UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION
TO MODIFY FACULTY
HANDBOOK REGARDING UNIVERSITY PROMOTION AND TENURE POLICY
AND PROMOTION DOSSIERS:
WHEREAS,
the ultimate objectives of promotion
policies at the University of Delaware are faculty excellence and procedural
fairness, and
WHEREAS,
a faculty member’s workload shall be
assigned with the expectation that they will have the opportunity to meet the
criteria for promotion and satisfactory peer review, and
WHEREAS,
outside peer review is one of the methods by which excellence can be evaluated
for promotion of faculty and it is important that external evaluators are aware
of the candidate’s departmental P&T guidelines and have an understanding of the candidate’s
workload for the period under review , and
WHEREAS,
the evaluation of teaching is an extremely important factor in promotion
decisions and a candidate for promotion must incorporate into the dossier
several kinds of evidence in support
of their quality of teaching, and
WHEREAS,
external evaluations that address a candidate’s teaching should be required
when their assigned teaching workload for the period under review is 100%, be
it therefore
Section 4: Personnel Policies for Faculty
Section 4.4 Promotion
and Tenure
Section 4.4.9 Promotion
Dossiers
It is the individual's responsibility to present the best
case for promotion since he or she is most clearly involved in the outcome. It
is extremely important that the dossier be well organized and carefully
prepared because superfluous or confusing information may obscure more than it
enhances one's qualifications and achievements. Unless otherwise noted in the
faculty appointment letter, all work in rank, even if conducted at other
institutions of higher education, shall be considered for promotion and tenure.
It shall be the faculty's responsibility to include evidence of this work in
his/her dossier and to clearly identify when and where this work was performed.
(Rev. 5/10/07).
All dossiers should be organized under the following
headings in this order:
A.
Contents and Guidelines
1. Recommendation for
Promotion Form
2. A table of contents
3. A copy of the University, college, and
department promotion and tenure criteria
B.
Application for Promotion
1. Candidate's
letter requesting promotion
2. A
curriculum vitae
3. Candidate's
statement (optional)
C.
Two and Four Year Reviews for Faculty Seeking
Promotion to Associate Professor
1. Reviews
conducted by the corresponding department committee
2. Reviews or evaluations conducted by the department chair
3. A letter from the department specifying
the average workload(s) for the period under review. The percentages in this
letter must correspond to the percentages in the letter to external reviewers
D.
Internal Recommendations
1. The
department committee's recommendation
2. The
chairperson's recommendation
3. College
committee's recommendation (if any)
4. Dean
or director's recommendation or endorsement
5. University
committee's recommendation
6. Any
appeal materials (appeals and rebuttals)
E. External Recommendations
1. A
copy of the letter soliciting feedback from the external evaluators, which
includes a breakdown of the faculty member’s workload for the period under
review and a copy of the departmental P&T guidelines provided for their use
in providing the evaluation, must be included in the front of this section
2. Letters of evaluation from peer reviewers together with supporting material. These letters will be numbered sequentially for reference.
II. Evidential
Materials
A.
Teaching
Teaching is an extremely important factor in promotion decisions and one must
incorporate into the dossier several kinds of evidence. Such evidence should include student evaluations but these may not
serve as the only basis for the evaluation.
Student
evaluations should be properly tabulated and summarized. The procedures used in
administering the evaluations should also be described. Where available
comparable departmental evaluations and past measures of the candidate's
performance should be provided. (Note: Student evaluations should only be used
in conjunction with other indicators to measure teaching competence, not just
popularity. The type and size of courses should be taken into account).
Student evaluations may include:
·
Samples
of student comments from student evaluations. The means by which these samples
were selected should be provided.
·
Testimonials
from a selection of former and current undergraduate and graduate students. The
procedures for drawing the sample should be clearly described.
In the case where a department solicits student feedback student names
should be kept confidential.
Other kinds of teaching
evidence include:
§
Peer
evaluations that attest to the candidate's pedagogical competence, knowledge of
the subject matter, organization and preparation, ability to stimulate
intellectual curiosity and willingness to work, innovative capacity, and such.
These evaluations will be solicited by the departmental Promotion and Tenure
committee.
§
Course portfolio evaluation
§
Student performance in later sequential courses
§
Standardized test scores
§
Self-evaluation
§ Long-term follow-up of students
§
Teaching
Awards
§
Expert
evaluations of the faculty member conducted by an acknowledged specialist in
teaching
§
Evidence
of the faculty member’s continuing growth in teaching competency and expertise
§
A
national or international reputation as an outstanding educator
§
Publications
regarding pedagogy when not included under the research category by the
department
External evaluations that address the
candidate’s teaching are required of all candidates when their assigned teaching workload
for the period under review is 100%. A candidate will
submit a list of potential reviewers, some of whom will be approached for
recommendations by the department P&T Committee. The department committee
will suggest additional reviewers. Although the candidate must be informed of
all potential reviewers and have an opportunity to comment on them, it is the
department committee, and not the candidate, that makes the final selection.
The final list of names will not be given to the candidate so as to preserve
confidentiality of the reviewers.
Candidates must not
contact potential reviewers about the promotion process at any time.
Letters of evaluation
will be confidential and peer reviewers will not be mentioned by name or
affiliation in any recommendations or evaluations. Reviewers may be referred to
by number.
Each peer review should
be accompanied by the letter requesting the evaluation, a curriculum vita or
biographical statement describing the reviewer's credentials, and a statement
of relationship to the candidate. Insofar as reasonable and possible, only
reviewers without personal ties to the candidate should be selected.
The letter to the
external reviewers must include the departmental P&T guidelines as to what
is required for a standard of excellence to be achieved in teaching.
The materials
supporting excellence in teaching must be sent to reviewers.
Suggestions for possible
evidential materials that could be used to evaluate teaching by the departments
have been listed earlier in this section.
Scholarship
1. Solicited
peer evaluations serve as a major indicator of an individual's impact on the
profession. (These evaluations will appear in the dossier under I.E.1.)
These peer evaluations are always required for promotion when a candidate has workload assigned to
scholarship. Although the number may vary by rank and department or
division, every dossier must include outside peer reviews solicited by the
departmental committee and written by individuals with established reputations
in the candidate's field. These statements should analyze and evaluate
critically the candidate's work and accomplishments and they should also
comment on the candidate's potential for future development.
The solicitation of these evaluations must follow these guidelines:
2.
Evidence of scholarly attainment including:
Service
1.
Service includes innumerable types of activities
rendered for the benefit of the department, college, university, community,
profession, or nation. Willingness to undertake such work and competence in
performing it are taken into account in the promotion process. Evaluating
service is difficult. Promotion and tenure committees need to know when there
has been an outstanding level of service that has taken appreciable effort or
service that has been done in some way that can be noted as excellent. Other
than that, the main concern is that a person has fulfilled his or her service
commitment under the criteria of the academic unit concerned and that the unit
is satisfied. Administrative responsibilities can be considered as part of the
service component, but they may not be used as a substitute for accomplishment
in a scholarly discipline.
To Accompany RESOLUTION
TO MODIFY FACULTY HANDBOOK REGARDING
UNIVERSITY
PROMOTION AND TENURE POLICY AND PROMOTION DOSSIERS
Section 4: Personnel Policies for Faculty
Section 4.4 Promotion and
Tenure
Section 4.4.9 Promotion
Dossiers
It is the individual's responsibility to present the best
case for promotion since he or she is most clearly involved in the outcome. It
is extremely important that the dossier be well organized and carefully
prepared because superfluous or confusing information may obscure more than it
enhances one's qualifications and achievements. Unless otherwise noted in the
faculty appointment letter, all work in rank, even if conducted at other
institutions of higher education, shall be considered for promotion and tenure.
It shall be the faculty's responsibility to include evidence of this work in
his/her dossier and to clearly identify when and where this work was performed.
(Rev. 5/10/07).
All dossiers should be organized under the following
headings in this order:
A.
Contents and Guidelines
1. Recommendation for
Promotion Form
2. A table of contents
3. A copy of the University, college, and
department promotion and tenure criteria
B.
Application for Promotion
1. Candidate's
letter requesting promotion
2. A
curriculum vitae
3. Candidate's
statement (optional)
C.
Two and Four Year Reviews for Faculty Seeking
Promotion to Associate Professor
1. Reviews
conducted by the corresponding department committee
2. Reviews or evaluations conducted by the department chair
3. A letter from the department specifying the average workload(s) for the period under review. The percentages in this letter must correspond to the percentages in the letter to external reviewers
D.
Internal Recommendations
1. The
department committee's recommendation
2. The
chairperson's recommendation
3. College
committee's recommendation (if any)
4. Dean
or director's recommendation or endorsement
5. University
committee's recommendation
6. Any
appeal materials (appeals and rebuttals)
E. External Recommendations
1. A
copy of the letter soliciting feedback from the external evaluators, which
includes a breakdown of the faculty member’s workload for the period under
review and a copy of the departmental P&T guidelines provided for their use
in providing the evaluation, must be included in the front of this section
2. Letters of evaluation from peer reviewers together with supporting material. These letters will be numbered sequentially for reference.
IV. Evidential
Materials
A.
Teaching
Teaching is an extremely important factor in promotion decisions and one must
incorporate into the dossier several kinds of evidence. Such
evidence should include student evaluations but these may not serve as the only
basis for the evaluation. Possibilities include:
Student
evaluations should be properly tabulated and summarized. The procedures used in
administering the evaluations should also be described. Where available
comparable departmental evaluations and past measures of the candidate's
performance should be provided. (Note: Student evaluations should only be used
in conjunction with other indicators to measure teaching competence, not just
popularity. The type and size of courses should be taken into account).
Student evaluations may include:
·
Samples of student comments from student evaluations. The means
by which these samples were selected should be provided.
·
Testimonials from a selection of former and current
undergraduate and graduate students. The procedures for drawing the sample
should be clearly described.
In the case where a department solicits student feedback
student names should be kept confidential.
Other kinds of teaching evidence
include:
§
Peer
evaluations that attest to the candidate's pedagogical competence, knowledge of
the subject matter, organization and preparation, ability to stimulate
intellectual curiosity and willingness to work, innovative capacity, and such.
These evaluations will be solicited by the departmental Promotion and Tenure
committee.
2.
Course portfolio evaluation
3.
Student performance in later sequential courses
4.
Standardized test scores
5.
Self-evaluation
6. Long-term follow-up of students
§
Teaching
Awards
§
Expert
evaluations of the faculty member conducted by an acknowledged specialist in
teaching
§
Evidence
of the faculty member’s continuing growth in teaching competency and expertise
§
A
national or international reputation as an outstanding educator
§
Publications
regarding pedagogy when not included under the research category by the
department
External evaluations that address the candidate’s teaching are required of all candidates when their
assigned teaching workload for the period under review is 100%. A candidate will submit a list of potential reviewers, some of whom
will be approached for recommendations by the department P&T Committee. The
department committee will suggest additional reviewers. Although the candidate
must be informed of all potential reviewers and have an opportunity to comment
on them, it is the department committee, and not the candidate, that makes the
final selection. The final list of names will not be given to the candidate so
as to preserve confidentiality of the reviewers.
Candidates must
not contact potential reviewers about the promotion process at any time.
Letters of
evaluation will be confidential and peer reviewers will not be mentioned by
name or affiliation in any recommendations or evaluations. Reviewers may be
referred to by number.
Each peer review
should be accompanied by the letter requesting the evaluation, a curriculum
vita or biographical statement describing the reviewer's credentials, and a
statement of relationship to the candidate. Insofar as reasonable and possible,
only reviewers without personal ties to the candidate should be selected.
The letter to the
external reviewers must include the departmental P&T guidelines as to what
is required for a standard of excellence to be achieved in teaching.
The materials
supporting excellence in teaching must be sent to reviewers.
Suggestions for
possible evidential materials that could be used to evaluate teaching by the
departments have been listed earlier in this section.
B.
Scholarship
1.
Solicited peer evaluations serve as a major
indicator of an individual's impact on the profession. (These evaluations will
appear in the dossier under I.E.1.)
These peer evaluations are always required for promotion when a candidate has workload assigned to
scholarship. Although
the number may vary by rank and department or division, every dossier must
include outside peer reviews solicited by the departmental committee and
written by individuals with established reputations in the candidate's field.
These statements should analyze and evaluate critically the candidate's work
and accomplishments and they should also comment on the candidate's potential
for future development.
The solicitation of these evaluations must follow these guidelines:
2.
Evidence of scholarly attainment including:
C.
Service
1. Service includes innumerable types of activities rendered for the benefit of the department, college, university, community, profession, or nation. Willingness to undertake such work and competence in performing it are taken into account in the promotion process. Evaluating service is difficult. Promotion and tenure committees need to know when there has been an outstanding level of service that has taken appreciable effort or service that has been done in some way that can be noted as excellent. Other than that, the main concern is that a person has fulfilled his or her service commitment under the criteria of the academic unit concerned and that the unit is satisfied. Administrative responsibilities can be considered as part of the service component, but they may not be used as a substitute for accomplishment in a scholarly discipline.