Procedural Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Decision-Making at The University of Iowa

 

General Principles

Overview of Promotion Decision-making Procedure

Promotion Decision-making Procedure

- I. Department level procedure

- II. College level procedure

- III. University level procedure

Appendix A—Points to be Determined by Collegiate Procedural Guidelines

Appendix B—Recommendation for Faculty Promotion Cover Sheet

Appendix C—Sample Letter from Departmental Executive Officer to External Reviewer

Appendix D—Comments on the Procedural Guidelines

 

 

General Principles

The Procedural Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Decision-Making establish a uniform system of procedures to be used in all academic units of the University. Each college of the University also will establish its own written policy governing its tenure and promotion decision-making, to guide academic units where 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 tenure and promotion, refer to section III.10.4 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 tenure or 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, except as otherwise provided for in these guidelines. (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.  (6) Each faculty member participating in the promotion decision-making process may vote for or against the granting of promotion to a candidate only once.

Definitions.  The term "promotion" refers to both promotion and tenure, except where these Procedural Guidelines clearly distinguish between them.

The term "scholarship" refers to creative work as well as traditional research and publication (see section I.B.(3)(d)ii—I.B.(3)(d)vii of these guidelines).

A “candidate” is any faculty member for whom it is the year of required tenure review or any faculty member who has indicated his or her interest in being reviewed for tenure and/or promotion in accordance with the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making.

The “dossier” is the primary materials assembled by the candidate as described in section I.B.(3).  The dossier contains appendices all or part of which may be transmitted with the dossier to successive participants in the process as described in section I.B.(4).

The “Promotion Record” is the dossier plus all of the materials that are added to it and transmitted to successive participants in the evaluation process.

The Departmental Consulting Group consists of all tenured members of the candidate’s department at higher academic ranks (and, for tenure decisions, tenured faculty members of the same rank), excluding the collegiate Dean and Provost and any faculty member with a disqualifying conflict of interest. If there are fewer than four faculty members in a department who are qualified to serve on the Departmental Consulting Group, the department must identify, in accordance with the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making, qualified University of Iowa faculty members from outside the department to serve on the Departmental Consulting Group (for a minimum of four faculty members in total).

The “Collegiate Consulting Group” consists of faculty selected according to each college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making procedures.  The collegiate procedures shall establish guidelines for the membership of the Group and how it will function within the boundaries of these Procedural Guidelines.

The term "Departmental Executive Officer" or “DEO” throughout the Procedural Guidelines refers to the person or entity who has been expressly designated by the college (in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making) to perform one or more of the functions assigned by these procedures to the DEO. Under this definition, each college has discretion, through the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making, to determine who will be given responsibility to perform any of the functions assigned to the DEO by these procedures. In a nondepartmentalized college (where "departmental" generally means "collegiate" and "functions of the DEO" ordinarily means functions of the collegiate Dean), the college has exactly the same discretion through its written policy governing promotion decision-making to determine who will be given the responsibility to perform the functions assigned by these procedures to the Dean in lieu of the DEO.

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 DEO will be performed by the collegiate Dean. (The Departmental Consulting Group will in that case consist of all tenured faculty members of the college at higher academic ranks than the candidate. Some steps of these Procedural Guidelines that expressly involve the DEO will become inapplicable.)

Basis for evaluation.  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:

  1. the "Recommendation for Faculty Promotion" cover sheet (see Appendix B);
  2. the collegiate Dean’s letter making a recommendation to the Provost;
  3. the recommendation and vote (and report, if any) of the Collegiate Consulting Group;
  4. the letter from the DEO making a recommendation to the Dean;
  5. the recommendation[LAC1] , vote, and report of the Departmental Consulting Group;
  6. any letters submitted by the candidate at specified stages of the process tothe candidate’s letter correcting errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service, or to respond to a letter or report of the ; the candidate’s letter following receipt of the recommendation of the DEO and the recommendation, recorded vote, and summary report of the Departmental Consulting Group,; and the candidate’s letter following receipt of the recommendation of the Dean, or and the recommendation, recorded vote (and summary report, if any) of the Collegiate Consulting Group, if the candidate has submitted any such letters;
  7. the candidate’s Curriculum Vitae (C.V.) in the college’s standard format which documents the candidate’s educational and professional history (i.e., Curriculum Vitae [C.V.]);
  8. 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.            all other materials related to the candidate’s teaching [see I.B.(3).(c)];

  1. a section on the candidate’s scholarship, including

                         a.            the candidate’s personal statement on scholarship,

                        b.            documentation of internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship,

                         c.            documentation of external peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship, and

                        d.            other materials related to the candidate’s scholarship [ref. I.B.(3).(d)];

  1. a section on the candidate’s 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)];

  1. 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.  Materials added to the original dossier or materials in the original dossier that are amended, should be labeled as such, including the date when added or amended and with amendments clearly marked.

 

A candidate has the right to withdraw his or her dossier from further consideration at any point before the Provost has made his/her final decision regarding tenure and/or promotion.  In the case of a mandatory tenure review, withdrawal of the dossier must be accompanied by a letter of resignation effective no later than one year past the end of the current appointment.    If a candidate withdraws his or her dossier from further consideration, the original dossier, including appendices and any supplemental materials added by the candidate, shall be returned to the candidate.  All other materials in the Promotion Record at the time of withdrawal shall be returned to the candidate’s department, which shall retain them following the normal departmental or collegiate schedule for retention of promotion and tenure materials.  The candidate shall not have access to these materials.

A college, or department with the concurrence of its college, may apply in individual cases to the Provost for an exemption from any of these procedures for a legitimate and valid reason.  The college or department has the burden of convincing the Provost that the exemption adds value, fairness and weight to the evaluation.

In the case of a joint appointment candidacy for promotion, the departments/colleges involved will follow the procedures described in Appendix E of this document.

These Procedural Guidelines apply to tenure-track faculty only.

[Return to top of document]


 

Overview of Promotion Decision-making Procedure[LAC2] 

Chart is being revised.

[Return to top of document]


 

Promotion Decision-making Procedure

I. Department level procedure

  1. It is the responsibility of the DEO to inform the candidate in writing in the year of appointment to a tenure-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 will be 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.
  1. (1) It is the candidate’s responsibility, with the advice of the DEO, 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 DEO 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.  The responsibility to advise the candidate in compiling the dossier material is not limited to the immediate period of the tenure and promotion review, but rather is an ongoing responsibility that begins when the faculty member is appointed to the department.

(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 (C.V.), including  at least the following sections, preferably in the order listed:

                                                         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, residents, fellows or other postdoctoral students supervised, 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, etc.;

                                                     vi.            and, as an appendix to the dossier, copies of teaching evaluations by students for each course taught (the candidate will include all student teaching evaluations in her or his custody for each course taught);

d.      a record of the candidate’s scholarship, including:

                                                         i.            the candidate’s personal statement on scholarship (consisting of a summary and explanation—normally not to exceed three pages—of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning scholarship, and comments on these accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier related to scholarship);

e.                                                  ii.             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);

i.                                                  iii.            a list of all published reviews of scholarship of which the candidate has knowledge;

ii.                                                iv.            a list of attained support including any grants received by the candidate;

iii.                                                v.            a list of invited lectures and conference presentations;

iv.                                              vi.            a list of pending decisions that might affect the promotion deliberations, including grant proposals, book contracts, and other publishing decisions anticipated in the near future;

v.                                              vii.            a list of all inventions and patents;

vi.                                           viii.            and, as an appendix to the dossier, copies of the candidate’s published work (and work that is in print or has been accepted for publication), indicating where each work has been or will be published;

f.e.   a record of the candidate’s service to the department, college, university, profession, and community, including:

                                                         i.            the candidate’s personal statement on service (consisting of a summary and explanation—normally not to exceed two 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); and

                                                       ii.            a list, preferably from most to least recent, of offices held in professional organizations; editorships of journals or other scholarly publications; service on review panels; service on departmental, collegiate, or university committees; departmental, collegiate, or university service positions; relevant community involvement, service to the State of Iowa; and other contributions;

g.f.   within the appropriate section(s) of the dossier as listed above, other information relevant to the candidate’s record in teaching, scholarship, or 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 DEO, 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 DEO’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 DEO—may be identified at the time the dossier is submitted and added to the dossier if and when it is completed.

  1. (6) Other materials (including updated CVs and personal statements) 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 at any time through the DEO. Materials added to the original dossier or materials in the original dossier that are amended, should be labeled as such, including the date when added or amended and with any amendments clearly marked.

C.  It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service as described in the following sections, D.—F.  Each college will specify in its written policy governing promotion decision-making whether these peer evaluations will be carried out by individual members of the department, by one or more faculty committees, or by some combination of these methods, as well as what process the reviewers will follow.  These peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service will be contained in one or more reports that analyze the relevant materials in the Promotion Record as detailed in the respective sections that follow, and shall be signed by each peer evaluator.  These reports are intended to go beyond a mere description of what the candidate has included in the dossier and provide a thorough evaluation of the quantity and quality of the candidate’s teaching, research, and service from a departmental perspective.

D.(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 if practicable—and must identify those teaching activities and materials that will be evaluated by peers.

(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) When the evaluation of teaching 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 DEO 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 the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, and will include:

i.  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 and graduate teaching;

iv. a description and assessment of the candidate’s academic advising responsibilities; 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.

E.   (1) It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship by participating in the following process:

(2) 

a.       Selection of external evaluators of scholarship will begin on or before a date specified in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making or, if not specified in the collegiate policy, no later than September 30th of the academic year in which the promotion decision will be made.

  1. The college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making will specify the number of external reviewers (with a recommended range of four to eight) and what sample or portion of the candidate’s work each reviewer is to evaluate.
  2. The DEO will solicit from the candidate a list of appropriate external reviewers from peer institutions (e.g. AAU, Big Ten, major public, Carnegie Research I) or institutions in which the corresponding department or individual evaluator is of peer quality, and add suggestions to the list.
  3. The DEO will add suggestions to the list and give itthe list to those faculty members who have been assigned to complete an internal peer review of the candidate’s scholarship as described in subsection (3), below; those faculty will add other potential external reviewers as specified in the college’s policy governing promotion and tenure decision-making, and return the completed list to the DEO.
  4. The DEO will share the completed list of potential external reviewers with the candidate.  The candidate shall identify any potential external reviewers with whom s/he has worked in any capacity and describe the nature of the relationship.  If the candidate feels that any potential external reviewer on the list might be unfairly biased, the candidate may prepare a written objection and give it to the DEO, who will take the objection into consideration when selecting external reviewers.
  5. In identifying potential external reviewers, all participants in the selection process will take into account the standing of the prospective reviewer in the discipline, the likely knowledge of the reviewer of the material to be reviewed, the apparent impartiality of the reviewer, and the contribution of the reviewer to achieving an overall "balanced" review among the reviewers on any criterion for which there might be a range of perspectives. It is critical to avoid any situation in which a personal and/or professional relationship (including advising, mentoring, co-authoring, etc.) between the candidate and a prospective reviewer could undermine the reviewer’s apparent impartiality.
  6. The DEO will determine, in accordance with the college’s policy governing promotion decision-making, which of the potential external reviewers will be asked to provide a letter of review.
  7. The DEO or Dean, using a form letter which substantially conforms to the sample letter contained in Appendix C, will ask the reviewers identified in (g) above to provide an assessment of the quality and quantity of the candidate’s scholarship.
  8. After or in anticipation of an invitation to an external reviewer to evaluate the candidate’s published work, neither the candidate nor any other faculty member other than the DEO or Dean will communicate with the reviewer concerning the subject of the review or the review process.
  9. The DEO will keep a record of
    1. the list of suggested reviewers,
    2. the names of persons invited to review,
    3. the names of actual reviewers,
    4. comments submitted by the candidate, the DEO, and the internal faculty reviewers,
    5. correspondence and other communications between the DEO or Dean and invited reviewers and actual reviewers.
  10. All letters received from external reviewers will be entered by the DEO into the Promotion Record in the section dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship, along with:
    1. a list of all invited reviewers—indicating whether the reviewer was suggested by the candidate, the DEO, or the internal faculty reviewers—and a brief explanation of why any invited reviewer declined;
    2. the candidate’s written objection to any potential external reviewer on the basis of unfair bias, if a letter was solicited from that reviewer over the candidate’s written objection;
    3. a copy of the letter or letters of solicitation to external reviewers;
    4. a brief description of each external reviewer’s qualifications;
    5. a statement of how the reviewer knows the candidate’s work, if it is not obvious from the reviewer’s letter;

                             vi.            a statement that identifies and addresses circumstances which might call into question the impartiality of the reviewer; and

vi.                     vii.            an explanation of why the choice of a reviewer was made, if the reviewer is not from a peer institution but from an institution where the corresponding department or individual evaluator is of peer quality.

(3)

a. An internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship will be carried out within the candidate’s department. The internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship will be contained in a report that analyzes the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, excluding the external evaluations of the candidate’s scholarship, and will include a statement concerning the norms for publication and/or creative activity in the relevant field, a brief description of the quality of journals or other forums in which the candidate’s work has appeared, and a brief description of the norms of authorship and co-authorship in the field.

b.The faculty members who perform the peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship will enter their report into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship.

F.   (1) It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluation of the candidate’s service by participating in the following process:

(2) The peer evaluation of the candidate’s service will be contained in a report that analyzes the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, and will include a comparative analysis of the quality of the candidate’s service in the context of the expected service contributions in the department, college, University, community, the State of Iowa, and the profession.

(3) The faculty members who perform the peer evaluation of the candidate’s 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.

G.  (1) The DEO will send to the candidate a copy of the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and 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, scholarship, and service.

(3) If the candidate submits a letter correcting errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service, the DEO will enter it into the Promotion Record before the Departmental Consulting Group makes its recommendation.

H.  (1) Following the principle that each individual participating in the promotion decision-making process may vote for or against the granting of promotion to a candidate only once, 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.

(2) The DEO may attend the meetings of the Departmental Consulting Group, but may not vote or contribute to the written report summarizing its discussion.

(3) The Promotion Record available to the Departmental Consulting Group will consist of the candidate’s dossier with appendices (publications and student teaching evaluations, including those student teaching evaluations added to the Promotion Record by the DEO); the external peer evaluation of scholarship and internal peer evaluations of scholarship, 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.

(4) 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.  This report shall not reiterate the details of the internal and external peer reviews or restate other material already in the dossier; rather, it shall identify those specific aspects of the dossier that formed the basis of the departmental consulting group recommendation.

(5) The results of the Departmental Consulting Group’s vote and the summary report of its discussion will be transmitted to the DEO as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record and also provided to the candidate, redacted as needed by those who prepared the summary report to protect the confidentiality of any individual contributions, whether from students, external reviewers, or University of Iowa faculty members.

(6) The candidate will be allowed a limited time period, specified in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making, to submit in writing to the DEO any corrections of factual errors about the candidate’s record in the Departmental Consulting Group’s summary report of its discussion. 

(7) If the candidate submits a letter correcting errors in the Departmental Consulting Group’s summary report, the DEO will enter it into the Promotion Record before making a recommendation to the Dean.

I.    (1) Based on the Promotion Record, the DEO will recommend that promotion be granted or denied in a separate letter to the collegiate Dean for each candidate.

(2) As with the Departmental Consulting Group report, the DEO’s letter to the Dean should not reiterate the details of material that already is in the dossier.  Rather, it will explain her or his reasons for recommending for or against promotion, and, when the vote of the Departmental Consulting Group is not followed, will explain why the contrary recommendation is being made and will address any disagreement between the DEO’s evaluation and the evaluation of the Departmental Consulting Group as reflected in the summary report of the Departmental Consulting Group’s discussion.

(3) Even if the DEO recommends that the candidate be promoted, the DEO’s letter to the Dean will address any negative aspects of the Promotion Record; and, if tenure is recommended, the DEO will indicate in the letter to the Dean how the candidate has met the criteria for tenure.

(4) The DEO’s letter will be transmitted to the Dean as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record.

J.    (1) At the same time that the Promotion Record is submitted to the Dean, if the DEO’s recommendation is negative, the DEO will provide the candidate with a copy of the DEO’s letter to the Dean.

(2) If the DEO’s recommendation is negative, the candidate, upon request, will have access to the Promotion Record, with the following provisions:

a.       the candidate will have access to the external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship only after they have been redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers;

b.      any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers; and

c.       the candidate will have access to the student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the DEO only after the evaluations have been redacted to protect the confidentiality of student evaluators.

(3) The candidate,  for a limited time period specified in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making, has the right to submit (a) a letter of response to the Dean and (b) additional information to be included in the Promotion Record.

(4) If the candidate submits a letter of response to the Dean for inclusion in the Promotion Record, a copy of the letter shall be provided to the DEO.

[Return to top of document]

II. College level procedure

  1. If the candidate submits a letter of response following receipt of the Departmental Consulting Group’s recorded vote and summary report and the DEO’s letter to the Dean, the Dean will place the letter in the Promotion Record.
  1. (1) Each college with multiple units must include in its written policy governing promotion decision-making a procedure for establishing a faculty Collegiate Consulting Group, as well as guidelines for the membership of the Group and how it will function. Members of a Collegiate Consulting Group who have participated in a promotion decision for a particular candidate at the departmental level may not participate in the Collegiate Consulting Group’s deliberations or voting in regard to that candidate.

(2) The Dean may attend the meetings of the Collegiate Consulting Group, but may not vote or contribute to the written report summarizing its discussion.

(3) The Promotion Record available to the Collegiate Consulting Group will consist of the Promotion Record available to the DEO, the DEO’s letter, and the candidate’s letters of response (if any) following receipt of the Departmental Consulting Group’s recorded vote and summary report and the recommendation of the DEO. Although the appendices to the Promotion Record (consisting of student teaching evaluations and publications) are part of the Promotion Record, the determination of whether and when these appendices are physically moved to the Dean’s custody will depend on the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making.

(4) If the Collegiate Consulting Group finds it necessary for clarification or supplementation of the Promotion Record, the Collegiate Consulting Group may submit to the Departmental Consulting Group and/or the DEO a written request for additional information. The Collegiate Consulting Group will enter any information thus obtained into the Promotion Record.

(5) The Collegiate Consulting Group will, in accordance with the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making, meet

(a) to discuss the candidate’s qualifications,

(b) to vote and make a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, and

(c) to assign one or more of its members

(i) to prepare a summary report of the discussion, if its recommendation to the Dean is contrary to that of the DCG or DEO, or if such a report is required by the college’s written policy on promotion decision-making;     

(ii) to  document the final vote, and

(iii) to enter that information into the Promotion Record. 

(6) The Collegiate Consulting Group’s vote and recommendation, and the summary report of its discussion, if any, will be transmitted to the Dean as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record.  If the CCG’s recommendation to the Dean is negative and contrary to that of the DCG or DEO, the candidate also shall be provided with a copy of the CCG’s vote and summary report, if any.

(7) If the CCG’s recommendation is negative and contrary to that of the DCG or DEO, the candidate, upon request, will have access to the Promotion Record, with the following provisions:

a.   the candidate will have access to the external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship only after they have been redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers;

b.   any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers; and

c.   the candidate will have access to the student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the DEO only after the evaluations have been redacted to protect the confidentiality of student evaluators. 

(8) The candidate, for a limited time period specified in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making, has the right to submit a letter of response to the Collegiate Consulting Group’s recommendation. 

C.  (1) When any materials which were not available at the time of the departmental action are forwarded by the DEO to the Dean, the Dean, in consultation with the DEO, will make a determination whether it is likely that the new material would have substantially altered the departmental evaluation of the candidate’s record by the Departmental Consulting Group and/or the DEO. If, in the Dean’s judgment, a substantial change in the departmental evaluation is likely, the Dean will return the case to the DEO for reconsideration of the Promotion Record, as appropriate, so that the Dean will be able to act in the light of an accurate indication of departmental judgments.

(2) Based on the Promotion Record, including the response of the candidate, if any, to the Collegiate Consulting Group report, the collegiate Dean will recommend that promotion be granted or denied in a separate letter to the Provost for each candidate.

(3) The Dean’s letter to the Provost will explain the Dean’s reasons for recommending for or against promotion. As with previous steps in this process, the Dean’s letter to the Provost shall not reiterate the details of material that already is in the dossier; rather, it shall identify those aspects of the dossier that formed the basis of the Dean’s recommendation. 

(4) When the Dean’s recommendation is contrary to the vote of the Departmental Consulting Group, the recommendation of the DEO, and/or the recommendation of the Collegiate Consulting Group, the Dean’s letter will explain why the contrary recommendation is being made.

(5) The Dean’s letter will be transmitted to the Provost as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record.

(6) At the same time that the Dean’s letter is submitted to the Provost, the Dean will inform the DEO of the recommendation that has been forwarded to the Provost[LAC3] .

(7) The Dean will transmit to the Provost one copy of the Promotion Record for each candidate in the college, and a long with onesingle copy of the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making.

  1. (1) At the same time that the Promotion Record is submitted to the Provost, if the Dean’s recommendation is negative, the Dean will provide the candidate with a copy of the Dean’s letter to the Provost and the Collegiate Consulting Group’s recorded vote and recommendation, and summary report, if any, if the candidate has not received them previously.

(2) The candidate then (i.e., if the Dean’s recommendation is negative), upon request,  will have access to the Promotion Record, with the following provisions:

a.       the candidate will have access to the external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship only after they have been redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers;

b.      any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers; and

c.       the candidate will have access to the student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the DEO only after the evaluations have been redacted to protect the confidentiality of student evaluators.

(3) The candidate, for a limited time period specified in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making, has the right to submit (a) a letter of response to the Dean’s recommendation and (b) any additional information to be included in the Promotion Record.

(4) If the candidate submits a letter of response  to the Provost for inclusion in the Promotion Record, a copy of the letter also will be provided to the Dean.

[Return to top of document]

III. University level procedure

A.  (1) The Promotion Record available to the Provost will consist of the Promotion Record available to the Dean, the Dean’s letter, and the candidate’s letter of response (if any) following receipt of the Collegiate Consulting Group’s recommendation, recorded vote and summary report (if required by Collegiate Policy or if the recommendation of the CCG was negative and contrary to that of the DCG or DEO), and the recommendation of the Dean. Although the appendices to the Promotion Record (consisting of student teaching evaluations and publications) are part of the Promotion Record, they will not normally be physically moved to the Provost’s custody unless the Provost requests them.

(2) When any materials that were not available at the time of the departmental or collegiate action are forwarded to the Provost, the Provost will make a determination whether it is likely that the new material would have substantially altered the evaluation of the candidate’s record. If, in the Provost’s judgment, a substantial change in the departmental or collegiate evaluation is likely, the Provost will return the case to the DEO or Dean, respectively, for supplementary action, including additional review by the Dean if appropriate, so that the Provost will be able to act in the light of an accurate indication of departmental and collegiate judgment.

(3) On the basis of the Promotion Record available to the Provost, the Provost will make a decision that promotion should be granted or denied, and will recommend that the Board of Regents grant promotion to those candidates determined to be deserving.

(4) In making the promotion decision, the Provost may, at the Provost’s discretion, consult with other administrators, including the associate provosts and the collegiate deans.

B.     (1) The Provost will inform the Dean in writing of the Provost’s recommendation to the Board of Regents.

(2) The Dean will inform the candidate in writing of the Provost’s recommendation to the Board of Regents, and in the case of a recommendation against promotion or tenure will inform the candidate of the availability and enclose a copy via certified mail [LAC4] of the official Faculty Dispute Procedures of the University Operations Manual as explained in (section III.29.1 - III.29.6).

(3) The collegiate Dean will inform the DEO of the Provost’s recommendation[LAC5] .

[Return to top of document]


 

Appendix A—Points to be Determined by Collegiate Procedural Guidelines

The following points must be covered by the collegiate procedural guidelines (as approved by the Provost) to satisfy a requirement of or to provide a variation from a provision of these Procedural Guidelines:

The comments on the Procedural Guidelines (Appendix D) suggest additional matters that might be covered in collegiate procedural guidelines.

[Return to top of document]


 

Appendix B—Recommendation for Faculty Promotion Cover Sheet  (Fill out form online) NOTE: Change SSN to Employee ID No.

[Return to top of document]

Appendix C—Sample Letter from Departmental Executive Officer to External Reviewer

A DEO’s letter to solicit an external evaluation must:

The following is a sample letter:

 

Dear _______________:

As I mentioned to you [on the telephone / by e-mail] on [date], _______________ will be considered for tenure and promotion to [proposed rank] in the Department of _______________ during this academic year. I am grateful to you for agreeing to serve as an external evaluator.

Enclosed with this letter are Professor _______________’s curriculum vitae and copies of the publications [or creative works] you have agreed to review: [list works].

Please begin with a statement of how you know the candidate and his or her work.  In this context, please address any circumstances that might raise issues of impartiality as they related to your assessment of the candidate.  We would like you to critique the quality of this work and, if possible, to assess its quantity and quality in comparison to the work of others in this discipline at comparable stages in their careers. We would particularly appreciate your evaluation of the contribution that the candidate’s work has made to the field, viewing each published [or creative] work separately or in combination as seems appropriate. We would be interested in your judgment of the quality of the journals [or exhibits] and the importance of the conferences through which Professor _______________ has communicated this work. We also would be interested, of course, in any other insights you might have about Professor _______________’s scholarly [or artistic] accomplishments.

If you have any questions about Professor _______________’s materials or experience, please contact me directly. In accordance with our governing procedures, we must ask you not to communicate with either the candidate whose work you are reviewing or other members of the department or college concerning your evaluation or the review process.

Your letter will be available to the tenured faculty in this department as well as to the Dean, the Collegiate Consulting Group, and the Provost. Beyond that, we will regard your letter as a confidential document. Your evaluation will be made available to the candidate only upon his/her explicit request following a negative recommendation at various stages of the review process, and then only after your name and other identifying information have been removed.

[Only if it is not possible otherwise to obtain a short statement of the reviewer’s qualifications, add the following paragraph:] Would you please send me a brief biographical statement when you send your letter? Although our departmental faculty know you and your work well, the Dean and the Advisory Committee would find your biographical sketch helpful when considering your letter.

Again, thank you for your willingness to help us with this important review process.

 

[Signature of DEO]

[Return to top of document]


 

Appendix D—Comments on the Procedural Guidelines

I. B. (1). The candidate and the DEO should work together to ensure that a candidate’s teaching, research, and service, including those activities of an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary nature, are accurately portrayed in the promotion dossier.

I.B. (3).c It is assumed that all faculty members obtain regular student evaluations of their teaching in accordance with collegiate and University policy and that, under the college’s policy, there are adequate provisions for consistent practice to ensure the integrity of the evaluation process and to ordinarily preserve the anonymity of the student evaluators. A college is permitted to include evaluations by students who are identified but whose identity is treated as confidential vis-à-vis the candidate. When such a practice is employed, it is imperative that the college’s written policy governing promotion decision making specify its details and that it be applied evenhandedly. The candidate’s dossier is not expected to include teaching "evaluations" used for experimental, mentoring, or other non-evaluative purposes.

I.B.(3).f The college may want to require additional items in the dossier such as teaching materials; refereed conference papers; invited papers, lectures, or presentations; unfunded grant proposals; etc. The college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making should specify the items required and apply the requirement evenhandedly to all candidates.

I.B.(6) Examples of "materials which could not have been available by the specified date" include decisions on submitted manuscripts or grant proposals after the specified date, published book reviews of which the candidate had no previous knowledge, teaching evaluations of classes being taught in the fall semester.

I.C The minimal procedures specified here for evaluation of teaching are not assumed to be adequate for purposes of mentoring and teaching-improvement, and this proposal is not intended to discourage other and different methods for satisfying those purposes.

It should be stressed once again that "teaching" is described here in traditional terms and that appropriate extrapolations must be made for teaching in fields such as the creative or performance arts.

I.C.(2) This provision in no way privileges or elevates "observation" over such written materials as course syllabi or teaching materials created by the candidate. These written materials will be a part of the candidate’s dossier and will be subject to evaluations as part of the total record on the basis of which the candidate is evaluated. Nor should this provision be taken to devalue still other aspects of the teaching process, such as supervising in a clinical setting, supervising dissertation work, advising graduate students, or overseeing the work of teaching assistants; although those teaching activities are not easily reduced to writing nor are they ordinarily subject to observation, these activities are important and nothing in these procedures prevents a college that is able to evaluate these other teaching activities from doing so as part of the promotion decision-making process. In this connection, as elsewhere, the critical requirement is that a college inform candidates in its written policy governing promotion decision-making that this evaluation will occur and how it will be carried out, as well as that the college apply its policy consistently to all candidates.

I.D.(2).j Although the records related to external reviewers that are required to be kept under subsection I.D.(2).j do not become a part of the Promotion Record concerning each candidate, they would be available for consideration should a question subsequently arise concerning the denial of a promotion to that candidate or another candidate for promotion in the department.

I.G.(1) The integrity of academic decision making requires that all participants base their evaluation on a careful study of the relevant materials, and standards of ethical academic behavior require nothing less. The integrity of particular academic decisions also requires 1) that all faculty members honor their duty to participate fully in the assessment of their colleagues, and 2) that the evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications not be compromised by the participation of anyone having a disqualifying conflict of interest. This requirement entails that any faculty member or administrator who would otherwise participate in the recommendation to grant or deny a promotion should be disqualified if that person has a relationship or interest which would give the appearance of biasing that person either in favor of or against the candidate. Conflicts of interest exist not because actual bias is assumed, but because of the appearance of a lack of sufficient impartiality. Whether a disqualifying conflict of interest does exist often presents the difficult question of degree, and it depends upon a determination by a participant in the process to identify the conflict and to disqualify herself or himself when appropriate. In lieu of disqualification, it can be sufficient that the circumstances giving rise to an apparent conflict of interest be fully disclosed. When disqualification is required, that can be effected by a decision of a member of the Departmental Consulting Group not to vote or otherwise to participate in the evaluation process; at a stage of the process involving a single decision maker, such as the DEO or the collegiate Dean, more burdensome arrangements for a substitute decision maker would have to be made. Although treatment of conflicts of interest in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making would be appropriate, these Procedural Guidelines have not attempted to address the specific situations that might create conflicts of interest nor to provide procedures for avoiding them. (For guidelines on conflict of interest, refer to sections III.8 and II.18 of the University’s Operations Manual.)

The integrity of the promotion decision-making process also requires that all documentary material be available only to those entitled to participate in the process and that every participant treat as confidential all information obtained from reading documents in the Promotion Record or from participating in any discussion concerning the qualifications of a candidate for promotion.

I.G.(3) In non-departmentalized colleges, the Dean would participate in the Departmental Consulting Group in the same manner as the DEO.

I.G.(6) This is the first point in the decision process at which there is a specific reference to transmitting the Promotion Record. Prior to this stage of the process, it is assumed that the Promotion Record is compiled within the department under the joint management and custody of the Departmental Consulting Group and the DEO. If the location of the Promotion Record would not otherwise be clear, the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making should provide some means of informing decision-makers of the location of various materials comprising the Promotion Record from time to time as the decision process moves from the candidate to the Departmental Consulting Group to the DEO.

I.I.(2) Because the Promotion Record may be redacted to protect reviewers’ confidentiality where appropriate, it will be especially important that the Departmental Consulting Group’s report and the DEO’s letter be written in sufficient detail to enable the candidate to submit a written response should the candidate choose to do so.

[Return to top of document]


 

Joint appointments[LAC6] 

A.  In the case of a non-0% joint-appointment candidacy for promotion, the departments shall form (a) joint internal review committee(s) (see Section I. C. below), roughly proportional in its (their) makeup to the percentage of faculty effort in each department and with at least one committee member from each department.  The DEO(s) or the candidate may seek approval of the dean(s) for an alternative structure in exceptional circumstances, including cases of marked discrepancy between percentage effort and percentage salary support across the two units, or in the case of a joint but non-interdisciplinary appointment, such that joint review is inappropriate.  When standard review procedures differ between units (e.g., delegation of review of teaching, research and service to separate subcommittees vs. using a single internal review committee for all three areas), a joint decision shall be made establishing procedures that are mutually acceptable to the faculty member and the units in advance of deliberations of the review committee[s].  The joint internal review committee shall report, both in writing and at (a) meeting(s) with at least one internal review committee member from each department present, to each Departmental Consulting Group.   

B.  The departments involved must determine, together with the affected faculty member, whether the Departmental Consulting Groups will meet jointly or separately and, if jointly, whether the DCGs will have joint or separate votes and reports. If separately, (a) if a faculty member holds a 50-50 joint appointment, each DCG will make an independent and primary decision using its college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making;  (b) if a faculty member holds a 1% to 49% joint appointment in a department, the departments involved must determine, together with the affected faculty member, whether each DCG will make an independent decision or whether the DCG in which the faculty member holds the smaller percentage appointment will be limited as described in section C below. These determinations should be made by mutual agreement of the faculty member, both DEOs, and the Dean(s) early in the joint appointment and set forth in a letter of agreement, copied to the Provost.  

C.  If a faculty member holds a 1% to 49% appointment in a department, and a determination is made that that department shall not make an independent decision, then that department shall participate in the following manner (see sections II.(G) and II.(H) for additional detail).

            (1) The Departmental Consulting Group shall:

(a) receive the candidate’s dossier including the letters of the external reviewers;

                  (b) review and discuss the candidate’s qualifications;

                  (c) make a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion based on a secret-ballot vote;

                  (d) write a brief report of its discussion, including its vote and recommendation for or against the granting of promotion.  If a majority of the DCG requests, it may delegate writing this report to the DEO.

(2) The DEO shall:

(a) write a letter

(i) reporting the DCG discussion, including its vote and recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, if requested by a majority of the DCG to do so, and

      (ii) making an independent recommendation that promotion be granted or denied;

(b) add the DCG report, if any, and this letter to the Promotion Record, and

(c) submit the Promotion Record to the primary department in time for consideration by the DCG of that department.

Similarly,

(3) the Collegiate Consulting Group of the college in which a faculty member has a 1% to 49% appointment shall:

(a) receive the candidate’s Promotion Record from the DEO of the primary department;

                  (b) review and discuss the candidate’s qualifications, and

(c) make a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion based on a secret-ballot vote, with a brief report of its discussion if the recommendation is negative.  If a majority of the CCG requests, it may delegate writing this report to the Dean.

(4) The Dean shall:

(a) write a letter

(i) reporting the CCG discussion, including its vote and recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, if requested by a majority of the CCG to do so, and

(ii) making an independent recommendation that promotion be granted or denied;

(b) add the CCG report, if any, and this letter to the Promotion Record;

(c) submit the Promotion Record to the primary college in time for consideration by its CCG.

D. If a faculty member holds a 0% joint appointment in a department, that department may be limited to a subordinate consultative role in the tenure and promotion process and the affected departments may decide how this role shall be carried out.  These determinations should be made by mutual agreement of the faculty member, both DEOs, and the Dean(s) at the beginning of the joint appointment and set forth in a letter of agreement, copied to the Provost.


PAGE \# "'Page: '#'
'"
   [LAC1] This is added in order to clarify any ambiguity about what a vote means. In some departments, only a simple majority is required for a recommendation, whereas in others a supermajority of 60-75% is required.  Requiring that a recommendation be made will eliminate doubt as to whether a 7 to 5 vote is positive or negative in a given department, although it still may positive in some departments and negative in others.

 

PAGE \# "'Page: '#'
'"
   [LAC2] This chart will need revision as well.

 

    

PAGE \# "'Page: '#'
'"
   [LAC3] A question that arises from time to time that was not addressed in the Altmaier committee report is whether the DEO is free to share this information with the faculty and, if so, only the DCG or all the faculty.  I would like for us to make a recommendation on this point.

 

PAGE \# "'Page: '#'
'"
   [LAC4] The Altmaier committee did not comment on this, but I wonder about the necessity of providing a copy via certified mail when the OM is readily accessible on the web: http://www.uiowa.edu/~our/opmanual/iii/29.htm

 

PAGE \# "'Page: '#'
'"
   [LAC5] See comment 4.

 

PAGE \# "'Page: '#'
'"
   [LAC6]  This section is derived not from the Altmaier committee report but from Appendix B of a report of an Interdisciplinary Faculty Activity committee which was approved by the Senate a couple of years ago but not yet operationalized.  The report, with the relevant Appendix can be found on the web at: