Promotion & Tenure Committee
Annual Report 2001-2002
Members of the 2001-2002 Faculty Senate Promotion and Tenure Committee were:
| 1. Rakesh Gupta, Chair Wood Science and Engineering |
College of Forestry (2002) |
| 2. Shawna Grosskopf, Economics |
College of Science (2002) |
| 3. Mary Powelson, Botany and Plant Pathology |
College of Agriculture (2003) |
| 4. Jack Higginbotham, Nuclear Engineering |
College of Engineering (2003) |
| 5. Charles Langford, Sociology |
College of Liberal Arts (2004) |
| 6. Vacant (2004) |
The Faculty Senate (FS) Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Committee reviews University
P&T Guidelines and advises on matters pertaining to the P&T process. The
Committee reads the dossiers and observes the annual P&T process conducted by the
University P&T Committee to ensure an equitable process for all faculty. When the
University P&T Committee does not reach a consensus on the recommendation, or when
circumstances warrant discussion of a particular case, the candidate's Dean (sometimes
Unit Head or immediate Supervisor) meets with the University P&T Committee. In
these instances, one member of the FS P&T Committee is present as an observer to
represent the Faculty Senate. The observer notes adherence to the University P&T
Guidelines and the nature of the decision-making process, but does not evaluate the
merits of the particular case.
The Committee provides input on the P&T decision process through its annual report
to the FS Executive Committee (EC) and to the Provost's office. The annual report also
includes a summary of the current year's P&T actions provided by the Office of the
Provost.
The Committee consists of six faculty members who have been granted tenure at OSU, who
reflect the diversity of the University. Whenever a committee member is under
consideration for promotion, he or she will be ineligible to serve on the Committee
during the year in which the review is scheduled.
The Committee also provides leadership for campus-wide educational programs related to
the P&T process and facilitates ongoing dialogue about these matters. Members of the
Committee are available to respond to procedural and interpretative questions from
faculty, unit heads/chairs, deans, and department and college committees.
- Review of the University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines
The following items (based on 2000-2001 Annual Report of the FS P&T Committee)
were given to the Committee by the Faculty Senate President to be reviewed and
discussed by the Committee, and provide recommendations:
- Standing Rules
Charge - Review standing rules and propose changes if necessary
Response - The Committee revised the standing rule to make its language more
consistent across various P&T related documents, and with the actual work of the
Committee. The old and the revised standing rules are given in Appendix A.
- Position Description
Charge - Revise text regarding 'Position Descriptions' found in the 'Dossier
Preparation Guidelines'
Response - The 'Position Description' section of the 'Dossier Preparation
Guidelines' was revised to reflect the recommendations of the previous year's
committee. The main recommendation was to include multiple dated Position
Descriptions (one signed and dated for each year or signed and dated each year
on the same one) on the departmental/unit letter head indicating changes or no
changes in assigned duties. The old and revised position description sections
are given in Appendix B.
Based on our discussions and a forum (see section III.3), there are still some
unanswered questions about position description: (i) who initiates it? (ii) who
has the final authority to approve/enforce it? (iii) is it confidential?
- Distinction
Charge - Attempt needs to be made to arrive at an operational definition for
'Distinction' for individuals seeking promotion to full professor.
Response - The Committee believes that there are different ways in which the
distinction can be achieved in various disciplines. Therefore, it was not
possible to arrive at one common definition of distinction which will work for
all faculty members in all units at OSU. The Committee believes that it should
be left up to the individual faculty member to demonstrate that s/he has
achieved distinction in assigned duties as outlined in his/her position
description. We recommend (see Appendix C) revising the 'Criteria for
Promotion to Professor' section of 'Promotion and Tenure Guideline' document to
reflect it more explicitly.
The Committee also believes that the distinction should not be based on: (a)
ability to raise money and (b) quantity of work.
- Early Tenure
Charge - (a) Explicit policy needed regarding individuals seeking early tenure -
unclear whether such individuals will be evaluated against higher standards or
the same standards as those pursuing tenure after six years; discuss with
committee and Sabah Randhawa, and (b) Explicit policy needed that defines what
'going up early' means in relation to time in rank as Associate Professor before
consideration for promotion to full professor; discuss with committee and Sabah
Randhawa.
Response - The Committee met with Sabah Randhawa to discuss both issues and a
policy regarding 'early tenure' was drafted. Our goal was to allow faculty
members to seek 'early tenure' but still restrict the number of times a faculty
member can apply for early tenure. A proposed draft of the policy is shown in
Appendix D.
At a meeting called by the Provost (see Section IV), the Provost pointed out
that in the past few years there were too many cases of early tenure and he is
looking into ways of reducing it. He also suggested a possible solution that
candidates can come up early for tenure, but they are out if unsuccessful! The
Committee briefly discussed this issue (because it was brought up too late in
the year) and felt that 'one strike and you are out' policy is too harsh.
Instead the Committee is suggesting a twofold approach:
- A candidate cannot initiate early tenure unless invited to do so by the
department/unit head/chair (also shown in Appendix D), and
- revised language in the University P&T Guidelines. The Guidelines
state 'Tenure is granted for achievement, not for years in rank,
................' in the second paragraph of section titled 'Criteria for
Granting Indefinite Tenure'. Although it is true that tenure is granted for
achievement and not years in rank, the phrase 'not years in rank' may be
giving an impression that candidates can apply for early tenure and possibly
as many times as possible before six years. The Committee is recommending
to delete this phrase and revise it as follows:
'Tenure is granted for achievement. Under normal circumstances.............'
The committee believes that by making these two changes the early tenure cases
may be reduced but still allow exceptional cases to go through, and will help in
attracting outstanding and promising young faculty.
- University P&T Process
Charge - Discuss whether a FS P&T Committee member should be involved in the
selection of which dossiers are going to be given further review. Regardless of
involvement, P&T Committee should be informed of the process being used to
determine selection.
Response - The Committee voted against getting involved in selection of dossiers
which are going to be given further review because the Committee observes the
review of these dossiers while they are being discussed by the University
P&T Committee to ensure an equitable process for all faculty and adherence
to the University P&T Guidelines.
The Committee received the University P&T Committee's process of reviewing
dossiers in early March from Sabah Randhawa (shown in Appendix E). According to
this document (and clarification from Sabah Randhawa), the University P&T
Committee doesn't discuss the case if it was 'negative' at unit/department and
college levels and the University P&T Committee agrees with their decision.
For such cases, in the past (including current year), the FS P&T Committee
never got to review the dossiers and was never a part of any discussion. As a
matter of fact, these are probably the most important cases which should be
observed by the Committee for adherence to University P&T Guidelines. It is
recommended that, in future, the Committee is invited to review all such
dossiers and should be a part of the discussion where such cases are discussed.
- Balance between Teaching and Scholarship across Colleges
Charge - Is more consistency needed across colleges regarding the balance
between teaching and scholarship, and how would this be monitored?
No Discussion
- External Reviewers
Charge - (i) Since some departments/units pay external reviewers for dossier
evaluation and some don't, a University policy must be developed regarding how
reference letters are obtained. (Nancy Rosenberger will check with Sabah
Randhawa whether the University will handle this issue.); (ii) Since it's
unclear how letters are chosen for inclusion in the dossier, an explicit policy
is needed so the candidate's dossier is constructed in the fairest manner
possible. Committee will discuss and possibly make recommendation that no more
than eight letters may be solicited; letters must be chosen from the eight
solicited or more solicited when those are not received.
Response - The Committee discussed the issue of external letters of evaluation
at length. As far as issue of payment to external reviewers is concerned, we
checked with Sara Eklund and Gigi Bruce and they told us that they are not aware
of any unit on campus who pays for the external letters of evaluation. Should
we pay for external letters of evaluation? The Committee did not discuss this
issue but it was brought up at the Provost's Council meeting (Chair was invited
to attend while Sabah Randhawa was presenting 'lessons learnt from this year's
P&T process' to the Council). But, because of the current budget crunch,
the question was raised - who will pay for this? - unit, college, university?
There was no further discussion on this topic.
The Committee addressed the following issues which have been raised at various
FS and University P&T Committee meetings: (i) letters are not very helpful
because frequently they are letters of advocacy and not evaluation, (ii)
difficult to get the required number of letters, (iii) how many letters should
be from the list submitted by the candidate, (iv) how many from the unit head
or departmental committee's list, (v) how to choose where to get letters, (vi)
which letters to include, etc.
After a lengthy discussion, a new policy on 'External Letters of Evaluation' was
drafted and it is included in Appendix F. We are recommending that 'a relevant
portion of the University P&T Guidelines' be sent with solicitation letter
and putting more emphasis on 'evaluation'. We are also recommending that
letters be sought from 'peer institutions' in order for them to evaluate the
candidate fairly. The Committee believes that instead of requiring a minimum
and maximum number of letters, which is sometimes difficult to achieve, as long
as at least 50% of the letters are requested from a list provided by the
candidate any number of letters would be okay. This is reflected in the
proposed policy. We feel that this will take care of all the issues listed
above.
- Release of Results
Charge - Address the issue of the Provost not releasing results for an entire
college until all decisions are made
Response - The Committee briefly discussed this issue and suggests that all the
results (university wide) be released at the same time.
- Post-Tenure Review
Charge - Continue review of post-tenure review guidelines across campus and
report results to the FS EC
Response - The Committee did not review the post-tenure guidelines because the
Office of the Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs was in the process of finalizing
the guidelines. The chair of the Committee was invited to attend one meeting
where the guidelines were discussed. The guidelines were finalized by the
vice-provost, Sabah Randhawa, and implemented in November 2001. The final
guidelines are given in Appendix G.
The Committee raised an issue about item 3 of the process. The item three
states that 'A unit review committee of faculty peers, appointed by the
unit/department head/chair, will review the dossier.' The Committee made the
recommendation that the unit/department review committee of faculty peers be
'elected' by the faculty peers and not 'appointed' by the unit head in order to
keep the process 'open and democratic'. The Committee's recommendation was not
accepted.
- Tenure of Instructors
Charge - Address the following issues: For promotion from instructor to senior
instructor; is scholarship, teaching or both required?
Response - The Committee did not discuss these issues because there was a task
force on 'Tenure/Hiring Practices for Instructors' which discussed these issues.
The task force was chaired by Roy Arnold; other members were Nancy Rosenberger,
Angelo Gomez, Mary Powelson, Mike Oriard, and Kevin Ahern. The issue is
twofold: (1) Instructors' job descriptions typically have no scholarship
component. So we run into problems when a request is made to tenure Senior
Instructors because their job descriptions have no scholarship component and
scholarship is required for promotion. (2) A major change in job description,
as for example, from untenured to tenured, requires that we follow Affirmative
Action (AA) hiring practices and, at the very minimum, units obtain waiver of
search from AA. This is typically not followed when Senior Instructors are
tenured.
The recommendations of the task force are give in Appendix H but they have not
been finalized yet. (The recommendations have been shared with the deans and
with the FS EC. The deans as well as the EC agree with these except bullet #3
which pertains to tenure; both the EC and the deans disagree with this
recommendation. The recommendation is not consistent with the current P&T
guidelines.)
- Observations based on University P&T Committee deliberations
In 2001-2002, consensus was achieved by the University P&T Committee for all
cases except twenty-five (25) dossiers. The FS P&T Committee reviewed these
dossiers. The University P&T Committee discussed these dossiers with respective
deans and a member of the FS P&T Committee was present at all meetings. The
Committee submits the following remarks and recommendations, based on our reading of
the discussed dossiers and observations during the University P&T Committee
meetings:
-
The Committee believes that the P&T process (especially at the unit and
college level) should be 'open (transparent) and democratic'. P&T
Committees at the various levels should be elected and not selected to keep
the process 'open and democratic'. However, the Committee also realized
that units should have the freedom to choose how they want to conduct the
process and how they want to choose various committees. But no matter how
the committees are chosen and no matter what the process is, the P&T
process at the unit level should be in writing, shared with the candidate at
the time of hiring and filed with the provost's office/FS office in order
for all the involved parties to be aware of the process.
-
Colleges have different ways of evaluating P&T dossiers. Some have
college wide P&T committees consisting of faculty members from various
units within the college. Some colleges have committees consisting of
various deans and/or unit heads. The committee believes that each college
should have a college wide P&T Committee composed of peers (faculty
members) from the various units (independent of deans) of the college in
order to have an independent assessment of the dossiers beyond the unit to
assure consistency across units in a college. However, the Committee again
realizes that colleges should have freedom to choose how they want to
conduct the process. Regardless of what the process is, the P&T process
at the college level should be in writing, shared with the candidate at the
time of hiring and filed with the provost's office/FS office in order for
all the involved parties to be aware of the process.
-
It is recommended that Tenure Time line should be established for each
candidate at the time of hire, possibly centrally at the provost's office
and the candidate is requested (possibly by the provost or unit head?) to
submit his/her dossier in order to ensure candidate applies for tenure when
s/he is due. In the current year, one candidate applied for promotion and
tenure in the seventh year because the date of hire was entered incorrectly.
Creating a tenure time line for each candidate and requesting them to apply
for promotion and tenure when they are due may avoid such problems in the
future.
-
Promotion and Tenure should be based on quality scholarship, quality
teaching and quality service. Candidates should not be denied tenure and/or
promotion only because they have not added to the department's fame.
Likewise, a person should not be denied promotion or tenure because they
have not raised sufficient money when the three main aspects of their
performance (scholarship, teaching and service) represent quality results.
The ability to raise money or to increase department's fame is not the same
as creating or teaching knowledge. Thus, fund-raising and effective
publicity should not be used as an index for either quality research or
instruction.
-
The P&T dossiers currently show what candidates have done over 5-6 years
but do not show progress or mentoring received over the years. During our
observation of the P&T cases, we came across a case where no annual
review was done for the candidate over 5-6 years. This candidate never got
any feedback regarding progress toward P&T. This created split voting
for P&T based on what the candidate was doing and what the candidate
should have done. The Committee recommends that the annual reviews, which
are conducted at the unit level every year, be a part of the P&T
dossiers in order for everyone to be aware of the progress the candidate is
making and the kind of mentoring the candidate is receiving. In order to
keep the size of the dossiers manageable, it is recommended that one page
summary of annual review should be included with the P&T dossier.
-
The meaning of 'Distinction' continues to be a problem for candidates
seeking promotion to full professor. Even though the Committee made
recommendations (see I.3 above and Appendix C) it will continue to be a
'sticky' point in the evaluation of dossiers considered for the promotion to
full professor. It is even a bigger problem for extension and library
dossiers. Also it is not clear from the current guidelines if the
candidates have to achieve distinction in all three areas.
The committee believes that awarding of large grants/contracts was often tied to
'distinction'. This should not be, because there are various fields where
'distinction' can be achieved without acquiring large grants/contract.
-
Extension and Library dossiers continue to be 'problematic' in terms of how
to evaluate scholarship. It seems that there is a need to come up with a
way to define and evaluate scholarship for extension and library faculty
members. It is also possible to look into devising a separate P&T
process for the extension and library faculty members where scholarship is
defined and evaluated differently.
-
External letters of evaluation are a important part of the dossiers.
Therefore, it should be identified how they were chosen/selected because
they are more often letters of advocacy. Evaluations from these letters
should be based on universalistic and not particularistic criteria.
-
Position Descriptions have improved over the years but still don't provide
clear expectations. Scholarship expectations should be consistent with
OSU's P&T guidelines. How teaching and service will be evaluated should
be clear to the candidate at the time of hiring.
-
The current University P&T Guidelines have been in effect since 1995.
The Committee recommends that its effectiveness be assessed. The review
should include: (i) a summary of P&T cases for the last 7 years, (ii)
number of cases that came up early (by year, i.e., 1 year early, 2 years
early, etc.) and their success rate, (iii) review of extension and library
cases, (iv) number of dossiers forwarded each year to the university P&T
committee and how many resulted in appeal/grievances and did
appeal/grievances decrease over time?, (v) review of women/minority cases.
Since it is going to be a major task to review the effectiveness of the
current P&T guidelines, it is recommended that a university level task
force be appointed by the Provost. The task force should include one or two
members of the original task force, one member from the FS P&T Committee,
one member from the University P&T Committee and faculty members from
across university.
-
Even though we believe that the P&T process, in general, is fair and
just for all faculty members, we need to make sure that there are no biases
toward women and faculty of color. In particular, decision makers should be
aware of the different working styles of men and women and the added service
component (committees, guest speaking, etc.) put on minorities.
-
The Committee should continue to sponsor campus-wide brown bag lunches,
especially for the new faculty members, unit heads and deans, that focus on
all aspects of the P&T process at OSU. In an effort to provide an
overview of the P&T process at OSU the Committee developed a flowchart
(Appendix J) which was distributed at the brown bag lunches. The flowchart
should be updated and revised annually and distributed to the faculty
members at the brown bag lunches and other P&T related seminars.
-
The Committee recommends that the P&T FAQ should be annually updated
using the annual reports of the FS P&T Committee.
-
Each year, the FS P&T Committee's membership should be updated on the
university web page.
-
The University P&T Committee discussed all cases openly and fairly by
adhering to the University P&T Guidelines. Our Committee believes that
the University P&T Committee tried to collect all evidence and tried to
make an informed decision on each case. As a matter of fact, the University
P&T Committee leaned in the direction of giving all candidates every
benefit of doubt in their decisions. The University P&T Committee was
fair in their deliberations while also trying to maintain quality at OSU.
- Campus-wide educational programs
The Committee and/or Chair were involved in the following educational programs:
-
September 21, 2001 - 'Overview of Promotion and Tenure Process at OSU' by
Rakesh Gupta and Sabah Randhwa; New Faculty Orientation, LsSells Stewart
Center.
-
October 16, 2001 - Brown Bag Lunch, Rakesh Gupta and Sabah Randhawa, MU
(attendance 35+).
-
January 23, 2002 - 'Faculty Position Descriptions' by Rakesh Gupta; Forums
on Faculty Rewards and Evaluation - Faculty Position Descriptions.
-
May 14, 2001 - Brown Bag Lunch, Rakesh Gupta and Sabah Randhawa, MU
(attendance 30+). In conjunction with 'Critical Issues Project' - Definition
and Assessment of Scholarship.
- Other Committee Activities
The Committee was invited to attend an one-time meeting (June 3, 2002) called by the
Provost to discuss observations about the P&T process at OSU and highlight problem
areas. The meeting was also attended by the FS EC, OSU-2007 committee on
teaching/advising, Sabah Randhawa, and Vickie Nunnemaker. Various issues were surfaced
by those who attended the meeting. Vickie took detailed notes and has summarized the
discussion. It is included in Appendix I. The FS P&T Committee did not have time
to discuss all these items and recommends that these items be discussed in future years.
- Tasks for next year
In addition to the items listed in sections I, II and IV above, the Committee should
also address the following issues raised by the OSU-2007 satellite team that is
looking into "How well do current OSU policies and procedures (especially promotion
and tenure guidelines) serve the teaching/advising mission of the university?"
(Note that Question 1 focuses on guidelines AS WRITTEN and that Question 2 focuses
on guidelines AS INTERPRETED). Specifically,
-
Do you think that OSU's current P&T guidelines at OSU give the
flexibility needed to promote and tenure faculty members who are good
teachers and advisors?
-
Do you think that OSU's current P&T guidelines are interpreted and
applied in ways that promote good teaching and advising at OSU?
-
Can you suggest new policies and procedures that might FOSTER good teaching
and advising at OSU? (One way that's been discussed is to hire, support, and
reward faculty whose primarily interests and skills are in teaching and
advising)
- Summary of 2001-2002 P&T actions
A summary of the disposition of all these cases was prepared by Sabah Randhawa,
vice-provost of academic affairs, and is given in Appendix K.
Appendix A - Standing Rules
OLD
Faculty Senate at Oregon State University
Promotion and Tenure Committee
Standing Rules
The Promotion and Tenure Committee studies statements of policy and advises on matters
pertaining to the promotion and tenure process. The Committee observes the annual promotion
and tenure process in the Executive Office and reads the dossiers and provides input on the
promotion and tenure decision process through its recommendations to the Faculty Senate
Executive Committee and to the Provost's Office. The Committee shall file an annual report
with the Faculty Senate that includes a summary of the previous year's promotion and tenure
actions. The Committee shall consist of six faculty who have been granted tenure at OSU,
whose appointments are primarily in teaching, research and extended education who reflect
the diversity of the University. Whenever a committee member is under consideration for
promotion, he or she will be ineligible to serve on the committee during the year in which
the review is scheduled.
The Promotion and Tenure Committee provides leadership for campus-wide educational programs
related to the promotion and tenure process and facilitates on-going dialogue about these
matters. Members of the committee are available to respond to procedural and interpretative
questions from faculty, department heads, deans, and department and college committees.
(6/99)
REVISED
Faculty Senate Promotion and Tenure Committee
Oregon State University
Standing Rules
The Faculty Senate Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews University Promotion and Tenure
Guidelines and advises on matters pertaining to the promotion and tenure process. The
Committee reads the dossiers and observes the annual promotion and tenure process conducted
by the University Promotion and Tenure Committee . The Committee provides input on the
promotion and tenure decision process through its annual report to the Faculty Senate
Executive Committee and to the Provost's office. The annual report also includes a summary
of the current year's promotion and tenure actions provided by the Office of the Provost.
The Committee shall consist of six faculty members who have been granted tenure at OSU, who
reflect the diversity of the University. Whenever a committee member is under consideration for promotion, he or she will be ineligible to serve on the committee during the year in which the review is scheduled.
The Committee provides leadership for campus-wide educational programs related to the
promotion and tenure process and facilitates on-going dialogue about these matters. Members
of the Committee are available to respond to procedural and interpretative questions from
faculty, unit heads/chairs, deans, and department and college committees.
(6/2002)
Appendix B - Position Description
OLD
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. Within each position description, identify expectations and
the approximate percentage of responsibility associated with these three areas: teaching,
advising, and other assigned duties; scholarship and creative activity; and service.
REVISED
Position Description as Recommended by the FS P&T Committee
A copy of the faculty member's annual position description for each year must be included.
The description should be typed on official letterhead and be signed by the faculty member
and appropriate supervisor at the time of hiring and annually thereafter. Consequently, the
dossier will include multiple dated position descriptions, regardless of whether significant
changes in responsibilities have occurred. Each position description must identify
expectations and the approximate percentage of responsibility associated with the following
three areas: teaching, advising, and other assigned duties; scholarship and creative
activity; and service.
(6/2002)
Appendix C - Distinction
OLD
Criteria for Promotion to Professor
Promotion to the rank of Professor is based upon evidence of the candidate's:
- distinction in teaching, advising, or other assigned duties, as evident in
continuing development and sustained effectiveness in these areas;
- distinction in scholarship, as evident in the candidate's wide recognition and
significant contributions to the field or profession;
- exemplary institutional, public, and/or professional service.
REVISED
Criteria for Promotion to Professor
Promotion to the rank of Professor is based upon the following evidence of the candidate's:
- distinction in teaching, advising, or other assigned duties, as evident in
continuing development and sustained effectiveness in these areas;
- distinction in scholarship, as evident in the candidate's wide recognition and
significant contributions to the field or profession;
- exemplary institutional, public, and/or professional service.
The candidate (or unit head) seeking promotion must provide evidence of having met the above
criteria.
(6/2002)
Appendix D - Early Tenure
EARLY TENURE
What is 'seeking early tenure'?
Faculty member seeking tenure before five years of service in rank as full-time, tenure
track faculty at Oregon State University.
Can an individual apply for early tenure?
Faculty member can apply for early tenure if (a) there is a formal written agreement for
early consideration of tenure when hired, and/or (b) the criteria for granting indefinite
tenure as outlined in the University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines have been met.
Evaluated against higher standards or the same standards as those pursuing tenure in their
sixth year of service?
Faculty member going up early for tenure would be evaluated against the same standards of
documented excellence as those pursuing tenure in the sixth year of service in rank.
How many times can one apply for early tenure?
A faculty member can not initiate early tenure process unless invited by the unit Head (in
cooperation with the Dean).
EARLY PROMOTION (For all ranks)
The committee felt that there shouldn't be any time limit for promotion because as long as
the faculty member is able to meet and demonstrate the criteria for promotion, s/he should
be allowed to seek promotion anytime.
(6/2002)
Appendix E - University Promotion and Tenure Committee's Process of
Reviewing Dossiers
University- Level P&T Evaluation Process - by Sabah Randhawa
- Completed dossiers are turned into the office of Vice Provost of Academic Affairs (VPAA)
by March 1, 2002 (for 2001-2 evaluations).
- Sara Eklund, Executive Assistant to the VPAA, reviews all dossiers for:
- Completeness
- Adherence to P&T Guidelines
- Duplication of Information (for faculty with appointments in multiple
colleges)
- Sara creates a database of the candidates to be evaluated
- Sabah Randhawa, VPAA, reviews dossiers for:
- Adherence to P&T Guidelines, particularly with respect to internal and
external evaluations
- Overall assessment of all cases to identify dossier with negative
recommendations or with split recommendations
- Detailed assessments and evaluations of all cases for promotion of FRA's to
SFRA's
- After consultation with the University P&T Committee, VPAA assigns, for
each dossier, a primary evaluation and a secondary evaluator. Assignments are typically
made by college, recognizing potential conflict of interest of committee members and an
effort is made to balance workload of committee members.
- A one to one and a half day is set aside for the University P&T Committee
to meet and discuss all dossiers. Special focus is on dossiers with negative or split
recommendations, and on ensuring consistency of evaluation within colleges and across
colleges (recognizing differences in mission and goals of colleges and their impact on
P&T requirements). Typically, dossiers with split recommendations or those with
which the committee has concerns on questions (particularly dossier with negative
recommendations) are set aside for further discussions with the college deans. Other
administrators may be invited, if appropriate. Representatives from the Faculty Senate
P&T Committee are invited to deliberation's involving this subset of dossiers. The
University P&T Committee meets around the third week of April.
- Individual sessions are set up between April 25 and May 10 involving the University
P&T Committee, college deans and other administrators (if appropriate) and
representatives from the faculty Senate P&T Committee. The Faculty Senate P&T
Committee is provided an opportunity to review these cases in question prior to these
meetings. Differences of perspectives, in the dossier and University P&T Committee
concerns and questions are discussed at these sessions.
- The University P&T Committee forwards its recommendations to the Provost
after the meetings are completed. The Provost makes his decisions and forwards these to
the College deans by May 15th.
Appendix F - External Letters of Evaluation
OLD (as given in the Promotion and Tenure Dossiers Guidelines 2000-2001)
External Letters of Evaluation
Solicited Letters of Evaluation from Outside Leaders in the Field (5 minimum, 8 maximum)
Letters should generally be from leaders in the candidate's field, chosen for their ability
to evaluate the candidate's scholarly work. Only in rare cases should letters be solicited
from co-authors, co-principal investigators, former professors, or former students. Letters
should generally be from tenured professors or individuals of equivalent stature outside of
academe who are widely recognized in the field.
As described in Promotion and Tenure Guidelines (July, 1995), 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.
A representative form letter is attached, 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, personal 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.
REVISED
External Letters of Evaluation
External letters of evaluation should be solicited from experts in the candidate's field,
chosen for their ability to
evaluate the candidate's scholarly work. Only in rare cases
should letters be solicited from co-authors, co-principal investigators, former professors,
or former students. Letters should be from tenured professors at peer institutions or
individuals of equivalent stature outside of academe who are widely recognized in the field. The candidate must submit a list of individuals meeting these criteria. At least 50% of the external letters of evaluation must be solicited from this list (the remaining letters from unit chair, unit P&T committee, or dean's list). The unit chair/head, dean, or the unit's promotion and tenure committee chair, not the candidate, must request all letters. Both lists of names along with all the letters received must be included in the faculty member's dossier.
A copy of the solicitation letter used must be included. Each evaluator should be sent a
copy of the candidate's position description, personal statement, current vita, and the
relevant portions of the University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. Copies of publications
may be sent at the discretion of the individual soliciting the letter or at the request of
the evaluators. A log of all contacts with the evaluators must be provided. Letters from
external evaluators should be available prior to initiating the review of the dossier.
(06/2002)
Appendix G - Post-Tenure Review
Post-Tenure Review Implementation Guidelines
The University established a post-tenure review system to
"…recognize and foster excellence,
to help good faculty become better, and to identify and help underachieving faculty fulfill
the potential that was recognized upon hiring and reaffirmed on the awarding of tenure."
The process is intended to provide effective evaluation, useful feedback, appropriate
intervention and timely assistance to ensure that every faculty member establishes and
maintains an acceptable record of professional development and accomplishment during the
various phases of his or her career.
The post-tenure review is normally a unit-level process that occurs every five years for
each tenured faculty member. However, in the case of tenured associate professors, a
college-level interim review or a formal evaluation for promotion may be substituted for the
normal post-tenure review if conducted within the five-year span. The department or unit
head, or the faculty member may also request a peer committee post-tenure evaluation at any
time if it is considered to be beneficial to the professional development of the faculty
member.
Process
The review will consist of the following steps:
- The unit head is responsible for developing and maintaining a multi-year plan
for post-tenure review to maximize effective use of faculty and staff resources. The
unit head will discuss the post-tenure review process with each eligible faculty member
during the winter or spring of the academic year prior to a planned review.
- 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.
- A unit review committee of faculty peers, appointed by the unit head, will review
the dossier. The peer committee also may include faculty outside the unit; this option
might be especially appropriate for faculty whose work has a significant
interdisciplinary component that involves other OSU units. The peer committee's
evaluation will be provided to the faculty member, who may attach comments, explanations
or rebuttal, prior to being forwarded to the unit head.
- The unit head, after reviewing the dossier and peer committee's evaluation and
recommendation, will prepare a written evaluation of the faculty member's performance in
each of the assigned areas of responsibility, as well as an overall performance rating.
The overall performance will be expressed as Extraordinary Performance, Strong and
Positive Performance, or Unsatisfactory Performance.
- The final dossier and evaluations will be kept in the faculty member's
personnel file, and a copy will be submitted to the Dean.
Outcomes
An overall performance rating for the five-year review period will be determined using the
following three levels: Extraordinary Performance, Strong and Positive Performance, or
Unsatisfactory Performance. It is expected that only five-year performance records that
stand out from the rank group and which are conspicuously marked by distinction will be
considered "Extraordinary." This rating would require high levels of sustained performance
per faculty member's position description. Similarly, faculty performance that shows a
sustained record of deficient performance per faculty member's job description will be
considered "Unsatisfactory."
"Extraordinary" Performance: The department and/or college will publicly acknowledge faculty
whose performance is deemed Extraordinary and will consider the post-tenure review outcome
in awarding merit raises at the next available opportunity for such raises. In addition,
faculty receiving a rating of Extraordinary will receive a one-time monetary supplement of
$3,000.
"Strong and Positive" Performance: The department and/or college will consider the
post-tenure review outcome in awarding merit and fully satisfactory performance raises at
the next available opportunity.
"Unsatisfactory" Performance: Should the peer committee and the unit head agree that the
results of a five-year review indicate that a faculty member's record is unsatisfactory,
the unit head in consultation with the peer committee and the faculty member under review,
will draft a professional development plan. This plan will include definite steps to be
taken to remedy the specific deficiencies and to provide realistic support for accomplishing
the goals of the development plan. The plan shall be approved by the responsible dean(s). A
timetable of no longer than three years will be provided to accomplish the goals of the plan,
with annual monitoring by the unit head and peer review committee to measure progress.
Discipline or dismissal for cause, are not part of the post-tenure review. The consequences
of continued unsatisfactory performance are outlined in
The Faculty Handbook. The unit head
and the dean bear the responsibility for documenting a case of continued unsatisfactory
performance and/or failure to achieve the goals of the development plan resulting from a
post-tenure review.
Appendix H - Tenure for Instructors
Recommendations of Issue Group on Tenure Policies for Senior Instructors
Charge:
Review OSU's current policies and to recommend changes in policy that would bring greater
clarity and consistency to tenure decisions being made regarding Senior Instructors
Recommendations:
- Tenure for senior instructor will only be considered for those positions originally
defined as tenure-track, with an expectation that the position had been filled through a
national search
- Creation of tenure-track instructor positions require both college and university
level approval
- Position descriptions for tenure-track instructors should include an expectation of
professional development and service appropriate to the rank; scholarship may be
included within professional development, but is not required for instructor positions
"For instructors [initially hired] with tenure-track appointments, the tenure decision
is based primarily on the candidate's performance of assigned duties. Evidence of
professional growth appropriate to the position will also be required, possibly but not
necessarily including scholarship in the field, in addition to a record of service
appropriate to the rank."
- Instructors currently in fixed-term positions can be considered for tenure only if
the position was redefined as tenure-track, with similar expectations for a search;
assuming that an open national search had been conducted to fill the position initially,
a request for waiver of search could be considered (waiver of search is not explicitly
mentioned in the proposed policy changes because that option is covered elsewhere in OSU
policies and is always a possible option)
- Recognizing that instructors and senior instructors at OSU cover a wide range of
specific roles and responsibilities, including but not limited to the instructional
program, the word "instructional" has been changed to "academic" in several places
- Promotion to the rank of senior instructor is independent of consideration of tenure;
fixed-term instructors may be promoted to senior instructor without indefinite tenure
- Consideration for either promotion or tenure should occur through existing
university promotion and tenure processes, with added language to clarify the
expectations for professorial rank faculty and instructors/senior instructors
15 May 2002
Appendix I - Notes from meeting with Provost
Promotion & Tenure Discussion
June 3, 2002
Present: Paul Doescher, Angelo Gomez, Shawna Grosskopf, Rakesh Gupta, Jack Higginbotham, Lyla Houglum, Ed
Jensen, Gordon Matzke, Janet Nishihara, Mary Powelson, Sabah Randhawa, Nancy Rosenberger, and Tim White
White began by indicating that he felt the system was pretty close to right, but needs to be closer. Four
areas need to be reviewed:
- The position description and the way a job is constructed and the way the job is actually performed
sometimes contradict each other. Does the position allow an individual to be successful? Difficult to be
distinguished in all areas when if a particular portion of the job amounts to only 10-15%.
- Ways in which evidence is compiled and disclosed relevant to the criteria. Extension and Library faculty
have particular problems in the areas of scholarship, percent of effort and the way the impact of
scholarship is described. Gupta noted that the PD's need improvement and that the P&T Committee is
making a recommendation related to this in their annual report.
- Early cases - what is the definition? Should a person in the assistant rank be continually allowed to put
their dossier forth until the six years are up? Should the process be changed so that a person can come up
early for tenure, but they are out if unsuccessful? Continues to be confusion between scholarship section of
the PD and a vitae. Does it represent scholarship or research? Need to distinguish between the two in the
percent section of the PD.
- How is the effectiveness of the P&T Guidelines measured? Randhawa noted that the new guidelines have
been in operation for 6-8 years and that perhaps it is time to evaluate the effectiveness of the guidelines.
Other items
What do we need to do to make it better? a) There needs to be better general communication between the
faculty and leadership during dossier preparation, and b) Bring Post-Tenure Review in the process. It was
noted that the annual review, and the Promotion and Tenure and Post-Tenure Review processes need to be tied
together.
Gupta noted there are still faculty who do not know the difference between the University and Faculty Senate
Promotion and Tenure Committees - or that there are two separate groups. His goal, as chair, has been to
convey the differences in Charges and purpose. It seems that many faculty don't know what happens at
the university level. Gupta felt that the current guidelines are comprehensive and inclusive.
Houglum noted that, although the OSU Guidelines continue to be used as a model across the nation, she feels
that they should be evaluated. The PD's have improved, but vary from unit to unit - they are better if they
are specific to a person rather than for a department. The guidelines state that scholarship does not equal
research, although it can lead to research.
Houglum questioned the usefulness of external reviews. External reviews are sometimes more about advocacy
than evaluation. Since guidelines at other universities may be different, it may be helpful to communicate
with reviewers to let them know what is needed.
Houglum thought it may help to work with departments and college units to help them learn to evaluate
dossiers and then work with colleagues.
In marginal cases, what do the annual and mid-course reviews say? OSU has no guidelines for mid-course
reviews. Gupta suggested a standard format for annual reviews. Annual reviews are not required in the
dossier and should be in the guidelines. Jensen also advocated for standardizing reviews so that the same
areas are addressed.
Houglum felt that tenure for the institution is an ongoing issue for the University P&T Committee.
Matzke wants tenure for Courtesy faculty addressed. He also noted that some faculty are at a disadvantage if
they have a poor mentor.
Gomez questioned whether the current P&T process is serving modern day realities. Do present realities
require more flexibility in the number of years they are allowed to be successful? He felt there should be
more flexibility in the process.
Gupta also felt that evaluations are gender based and faculty are evaluated against different criteria
depending on gender. Gomez questioned whether the P&T process is part of the problem of women and
faculty of color advancing below the national level.
Gupta noted that all departments have a different P&T process, as do colleges. He did not suggest
standardizing the process, but suggested that each units policies be in writing.
Gomez brought up two additional areas of concern: 1) How individual vs. team-taught scholarly activities are
evaluated and 2) How teaching and service are evaluated.
Doescher noted that objectivity of interpretation at unit and college levels vary among different units.
There are also instances when personality issues may interfere. Doescher and Powelson recommended a peer
committee at the college level - should they be required?
Jensen questioned how someone can be distinguished in areas that account for only 10-15% of their effort.
Needs to be a balance between the weight given to teaching, research and service.
Randhawa noted four areas to be reviewed: 1) assessing effectiveness, 2) communication, 3) process issues,
and 4) scholarship/job description alignment. Randhawa suggesting forming separate committees to look at
these issues.
Early cases applies to both junior faculty and experienced faculty coming in from other institutions. White
noted the following reasons for going up early: 1) prior teaching at another institution, 2) the faculty
member was given a promissory note (i.e., if they finish their Ph.D. and go up, and 3) large egos.
Gupta read a recommended definition from the P&T Committee of those eligible to go up early: Faculty
members seeking tenure before five years of service in rank as a full-time tenure track faculty at OSU.
Should a faculty member be allowed to apply for tenure? The recommendation from the P&T Committee is:
Faculty members can apply for early tenure if: a) there is a formal agreement for early consideration of
tenure when hired and/or b) criteria for granting indefinite tenure - if criteria in guidelines is met
(Rakesh - I don't think I got this right.)
White suggested that the agreement be with the President or Provost and not a chair. White also suggested
that, if a candidate goes up early and is not successful, they enter their terminal year, i.e., the don't
get another chance.
Matze questioned whether time should be one of the standards? White noted that it is difficult to attain
quality in an early case, i.e., experience gained in working with graduate students. Grosskopf suggested
that if an individual insists on early tenure and is not successful, it would be up and out. Matzke
suggested defining early tenure as being eligible in year four or five, but not in year one, two or three.
Gupta suggested specifying the number of years required at a prior institution combined with the number of
years required at OSU to be eligible for early tenure. Can we say that an individual can't initiate early
tenure without departmental approval?
Higginbotham noted that a faculty member can pull their dossier at any point up to the point where the
Provost makes a decision for tenure. He felt that the option of granting early tenure allows OSU to lure
stars away from other institutions; if you don't allow early tenure, it makes stars leave.
Rosenberger assigned the issue of early tenure to the Faculty Senate Promotion and Tenure Committee to
discuss.
Jensen questioned if it was possible to create a standard for each of the P&T areas. White responded
that it is too variable among units; it comes down to judgement. Houglum noted it was valuable to talk at
the departmental level regarding expectations of scholarship.
Jensen expressed the opinion that it doesn't seem right if a faculty member is supported by the college,
but it gets disapproved by the University. He felt that OSU has guidelines, but also needs criteria.
Rosenberger asked the Faculty Senate Promotion and Tenure Committee to talk about the process and requested
that their recommendations come to the EC and then to Randhawa.
Appendix J - Overview of P&T Process at OSU: Flowchart
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2002 PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEW
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Promotion and Tenure Committee began its review of 67 dossiers in March and
concluded its final meeting on July 31, 2002.
Within this report are tables that summarize requests received and the action taken. The
information presented in Table I analyzes the data for the group as a whole. In Tables II
and III, summaries are presented for female and minority candidates. The others provide
information on promotion by rank and granting of indefinite tenure. They also show totals
by college, including information on females and minorities.
The level of agreement among department, college, and University Promotion and Tenure
Committees is high and consistent with the pattern noted in recent years. 19 individuals
were promoted to Professor; 15 to Associate Professor; 4 to Associate Professor, Senior
Research; 4 to Senior Instructor; and 11 to Senior Faculty Research Assistant. 18
individuals were granted indefinite tenure.
The University Promotion and Tenure Committee consisted of the following individuals:
- Sally Francis, Interim Dean, Graduate School
- Rich Holdren, Vice Provost for Research
- Lyla Houglum, Dean of Extended Education
- Sabah Randhawa, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
- Tim White, Provost and Executive Vice President, CHAIR
Faculty Observers to the 2002 University Promotion and Tenure Committee were drawn from
the Faculty Senate's Promotion and Tenure Committee:
- Shawna Grosskopf, Department of Economics
- Rakesh Gupta, Department of Forest Products, CHAIR
- Jack Higginbotham, Department of Nuclear Engineering/ Research Office
- Charles Langford, Department of Sociology
- Mary Powelson, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
| ANALYSIS BY RANK AND TENURE |
| Request by rank | Promotion |
Tenure |
| Yes | No |
Granted | Denied |
|
| Senior Faculty Research Assistant | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Senior Instructor | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Associate Professor, Senior Research | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Associate Professor | 15 | 7 | 15 | 6 |
| Professor | 19 | 6 | 1 | 0 |
| No change in rank | | 1 | 0 |
|
| TOTAL | 53 | 13 | 18 | 7 |
| Request by rank | Promotion |
Tenure |
| Yes | No |
Granted | Denied |
|
| Senior Faculty Research Assistant | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Senior Instructor | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Associate Professor, Senior Research | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Associate Professor | 10 | 1 | 9 | 1 |
| Professor | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| No change in rank | | 1 | 0 |
|
| TOTAL | 26 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
| Request by rank | Promotion |
Tenure |
| Yes | No |
Granted | Denied |
|
| Senior Faculty Research Assistant | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Senior Instructor | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Associate Professor, Senior Research | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Associate Professor | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Professor | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| TOTAL | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| GRANTED INDEFINITE TENURE |
| Total Males and Females | Total Females | Minorities |
|
| Agricultural Sciences | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Engineering | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Health & Human Perf | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Home Economics & Ed | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Information Services | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Liberal Arts | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Pharmacy | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Science | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 1 | 0 |
|
| TOTAL | 18 | 12 | 2 |
| PROMOTION TO SENIOR FACULTY RESEARCH ASSISTANT |
| Total Males and Females | Total Females | Minorities |
|
| Agricultural Sciences | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| Forestry | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Home Economics & Ed | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Oceanic & Atmospheric Sci | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Research | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Science | 2 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Total | 11 | 7 | 1 |
| PROMOTION TO SENIOR INSTRUCTOR |
| Total Males and Females | Total Females | Minorities |
|
| Agricultural Sciences | 1 | 0 | 0
|
| Home Economics and Education | 1 | 1 | 0
|
| Liberal Arts | 1 | 1 | 1
|
| Science | 1 | 1 | 0
|
|
| Total | 4 | 3 | 1
|
| PROMOTION TO RESEARCH ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR |
| Total Males and
Females | Total Females | Minorities |
|
| Forestry | 2 | 1 | 1
|
| Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences | 1 | 0 | 0
|
| Science | 1 | 0 | 0
|
|
| Total | 4 | 1 | 1
|
| PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR |
| Total Males and
Females | Total Females | Minorities |
|
| Agricultural Sciences | 2 | 1 | 0
|
| Engineering 1 | 1 | 0
|
| Health and Human Performance | 1 | 1 | 0
|
| Home Economics and Education | 1 | 1 | 0
|
| Information Services | 1 | 1 | 0
|
| Liberal Arts | 3 | 1 | 0
|
| Pharmacy | 1 | 1 | 1
|
| Science | 4 | 2 | 0
|
| Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 1 | 0
|
|
| Total | 15 | 10 | 1
|
| Total Males and
Females | Total Females | Minorities |
|
| Agricultural Sciences | 6 | 0 | 0
|
| Forestry | 1 | 0 | 0
|
| Health and Human Performance | 1 | 0 | 0
|
| Home Economics and Education | 4 | 4 | 0
|
| Liberal Arts | 3 | 1 | 0
|
| Pharmacy | 1 | 0 | 0
|
| Science | 2 | 2 | 0
|
| Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 0 | 0
|
|
| Total | 19 | 8 | 0
|
