The criteria and procedures which govern promotion and tenure cases at UW-Parkside are spelled out in documents adopted by the Faculty Senate and printed in the Faculty Guide. These guidelines are intended to help those involved in the process understand the kind of materials which the Personnel Review Committee and various departmental executive committees have found useful in the past; in particular, they are intended to help departmental executive committees prepare materials sent forward to PRC and the Administration in support of their recommendations.
Materials Submitted. Departmental recommendations on promotion and tenure normally come before the Personnel Review Committee with two kinds of supporting materials, a dossier which is distributed to all committee members and a file of supporting evidence which is kept in the Office of the Secretary of the Faculty for examination by committee members. Although committee members are generally conscientious about reviewing the evidence in the file, the dossier is more important, for along with some particularly important pieces of evidence, it contains the departmental executive committee's explanation and analysis of the evidence.
Preparation of File. Although the candidate may have prepared much of the material presented to the departmental executive committee, the file transmitted to PRC and the Administration is sent forward in the name of the executive committee and should reflect its analysis of the case. There is no need to send forward all the miscellaneous correspondence accumulated in an individual's personnel file through the years. The file should contain only those items whose significance is discussed in the dossier as part of the department's analysis of the case.
The Department's Analysis of the Case. As a matter of convenience, the dossier traditionally contains certain important pieces of evidence, including a summary of student evaluation results, and letters from outside references. Its most important function, however, is to present the department's analysis of the case, evaluating the evidence and setting it in perspective. In effect, the dossier tries to provide the Personnel Review Committee with the kind of background information about the candidate and his/her field which the departmental executive committee itself has acquired over the years. This is important because PRC members cannot be expected to concur in a decision when they do not understand its basis. Ideally, the analysis of the case will reflect understandings arrived at in the course of the department's discussion of the case and will be written by or in consultation with senior faculty familiar with the candidate's work.
Full Professor Materials. Dossiers and files for full professor cases should follow the same guidelines as for tenure candidates, but the analysis provided in the dossier should concentrate on achievements since attaining the rank of Associate Professor. For example, a complete list of publications should be included, but emphasis in the discussion should be on those since tenure, and ancient student evaluation forms need not be exhumed or discussed. Material on teaching and service should normally be limited to the most recent 5 years. The committee's feeling has been that a department should not resubmit a recommendation that the same individual be promoted to the rank of professor in consecutive years; where a department has chosen to do so, some explanation should be provided.
Distribution of the Dossier. Sufficient copies of the dossier should be provided to the Office of the Secretary of the Faculty to allow for distribution to all committee members and keeping one copy with the file: for candidates for tenure, this means 12 copies; where only promotion to or appointment at the rank of full professor is involved, the number will vary according to the number of those on the Full Professor Subcommittee in a given year.
There are some issues which should be addressed in every dossier and some kinds of evidence which should appear in every file--teaching evaluations, for example. In addition, there are some issues which should be routinely addressed at the departmental level though PRC need be told no more than the results of departmental discussion. Beyond that, dossiers will vary greatly, depending on the candidate and field; our guidelines try to suggest some kinds of evidence which have been found relevant in the past and which the departmental executive committee might want to consider.
The curriculum vitae may be prepared by the candidate, but because of some unfortunate experiences here and elsewhere, PRC would like to be assured that the departmental executive committee has taken steps to verify the prior employment and terminal degree, either at the time of employment or since. A simple statement that this was done is sufficient.
(1) Formal collegiate and post-graduate education, including institutions attended, locations, dates of attendance, degrees or other certification received, and dates of receipts.
(2) Employment, including employers, location, dates, titles, and responsibilities.
Material to be Included in Dossiers. All dossiers should include a chronological listing of courses taught for the last 5 years since initial appointment at UW-P, including enrollment numbers. A summary of results on student evaluations should also be included in all dossiers. The two tables may be combined. The department's analysis of the candidate's teaching should make clear to readers less familiar with the candidate and field what evidence the executive committee regards as significant, how that evidence is to be understood, and why it led the executive committee to its final evaluation of the candidate's teaching performance.
Analysis of Student Evaluations. As mandated by UWP policy, both the department and PRC must take student evaluations into consideration; the department's analysis of the candidate's teaching should therefore discuss these in some detail. Because of the great variety of forms used here, it is important that the department provide PRC with an evaluation of the data.
The following observations are intended to suggest the kinds of items that the dossier may contain. Not all will apply in every case, and in some cases other considerations would apply at the discretion of the departmental executive committee.
If comparisons limited to others teaching similar courses and/or with similar teaching experience are possible, these can be useful.
If a department attributes some negative results to the candidate's being asked to teach outside his or her normal field or to some other mitigating circumstances, the department would undoubtedly want to clarify the circumstances. In addition, some PRC members believe that written comments from students are especially revealing; if these are included in the file, it would be helpful if the dossier could indicate whether those provided are all those received, a selection by the department, or a selection by the candidate.
Some Other Possible Measures of Teaching Effectiveness. Obviously, since more than one kind of measurement may give a clearer view of a candidate's ability, the department and PRC might not want to judge teaching solely in terms of student evaluation forms. The department is obviously in the best position to decide which, if any, of these additional measures would be useful. In one case or another, departments may find some of the following measures of teaching effectiveness relevant: colleague observations in various settings; evaluations from workshop participants, trainees, interns, or others who have been taught outside of the normal classroom setting; range of courses taught; and letters from former students (The candidate should indicate whether the letters were solicited or not, and if so, by whom). If the department regards such matters as important in evaluating a case, the analysis provided in the dossier should explain why and supporting materials should be included in the file. It would be helpful if the PRC were made aware of the context in which pieces of evidence should be viewed--for example, were colleague observations mandated by the department or requested by the candidate?
Academic Standards. In addition to measures of teaching effectiveness in the classroom, both the department and PRC will want to examine the academic standards of the candidate, and the department's analysis in the dossier should address this point.
Other Teaching Related Activities. Finally, there are other possible measures of a candidate's professional commitment to teaching which a department may choose to consider, including course development, involvement in program curriculum development, preparation of teaching materials, use of field trips or guest lectures, willingness to serve as a guest lecturer on campus or elsewhere, participation in student activities, service as a faculty advisor, and teaching-related grants. If a department gives special weight to any of these, it should explain why in its analysis and make sure that supporting documentation is available in the file.)
External and Internal Evaluators. PRC needs to have a thorough evaluation of the nature and significance of the candidate's work. This may be accomplished through a number of means such as letters from outside evaluators, the department chair's comments, and the comments of senior faculty members in the candidate's discipline. Three or more* letters from outside evaluators are to be solicited by the department chair in consultation with the candidate. Such letters should clarify the nature and significance of the candidate's work.
The committee would appreciate it if the departmental executive committee would share its knowledge of how the outside evaluators were chosen and of the nature of their relationship with the candidate. In fairness to the evaluators, they should be told why they are being asked and should be informed that their letters will become part of a personnel file that is open to the candidate.
Letters from senior faculty members in the candidate's discipline that help to clarify the quality of the candidate's work will also be welcome.
Analysis. To understand the significance of a list of publications or performances and of any grants or awards received, the committee needs guidance from the departmental executive committee. The committee depends on the department's summary analysis to help it understand the direction of the candidate's work, whether it has a coherent pattern, and whether it gives promise of sustained high-quality work in the future. Where the department has given particular weight to some items and relatively little to others, this information can be useful to the committee.
Analysis. The dossier should include the department's summary analysis of the quality and significance of the candidate's service. If the department has chosen to assign special weight to this area, the department's analysis should discuss service responsibilities with the same care as, say, a list of publications, noting special achievements or distinctions achieved and indicating which service items were considered especially significant. Where it is possible to find supporting materials which specifically address the quality of the candidate's service, these should be included in either the dossier or the file.
NOTE TO SECTIONS IV THROUGH VI:
The Personnel Review Committee will use the AASCU document, "The Core of Academe," to clarify any ambiguities that arise from departmental executive committee's use of faculty guidelines, especially in matters of categories and appropriateness of activities. It will use the document only as a nonexhaustive set of examples, but not as a list of criteria. [last revised 9-18-95]