The Procedural Guidelines for
Clinical-Track Promotion Decision-Making establish a uniform system of
procedures to be used in all academic units of the University.
Each college of the University that employs clinical-track faculty also
will establish its own written policy governing its promotion decision-making
for salaried clinical-track faculty to guide academic units when circumstances
require or permit flexibility or variation.
(For a list of items in these procedures that specifically require that
collegiate policies be followed, see Appendix A.) The Provost must approve all collegiate policies.
These are procedural guidelines only.
For University policies regarding criteria
for promotion of clinical-track faculty, refer to section III-10.9 of the Operations
Manual. The substantive
standards contained therein must be satisfied and are not affected by these
guidelines.
These Procedural Guidelines rely upon
several principles: (1) Decisions granting or denying promotion should be based
on a written record of achievement. (2)
The content of the record that will be relied upon should be known by the
candidate and the decision makers. (3)
Except for variation related to the nature of the candidate’s academic
activity, the content of the record should be the same for all candidates in the
same academic unit. (4) The
governing procedures should be the same for all candidates across the
University, except where conditions or academic cultures justify variation among
colleges or among departments within a college.
(5) University and collegiate procedures should be applied consistently
to all candidates.
The qualifications of a candidate for
promotion will be determined on the basis of the Promotion Record, which, when
it reaches the Office of the Provost, will consist of the following material, in
this order:
(i)
the
“Recommendation for Faculty Promotion” cover sheet (see Appendix B);
(ii)
the
collegiate Dean’s letter making a recommendation to the Provost;
(iii)
the vote (and report, if any) of
the Collegiate Consulting Group;
(iv)
the Departmental Executive Officer’s
letter making a recommendation to the Dean;
(v)
the vote and
report of the Departmental Consulting Group;
(vi)
the candidate’s letter correcting
errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching,
professional productivity, and service; the candidate’s letter following
receipt of the recommendation of the Departmental Executive Officer and the
recorded vote and summary report of the Departmental Consulting Group; and the
candidate’s letter following receipt of the recommendation of the Dean and the
recorded vote (and summary report, if any) of the Collegiate Consulting Group,
if the candidate has submitted any such letters;
(vii)
the candidate’s CV in the college’s
standard format which documents the candidate’s educational and professional
history;
(viii)
a
section on the candidate’s teaching, including
(a)
the
candidate’s personal statement on teaching,
(b)
documentation
of peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, and
(c)
other
materials related to the candidate’s teaching [ref. I.B.(3).(c)];
(ix)
a section on the candidate’s
professional productivity, including
(a)
the
candidate’s personal statement on professional productivity,
(b)
documentation
of peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity, and
(c)
other
materials related to the candidate’s professional productivity [ref. I.B.(3).(d)];
(x)
a section on
the candidate’s clinical and other service, including
(a)
the
candidate’s personal statement on service,
(b)
documentation
of peer evaluation of the candidate’s service, and
(c)
other
materials related to the candidate’s service [ref. I.B.(3).(e)];
(xi)
supplementary material to be added to
the Promotion Record as expressly provided in these procedures or collegiate
procedures, entered in the appropriate section of the Record.
In the case of a joint appointment
candidacy for promotion, the departments involved will follow the procedures
described in Appendix D of this document.
In nondepartmentalized colleges, the
term “departmental” throughout these Procedural Guidelines will ordinarily
mean “collegiate” where that substitute usage fits the context, and the
functions of the Departmental Executive Officer will be performed by the
collegiate Dean. (Some steps of
these Procedural Guidelines that expressly involve the Departmental Executive
Officer will become inapplicable.) In
nondepartmentalized colleges that have department-like units such as “areas”
or “divisions,” the collegiate written policy governing promotion
decision-making must specify the role of these units and their administrative
officers for the purposes of promotion decision-making.
The term “Departmental Executive
Officer” throughout the Procedural Guidelines refers to the person or entity
designated in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making
to perform one or more of the functions assigned by these procedures to the
Departmental Executive Officer. Under
this definition, each college has discretion to determine who has the
responsibility to perform any of the functions assigned to the Departmental
Executive Officer by these procedures. In
a nondepartmentalized college (where “departmental” generally means
“collegiate” and “functions of the Departmental Executive Officer”
ordinarily means “functions of the collegiate Dean”), the college has the
same discretion to determine who has the responsibility to perform the functions
assigned by these procedures to the Dean in lieu of the Departmental Executive
Officer.
A candidate is any salaried clinical-track faculty member who has indicated his or her interest in being reviewed for promotion in accordance with the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making.
A.
It is the responsibility of the Departmental Executive
Officer to inform the candidate in writing in the year of appointment to a
salaried clinical track position, in the year of any contract renewal, and at
the beginning of the academic year in which the promotion decision will be made
of the material that is required to be included in the promotion dossier, and of
the candidate's responsibility to compile and submit the dossier by the
specified date in the academic year of the promotion decision.
B.
(1) It is the candidate’s responsibility, with the advice of the
Departmental Executive Officer, to compile and submit substantive material for
inclusion in the promotion dossier (the core of the Promotion Record) on or
before the date specified in the college’s written policy governing promotion
decision-making. In the absence of such a specified date in the college’s
written policy, the specified date will be September 1 of the academic year in
which the promotion decision is to be made.
(2)
It
is the responsibility of the Departmental Executive Officer to advise the
candidate in compiling material for the dossier, to complete the
compilation of the dossier (and subsequently to complete compilation of the
Promotion Record by adding materials to it throughout the decision-making
process), and to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the Promotion
Record serves as a fair and accurate evaluation of the candidate’s strengths
and weaknesses, and is not purely a record of advocacy for the candidate.
(3) The dossier will contain the following, in the order listed unless otherwise noted. A current CV in the college’s standard format may be used in place of the individual items listed below, provided that either all the listed elements are contained in the CV or any missing elements are supplied separately.
(a)
the “Recommendation for Faculty Promotion” cover sheet, with the
section that is to be filled out by the candidate completed (see Appendix B);
(b)
a record of the candidate’s educational and professional history,
including:
(i)
a list of institutions of higher education attended, preferably from most to
least recent, indicating for each one the name of the institution, dates
attended, field of study, degree obtained, and date the degree was awarded;
(ii)
a list of professional and academic positions held, preferably from most to
least recent, indicating for each one the title of the position, the dates of
service, and the location or institution at which the position was held; and
(iii)
a list of honors, awards, recognitions, and outstanding achievements, preferably
from most to least recent.
(c)
a record of the candidate’s teaching at The University of Iowa,
including:
(i)
the
candidate’s personal statement on teaching consisting of a summary and
explanation—normally not to exceed three pages—of the candidate’s
accomplishments and future plans concerning teaching, and comments on these
accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier related to
teaching;
(ii)
a list of the
candidate’s teaching assignments on a semester-by-semester basis, preferably
from most to least recent;
(iii)
a list of graduate students
supervised, if any, including each student’s name, degree objective, and
outcomes;
(iv)
a list of other contributions to
instructional programs;
(v)
copies of
course materials, including syllabi, instructional Web pages, computer
laboratory materials, and so forth (see I.B.4);
(vi)
and, as an appendix to the dossier,
copies of teaching evaluations by students as relevant;
(d)
a record of
the candidate’s professional productivity, including:
(i)
the
candidate’s personal statement on professional productivity consisting of a
summary and explanation—normally not to exceed three pages—of the
candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning professional
productivity, and comments on these accomplishments and plans and on other items
included in the dossier related to professional productivity;
(ii)
a list of
invited lectures and conference presentations;
(iii)
a list of conferences for which
the candidate has organized symposia, workshops, and so forth;
(iv)
a list of journals for which the
candidate has been a member of the editorial board or served as editor;
(v)
a list,
preferably from most to least recent, of the candidate’s publications or
creative works with, for each multi-authored work or coherent series of
multi-authored works, a brief statement of the candidate’s contribution to the
work or series of works;
(vi)
a list of any grants received by the
candidate;
(vii)
a description of any other products and
activities demonstrating professional productivity as defined by the college’s
written policy on promotion decision-making.
(viii)
a list of pending decisions regarding
the candidate’s professional productivity that might affect the promotion
deliberations; and,
(ix)
as an appendix to the dossier, copies
of materials documenting the candidate’s professional productivity;
(x)
research or
creative scholarship is not required for promotion on the clinical track;
however, publications, grants, and other types of research and creative activity
may provide evidence of professional productivity.
(e)
a record of
the candidate’s clinical and other service to the department, college,
university, profession, and community, including:
(i)
the
candidate’s personal statement on clinical and other service (consisting of a
summary and explanation—normally not to exceed three pages—of the
candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning service, and comments
on these accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier
related to service);
(ii)
a list,
preferably from most to least recent, of clinical service activities in each of
the years since the last promotion; and
(iii)
a list, preferably from most to
least recent, of departmental, collegiate, or university service positions;
(iv)
a list, preferably from most to least
recent, of relevant community involvement;
(v)
a list,
preferably from most to least recent, of offices held in professional
organizations;
(vi)
a list, preferably from most to least
recent, of service on review panels; and
(vii)
a list, preferably from most to least
recent, of any service contributions not listed elsewhere.
(f)
within
the appropriate section(s) of the dossier as listed above, other information
relevant to the candidate’s record in teaching, professional productivity, or
clinical or other service that is deemed to be important in the candidate’s
judgment or required by the college’s written policy governing promotion
decision-making.
(4) Where the volume of material of a particular kind which is required
to be included in the dossier is large and potentially unmanageable, a
candidate, in consultation with the Departmental Executive Officer, may select
and identify representative portions of the required material for special
attention. Only the material
selected as representative will become part of the Promotion Record and will be
transmitted to successive participants in the promotion decision-making process.
Required materials segregated from the representative material will be
available for review and will be located in a readily accessible location under
the Departmental Executive Officer’s custody.
If any participant in the promotion decision-making process relies upon
initially segregated material in preparing a written evaluation of the
candidate’s qualifications, that material should be added to the Promotion
Record, the fact of that addition should be noted in the written evaluation, and
the candidate should be notified in writing of the addition at the time it is
made.
(5) The candidate’s work in progress that is not completed by the
specified date but that is anticipated to
be completed in the fall—early enough for full and deliberate evaluation, as
determined by the Departmental Executive Officer—may be identified at the time
the dossier is submitted and added to the dossier if and when it is completed.
(6) Other materials that could not have been available by the specified
date but which are completed early enough
for full and deliberate evaluation may be added to the promotion dossier by the
candidate through the Departmental Executive Officer.
C.
(1) It is the candidate’s
responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluation of the candidate’s
teaching by participating in the following process.
(2)
The
college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making must specify a
method of peer evaluation of teaching—which must include peer observation of
teaching to the extent practicable—and
must identify those teaching activities and materials that will be evaluated by
peers. Each college will specify in
its written policy governing promotion decision-making whether these peer
evaluations of teaching will be carried out by individual members of the
department or by a faculty committee or by some combination of these methods.
(3)
With
respect to the observation of classroom, laboratory, practicum, or other forms
of teaching, the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making
will specify the number (or range of numbers) of teaching occasions to observe;
the number (or range of numbers) of consecutive semesters in which observations
will occur; the number (or range of numbers) of observing faculty members; the
method of choosing faculty observers; the method of recording, reporting, and
informing the candidate of the observation; and any other protocol concerning
the observation process.
(4)
In
the evaluation of teaching that involves the peer observation of teaching
activities, the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making
will provide for:
(a)
consistent
treatment of candidates;
(b)
an adequate
basis for fair evaluation; and
(c)
avoidance of
an undue burden on either the observed candidate or the observing faculty
members or an undue disruption of any observed class or other teaching
situation.
(5)
If
expressly authorized by the college’s written policy governing promotion
decision-making, video observation that is consistent with the substance of this
section may be substituted for actual observation of a teaching activity with
the candidate’s consent.
(6)
The
Departmental Executive Officer will add to the appropriate appendix of the
Promotion Record any student teaching evaluations which may have been solicited
by the department as part of its regular promotion review process.
(7)
The
peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching will be contained in a report that
analyzes and evaluates the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, and will
include: (i) a comparative analysis of the quality of the candidate’s teaching
in the context of the candidate’s department or unit; (ii) a summary analysis
of the student teaching evaluation data contained in the Promotion Record,
including departmental average comparison data where possible; (iii) a
description, where appropriate, of the balance between the candidate’s
undergraduate, graduate, and clinical teaching; (iv) a description and
assessment of the candidate’s academic advising responsibilities, if any; and
(v) a consideration of any special circumstances concerning the faculty
member’s teaching performance.
(8)
The
faculty members who perform the peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching as
described in (7) above will enter their report into the section of the Promotion
Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s
teaching.
D.
(1) It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer
evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity by participating in
the following process:
(2)
(a)
Each college will specify in its written policy governing promotion
decision-making whether the peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional
productivity will be carried out by individual members of the department or by a
faculty committee or by some combination of these methods, as well as what
process the reviewers will follow.
(b)
The peer
evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity will be contained in a
report that analyzes and evaluates the relevant materials in the Promotion
Record, and will include a statement concerning the norms for professional
productivity in the relevant field, a brief description of the quality of
conference, institutions, journals or other fora in which the candidate’s work
has appeared or been presented, and statements concerning any other activities
representing professional productivity that would be helpful in understanding
the nature and quality of these activities.
(c)
The faculty
members who perform the peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional
productivity will enter their report into the section of the Promotion Record
that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s
professional productivity.
(d)
The
college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making will specify how
the review of professional productivity carried out within the candidate’s
department will be supplemented by reviewers external to the department,
college, and/or university.
E.
(1) It is the candidate’s
responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluation of the candidate’s
clinical and other service by participating in the following process:
(2)
(a)
Each college will specify in its written policy governing promotion
decision-making whether
the review of
the candidate’s clinical and other service will be carried out by individual
members of the department or by a faculty committee or by some combination of
these methods, as well as what process the reviewers will follow.
(b)
The peer evaluation of the candidate’s service will be contained in a report
that analyzes and evaluates the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, and
will include a comparative analysis of the quality of the candidate’s clinical
and other service in the context of the expected service contributions in the
department and the profession.
(c)
The faculty members who perform the peer evaluation of the candidate’s
clinical and other service will enter their report into the section of the
Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the
candidate’s service.
(d)
The college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making will
specify how the review of service carried out within the candidate’s
department will be supplemented by reviewers external to the department,
college, and/or University.
F.
(1)
The Departmental Executive Officer will send the candidate a copy of the
internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional
productivity, and clinical and other service that have been entered into the
appropriate sections of the Promotion Record.
(2)
The
candidate will be allowed a limited time period, specified in the college’s
written policy governing promotion decision-making, to submit in writing any
corrections to errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s
teaching, professional productivity, and clinical or other service.
(3)
If
the candidate submits a letter correcting errors in the internal peer
evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and
clinical and other service, the Departmental Executive Officer will enter it
into the Promotion Record.
G.
(1) The Departmental
Consulting Group shall consist of all tenured, tenure-track, and clinical-track
faculty at or above the rank being sought by the candidate.
If there are fewer than four eligible faculty to serve as the
Departmental Consulting Group, the Dean, in consultation with the eligible
faculty, shall identify additional faculty outside the department so that the
Departmental Consulting Group consists of a minimum of four faculty.
The college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making also
may specify further the composition of the Departmental Consulting Group to
include additional clinical-track faculty from outside the department.
(2)
Departmental
Consulting Group members who are also members of the Collegiate Consulting Group
will participate in the promotion decision for a candidate from their department
at the departmental level and may not participate in the Collegiate Consulting
Group’s deliberations or voting in regard to that candidate (each individual
participating in the promotion decision-making process may vote for or against
the granting of promotion to a candidate only once).
(3)
The
Departmental Executive Officer may attend the meetings of the Departmental
Consulting Group, but may not vote or contribute to the written report
summarizing its discussion.
(4)
The Promotion
Record available to the Departmental Consulting Group will consist of the
candidate’s dossier with appendices (materials documenting professional
productivity and student teaching evaluations, including those student teaching
evaluations added to the Promotion Record by the Departmental Executive
Officer); the internal and external peer evaluations of professional
productivity, teaching, and service, entered into the appropriate sections of
the Record; and the candidate’s letter correcting errors in the internal peer
evaluations, if any.
(5)
The
Departmental Consulting Group will meet to discuss the candidate’s
qualifications, to vote by secret ballot for or against the granting of
promotion, and, in accordance with the college’s written policy on promotion
decision-making, to assign one or more of its members to prepare a summary
report of the discussion, document the final vote, and enter that information
into the Promotion Record. The summary
report will contain a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion
based on the written policy of either the department or the college, as
applicable, stating the criterion vote (e.g., simple majority, two-thirds
majority) that defines a positive recommendation for promotion.
(6)
The
results of the Departmental Consulting Group’s vote and the summary report of
its discussion and its recommendation for or against the promotion will be
transmitted to the Departmental Executive Officer as part of the candidate’s
Promotion Record.
H.
(1)
Based on the Promotion Record, the Departmental Executive Officer will
recommend that
promotion be granted or denied in a separate letter to the collegiate
Dean for each candidate.
(2)
The
Departmental Executive Officer’s letter to the Dean will explain her or his
reasons for recommending for or against promotion, stating how the candidate has
or has not met the relevant criteria for promotion and, when the recommendation
of the Departmental Consulting Group is not followed, will explain why a
contrary recommendation is being made and will address any disagreement between
the Departmental Executive Officer’s evaluation and the evaluation of the
Departmental Consulting Group as reflected in the summary report of the
Departmental Consulting Group’s discussion.
(3)
If
the Departmental Executive Officer recommends that the candidate be promoted,
the Departmental Executive Officer’s letter to the Dean will address any
negative aspects of the Promotion Record.
(4)
The
Departmental Executive Officer’s letter will be transmitted to the Dean as
part of the candidate’s Promotion Record.
I.
(1)
At the same time that the Promotion Record is submitted to the Dean, the
Departmental Executive Officer will provide the candidate with a copy of the
Departmental Executive Officer’s letter of recommendation to the Dean and the
Departmental Consulting Group’s recorded vote and summary report with
recommendation.
(2)
The
candidate will be allowed a limited time period, specified in the college’s
written policy governing promotion decision-making, to request access to the
Promotion Record, with the following provisions:
(a)
the
candidate will have access to external reviews and student evaluations of the
candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the
Departmental Executive Office only:
(i)
if the Departmental Consulting Group or Departmental Executive Officer
recommends against promotion;
(ii)
if the candidate requests them, and
(iii)
after they have been redacted to protect confidentiality;
(b)
any
comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews or otherwise
identifying any individual must be redacted to protect confidentiality.
(3) The candidate will be allowed a limited time period after having received access to the Promotion Record, including any redacted materials, specified in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making, to submit a letter of response to the Departmental Executive Officer’s letter of recommendation and the Departmental Consulting Group’s vote and summary report with recommendation. This letter will be submitted to the Dean, with a copy to the Departmental Executive Officer, as well as any additional information for inclusion in the Promotion Record.