Advisory Committee on Tenure, Promotion, and Third-Year Review

Academic Year 2022-2023

Advisory Committee—Regular Members:  

Susan Divine (Chair), Hispanic Studies  

Anton Vander Zee, English  

Christy Kollath-Cattano, Health and Human Performance  

Jessica Streit, Art and Architectural History  

Sorinel Osprian, Physics and Astronomy 

 

In May 2022, at the end of the Spring semester, the incoming Advisory Committee conferred over email to set a meeting time for Spring 2022 meetings. During the summer the Chair of the committee attended some of the T&P information sessions held over the summer and into the early fall of 2022. 

The committee also conducted its first preparatory meeting via Zoom in early December with the following agenda: 

  1. Committee responsibilities
  2. Deliberations--process and principles
  3. Meeting schedule, potential conflicts, and modality preferences
  4. Review resources inside the SharePoint site: link to Faculty/Administration Manual

(sections VI.A-D), Joint Memo, and approved department guidelines 

  1. Accounting for Pandemic measures as articulated in the Joint Memo
  2. Additional questions and concerns?

Deanna Caveny, Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, was also present for this meeting, as were members of the alternate committee: Brian Lanahan, Calvin Blackwell, and Grace Hubel.  

After the meeting Marvin Gonzalez had to recuse himself from the Advisory Committee due to a scheduling conflict. During the winter break he was replaced by Jessica Streit.  

The committee began their review of cases on January 10 and concluded on February 23rd. 

Meetings were held on Tuesday and Thursday in person in 308 Randolph Hall (with a Zoom option) between 9:00am and 11:00am. During the first two meetings, only two cases each were reviewed to give the committee time to settle into the work and calibrate. During subsequent meetings, three cases were reviewed each day. 

Over the course of the Spring 2022 semester, the committee reviewed 37 cases: 

  • Senior Instructor Renewal: 2 cases 
  • Promotion to Senior Instructor: 3 cases 
  • Library Faculty Review for Tenure: 2 cases 
  • Library Faculty Promotion to Librarian IV: 1 case 
  • Promotion to Associate Professor and Tenure: 18 Cases 
  • Tenure at rank of Associate Professor: 1 case 
  • Promotion to Professor: 9 Cases 
  • Additional Third-Year Review Cases referred to committee: 1 case which required additional interviews with the candidate 

Four of the alternate members were used for 16 cases. 

The committee requested additional information in relation to 3 cases.  

Some general observations on the T&P process follow: 

  • The committee strongly supports the new language that modified promotion criteria for instructional faculty. Requiring exemplary performance in any category for promotion and retention made it more difficult for reviewing bodies to apply the 4-level rating system across different faculty types.  
  • If a department has their own standards for review and promotion, is helpful if the DEP letter follows the language of those standards. For example, if the standards define authorship in a particular way in order to meet a certain rating, then the DEP panel should reiterate that language with evidence in the DEP letter.  
  • Candidates are encouraged to only include a relevant sampling of student graded student material. The committee appreciates a sample of size of 3 – 4 student examples that showcases both academic goals and the candidate’s feedback and/or evaluative process.  
  • Candidates should include a brief description of their feedback process if it is not readily apparent or might not be understood by Advisory Committee members outside of the candidate’s field. This can be included before the sample assignments with a brief description of the process.  

Reminders: 

  • Candidates are encouraged to use the highlight feature on their word processing software to indicate all areas on their CV that are included in the current review period. The committee appreciated it when candidates included a table of contents for items in the packet that include numerous individual documents (e.g syllabus, assignments, and graded student work for an individual course). Hyperlinking the TOC to help reviewers navigate the PDF was especially helpful. 
  •  It is essential that DEP chairs offer a summary sheet for any data collected via graduate surveys. Including the raw data alone presents difficulties for the reviewer. 
  • DEP chairs are advised not to include entire CVs from those serving as external reviewers. This information is not necessary, it takes up a good deal of space, and a brief summary of qualifications would suffice. If included, the CV should be at the very end of the document so it doesn’t interfere with quick access to the letters themselves. 
  • DEP letters that specifically evaluated, polled, and rated candidates in each category of review were most helpful. Colleague letters should also discuss the candidate’s work in each category rather than offer broader support or critique. 
  • DEP letters that gave a brief description of the candidate’s interview were also appreciated. A brief summary of pre panel meetings, questions asked, and post-interview deliberations is sufficient to demonstrate that due process has been followed.   
  • If there are areas where the DEP or individual colleague letters are more critical of a candidate’s work, the candidates should be given the opportunity to address those areas of criticism in the interview. When colleague letters raise concerns and those concerns are not a part of the broader record (DEP letter or interview), this leaves the committee with an incomplete picture. 
  • A summary sheet at the start of each publication describing the candidate’s contribution as well as clear evidence of peer review and journal quality was helpful. 
  • Candidates are encouraged to avoid listing items in the narrative, especially when those items are clearly listed on the CV. The goal of the narrative is not just to document an activity, but to describe it.  

The Advisory Committee appreciated the expert support and advice offered by the Office of Academic Affairs. Associate Provost Deanna Caveny was an essential resource throughout the process—from early conversations about FAM and T&P Memo updates through the submission of final letters. 

The current chair, Susan Divine, facilitated the selection of the chair for the 2023-24 academic year, Christy Kollath-Cattano (Health and Human Performance).