Guidelines for CLINICAL-TRACK Promotion Decision-making

at The University of Iowa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: Page numbers will be corrected on final version. TOC \o "1-3"                                                                        

General Principles                                                                                                                           PAGEREF _Toc421328642 \h 2

Promotion Decision-Making Procedure                                                                                         PAGEREF _Toc421328643 \h 7

I. Department level procedure                                                                                                         PAGEREF _Toc421328644 \h 7

II. College level procedure                                                                                                            PAGEREF _Toc421328645 \h 16

III. University level procedure                                                                                                       PAGEREF _Toc421328646 \h 22

Appendix A—Points to be Determined by Collegiate Procedural Guidelines                            26

Appendix B—Recommendation for Faculty Promotion Cover Sheet                                         28

Appendix CSample Letter from Departmental Executive Officer to External Reviewer     30

Appendix D—Comments on the Procedural Guidelines                                                              32

Appendix E—Review Procedures for Joint Appointments for Clinical Track Faculty              35


 

Procedural Guidelines for Clinical-Track Promotion Decision-Making at The University of Iowa

General Principles

 

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. (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 “professional productivity” refers to professional works and activities as described in section I.B.(3)(d)ii—I.B.(3)(d)vii of these guidelines.

 

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.

 

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 shall consist of all tenured, tenure-track, and clinical-track faculty at or above the rank being sought by the candidate, excluding the collegiate Dean and Provost and any faculty member with a disqualifying conflict of interest.  If there are fewer than four eligible faculty and/or if there are no eligible clinical-track 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 and has clinical-track faculty representation.  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.

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.  (Some steps of these Procedural Guidelines that expressly involve the DEO 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.

 

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:

 

(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 recommendation and vote (and report, if any) of the Collegiate Consulting Group;

(x) (iv) the DEO’s letter making a recommendation to the Dean;

(xi) (v) the recommendation, vote and report of the Departmental Consulting Group;

(xii) (vi) any letters submitted by the candidate at specified stages of the process to the candidate’s letter correcting errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and service, or to respond to a letter or report; the candidate’s letter following receipt of the recommendation of the DEO 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 theor Collegiate Consulting Group, if the candidate has submitted any such letters;

(vii) the candidate’s Curriculum Vitae (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)   all other materials related to the candidate’s teaching [see 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 internal and external 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 internal and external 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. 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 promotion. 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 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 involved will follow the procedures described in Appendix E of this document.

 

[Moved to “Definitions” section:]  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.

 

These procedural guidelines apply to clinical track faculty only.


 

Overview of Clinical-track Promotion Decision-making Procedure

 

 

Text Box:  
Sequential Development of Promotion Record through Decision-Makers:
 
1.       Candidate and DEO compile dossier 
2.       Peer evaluation of teaching 
3.       Internal peer evaluation of professional productivity
4.       Internal peer evaluation of clinical and other service
5.       Candidate’s opportunity to respond
6.       External peer evaluation of professional productivity
7.       External peer evaluation of clinical and other service
8.       Departmental Consulting Group’s vote and report 
9.       Candidate’s opportunity to respond
10.    DEO’s letter to Dean
11.    Candidate’s opportunity to respond, if DEO’s recommendation is negative
12.    Collegiate Consulting Group’s vote and summary report, if any*
13.    Candidate’s opportunity to respond*
14.    Dean’s letter to Provost
15.    Candidate’s opportunity to respond, if Dean’s recommendation is negative
16.    Provost’s recommendation to the Board of Regents
 
*If recommendation is negative and contrary to DEO or DCG recommendation
 
 
Text Box: Internal Peer Evaluation of Professional Productivity
 
Text Box: Peer Evaluation of 
Teaching
 
Text Box: Internal Peer Evaluation of 
Clinical and Other Service
 
Text Box: (DEO)

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Text Box: *When requested
Text Box: Departmental Consulting Group
 
Text Box: Collegiate Consulting Group
 
Text Box: Dean
Text Box: Provost
Text Box: Board of Regents
Text Box: External Peer Evaluation of Professional Productivity
 
Text Box: (DEO)
Text Box: DEO
Text Box: External Peer Evaluation of Clinical and Other Service
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 Promotion Decision-Making Procedure

I. Department level procedure

 

A.     It is the responsibility of the DEO 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 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 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, 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 clinical teaching as it occurs in the context of the delivery of professional services to individuals, patients or clients, preferably from most to least recent; 

(ii) (iii) a list of the candidate’s teaching assignments on a semester-by-semester basis, preferably from most to least recent;

(iii) (iv) a list of graduate students, fellows, or other postdoctoral students supervised, if any, including each student’s name, degree objective, and outcomes;

(iv) (v) a list of other contributions to instructional programs;

(v) (vi) copies of course materials, including syllabi, instructional Web pages, computer laboratory materials, and so forth (see I.B.4);

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

(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 attained support including any grants and contracts 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 service including both their clinical service and other types of service (consisting of a summary and explanation—normally not to exceed three pages—of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning clinical service and other service, and comments on these accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier related to clinical and other 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 other 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 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.

 

      (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 through the DEO.

 

C.  It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other 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, professional productivity, and clinical and other 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.

 

CD.      (1)        It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining internal 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.  The method chosen must, where necessary, contemplate and address teaching that occurs in a privileged setting.  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, by a faculty committee, by other peers, or by some combination of these methods. In circumstances when the observation cannot be made entirely by faculty peers, the candidate must receive written approval from the Provost for the selection of non-faculty peer reviewers and they can only constitute a minority of the evaluations specified by collegiate policy.  The request for approval must be justified by and contained in a written request from the Dean. 

 

(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 or other peers; the method of choosing faculty or other peer observers; the method of recording, reporting, and informing the candidate of the observation; the method(s) by which the quality of the candidate’s teaching will be measured, 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 or peers 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 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 internal 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, 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 internal 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, by a faculty committee, by other peers, or by some combination of these methods, as well as what process the reviewers will follow.  In circumstances when the review cannot be made entirely by faculty peers, the candidate must receive written approval from the Provost for the use of non-faculty peer reviewers.  The request for approval must be justified by and contained in a written request from the Dean.

(b) The peer evaluation of the candidate’s clinical and other 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 individuals 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)  It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining external peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service by participating in the following process.

      (2)     (a)     Selection of external evaluators of professional productivity and/or clinical and other service 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.

               (b)     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.

               (c)     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, organizations or professional bodies in which the corresponding department or individual evaluator is of peer quality, and add suggestions to the list.

               (d)     The DEO will add suggestions to give the list and give it to those faculty members who have been assigned to complete an internal peer review of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service as described in subsections I D (2) and I E (2), above; those faculty will add other potential external reviewers as specified in the college’s policy governing clinical track promotion decision-making, and return the list to the DEO. 

               (e)     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.

               (f)      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.  To the extent that it is possible, it is critical to avoid any situation in which a personal and/or professional relationship between the candidate and a prospective reviewer is such that it could undermine the reviewer’s apparent impartiality.

               (g)     The DEO will determine, in accordance with the college’s policy governing clinical-track promotion decision-making, which of the potential external reviewers will be asked to provide a letter of review.

               (h)     The DEO or Dean, using a form letter which substantially conforms to the sample letter contained in Appendix E, will ask the reviewers identified in (g) above to provide an assessment of the quality and quantity of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service,

               (i)      After or in anticipation of an invitation to an external reviewer to evaluate the candidate’s 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.

               (j)      The DEO will keep a record of

(i)      the list of suggested reviewers,

(ii)     the names of persons invited to review,

(iii)    the names of the actual reviewers,

(iv)    comments submitted by the candidate, the DEO, and the internal faculty reviewers,

(v)     correspondence and other communications between the DEO or Dean and invited reviewers and actual reviewers.

(k)     All letters received from external reviewers will be entered by the DEO into the Promotion Record in the sections dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity or clinical and other service, along with

(i)      a list of invited reviewer’s—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;

(ii)     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;

(iii)    a copy of the letter or letters of solicitation to external reviewers;

(iv)    a brief description of each external reviewer’s qualifications;

(v)     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)    an explanation of why the choice of a reviewer was made, if the reviewer is not from a peer institution but from an institution, organization or professional body where the corresponding department of individual evaluator is of peer quality.

G.     (1) The DEO 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 DEO will enter it into the Promotion Record. 

 

H.  (1)  [Moved to Definitions section]: 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, excluding the collegiate Dean and Provost and any faculty member with a disqualifying conflict of interest.  If there are fewer than four eligible faculty and/or if there are no eligible clinical-track 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 and has clinical-track faculty representation.  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) 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 (each individual participating in the promotion decision-making process may vote for or against the granting of promotion to a candidate only once).

 

(3) (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 (materials documenting professional productivity and student teaching evaluations, including those student teaching evaluations added to the Promotion Record by the DEO); 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) (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.

 

(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 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.

 

(7)    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.

 

(8)   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)   TAs 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, 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 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)   IEven 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.

 

(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 of recommendation to the Dean and the Departmental Consulting Group’s recorded vote and summary report with recommendation.

 

(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 professional productivity 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 professional productivity 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.

 

(2) (3)   The candidate will be allowedfor 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.

, 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) (a) 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. 

 

II. College level procedure

 

A.  (1)  If the candidate submits a letter of response following receipt of the DEO’s letter to the Dean, the Dean will place the letter in the Promotion Record.

 

B.   (1) Each college 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.  The Collegiate Consulting Group must contain faculty from both the tenure and clinical tracks.

 

(2)  The Dean may attend the meetings of the Collegiate Consulting Group, but may not vote or contribute to any 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 letter of response (if any) following receipt of the Departmental Consulting Group’s recorded vote and summary report with recommendation and the letter of recommendation of the DEO to the Dean.  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.

 

(76) The results of 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 professional productivity 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 professional productivity 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 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 any appropriate supplementary action so that the Dean will be able to act in the light of an accurate indication of departmental judgment.

 

(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 stating how the candidate has or has not met the relevant criteria for 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 recommendation of the Departmental Consulting Group, the recommendation of the DEO, and/or the vote recommendation of the Collegiate Consulting Group, the Dean’s letter will explain why the contrary recommendation is being made.  In the absence of a summary report by the Collegiate Consulting Group, the Dean will consult with, at a minimum, the Chair or other designated member of the Collegiate Consulting Group, regarding the reasons for its recommendation.

 

(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.

 

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

 

CD.      (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), will be allowed a limited time period, specified in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making, to upon request, will have access to the Promotion Record, with the following provisions:

(a) the candidate will have access to external reviews and the student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the DEO only:

(i) if there has been a negative recommendation;

(ii) if the candidate requests them, and

(iii) (a) after they have been redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the reviewers and student evaluators;

(b) any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews or any other identifiable individual  must be redacted as appropriate to protect confidentiality.

 

(3)  The candidate, will be allowedfor a limited time period, specified in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making, after having received access to the Promotion Record, including any redacted materials,has the right to submit (a) a letter of response to the Dean’s recommendation and the Collegiate Consulting Group’s recorded vote and summary report, if any(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.

 

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 contrary to that of the DCG or DEO, if any) 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 normally will not be moved physically 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 altered substantially 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 for any appropriate 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 others, including but not limited to 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 will inform the candidate of the availability and enclose a copy via certified mail of the official Faculty Dispute Procedures of the University Operations Manual (section III-29.1—III-29.6).

 

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


 

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: 

 

·        General Principles: who will perform the functions assigned in these procedural guidelines to the DEO, if they will not be performed by an individual who holds that title;

·        General Principles: in nondepartmentalized colleges, what the role of department-like units and their administrative officers will be;

·        General Principles:  how and when a candidate will notify the department and/or college of his or her interest in being reviewed for promotion;

·        I.B.(1)  the date substantive material for the promotion dossier will be due from the candidate, if before September 1;

·        I.B.(3).f  any supplementary material to be included in the dossier in addition to the required minimum described in these procedural guidelines;

·        I.C.(2)  which of the candidate’s teaching activities and materials will be evaluated by peers and how (including who will perform the evaluation);

·        I.C.(3) - (5)  details about the process of peer observation of teaching;

·        I.D.(2)  details about the process of peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity (including who will perform the evaluation);

·        I.E.(2)  details about the process of peer evaluation of the candidate’s clinical and other service (including who will perform the evaluation) and how reviewers external to the department, college, and/or the University will be selected;

·        I.F.(2).a when the process of selection of external reviewers will begin;

·        I.F.(2).b how many external reviewers will be asked to provide assessments of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service, and what materials each will review;

·        I.F.(2).d. the process by which the faculty members assigned to perform internal peer review of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service will go about adding to the list of external reviewers;

·        I.F.(2).g the process by which the DEO will go about selecting the final list of external reviewers;

·        I.G.(2) the period of time allowed the candidate to review the internal peer evaluations of teaching, professional productivity, and service for errors (normally five to ten working days);

·        I.H.(1)  the composition of the Departmental Consulting Group;

·        I.H.(5)  details of the Departmental Consulting Group’s voting procedure, and how the Departmental Consulting Group determines which of its members will prepare the summary report of its discussion, document the final vote, and enter that information into the Promotion Record;

·        I.H.(6) the criterion vote (e.g., simple majority, two-third majority) that defines a positive recommendation if not otherwise specified in departmental written policy;

·        I.J.(2) & (3)  the periods of time allowed the candidate to request access to the Promotion Record and to respond after the Departmental Consulting Group and the DEO submit their recommendations to the Dean (normally five to ten working days);

·        II.A.(1)  how the Collegiate Consulting Group is formed and performs its functions;

·        II.B.(3)  whether and when the appendices to the Promotion Record are physically transmitted to the Dean; 

·        II.B.(5) the procedure according to which the Collegiate Consulting Group will vote and make a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, whether a summary report of the Collegiate Consulting Group’s discussion is required (when it is not otherwise required by these procedures, and how the Collegiate Consulting Group will determine which of its members will prepare the summary report of its discussion (if any), document the final vote and recommendation, and enter that information into the Promotion Record; and

·        II.D. (2) & (3) the periods of time allowed the candidate to request access to the Promotion Record and to respond after the Collegiate Consulting Group votes and the Dean submits a letter of recommendation to the Provost (normally five to ten working days).

 

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

 


 

Appendix B—Recommendation for Clinical Track Faculty Promotion Cover Sheet  (review committee modifications deleted references to tenure)

                        The University of Iowa

Recommendation for Faculty Promotion

To be completed by the candidate:

 

Name:                                                                          Social SecurityEmployee ID Number:                                      

 

Primary Appointment:                                                                                                                                                                           College                                                 Department

 

Secondary Appointment:                                                                                                                                  

                                                College                                                 Department

 

Date of Initial Appointment (Assistant Professor or above at The University of Iowa):                                       

Text Box:  

 

 

 


 

Present Rank:                                                                                       Date attained:                          

 

Text Box:  
 

 

To be completed by the Departmental Executive Officer:

 

Proposed Rank:                                                                                                Date effective:                          

 

Indicate term of appointment.

      This is a                    year appointment beginning                               and ending                             

(mo.    day     yr.)                                 (mo.    day     yr.)

Vote of Departmental Consulting Group:

 

Primary Appointment:   For promotion:                              Against promotion:                    Abstained:              

Secondary Appointment:           For promotion:                              Against promotion:                    Abstained:              

 

 

Text Box:  

 

To be completed by the Dean:

 

Is there a summary report from the Collegiate Consulting Group?           o   Yes                        o   No

Vote of Collegiate Consulting Group:

 

Primary Appointment:   For promotion:                              Against promotion:                    Abstained:              

Secondary Appointment:           For promotion:                  Against promotion:                    Abstained:              

 

Recommendations:

 

Primary Department:                                                                                                                            

Text Box: o Recommend
o Do not recommend
 
Text Box: o Recommend
o Do not recommend
 

 

 

  


 

                                                                                                                                                         

                                     Executive Officer                                                   Dean                                  

Secondary Department:                                                                                                                                   

Text Box: o Recommend
o Do not recommend
 
Text Box: o Recommend
o Do not recommend
 

 

 

  


 

                                                                                                                                                         

                                     Executive Officer                                                   Dean                                  

Provost:

Text Box: o Recommend
o Do not recommend
 

 

 

 


 

                                                                                                                                                         

                                     Provost                                                            Provost Date


 

Appendix C—Sample Letter from Departmental Executive Officer (DEO) to External Reviewer of A Clinical Track Promotion (added by the review committee)

 

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

·        Be neutral in tone;

·        Indicate the rank for which the candidate is being considered and that the promotion does not include the awarding of tenure;

·        Explicitly state what portion of the candidate’s work the reviewer is being asked to assess;

·        Request that the reviewer not communicate with the candidate or with faculty other than the DEO;

·        State that the reviewer’s response will be protected as confidential, unless the reviewer indicates that confidentiality is not necessary; and

·        Request a brief biographical sketch if one has not been obtained through another source.

 

The following is a sample letter:

 

Dear _______________:

 

As I mentioned to you on the telephone on [date], ___________________ will be considered for 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 material you have agreed to review: [list]

 

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 relate to your assessment of the candidate.  We would like you to critique the quality of Professor ______________’s contributions 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.  We would be interested in your judgment of the quality of any published materials and the importance of the venues through which Professor ______________ has communicated his/her work.  We would also be interested, of course, in any other insights you might have about Professor __________’s 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, the clinical track faculty at or above the proposed rank of promotion as well as to the Dean, the Collegiate Consulting Group, and the Provost.  Beyond that, we will regard your letter as a confidential document.  Unless you let me know that you do not desire your letter to be confidential, your evaluation would be made available to the candidate only upon a negative decision and his/her explicit request, 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.  If you have had substantial personal contact with the candidate, it would also be helpful if you would directly address issues of impartiality as they relate to your assessment of the candidate. 

 

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

 

[Signature of DEO}


 

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, professional productivity, and clinical and other 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.F.(2).j  Although the records related to external reviewers that are required to be kept under subsection I.F.(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 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 Part II, Chapter 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 unless otherwise specified in the college’s written policy on promotion decision-making.

 

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.


 

Appendix E—Review Procedures for Joint Appointments for Clinical Track Faculty

 

1.         Promotion reviews.  The participating units form a joint internal review committee, roughly proportional in its makeup to the percentage of faculty effort in each unit for all annual, reappointment, and promotion reviews (see 1.4 below).  Units or the faculty member 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.  This committee reports, both in writing and at (a) meeting(s), to each unit consulting group. 

 

1.1.      The participating units may form a joint consulting group, if mutually agreed upon by the faculty member and the units.  In such a case, the units may submit either joint or separate votes and reports.

 

1.2.      If a joint consulting group is formed, the executive officers may submit either a joint letter or separate letters reporting the deliberations and making the recommendation(s) for promotion.

           

1.3.      When standard review procedures differ between units (e.g., delegation of review of teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other 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].

 

1.4.      When a faculty member holds a 0% joint appointment in a unit, that unit may take a subordinate consultative role in the promotion process, as mutually agreed upon in a letter of agreement (see #3).  

 

2.         Appointments.  A letter of agreement between the faculty member and the participating units concerning terms of appointment, and approved by the dean(s) shall specify review procedures. The letter shall specify, at a minimum, the faculty member’s privileges and responsibilities with respect to the units and the expected activities in each unit in teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other service.  Differences in unit policies and procedures should be recognized and resolved in the letter of agreement.  Sample letters are available for review at: http://www.uiowa.edu/~provost/facappt/offer_letters.htm#Joint Letter Offer

 

2.1.1.   For appointments new to the University, an agreement about review procedures shall be made either in the letter of appointment, or as part of a more comprehensive letter further detailing the terms of the appointment within the first year of the appointment.

 

2.1.2.   For appointments from within the University faculty, review procedures shall be included in the letter of agreement concerning terms of appointment.         

 

2.2.      The letter of agreement should be reviewed at each reappointment.  It may be revised at any time by mutual consent of the faculty member and the participating units, and with the approval of the dean(s).

 

3.  Annual and reappointment reviews.  The same procedures described above shall be followed for annual and third-year reappointment reviews with the one exception that written report(s) from the internal review committee and unit consulting group(s) are optional.  Absent a written report from the internal review committee, at least one member of each unit must participate in the oral committee report to each unit consulting group.

 

4.  Timetable.  No later than the end of the academic year before a promotion review, an appropriate timeline should be established to enable gathering of information, reasonable committee review, the faculty member's response to the committee report, and consulting group deliberations.

 

5.  Exception.  In the unusual case in which two units are contemplating a joint but non-interdisciplinary appointment, such that joint review may be inappropriate, the units may petition for an alternative review structure.  Such a petition should be presented to the Dean(s) who will seek final approval from the Provost.