Faculty Personnel Committee

2005-2006

Report to the Senate

 

The Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) has completed its work for the 2005-2006 academic year. The FPC consists of ten elected faculty members and two student representatives (when possible). No students participated on the committee this year. Each faculty member has one vote. Five faculty members were chosen from the College of Arts and Sciences and five from the professional schools. The faculty on this year’s committee were: Lynne Anderson-Inman (Teacher Education), Steven Brown (East Asian Languages), Jon Brundan (Mathematics), Virginia Cartwright (2- quarters: Architecture), Steven Chatfield (Music & Dance), Ken Doxsee (Chemistry), Alison Kwok (1 quarter: Architecture), Debra Merskin (Journalism), Suzanne Rowe (Law School), Larry Singell (Economics), Peter Suttmeier (Political Science). Larry Singell served as Chair. During the winter and spring terms, Alison Kwok was on sabbatical and Virginia Cartwright graciously agreed to serve in her position. The FPC was also greatly assisted in our work by Linda Adkins’ professional handling of the details of processing the files and by Pam Palanuk’s scheduling and organization of our meetings.

 

During the 2005-2006 academic year, the FPC advised the Provost on 51 cases involving tenure and/or promotion. The breakdown of the cases was as follows:

 

Professor with tenure              1

Professor                                 13

Associate with tenure              30

Tenure only                             6

Senior Instructor with tenure   1

 

Over the current academic year, the FPC held 1 organizational meeting, 19 meetings to discuss case files, and 1 final summary meeting with the Sr. Vice President & Provost, John Moseley; the Vice President of Academic Affairs, Lorraine Davis; the incoming Sr. Vice President and Provost, Linda Brady, and the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, Russ Tomlin. The meetings involving the case files lasted approximately two hours during which three cases were generally discussed. In addition, each member of the committee spent approximately two to three hours per week reading files. Members of the committee were also responsible for writing the FPC reports on an average of five cases, a task that required substantial time beyond that commitment to the reading and the assessing of the files.

 

The expectation of the committee is 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. The opportunity to go over large numbers of files has made clear that there are some departments and schools that consistently follow the guidelines and others that are either inconsistent in their procedures or consistent in the failure to follow the proper procedures. The committee strongly urges everyone connected with the preparation of tenure and promotion files to follow these guidelines carefully and we would like to applaud those departments that have done so. The lack of clarity created by a poorly prepared file is to the detriment of the candidate and harms the integrity and the efficiency of the promotion process.

 

In the past, the FPC Final Report included a laundry list of complaints about the preparation of files, pleas for strict adherence to guidelines, and appeals to a little bit of common sense. However, it is not clear that these recommendations are effective at changing behavior because they do not address the incentive structure that permits the undue heterogeneity in the preparation of the files. Thus, in the interest of improving the promotion process, the FPC Final Report includes a set of recommendations in regards to possible modifications of current procedures that might improve process and help facilitate departments and schools. We believe that such recommendations may be particularly timely in light of the hire of a new Provost.

 

1. Use of Computer-Based Technologies to Standardize the Promotion Process: The Faculty Guide to Promotion and Tenure is a useful resource. However, its printed form does not really take advantages of new computer technology that might more readily communicate the information and standardize the process. Specifically, an online procedure could likely be developed that would walk departments through the process of completing the file to insure that all the proper documents are included in the file in the proper order and in sufficient detail. There are examples of such computer-based e-technologies being applied to other complex processes that have been quite effective. For example, the NSF’s Fastlane experience that expedites grant writers putting together a grant proposal. Obviously, such an electronic process would have to be done carefully and would have to be sufficiently flexible to account for the heterogeneity in the promotion criteria across schools and colleges. Nonetheless, if done right, such a procedure might well remedy a significant and reoccurring headache of the FPC and the other evaluative participants in the process that some files are not properly prepared. For example, online submission of the components of the promotion file would permit the participants in the process to be reminded of their objective that:

 

1. The candidate’s statement should be written to reach multiple audiences. The statement will be sent to external reviewers and read by the department, so some level of sophistication is appropriate. However, the FPC is composed of colleagues who are not experts in the candidate’s field, so a more general explanation (or at least a generalist’s introduction) is helpful if the candidate’s statement does not reach the general audience.
2. The number of outside letters should be between 5 and 7 (unless special circumstances dictate otherwise), that the department (not the candidate) should choose the majority of outside letter writers, and the relationship between the candidate and the letter writer should be clearly spelled out.
3. 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. When the file includes creative work, it should also be detailed and clearly explained in the file. 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.
4. 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.
5. Service (including university service) is an important component for promotion to Full Professor and it should be understood that the FPC (who is engaging in a high level of service) will unlikely be sympathetic that the persons making the argument were busy in research and teaching. If the candidate has engaged in a high level of service (broadly defined), it should be spelled out.
6. If it is standard to pay a reviewer, this should be spelled out in the file.
7. Interdisciplinary programs often are evaluated by several different units. The file needs to spell out the responsibility of these units in the evaluation of the candidate and whether expectations differ for the candidate in the unit they serve in as opposed to the home department for which they are a specialist.

 

In addition, the process of creating a computer-based online file preparation process might also provide the opportunity to streamline the process. For example, there is needless and extensive repetition in the files, which might be minimized by an online resource that could remind each participant in the process of their primary role. In addition, it would provide a means of standardizing the presentation of certain data in the file that is often presented in ways that are hard to follow. For example, there are often disagreements in the file about the number of publications, the type of publications, and their timing because vitae’s differ distinctly across individuals (even within the same department). An online menu could be developed that would permit a more standardized accounting of publications that would eliminate errors and inconsistencies in evaluating the research record. This numerical summary would not replace the vitae, but supplement it. Likewise, numerical teaching evaluations could also be presented in a standardized way (e.g., presenting the candidate’s mean course and instructor quality marks in comparison to the department average, and the number of students enrolled in a course, etc.).

 

2. Separate Tabbed Section for Department Expectations for Tenure: The department is supposed to include the department’s expectation for tenure in the file. It would be useful to have this set separately in the file. If this candidate has special or different service expectations due to a unique job description, these special duties should be spelled out in the file.

 

3. Guidelines for Promotion in the Case of Outside Hires: University-wide guideline for time-to-promotion for outside hires should be developed and these issues should be discussed between the department, dean, and provost. For example, an assistant professor hired with three or more years of credit can be considered for tenure in the first year of appointment at the UO. Given that the tenure file is compiled early in the fall semester, the department, college, FPC, and provost will have virtually no information about the candidate’s teaching performance or service contributions at the UO. Departments may want to consider bringing in new hires with sufficient years of experience as associates without tenure, and then have the person reviewed for tenure during the second year at the UO. Senior administration needs to be involved in this process and this understanding must be spelled-out in the file.

 

4. Development of New Promotion and Tenure Procedure for Newly Hired Senior Administrators: The standard tenure and promotion process is not effective in the evaluation of senior administrative hires. In such cases, there is generally a paucity of evaluative material in the file reflecting the unrealistic expectation that departments, faculty committees, and lower-placed administrators can proceed in an unbiased and unfettered manner when making a decision for a top administrator who has de facto already been hired. Thus, the FPC recommends that some consideration be given to modifying the process when top members of the administration are being considered for a tenured academic position at the UO. For example, such an evaluative process could be conducted at the time a list of finalists for the position has been selected and prior to the senior administrator’s hire. It would be best if the evaluative committee was comprised of faculty elected to positions of senior leadership so as to maintain an independent faculty voice. For example, a committee could be comprised of the University Senate President, the Chair of the FPC, the Chair of the FAC, and the Chair of the Dean’s Advisory Committee in the relevant college. The FPC recommends that the Senate take action to formalize this process.

 

5. Course Reduction or other Time Release for FPC Members: The FPC has been fortunate over the years to have diligent members who have served their university well. However, the time commitment for the FPC in this particular year was on the order of 5 to 6 hours a week for 20 weeks. While this particular year had a particularly large case load, a typical year requires a 5 to 6 hour commitment per week for 12 weeks. This time requirement is similar to teaching an additional course over the year. Thus, to insure a supply of willing and able faculty who have a sufficient amount of time to properly fulfill their duties, it would be in the UO’s best interest to formalize a course release program or some other time release program for future FPC members during Winter term (when the work load is typically greatest). The financial responsibility for the course release might be shared by the department and the Provost’s office.

 

6. Adopt Procedures for Departments that Consistently Have Poorly Prepared Files As indicated above, there are some departments and schools that consistently follow the guidelines and others that are either inconsistent in their procedures or consistent in the failure to follow the proper procedures. It is recommended that the FPC begin to keep a list of “poorly prepared files” and that departments that fall on this list be explicitly informed of the shortcomings of the file. If a department persists in providing poorly prepared files, there should be a formalized process to address the issue. For example, the Provost’s office might request (strongly encourage) that a member of the department serve on the FPC and agree to serve on the next departmental promotion committee.

 

7. Remove Students Participants from the FPC. While students de facto do not participate in the process, the Committee questions whether they should permitted to participate in the promotion process. The objection to having students on the committee arises from the fact that students, who by the nature of their station, do not have an incentive to look at the long term effects of promotion and tenure. Moreover, there are often controversial and personal details that often must be revealed in the promotion process that undermines a faculty member’s and department’s ability to instruct students. Lastly, students do not have experience in fulfilling the triad of responsibilities that are required of faculty members which is necessary to competently evaluate a faculty member. Thus, it is the recommendation of the committee that student representatives formally be excluded from the process.

 

8. Include Annual and Third-Year Reviews in File if Referred to in the File. In certain instances, the chair or others have referred to Annual Reviews or Third-Year Reviews to stake out a position. In such case, these reviews should be included in the file.

 

The FPC elected Ken Doxsee to serve as chair in 2006-2007 academic year.