Faculty Handbook: Contents
• Academic freedom and faculty appointments
• Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity, and Family Employment Program
• Faculty governance and faculty organizations
• Faculty benefits and development
• Faculty records and periodic review
• Promotion and tenure guidelines
• Mid-term review
• Post-tenure review
• Graduate programs
• Research programs and services
• International Programs
• Consulting, overload, and outside employment compensation
• Expert Witness Policy and Procedure
• Retirement and severance
• Grievance procecures
• Appendix A Academic dishonesty
Faculty Handbook: Academic freedom and faculty appointments
Statement on Academic Freedom
The faculty and administration of Oregon State University jointly accept the responsibility for maintaining an atmosphere in which scholars may freely teach, conduct research, publish, and engage in other scholarly activities. This responsibility includes maintaining the freedom for the examination of controversial issues throughout the University, including classroom discussion when such issues are germane to the subject matter of the course.
The University does not attempt to control the personal opinion, nor the public expression of that opinion, of any member of the faculty or staff of the institution. Indeed, the faculty and administration of Oregon State University feel a responsibility to protect the right of each employee to express his or her personal opinion, but in doing so, employees have an obligation to avoid any action which purports to commit the institution to a position on any issue without appropriate approval.
Statement of Faculty Responsibilities
The faculty of Oregon State University recognizes and accepts the special responsibilities incumbent on each of its members.
As a scholar in an academic discipline, each faculty member is expected to:
- seek and state the truth as he or she sees it
- develop and improve his or her scholarly competence
- exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge to diverse audiences on-and off-campus
- contribute to the development of the discipline
- practice intellectual honesty.
As a teacher, each faculty member is expected to:
- encourage free pursuit of learning and free inquiry in students
- exemplify high scholarly standards
- improve his or her instructional methods while ensuring that the primacy of the instructional function of the academic area is upheld
- respect students as individuals while adhering to the proper role as intellectual guide
- foster honest academic conduct and fair evaluation of students
- protect the academic freedom of students and their rights of access to the University.
As a member of the University community, each faculty member is expected to:
- respect and defend the right of free inquiry of fellow faculty members
- show due respect for the rights of others to hold and express their opinions
- accept a share of the governance tasks of the University
- be objective in the judgment of the professional capabilities and performance of colleagues.
Employees of the Oregon University System are faculty, (academic or professional), and classified (support staff). OSU has adopted "Guidelines for Academic Appointments" that specify how faculty ranks are assigned. Copies of these guidelines can be accessed at the following website http://oregonstate.edu/admin/hr/policies.html.
Professorial Rank. Professorial ranks (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor) are reserved for faculty whose responsibilities and positions carry the expectation of scholarly accomplishments. Expectations for each rank are given in Promotion and Tenure Guidelines (Chapter 8). Faculty with professorial rank include:
- Regular faculty (paid all or in part by state accounts).
- Senior Research faculty (fixed–term faculty paid entirely or primarily from research grants or contracts). Titles for these faculty are listed either as Professor (Senior Research) or Senior Research Professor; Associate Professor (Senior Research) or Research Associate Professor; and Assistant Professor (Senior Research) or Research Assistant Professor.
- Courtesy faculty — faculty not paid by OSU accounts, but who contribute to the mission of the University through teaching, research, or service.
- Visiting faculty — visitors on leave from other institutions of higher education or the private sector and paid by OSU accounts.
- Adjunct faculty — the term adjunct is used when a department chooses to recognize the contribution of an OSU faculty member who is employed by another unit within the University.
Professional Position Titles without Rank. Faculty in academic support, administrative support, and student support units are assigned professional titles when, in the view of the unit administrator and the appropriate vice provost, a professional position title most adequately describes the responsibilities of the position and qualifications of the individuals holding those positions.
Research Associate. The rank of Research Associate requires the highest degree appropriate to the field in which the research is being conducted. Research Associates are generally not principal investigators. Two uses of this rank are made at Oregon State University:
- for career doctoral–level researchers, and
- for postdoctoral trainees.
Instructor and Senior Instructor. These ranks are used for faculty with primary responsibilities in instruction who hold positions that do not carry a substantial expectation for scholarly accomplishments. All faculty members with the rank of Instructor must be on fixed–term (non–tenure–track) appointments. Senior Instructors may be granted tenure.
Faculty Research Assistant and Senior Faculty Research Assistant. These ranks are used for key support faculty members engaged in research. The positions require bachelor’s degrees but not the doctoral degree or other terminal degree appropriate to the field in which the research is being conducted.
Notices of Appointment
Notices of Appointment are issued once a year for tenure tracked and tenured faculty members. They provide annual salary rate at the time the notice was issued, and other information related to the faculty member's compensation and period of appointment. An Attachment, which is part of the Notice of Appointment, gives summaries of principal conditions of employment. Copies are available from the Office of Human Resources.
Changes in salary, rank, appointment status, or other personnel information during the year will be reflected in the Human Resource Information System (HRIS). Employees may obtain an updated NOA, upon request, by contacting the Office of Human Resources.
Terms of Service, Compensation Plan, and Check Delivery
9– and 12–Month Appointments. Academic staff (faculty and graduate assistants) are appointed either on a 9–month academic year basis (September 16–June 15), or on a 12–month fiscal year basis (July 1–June 30). Other appointment periods may be specified in individual cases.
The annual salary rate shown on the Notice of Appointment is for full–time service (1.0 FTE) on a 9– or 12–month basis. Unclassified staff (faculty and graduate assistants) are appointed on a 9–month unclassified year salary basis (September 16–June 15), or on a 12–month fiscal year salary basis (July 1–June 30). Other appointment periods may be arranged in individual cases (AR 580–21–015). The actual appointment period (on either salary basis) may be for any specified period or term(s).
Pay is calculated on workdays in each month. Workdays are defined as Monday through Friday, inclusive of holidays. The salary rate reflected in letters of offer or Notice of Appointments is for full–time service on a 9– or 12–month salary basis.
For purposes of example, a 9 month employee working Fall Term (September 16–December 15), with an annual rate of $10,800 is listed below.
Annual rate $10,800 divided by 9 (term of service) = $1200/mo for full–time service.
Actual pay would be as follows:
Sept: 10 working days/21 possible working days x ($1200.00) = $ 571.43
Oct: 22 working days/22 possible working days x ($1200.00) = $1200.00
Nov: 23 working days/23 possible working days x ($1200.00) = $1200.00
Dec: 11 working days/21 possible working days x ($1200.00) = $ 628.57
Summer Term Teaching Appointments. Salaries paid for summer term appointments are determined by each dean. The maximum allowed for faculty on 9–month appointments is 22 percent of their annual 9–month salary rate. For faculty members on 12–month appointments, summer term wages are paid by a redistribution of labor among University indexes.
Summer Academic Pay Appointments. Nine–month faculty members paid from grants and contracts during the summer are given Summer Academic Pay appointments. A maximum of 2.5 months salary may be budgeted if required by the grant or contract and approved by the department chair/head and dean. In rare circumstances, if approved by the granting agency and essential for the progress of the research, 3.0 months salary may be approved by the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs.
Nine–Twelve–Month Option for Payroll. The Oregon University System provides an option which allows a nine–month academic employee to spread a nine–month appointment gross salary over a twelve–month period. For further information contact the OSU Payroll Office.
Check Delivery. The Payroll Office is a division of the Business Affairs Office. Checks are distributed based on a signed request from the employee, by campus mail to departments, directed deposited to the employee’s bank or made available at the payroll window. Direct bank deposits are encouraged. If no alternate arrangements are made, checks will be available at the payroll window at 8AM on the last working day of the month. Refer to the Payroll Procedures Handbook for detailed payroll procedures.
All faculty members are given identification cards at the time of their initial appointments. New hires should take a copy of their completed Job Form (signed by the unit Head/Chair) to the OSU ID Center, located in Memorial Union 215. International faculty without social security numbers must wait for hiring papers to be completed through Employee Records and Information (Office of Human Resources) as temporary social security numbers cannot be assigned until the final step of the hiring process.
The identification cards enable faculty members to use the library, purchase parking permits, purchase athletic tickets at staff rates, etc.
Tenure Status and Timely Notice of Non-Reappointment
Annual Tenure (tenure-track) Appointments. Annual tenure appointments are for faculty members serving in a probationary status for tenure. Non-reappointments require timely notice in accordance with Board Rules:
"If any appointment of a full-time academic staff member who is on an annual tenure appointment . . . is to be terminated other than for cause or financial exigency, timely notice of termination shall be given in writing as follows:
- during the first annual appointment, at least three month’s notice prior to expiration of the appointment;
- during the second year of service, at least six months’ notice before expiration of the appointment;
- thereafter, at least twelve months’ notice before expiration of the appointment."
Indefinite Tenure. These appointments confirm institutional commitment for employment in the faculty member’s assigned program. Tenure is continued indefinitely except in the case of termination for cause, financial exigency, or program reductions or terminations following Oregon University System and University guidelines (Chapter 19). All faculty members, including those with tenure, are reviewed periodically, as described in Chapter 7.
Fixed-Term Appointments. Fixed-term appointments are for a specified period, typically one year, with stated beginning and ending dates. Beyond the ending date may be recommended, consistent with stable funding.
Extended Fixed-Term Appointments. To provide for a greater degree of job security than standard fixed-term appointments, extended fixed-term appointments may be commended, consistent with stable funding.
Extended fixed-term appointments have terms of up to two years and with administrative approval may be extended for one year at the end of each year. This type of appointment thereby leaves the faculty member at the beginning of each year with an appointment having the same length as the prior appointment.
Extended fixed-term appointments are to be proposed only for our most meritorious faculty on fixed-term appointments.
Emeritus status provides recognition for retired tenured faculty who have served the University. Emeritus faculty are listed in the General Catalog as members of the faculty. They are granted use of the library, may take courses at staff rates, retain their onid email account, and receive a lifetime faculty ID card. As with all other retired faculty and staff, they may also purchase athletic season tickets at faculty/staff rates, and participate in the Faculty/Staff Fitness program. The Staff Newsletter, OSU This Week, can be delivered to their home address, by calling News and Communication Services. For questions regarding emeritus status, contact the Office of Academic Affairs and International Programs.
The "emeritus" title may be recommended for a staff member holding academic rank who:
- retires from Oregon State University, and
- has held a position with indefinite tenure, generally on an active full-time basis, for at least five years immediately prior to retirement, and
- has demonstrated professional competence and provided effective service to the programs of the institution.
Approval of the President is required for all emeritus appointments.
For more information regarding the emeritus policy and procedure, please go to http://oregonstate.edu/admin/hr/policies.html.
Faculty Handbook: Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity, and Family Employment Program
Progress in research and teaching, in educating and learning depends upon the interaction of different disciplines, different perspectives, different ideas, and different people. Equal opportunity and affirmative action preserve and build diversity within the University. Oregon State University is committed to the principles of equal opportunity and affirmative action.
The University's affirmative action and equal opportunity programs are administered by the Office of Equity and Inclusion (OEI), 526 Kerr Administration Bldg., 541-737-3556.
For more information, please visit http://oregonstate.edu/oei.
Faculty Handbook: Faculty governance and faculty organizations
Other Faculty Organizations
For membership information, or the name of the current OSU representative, call the Faculty Senate office at 541-737-4344.
The Association of Oregon Faculties. The Association of Oregon Faculties, founded in 1978, is a system-wide organization with a professional lobbyist. It consists of campus chapters and a state executive committee. AOF seeks to influence the Governor and the Legislature on fiscal matters relating to higher education, particularly faculty salaries and benefits.
American Association of University Professors. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is the only national organization devoted entirely to the interests of scholars at colleges and universities. AAUP has been the national leader in protecting academic freedom and the rights of faculty. It publishes the monthly journal "Academe," and the "Red Book," a compendium of AAUP positions on academic matters. Each year, AAUP completes a national salary survey that provides institution-by-institution salary data, as well as national and regional salary averages.
Faculty Research Assistant Committee. The Faculty Research Assistant Committee represents the interests and concerns of the FRA’s at Oregon State University. The committee’s primary objective is to promote the welfare and professional development of FRA’s by:
- gathering information on FRA concerns through surveys and open forum discussions and reporting them to University Administration;
- reviewing University policies regarding salaries, promotion, evaluation and termination pertaining to FRA’s and advising FRA’s about these policies;
- fostering improved professionalism among FRA’s by sponsoring seminars and workshops;
- maintaining liaison with other faculty committees; and
- providing a means for communication among FRA’s on campus.
The FRA Committee is composed of seven to ten members, several of these are courtesy members that have been recognized by the University as outstanding FRA’s. The members are elected for a three-year term by a popular vote of the FRA population. The committee meets monthly and publishes a quarterly newsletter, FRA Update. Regular meetings are held with the Vice President of Research and Graduate Studies, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the Dean of Research to update OSU Administrators on current activities of the Committee.
The Committee has an annual budget allocated by the Research Office, which is used primarily to publish and distribute the newsletter. Committee decisions on pertinent issues and policies that affect Faculty Research Assistants are made by a minimum of five committee members, and a majority of votes; fifty percent is required to enact a decision.
Interinstitutional Faculty Senate. The Interinstitutional Faculty Senate is a statewide senate with representatives from all eight OUS campuses. It addresses any and all matters of concern to faculty and makes recommendations to the State Board, Chancellor, the State System Universities, and the Legislature. At OSU, the members are chosen in campus-wide elections, and are ex-officio members of the OSU Faculty Senate. Copies of IFS bylaws are available in the Faculty Senate office.
The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi. The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi is the only national honor society that recognizes academic excellence in all disciplines. The Oregon State University chapter was established in 1924 and is one of more than 250 chapters nationwide. The local chapter awards several undergraduate scholarships as partial tuition waivers, administers the Emerging Scholar Award for non-tenured faculty, provides the Phi Kappa Phi Biology Colloquium Award to the keynote speaker, and invites into membership eligible juniors (upper 5 percent), seniors (upper 10 percent), graduate students (upper 10 percent), and faculty members (5-8 individuals each year) from all disciplines. Students may also compete for several national and international internship and study-abroad awards.
Sigma Xi. Sigma Xi was founded in 1886 by a group of Cornell University students and a faculty member who believed the time had come to establish an honor society for scientists and engineers. From this beginning, Sigma Xi has grown to include more than 500 chapters and clubs. Its purpose is to encourage original investigations in pure and applied science and bring a better understanding of science to the community. Full membership requires demonstrated research ability, and associate members must demonstrate aptitude for research. The chapter’s major activities include a campus-wide Graduate Student Research Day. The chapter annually honors a prominent scientist at OSU with the Sigma Xi Research Award. This and other awards are presented at the chapter’s annual initiation banquet held in May.
Faculty Handbook: Curriculum
Responsibility for departmental and University curricula at Oregon State University rests with the faculty. The Faculty Senate Curriculum Council has the primary role in reviewing and approving all graduate and undergraduate curricular changes for the University. The Curriculum Council has delegated responsibility for certain routine curriculum matters to the Director of Academic Planning and Assessment. The Director facilitates the work of the Curriculum Council to directly oversee the curriculum.
University curriculum procedures are described in detail under Curricular Procedures and Policies at http://oregonstate.edu/ap/curriculum.
Faculty Handbook: Faculty benefits and development
Oregon State University offers a wide variety of benefits, development programs, leave options, health promotion and recreational opportunities designed to serve faculty needs. They range from retirement and health insurance plans, to sabbaticals, parental leave, and children's sports programs.
For benefits information, please visit http://oregonstate.edu/admin/hr/benefits/.
For information on sabbaticals, please go to: http://oregonstate.edu/admin/hr/sabbapp.pdf.
Faculty Handbook: Faculty records and periodic review
Faculty Records and Confidentiality
Some information about Oregon State University faculty, including salary and rank, are part of the public record. Other data such as social security number and birth year are confidential. This chapter provides an overview of the guidelines and policies that pertain to faculty records and periodic evaluations.
Personal and personnel records are limited to those records that are directly related to the individual’s conditions of employment, or to his or her periodic evaluation. They include:
". . . records containing information kept by the institution, school, division, or department concerning a faculty member and furnished by the faculty member or by others, including, but not limited to, information as to discipline, counseling, membership activity, other behavioral records, professional preparation and experience, professional performance (e.g., assignment and workload, quality of teaching, research, and service to the institution), personnel data relating to such matters as promotions, tenure, leaves, retirement credits and the like, and professional activities external to the institution, including, but not limited to, awards, recognition, research activities, and travel." (OAR 580–22–065).
Other records (which cannot meet the definition in OAR 580–22–065) are maintained elsewhere, e.g., general correspondence written by the faculty member does not belong in his or her employment record.
Location of Personnel Files. Oregon Revised Statutes limit evaluative files to three. At OSU, one personnel file is kept by the college or department in which the faculty member is employed; one in the office of the faculty member’s dean, director or vice president; and one in the Office of Human Resources. The head of the academic unit maintaining the files is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality and security of the records.
In those instances when a faculty member is appointed in two or more academic or administrative units, the faculty member’s major administrative unit shall maintain the personnel file. All other departments or units which maintain records of a faculty member shall use such files for fiscal and administrative purposes only and shall not use such files for evaluation of performance.
General Personnel Data. Certain information about the faculty member may be released upon request without the consent of the faculty member:
- Contract end date
- Dates of employment
- Employing department
- Educational background as listed in the OSU Catalog
- Job title
- Publications (requests for lists of current publications should be directed to the faculty member)
- Supervisor's name
- Birthday (as distinguished from birth year)
Public Only if in Staff Directory. If the faculty member is listed in the Staff Directory, the following information may also be released upon request without the consent of the faculty member:
- Current address, if given in the Staff Directory
- Home telephone number, if given in the Staff Directory
- Work telephone number, if given in the Staff Directory
All other information contained in faculty employment records is considered confidential and may not be released to any person or agency without the faculty member’s written consent or prior approval by the University legal adviser. This includes:
- Social security number –– confidential
- Birth year –– confidential
- Marital status –– confidential
- Reason for leaving the University –– confidential
- Sick leave accrual –– confidential
- Copies of periodic performance evaluations –– confidential
- Retirement benefit status –– confidential
- Grievances, reprimands –– confidential
Confidential information may not be released to the faculty member by telephone unless the faculty member’s identity has been positively confirmed by the department chair or head.
Exceptions to this policy are limited to:
- University personnel who have a demonstrably legitimate need to review the records in order to fulfill their official, professional responsibility with regard to the faculty member.
- Upon receipt of a subpoena or other court order or process or request by a federal or state investigative agency seeking access to faculty records, the recipient’s unit head must notify the University’s legal adviser prior to releasing any confidential information. The legal adviser will determine whether or not appropriate University personnel should appear in court to test the validity of the subpoena, court order, or process.
- Personnel records files more than 25 years old as outlined in ORS 351.065.
Access by the Faculty Member to Personal Records Files
Faculty members are allowed full access to their own personnel records files kept by the University, college, or department, except for the following records:
- Confidential letters and other confidential information submitted prior to July 1, 1975. The Oregon Revised Statutes provide for review of these materials after editing to provide for anonymity of the author(s). Contact the Office of Human Resources for further information on these procedures.
- Pre–employment confidential letters and other confidentially submitted pre–employment evaluations received by the University, college or department after July 1, 1975. Evaluations submitted as part of an OSU faculty member’s review for other OSU positions are also considered "pre–employment," and are also confidential. The Oregon Revised Statutes provide for review of these materials after editing to provide for anonymity of the author(s). Contact the Office of Human Resources for further information on these procedures.
The faculty member may review his or her personnel records file with the supervisor or in the Office of Human Resources. The file may be reviewed in the office in which it is maintained and may not be removed from that office.
To provide a faculty member access to information and evaluations submitted in confidence, the University, college, or department official shall disclose to the faculty member upon request the substance of the confidential items in the personnel records file (keeping the name and content that would reveal the source confidential).
The faculty member shall have the opportunity to enter into the file a rebuttal, refutation, or explanation of any materials in his or her personnel file. As described in the University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines (Chapter 8), department supervisors are expected to include in their letters of evaluation a summary of all solicited evaluations –– confidential and non–confidential –– received as part of a promotion and tenure review. The faculty member may enter into the dossier a rebuttal, explanation, or comment for these or any other evaluations in the dossier. Should the faculty member request it, a faculty committee appointed and authorized by the Faculty Senate shall examine the contents of the faculty member’s file or dossier to verify that all statements therein have been provided or summarized.
Peer and Student Teaching Evaluations
Evaluations of teaching by faculty peers and by students provide invaluable information and direction for faculty members to improve their own teaching. Peer evaluations, arranged with a colleague, include review of lecture notes, reading materials, and examinations; observation of several lectures; and a signed written evaluation by the peer.
Anonymous evaluations by all students in the class are required each term for each class the faculty member is teaching. A copy of tabulated results must be provided to the faculty member; a duplicate copy shall be placed in the faculty member's personnel records file. Students may also be solicited by department chairs or heads or deans for signed letters of evaluation to be used in assessing the faculty member's performance. Unless the faculty member has signed a "Voluntary Waiver of Non-Confidentiality" such solicited letters may not be confidential.
The University will not solicit nor accept anonymous oral or written evaluations from students or other reviewers, except a) tabulated student evaluations, and b) solicited promotion and tenure evaluations for faculty who have signed a "Voluntary Waiver of Non-Confidentiality" for a particular promotion and tenure review year. All requests for evaluation of a faculty member sent without a waiver shall be accompanied by a statement that the faculty member shall have access to the evaluation.
Evaluations Received by Telephone
Any evaluation received by telephone shall be documented in the faculty member's files by means of a written summary of the conversation, with the names of the conversants identified.
Nondisclosure About Race, Religion, Political Affiliation, or Sexual Preference
Faculty members have the right to decline a response to requests for information pertaining to race, religion, sex, political affiliation, or sexual preference unless such information is required by state statute or federal law, rules, or regulations. Any request must stipulate the purpose for the information and the individual's right to decline.
Faculty Data for Research
Data about faculty members may be provided for research, providing:
- there are adequate provisions to conceal from the individuals doing the research the identity of the individuals whose personnel data or information is being provided for the research. If the confidentiality of faculty records would be jeopardized in any way by the release of information for research purposes, the written consent of the faculty member must also be obtained prior to the release of the information.
- approval is granted by the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs and the Human Subjects Committee.
Guidelines for Periodic Review of Faculty
A regular review of faculty can improve the quality of the teaching, research, and service functions of the University. In addition, it will benefit individual faculty members by assuring that they are regularly informed of their status. Such a review shall include input from colleagues and students from the faculty member’s own administrative unit as well as from other appropriate units. The written summary of the review shall be provided to the faculty member, and the faculty member shall have ample opportunity to add written rebuttals or explanations.
Administrative faculty shall also be reviewed in terms of their administrative function.
Frequency of Review. The procedure for the actual review is best developed by the individual school, college, or division. Nevertheless, certain guidelines are appropriate for the University as a whole. All faculty with an FTE of 0.5 or more shall be reviewed as follows:
- Those on annual tenure shall be reviewed annually.
- Those on indefinite tenure shall be reviewed as follows:
- Assistant and Associate Professors shall be reviewed annually during their second through fifth years in rank at OSU and during any period in which they are reviewed intensively for promotion in rank. Otherwise, they shall be reviewed at least once every three years.
- Professors and tenured Senior Instructors shall be reviewed at least once every three years.
- Those on fixed–term Senior Research or Clinical professorial appointments shall be reviewed as described for faculty with indefinite tenure.
- Other fixed–term faculty with professorial rank not described in (3), Instructors, Faculty Research Assistants, Senior Faculty Research Assistants, untenured Senior Instructors, and Research Associates, shall be reviewed annually during their first five years of service; during any period in which they are being reviewed intensively for promotion in rank and at least once every three years thereafter.
- Professional Faculty shall be reviewed annually.
- Faculty on multi–year or extended fixed–term appointments shall be reviewed annually.
However, no periodic review is required for the following faculty members on fixed–term appointments:
- Emeritus appointments
- Temporary postdoctoral appointments
- Visiting appointments for two years or less.
Any faculty member eligible for review is entitled to a review at any time, upon the member’s request.
Each school, college, or division shall annually report those members of its faculty reviewed to the Office of Academic Affairs.
Nature of the Evaluation. In each instance, the evaluation shall include
- a statement of current responsibilities of the faculty member; and
- signed comments on the faculty member’s progress in teaching, research or other scholarly pursuits, extension, librarianship, professionally related service, and University service from those persons designated by the department, school, or University to make the evaluations.
The sources of information used as the basis for the evaluation should be included. Sources to be used are current and former students, other faculty from this University or other universities, professional colleagues and, if appropriate, the public. In all instances, the evaluation shall be based only on material that is appropriate to the faculty member’s profession and the performance of faculty assignments.
The faculty member must be provided the opportunity of reading and initialing the evaluation and of furnishing written comments, explanations, or a rebuttal to the evaluations to be placed in the faculty member’s personnel records file. Disagreements on the contents of the file should be handled through normal University appeal procedures.
Initiation and Disposition. The initiation of the review, except one requested by a faculty member, is the responsibility of the department head or chair or the appropriate administrative officer. Principal investigators are reminded that all faculty on their projects, including Faculty Research Assistants, should be reviewed following the guidelines in this chapter.
The review and all related materials are to be placed in the faculty member’s personnel records file that is maintained by the department.
Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts, Deans, Department Heads/Chairs, and other major unit leaders will receive continuous counsel on their effectiveness, including specific suggestions when improvement is needed.
Evaluation of their performance shall be one element of their annual review with their supervisor. In addition, they will be formally reviewed at intervals not to exceed five years. Formal reviews will include a request for input from individuals internal and external to OSU.
Annual Performance Reviews
No standard procedure for annual performance reviews will fit all cases because administrative positions vary greatly in scope and complexity. However, each performance evaluation shall be conducted personally by the administrator’s supervisor. This evaluation will be a part of the supervisor’s annual program/budget review and planning session. It is important that the process for annual reviews be transparent, including the time of year annual reviews are to be completed so that faculty, staff, and students may provide input should they wish to do so.
Annual evaluations may include the following and will provide opportunities for self-assessment:
- Key results for the past year.
- Key strengths in achieving those results.
- Key challenges and obstacles.
- A list of key goals/initiatives that are essential to address during the current academic year (these will be the unit leader’s main focus areas) and a description of what would constitute success in each of the goals/initiatives
The supervisor will meet with each direct report to discuss the accomplishments for the previous academic year and the goals for the current academic year.
The supervisor will write a memo summarizing the annual review meeting. The original will go to the unit leader, and a copy will be placed in the personnel file maintained in the supervisor’s office.
Formal Performance Evaluations
Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts, Deans, Department Heads/Chairs, and other major unit leaders will be formally reviewed at intervals not to exceed five years. The first objective of the five-year evaluation is to evaluate past performance of individuals in leading their academic units or divisions on factors such as achievement of unit's strategic goals, mentoring and development of faculty and staff, and developing relationships with appropriate external constituents that will help position the unit for success in external grants and contracts, private philanthropy, and legislative funding priorities. The second and related objective is to seek input to help those administrators to better perform their responsibilities and to help them succeed in the future.
Formal reviews will provide opportunities for substantive input from
- all faculty, staff, and students within the unit;
- groups inside and outside the University who are significantly affected by the administrator's performance; and
- others in a position to observe and evaluate the incumbent's performance effectively.
Continuation of the incumbent's administrative appointment following the periodic performance evaluation requires a letter from the supervisor formalizing the action to continue the appointment. Should the supervisor wish to change any of the terms and conditions of the employee’s appointment, he/she is to contact the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and International Programs prior to issuing a letter to continue the appointment.
The supervisor requests the following from the incumbent:
- A list of individuals to contact regarding the incumbent’s performance. The comprehensive list must include all faculty and staff within the unit, and can be as extensive as needed. The list should include both internal and external colleagues and peers, if appropriate. The supervisor must give all faculty and staff within the unit an opportunity to provide input, but may or may not contact everyone else on the list, and may or may not add to the list.
- A current position description.
- A current CV.
- A brief document that includes significant accomplishments and future strategic goals for the incumbent and their college/division.
- A signed Waiver of Access to the raw information gathered, or a memo indicating the incumbent does not wish to waive access. The incumbent has a legal right to review all input from reviewers. However, they may waive access to the raw input if preferred. It is important that the supervisor makes clear to the reviewers whether or not the incumbent will retain their right to access to the information. If a Waiver is signed, the supervisor will share with the aggregate input with the unit leader, sans attribution.
Once the list of contacts is finalized, the supervisor will provide a copy of the position description to individuals from whom he/she wishes to receive input, and will ask that they respond to the following questions. (The unit leader may make suggestions for additional questions that might provide meaningful input.)
- What is your appraisal of ___’s overall effectiveness in her/his role as described in the position description?
- How does ___’s performance meet your expectations?
- What do you see as ___’s greatest strengths in this role?
- What do you see as major weaknesses or areas of specific concern in ___’s performance in her/his role?
- Do you have specific recommendations for improvement in ___’s performance?
- Other comments?
Input will be handled with the very strictest confidence, and assuming a Waiver of Access has been signed, the incumbent will see a summary of input, sans attribution.
The supervisor will provide the incumbent with a summary of the major themes from the input, and will meet with the incumbent to discuss the results of the evaluation, the incumbent’s goals, and any other issues.
This memo from the supervisor will become part of the incumbent’s official evaluation file in accordance with the Faculty Records Policy. The incumbent will be asked to sign the memo and add any comments, explanations or rebuttal they wish. A copy of the document will remain with the incumbent. The review and all related materials will be secured in the incumbent’s personnel records file maintained by the supervisor.
Disagreements on the contents of the review and/or the file are to be handled through the normal University appeal procedures.
Policy for Mid-term Reviews for Tenure-Track Faculty
In addition to the annual Periodic Review of Faculty (PROF), all academic units will conduct mid-term intensive reviews for faculty on annual tenure-track appointments. The primary intent is to review progress toward indefinite tenure so that timely guidance can be extended to the faculty member.
Mid-term reviews are supplemental to annual PROF evaluations and to a subsequent formal promotion and/or tenure evaluation. The mid-term review provides opportunity for the Department faculty, Department Head, Dean and other supervisors to observe and comment upon an individual faculty member's performance relative to University and College promotion and tenure guidelines, and to offer appropriate advice and counsel on improving performance to meet promotion and tenure requirements. It also provides a forum for the faculty member being reviewed to ask questions about the process and criteria for granting indefinite tenure or promotion. This policy does not alter the probationary status of a tenure track appointment and the University’s rights to issue a letter of timely notice under State Board of Higher Education Rules, OAR 580-021-0110.
The following general University guidelines are to be used in conducting mid-term tenure reviews:
- Mid-term reviews will usually be conducted during the final quarter of the third year of the initial appointment. For faculty whose probationary service has been either shortened for prior service or lengthened for extenuating circumstances, the review should be done during the year which best equates with the mid point in the faculty member’s probationary service.
- In general, the mid-term review is to be used as a supplement to, and not as a replacement for, the annual review in the year it is given. Exceptions to this statement are possible if the mid-term review contains all the components of a regular annual review. If it does not, an annual PROF review must be done in addition to the mid-term review.
- Colleges and/or departments must apply the process uniformly to all members of the faculty on annual tenure-track appointments.
- All materials used in the review must be open to review by the faculty member, including any external letters of evaluation that might be solicited (unless a waiver of access has been signed).
- The outcome of the mid-term review must be shared with the faculty member for comment and signature, and included in the individual's personnel file.
- Colleges and Departments may write additional guidelines in order to provide extra detail on process, or that are specific to their personnel or mission. All such unit specific guidelines must be consistent with the university guidelines and must be submitted to the Provost for review and approval prior to implementation. As with any set of guidelines, units are responsible for informing their faculty of any additional guidelines they have created.
- The guidelines for mid-term reviews should not preclude the University in issuing letters of timely notice in any of the years prior to a tenure decision; nor should they limit the purpose or intent of the annual review.
- The mid-term review is discussed with each eligible faculty member by the department head/chair during the winter or spring of the academic year prior to a planned review.
- The faculty member prepares a dossier for review under specifications and time guidelines provided by the department head/chair. The format for the dossier should be similar to the format used in the final promotion and tenure process. External reviews and evaluation letters for this dossier should only be sought in extraordinary cases, for example where there is insufficient expertise on campus to make an evaluative judgment of an important part of a candidate’s performance. As with the final promotion and tenure dossier, formal student or client input, and peer review of teaching reports should be included if the faculty member has a teaching and advising role outlined in their position description.
- The dossier is reviewed by the department head/chair (and any other supervisors, if applicable) and the departmental faculty review committee. Their written evaluations are appended to the dossier and are provided to the faculty member. Their letters should include an evaluation of progress towards promotion and/or tenure, as well as recommended actions the faculty member and department should take.
- The department head/chair schedules a meeting with the faculty member to discuss the outcome of the review and initial recommendations. The chair of the faculty review committee and other supervisors (if applicable) should also be invited to participate. The performance of the faculty member relative to University and unit P&T guidelines (if different from the University) is discussed in the form of a dialogue among all parties present. P&T guidelines and procedures are reviewed to ensure that the faculty member has been informed about the process and criteria for evaluating faculty for granting of indefinite tenure, or promotion. At that time the faculty member may attach comments, explanations, or rebuttal to the review before signing to indicate that the document is complete.
- The department head/chair forwards the dossier and any attachments to the dean for review.
- At the discretion of the dean, the review is either signed and returned, or a meeting is scheduled with the faculty member, the department head/chair, the dean, and other appropriate administrators.
- In the event of a meeting at the college level, the dean will send written comments to the faculty member on the performance of the individual relative to P&T guidelines. The dean's letter, including any modifications in the recommendations for the faculty member, is sent through the department head/chair to the faculty member for signature and response, if desired.
- The department head/chair, in consultation with other supervisors, reviews the final results of the mid-term review with the faculty member and discusses issues or concerns raised during the review. A copy of the review and the recommendations, signed by the faculty member, the chair and the dean, is placed in the individual's personnel file.
Faculty Handbook: Promotion and tenure guidelines
Due to the length of this article, navigation links are provided here and throughout:
General Purposes and Responsibilities
Criteria for Promotion and Tenure
Procedural Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure
Guidelines for Clinical Faculty
Waiver of Access
Dossier Preparation Guidelines
Policy on Salary Increases for Promotion in Rank
GENERAL PURPOSES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The quality of Oregon State University is sustained through the dedicated and creative work of the faculty. Objective, systematic, and thorough appraisal of each candidate for initial and continued appointment, for promotion in academic rank, and for the granting of indefinite tenure is therefore important. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide common criteria and procedures for tenure and promotion for all Oregon State University faculty in the professorial ranks. Guidelines for promoting instructors, research assistants, and faculty with courtesy or research appointments are included with these criteria.
Promotions in rank and the granting of tenure are based on merit. They are never automatic or routine, and are made without regard to race, color, religion, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, political affiliation, or national origin. In general, promotions are awarded to recognize the level of faculty members' contributions to the missions of the University in teaching, advising, service, and other assignments; and in scholarship and creative activity.
Responsibility for promotion and tenure recommendations rests principally with the senior members of the faculty, unit administrators, and academic deans. Final responsibility rests with the Provost and Executive Vice President. Reviewers base their recommendations on carefully prepared dossiers that document and evaluate the accomplishments of each candidate measured relative to the duties of each individual as enumerated in their position description.
• return to top
CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
Candidates for promotion and tenure will be evaluated objectively for evidence of excellence in their performance of assigned duties and in their scholarship or creative activity. Each of these responsibilities will be documented in the dossier.
Oregon State University is committed to educating, both on and off campus, the citizens of Oregon, the nation, and the international community, and in expanding and applying knowledge. The responsibilities of individual faculty in relation to these fundamental commitments will vary and will be specified in his or her individualized position description. Whatever the assignment, faculty in the professorial ranks will engage in appropriate scholarship and other creative activity, with a minimum of 15% FTE allocated to this.
All faculty are expected to be collegial members of their units, and to perform appropriate service that contributes to the effectiveness of their departments, colleges, and the University, and of their professions. Relative contributions expected in the various areas of responsibility will depend on the faculty member's assignment.
A faculty member’s responsibilities may be subdivided into the categories of teaching and advising, research, extension, service, and other duties as assigned. In addition, faculty are expected to produce scholarly outcomes, as described in their position description. A general description of assigned duties and scholarship expectations follows. The position description is where more specific expectations are enumerated and form the basis for evaluation (see the University’s Guidelines for Position Descriptions for Academic Employees).
Teaching: The teaching of students is central to the mission of Oregon State University. Most faculty have significant responsibilities in instruction:
- in presenting resident credit courses, international programs, for-credit distance learning programs;
- in directing undergraduate and graduate research or projects, internships, and theses, and serving on master and doctoral committees;
- in collaborating with and mentoring undergraduate and graduate students, and postdoctoral associates.
When teaching is part of the faculty assignment, effectiveness in teaching is an essential criterion for appointment or advancement. Faculty with responsibilities in instruction can be promoted and tenured only when there is clear documentation of effective performance in the teaching role.
Faculty must demonstrate command of their subject matter, continuous growth in the subject field, and ability to organize material and convey it effectively to students. Other activities that provide evidence of a faculty member's particular commitment to effective teaching include:
- contribution in curricular development, including collaborative courses and programs;
- innovation in teaching strategies, including the incorporation of new technologies and approaches to learning;
- documented study of curricular and pedagogical issues, and incorporation of this information into the classroom.
Evaluation of instruction is based on a combination of systematic and on-going peer evaluations, following unit guidelines for peer review of teaching; tabulated responses from learners or participants of courses taught by the candidate; and evaluation, by student representatives, of materials that pertain to teaching. Peer evaluations should be based both on classroom observations and on review of course syllabi, texts, assigned reading, examinations, and class materials. Where possible, evaluation is enhanced by evidence of student learning.
Advising: All faculty members must also be committed to the well-being of students, both inside and outside the classroom. Effective advising helps create an environment which fosters student learning and student retention. The formal and informal advising and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students is an indispensable component of the broader educational experience at the University.
Faculty advising may take the form of assisting students in the selection of courses or careers, serving as faculty adviser with student groups, assisting learners in educational programs both on and off campus, and mentoring students. For promotion and tenure, performance in such activities must be documented and evaluated. Documentation should include the number of students served and the advising or mentoring services provided. Evaluation will consider the innovation and creativity of the services, and their effectiveness; it may be based on systematic surveys of and assessments by students and former students who received these services, when signed by the students.
Research: Research is the active pursuit of new ideas and knowledge. Research may add to our theoretical understanding of an area or may focus on the improved application of existing knowledge or methods. Scholarship related research results are demonstrated by characteristics such as peer review affirmation (see below). However, there are other outcomes of research activities that should be accommodated accurately in our system.
Many faculty in technical fields are expected to participate actively in research. The exact definition of research for the purposes of promotion and tenure decisions, however, is discipline-specific. Thus, research may also include interpretation and application of new ideas or new methods that may have outcomes that are not peer reviewed but are consistent with the goals of the research project. Expectations and outcomes should be clearly understood by faculty within their specific discipline and delineated in faculty position descriptions, including the proportion of their research activities that are expected to have (or not to have) scholarship as outcomes.
Extension: In general, extension is the informal education (non-credit) that is conducted by faculty members in response to specific needs of client groups in a particular geographic area or a group with common interests. It incorporates a learning process specifically designed for the audience and promotes learning by, from, and with client groups. Extension also seeks to integrate education with research activities and frequently engages volunteers who extend the effectiveness of extension programs. Extension programming often includes non-credit seminars, workshops, continuing-education and distance-learning programs (including E-campus), camps, free-choice learning, and field days.
Evaluation of extension education is based on a combination of systematic and ongoing peer evaluations, following unit guidelines for peer review of teaching/extension, and tabulated responses from participants. Peer evaluations should be based both on observations from classes taught and on review of teaching materials. Where possible, evaluation is enhanced by evidence of student learning. When extension is part of the faculty assignment, effectiveness in extension teaching is an essential criterion for appointment or advancement. Faculty with responsibilities in extension can be promoted and tenured only when there is clear documentation of effective performance and impact in this aspect of the extension role.
Service: Faculty service is essential to the University's success in serving its central missions, and is a responsibility of all faculty. Faculty will be held accountable for that responsibility, and rewarded for their contribution according to specific expectations laid out in their position descriptions. As with other duties, the FTE ascribed to service in the position description should be an accurate representation of the time assigned to the activity.
Faculty members perform a broad array of services that are vital to supporting and sustaining the quality and effectiveness of the University and its programs (institutional service), and to their disciplines (professional service). Faculty members are expected to provide service to the University, its students, clients, and programs, as collegial and constructive members of the University and the broader community. Examples include service in faculty governance; in academic and student-support units; in international development; in community and state programs; in mentoring students and student groups; and on department, college, and university committees.
Service to professional organizations contributes to the national and international intellectual communities of which OSU is a part. The part of faculty members’ service duties that draw upon their professional expertise and/or are relevant to their assignment, may be considered as a component of a faculty member’s scholarship or creative activity, if the work meets the standard criteria of peer validation and dissemination. The appropriate designation of each service duty should be discussed with the individual’s supervisor prior to taking on the duty.
Many faculty make important service contributions to university relations or to the community that are not directly related to their appointments. Though valuable in their own right, and ideally a responsibility of all citizens, these efforts are considered in promotion and tenure decisions only to the extent that they contribute to the mission of the University.
These may include but are not restricted to the following: Counseling, Academic Administration, International Assignments, Information Services, Libraries, Diagnostic and Analytical Facilitation, and Student Services. Generally, these assignments:
- Involve discipline specific work for which the faculty member was hired
- Requires expertise and training at the faculty level
- Are done at the behest of others
- Will vary, depending on the specific assignment, in the degree to which they produce scholarly or creative outcomes directly attributable to the faculty member.
The specific expectations (e.g. for scholarship) of these assignments must be described in the individualized position description.
Where faculty assignments entail serving students or clients, evaluation will focus on the quality of the specific services provided, determined by the purposes of the service and the faculty member's success in achieving them. Documentation should include the number of students or clients served and the services provided. Evaluation will consider innovation and creativity, and evidence of effectiveness; and may be based on systematic surveys of, and assessments by, those who received the services, when signed by the evaluators.
Scholarship and Creative Activity
All Oregon State University faculty in the professorial ranks have a responsibility to engage in scholarship and creative activity. Scholarship and creative activity are understood to be intellectual work whose significance is validated by peers and which is communicated. More specifically, such work in its diverse forms must be based on a high level of professional expertise; must give evidence of originality; must be documented and validated as through peer review or critique; and must be communicated in appropriate ways so as to have impact on or significance for publics beyond the University, or for the discipline itself. Intellectual work in research, teaching, extension, service, or other assignments is scholarship if it is shared with peers in journals, in formal peer-reviewed presentations at professional meetings, or in comparable peer-evaluated forums.
Scholarship and creative activity derive from many activities , including but not limited to:
- research contributing to a body of knowledge;
- development of new technologies, materials, methods, or educational approaches;
- integration of knowledge or technology leading to new interpretations or applications;
- creation and interpretation in the arts, including the performing arts;
- work on steering committees, funding agency panels and editorships where the outcome is a fundamental change in the field’s direction.
While the kinds of scholarship for faculty across the range of positions at the University will vary, the requirement that the significance of the scholarship be validated and be communicated to publics beyond the University will sustain a uniformly high standard. In some fields, refereed journals and monographs are the traditional media for communication and peer validation; in others, exhibitions and performances. In still other fields, emerging technologies are creating, and will continue to create, entirely new media and methods. In consideration for promotion and tenure, scholarship and creative activity are not merely to be enumerated but are to be carefully, objectively, and rigorously evaluated by professional peers, including ones external to the University.
When work that is the product of joint effort is presented as evidence of scholarship, clarification of the candidate's role in the joint effort should be provided in the dossier.
In certain positions, seeking competitive grants and contracts is an essential responsibility, and success in this endeavor—particularly when the grants are highly competitive and peer-reviewed— is a component of achievement in scholarship.
Criteria for Granting Indefinite Tenure
Tenure ensures the academic freedom that is essential to an atmosphere conducive to the free search for knowledge and the attainment of excellence in the University. But in addition, tenure also reflects and recognizes a candidate's potential long-term value to the institution, as evidenced by professional performance and growth. Tenure sets universities apart from other institutions. Faculty are not merely employed by the University but are integral to the educational and research programs of the University; tenured faculty are the community of educators who create institutional stability and an ongoing commitment to excellence. Tenure, therefore, will be granted to faculty members whose character, achievements in serving the University's missions, and potential for effective long-term performance warrant the institution's reciprocal long-term commitment. The granting of tenure is more significant than promotion in academic rank.
Tenure is granted for achievement, not for years in rank, but under normal circumstances faculty will be considered for tenure in their sixth year of service in professorial rank. By the end of the sixth year on tenure track ("annual tenure"), the faculty member must be granted indefinite tenure or be given a year's timely notice that the appointment will not be continued. A faculty member who works less than 1.0 FTE may have his or her tenure clock adjusted in accordance with the rules of the State Board of Higher Education (see OAR 580-021-0125). The tenure clock will begin on the September 16th following the faculty member’s hire, unless otherwise stipulated in the offer letter. The number of years of credit for prior service (if any) must be stated in the offer letter, along with the date by which tenure must be granted. Under extenuating circumstances, such as personal or family illness, a faculty member can request of the Provost and Executive Vice President that the tenure clock be extended. A one-year extension will be granted for leave taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act that extends for 3 months or more. Requests for extension of the tenure clock should come at the time of the extenuating circumstances, and will not be accepted after June 1 of the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the tenure decision will be made.
The tenure decision is based primarily on the candidate's performance of teaching, advising, service, and other assignments and achievements in scholarship. In judging the suitability of the candidate for indefinite tenure, however, it is also appropriate to consider collegiality, professional integrity, and willingness to accept and cooperate in assignments.
Criteria for Promotions
Criteria for Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor
Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor is based upon evidence of the candidate's:
- demonstrated effectiveness in teaching, advising, service, and other assigned duties;
- achievement in scholarship and creative activity that establishes the individual as a significant contributor to the field or profession, with potential for distinction;
- appropriate balance of institutional and professional service.
Promotion to Associate Professor does not automatically grant tenure. Tenure will usually accompany a promotion, but the decision on tenure is made independently of the decision on promotion.
Criteria for Promotion to Professor
Promotion to the rank of Professor is based upon evidence of the candidate's:
- distinction in teaching, advising, service, or other assigned duties, as evident in continuing development and sustained effectiveness in these areas, new and innovative teaching, curricular development, awards and recognition;
- distinction in scholarship, as evident in the candidate's wide recognition and significant contributions to the field or profession;
- exemplary institutional and professional service, and an appropriate balance between the two.
Criteria for Promotion of Clinical, Research, Fixed Term Extension and Courtesy Faculty
Faculty with clinical, senior research, fixed term extension and courtesy appointments will be expected to meet the same criteria for advancement in professorial rank as those with regular appointments. Given the nature of the appointments, commitments in some areas of responsibility may be greater than in others, but the criteria for scholarship will adhere to the same standard expected of faculty with regular appointments. Additional background information on clinical faculty are available at Guidelines for Clinical Faculty Appointments and Promotion.
Criteria for Promotion and Tenure of Instructors
Promotion from the rank of Instructor to Senior Instructor may be considered after four years of full-time service, calculated from the hire date to December 31 of the calendar year prior to the promotion decision (promotion decisions are made in June of the following year). For fixed term instructors with extended prior service, promotion to the rank of Senior Instructor cannot be made effective before the end of the third year of full-time service. To be promoted, a candidate must:
- have a graduate degree appropriate to the assigned duties, or comparable educational or professional experience;
- have special skills or experience needed in the unit;
- have an exceptional record of achievement in the assigned duties.
The criteria for Teaching, Advising, and Other Assignments in this document can provide guidelines for documenting and evaluating the level of achievement. Promotions cannot be made from non-professorial to professorial ranks.
A tenure-track Instructor position is defined by teaching, advising and other assigned duties as delineated in the position description, and has a focus on a specialized assignment within an academic program. Such positions carry an expectation of scholarship as defined in the position description. Faculty in such positions are expected to demonstrate their potential for long-term contribution to the institution.
Only those instructors hired into tenure-track positions are eligible for tenure. Tenure-track instructors must hold a minimum of a Master’s degree. Promotion and tenure of tenure-track instructors shall be governed by the promotion and tenure process and guidelines. This means that a tenure-track instructor, under normal circumstances, will be considered for tenure in their sixth year of service. By the end of the sixth year, a tenure-track instructor must be granted indefinite tenure or be given a year’s timely notice that the appointment will not be renewed. Instructors in tenure-track positions who have extended prior service as fixed term instructors may have credit for prior service specified in their offer letter, but will not be eligible for tenure before they have completed three years of tenure-track status.
Criteria for Promotion of Faculty Research Assistants
Faculty with non-professorial rank are hired in positions to meet units' specific needs. Criteria for promotion will therefore be specific to the candidate's position description.
Promotion from Faculty Research Assistant to Senior Faculty Research Assistant may be considered after four years of full-time service, calculated from the hire date to December 31 of the calendar year prior to the promotion decision (promotion decisions are made in June of the following year). For Faculty Research Assistants with extended prior service, promotion to the rank of Senior Faculty Research Assistant cannot be made effective before the end of the third year of full-time service. To be promoted, a candidate must:
- have a graduate degree appropriate to the field in which the research activities are performed, or comparable educational or professional experience;
- demonstrate a high level of competence, achievement, and potential in research, or serve effectively in a position requiring high individual responsibility or special professional expertise;
- demonstrate a high degree of initiative in research and leadership among research colleagues in the department, as documented in authorship, management responsibilities, and creative approaches to research.
• return to top
Compilation of the Dossier
Promotion and tenure decisions are based primarily on an evaluation of the faculty member's achievements as described in his or her dossier. The dossier must document and contain evaluation of the candidate's performance in teaching, advising, service, or other assignments; and in scholarship, consistent with the candidate's position. The current Dossier Preparation Guidelines and models for requesting letters of evaluation can be found at http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/faculty-handbook-promotion-and-tenure-guidelines#dossier.
Although the candidate prepares much of the material for the dossier, the immediate supervisor of the tenure unit (department chair or head, county staff chair, dean or director) will assure that the candidate receives assistance as needed, and will be responsible for seeing that the final dossier is complete and conforms to University guidelines.
Recommendations for the promotion or tenure of a unit supervisor will be reviewed in the same manner as for other faculty, except that the dean or director to whom the supervisor reports will appoint a senior faculty member to assume the supervisor's usual responsibilities.
Access to the Dossier and University Files by the Faculty Member
As described in the OSU Faculty Records Policy contained in the Faculty Handbook, faculty members will be allowed full access to their own dossiers, personnel files, and records kept by the institution, college, or department, except for:
- letters of evaluation submitted as part of a pre-employment review at Oregon State University;
- solicited letters of evaluation for faculty who have signed voluntary waivers of access to those letters as part of a particular year's promotion and tenure review.
Prior to the dossier receiving its first formal review by the department P&T committee, the candidate must sign and date a certification that the open part of the dossier is complete. Should the candidate and the supervisor of the tenure unit disagree on the inclusion of some materials, the candidate may indicate his or her objection in the statement of certification. Once the dossier is certified, the only materials to be added subsequently will be the letters of committee and administrative review, and in some cases the candidate's response to an evaluation as described in the following section. If manuscripts are accepted for publication after the dossier is certified, it is the faculty member’s responsibility to inform his or her supervisor. That information will then be considered in the review.
Throughout the process of review, the open parts of the dossier remain available to the candidate at his or her request. The candidate will be notified when letters of evaluation by reviewers at the unit and college levels are added to the dossier.
• return to top
PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
The process for earning promotion and tenure begins at the time of hiring. Faculty are hired with expectations in job performance and scholarship that are established in position descriptions, which may then be revised as the tenure unit's needs and the faculty member's assignments change. From the time of their arrival at the University, new faculty should be well advised of what is expected of them for promotion and tenure. Reports from the annual Periodic Reviews of Faculty (PROF's) including any more intensive third-year review, while not included in the candidate's dossier for promotion and tenure, are used by supervisors in tenure units to inform faculty, in a constructive way, of their progress toward promotion and tenure.
Declaration and Management of Conflicts of Interest
In order that we maintain objectivity in the promotion and tenure process, it is critical that we declare and manage special relationships between candidates and other faculty/administrators that might create real or apparent bias in the process. This means that evaluators who have a relationship with a candidate should be forthcoming in making that relationship known, consistent with University policies and these Guidelines, and act to ensure that their participation in no way undermines the objectivity of the evaluation process. This includes personal relationships as well as professional relationships such as those with former advisees and collaborators. A faculty member or administrator involved in the promotion and tenure evaluation process must declare any conflict of interest that arises from these circumstances.
Policy for dealing with conflicts of interest stemming from a personal relationship are covered in both OSU's consensual relations policy (http://oregonstate.edu/affact/consensual-relationships-policy-0) and in OAR 580-022-0055, which generally prohibits an academic staff member from participating in employment decisions involving the staff member's spouse, child, or stepchild (reference - http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_022.html).
With respect to professional relationships, if anyone involved in the P&T evaluation process has a professional relationship with a candidate under consideration, he or she must declare the nature of the professional relationship before any discussion takes place. In addition, the specific nature of the relationship should be noted in any written evaluation. If, after consultation, the unit P&T committee chair or the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs feels that the process would be compromised by the participation of any individual, that faculty member must recuse him or herself from any discussion or voting on that particular case.
In some cases, the candidate’s supervisor will participate in the preliminary discussions of the unit P&T committee in order to provide information on process prior to deliberations. However, the supervisor may participate only if invited by the unit committee and must not be present for the deliberations. Supervisors who have a past or current personal or professional relationship with the candidate that might compromise the evaluation process (example: former advisee undergoing evaluation) must either recuse themselves from the process and find a substitute, or state the nature of the relationship at the beginning of the evaluation letter. In no case will they participate in the voting as a member of the committee. This includes cases such as department heads serving on College level P&T committees. In such cases, department heads must recuse themselves from the discussion and voting on any case related to their own department.
Initiation of the Recommendation
Tenure resides in the academic unit, which for most faculty will be the department. Final decisions on promotion and tenure are made by the Provost and Executive Vice President, but the primary responsibility for evaluating the candidate's performance and recommending promotion and tenure actions rests in the tenure unit and college. The supervisor of the tenure unit or a committee of faculty assigned this responsibility, in consultation with the candidate, will normally initiate the candidate's review for promotion and tenure. The supervisor of the tenure unit will also work in cooperation with any other supervisors to whom the faculty member reports. The candidate, however, always has the right to initiate the review. In either case, a complete dossier will be compiled by the candidate with assistance from the supervisor to assure proper format and inclusion of all necessary information, as given in the Dossier Preparation Guidelines at http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/faculty-handbook-promotion-and-tenure-guidelines#dossier.
Tenure Unit Review and Recommendation Policy approved by President Ray on July 7, 2010
Tenure Unit Review and Recommendation
The supervisor of the tenure unit and a promotion and tenure review committee formed from among the faculty within the unit will each independently evaluate the materials in the candidate’s dossier. The supervisor and the committee will each independently recommend either for or against the candidate's promotion and/or tenure and provide the rationale for their decision in a formal letter.
Promotion And Tenure Review Committee
The unit committee should review the dossier for completeness and check the format to be consistent with that described in the Dossier Preparation Guidelines. Dossiers that are incomplete or improperly formatted will be sent back to the candidate and unit supervisor. The unit P&T committee is intended to be an independent voice of evaluation that is identified within the unit whose membership is determined by a transparent process approved by the tenured and tenure-track faculty within the unit. The committee shall be comprised of either the entire eligible faculty within the unit or an elected subset of these faculty, excluding the unit supervisor. The composition and size of the committee should provide fair and diverse faculty representation within the unit. The composition of the committee should also provide representation to effectively evaluate the areas of assignments identified in the candidate’s position description, area of expertise, programs of study, location, etc. Committees may include faculty at all ranks who can contribute to the discussion, but not every committee member may be eligible to vote. The committee must include at least three voting members. For fixed-term candidates being considered for promotion, only faculty members above the current rank of the candidate may vote. For tenured candidates being considered for promotion or untenured candidates being considered for both promotion and tenure, only tenured faculty members above the current rank of the candidate may vote. For untenured candidates being considered solely for tenure, only tenured faculty members at or above the current rank of the candidate may vote. If there are not enough faculty of the appropriate rank within the unit, members from outside of the unit will be elected by the tenured and tenure-track faculty to serve as voting members on the committee. Retired faculty (even those on 1040 assignments) are not eligible to vote at the tenure unit level.
The Supervisor’s Role
In addition to the information available in the candidate’s dossier, the supervisor will also consult the candidate's personnel file maintained in the unit. The supervisor’s letter of evaluation will include a fair and balanced summary of performance relative to tenure and/or promotion considerations and is expected to include a summary of all solicited evaluations, confidential and non-confidential, received as part of a promotion and tenure review. The supervisor may include comments on any information in the candidate’s file that is relevant to the evaluation of assigned duties, scholarship, collegiality, professional integrity, or willingness to accept and cooperate in assignments. If the individual serving in the unit chair/head role is on a 1040 assignment, he/she can write the supervisor’s letter of evaluation.
Peer review is an important and necessary mechanism to evaluate each assignment within the candidate’s position description. Each unit should have procedures in place to assure a peer review process for each assignment. Faculty with teaching, extension, outreach, clinical or other assignments should have evaluations covering each peer review process. Scholarship peer evaluation is achieved through external letters using the process outlined in section IX of the dossier preparation guidelines http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/faculty-handbook-promotion-and-tenure-guidelines#dossier.
As required by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, students will be invited to participate in the review of faculty for promotion and tenure. The purpose of the student evaluation letter is to document the student perspective of the candidate’s effectiveness as a teacher and advisor. In order to provide the university with a consistent source of information for the process, the unit P&T committee and the unit supervisor should endeavor to organize student committees for faculty evaluation using the process outlined in section VI of the dossier preparation guidelines http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/faculty-handbook-promotion-and-tenure-guidelines#dossier.
Unit Letters of Evaluation of the Candidate
The letters from the supervisor and the promotion and tenure review committee are to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidate's performance. If the candidate reports to, or works closely with, more than one supervisor and more than one unit, letters from each supervisor and unit P&T committee should be included. These letters should comment on key points in the dossier and address all responsibilities identified in the position description, and provide a fair and balanced summary of all peer and external solicited evaluations. External evaluators should be identified only by a coded key when their comments are cited from these confidential letters.
Report to the Candidate
The unit supervisor is required to meet with the candidate to share the outcomes of the unit reviews prior to the dossier being forwarded to the next level for review. The candidate has one week after receiving all unit level reviews to add a written statement regarding these reviews, to be included in the dossier.
As stated in the Faculty Handbook (http://oregonstate.edu/facultystaff/handbook/persrec.html), should the faculty member request it, a faculty committee appointed and authorized by the Faculty Senate shall examine the contents of the faculty member’s dossier to verify that all statements therein have properly summarized external evaluations. This review is to be completed and forwarded to the College at least two weeks prior to the scheduled completion of the College level review. This review becomes a part of the dossier at that time. The request by the candidate for this review must be submitted to the Faculty Senate within one week after receiving all unit level reviews.
At any time during the review process the candidate may withdraw his or her dossier. If both the supervisor's and the committee's recommendations are negative, the dossier will not be forwarded to the next level of review, unless the candidate, following discussion with the supervisor, insists, or the candidate is in the final year of annual tenure. In such cases the dossier must be forwarded for consideration, unless the candidate submits a letter of resignation.
College Review Policy approved by President Ray on September 11, 2009.
College Review and Recommendation
The candidate’s dossier – including the letters of evaluation and recommendation from the supervisor, the faculty committee, and the student or client representatives; together with the candidate’s response to these evaluations, if added – is forwarded for review at the college level by both (i) a college P&T faculty committee and (ii) the dean of the college.
The college P&T committee shall be comprised of tenured college faculty members and may include department/unit chairs or heads. The college P&T committee is to be elected by tenured and tenure track college faculty. Colleges will determine term limits and frequency of elections. The size of the committee shall be decided within the college to provide fair and equitable faculty representation based on the diversity within the college. The committee shall have representation from multiple units within the college as well as members elected at large from the college. College P&T committee members, if a signatory of a unit level letter of evaluation, shall recuse themselves from votes on these cases. College-level processes must be consistent with these procedural guidelines.
The college faculty committee review letter shall provide: (i) an independent evaluation of the merits of the candidate as presented in the dossier, (ii) an opinion as to whether the departmental-level letters of evaluation fairly and uniformly assess the merits of the candidate’s performance as documented in the dossier, and (iii) an assessment of the consistency of standards applied to all candidates in the college. In addition, the committee should check that each dossier has been properly prepared.
This college review process does not preclude deans from forming an advisory group of college administrators whose role is limited to reviewing dossiers and providing input to the dean regarding promotion and tenure practices in the college. Such advisory groups would not vote on any case and will not add a letter to the dossier.
The letter from the college P&T committee is added to the dossier and forwarded to the dean. The dean’s letter is added to the dossier and forwarded to the University level committee. Both college level letters are provided to the candidate. The candidate will then have one week to provide any additional response directly to the University level committee.
The reviews of Faculty Research Assistants and Courtesy Faculty going up for promotion will end at the College level. The College is responsible for ensuring that the promotion and tenure guidelines and procedures are followed, and for reporting results of Faculty Research Assistants and Courtesy faculty promotions to Academic Affairs.
University Review and Recommendation
Each dossier will be reviewed for completeness by the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. Where additional information is needed, the candidate's supervisor or dean will be contacted.
Completed dossiers that have received uniformly positive recommendations at the previous levels of review will be forwarded to the Provost and Executive Vice President, who will assure that University-wide standards have been met. In reaching a final decision, the Provost and Executive Vice President may confer with others as appropriate. All dossiers that have received mixed recommendations at the unit or college level will be reviewed by the University Administrative Promotion and Tenure Committee, which is chaired by the Provost and Executive Vice President and consists of the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the Vice President for Research, the Vice Provost for Outreach and Engagement, and the Dean of the Graduate School.
The purpose of the University review is to ensure that all faculty are held to common standards, and to resolve disagreements in previous recommendations. In cases in which the members of the University Administrative Promotion and Tenure Committee are divided over the final recommendation, or in which their recommendation differs from those of the college or unit, the candidate's dean and supervisor will both be invited for discussion.
The Faculty Senate Promotion and Tenure Committee will have access to all dossiers under consideration, and representatives of the committee will observe the deliberations of the University Administrative Promotion and Tenure Committee on cases where clarification or discussion with deans and/or supervisors takes place, to ensure an equitable process for all faculty.
Decisions and Appeals
When all necessary reviews and discussions have been completed, the Provost and Executive Vice President will make the final decision. Candidates will be informed of the decision in writing. In the case of a negative decision, the basis for the denial will be stated, along with information on the right to appeal.
Faculty not approved for promotion or tenure by the Provost and Executive Vice President may appeal to the President within two weeks of receipt of the letter announcing the decision. Extenuating circumstances, procedural irregularities that were not considered by the Provost and Executive Vice President, and factual errors in the evaluations are grounds for appeal. When appealing, the candidate should write a letter to the President stating which of the above criteria for appeal applies, and stating the facts that support the appeal. No other supporting letters will be considered. The President has the right to request additional information.
Return of Dossiers
After the institutional review is finished, the complete dossier is retained temporarily in the Office of Academic Affairs. The dossier is subsequently returned to the appropriate dean, typically at the start of the next academic year. The dean will then return it to the tenure unit, where, after confidential letters have been removed, the dossier is retained as part of the faculty member's personnel files.
• return to top
WAIVER OF ACCESS
Chapter 317 Oregon Laws 1975 (ORS 351.065) provides that a faculty member shall not be denied full access to his or her personnel file or records kept by the State Board of Higher Education or its institutions, schools, or departments. Oregon Administrative Rule (580-22-075) states that "when evaluating employed faculty members, the Board, its institutions, schools, or departments shall not solicit nor accept letters, documents, or other materials, given orally or in written form, from individuals or groups who wish their identity kept anonymous or the information they provide kept confidential, except for student evaluations made or received pursuant to Rule 580-22-100(5)."
All faculty members, therefore, have a right to view any reviewer's evaluations submitted in connection with the faculty member's proposed promotion and tenure.
Some faculty prefer to waive the right to review evaluation materials requested from on-campus and off-campus reviewers. You may execute the waiver below, if you choose to do so. However, it is not required, and all faculty are entitled to and will receive full and fair evaluation of dossier materials submitted in support of promotion and tenure, including evaluations, whether submitted confidentially or not. You will retain your right of access to written evaluations prepared by your department, college, dean, and the Provost and Executive Vice President, although the confidentiality and identity of other reviewers referred to in these evaluations will be maintained.
WAIVER OF ACCESS TO SUBMITTED EVALUATION MATERIALS FROM REVIEWER
• return to top
DOSSIER PREPARATION GUIDELINES 2012–2013
Dossiers for 2012–2013 are due in the Office of Academic Affairs no later than February 15, 2013.
Please submit the original dossier in a binder with clearly marked sections. Please also submit an electronic pdf file of each dossier. Each college needs to contact the Office of Academic Affairs for instructions on how to upload each pdf. Do not include supplemental materials with the dossier (such as copies of journal articles, etc.). Those materials should be kept within the department and available upon request of the University Promotion and Tenure committee.
I. COVER PAGE
Include name of candidate, department and table of contents. All pages should be numbered.
II. FORM A and SHORT BIO
Include check list Form A found at: http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/sites/default/files/documents/form_A-07.pdf.
Please include a short paragraph biography for the candidate.
III. CONFIDENTIALITY WAIVER (optional)
All faculty have the option of signing a “Waiver of Access” form for outside letters of evaluation. The signed original should be included in this section. A copy of the current waiver form is available at: http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/sites/default/files/documents/waiver_access.doc. Execution of the waiver is voluntary. If the candidate chooses not to sign the waiver of access, include a statement to that effect in this section.
IV. POSITION DESCRIPTION
A copy of the candidate's current position description must be included. If significant shifts in assignment have occurred, earlier position descriptions should be included. With significant assignment changes, include a table that summarizes FTE distribution among primary activities over time. Refer to the “Guidelines for Position Descriptions for Academic Faculty” to describe the allocation of FTE for a faculty member.
V. CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT
The candidate should include a statement (three page maximum, 12 point font, one inch margins) that addresses the individual's contributions in the areas of teaching, advising and other assignments; scholarship and creative activity; and service.
VI. STUDENT LETTER OF EVALUATION (as appropriate)
As required by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, students will be invited to participate in the review of faculty for promotion and tenure.
Guidelines for the Student Evaluation Letter for Inclusion in the Promotion and Tenure Dossier (approved by Faculty Senate on June 12, 2008, approved by President Ray on July 20, 2008)
The purpose of the student evaluation letter is to document the student perspective of the candidate’s effectiveness as a teacher and advisor. In order to provide the university with a consistent source of information for the process, the unit P&T committee and the unit supervisor should endeavor to organize student committees for faculty evaluation using the following process.
- The unit chair or head or designee requests a list of names of current and recent students, including advisees from the candidate.
- The unit P&T committee and the supervisor (normally unit chair or head) jointly generate an additional list of student names.
- The unit chair or head or designee requests letters of reference from that combined list. An attempt should be made to request input from students whose collective experience represents the profile of the teaching and advising duties of the faculty member. For example, if a faculty member teaches all undergraduate courses, it is appropriate for all letters to come from undergraduates. If the faculty member teaches a combination of courses, the students should have a combination of backgrounds that will provide sufficient information to evaluate the candidate’s performance.
- Letters to the students requesting the evaluative reference must inform the student as to who will see their review letters. Access to those letters will be determined by whether the candidate has signed a waiver of access. Students must also be informed that only signed letters will be used as part of the process.
- As a rule ½ of the letters should be from the list generated by the candidate and ½ from the list generated by the unit. There is no specific minimum number of letters required. The total number of letters should be on the order of 4-12, depending on the complexity of the candidate’s teaching duties.
- Units that use a series of standardized questions to help guide student input are strongly encouraged to work with Academic Affairs and OSU Legal Counsel prior to asking for information from students.
- Letters received from student referees are kept on file in the unit office. Consult the OSU records retention schedule for the required period the letters must be kept on file. ( http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/archives/schedule/admin.html .) The names of the students and the content of the letters are kept confidential if the candidate has signed a waiver of access.
- The unit chair or head or designee will form a student committee, whose task it is to write a letter summarizing the input from student referees. Members of this committee:
- Should be current students.
- As a rule, ½ should be from a list provided by the candidate and ½ from a list generated by the unit.
- May be individuals from whom letters were solicited.
- Should not be a current advisee of the candidate (letters from current advisees may be part of the student input).
- The student committee is provided with the student referee letters, student oriented teaching and advising portion of the dossier (i.e. excluding faculty peer review), plus any additional available information pertinent to their review.
- The student chair of the student committee is selected by the P&T committee or unit supervisor. The only duty of this committee is to write a summary letter that includes information from the student referee letters and the teaching and advising portion of the dossier.
- The student committee should be instructed to include in its summary the perspectives represented by all the student referee letters (e.g. not to integrate opinions into an intermediate position).
- All members of the committee sign the summary letter and present it to the unit P&T committee and unit supervisor. The summary letter and the names of the individuals on the student committee will be known to the candidate and P&T committee even if the candidate has signed a waiver of access.
The student committee section of the dossier must include:
- A description of the process used in the unit for the selection of the student committee;
- A copy of the instructions given to the students;
- A short description of the group of students that provided letters, the nature of their relationship to the faculty member and whether the candidate or the P&T committee nominated the student to be a member of the committee; and
- The summary letter from the student committee, signed by the members of the committee.
SAMPLE REQUEST FOR STUDENT COMMITTEE LETTER
SAMPLE REQUEST FOR STUDENT LETTER OF EVALUATION
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE LETTERS OF EVALUATION
- Departmental Faculty Committee Letter
- Department Chair or Department Head Letter
- Letters from Other Administrators with Supervisory Responsibility
- College or Unit Promotion and Tenure Committee's Letter
- Dean, Director, Vice President, or Vice Provost's Letter
These letters are to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidate's performance. If the candidate reports to, or works closely with, more than one supervisor, letters from each should be included. These letters should not simply be a restatement of evaluations at lower administrative levels. Summarize and comment on key points in the letters of evaluation solicited from qualified reviewers in the candidate's field. Evaluators should be identified only by a coded reference number or letter when referring to a comment in a confidential letter.
VIII. PROMOTION AND TENURE VITA
The vita for promotion and/or tenure review should be formatted to follow the section headings below.
A. EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION
The year, major field of study, and degree obtained from each institution should be identified. The year, location, and institution for each position held since the baccalaureate should be included in this section.
B. TEACHING, ADVISING AND OTHER ASSIGNMENTS
1. Instructional Summary
- Credit Courses - Present a chronological listing of course numbers, term, year, and number of students enrolled.
- Non-Credit Courses and Workshops - Present a chronological listing of noncredit courses, international training programs held in the U.S., workshops, seminars, Extension programs, and continuing education programs in which candidate has had a major responsibility. Indicate the candidate's role (program participant, program organizer, etc.).
- Curriculum Development - List primary contributions in curriculum development and give dates (e.g. courses developed, curriculum committee service, etc.).
- Graduate and Undergraduate Students and Postdoctoral Trainees - List current and former graduate and undergraduate students and postdoctoral trainees for whom the candidate has had a major instructional or mentoring responsibility. Indicate instructional role (major professor, graduate committee member, thesis or project mentor, etc.) and year the degree was or will be completed.
- Team or Collaborative Efforts, If Any - Indicate special efforts undertaken to team or collaborate with another individual, group, or institution in the planning or delivery of instruction.
- International Teaching, If Any - Identify instructional activities (short and long-term) and/or curricular developments that have taken place in countries other than the United Sates. Indicate the location, time frame, and nature of the teaching experience (i.e. workshop, seminar, course, etc.).
2. Student and Participant/Client Evaluation
Summarize all course/program evaluations with numerical ratings. Results from evaluations by learners or participants of every course taught by the candidate should be included in tabular format. The number of students/clients in the course who submitted evaluations should be identified. The summary should include an analysis of performance over time, e.g. same course by term and year, as well as comparisons of the course to department and/or college norms on important variables such as required /not required, core or elective, and level (100, 200...), etc. Letters from individual students, clients, or program participants should not be included.
3. Peer Teaching Evaluations
Peer evaluations should be based on a review of course syllabi, texts, assigned reading, examinations, class materials, and other assessments such as attendance at lectures as appropriate for the field and subject area . Peer teaching evaluations should be systematic and on-going, following unit guidelines for peer review of teaching. A letter from the peer teaching review committee that summarizes all peer teaching reviews over the evaluation timeframe should be included in the dossier.
Describe advising/counseling responsibilities, both formal academic advising (give number of student advisees, how often they typically meet with the adviser), and co-curricular advising (e.g. faculty adviser for student professional organization). Provide evaluations of advising performance, including dates, and describe how student input was obtained. Evaluation will consider the innovation and creativity of the services, and their effectiveness; it may be based on systematic surveys of and assessments by students and former students who received these services, when signed by the students.
5. Other Assignments
For faculty with primary responsibilities other than teaching and advising, information that identifies these duties and the indicators for assessing effectiveness should be included in this section.
- Other Assigned Duties - Provide a paragraph which describes or summarizes the assigned responsibilities, target audience, collaborative aspects, international activities and number of individuals served.
- Participant/Client Evaluation - Summarize evaluations highlighting the services provided and, to the extent possible, the impact of these services on identified needs.
C. SCHOLARSHIP AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY
Scholarship and creative activity are understood to be intellectual work whose significance is validated by peers and which is communicated. As specified in the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, such work in its diverse forms is based on a high level of professional expertise; must give evidence of originality; must be documented and validated as through peer review or critique; and must be communicated in appropriate ways so as to have impact on or significance for publics beyond the University, or for the discipline itself.
1. In identifying scholarly and creative activity, use appropriate headings (e.g. refereed publications, juried exhibits, non-refereed publications).
- Refereed papers or juried exhibitions or compositions should be listed separately from non-refereed papers or indicated with an asterisk.
- All authors should be given in the order they appear in the paper (not "with John Smith and Kathy Brown"). Date of publication, volume, and pages must be given. When work that is the product of joint effort is presented as evidence of scholarship, clarification of the candidate's role in the joint effort should be provided in the dossier.
- Where not obvious, the dossier should explain how the work was validated and communicated. It is also important to know the significance of the scholarship and creative activity and the stature of the sources in which they appear. These can be commented on after each listing, and discussed in letters of evaluation from the promotion and tenure committee, the Department Chair, Head, Director, or Dean.
2. For professional meetings, symposia, and conferences, note the dates, location, and role of the faculty member (e.g. organizer, chair, invited speaker, discussant, presenter). Where these are presented as scholarship or creative activity, explain the validation process and the significance or stature of the event.
3. List grant and contract support (dollar amount) along with funding agency, dates and name of principal investigator.
4. List patent awards, cultivar releases, and inventions, with titles and dates.
5. List other information appropriate to one's discipline.
Faculty service is essential to the University's success in achieving its central mission. Service is an expectation for promotion for all ranks at Oregon State University.
1. University Service
List departmental, college, and University committees (or other responsibilities), with dates.
2. Service to the Profession
List involvement with professional associations/societies, especially offices held, research advisory or review panels, and other evidence of regional, national, or international stature and service to the profession. Provide dates for all activities.
3. Service to the Public (professionally related)
List service provided to the public which is consistent with professional training and responsibilities. Provide dates. Service that is relevant to a faculty member's assignment, and which draws upon professional expertise or contributes significantly to university relations, is considered and valued in promotion and tenure decision.
4. Service to the Public (non-professionally related) (optional)
Community service not directly related to the faculty member's appointment, though valuable in itself, and ideally a responsibility of all citizens, is considered in promotion and tenure decisions to the extent that it contributes to the University.
5. If service is a significant percentage of FTE, outcomes or impact should be described.
Include awards received from professional organizations/societies, Oregon State University, civic or community groups. The nature of the award (including its stature and significance) and reason received, e.g., teaching and advising, scholarship, etc., should be identified. The awards should be grouped, to the extent possible, into the following headings.
1. National and International Awards
2. State and Regional Awards
3. University and Community Awards
IX. LETTERS OF EVALUATION
Solicited Letters of Evaluation from Outside Leaders in the Field (5 minimum, 8 maximum for professorial faculty; 4 for Faculty Research Assistants and Instructors)
Letters should generally be from leaders in the candidate's field, chosen for their ability to evaluate the candidate's scholarly work. Letters should not be solicited from co-authors, co-principal investigators, former professors, or former students. If such letters are necessary, include an explanation and state why the evaluator can be objective. Letters should generally be from tenured professors or individuals of equivalent stature outside of academe who are widely recognized in the field. External letters for professorial faculty should never be solicited from clients or others whom the candidate has directly served in his/her work. For FRA’s and Instructors, the letters can be from internal evaluators who have worked with the candidate but can objectively evaluate the candidate’s dossier. Careful consideration should be given to minimizing conflict of interest when choosing all evaluators.
The candidate may submit a list of individuals meeting these criteria and, from this list, at least three will be selected by the department chair or head (or chair of the unit's Promotion and Tenure Committee). The other reviewers are to be selected by the chair, head, dean, or faculty committee according to practices determined within the unit. All letters must be requested by the department chair, head, dean, or the unit's promotion and tenure committee chair, not the candidate. Provide a brief (paragraph) description of the outside evaluators that makes it clear that they meet the criteria. Clearly indicate which outside reviewers were chosen by the candidate. In the final dossier, no more than half of the outside reviewers can be chosen by the candidate.
A representative form letter can be found at: SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVE FORM (doc), but any reasonable variation is acceptable. Include a copy of the actual letter used. Each reviewer should be sent a copy of the candidate's position description, candidate’s statement, and current vita. Copies of publications are not usually sent to reviewers, but may be sent at the discretion of the individual soliciting the letter. Provide a log of contacts with the reviewers, including letters and telephone calls. Letters from external reviewers should be available prior to initiating the review of the dossier.
X. OTHER LETTERS AND MATERIALS (optional)
Additional letters from sources other than administrators, unit promotion and tenure committees, the student committee, and external reviewers are not necessary. Signed letters of support or advocacy from friends, colleagues, students, and clients should be included only if they are necessary for fairness and balance. If there is some compelling reason to include such letters, the unit supervisor should write a statement identifying the significance of the letters, whether solicited or unsolicited, and the need to include them in the dossier. All letters should be letters of evaluation and should be open to the candidate. Include any other material that may be relevant to a full and fair review.
XI. CANDIDATE'S SIGNED STATEMENT
Prior to the dossier receiving its first formal review by the unit promotion and tenure committee, the candidate should sign a statement that he or she has reviewed the open part of the dossier and that it is complete and current. The candidate retains the right of access to recommendations added by deans, heads, chairs, directors, and unit promotion and tenure committees.
• return to top
POLICY ON SALARY INCREASES FOR PROMOTION IN RANK
This policy deals with the salary increase associated with a promotion in academic rank. The academic ranks in question are for promotions from: Instructor to Senior Instructor, Faculty Research Assistant to Senior Faculty Research Assistant, Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, and Associate Professor to Professor. The current policy is that promotions in rank bring a fixed 5% increase in salary, and that the increase is funded by the college and/or department. However, it appears that the current policy has not been followed consistently throughout the University.
An ad–hoc committee, chaired by Steve Davis and including Sally Francis, Peter Bloome, John Walstad, Doris Tilles, and Bob Wess, was asked to review the current policy. The committee reviewed the current policy, assessed how it is currently being implemented and made recommendations. The recommendations were then reviewed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, Academic Deans, and President’s Cabinet. Based on the input from these groups, the following policy has been established.
- This policy covers promotions in rank to Senior Instructor, Senior Faculty Research Assistant, Associate Professor, and Professor.
- The following increases will be used for promotions in academic rank effective on the following dates:
- 6.5% on July 1, 1999
- 8.0% on July 1, 2000
- 10% on July 1, 2001 and thereafter.
- The salary increase will be funded by the department and/or college, as is the current arrangement.
- The Office of Human Resources will assist units in implementing the salary increases.
Rationale for Policy
- In a faculty member’s career at OSU, there are a limited number of promotions. These promotions occur as a result of meritorious service and, therefore, the rewards for these accomplishments should be significant.
- Peer institutions provide salary increases at the time of promotion, which are generally greater than 5%.
- Over time, this policy may help to reduce the degree of salary compression resulting from escalating salaries of new hires.
• return to top
Revised July 26, 2011
Faculty Handbook: Post–Tenure Review
Tenure serves both the individual and the institution, and by serving the institution it especially serves the citizens of the State of Oregon. With the award of tenure, the University commits itself to a faculty member in a unique way, and the faculty member acquires a vested interest in the well being of the institution. Tenure is awarded only after an extensive probationary period, during which the highest standards of scholarship, teaching, and service must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of local peers as well as nationally/internationally recognized experts. The granting of tenure is not a license for lifetime employment but an acknowledgment of the likelihood of continued excellence, and post–tenure review can assure that this high level of performance is sustained.
The University recognizes that faculty renewal, development and improvement are of critical importance in its pursuit of excellence. To that end, the University provides for post–tenure review of its faculty to identify and help underachieving faculty fulfill the potential that was recognized upon hiring and reaffirmed upon the award of tenure. If the review process identifies areas in which a faculty member is not fulfilling the expectations of his or her position, a professional development plan will be drafted and implemented. Thus, the process provides effective evaluation, useful feedback, appropriate intervention, and timely and affirmative assistance to ensure that every faculty member maintains a record of professional development and accomplishment during the various phases of his or her career.
The review and evaluation process must uphold the highest standards of academic freedom. Faculty must be encouraged to take risks, to ask inconvenient questions, and to challenge prevailing views, in research and scholarly pursuits as well as in teaching, without the fear of suffering the consequences of failure in the review process. It is the responsibility of administrators to promote and secure the academic freedom of all faculty in their units, as well it is the responsibility of senior and tenured faculty to protect the academic freedom of junior and untenured faculty.
The written reviews, attachments, and professional development plans produced as part of the PTR process are to be regarded as confidential according to the OSU policy on faculty employment records.
Faculty members who are dissatisfied with the outcome or the process of the review should attempt resolution through informal means involving the unit head and the unit–level peer committee. If no resolution is achieved, the faculty member may institute formal grievance procedures.
Initiation of Post Tenure Review:
A post-tenure review (PTR) is to be performed if (i) requested by a faculty member (ii) requested by the unit head or supervisor after one negative review or (iii) a faculty member receives two consecutive negative periodic reviews of faculty (PROF). A negative PROF is defined as receiving unsatisfactory assessment of one or more areas identified in the position description (e.g., teaching, scholarship, service, outreach). A negative PROF must always be followed by either a PTR in the same or following year, or a PROF in the following year to determine if sufficient progress has been made to overcome the deficiencies identified in the first PROF.
The faculty member will prepare a dossier in accordance with the OSU Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, with the exception that outside review letters will not be required, and will not ordinarily be requested. If a faculty member or unit head requests outside review, up to five reviewers will be selected, following the process used in promotion and tenure procedures.
Members of the PTR committee shall be elected by the unit faculty who are at or above the rank of the faculty member being reviewed. In addition, a representative from outside the unit shall be included. The external committee member shall be selected by the unit PTR committee from a list who are tenured faculty members at or above the rank of the faculty being reviewed. The list (at least three such faculty members) shall be provided by the faculty member being reviewed.
Consequences of the Post Tenure Review:
The result of the PTR will be a written report to the unit head or supervisor and will be included in the personnel file of the faculty being reviewed. If the PTR is initiated by a negative PROF, the report will address both the positive and the negative aspects of the PROF and assess their validity. If the committee confirms unsatisfactory performance in any aspect of the position description, a plan for improvement shall be developed jointly by the faculty being reviewed and the unit head in consultation with the PTR committee. The plan should provide detailed actions, sufficient resources as are available and measureable goals to achieve satisfactory performance within a maximum of three years. Such resources might include support for scholarly professional activities (travel, time released from teaching, equipment, clerical or technical support, graduate assistants, laboratory or other workspace, etc.) or a program for the improvement of teaching. A copy of the development plan will be sent to the Dean of the College or to the appropriate academic supervisor. A PTR will be performed at the end of the plan period again with a written report submitted to the unit head or supervisor.
In the event of an unsatisfactory PTR and failure to achieve the goals of the plan for improvement , the unit head (in consultation with the peer committee) may recommend redistribution of effort, reassignment within the unit, reduction in salary, or the imposition of sanctions, including, but not limited to: reduction in rank, reassignment within the institution, or termination of appointment in accordance with OAR 580–21–320 to 580–21–385. Any recommendation for sanctions made by the academic unit must be reviewed by a standing faculty committee elected for that purpose at the level of the college. The review committee shall forward the results of its review and the unit’s recommendation to the Dean or corresponding academic supervisor, and to the Provost. The Provost may determine whether to take appropriate action under procedures specified in OAR 580–21–320 through 580–21–385.
Until a faculty member has been given adequate opportunity to achieve the improvements specified in the plan for improvement (given the availability of the resources necessary to effect the improvements), and until a full faculty review of any recommendations for sanctions has taken place as specified in these procedures, no action based on post–tenure review will be taken by the University under OAR 580–21–330. This policy is not intended to limit the ability of the University to pursue the imposition of sanctions for cause unrelated to the post–tenure review process in accordance with OAR 580–21–330.
Review of the Post–Tenure Review Process:
The Faculty Senate will periodically review the effectiveness of the post–tenure review process.
GUIDELINES FOR CLINICAL FACULTY APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTION
The faculties of the colleges and schools of pharmacy at the University of Georgia, the University of Maryland, Mercer University, The University of Michigan and the University of Washington are acknowledged for permitting use of their promotion documents. In addition, the faculties at the University of Idaho, Texas A & M University and Washington State University are acknowledged for permitting use of their promotion documents with regard to psychologists and student affairs faculty.
The Promotion and Tenure Guidelines of Oregon State University were relied upon heavily in terms of defining the broad areas and diversity of responsibility of Oregon State University faculty.
I. GENERAL PURPOSE
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide criteria and procedures for evaluation and promotion of clinical track faculty at Oregon State University. These guidelines serve to define and differentiate clinical track faculty appointments from the traditional academic (tenure) track. These guidelines are consistent with the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines of Oregon State University, particularly as they related to promotion, and will be implemented in conjunction with those guidelines. These guidelines should not be interpreted to alter the provisions of Board rules on fixed term appointments.
II. ACADEMIC POSITIONS
This document defines the broad range of responsibilities of clinical faculty at Oregon State University and serves to provide guidance to clinical faculty in assessing the appropriateness of their activities. The scope of responsibilities outlined in the mission statement of Oregon State University dictates that the faculty be comprised of individuals with widely varying activities and responsibilities to fulfill the mission of the University.
In recognition of this, Oregon State University recognizes several faculty categories. Each category is created to be unique to the responsibilities and expectations of faculty within, but nothing in this document is to imply a hierarchy of importance between tenure track and clinical track faculty.
Clinical Track Faculty
The mission of Oregon State University in preparing students at the professional doctoral level, masters level, and baccalaureate level requires that some faculty be excellent clinicians and educators, with a significant responsibility toward both. Position titles include Clinical Instructor, Clinical Senior Instructor, Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, and Clinical Professor. The clinical track classification is to be used only for faculty who are engaged almost entirely in clinical practice and teaching, though, scholarship and university service is expected. Development of an independent research program is not essential, and most scholarship activities are expected to contribute to professional issues or program development. Clinical track faculty are not eligible for tenure.
III. PROCEDURES FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENT OF CLINICAL TRACK FACULTY
The process for identifying and evaluating candidates for initial appointment to clinical track positions will follow the same faculty search committee procedures as for traditional academic (tenure) track appointments. Announcements and position descriptions will clearly state the nature of the position.
Clinical track faculty appointments are fixed term for a period of one year. Reappointment is at the discretion of the department head/dean.
Candidates for appointment at the rank of Clinical Instructor are expected, at a minimum, to demonstrate competence in clinical care, teaching and educational development, scholarly activities, and service as appropriate to the discipline. Candidates for appointment or promotion to the rank of Clinical Assistant Professor and above are expected to demonstrate a balance of accomplishment and competence in clinical care, teaching and educational development, scholarship, and service to the College and profession and to establish a local, regional or national reputation as making significant contributions appropriate to the rank and discipline.
Faculty members in the clinical track will be evaluated annually by the department head. The evaluation will include an assessment of the individual’s involvement in educational programs, student teaching/counseling evaluations, and scholarly and service contributions. When a faculty member wishes to be considered for promotion he or she will submit a dossier, and the department head will make a recommendation to the unit Personnel Committee (Promotion and Review Committee) and ask for its evaluation of the faculty member’s progress. The Personnel Committee (Promotion and Review Committee) will recommend whether or not to promote. Reviews and recommendations at the college and university levels will follow procedures established by the Oregon State University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines as applicable to promotions. The Provost will make the final decision on whether or not to promote.
IV. CLINICAL FACULTY RESPONSIBILITIES AND EVALUATION
The central role of teaching is clearly articulated in the mission of Oregon State University. Clinical faculty engage in a variety of teaching responsibilities which may include: teaching credit courses; supervising the clinical work of students, interns, or post–graduate associates; providing non–credit programs and workshops, distance–learning programs, seminars, and continuing education. In addition some faculty may direct undergraduate and graduate projects, internships, and serve on master and doctoral committees, as well as mentoring undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral associates. When teaching is part of the faculty assignment, effectiveness in teaching is an essential criterion for appointment or advancement. Faculty must demonstrate command of their subject matter, continuous growth in the subject field, and ability to organize material and convey it effectively to students. The five areas of effective teaching and thus areas of assessment include: Communication Skills, Stimulation of Thinking, Interaction with Students, Knowledge, and Course Management. Examples of criteria to be used in evaluation of these areas include:
Communication Skills–enthusiastic and dynamic, good speaker with good delivery, clear and concise presentation of material, excellent in one–to–one and small group discussions.
Stimulation of Thinking–utilizes teaching methodologies that facilitate development of the students’ decision–making and problem–solving skills and the synthesis, evaluation and application of knowledge; stimulates students to pursue professional interests beyond the minimum requirements in the classroom, practice site, and laboratory.
Interaction with Students–Motivates students, sensitive to student needs, demonstrates patience, fair and impartial, attentive to student comments and questions, skilled in observing student reactions.
Knowledge–Is knowledgeable of current concepts and new developments in the discipline and incorporates them in course materials; discards outmoded concepts or places them in proper perspective.
Course Management–Develops course objectives, and presents them to students; teaches and tests consistently with course objectives; develops and uses educational materials properly.
Evaluation of teaching is based on a combination of peer evaluations and learner or participant evaluation. Peer evaluations should be based both on observation of teaching and on review of course–related materials. It is expected that the candidate will have consistently documented good to excellent ratings in teaching to be promoted.
It is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide in the dossier the following documentation of teaching performance:
- Provided by the candidate:
- A self evaluation (portfolio) documenting teaching performance, competence, and description of future plans. Information should include course syllabi, course objectives, samples of handouts or other teaching aids, and samples of examinations and/or other evaluation instruments.
- Evidence of attendance at professional and scientific meetings/conferences.
- Evidence that the clinical practice activities are used as a model for teaching.
- Any other material or information which may be helpful in the evaluation process. Examples are teaching awards, authorship of textbooks or other teaching materials, participation in teachers’ seminars, participation in visiting or exchange teacher programs, and evaluation of presentations from programs presented to practitioners or other university constituencies.
- Provided by students:
- All summary instructor and course evaluation reports or other appropriate systems submitted by students for each course taught will be supplied via the dossier.
- Provided by peers:
- Peer evaluation of teaching performance is a valuable tool in providing feedback to faculty. As methods are developed and standardized, such evaluations will be supplied to aid in assessment of teaching competence.
Faculty involvement in advising students is an essential part of the teacher/learner relationship. Clinical faculty may have significant expectations to serve as advisors for students. These duties may include but are not limited to:
Faculty advisor for student groups;
Career development advising;
Academic Success and student development advising.
The faculty member should list achievements in all appropriate categories based on position description.
Clinical practice is recognized as an important and essential component of a clinical faculty member’s career development and position responsibilities. Clinical faculty are required to develop and maintain a clinical practice.
The application of knowledge in the clinical setting in order to optimally influence the delivery of health care to patients and clients is an essential feature of the clinical faculty’s role within Oregon State University. In addition, attention to the many legal and ethical dimensions of health care delivery and patient/client care is an essential component in the practice world. The clinical faculty are diverse in terms of clinical areas of expertise and training as well as in assignments: laboratories, health care facilities, classrooms, health care administration, and student services.
Clinical faculty must provide evidence that the practice has a demonstrable effect on health care outcomes within a practice setting, that the practitioner is an essential member of the practice group, and that there is continuous professional growth in the practice area.
Evaluation of clinical practice for clinical faculty is based on a combination of systematic peer evaluations, documented clinical interventions and outcomes, self–evaluation of practice activities, evaluation by those served by the clinical practice, and where appropriate, evaluations from individuals both on and off campus who are familiar with the faculty member’s practice activities. Examples of clinical practice evidence appropriate for evaluation includes but is not limited to:
- Evidence that the practice has had and will continue to have demonstrable effect on health care outcomes within a practice setting.
- Evidence that the practice has influenced the nature of other types of health care delivery toward more optimal delivery of health care.
- Evidence that the practitioner is an essential member of the practice group.
- Evidence that the practitioner is recognized by peers locally, regionally, or nationally commensurate with academic rank.
- Evidence of establishment of new or innovative types of patient care services.
- Evidence of faculty development activities which enhance level of practice such as licensure and board certification.
The faculty member should list achievements in all appropriate categories based on position description. In addition the following materials as appropriate should be provided in the dossier:
- A self–evaluation of service, including a description of the practice activities and percentage of time devoted in all areas.
- Documented evaluations of clinical service projects.
- Documented clinical intervention and outcomes.
- Names and addresses of individuals both on and off campus who are familiar with the faculty member’s clinical service activities (e.g., clinical coordinator, committee chairs, coordinators or chairs of meetings or activities in which the faculty member participated, other health care professionals).
- Critical evaluation by other health care professionals, clinical supervisors, attending physicians, and/or house staff.
- Any other documents which will support the candidate’s statements regarding the categories of evaluation.
Scholarship and Creative Activity
All Oregon State University faculty in the professorial ranks have a responsibility to engage in scholarship and creative activity. Scholarship and creative activity are understood to be intellectual work whose significance is validated by peers and which is communicated. In general, scholarly expectations for clinical track faculty will be between 5 and 15% of the individual’s total position expectations. This level of scholarly expectation differs from tenure track faculty who have relatively larger scholarly expectations.
The appropriateness and importance of the type of scholarship will vary with the expectations of the position. The principle of peer review and recognition becomes increasingly important as the faculty member progresses through academic ranks. In the case of clinical faculty, emphasis is placed on peer recognition as a practitioner–educator. The peer recognition results from scholarly accomplishments that can take many forms. The order of examples is not intended to rank importance. While publication in peer reviewed journals is the most traditional form of scholarship, clinical track publications might more commonly encompass description and evaluation of novel patient care services, program development and innovation, outcomes of innovative programs and/or services, definitive therapy reviews, or case reports among others. Authorship of professional practice guidelines, textbooks, book chapters, monographs, videotapes, extended learning materials, or other educational materials is considered appropriate. Invited presentations, poster and podium presentations, and published abstracts at state and national levels are other examples of scholarship, provided that evidence of peer validation is provided. Advising government agencies, industry, or professional groups are all considered evidence of scholarship. Authorship of a patent in the faculty member’s field is considered as evidence of creative scholarship.
Honorary degrees, awards recognizing professional and/or scientific achievements, and fellowship in national professional and/or scientific organizations are all considered recognition by peers of the candidate’s contributions. The candidate’s role in multiauthored publications must be addressed.
It is the faculty member’s responsibility to provide documentation of scholarly and creative works in the dossier.
All faculty are expected to engage in service to the University and its constituents, the community, and the professional discipline. Service is central to the mission of a land–grant institution. Examples include but are not limited to: In–services provided to health care professionals, committee/task force memberships, chairpersonships, recruitment of faculty and students, mentoring students and student groups, and service in faculty governance. In addition, service to the professional discipline is identified by time and effort given to local, state, regional, national, or international professional organizations and/or publication. Examples include: continuing education programs, organizational offices, committee involvement, task force reports/policy statements, editorial board/referee/reviewer for professional or scientific publications.
Public service related to the faculty member’s assignment and that draws upon the professional expertise of the faculty member or that significantly fosters university relations is valuable to promotion decisions. Examples include: Discipline–related community service projects, invited presentations to the lay public, consultation with community health–care agencies. Honors and awards recognizing professional, scientific, and/or clinical service achievement would also be included in the Service area.
It is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide the documentation of the activity in all of the above categories in the dossier.
V. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION
Criteria for Promotion from Clinical Instructor to Clinical Senior Instructor
Criteria for promotion within this rank will follow the guidelines established in the Oregon State University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.
Criteria for Promotion from Clinical Assistant Professor to Clinical Associate Professor
In general, a requirement for promotion to Clinical Associate Professor is achievement of regional, statewide or national recognition as a practitioner–educator. Promotion to the rank of Clinical Associate Professor is based upon the candidate’s:
- Demonstrated effectiveness in teaching including communication skills, stimulation of thinking, interaction with students, knowledge, and course management.
- Demonstrated effectiveness in clinical practice that has had and will continue to have demonstrable effect on outcomes within a practice setting.
- Achievement in scholarship and creative activity that is recognized as contributing to the body of knowledge in the practice discipline.
- Appropriate institutional, public, and professional service.
Criteria for Promotion from Clinical Associate Professor to Clinical Professor
In general, a requirement for promotion to Clinical Professor is achievement of national recognition as a practitioner–educator. Promotion to the rank of Clinical Professor is based upon evidence of the candidate’s:
- Distinction in teaching, as evident in continuing development and sustained effectiveness in communication skills, stimulation of thinking, interaction with students, knowledge, and course management.
- Distinction in clinical practice, as evidenced by professional recognition in the specific discipline.
- Distinction in scholarship and creative activity relative to the specific discipline.
- Exemplary institutional, public, and/or professional service.
Evidence of national recognition may include but is not limited to:
- Sustained contribution to a discipline;
- Invited lectures at national scientific or professional meetings;
- Invited chapters in textbooks;
- Honors or awards from national organizations;
- Service on editorial boards;
- Service as a reviewer for professional/scientific publications;
- Relevant comments from external reviewers;
- Elected/appointed to leadership positions in the profession/professional organizations.
VI. CLINICAL FACULTY DOSSIERS
Preparation of the dossier for clinical track faculty will be consistent with the Oregon State University guidelines for traditional academic (tenure) track faculty utilizing the documentation of clinical practice components and achievements.
Faculty Handbook: Graduate programs
The Graduate School was established by the State Board of Higher Education in 1946 to administer graduate education at Oregon State University. The primary mission of the Graduate School is to contribute to the creation and discovery of knowledge and other forms of scholarship by facilitating graduate student scholarly activities, providing leadership in defining excellence in the graduate experience, promoting an environment that nurtures exploring and learning, and advocating the benefits of the graduate enterprise on a local and global level. To this end the regulations, policies, and procedures governing graduate education are initiated and implemented by the Dean of the Graduate School, who coordinates graduate programs, courses, admission standards, and degree requirements; enforces current regulations; recommends changes in graduate policy to the Graduate Council; acts on petitions to deviate from existing regulations; and is responsible for the efficient and effective operation of the Graduate School.
In addition to the administration of the policies and procedures pertinent to graduate education, the Graduate School endeavors to provide a variety of other services to students and faculty. These include advising and counseling on general Graduate School regulations; administering the SPEAK program (the testing of the English-speaking ability of international teaching assistants); advising graduate committee members concerning the requirements and duties of graduate faculty; monitoring student progress; participating in the recruitment of minority individuals to graduate programs; administering centralized scholarships and fellowships; and providing other services as needed by faculty, students, and the University to ensure quality in graduate education.
Complete information concerning the policies and regulations of graduate education may be found in the Graduate Catalog, available on the Internet at http://catalog.oregonstate.edu/Default.aspx?section=Graduate#grad.
Faculty Handbook: Research Programs and Services
312 Kerr Administration Building
fax 541 737-3093
Headed by the Vice President for Research, the several units of the Research Office serve faculty involved in research, innovation, scholarship and creativity in all OSU colleges and departments, and many centers, institutes, and programs. Support is provided to secure funding, comply with regulations, partner with industry, establish collaborations across the university, and raise the profile of OSU.
The Research Office website, http://oregonstate.edu/research/ provides a breadth of detailed information as well as forms. Contact the Research Office for further information and materials.
Sponsored Programs provides resources for identifying and developing sources of external funding; assistance in interpreting sponsor guidelines and OSU policies; policy and guidance materials for the preparation of proposals; and review and endorsement of grant and contract proposals submitted to external sponsors.
Internal Incentive Funds include support for general research, equipment, and faculty release time.
Regulatory Compliance provides information describing regulatory and compliance requirements imposed by Federal and state laws; application and guidance information for activities submitted for approval by OSU oversight committees; and instructional resources in the responsible conduct of research.
Technology Transfer provides services to faculty inventors for patenting and licensing. It also makes information available to industry about technologies available and how to partner with OSU.
Trademark Licensing is an in-house program to protect Oregon State University's name and identifying marks.
The Undergraduate Research, Innovation, Scholarship, and Creativity Program focuses on internal and external funding and opportunities for students.
The Vice President has administrative oversight of Research Centers, Institutes and Programs.
The Research Office also provides information about research focus and activities of OSU colleges and departments.
Faculty Handbook: Consulting, overload, and outside employment compensation
Conflict of Commitment Policy
The University recognizes the contributions and achievements of its faculty by appropriate promotion and salary advancement and permits them substantial freedom in arranging their academic lives. This freedom is, however, subject to the principle that the primary professional loyalty of full-time faculty is to the University. The potential magnitude of outside professional activity is such that orderly procedures must be followed to avoid conflicts of commitment and conflicts of interest and to ensure that such activities do not conflict with the proper discharge of University responsibilities. This conflict of commitment policy covers conflicts of time commitments between outside activities and University responsibilities. The conflict of interest policy can be found on the Research Office website.
This document is not intended to provide specific rules covering all possible situations, but rather to establish the spirit in which interactions with entities outside the University should be undertaken. In general, personal responsibility, integrity, and high ethical standards are the principal guides in avoiding conflicts of commitment, and the University expects that all members of the faculty will conduct their outside activities in a manner that reflects credit on themselves, their profession, and the University. The principal safeguards against abuse are the standards imposed by professional colleagues during periodic reviews, and the rigorous process by which the University evaluates and selects individuals for appointment and promotion.
Activities considered to be within the regular work duties of faculty members include: teaching; research and application of research findings; preparation, publication, and review of articles and books (whether for royalty or not); preparation and delivery of lectures; consultation to government agencies, serving on advisory bodies, memberships and activities in professional societies; and participation in artistic performances or activities. In each of these, the following must apply: 1) the activities are related to the faculty member's professional field; and 2) no extra compensation is received other than royalties from publications, or small honoraria typically given for service on federal or state agency advisory panels or seminars at other universities. Use of the Request for Approval of Outside Activities form is not required for such activities.
Activities considered to be "outside" the faculty member's regular duties are consulting for additional remuneration, (e.g., providing services to individuals or firms, educational programs presented by private firms or independently by faculty members), or a deeper involvement with commercial enterprises (e.g. ownership in a commercial enterprise, holding a line management position). These outside activities have the potential for both conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment. Faculty must complete annually the appropriate Research Office conflicts of interest forms to ensure that there are no research conflicts of interest, and must disclose any additional potential financial conflicts of interest to their supervisor. Before engaging in outside activities in their field, faculty must also complete the Request for Approval of Outside Activities form to ensure there are no conflicts of commitment. This form can be found here: http://oregonstate.edu/admin/hristeam/outemp.pdf
The remainder of this document refers only to conflicts of commitment.
It is University policy to encourage its professorial faculty members to undertake outside activities that will increase their effectiveness and broaden their experience in relation to their functions at the University, or which will be of service to the community, private sector, nation, or world, provided:
- The cumulative total of outside professional activities and overload activities does not interfere with the performance of the faculty member's University duties.
- The outside activities do not involve use of University property, facilities, equipment, or services, except in limited circumstances when approved by the faculty member's department head/chair and dean, or the dean and Provost.
- The outside activities are approved by the Department Head/Chair and Dean, using the Request for Approval of Outside Activities form. A copy of the approved document should be filed with and approved by the Office of Academic Affairs before the outside activity begins. If the proposed activity includes signing an agreement concerning rights in inventions or materials, the agreement must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Technology Transfer.
- The faculty member makes it clear to the outside employer, and to all others with whom the faculty member interacts, that he or she is acting in an individual capacity and does not speak, write, or act in the name of the University.
- The faculty member does not list his or her University contact information in commercial listings or other public documents, the purpose of which is to draw attention to the individual's availability for compensatory service. Further, use of the University name, logo, and stationery is prohibited.
- The outside activity is consistent with policies of the faculty member's college, school, or division.
The decision whether to approve a request for approval of outside activities is within the discretion of the University. With supervisor approval, a full-time professorial faculty member may engage in outside professional activities related to his or her University responsibilities one day in each work week during periods of full-time employment. A part-time professorial faculty member is allowed to devote to such outside activities a proportionate amount of the faculty member's FTE. With supervisor approval, a reasonable amount of averaging the time allowance over the quarters of an academic year is permissible. Nine-month professorial faculty are free to consult up to full-time during summer months without securing University approval. Nine-month professorial faculty who are on academic wage appointments in the summer may consult in the summer on the same basis as 12-month professorial faculty, with University approval.
As part of the periodic review of each professorial faculty member, the supervisor shall include an assessment of the faculty member's outside activities. The review will include an evaluation of the effect of the outside activities on the faculty member's normal job activities. If they negatively affect the faculty member's performance, the faculty member shall be encouraged to reduce his/her outside activities and may be denied subsequent approval for outside commitments.
Other Academic Ranks and Professional Faculty
Non-professorial faculty may engage in outside activities during non-working hours, or when on annual leave, without securing University approval. The use of University name, property, equipment, etc., is not allowed. An employee who engages in outside activities related to the employee's regular University duties must disclose any potential financial conflicts of interest to his or her supervisor.
A Request for Approval of Outside Activities form must be signed by the department head/chair, Dean, and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and International Programs. If approved, the Vice Provost's office will send the original to Human Resources and copies of the completed form to the faculty member, department chair/director, and Dean.
If the proposed activity includes signing an agreement concerning rights in inventions or materials, the agreement must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Technology Transfer.
In the event the faculty member is denied the opportunity to engage in outside activities by his/her supervisor, the employee may file a grievance in accordance with the faculty grievance process. See OAR 576-050-0010 to 0055.
It is important to record instances of professional involvement in outside activities in order to monitor the extent of such interactions and to assess their impacts on the primary functions of the University -- teaching, research, and public service. Because the nature of faculty participation in outside activities differs greatly among disciplines and departments, the details of the most appropriate reporting method must be developed and maintained by each unit individually. However, some centralization is necessary to ensure that information for the entire University is gathered and that its format allows ready interpretation outside the unit where it originated. Therefore, the Senior Vice Provost for
Academic Affairs shall be responsible for collecting and evaluating reports of faculty involvement in outside activities.
This policy does not cover outside activities which are totally outside and unrelated to the academic or professional field in which the faculty member has responsibilities for the University. Any conflict of commitment due to such activities will be addressed through the University performance review process.
Faculty who fail to comply with this policy are subject to sanctions for cause ranging from a warning to dismissal, in accordance with the rules of the State Board of Higher Education, OAR 580-21-320 and following.
Faculty Handbook: Expert Witness Policy and Procedure
This policy is adopted to provide guidance to faculty who may be asked to serve as expert witnesses in private litigation. The purpose of the policy is to both support those faculty who consult as expert witnesses in their private capacities, and to provide assistance to faculty who may be subpoenaed in their University roles to testify as experts.
University faculty members may serve as expert witnesses in administrative or judicial proceedings in which the Oregon State Board of Higher Education and Oregon State University are not parties, provided they do so in a manner consistent with the OSU Policy on Outside Professional Activities, Oregon Administrative Rule 580–21–025 and consistent with any college, unit, or department restrictions on outside consulting or conflict of interest policies.
Faculty members may be subpoenaed to appear as witnesses in administrative or judicial proceedings in which they do not want to testify as experts, or are prohibited from testifying by university or college policy. When this happens, the faculty member should contact the dean and OSU’s legal advisor. The faculty member should not respond to inquiries regarding the appearance until the legal advisor advises the faculty member otherwise. The OSU legal advisor will attempt to quash or modify the subpoena so that 1) the faculty member will not have to appear or testify, 2) the faculty member will only have to testify to matters of personal knowledge, or 3) the faculty member’s department is adequately compensated for the faculty member’s time away from other responsibilities. As soon as the matter is resolved, the legal advisor will inform the faculty member of the remaining obligations under the subpoena.
Faculty Handbook: Retirement and severance
Retirement Plans and Related Information
Information regarding retirement plans and resources can be found at http://oregonstate.edu/admin/hr/retire.html.
Relinquishment of Tenure
Two programs for tenure relinquishment have been established effective June 12, 2009:
- Full Tenure Relinquishment Program: After relinquishing tenure, faculty members may still continue to work for up to 1039 hours per academic year, for up to three years.
- Partial Tenure Relinquishment Program: This program allows tenured faculty members on 1.0 FTE appointments to reduce their appointments to .75 FTE in exchange for an annual salary rate increase.
Policies, procedures, applications, and FAQ’s for full and partial tenure relinquishment programs have been posted to the Office of Human Resources web site. You may access the documents at: http://oregonstate.edu/admin/hr/tenure_relinquishment.html.
Termination for Cause
Definition and Required Notice Before Termination. The appointment of a tenured or non–tenured faculty member may be terminated or other sanctions imposed "for cause." "For cause" is defined in detail in OAR 580–21–0325 and includes conviction of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude, failure to perform assigned duties, evidence of incompetence, default of academic integrity, failure to perform adequately for medical reasons, or other proscribed conduct specified in OAR 580–22–0045.
Procedures to be followed involving termination for cause are available from the Faculty Senate Office and Legal Adviser, President’s Office. Faculty charged with such "for cause" conduct have the right to a formal hearing on the charges before a special ad hoc hearing committee. The hearing committee is selected from panels appointed by the Faculty Senate.
Termination Not for Cause: Financial Exigency or Program Reduction
The Board Administrative Rules (580–21–315) provide procedures for termination of tenured and nontenured faculty members "not for cause" due to a) financial exigency, or b) program or department reductions or elimination. No specific notice period is required for the termination of a faculty member due to financial exigency. Tenured faculty members terminated due to program reduction or elimination, are given 12 month notice. Faculty on annual tenure receive notice as provided in Board Administrative Rule 580–021–0305. Faculty on fixed term contract serve in accordance with the provisions of their contract.
The document "Institutional Procedures and Criteria for Program Redirection, Reorganization, Reduction and Termination" provide guidelines for program reduction and financial exigency
Copies are available from the Faculty Senate Office.
Faculty Handbook: Grievance procecures
In 1988, following a mandate to all State System institutions from the State Board of Higher Education, the OSU Faculty Senate approved new grievance procedures. There have been minor revisions since then. The procedures are published in their entirety below. Numbers refer to the Oregon Administrative Rules.
- The University encourages the resolution of grievances through informal means and discussion in keeping with the collegial atmosphere of a university. The University is also committed to a formal procedure for consideration of grievances that are not resolved through informal processes.
- The procedure set out in this rule is available to any unclassified employee with faculty rank as defined in this rule and in the rules of the State Board of Higher Education.
- This grievance procedure may be used to hear any complaint by a faculty member that he or she was wronged in connection with compensation, tenure, promotion or other conditions of employment, or that his or her rights were denied as to reappointment. "Other conditions of employment" shall include, but not be limited to, violations of academic freedom, nondiscriminatory employment practices and discriminatory employment practices including sexual harassment, and laws, rules, policies and procedures under which the institution of higher education employing the academic employee operates. Disciplinary sanctions are imposed in accordance with OAR 580–021–0320 and shall not be subject to this grievance procedure.
- The University may elect not to proceed with a grievance if the grievant also seeks resolution in another forum.
- If the grievance concerns a matter to which contested case procedures apply, the grievant may elect to use the procedures in OAR 576–002–0020 to 576–002–0055.
Definitions and Mail Requirement
- "Days" as used in this rule shall mean calendar days.
- "Presentation of the Grievance" as used in OAR 580–021–0050 means receipt of the grievance by the dean, director or unit executive officer as specified in OAR 576–050–0025.
- "Faculty Mediator" is an academic employee with faculty rank chosen by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. Emeritus faculty shall be eligible to serve as the Faculty Mediator.
- "Faculty Grievance Committee" is a committee of five academic employees with faculty rank chosen by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and charged with the responsibility for hearing faculty grievances in accordance with these procedures. Any person with faculty rank may submit nominations to the Executive Committee for consideration. The Executive Committee shall choose at least one female and one minority member. Three members shall constitute a quorum. The Executive Committee of the Senate shall select a chair.
- "Faculty Rank" means faculty ranks as defined in the rules of the State Board of Higher Education and includes faculty without rank but with professional title.
- All appeals, decisions, or recommendations referred to in this rule shall be sent by U.S. Mail or University campus mail.
- Prior to filing a formal grievance a faculty member is encouraged to discuss the grievance with his or her supervisor (or dean, director, unit executive officer or Affirmative Action director). The immediate supervisor shall respond to the grievant within fifteen (15) days.
- The Affirmative Action Office must be notified of any grievance alleging discrimination, including sexual harassment. The Affirmative Action Director, if so requested by the grievant, will investigate any grievance alleging discrimination and attempt to help the parties resolve the issue.
- The faculty member or the chair of the Grievance Committee, with the faculty member’s concurrence, may request the Faculty Mediator to review and attempt to resolve all other grievances, including those the Affirmative Action Director determines not to be valid claims of discrimination.
- The Mediator may meet with the grievant and take what action he or she considers appropriate in attempting to resolve the grievance, including interviewing or consulting other persons. The Mediator and all parties to the grievance shall keep the mediation process confidential to the extent possible under law. Statements made in mediation shall not be admissible in a grievance hearing.
- Nothing in this rule shall require a faculty member to use informal grievance procedures before filing a formal written grievance, provided that a faculty member must notify the Affirmative Action Office of all claims of unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment, before filing a written complaint.
Initiation of Formal Procedures
- If a grievance is not resolved to the satisfaction of the grievant at the informal stage, or if the grievant chooses to bypass the informal stage, the grievant may file a formal written grievance. A grievance shall be filed with the dean, director, or executive officer in charge of the administrative unit, except: a) where the grievant is a department chair in which case the grievance shall be filed with the Provost and Executive Vice President; or b) where the grievant alleges sexual harassment against the person in charge of the administrative unit, in which case the grievance shall be filed with the next higher administrator.
- The grievant shall file a copy of the written grievance with the Legal Advisor in the Office of the President. The formal grievance must be filed within sixty (60) days of the time the faculty member knew or by reasonable diligence should have known of the acts which gave rise to the grievance. Therefore, discussion or mediation at the informal stage should be initiated as soon as possible. The University shall extend the sixty (60) day filing requirement if the grievant is pursuing the complaint at the informal level and it appears that additional time would be beneficial in resolving the grievance. Extension by the University shall be in writing by the Legal Advisor.
- The written grievance must contain the grievant’s name and address, the date and nature of the act or omission which gave rise to the grievance, any rule, policy or procedure alleged to have been violated or misapplied, and the remedy requested by the grievant.
- The dean, director, unit executive officer, or the respective designee shall send a written decision to the grievant within twenty (20) days of receipt of the grievance.
Appeal to the Faculty Grievance Committee
If the decision of the dean, director, or unit executive officer is not satisfactory to the grievant, the grievant may file a written appeal with the Faculty Grievance Committee within ten (10) days of receipt of the written decision, stating why the response at the previous level is deficient. This step is optional with the grievant. The grievant may bypass the committee and file the appeal directly with the President.
- The Committee shall send to the grievant a written notice of the time and place of the hearing at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing.
- At the committee hearing the faculty member shall present his or her case first, followed by the person or persons who are the object of the grievance. Thereafter the faculty member shall have an opportunity to respond.
- Each party shall have a right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits or other documents. The members of the committee may question any witness and may call additional witnesses.
- If the grievant so chooses he or she may be accompanied by or represented at the hearing by any other person.
- Either party may provide for and obtain a sound recording of the hearing.
- The hearing shall be open to the public at the option of the grievant to the extent allowed by law. However, deliberations of the Grievance Committee shall not be open to the public or the parties.
Decision by the Committee and Appeal to the President
- The committee’s decision shall be made in the form of a written recommendation to the President. It shall be based only upon evidence presented at the hearing. The recommendation shall include a description of the complaint, the evidence the committee collected, and its conclusions and recommendations for disposition of the case. The recommendations shall be sent to the grievant, to the President and to the dean, director or executive officer in charge of the unit out of which the grievance arose within sixty (60) days of receipt of the appeal to the committee.
- The President or his or her designee shall review the decision of the committee and the President shall deliver a written decision to the grievant, to the Grievance Committee and to the dean, director or unit executive officer in charge of the unit out of which the grievance arose within thirty (30) days of receipt of the committee’s recommendation. Prior to issuing a decision the President, or designee, may interview any person concerning the grievance to supplement the record whether or not the person testified at the hearing, provided that the decision shall list each person so interviewed. In addition the President or designee may review any documents, provided that the decision shall identify any such documents that were not introduced at the committee hearing. The grievant shall be informed of any additional information obtained by the President and given seven (7) days to respond. If the President rejects or modifies the recommendations of the committee, the reasons shall be stated in the decision.
- If the grievant chooses to appeal the decision of the dean, director, or unit executive officer directly to the President, the President shall proceed to review the matter and reach a decision as set out in 576–050–0035 (2), provided that all persons interviewed and all documents reviewed must be identified in the decision. The President shall issue a decision within thirty (30) days of receipt of the grievant’s appeal.
- The decision of the President shall be final except as provided in OAR 576–050–0035(5).
- If the grievance is directed at the President as the immediate supervisor of the grievant or at the President in his or her administrative capacity (as contrasted to appellate capacity), the grievant may appeal to the Chancellor of the Oregon University System as provided in OAR 580–021–0050(10).
Effect of Time Limits
If the University fails to respond within the time limits at any step in this grievance process, the grievant may appeal to the next step.
An individual filing a grievance in good faith or otherwise participating in any of the actions authorized under these grievance rules shall not be subject to retaliatory action of any kind by any employee of the University, the Oregon University System, or the State Board of Higher Education.
Not later than two years from the adoption of these rules, the Provost and Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall jointly appoint a faculty committee to review the effectiveness of this grievance procedure and to recommend any changes.
Effective February 25, 2002
Faculty Handbook: Appendix A Academic dishonesty
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY – WHAT FACULTY MEMBERS SHOULD KNOW
Several years ago, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), through its board of directors, commissioned the development of a document that would speak to the issue of academic integrity on campus. The following summarizes this work and also briefly describes the procedures currently in use at Oregon State University.
How is academic dishonesty defined? Academic dishonesty can be defined as an intentional act of deception in which a student seeks to claim credit for the work or effort of another person or uses unauthorized materials or fabricated information in any academic work.
Who maintains academic standards? All members of an academic community have the responsibility; however, faculty members play the most important role. Faculty members have multiple opportunities to inform students how academic dishonesty is defined, teach students ways to avoid unintentional infractions, identify and confront violators, and serve as models of academic integrity. Prevention is the key. Faculty members and students come from a variety of backgrounds and cultures, giving rise to different expectations of moral and ethical behavior. Well defined and effectively communicated standards in the classroom and in course materials reduce uncertainty and clarify expectations.
What is the policy at OSU? Academic dishonesty in assignments, examinations, or other academic performance is prohibited and considered a violation of the Student Conduct Regulations. It includes "cheating" (the intentional use or attempted use of unauthorized materials, information, or study aids); "fabrication" (the intentional falsification or invention of any information); "assisting in dishonesty or tampering" (intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another commit an act of dishonesty or tampering with evaluation instruments and documents); and "plagiarism" (intentionally or knowingly representing the words or ideas of another person as one’s own).
How are OSU students advised of expectations? Students are advised of University expectations and procedures through the "Academic Regulations" and "Student Life Policy and Regulations" sections of the Schedule of Classes. In addition, through the student orientation program and general advising, students are encouraged to seek honest evaluations, develop sound study habits, maintain integrity in their work, and get study skill assistance when needed. However, faculty should make clear, at the beginning of every course, what would constitute academically dishonest work and the penalties that would result.
What action can faculty take? The administration of the classroom rests with the instructor. Instructional strategies and methods designed to discourage and prevent dishonesty are of utmost importance. However, when evidence of academic dishonesty comes to the instructor’s attention, the instruction should a) document the incident, b) permit the accused student to provide an explanation, c) advise the student of possible penalties, and d) take action (Academic Regulation 15 – "Honesty in Academic Work").
To report the academic dishonesty, faculty must use the academic dishonesty report form that is located on the Student Conduct and Community Standards website at: http://oregonstate.edu/studentconduct/faculty/facacdis.php.
Note there are two different report forms – one is for undergraduate students and the other is for graduate students.
The instructor may impose any academic penalty up to and including an "F" grade in the course after consulting with his or her department chair and informing the student of the action taken. Using the standard reporting form (available from any academic dean), the instructor must report the incident and the action taken to his or her department chair who, in turn, shall forward the report to his or her dean. If the student is not enrolled in the college or school in which the course is offered, the dean of that college shall forward the report to the dean of the college or school in which the student is enrolled for possible further action (removal from major/school, conduct probation, conduct suspension, etc.).
Grade penalties imposed as a result of academic dishonesty may be appealed by the student in accordance with procedures developed by the department and college or school in which the course is offered.
What can faculty do to prevent academic dishonesty? A number of authors and faculty committees, both here and at other universities, have suggested a variety of pedagogical strategies to help faculty members adopt teaching practices which make acts of academic dishonesty more difficult. Among these suggestions:
- Use the first session of each course to review University standards, focus on definitions of academic dishonesty, and clarify instructional expectations – make it clear academic dishonesty will not be tolerated.
- Include in the course syllabus a statement alerting students to expectations and refer them to additional information on academic dishonesty in the Schedule of Classes.
- Use a variety of evaluation tools to assess student performance – using only one examination or paper puts excessive pressure on students to perform and can breed academic dishonesty.
- Avoid routine procedures such as using the same test each term or year and avoid using the same order for all questions on all copies of an examination.
- Prohibit students from bringing miscellaneous materials to testing sessions – this includes scratch paper, dictionaries, and even hats.
- Avoid "take home" examinations or out of class evaluation procedures unless student collaboration is desired.
- Give different versions of exams to different class sections and avoid giving the same "make–;up" exam.
- Discuss with departmental secretaries the need for office security and keep examinations, grade books, etc., in a secure location.
- Give essay tests instead of multiple choice tests when appropriate and when size of class permits.
- Number exam copies and count the total distributed and returned and provide "official" examination booklets, answer sheets, and scratch paper, etc.
- Require students to write their names in ink on examination booklets and require proper identification when examinations are turned in.
- Provide assigned seating in examinations so seat locations can be determined and prearranged groups of students prevented from sitting near each other.
- Arrange to have examination sessions carefully and diligently proctored.
- Advise students that a significant number of completed examinations are photocopied before being returned – this discourages altering examinations for regrading.
- Through the academic dean’s office, advise student councils or other student governance groups of the number of academic dishonesty cases and their outcome in order to achieve a deterrent effect.