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