What You Can Do Right Now! For Late Stage Faculty

1. What You Can Do Right Now! For Late Stage Faculty Dawn Jourdan, Chair Campus Tenure Committee 2015-2016 Director, Regional and City Planning University of Oklahoma, Spring 2016

2. Important Dates • Planning for external letters of evaluation begins during the spring semester for the coming academic year’s tenure cycle. I’ll discuss this in more detail shortly. • “Call for Tenure and Promotion Recommendations” is sent to candidates for tenure/promotion and to Deans, Directors, and Chairs late spring. Read this over carefully! • Candidate assembles materials for the dossier in late spring and summer. Candidate works closely with the Chair/Director in this process. Chair/Director makes available the dossier (including letters of evaluation) to the eligible voting faculty at least two weeks prior to voting. Campus Tenure Committee forwards its vote on Process and Substance to the Provost and also notifies the candidate andthe candidate’s Dean and Chair/Director in writing of the outcome of the committee’s vote. OCT 1 MAY 31 NOV 1 MAR 1 President notifies each candidate of Regents’ action. Chair/Director notifies candidates in writing the vote of the faculty and the recommnedations of Committee A and Chair/Director DJ

3. General Information • It is useful to review the sections in the Faculty Handbook (3.7) relating to tenure and to advancement in rank. • Review and be prepared to address all your unit’s specific “Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion.” • Review your teaching, research, and service summaries on your Annual Evaluations and in your Progress Toward Tenure Letters. • The primary responsibility for gathering complete information on professional activity rests with the individual faculty member. (Faculty Handbook) • Since tenure requirements differ from unit to unit, there is no single ideal model. It is best to consult with your Department, Program, Division and/or Mentor for advice in this area. • The Provost’s office will set up the online dossier submission site for each candidate and train units to upload materials. JR

4. The Dossier (Provost’s Call for Tenure and Promotion Recommendations) • Each dossier should contain the materials specified in the “Contents and Evaluation of Each Tenure/Promotion Dossier” specified in the “Provost’s Call.” • Brevity is encouraged. To illustrate, a 2-3 page summary of research is, in most cases, preferable to including copies of actual research publications. (If included, they should be in an appendix.) • The candidate has the right to include anything in the dossier. JR

5. The Dossier (cont.) (Provost’s Call for Tenure and Promotion Recommendations) • Part 1. Candidate Data (Provided by Unit) • Part 2. Candidate Data (Provided by Candidate) • Part 3. External Evaluation Recommendations (Unit) • Part 4. Unit Recommendations • Part 5. Admin Recommendations JR

6. Part 1: Candidate Data (Provided by Unit) • Unit Criteria for Evaluating Faculty • Original letter of appointment, plus additional documentation of all modifications. • Annual Progress-Toward-Tenure evaluationforeach probationary year. • Summary reports of Annual Faculty Evaluationfor each probationary year. JR

7. Part 2: Candidate Data (cont.) (Provided by Candidate) • Complete and up-to-date vita. • Teaching data • Research/Creative Activity data • Service data • Appendices (Optional) JR

8. Part 2: Candidate Data (cont.) Teaching Data • Statement of teaching philosophy and activities. • Courses taught (number and title), enrollments, syllabi. • Student evaluations (questionnaire, results and comments, individual unit average, and college average scores). • Peer evaluations/letters from past and current students. • Individual work with students: Undergraduate students (UROP, Honors etc.) Graduate students (chairing or membership on committees, completed and in-progress for thesis/dissertation projects with name of thesis/dissertation and expected date of completion). f. Special efforts (e.g., designing new courses, lab development, text boopublications). JR

9. Part 2: Candidate Data (cont.) Research Data • Statement of Research/Creative Activities. • Publications/Performances (e.g., books, monographs, archival journal papers, conference papers, recitals, exhibitions, films) and a description of the professional reputation of the publication/exhibition outlet. • Grants and Contracts (title, sponsor, period, funding, and role, especially if not pi.). • Special efforts. Service Data • Unit service • College service • University service • Professional service • Public service JR

10. The Dossier – External Evaluators • In the spring, the Chair/Director of the unit initiates the process to solicit external letters of evaluation. • The purpose of external peer evaluations is to provide an independent, unbiased evaluation of the candidate’s scholarly attainment. • Both the candidate and the unit suggest names. Some appropriate balance should be sought in selection between reviewers suggested by the candidate and reviewers suggested by the unit. The reviewers should come from peer institutions. • External evaluators must have no close academic or personal connections with the candidate. Ph.D. advisers and committee members, co-authors, and close personal friends should not be askedto evaluate the candidate. • Evaluators should come from peer institutions (i.e. universities comparable with OU). • The candidate should not contact potential evaluators! JR

11. Where to Start Spring/Summer Before Your Tenure Cycle Year • Re-readthe “Call for Tenure and Promotion Recommendation” and the unit’s tenure and promotion criteriaso that these are carefully addressed in the narratives • Compile and organize documentation for the dossier based on the “Contents” found in the “Call for Tenure and Promotion Recommendations.” • Begin drafting statements for Teaching, Research/Creative Activity, and Service sections of the dossier. • Consider how the impact of the workcan be documented (e.g., how the work has earned national or international recognition). • Ideally, if you are a co-author or co-pi, explain the extent of your role in the publication or on the grant. • Provide the Chair/Committee A with names of external reviewers. Do not contact them! • Provide the Chair/Committee A with material that is to be sent to external evaluators. JR

12. Finishing Up Before You Turn In Your Dossier • Read your dossier carefully. • Check that all required documentation has been included. (all student evaluations, syllabi etc.) • Provide evidence of the impact of the work (journal reputation, extent to which the work has gained national or international recognition). • As mentioned in the last slide, if you are a co-author or co-pi, make sure the extent of your involvement in clear. • Arrange in the order required • Check spelling, mistakes involving cut and paste, typos etc. JR

13. Role of Campus Tenure Committee • CTC: 9 tenured faculty members on staggered 3-year terms. Faculty Senate appoints two new members every year, President appoints one member. • CTC provides advice on whether the academic unit’s recommendation with regard to both substance (evidence of productivity) and the process is sustained by the documentation and is consistent with the approved tenure criteria of the academic unit and the University. • CTC attaches its recommendation to the tenure materials and forwards all materials to the Senior Vice President and Provost with supporting reasons and notifies the candidate, the chair/director of the unit, and the college dean of its recommendation. JR

14. Problems that Typically Come Upin the Review Process – Part 1 • The requirement of dossier availability with external evaluations two weeks prior to voting was not followed. • Poor balance between external reviewers recommended by the candidate and those recommended by the department. • Lack of clarity about who recommended external reviewers. • Insufficient external evaluation letters. • Biographical statements about external reviewers (in lieu of a CV) that do not provide sufficient information to determine whether the person is an expert who knows the candidate’s field well enough to give an informed assessment of the candidate’s work. • Too close a connection between the external reviewers and the candidate. JR

15. Problems that Typically Come Upin the Review Process – Part 2 • Lack of required documentation in dossier, for example, missing documentation for the extension of the tenure clock. • Failure of the unit to provide explicit written guidance to the candidate in the form of annual progress towards tenure letters. • An evaluation process (including annual evaluations and progress towards tenure letters) that is inconsistent with eventual vote of the unit. • A vote that is inconsistent with the unit’s criteria for tenure and promotion. • Chair/Director evaluations that do not address all aspects of the unit’s criteria. JR