download from the Office of Faculty Affairs website

• Included in all dossiers

Department Promotion and Tenure Criteria

• Unique to each department

• Included in all dossiers

• Should be readily available to faculty members within department

• Collected each year to report to University Park, please submit to OFA regardless of whether or not department has a candidate under review – we must report every year to U.P.

Candidate’s Narrative Statement • Written by the candidate

• 1-3 page first-person statement about the candidate’s scholarship in the context of his/her overall goals. May not exceed 3 pages

• Candidate’s Name placed on top

• Label document “Narrative Statement”

• Placed in dossier, as well as sent to external evaluators

• Candidate should check grammar and spelling, mentor may be helpful

Candidate’s Signature Page • The candidate reviews the accuracy and

completeness of the factual and informational material before signing page so that dossier can be reviewed by the Departmental P&T Committee & Chair

– Are all sections complete and up-to-date?

– Is information accurate?

– Are required peer review of teaching and

patient care letters (if clinician) in dossier?

Scholarship Sections of Dossier

(i.e. Teaching, Patient Care, Research and Service)

• Fillable word document template is available on OFA website

• Save time and effort, avoid re-typing bullet and section headings

• Includes PSU guidelines for page numbering of scholarship sections

Scholarship Sections of Dossier

• Dossier dividers have effective date (version dated on bottom left corner of page dividers) Will know around July 1 of any revisions from University Park for this year

• Candidate should completely answer the bulleted sections (if none or not applicable, indicate as such –do not leave sections blank) – frequent error is incomplete sections or sections left blank

• Follow mandated reporting timeline for each scholarship section (timeline on future slides)

Scholarship Divider Dossier Template

• Fillable word document

• Download from OFA website

• Template may change if University makes changes on July 1

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Timeline for reporting data in teaching section:

• For tenure reviews, from date of employment at Penn State in tenure track position

• For promotion (only) reviews, from last promotion or most recent 5 years (whichever is shorter)

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

• Bullet, “List of credit courses taught at Penn State for each semester with enrollments for each course.”

Frequent error. Some faculty state “none” for this section and then list courses, lectures, etc. in the second bullet, which is for “non-credit courses and outreach-based instruction.”

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

• Bullet, Concise compilation of results of student evaluation from multiple sources. Section must include summaries of quantitative evaluations of teaching by students/residents FOR THE PERIOD UNDER REVIEW. For example, a table(s) showing the average scores received by the faculty member from the students in the course, lecture, etc., by year in which the course was taught

• Raw data score sheets are NOT accepted in dossier

Sample table reporting student course evaluations

Course Number, Title and Semester

Year (20…) Year (20….) Year (20…) Year (20….) Year (20…)

(# of responses) (# of responses) (# of responses) (# of responses) (# of responses )

Criteria Rated:

Objectives of course clearly desig ned Mean rating Mean rating Mean rating Mean rating Mean rating

Course was well organized “ “ “ “ “

Etc.

Rating scale: 1 – 7, where 7 is highest rating

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

• Last Bullet, Student Comments, findings are summarized, and convey the students’ sense of strengths and weaknesses

• Comments section should not be left blank or marked not applicable. Each department should have a process in place to collect evaluative comments.

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

• 2 peer review of teaching letters required for current period under review (at least 2 letters from senior faculty members within the department, may be from outside department if teaching is done outside department)

• Teaching Letters are solicited by the Department Chair (not the candidate), addressed to Dept. Chair; letters should ONLY address the performance in the teaching mission

• For tenure reviews (including provisional reviews) include all peer teaching letters from previous reviews, most recent teaching letters placed first

Patient Care Activities

Timeline for reporting data in patient care section:

• For tenure reviews, from date of employment at Penn State in tenure track position

• For promotion (only) reviews, from last promotion or most recent 5 years (whichever is shorter)

Patient Care Activities

• Statement of clinical assignment(s) for ‘entire’ period under review

• Details on quantity and complexity of cases; leadership roles

• Evidence of quality of care: patient satisfaction scores, evidence of patient outcomes, QI activities Summarize data in tables – do not provide raw

printouts • Awards/recognition for patient care

Patient Care Activities • Letters from internal colleagues and/or referring physicians

commenting on clinical expertise NOTE: Letters from individuals internal to Penn State are solicited by the Department Chair; letters from individuals outside Penn State are solicited by the Office of Faculty Affairs on behalf of the Dean

• Internal letters from senior faculty members, external letters may be from physicians who are familiar with the candidate’s practice (academic appointment not required)

• Department Chairs should ensure the dossier contains 2-4 letters (more is fine)

• Letters are in the dossier when the candidate reviews and signs off on dossier

• Letters of thanks or appreciation; patient identity not allowed

Patient Care Activities

• Provide an explanation if data is not available: “provide a compelling reason why information is not provided”

Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments

Timeline for reporting data in research section:

This section covers the candidate’s entire career!

Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments

List most recent date first throughout section Format citations consistently throughout section Bullet, Research and/or Scholarly Publications • Citations- number articles and note authorship role. At the

COM, faculty are not required to report percent of contribution on multi-authored publications, but faculty may do so, if they find it useful. Description of the authorship role though is required

• Manuscripts accepted for publication – Indicate if peer reviewed and number of pages. Provide acceptance letter (or email) from journal and place document at end of section

• Manuscripts submitted for publication – Indicate where submitted, if peer reviewed, and number of pages

Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments

Bullet, Papers, presentations, seminars, and workshops

• Papers presented. Include role (indication about whether the candidate was the presenter)

• Seminars and workshops. Include role (e.g. student, invited participant, etc.)

Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments

Bullet, Projects, grants, commissions and contracts Include date, title, where submitted, type of grant [R01, R21, K23, etc.], grant number, dates, Principal Investigator, Co-Investigator, role of candidate, % effort, amount

1. Awarded (fully processed financial award)

2. Pending (Submitted proposal that is awaiting funding status from sponsor)

3. Not funded (notification received from sponsor that proposal was not funded

(#3 for provisional–year reviews only)

Service and the Scholarship of Service

Timeline for reporting data in service section:

• For tenure reviews, from date of employment at Penn State in tenure track position

• For promotion (only) reviews, from last promotion or most recent 5 years (whichever is shorter)

Service and the Scholarship of Service

• Make sure service effort is reflected on effort allocation page

• Items listed must include period dates and role in the activity (president 2013-2014, chair, member, etc.)

External Letters of Assessment • This section is confidential to the candidate. • External letters are NOT solicited for provisional tenure

reviews • Potential evaluators are selected by the Department

Chair/Division Chief in collaboration with the candidate, and letters are solicited by the OFA on behalf of Dean

• University requires a minimum of 4 letters in dossier • Potential evaluators must be from experts in candidate’s

field who are of higher rank than the candidate and meet conflict of interest restrictions (details on next slide)

• If candidate is being reviewed for the award of tenure, evaluator must hold tenure (admin may check on that if necessary, but the candidate shouldn’t have contact)

External Evaluators Conflict of Interest Restrictions: • Evaluators may not include the candidate’s former

teachers, mentors, or supervisors; individuals who have collaborated significantly with the candidate; or others whose relationship to the candidate might make objective assessments difficult

• Candidate and Dept. Chair sign off on the list of potential external evaluators confirming that the evaluators do not have a conflict of interest

• Reviewers are asked to describe the nature of their association with the candidate. Letters from reviewers with a conflict of interest will be discounted during the review process, thus jeopardize the weight the committees place on the letter. We want to avoid conflicts from happening in the first place.

Bullet, Materials sent to external evaluators • Candidate’s Narrative Statement

• 5 examples of scholarship are required (no more, no less), including a cover sheet listing the five items, including citation(s), and brief explanation of each item. Preferably peer-reviewed journal articles published during the period under review

• Candidate’s CV. Evaluator may not be familiar with the full extent of the candidate’s professional contributions. Important that the CV is current and comprehensive • No required format for CV; however, it should contain information which clearly

reflects the candidate’s scholarship and contributions in each mission area

• Include all applicable funding and teaching information. This gives external evaluators a balanced picture of the candidate’s academic activities

• The COM and Department Promotion and Tenure Criteria

External Evaluators

Bullet, Log of External Evaluators

• GURU form, available on OFA website

• OFA will provide list of reviewers who were contacted – department enters into log page

• OFA provides a “sample letter” sent to external evaluators to include in this section

Statements of Evaluation

• Documentation for this section collected and compiled by the Department Chair’s office (not the candidate), with Department Chair’s admin assistance

Statements of Evaluation

• Bullet, For tenure reviews (including provisional), all prior provisional evaluative letters, beginning with the earliest provisional reviews must be included. This includes:

– Joint Appointment Chair/Institute Director evaluative letter (if applicable)

– Department P&T Committee evaluative letter

– Department Chair evaluative letter

– Dean evaluative letter

Statements of Evaluation Bullet, Secondary department head (if appropriate)

Joint Appointment Letters • All faculty members who hold a joint

appointment, the Dept. Chair of the joint appointment will provide a letter for the dossier

• Required for all reviews, including provisional tenure reviews

• Letter requested by the Primary Department Chair’s office and submitted back to that office for placement in the dossier

• Letter addressed to the Dean

Statements of Evaluation Bullet, Secondary department head (if appropriate)

Institute Director Letters

• Faculty who receive the majority of their salary support from an Institute (>50%), the Institute Director will provide a letter for the dossier

• Required for all reviews, including provisional tenure reviews

• Letter requested by the Primary Department Chair’s office and submitted back to that office for placement in the dossier

• Letter addressed to the Dean

Statements of Evaluation

Bullet, Department Review Committee • Letter addressed to the Dean • List name and rank of each committee member • Summarize performance in each mission area and discuss

the external letters received Error: committee submits brief letter which lists the members of the committee and provides the vote. If there are any conflicts or negative comments in the external letters, the committee letter should address those and state how they affected the committee vote (i.e. committee didn’t place as much weight on content of letter as evaluator states was a previous mentor of the candidate) Continued

Statements of Evaluation Bullet, Department Review Committee • Numeric vote required, document any

abstentions (including provisional tenure review dossiers)

• For promotion review, accompanied by tenure review, numeric vote for each action must be documented (separate votes)

• For split committee votes, minority reason is included in letter

• Letter may not reveal the identity of the “external letters of assessment” section letter writers (i.e. name, institution)

Statements of Evaluation Bullet, Department Head (Chair) • Letter addressed to the Dean; format to evaluate scholarship

in mission areas • Must discuss the external letters received, if there are any

conflicts of interest or negative comments in the external letters, the chair should address them and state how they affected the chair’s recommendation

• If the dept. chair differs with the dept. committee, consultation must occur about the reason(s) for divergence. Date consultation occurred documented in Chair’s letter

• For promotion review, accompanied by tenure review, chair’s recommendation for each action must be documented

• Letter may not reveal the identity of the “external letters of assessment” section letter writers (e.g. name, institution).

Items that may not appear in the dossier • Evaluative statements written by the candidate.

Candidate does not evaluate his/her own scholarship (be cautious of the use of “I” statements in scholarship sections of dossier)

• Statements about the candidate’s personal life not relevant to his/her work. (e.g. “reason” for one year stay of tenure approval, # of children, etc.)

• CV, copies of publications, course outlines, portfolios

• Letters of appreciation or thanks

Common Dossier problems to avoid • Effort Allocation: candidates should not report greater effort allocation to service than

other mission areas (service cannot be one of the 2 required areas of excellence) • Narrative Statement: items mentioned should be documented in the appropriate

Dossier section (e.g., established a new clinic; developed a new course) • Teaching Section: student/trainees’ teaching evaluations are required and should cover

all years under review. Show as summary statistics in tables, not raw data • Patient Care Section: TOP DOSSIER PROBLEM IN 2015-16: Inadequate description of

patient care activities for the period under review; leaving out evidence of patient care quality or leadership roles in patient care

• Research Section: P.I.’s name and grant/contract number should be provided for all

funded projects • External letters: 4 external letters of evaluation are required; faculty members should

not contact an external reviewer to solicit letter • Departmental P&T Committee Letters: should evaluate each of the mission areas;

should discuss the external letters, note if evaluators have conflicts of interest, and respond to any negative comments from experts

Important: Speak Up

• If you notice that something in the dossier is not done correctly, please work with the faculty member to get it corrected. If need be, go to your Chair’s Office for assistance. Doing things correctly will save time and effort (and avoid headaches) down the road!

Thank you for attending