- Annual Review
- Third-Year or Mid-Term Review
- Promotion and Tenure Review
- Post-Tenure Review
Annual Reviews - Spring of years 1, 2, & 4
Untenured TTF are expected to receive annual evaluations of their teaching, scholarship, and service. These annual reviews, conducted by the immediate supervisor (usually the department head), are intended to establish strong lines of communication and to ensure the development and attainment of teaching, research, and service goals appropriate to a TTF appointment. They should provide constructive feedback and critical assessment of effectiveness and progress.
The details and structure of TTF evaluation are the responsibility of the academic unit in which the appointment is made. Departmental/unit-level criteria documents pertinent to the review of TTF are currently being developed, reviewed, and approved. Until this process is complete, please refer to existing departmental/unit policy and practice. The following general guidelines are applicable to TTF regardless of United Academics Bargaining Unit status.
- Reviews should be conducted annually for all untenured TTF.
- For faculty undergoing the mid-term review, that review replaces the annual review.
- For faculty undergoing review for tenure, the tenure review replaces the annual review.
- The immediate supervisor should prepare a written report, to be shared with the faculty member and placed in the personnel file maintained by the department.
- The faculty member should sign and date the written report to indicate that he or she has read it. This signature does not imply agreement.
- The faculty member may respond in writing to the report. Any such response should be included with the annual report in the personnel file maintained by the department.
- Faculty members have access to both informal and formal grievance processes.
Untenured TTF typically receive an initial contract that expires prior to the year in which tenure review must occur. During the final year of this contract (generally the third year for TTF hired with no credit for prior service), a formal mid-term review is required. This review is designed to reflect and approximate the major elements and standards of the tenure and promotion process, but does not include solicitation of evaluations from reviewers external to the University of Oregon.
A successful outcome of this review, which replaces the annual review for that year, is one prerequisite for contract renewal.
The mid-term review is initiated at the department level, includes a review by the dean of the school or college, and concludes with a decision regarding the terms and duration of any subsequent contract by the provost or his/her designee (often the senior vice provost for academic affairs). Contract renewal at the third year is not automatic.
To initiate the mid-term review process, the department head will contact the faculty member during the fall term of the third year and request the following:
- Election criteria to be used for review, if there has been a change in criteria since the time of hire.
- Curriculum vitae: A comprehensive and current curriculum vitae that includes the faculty member's current research, scholarly and creative activities and accomplishments, including publications, appointments, presentations, etc.
- Personal statement: A 3-6 page personal statement developed by the faculty member evaluating his or her performance measured against the applicable criteria for tenure and promotion. The personal statement should expressly address the subjects of teaching; scholarship, research, and creative activity; and service contributions to the academic department, center or institute, school or college, university, profession, and the community. The statement should also include discussion of contributions to institutional equity and inclusion. (All faculty are urged to address the latter topic, though it is required only for United Academics bargaining unit members.)
- Scholarship portfolio: A comprehensive portfolio of scholarship, research, and creative activity, and any appropriate evidence of national or international recognition or impact.
- Teaching portfolio: Representative examples of course syllabi or equivalent descriptions of course content and instructional expectations for courses taught by the faculty member, examples of student work and exams, and similar material.
- Service portfolio: Evidence of the faculty member’s service contributions to his or her academic department, center or institute, school or college, university, profession, and the community. Such evidence could include white papers authored or co-authored by the faculty member, commendations, awards, op ed pieces, and/or letters of appreciation. The portfolio may also include a short narrative elaborating on the faculty member’s unique service experiences or obligations.
The faculty member is responsible for preparing these documents and submitting them to the department head by a mutually agreed upon date.
The department head will arrange for a senior-level faculty member to conduct a peer evaluation of teaching for the faculty member, ideally during the fall term, and include the report from that evaluation in the file. Read more about the peer evaluation process.The department head will also add to the file copies of summary reports from the course evaluation process, including written comments from students (if signed).
When the file is complete, the department head will do the following.
- Establish a committee of tenured faculty and provide the committee with the file. (The department determines whether the committee is comprised of all tenured faculty in the department or if it is smaller.)
- Obtain from the faculty committee a report addressing the faculty member’s scholarship, teaching, and service and providing an assessment of progress toward tenure and promotion.
- Prepare an independent evaluation of the faculty member's scholarship, teaching, and service and progress toward tenure and promotion. This evaluation should include a recommendation of renewal or non-renewal of the contract and, if the recommendation is for renewal, the recommended duration of the new contract.
- Provide the department head’s report to the faculty member and allow ten days from receipt of the report for the faculty member to provide any written response or additional materials, including any such materials in the file.
- If a department or unit has, or develops, a policy or practice of providing the faculty committee report to the faculty member, the department/unit head shall do so.
- Submit the complete file to the dean of the school or college.
The dean will review the file and may consult with others to obtain and document any additional relevant information, then do the following:
- Prepare an independent report and recommendation, including a recommendation of renewal or non-renewal of the contract and, if the recommendation is for renewal, the recommended duration of the new contract.
- Provide the dean’s report and recommendation to the faculty member and allow ten days from receipt of the report for the faculty member to provide any written response or additional materials, including any such materials in the file.
- Submit the reports (dean, department head, department committee) and the faculty member’s personal statement, curriculum vitae, and responsive material to the senior vice provost for academic affairs as the dsignee of the provost by no later than April 15. The RTO to initiate a contract renewal may accompany the mid-term review packet as appropriate. The senior vice provost may not request submission of the additional documents contained in the full file.
The senior vice provost, as designee of the provost, will determine the terms and duration of any subsequent appointment of the faculty member. The senior vice provost will provide the decision to the dean in writing by May 10.
Possible outcomes of the mid-term review are:
- Issuance of a new contract extending to the date by which a tenure decision is required.
- Issuance of a new contract of insufficient duration to reach the tenure decision, necessitating an additional mid-term review prior to a tenure review.
- Issuance of a non-renewable contract.
The dean (or designee) will notify the faculty member of the review decision and contract renewal no later than May 15. The summary report is to be placed in the faculty member's departmental or college personnel file.
Promotion and Tenure Review - Spring of year 5 until June 15 of year 6
Please see Academic Affairs’ page on promotion and tenure for information and guidance on promotion and tenure review.
Vice Provost Ken Doxsee has developed a guidance document [PDF]to provide information on post-tenure reviews.
Bargaining Unit Members
The post-tenure review process is discussed in Article 20 of the UA Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Non-Bargaining Unit Members
For a full overview of the post-tenure process, please visit the UO Policy Library .
The university provides for a comprehensive post-tenure review of its faculty every three years to encourage, reward, and support the continuous development of tenured members of the faculty. Two levels of regular, developmental review are required of all tenured faculty who are not evaluated through the established administrative review process:
- A substantive review at the three-year point after a prior major review or after promotion. Other reviews (such as those undertaken for regular salary or merit-pay adjustments) may contribute to the third-year review, but may not be substituted for it.
- A major review every six years after a prior major review or after being promoted or receiving tenure.
The Office of Academic Affairs can be an important resource for faculty of all ranks. If you have questions or concerns that have not been adequately addressed at the department or college level, please feel free to contact us.