Psychology | Policy
PDF | retention, promotion, and tenure Policy
Preamble
This statement defines the Department's guidelines regarding retention, tenure, promotion to Associate Professor, and promotion to Professor in accordance with University policy (University Policy and Procedures Manual, May 16th, 2005). These guidelines supplant previous Psychology Department RPT statements.
The Department holds formal retention reviews at the beginning of a candidate's 3rd and 6th years. As specified by the University's Policy and Procedures manual, tenure and promotion are linked at the Associate level (PPM 9-5.1, Sect 2, A.1.c). Tenure and promotion can be achieved any year up to the 7th year, depending upon the candidate's accomplishments. Faculty can be retained (for one additional year) at the sixth year review without receiving tenure or promotion; they can be reconsidered at the beginning of the 7th year. Tenure and promotion must be achieved by the 7th year (barring leaves of absence or extended sick leave). Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor can occur at any time, and these decisions are based upon accomplishments rather than time in rank.
The University Policy and Procedures manual states that:
The Department takes pride in its traditions of academic and scholarly excellence and in its support for academic freedom. We believe that academic freedom and autonomy come with responsibilities to maintain high standards. In evaluating performance, we strive to develop and implement reliable and valid indicators, however, we do not use rigid lists of criteria in any retention, promotion or tenure decisions. Judgments about performance are based on both qualitative and quantitative information and on values about what constitutes important research, as well as educational and service goals, so no single indicator or even multiple indicators can replace professional judgment. Thus, the use of a "checklist" of limited criteria and specification of particular measurement techniques are deemed inimical to the promotion of excellence; standards and quantified performance criteria are viewed as suggestive guidelines rather than absolute and simplistic goals for candidates to achieve. In addition, as described subsequently, there are qualitative and quantitative differences in performance necessary for successful reviews at each stage of faculty development.
General Assumptions
Departmental RPT Advisory Committee members consider both how to evaluate performance in research, teaching, and service, and how to integrate these evaluations into an overall assessment of performance. Below are sets of potential indicators of performance. The basic departmental standard is that in each domain, a candidate shall achieve visibility and impact appropriate to his or her career stage. We expect that different subsets of indicators may be applicable in different cases, depending upon the candidate's interests and responsibilities. Therefore in providing this list of potential standards and performance criteria, the Department does not imply that every faculty member must perform at some specific level on all criteria; instead, these are examples of possible criteria. How many of these dimensions are to be employed for specific individuals and how they are weighted is also a matter of advisory committee judgment. For most quantifiable indicators (whether in the research, teaching, or service domain), the Departmental RPT Advisory Committee is provided with a candidate's score as well as the range of scores achieved by recent successful reviewees at the same rank as the candidate. These numbers are provided as guidelines only, however, the Department is unlikely to retain or promote a candidate whose profile across these quantitative indicators is marginal in all areas (at the low end of the range of accomplishment of successful candidates).
In hiring and in retention, tenure, and promotion decisions, the Department gives heavy weight to research and scholarly productivity. The Department also expects a serious commitment to excellence in undergraduate and graduate education, and positive action for retention, tenure, or promotion will not be taken unless the candidate is an effective teacher (as indicated, for example, by course ratings that are within the range of the Department's teaching effectiveness scale and successful mentoring of graduate students). Participation in professional, departmental, and community service is also expected.
The faculty has the following general expectations:
The following five criteria are used in determining whether excellence has been achieved, though, naturally, the particular level of performance expected varies with the particular retention/promotion decision being made:
The Department expects a span class="subheader" commitment to undergraduate and graduate education, both in and out of the classroom. The Department considers a candidate’s competence as an educator, knowledge of and ability to transmit recent developments, judgment in selecting and emphasizing material, ability to provide students with a broad scholarly perspective, ability to provide constructive feedback, and ability to challenge students to do their best. Consideration may also be given to a candidate’s openness and receptivity to students and their ideas, comprehensiveness in teaching and planning, fairness as an evaluator of students, willingness to take on new and special teaching arrangements and assignments, and ability to guide students effectively through the graduate program.
Specific sources of information for teaching may include but are not limited to:
Faculty are expected to share the service burden at Departmental, College, and University levels, as well as in professional organizations or community organizations where the contribution is professional in nature. Excellence in service can be demonstrated in various ways, including but not limited to leadership roles on local or national committees, and comments from colleagues.
Specific sources of information for service may include but are not limited to:
A five to six member Personnel Committee (PC) is elected each spring in a Department-wide ballot; the committee chair is elected by committee members. The Department Chair often meets with the committee but does not participate in writing the Personnel Committee report.
Prior to tenure, there are three levels of review. In the 1st and 4th years, a member of the PC will meet with the candidate to review the CV and recent accomplishments, update the candidate’s file, and identify any issues that should be brought to the attention of the PC. In the 2nd and 5th years, a more comprehensive informal review is completed. In the 3rd and 6th years, a formal review is conducted.
I. The procedure for formal reviews is as follows:
During Autumn semester, two-member review teams gather information and write Personnel Committee reports on faculty members being formally reviewed; these reports are the basis of RPT discussion held in the middle of the semester. Review teams are composed of a PC member and a faculty member chosen by the candidate. When possible, the PC team member is not from the candidate’s Area (although the candidate’s choice can be from the same area).
The process begins the previous spring semester: 1) No later than April 1st, each candidate and his/her Area independently provide the names of potential external reviewers; the PC meets and rank orders the reviewers; the PC then contacts reviewers until a sufficient number agree to participate (we seek two from the candidate’s list, two from the area’s list, and one individual common to both lists. The candidate’s materials are submitted by June 1st for mailing to the external reviewers. 2) the Undergraduate and Graduate SAC’s are contacted and asked for input; the Graduate SAC administers a questionnaire to all graduate students seeking informed comments about each candidate; 3) In Autumn semester, Department faculty, graduate students and staff receive a memo stating which faculty are being reviewed and inviting them to contact review team members if they wish to be interviewed about any candidates; 4) each candidate is interviewed and invited to suggest names of faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, and any others whom they believe should be interviewed for the PC report; 5) faculty interviewees are given a copy of the candidate’s vita, research statement and teaching philosophy prior to interviews; they may also request copies of manuscripts and publications if they wish to read them before the interview; 6) written statements are solicited or, interviews are held with every member of the candidate’s Area, key collaborators, and all graduate and undergraduate advisees. In addition to these extensive one-on-one interviews, the review team also reviews the candidate’s teaching philosophy, course materials, course evaluations, the two SAC reports, and the letters from external reviewers.
The team writes a report summarizing the information they have gathered. Each report is reviewed by the entire PC for accuracy, balance, and comparability across candidates (these reports generally follow the same format, although they are individualized somewhat to fit emerging circumstances). As needed, the candidate or others are contacted for clarification or for additional information. No later than two weeks prior to the RPT meeting, each candidate receives a draft report and is invited to correct errors of fact. No later than one week prior to the RPT meeting, each candidate receives a copy of the final report and information about responding if he or she desires.
Several days before the RPT meeting, each faculty member in the Department (both tenured and nontenured) receives a copy of each PC report and any candidate responses. The faculty read the reports so that they are prepared for discussion. It is rare but not unprecedented for a candidate to write a separate memo to the faculty clarifying his or her case.
We hold a general faculty meeting just before the RPT meeting so that junior faculty can participate in discussions, contribute their views, and learn departmental values and criteria. Someone (typically the PC Chair) is elected to Chair the meeting, and a Secretary is elected to take notes and prepare a summary. After the faculty meeting, RPT members (faculty at ranks above that of the candidate) convene and decide whether to invite the Department Chair to attend the meeting. The RPT Committee votes to include relevant portions of the faculty meeting minutes into the RPT minutes. The candidate’s vita, two SAC reports and the external reviewers’ letters are available and passed around at the RPT meeting.
As soon as possible after the meeting, a summary of the RPT meeting is made available for corrections and comments by RPT members of appropriate rank. Faculty are notified when the summary is available; it will be available for a period of no less than 3 but no more than 5 days.
II. The procedure for informal reviews is as follows:
The Department conducts two kinds of informal reviews, 1st and 4th year reports, and 2nd and 5th year reviews. For both kinds of informal reviews, the report is written by a single individual, a member of the PC senior to the candidate. No external review letters are required, and no SAC reports are obtained.
First Year and 4th Year Reports
For first year faculty, there is no formal PC report and no department-wide discussion. Instead, during December or January of the first year, the Chair of the PC meets with the candidate to review and answer questions about departmental RPT procedures. The PC Chair also asks how things are going with respect to research, teaching, service, and integration into the Area. The PC Chair follows up on issues as needed. The PC helps the Department Chair assure that the candidate has reasonable resources and time for developing a research program that can lead to retention, promotion, and tenure. The PC Chair writes the summary on which future PC teams can base their reports: educational background, Table 1 (Research and publications) and Table 2 (Teaching evaluations). The report also includes the candidate’s concerns and how they were addressed. The candidate, Area Coordinator, and Department Chair receive copies, and a copy is placed in the candidate’s departmental file.
Fourth year reviews typically follow a successful third year review. In this case, the review process is the same as for first year reviews. The review is conducted by one individual early in Spring semester; in most cases, there are no interviews with faculty or students, the PC updates the Tables in the report and checks in with the candidate; there is no formal discussion at the RPT meeting. If issues were raised in the third year, they are revisited as appropriate (including the possibility of selected interviews with faculty and/or students and possible discussion at the RPT meeting).
Second and Fifth Year Reviews
These reviews are conducted during the Autumn Semester. Their purpose is to prepare the candidates for their formal reviews in Autumn of their Third and Sixth years. As such, these reviews are more extensive than 1st/4th year reviews, but not as detailed as a formal review. The PC gauges colleagues’ views of whether the candidate is on track to be retained/promoted the following year, and, if needed, what changes would lead to a positive judgment. The previous year’s report is updated with respect to publications and presentations, grant activities, teaching evaluations, and service activities. Interviews are held with small numbers of faculty and students (typically, Area Coordinator, 1-2 colleagues, 2-3 students, and anyone who requests an interview).
III. The review procedures for “triggered” reviews are the same as for formal reviews, except, as stipulated in the PPM, the RPT committee votes to trigger the review and provides a written notice to the candidate. The PPM states:
This statement defines the Department's guidelines regarding retention, tenure, promotion to Associate Professor, and promotion to Professor in accordance with University policy (University Policy and Procedures Manual, May 16th, 2005). These guidelines supplant previous Psychology Department RPT statements.
The Department holds formal retention reviews at the beginning of a candidate's 3rd and 6th years. As specified by the University's Policy and Procedures manual, tenure and promotion are linked at the Associate level (PPM 9-5.1, Sect 2, A.1.c). Tenure and promotion can be achieved any year up to the 7th year, depending upon the candidate's accomplishments. Faculty can be retained (for one additional year) at the sixth year review without receiving tenure or promotion; they can be reconsidered at the beginning of the 7th year. Tenure and promotion must be achieved by the 7th year (barring leaves of absence or extended sick leave). Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor can occur at any time, and these decisions are based upon accomplishments rather than time in rank.
The University Policy and Procedures manual states that:
Promotion. Promotion in rank is the acknowledgment by the university of excellence in performance in teaching, research and creative work, professional competence, activity, and responsibility and university and public service. PPM 9-5.1, Sect 2, A.1.b.The Department of course endorses this policy. The present document defines in broad terms what is meant by "excellence in performance" for Psychology Department faculty.
The Department takes pride in its traditions of academic and scholarly excellence and in its support for academic freedom. We believe that academic freedom and autonomy come with responsibilities to maintain high standards. In evaluating performance, we strive to develop and implement reliable and valid indicators, however, we do not use rigid lists of criteria in any retention, promotion or tenure decisions. Judgments about performance are based on both qualitative and quantitative information and on values about what constitutes important research, as well as educational and service goals, so no single indicator or even multiple indicators can replace professional judgment. Thus, the use of a "checklist" of limited criteria and specification of particular measurement techniques are deemed inimical to the promotion of excellence; standards and quantified performance criteria are viewed as suggestive guidelines rather than absolute and simplistic goals for candidates to achieve. In addition, as described subsequently, there are qualitative and quantitative differences in performance necessary for successful reviews at each stage of faculty development.
General Assumptions
- The Department expects faculty to perform their duties in an ethical and responsible way, in keeping with the American Psychological Association's statement of Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct. As specified in the University of Utah Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM 9-5.1, Sect 2), assessments of teaching, research/other creative activity, clinical, and service may consider the candidate's conduct as a responsible member of the faculty. In addition, any letters of administrative reprimand and the latest findings, decisions, or recommendations from university committees or officials, arising from relevant concerns about the faculty member should also be included in the candidate's file.
- Retention and promotion decisions require judgments about the total professional performance of an individual, and we evaluate performance on a case by case basis.
- The relevant RPT Advisory Committee's decision is based on the question "is retention warranted" or "has Associate Professor or Professor stature been achieved?" rather than "are there reasons not to retain or promote this individual?" Candidates are expected to present their accomplishments to the faculty with this decision in mind.
- The Department believes that it is important to have first-hand knowledge about a candidate's research program so that we can make informed judgments. Faculty are encouraged to familiarize themselves with candidates' research by reading their scholarly writing, attending their colloquia or brown bag presentations, or through discussions with the candidates.
- The content of RPT Advisory Committee meetings is confidential and should be treated as such. In particular, those at the meeting should refrain from informing the candidate of the committee's decision, which is the responsibility of the RPT Advisory Committee Chair and the Department Chair.
Departmental RPT Advisory Committee members consider both how to evaluate performance in research, teaching, and service, and how to integrate these evaluations into an overall assessment of performance. Below are sets of potential indicators of performance. The basic departmental standard is that in each domain, a candidate shall achieve visibility and impact appropriate to his or her career stage. We expect that different subsets of indicators may be applicable in different cases, depending upon the candidate's interests and responsibilities. Therefore in providing this list of potential standards and performance criteria, the Department does not imply that every faculty member must perform at some specific level on all criteria; instead, these are examples of possible criteria. How many of these dimensions are to be employed for specific individuals and how they are weighted is also a matter of advisory committee judgment. For most quantifiable indicators (whether in the research, teaching, or service domain), the Departmental RPT Advisory Committee is provided with a candidate's score as well as the range of scores achieved by recent successful reviewees at the same rank as the candidate. These numbers are provided as guidelines only, however, the Department is unlikely to retain or promote a candidate whose profile across these quantitative indicators is marginal in all areas (at the low end of the range of accomplishment of successful candidates).
In hiring and in retention, tenure, and promotion decisions, the Department gives heavy weight to research and scholarly productivity. The Department also expects a serious commitment to excellence in undergraduate and graduate education, and positive action for retention, tenure, or promotion will not be taken unless the candidate is an effective teacher (as indicated, for example, by course ratings that are within the range of the Department's teaching effectiveness scale and successful mentoring of graduate students). Participation in professional, departmental, and community service is also expected.
The faculty has the following general expectations:
- Retention (third year). This judgment is typically based on two years of work so that there is sufficient information to provide an adequate basis for a decision. Faculty look for effective teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and evidence of the beginnings of an independent, original, high quality, sustained and productive research program with the potential to have an impact on the field. To support their developing research and teaching, junior faculty have limited service responsibilities. They have begun to function as integral members of their administrative areas (currently Clinical, Cognition & Neural Science, Developmental, and Social).
- Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor. A successful candidate should have an established record both as an accomplished researcher and effective teacher. The research program is independent, original, of high quality, sustained and programmatic; there is a sufficient number of publications that informed judgments of quality and impact can be made, and work is published at a reasonable rate. The research is at least beginning to have impact and the candidate is forming a positive national reputation. Departmental service is limited, but the candidate plays a constructive role in area and departmental decision making. The Departmental RPT Advisory Committee recommendation is based both on past performance and on expectations for continued high quality performance.
- Promotion to Professor. There are both quantitative and qualitative changes in expectations with respect to promotions at the Professor level, especially with respect to scholarship. A Professor has an established record as an effective teacher and accomplished researcher with an independent, original, programmatic, productive, sustained, and high quality research program. A Professor has national visibility, high status as a scholar, and clear and important impact; he or she has achieved significant recognition and prominence as a scholar in psychology. Typically, a professor has an established record of responsible service.
The following five criteria are used in determining whether excellence has been achieved, though, naturally, the particular level of performance expected varies with the particular retention/promotion decision being made:
- Research/scholarship is programmatic and cumulative.
- Research/scholarship is of high quality, showing originality, depth, and impact.
- Research/scholarship is independent. The Department accepts and sometimes encourages inter- and multi-disciplinary work, but a candidate is expected to demonstrate his or her independent, identifiable, and significant contribution to the research team.
- Research/scholarship is sustained and ongoing, with evidence of work at all stages of the research process (e.g., publications, submitted manuscripts, draft manuscripts and conference presentations, collected data sets, plans for future work, intra- and/or extra-mural funding, and so on).
- The candidate has achieved national recognition and prominence for research in Psychology appropriate to his or her review level.
- Opinions of department and university colleagues.
- Opinions of colleagues and experts in the field outside
of the department and university
a. letters of reference (see attached information on selection of external reviewers).
b. published reviews of candidate's books and articles.
c. citations of the person's work in the literature, especially citations that indicate serious, positive consideration of the candidate's work.
d. appointments to editorial boards of major journals, service on grant review panels, etc. - Published works. In their scholarship, some persons may pursue a broad number of areas; others may focus on a single topic. In either strategy, however, it is expected that the work will show thoroughness, adherence to relevant standards of rigor and research quality, and other evidence of excellence, as described above.
- Participation in professional organizations, meetings, and conferences; invited lectures and papers.
- Contribution to the training and productivity of students. Reference here is to the number and quality of theses and dissertations directed, publications with students, and to the subsequent scholarly works of students.
- Research grants. Research grants are often important to scholarly activity. Where appropriate, RPT Advisory Committee members will give positive consideration to the extent to which an individual ahs submitted grants and has been able to obtain research grant funds and thereby increase the probability of research and scholarly contributions.
- Awards, honors, and other recognition of contributions resulting from the person's research or scholarship.
- The significant national recognition expected at the Professor level might be reflected by various combinations of the following: federal grants; appointment to editorial boards or major journals; invited chapters in important scholarly books; service on grant review panels; high citation frequencies; and regular publication of important articles in major journals.
The Department expects a span class="subheader" commitment to undergraduate and graduate education, both in and out of the classroom. The Department considers a candidate’s competence as an educator, knowledge of and ability to transmit recent developments, judgment in selecting and emphasizing material, ability to provide students with a broad scholarly perspective, ability to provide constructive feedback, and ability to challenge students to do their best. Consideration may also be given to a candidate’s openness and receptivity to students and their ideas, comprehensiveness in teaching and planning, fairness as an evaluator of students, willingness to take on new and special teaching arrangements and assignments, and ability to guide students effectively through the graduate program.
Specific sources of information for teaching may include but are not limited to:
- Departmental colleagues' observations of teaching, colloquia and other public presentations
- Undergraduate and graduate student opinions about course
content and presentation style as determined by:
a. interviews with students
b. teaching evaluations - Departmental analysis of course content, exams, etc.
- Input from graduate students on teaching, research, and - where appropriate - clinical supervision.
- Interviews with the candidate regarding teaching philosophy, plans, techniques, attempts at innovation and growth, and so on.
- Unique contributions to the educational aims of the Department in relation to undergraduate and graduate program needs. As appropriate, consideration may be given to educational contributions that serve the broad interests of other programs in the University or the residents of Utah.
- University or national recognition for teaching activities.
- Scholarly writings on teaching and education, the role of the university, and so on.
- Demonstrated teaching products, e.g., experimental courses, various media products, student exhibits.
- Participation in University and community activities concerning teaching and education.
Faculty are expected to share the service burden at Departmental, College, and University levels, as well as in professional organizations or community organizations where the contribution is professional in nature. Excellence in service can be demonstrated in various ways, including but not limited to leadership roles on local or national committees, and comments from colleagues.
Specific sources of information for service may include but are not limited to:
- Administrative contributions to the department, college
and university.
a. Service on committees, task forces, special assignments, etc. b. Committee chairships
c. Elected positions
d. Service as University representative to other universities, organizations, etc.
e. Informal service (e.g., mentoring junior faculty, reading grants and papers of colleagues. - Administrative contributions to the profession.
a. Service on committees, task forces, special assignments, etc.
b. Elected positions
c. Committee chairships
d. Conference chair or organizer.
e. Editorial work on journals - Community service
a. Consultant to bureaus, commissions, agencies, legislative bodies, etc.
b. Participation in special community projects and studies.
c. Professionally related community positions, e.g., school board membership, participation in education groups, professional advisor to various groups, public service agencies, etc.
d. General community educational contributions: lectures, workshops, community clinic work, etc.
A five to six member Personnel Committee (PC) is elected each spring in a Department-wide ballot; the committee chair is elected by committee members. The Department Chair often meets with the committee but does not participate in writing the Personnel Committee report.
Prior to tenure, there are three levels of review. In the 1st and 4th years, a member of the PC will meet with the candidate to review the CV and recent accomplishments, update the candidate’s file, and identify any issues that should be brought to the attention of the PC. In the 2nd and 5th years, a more comprehensive informal review is completed. In the 3rd and 6th years, a formal review is conducted.
I. The procedure for formal reviews is as follows:
During Autumn semester, two-member review teams gather information and write Personnel Committee reports on faculty members being formally reviewed; these reports are the basis of RPT discussion held in the middle of the semester. Review teams are composed of a PC member and a faculty member chosen by the candidate. When possible, the PC team member is not from the candidate’s Area (although the candidate’s choice can be from the same area).
The process begins the previous spring semester: 1) No later than April 1st, each candidate and his/her Area independently provide the names of potential external reviewers; the PC meets and rank orders the reviewers; the PC then contacts reviewers until a sufficient number agree to participate (we seek two from the candidate’s list, two from the area’s list, and one individual common to both lists. The candidate’s materials are submitted by June 1st for mailing to the external reviewers. 2) the Undergraduate and Graduate SAC’s are contacted and asked for input; the Graduate SAC administers a questionnaire to all graduate students seeking informed comments about each candidate; 3) In Autumn semester, Department faculty, graduate students and staff receive a memo stating which faculty are being reviewed and inviting them to contact review team members if they wish to be interviewed about any candidates; 4) each candidate is interviewed and invited to suggest names of faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, and any others whom they believe should be interviewed for the PC report; 5) faculty interviewees are given a copy of the candidate’s vita, research statement and teaching philosophy prior to interviews; they may also request copies of manuscripts and publications if they wish to read them before the interview; 6) written statements are solicited or, interviews are held with every member of the candidate’s Area, key collaborators, and all graduate and undergraduate advisees. In addition to these extensive one-on-one interviews, the review team also reviews the candidate’s teaching philosophy, course materials, course evaluations, the two SAC reports, and the letters from external reviewers.
The team writes a report summarizing the information they have gathered. Each report is reviewed by the entire PC for accuracy, balance, and comparability across candidates (these reports generally follow the same format, although they are individualized somewhat to fit emerging circumstances). As needed, the candidate or others are contacted for clarification or for additional information. No later than two weeks prior to the RPT meeting, each candidate receives a draft report and is invited to correct errors of fact. No later than one week prior to the RPT meeting, each candidate receives a copy of the final report and information about responding if he or she desires.
Several days before the RPT meeting, each faculty member in the Department (both tenured and nontenured) receives a copy of each PC report and any candidate responses. The faculty read the reports so that they are prepared for discussion. It is rare but not unprecedented for a candidate to write a separate memo to the faculty clarifying his or her case.
We hold a general faculty meeting just before the RPT meeting so that junior faculty can participate in discussions, contribute their views, and learn departmental values and criteria. Someone (typically the PC Chair) is elected to Chair the meeting, and a Secretary is elected to take notes and prepare a summary. After the faculty meeting, RPT members (faculty at ranks above that of the candidate) convene and decide whether to invite the Department Chair to attend the meeting. The RPT Committee votes to include relevant portions of the faculty meeting minutes into the RPT minutes. The candidate’s vita, two SAC reports and the external reviewers’ letters are available and passed around at the RPT meeting.
As soon as possible after the meeting, a summary of the RPT meeting is made available for corrections and comments by RPT members of appropriate rank. Faculty are notified when the summary is available; it will be available for a period of no less than 3 but no more than 5 days.
II. The procedure for informal reviews is as follows:
The Department conducts two kinds of informal reviews, 1st and 4th year reports, and 2nd and 5th year reviews. For both kinds of informal reviews, the report is written by a single individual, a member of the PC senior to the candidate. No external review letters are required, and no SAC reports are obtained.
First Year and 4th Year Reports
For first year faculty, there is no formal PC report and no department-wide discussion. Instead, during December or January of the first year, the Chair of the PC meets with the candidate to review and answer questions about departmental RPT procedures. The PC Chair also asks how things are going with respect to research, teaching, service, and integration into the Area. The PC Chair follows up on issues as needed. The PC helps the Department Chair assure that the candidate has reasonable resources and time for developing a research program that can lead to retention, promotion, and tenure. The PC Chair writes the summary on which future PC teams can base their reports: educational background, Table 1 (Research and publications) and Table 2 (Teaching evaluations). The report also includes the candidate’s concerns and how they were addressed. The candidate, Area Coordinator, and Department Chair receive copies, and a copy is placed in the candidate’s departmental file.
Fourth year reviews typically follow a successful third year review. In this case, the review process is the same as for first year reviews. The review is conducted by one individual early in Spring semester; in most cases, there are no interviews with faculty or students, the PC updates the Tables in the report and checks in with the candidate; there is no formal discussion at the RPT meeting. If issues were raised in the third year, they are revisited as appropriate (including the possibility of selected interviews with faculty and/or students and possible discussion at the RPT meeting).
Second and Fifth Year Reviews
These reviews are conducted during the Autumn Semester. Their purpose is to prepare the candidates for their formal reviews in Autumn of their Third and Sixth years. As such, these reviews are more extensive than 1st/4th year reviews, but not as detailed as a formal review. The PC gauges colleagues’ views of whether the candidate is on track to be retained/promoted the following year, and, if needed, what changes would lead to a positive judgment. The previous year’s report is updated with respect to publications and presentations, grant activities, teaching evaluations, and service activities. Interviews are held with small numbers of faculty and students (typically, Area Coordinator, 1-2 colleagues, 2-3 students, and anyone who requests an interview).
III. The review procedures for “triggered” reviews are the same as for formal reviews, except, as stipulated in the PPM, the RPT committee votes to trigger the review and provides a written notice to the candidate. The PPM states:
If a tenure-eligible faculty member does not demonstrate clearly adequate progress to the reviewers in an informal review, the department chair or department RPT advisory committee in consultation with the reviewers may trigger a formal RPT review after giving the candidate written notice of such a review and its timing. The formal RPT review may proceed either in the following year or as soon as the file is completed (including the solicitation and receipt of external review letters if applicable) but no sooner than 30 days after written notice of the review is provided to the candidate. PPM 9-5.1, Sect 2, B.1.c.
