Tenure and Promotion University of Oklahoma, February 2019

Tenure and Promotion University of Oklahoma, February 2019

Tenure and Promotion University of Oklahoma, February 2019 Review of the Process and Timeline Tenure Faculty Handbook 3.7.4 --- The choices that the University makes in granting tenure are crucial to its endeavors toward academic excellence. A decision to grant tenure must reflect an assessment of high professional competence and performance measured against national standards. Tenure should never be regarded as a routine award. Above all else, it is essential to any recommendation that tenure be granted that the faculty member has clearly demonstrated scholarly attainment, primarily but not exclusively through teaching and research or creative/scholarly activity. Promotion Faculty Handbook 3.13.3 Advancement in Rank Decisions to promote a faculty member must be made in light of a thorough evaluation of his or her performance in all the areas of faculty activity. The candidate's performance is judged by all recommending parties against the academic unit's written statement of criteria for promotion to the rank in question, the approved written assignment for the candidate, and any special conditions pertaining to the candidate's appointment. Service in a given rank for any number of years is not in itself a sufficient reason for promotion. Promotion should indicate that the faculty member is of comparable stature with others in his or her field at the same rank outside the University. Ranked Renewable Term

Split Appointments Promotion to Associate or Full Clear guidelines for evaluation Selection of External Reviewers Clarification of workload distribution (Teaching, Research, and Service) Selection of External Reviewers Tenure and/or Promotion Administrative Home Unit Responsible from coordination with the other unit Clear guidelines on performance evaluation, PTT Clear guidelines and understanding of the tenure and promotion process Selection of external reviewers Year 6 (*steps when the candidate is notified of the decision) Deans vote for promotion and justifications are Committee A, uploaded. Chair/Director* Provost discusses with

vote for tenure CTC of any plans to Deans vote for Chair/Director ensures and/or promotion recommend to the tenure and all material is online at and justifications President contrary to justifications are least two weeks before are uploaded. CTC recommendations uploaded. vote by faculty By SEPT 29 By OCT 13 Oct 20 NOV 1* Review of tenure dossier and vote by eligible faculty separate votes for tenure and promotion. Candidate should be available to enter the faculty meeting to answer questions or to clarify circumstances relevant to th

qualifications, if invited to do so By NOV 30 (By JAN 16 (CAS) By FEB 27 Campus Tenure Committee forwards recommendations on process and substance to the Provost. (Promotion evaluation skips this step) Beginning MAR 9 Provost notifies candidates of Regents action MAY* PROVOST NOTIFIES Before May Regents meeting Provost makes recommendations to the President and notifies candidate, chair/director and dean. President makes his recommendation to the Regents at May

Regents meeting and notifies Provost if a recommendation will not be made. Vote by the OU Regents (at May Regents meeting Appeals halt the process temporarily until concluded. FHB: 3.7.5Q More Information on External Evaluators At least three confidential letters of evaluation are required. Units usually require more letters Reviewers should have no close academic or personal connections with the candidate. Letters should provide an independent, unbiased evaluation of the candidate's scholarly attainment. Chair and/or Committee A solicit names from the candidate, add other names to the list and select final list of evaluators . If a candidate has a very specialized field of expertise, one or two evaluators with a close professional connection may be included. Recommendations Tenure and Promotion evaluations use the same dossier but are two separate evaluations. Those who are eligible to vote can vote: Grant Deny Abstain Voting faculty do not write a justification statement. Committee A, Director, Dean, Campus Tenure Committee attach supporting document for

their recommendation on the on-line system. THESE ARE ENTIRELY FICTIONAL CASES TO ILLUSTRATE THE PROCESS TENURE - 25 CANDIDATES CANDIDATE John Doe Mary Joe Jane Smith COLLEGE Fine Arts CAS Domineering DEPT/ SCHOOL CURRENT RANK Music English Assistant Assistant Happy Life

Assistant YRS AT RANK 6 6 6 FACULTY VOTE* COMMITTEE CHAIR/ A VOTE* DIRECTOR 7-5-1-0-0 12-0-0-0-0 2-1 3-0 1-2 4-6-0-0-0 G G D COLLEGE

ADVISORY COMM*** N/A DEAN G CTC VOTE** CTC VOTE** PROVOST RE UNIT RE UNIT PROCESS SUBSTANCE A-9-0-0-0-0 G G 8-0-0-1-0 G A-9-0-0-0-1 G G 4-5-0-0-0 D

A-9-0-0-0-2 D D A= Approve *Votes Recorded: Grant/Deny/Abstain/Unavailable/Ineligible (recused advisory committee member=ineligible) **CTC votes whether to approve the unit's process and whether to approve the unit's recommendation. *** Some colleges do not have advisory committee Grant - a vote to grant tenure Deny - A vote to dent tenure Abstain - Faculty member has reviewed the dossier but decides not to cast a vote Unavailable - Faculty member is not available for vote Ineligible - Faculty member recuses him/herself - e.g nepotism PROMOTION- 35 CANDIDATES CANDIDATE John Doe Jane Smith George D. COLLEGE DEPT/ SCHOOL

PROMTION TO RANK Associate Associate Professor YRS AT RANK FACULTY VOTE* COMMITTEE A VOTE* 5 6 8 8-4-1-0-0 3-7-0-0-0 15-1-0-0-0 2-1 1-2 3-0 CHAIR/ COLLEGE

DIRECTOR ADVISORY COMM* G D N/A N/A 4-5-0-0-0 N/A DEAN G D G PROVOST G D G What Goes in the Dossier Part 1 Chair 1.1 Criteria for evaluating faculty (from department Policy Manual) 1.2 If any revisions to the criteria explain 1.3 Original letter of appointment (any modifications to dates, etc.) 1.4 Annual progress towards tenure letters

1.5 Post tenure reviews (for promotion to full only) 1.6 Summary reports of annual faculty evaluations Candidate 1.7 CV 1.8 Teaching data (philosophy; classes; sizes; STE; Peer evals; letters of support from past or current students and examples of student work (optional) 1.9 Research/Creative activity data (philosophy; pubs; internal and external funding 1.10 Service data (philosophy; list of activities prof, univ, college, dept, comm) 1.11 Appendix (optional) Part 2 Chair 2.1 Selection narrative for external evaluators 2.2 Description of external evaluators 2.3 CV from external evaluators 2.4 Letters sent to the reviewers 2.5 Materials sent to the reviewers 2.6 Confidential letters received from the external reviewers Part 3 Chair 3.1 Unit Procedures 3.2 Recommendations of faculty concerning tenure and/or promotion (recommendation for tenure; list of eligible voting faculty; recommendation for promotion; list of eligible voting faculty) 3.3 Recommendations of Com A 3.4 Recommendations of the Chair/Director The Discussion/Voting and issues of Confidentiality

Discussion (after at least 2 weeks that the dossier is available) Candidate is not present during the discussions but is available for clarifications. Voting options are grant/deny/abstain for tenure and for promotion, separately. Secret paper ballots are cast and Com A and the Chair (or their designate) count the ballots. Com A meet separately and also vote to grant/deny/ for tenure and for promotion, separately. Com A also submits a written explanation of their decision. The Chair also votes to grant/deny/ for tenure and promotion separately and submits a written explanation of their decision. The external letters, the votes, justifications of the decisions are confidential by the university to the extent that they are permitted to do so by law. Campus Tenure Committee (CTC) Reviews the process and substance upon which tenure recommendations to the Provost are made. The goal is to assure a fair review of tenure decisions across the University CTC convenes between December and March. CTC members review all applications for tenure. CTC sends, if necessary, requests to the Colleges for additional

detail. Upon completion of its independent review, the CTC crafts letters to the Provost detailing its recommendations regarding tenure decisions. Process v. Substance CTC is primarily concerned with whether the process, outlined in the Units (Colleges) tenure and promotion guidelines, has been observed in all stages for tenure review. Annual PTT letters Committee A Involvement Selection of External Reviewers Substance will be considered to the extent that recommendations do not match the documentation provided in the dossier. Common Issues Missing documentation PTT and annual reviews that are not all included or not done. Letters of justification missing. Cant open the files. Selection of external reviewers Scholarship or connection to the candidate

Lack of clarity of tenure and/or promotion standards at the Unit or College level. Treatment of Provost-permitted extensions as a modification of the tenure timeline. Forms not used After CTCs recommendations to the Provost, the Provost makes his recommendations to the President sometime in April. Before communicating with the President, the Provost meets with the CTC members about his recommendations and justifications for his decisions. The candidates will hear from the Provost via email sometime in April. Presidents recommendations go to the Regents for their approval in the May meeting.

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Recent Progress: Understanding Human Facial Expression ...

    Recent Progress: Understanding Human Facial Expression ...

    Garrison W. Cottrell Gary's Unbelievable Research Unit (GURU) Computer Science and Engineering Department Institute for Neural Computation UCSD Collaborators, Past, Present and Future:
  • CASE Tools - ubalt.edu

    CASE Tools - ubalt.edu

    Visible Analyst student edition Process Modeling (Data Flow Diagrams) Data Modeling (Entity-Relationship Diagrams) Repository It has the ability to generate Access DDL MIS Lab Every other machine has VA (8 groups) Only 2 projects can be created How to start?
  • The Difficult Airway Management in Adult Critical Care

    The Difficult Airway Management in Adult Critical Care

    Dose 0.8 - 1.2mg/kg iv SUXAMETHONIUM ROCURONIUM LARYNGOSCOPY TECHNIQUE BIMANUAL LARYNGOSCOPY CRICOID PRESSURE Avoid regurgitation of gastric contents by occluding upper end of oesophagus May worsen glottic view BURP: Improve glottic view by manipulating thyroid cartilage LARYNGOSCOPY INSERTING ET TUBE...
  • Enchanted Care Kids Campus Summer Camp-Summer 2014 New

    Enchanted Care Kids Campus Summer Camp-Summer 2014 New

    Summer Camp 2014. WELCOME. 4394 Davidson Road Hilliard, Ohio 43026| (877)959-3739. Summer Camp offers an experience that is unforgettable! During the summer, campers jump into action, participating in exciting sports programs, exploring nature, becoming involved in performing and creative arts,...
  • Everlasting God - cutters-studio.com

    Everlasting God - cutters-studio.com

    Everlasting God Strength will rise As we wait upon the Lord We will wait upon the Lord We will wait upon the Lord (Repeat) PRE-CHORUS: Our God, You reign forever Our hope, our strong deliverer CHORUS: You are the everlasting...
  • Concerning hobbits

    Concerning hobbits

    He claimed that at this point he had no idea WHAT a hobbit was but he later would define "hobbit" as "hole-dweller." He would later add an origin to the word: it comes from the Old English . ... Have...
  • Maurya & Gupta Empires - scott.k12.ky.us

    Maurya & Gupta Empires - scott.k12.ky.us

    1) Buddhism had spread all the way to China 2) the Gupta's government was tolerant and good 3) the caste system was beginning to fully develop, including creating a permanent underclass Note: Gupta India was very economically influential…LOTS of cotton...
  • One Verse Evangelism

    One Verse Evangelism

    Romans 6:23 (NIV) WAGES. The one and only Son of God. SIN. DEATH. GOD. BUT. GIFT. GOD. ETERNAL LIFE. JESUS. JESUS CHRIST. Jesus is the means by which we can obtain the gift of eternal life. The one and only...