Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Reviews

General Practices
The University Rank and Tenure Committee (URTC) conducts a comprehensive review of faculty credentials and performance in order to make recommendations to the Provost for Academic Affairs regarding the suitability of a faculty candidate for promotion and/or tenure. (Faculty Bylaws 2.1/VI) The Bylaws offer specific guidance in the area of academic credentials and more general guidance in the areas of faculty performance. The three areas of faculty performance reviewed by the URTC are:

teaching effectiveness
scholarly/creative activity and/or professional development
service to department/school/university/community.
(Faculty Bylaws 2.1/IV)

In order to conduct a comprehensive review and make a sound recommendation, the URTC requests from faculty candidates specific information and materials in the form of a dossier. In addition, the URTC reviews specific recommendations from the faculty candidate’s designated peer evaluators, department or school and Dean.

The URTC follows a timeline similar to the one contained in Part III. It is updated annually to reflect necessary calendar changes. The URTC distributes a current timeline in the fall semester of each academic year. Faculty candidates for promotion and/or tenure are expected to be familiar with the timeline, as are all other participants in the review process. A candidate’s dossier will not be accepted after established deadlines except under exceptional circumstances. In case of such circumstances, the faculty candidate must request, in writing, an extension from the URTC. The URTC, after consultation with the Provost will notify the candidate of its decision.

Promotion and Tenure Dossiers

The URTC requests the submission of a dossier that describes, documents, and evaluates a faculty member’s activities for the period under review. Narrative materials, reporting and documentary materials, as well as evaluative materials should constitute the dossier. Candidates submit two identical copies of their promotion and/or tenure dossier to the Office of the Provost (while retaining original documentation in their personal files). This dossier constitutes the official review document and is reviewed by the faculty candidate’s departmental or school review body, school dean, the URTC, the Provost and the President. Once the dossier is logged into the Office of the Provost, it may be accessed only by the chair of the faculty candidate’s department (in Arts & Sciences) or chair of the faculty candidate’s school rank and tenure committee (in Education, Nursing and Business), the school dean, the URTC, the Provost and the President. In order to assure access to the dossier by those who need it at the various stages of review, access will be regulated by the due dates of recommendation letters. (See the official timeline). No one is permitted to add material to the candidate’s dossier after it has been submitted. However, as there may be instances in which significant data related to a pending item may arise after submission of the dossier, the candidate may submit, in writing, such relevant updates to the URTC. One copy of the dossier will be retained in the Office of the Provost for two years following the final decision on promotion and/or tenure, while the other copy will be returned to the candidate.

Organizing your Dossier

The URTC has been asked to provide candidates with guidance regarding the selection and organization of material to be included in a promotion or tenure dossier. We recommend assembling all materials in one four inch binder with numbered tabs corresponding to the sections below. We recommend that you make selective use of plastic page protectors, employing them only where necessary, e.g., for your CV, or for a copy of a multi-page publication.

Section 1. Credentials

1.1 A copy of your CV

1.2 A copy of your final Transcript documenting any degree attained during the relevant period covered by your application for promotion or tenure

1.3 Provide a brief narrative overview of your work as a faculty member

Section 2. Evidence of Teaching effectiveness

2.1 Provide a brief essay (three to six pages) in which you:

Discuss both your general approach to teaching and the development of your approach over the course of your career as a teacher, but with special attention to the period of time covered by your application for promotion.

Be sure to acknowledge and discuss not only successes but also areas for improvement along with the steps you’ve taken to address them.

Feel free to comment on any work you consider relevant to the assessment of your teaching such as curriculum development, clinical supervision, field work, academic advising, thesis direction, or internship supervision. Be sure to mention any teaching awards or grants directly related to teaching that you may have received in the relevant period.

2.2 Provide a semester by semester list of the courses you have taught during the relevant period. For each course please indicate whether the original student evaluations are available or missing for that course.

2.3 Provide quantitative summaries of all student evaluations for courses listed in 2.2. For any course for which a computer generated quantitative summary is not available include the name of the staff member who tabulated the quantitative summary. Note that while URTC does not require you to include written student comments from course evaluations, the URTC does find them helpful and encourages you to include staff-generated transcriptions of student comments. In addition, you are responsible for collecting and organizing the originals of your student course evaluations. Your department or school tenure and promotion committee should naturally consult those originals as they compose their letter and the URTC may ask to see them as we review your case.

2.4 Provide a copy of the most recent syllabus for each course listed in 2.2. In addition you may wish to provide a sample of course materials from one or two courses, selected to illustrate your use of study guides, research guidelines and other handouts.

2.5 Include copies of any additional letters written by peers on the basis of classroom observation of your teaching. (Remember that URTC already has copies of the letters written by your two internal reviewers).

Section 3. Evidence of Scholarship (including creative work and professional development)

3.1 Provide a brief essay (three to six pages) in which you describe and discuss your research, and the scholarship that has resulted, namely, the publication or public presentation of your research or creative work. Describe as well your professional development over the relevant period, including but not limited to, advanced training, certification or education. Given the Bylaws’ emphasis on quality teaching as a criteria for promotion, it would be useful to describe the ways in which your scholarship and professional development inform your teaching.

3.2 Provide a chronological list of your publications, published book reviews,
conference papers, conference presentations, grant applications, other professional development and public presentation of creative work. Be sure to explain the status of any “forthcoming” work. (Don’t worry that this list may replicate information already provided in your CV.)

3.3 Provide copies of the most recent and important items from the list (3.2)

For gallery shows or recitals or other public presentation of creative work please provide a copy of the program and any available reviews.

For conference papers provide a copy of the paper you presented.

For conference presentations where no paper was presented provide any relevant evidence of the content of the presentation.

For journal publications, chapters in edited volumes, book reviews, etc. provide photocopies or an offprint of the article and the title page of the book or journal in which it appeared.

Books or monographs over fifty pages should not be photocopied and included in the dossier, but a copy should accompany this dossier.

Section 4. Evidence of Service to Department or School, College, University, profession and community.

4.1 Provide a brief essay in which you offer a narrative account of the service work you have accomplished over the relevant period.

4.2 Provide a chronologically ordered list of your service to your department or school over the relevant period covered by your application.

4.3 Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences should provide a list of your service to the College.

4.4 Chronologically list and briefly describe your service to the University.

4.5 List and briefly describe service you provide to your profession or discipline. Include in this list any service to the community that draws upon your expertise as a faculty member at SXU.

Section 5. Other

5.1 Letters of evaluation

Please provide a list of peer references (both internal and external) from whom URTC can expect to receive letters.

Respecting your department or school policies regarding these, you may elect to include copies of your annual evaluations; as well as evaluation letters from your files.

5.2 Within the limits of any space remaining in your binder you may include any additional documentation of work that you consider relevant to your request for promotion. Please do provide a brief statement as to why you selected to include these materials.

Evaluations

For each level of promotion and/or tenure, a specific number and type (internal and external) of confidential professional peer evaluations are required. Internal recommendations are to be solicited from peers within Saint Xavier University. External recommendations are to be solicited from peers in the candidate’s discipline outside Saint Xavier University.

External Evaluations: In the spring semester prior to the submission of the complete, official dossier, the faculty candidate will submit to his/her school dean a list of individuals who can serve as external peer evaluators. The number of names submitted should exceed the number of letters required. This is useful in the event an external peer is unable to participate in the review process. The school dean (or appropriate designate, i.e. chair of school rank and tenure committee, chair of department) is responsible for soliciting on behalf of the faculty candidate the necessary number of external peer evaluations; the letters of instruction sent to the external peer evaluators should be copied to the faculty candidate.
Internal Evaluations: Also in the spring semester prior to the submission of the complete, official dossier, the faculty candidate directly contacts the internal peer evaluators, using the letters of instruction provided by the URTC.

For promotion to Assistant Professor, two internal peer recommendations are required.
For promotion to Associate Professor and/or tenure, two internal peer recommendations and two external peer recommendations are required.
For promotion to Full Professor, two internal and three external peer recommendations are required.
In general, internal evaluators are expected to consider all three areas of faculty performance while external evaluators are expected to focus on the candidate’s scholarly/creative/professional performance and contributions; the latter may discuss teaching and service to the extent that they are familiar with the candidate’s performance in those areas.
It is imperative that peer evaluation letters and the recommendations made in them are specific and rooted in evidence. Therefore, evaluators must be provided with relevant portions of the faculty candidate’s dossier including a complete curriculum vitae and copies of published work.
Peer evaluation letters must be submitted to the URTC in accordance with the due dates in the annually published timeline.
Internal and external peer evaluation letters are confidential yet they must also be accessible to the relevant review bodies. Therefore, peer evaluation letters will constitute a supplement to the official dossier submitted by the candidate and will be made available to the appropriate review bodies. The faculty candidate’s department or school review committee, the candidate’s Dean, members of the URTC, the Provost, and the President will have access to the peer evaluation letters. The Office of the Provost is responsible for maintaining the supplementary file of letters.
Faculty candidates should include in their dossier a list of the peer references from whom the URTC can expect to receive letters of evaluation.
Faculty candidates are responsible for making sure letters of evaluation are received by the relevant deadline and should follow-up with the URTC if they are in doubt.
Unsolicited letters are not accepted by the URTC.
Additionally, faculty candidates may include in this section of their dossier, copies of annual evaluations as well as evaluation letters from their files

Promotion and Tenure Considerations

In reviews for tenure as well as promotion to Associate Professor and Full Professor, evidence of sustained, substantial contributions beyond the department or program in which one is contracted to work are expected. The promise of continued intellectual growth and contribution is an area of particular concern in granting tenure. Consideration of curricular requirements and the overall needs of the university also play a role. The level of performance required for each level of promotion varies. Specifically, the level of performance becomes more rigorous as one moves up the ranks. Faculty candidates for promotion and/or tenure are reminded to consult the Faculty Bylaws for a description of the criteria applied in promotion and tenure reviews. (See Article IV) These criteria should be understood as reflecting the minimum, standard requirements for promotion or tenure at the university.

The URTC is expected to communicate to faculty candidates and other participants in promotion and tenure reviews specific instructions for implementing the review process. These instructions, disseminated in letters to faculty candidates, chairs of departments and school rank and tenure committees, peer evaluators, and school deans, must be in accord with the Faculty Bylaws as well as this document, “Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Reviews.” In particular the URTC instruction letters should identify the language of evaluation used in the Faculty Bylaws and instruct others to refer to and use the same language.

Guidelines for Good Practice at the Departmental/School Level

From the level of the school dean, through the URTC, to the Provost, the procedures for promotion and tenure review are consistent. However, reviews at the departmental and school level reflect the different structures of the schools themselves. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to develop and adhere to relatively consistent practices. At the very least, departmental and school practices should be clearly articulate, printed and disseminated. The following guidelines should be used in the development of such local practices.

Evaluation of Tenure Track Faculty during Probationary Years

Prior to promotion and/or tenure reviews, tenure-track faculty should have several years of documented assessment and evaluation of their performance to guide them in their development as faculty suitable for promotion and/or tenure. Tenure-track faculty should be given guidance and mentoring throughout their probationary period not only by department chairs and deans but also by their colleagues. Tenure-track faculty who take credit for years of previous service should keep in mind the need to have adequate time to document peer evaluation of the work.

During the probationary period, the following types of evaluation should take place:

Annual written evaluations (as required in the Faculty Bylaws). In Arts & Sciences these are done by department Chairs; in Education, Nursing, and Business they are the Dean’s responsibility. These evaluations should be candid, specific, and practical.
Student evaluations for all courses, each semester (as required in the Faculty Bylaws). Faculty should follow university procedures in the administration of student evaluations, and should retain for inclusion in their dossier the official summaries provided by the university. Originals should be retained in the department or school, or as provided by the university policy. Annual evaluations should address the findings of student evaluations each year.
Formative evaluations by peers. Tenure-track faculty are advised to initiate formative evaluations, asking colleagues within and outside their fields for periodic assessment, especially in the area of teaching effectiveness. The usefulness of formative evaluation is dependent on honest, constructive critique matched with practical suggestions.
Third-Year Review. Departments and Schools should develop an internal process for evaluating the performance of tenure-track faculty members in the three areas of faculty responsibility: teaching, scholarly/creative activity and/or professional development, and service. The third-year review should result in a written formative evaluation, including specific recommendations for improvements. The third-year review replaces the annual review in the third year.

Promotion and Tenure Evaluations

The following principles and guidelines for practice should be considered when departments and schools conduct promotion and/or tenure reviews.

Promotion and/or tenure reviews are summative by nature.
Central to this review process is the input of the tenured faculty in the department (for Arts and Sciences) or the school (for Education, Nursing, Business). The promotion and/or tenure recommendation results from the professional judgment of the tenured faculty members in the candidate’s department or school who bring a unique disciplinary perspective.
In A&S departments, a departmental committee of tenured faculty conducts the review process. In Education, Nursing, and Business a school committee of tenured faculty conducts the review process. This review process results in a letter of evaluation that characterizes the input of the tenured faculty while formulating a recommendation. The departmental or school letter must be rooted in evidence and may need to reconcile differences in judgment. The letter makes a recommendation on the question of promotion and/or tenure.
In the case of A&S departments, the departmental review committee might consist of all tenured members (especially in small departments) or some tenured members (especially in large departments). This can be a departmental decision but should be public and consistent from case to case. In A&S, the departmental promotion and tenure committee is led by the department chair, except when the chair is under review or not tenured; in these cases, the A&S School Dean in consultation with the department will appoint a designated departmental evaluator to take on the responsibility of leading the review committee. In Education, Nursing and Business, elected school rank and tenure committees conduct the reviews.
If a department in A&S has fewer than three tenured members, a tenured faculty member from a related discipline should be invited to participate. The choice of such an outside participant should be made by the A&S School Dean from a list of three nominees made jointly by the faculty candidate and the department chair.
Promotion and/or tenure reviews and decisions carry responsibilities. Tenured faculty participating in a review as part of a departmental or school evaluation are obliged to carefully read the entire dossier, including samples of scholarship. The review process should also include recent (within the last 12 months), direct classroom observation initiated by the candidate’s department (in A&S) or school (in Education, Nursing, Business); these observations should be done by several tenured faculty participants from the candidate’s department (in A&S) or school (Education, Nursing, Business).
The departmental or school letter of recommendation should be reviewed with the faculty candidate before it is submitted to the URTC to correct possible errors of fact. The final departmental or school letter of recommendation should be copied to the candidate.
Faculty serving on the URTC have a dual role in the review of candidates from their own school or department. For this reason, a faculty member who is currently serving on the URTC should not participate in a leadership capacity on promotion and/or tenure reviews in their school or department. Leadership at the departmental or school level is defined as serving on the school rank and tenure committee or serving on a departmental committee charged with conducting promotion and/or tenure reviews. Still in keeping with the principle identified in item # 2, URTC members may participate in the discussions and contribute to the input (whether in the form of voting, written response sheets, etc) that shapes their departmental or school recommendation but should not play a role in the actual drafting of the departmental/school letter of recommendation. It is also suggested that while serving on the URTC, faculty members avoid serving as one of the requested professional peer evaluators noted in Part I, item G; or if compelling reasons require that a URTC member fulfill this function, then it is advised that s/he recuse performance on the URTC for that case.
Departments in Arts and Sciences and the Schools of Education, Nursing, and Business should document specific criteria and standards for promotion and tenure that are consistent with the Faculty Bylaws and that reflect the norms or requirements in their field or discipline¹. In addition, matters of procedure should be articulated. Once agreed upon, a dated document stating the criteria, standards, and procedures should be distributed to all members of the relevant department or school as well as the school dean, the URTC, and the Provost. The URTC will maintain a complete file of these documents in the Office of the Provost. Department chairs and/or school deans are to review these criteria annually with tenure-track faculty and conduct annual evaluations with these criteria as a reference point. Third-year reviews should also reflect the stated standards. The goal is to insure that when summative promotion and/or tenure reviews are conducted, there are no unstated criteria or standards being applied to faculty candidates. To insure that promotion and tenure criteria and standards are not arbitrarily changed, reviews of the departmental or school document should be conducted every five years; such reviews do not necessarily have to result in changes to the document.

Timeline
Current URTC Timeline (PDF)

School and Departmental Documents
Written documents stating the criteria, standards and procedures for promotion and tenure reviews at the departmental or school level will be published, with the date of adoption, and the date for the next projected review of standards and procedures. In addition to the complete set of documents maintained by the URTC in the Provost’s office, additional copies should be available in the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning and in the Library.
Confidentiality of Letters of Recommendation

Internal and external peer evaluation letters are confidential and should be submitted directly to the URTC. They will be reviewed by departmental or school committees, the School Dean, members of the URTC, the Provost, and the President.
Departmental or School letter of recommendation should be copied to the faculty candidate and submitted directly to the URTC. It will be reviewed by the School Dean, members of the URTC, the Provost, and the President.
The School Dean’s letter of recommendation should be copied to the faculty candidate and submitted directly to the URTC. It will be reviewed by the members of the URTC, the Provost, and the President.
The URTC letter of recommendation should be copied to the faculty candidate and submitted to the Provost. It will be reviewed by the Provost and the President.

¹ Currently, the documented existence of such standards varies across the schools. Specific promotion and tenure standards and procedures should be developed in the context of open discussion within the department (for A&S) or school (for E/N/B) and in collaboration with the school dean.

Adobe Reader 5.0 or above is required to view PDF documents.
The latest version is available as a free download from the Adobe Web site.

1.1	A copy of your CV
1.2	A copy of your final Transcript documenting any degree attained during the relevant period covered by your application for promotion or tenure
1.3	Provide a brief narrative overview of your work as a faculty member

2.1	Provide a brief essay (three to six pages) in which you: Discuss both your general approach to teaching and the development of your approach over the course of your career as a teacher, but with special attention to the period of time covered by your application for promotion. Be sure to acknowledge and discuss not only successes but also areas for improvement along with the steps you’ve taken to address them. Feel free to comment on any work you consider relevant to the assessment of your teaching such as curriculum development, clinical supervision, field work, academic advising, thesis direction, or internship supervision. Be sure to mention any teaching awards or grants directly related to teaching that you may have received in the relevant period.
2.2	Provide a semester by semester list of the courses you have taught during the relevant period. For each course please indicate whether the original student evaluations are available or missing for that course.
2.3	Provide quantitative summaries of all student evaluations for courses listed in 2.2. For any course for which a computer generated quantitative summary is not available include the name of the staff member who tabulated the quantitative summary. Note that while URTC does not require you to include written student comments from course evaluations, the URTC does find them helpful and encourages you to include staff-generated transcriptions of student comments. In addition, you are responsible for collecting and organizing the originals of your student course evaluations. Your department or school tenure and promotion committee should naturally consult those originals as they compose their letter and the URTC may ask to see them as we review your case.
2.4	Provide a copy of the most recent syllabus for each course listed in 2.2. In addition you may wish to provide a sample of course materials from one or two courses, selected to illustrate your use of study guides, research guidelines and other handouts.
2.5	Include copies of any additional letters written by peers on the basis of classroom observation of your teaching. (Remember that URTC already has copies of the letters written by your two internal reviewers).

3.1	Provide a brief essay (three to six pages) in which you describe and discuss your research, and the scholarship that has resulted, namely, the publication or public presentation of your research or creative work. Describe as well your professional development over the relevant period, including but not limited to, advanced training, certification or education. Given the Bylaws’ emphasis on quality teaching as a criteria for promotion, it would be useful to describe the ways in which your scholarship and professional development inform your teaching.
3.2	Provide a chronological list of your publications, published book reviews, conference papers, conference presentations, grant applications, other professional development and public presentation of creative work. Be sure to explain the status of any “forthcoming” work. (Don’t worry that this list may replicate information already provided in your CV.)
3.3	Provide copies of the most recent and important items from the list (3.2) For gallery shows or recitals or other public presentation of creative work please provide a copy of the program and any available reviews. For conference papers provide a copy of the paper you presented. For conference presentations where no paper was presented provide any relevant evidence of the content of the presentation. For journal publications, chapters in edited volumes, book reviews, etc. provide photocopies or an offprint of the article and the title page of the book or journal in which it appeared. Books or monographs over fifty pages should not be photocopied and included in the dossier, but a copy should accompany this dossier.

4.1	Provide a brief essay in which you offer a narrative account of the service work you have accomplished over the relevant period.
4.2	Provide a chronologically ordered list of your service to your department or school over the relevant period covered by your application.
4.3	Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences should provide a list of your service to the College.
4.4	Chronologically list and briefly describe your service to the University.
4.5	List and briefly describe service you provide to your profession or discipline. Include in this list any service to the community that draws upon your expertise as a faculty member at SXU.

5.1	Letters of evaluation Please provide a list of peer references (both internal and external) from whom URTC can expect to receive letters. Respecting your department or school policies regarding these, you may elect to include copies of your annual evaluations; as well as evaluation letters from your files.
5.2	Within the limits of any space remaining in your binder you may include any additional documentation of work that you consider relevant to your request for promotion. Please do provide a brief statement as to why you selected to include these materials.