Faculty Personnel Committee

2004-2005

Report  to the Senate

 

The Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) has completed its work for the 2004-2005 academic year. The FPC consists of ten elected faculty members and two student representatives (when possible). No students participated in this year’s committee. Each faculty member has one vote. Five faculty are chosen from the College of Arts and Sciences and five from the professional schools. The faculty on this year’s committee were: Keith Aoki (Law), Tom Bivins (Journalism and Communication), Steven Chatfield (Dance), Ken Doxee (Chemistry), John Foster (Sociology), Alison Kwok (Architecture), Larry Singell (Economics), Peter Suttmeier (Political Science), Yuan Xu (Mathematics), and Peter Wright (College of Business). Tom Bivins served as Chair. During the Winter term, one member was absent on sabbatical. During the Spring term, one member resigned due to scheduling conflicts.

 

During the 2004-2005 academic year, the FPC advised the Provost on 38 cases involving tenure and/or promotion. The breakdown of the cases was as follows:

 

Professor with tenure  1

Professor                     11

Associate with tenure   17

Tenure only                 5

 

[I don’t have the last two, cases 37 & 38. They need to be added to this number.]

 

The FPC held 12 meetings throughout the current academic year, each lasting approximately one and one-half to two hours during which three to four cases were discussed. In addition, each member of the committee spent approximately two to three hours per week reading files and was responsible for writing the FPC reports on three to four cases, a task that required substantial time beyond the commitment to reading and assessing the files.

 

The committee expected that the files would be prepared according to the guidelines found in the Faculty Guide to Promotion and Tenure and the Timetable and Guidelines for Recommending Promotion and/or Tenure for Faculty Members, both from the Office of Academic Affairs. We strongly urge everyone connected with the preparation of tenure and promotion files to follow these guidelines carefully. This would remedy many of the problems encountered by the FPC each year in the evaluation of cases and make the process more efficient.

 

Each year the FPC Final Report includes complaints about the preparation of files and pleas for strict adherence to guidelines, and a little bit of common sense. This year’s FPC is no different. Based on the problems we encountered with some of the files this year, we make the following recommendations:

 

  1. Every department and professional school should include a copy of its promotion and tenure document in the promotion file. Because standards for research quantity and quality vary across fields and disciplines, it is crucial for the FPC to have for each case an explicit statement of the expectations and standards for research in each field, as well as for teaching and service. These standards should be applied in a consistent way for all cases within a department, college, or school, and they should be consistent with university‑wide guidelines. In addition promotion and tenure guidelines should be sent by departments to all outside reviewers.

 

  1. We encourage departments and programs to revisit and revise their written guidelines for tenure and promotion and to communicate these to their faculty.

 

  1. If a department or program requires that candidates meet standards and expectations beyond those printed in the unit’s standard guidelines for promotion and tenure, these further expectations should be clearly stated in the candidate’s tenure and promotion file. For example, is a candidate is expected to attract outside funding as part of his or her position, this should be clearly stated. If the current printed guidelines function for the department or program as a “minimum” requirement, this expectation should also be clearly stated in the tenure and promotion file.

 

  1. Each file should contain at least five letters from external reviewers unless special circumstances dictate otherwise, in which case the reasons for this variation should be provided. The clear majority of outside reviewers should be chosen by the department, not by the candidate. Candidates for tenure and promotion should be counseled against submitting the names of collaborators or mentors as possible outside reviewers.

 

  1. It is important to explain the reputation of the schools and programs of the external reviewers and to make clear why each reviewer is qualified to evaluate the candidate’s work. This is especially important if the schools are not AAU members.

 

6.     Departments and programs should send the same materials to all of the external reviewers, unless there is a compelling reason for not doing so, in which case an explanation for any differences should be given in the department head’s evaluation letter.

 

  1. Connections between the candidate and the external reviewers should be explained in brief statements identifying the reviewers. Any perceived or real conflicts of interest should be made explicit in the file.

 

  1. Each department or program should provide an explanation of the relative weighting to be given to various types of publications: research books, textbooks, such as peer‑reviewed book chapters, peer‑reviewed articles, non‑peer‑reviewed articles, peer‑reviewed conference proceedings, extended abstracts, and so forth. The candidate’s CV should make clear what kind of publication each item is. The evaluative report of department committees likewise should make clear how the different kinds of publications in the candidate’s record are to be evaluated in the field.

 

  1. Departments and Schools vary in their approach to first authorship. It should be made clear whether first authorship is assigned alphabetically, by degree of input, or as courtesy ranking (as in placing graduate students first).

 

  1. Departments are reminded that peer reviews of teaching are a required part of the each file. It is useful to have more than one peer review. Solicited letters from students, especially graduate students, while not required, has proven a useful evaluative measure.

 

  1. It would be helpful for the FPC to be made aware of any special considerations for new hires and for those going up for promotion and/or tenure who are doing so on a revised clock. For example, it is not always clear whether to judge a candidate at Associate rank going up for tenure-only on a reduced tenure clock by the same criteria as an Assistant Professor going up for Associate and tenure at the same time. This can be especially troublesome if a case is coming up, seemingly early, with no indication that the reason is a revised tenure clock.

 

  1. This year’s committee recommends that the registrar’s office inquire as early as possible into any potential scheduling conflicts with FPC members. Extended absences, such as planned sabbaticals or irresolvable professional or personal schedules should be noted and dealt with prior to the onset of meetings in the Winter term.

 

In closing, the members of the FPC express our gratitude for the excellent work of Ms. Carol White, whose professional handling of the details of processing the files helped us immeasurably in our work. Her efficiency and unflagging good humor in the face of a personally difficult year were very much appreciated. We wish her all the best.


Web page spun on 18 August 2005 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises