Guide to Promotion and Tenure - Professional Evaluation

Printer-friendly version

Professional Evaluation at the University of Oregon 

In This Section

Overview
Probationary Years
Annual Review
Third Year Review 
Promotion and Tenure Review
Post Tenure Reviews

 

Overview   Back to top

Evaluation at the University of Oregon takes a variety of forms as you move through various stages of your academic career:

• Probationary years (tenure-related appointment with no credit for prior service)
• Annual Review (spring of years 1, 2, 4)
• Third Year or Mid-Term Review (spring of year 3)
• Promotion and Tenure Review (beginning spring of year 5 with a decision by June 15 of year 6)
• Post Tenure Reviews (a minor review the third year after tenure, and a major review six years after tenure, repeated cyclically until retirement.)

The following information contains the timeline of a first-time assistant professor arriving on campus in the fall. Your actual status, as agreed upon by you, your department, your dean, and the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, may differ. The terms of your hire should make it clear where on this timeline you are when you begin your position, and subsequent advances in rank will be awarded according to the established promotion procedures from there on.

 

Probationary Years  Back to top

Tenure track appointment with no credit for prior service

It is wise to go over your terms of hire with your department or unit head to get a clear understanding of what is expected of you in terms of teaching success, research accomplishments, and general service, not only for that first year but for the entire 5-6 year period that precedes the promotion and tenure process. Work with your department head to clarify any special conditions or expectations attached to your hire. Be sure you agree on forms of scholarship or performance advancement, teaching load, and the amount and form of service expected. Start your record keeping and familiarize yourself with teaching evaluation procedures.

Annual Reviews  Back to top

Spring of years 1, 2, & 4
Rules established by the Board of the Oregon University System(OUS) call for a performance evaluation every year for every member of the UO faculty. These annual evaluations - of teaching, scholarship, and service -are particularly important to you as an untenured faculty member and consequently are done more thoroughly with probationary than with tenured faculty. These reviews allow you to evaluate, on a regular basis, what you are trying to do and how effectively you are getting it done. They also provide you with constructive feedback on your goals and accomplishments. Annual reviews should be viewed as a constructive tool for both you and your department head. The structure encourages you to establish teaching, research, and service goals at the beginning of a year because you and your department head will assess your accomplishments in each of those areas at the end of each year. Through this structure you have the opportunity annually to touch base with your immediate supervisor, who will ultimately be responsible for presenting your case for tenure and promotion.

 

Third Year Review  Back to top

Spring of year 3

Initial contracts for untenured faculty are usually for three years. Third Year Review, sometimes called contract renewal or pre-tenure review, is your first serious testing point. The major criterion behind the decision to renew a contract is evidence of significant progress toward establishing a record appropriate for tenure. Contract renewal at the third year is not automatic.

The third year process is more formal than that of the annual reviews. The candidate will prepare:

1) A current vita

2) A brief statement on accomplishments, progress, and prospective progress in research and teaching

3) Copies of work accomplished and/or in progress

The department head will assemble these into a file for review by the voting faculty in the department.

It is at this point that the department, the dean, and the University assess your progress toward acompelling and unequivocal case for promotion and tenure. The Third Year Review seeks a clear answer to the following question: If this colleague continued on the pathway established in research, teaching, and service as reflected in the current record of accomplishment, would he or she readily earn tenure in another three years?

Where the record of concrete accomplishment in research and teaching permits the reasonable inference of success at the time of promotion and tenure, then the contract should and will be renewed. Where the record of concrete accomplishment in research and teaching permits a reasonable inference that success in promotion and tenure is not likely or is likely to be problematic, or at best marginal, then the contract should not be renewed and a one-year terminal contract offered instead. In such a case the burden of proof falls on the candidate to demonstrate the strength of the case to renew and not on the University to demonstrate failure on the part of the candidate. In limited cases, the third year record may not be clearly compelling but meeting concrete goals over another year might move the candidate back on track. The department might recommend renewal for a single year tied to specific conditions of performance.

Your supervisor does you a favor by being frank and thorough at this stage of your career. If there is a clear mismatch between individual and institution, it is better for everyone to acknowledge that sooner rather than later. A much more likely scenario is that reasonable development is occurring and some form of renewal will be granted. That renewal, whether year by year or for a longer period, should be viewed as an opportunity for continued professional development. It is your department head's responsibility to provide you with the sort of three-year review described herein, if you do not receive one, then it is your responsibility to request one in writing, copying your dean in the process.

 

Promotion and Tenure Review  Back to top

Process begins spring of year 5 with decision by June 15 of year 6

A recommendation for promotion from assistant to associate professor, or from associate to full professor is viewed as coming at the "normal" time when that recommendation is formally presented during the sixth year in rank in a process that starts in the spring or summer of the fifth year. The assumption is that most recommendations for people who clearly merit promotion will come at that time. A recommendation for promotion made in the fifth year is exceptional, one in the fourth year really extraordinary, and so on down, with corresponding expectations. The candidate must have established in the shorter time unequivocal evidence, both in published scholarship or its equivalent in the arts, and in teaching, that the quality equals or surpasses that required in sixth year cases. Any decision to request "early" consideration should be made only after discussing thoroughly all the scenarios and consequences with your department head, and dean. With the promotion to full professor, years in rank beyond six do not change the expectations of what is required for promotion to full professor; there may be a shift in emphasis between criteria to reflect the many differences individual professional careers entail.

A faculty member may apply for a leave without pay for either personal or professional reasons. Leaves of one year or less are often approved as long as the absence does not cause real disruption within the program. In some cases the tenure probationary period may be altered in individual cases when there is a specific written agreement between the institution and the faculty member. Be aware also that some promotion and tenure evaluations look at rates of production, so an overall rate which is very slow will in all likelihood need justification.

The University of Oregon has a liberal policy allowing leaves without pay for the birth or adoption of a child and other family-related needs. In the case of birth or adoption, this leave (http://policies.uoregon.edu/ch3q.html) may stop the clock as long as the request for extension of the tenure probationary period is initiated no later than twelve months after the birth or adoption. The university acknowledges that pregnancy, childbearing, or adoption may lessen a faculty member's scholarship for a period of time even when he or she is continuing to fulfill assigned instructional responsibilities and is not on extended sick leave or leave without pay. In these circumstances the faculty member can enter into a special agreement with the University to extend the probationary period for one year. Any request for leave without pay that is combined with a request to suspend the tenure clock shall in no case lead to a suspension exceeding twelve months. Leaves to stop the clock in the last year before consideration for tenure are not usually granted.

In the spring and summer of year 5

Your department or unit head puts together your dossier, collecting teaching data, requesting letters of reference after consulting you about appropriate referees outside the university, and gathering an updated vita, a candidate's statement, and copies of scholarly works from you in the process.

In September of year 5

The deans notify the Office of Academic Affairs of those being considered for promotion and tenure.

In November of year 5

In CAS, after reviewing the completed dossier, a selected or appointed departmental committee, or the full tenured faculty, votes by ballot on the case and makes a recommendation to the department head. If your own department is too small to provide a sufficient number of appropriate committee members, other UO faculty members who have areas of expertise that render them qualified to make evaluations of your dossier and contributions may sit at this level. The department head then composes a letter of analysis, makes his or her independent recommendation, and forwards the case to the dean by November 1. In other schools and colleges, an advisory or a personnel committee, usually elected, of tenured representatives of the school or college evaluates the file, votes, writes an analysis, and forwards the case to the dean. The dean reviews the case and writes an analysis. There is a meeting between the candidate and the dean or associate dean, if so designated. The dean forwards the case and a recommendation to the Office of Academic Affairs by the end of November.

After the dean has formulated a recommendation, but before a dossier is sent to the Office of Academic Affairs, the dean or associate dean, if so designated, will meet with the candidate. In this meeting the dean will provide you with a description of the documents that have been assembled in the dossier, and a summary of the recommendations at the various levels to date. If you have waived access to your dossier, you may at this point request a written summary of the meeting with the Dean. If you feel after this meeting and reading the written summary prepared by the dean, that aspects of your work have been misrepresented, misunderstood, or omitted, you may respond in a written statement which will accompany the materials at subsequent review levels. If you have not waived access, you may at this point examine all the contents of the dossier and likewise respond in writing. This step in the review process is intended to ensure that all candidates are informed of the contents of their dossier so that they may know if their case is adequately represented from their vantage point

In January of year 6

In CAS the Dean's AdvisoryCommittee, (made up of elected CAS faculty), and then the dean reviews and evaluates the dossier. The dean, on his or her own volition or in response to requests from the Dean's Advisory Committee, may seek additional information and request additional references from sources either inside or outside the institution. The dean or designated associate dean meets with the candidate to inform them of the recommendation to be forwarded. The dossier and the dean's recommendation are then submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs.

During late winter term and spring term

The Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs reviews the file for completeness and general presentation,and may request additional information from the dean. The dossier then goes to the Faculty Personnel Committee. The Faculty Personnel Committee is made up of ten elected faculty members from the various colleges and schools in the university as well as two advisory students nominated by the ASUO. The Committee reviews the dossier, may request additional information, discusses the merits of the case, votes, writes an explanation of the decision, and returns the case to the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs who will meet with the Provost to discuss and pass along the case. Taking into advisement the dossier and the recommendations at the various levels, the Provost then makes the final decision. The authority for awarding tenure is delegated to the Provost, whose decision can be yes or no regardless of all the earlier advice and recommendations. If there is a question about the strength of the case, the decision will be negative. Here is a list of what your dossier will contain by the time it gets to theProvost. (Items with * are prepared or provided at least in part by the candidate - for further details and examples related to the required dossier elements listed below, see the virtual file to the left of this page).

• Vita*
• Statement of duties and responsibilities
• A candidate's statement*
• Letters of evaluation. *Candidate may propose names of qualified outside referees, some of whom will be contacted
• Statement of waiver, partial waiver, or non-waiver*
• Conditions of appointment
• Teaching evaluations and supplemental teaching materials*
• Evidence of professional activities*
• Department committee recommendation
• Department head's evaluation and recommendation
• Dean's Advisory Committee recommendation
• Dean's evaluation and recommendation
• Voting summary
• It may also include additional materials collected by the dean and/or Provost, if deemed necessary or advisable.

In the spring of year 6

You are formally notified of the Provost's decision. The decision on tenure rests ultimately with the Provost, whose decision is final. Within the bounds of reasonable behavior, the Provost's decision can be either yes or no regardless of all the specific pieces of advice that came before. If you receive a negative decision, grounds for review exist only if the decision was flawed by improper procedure, by illegal discrimination, or by arbitrariness or capriciousness. Those who have not waived access may see the subsequent vote and report of the Faculty Personnel Committee. If you feel the departmental report and outside letters have been inadequately summarized for you, or that your case has been misrepresented, or that internal bias exists and you have been treated unfairly, first try to get a "reality check" from a disinterested but knowledgeable third party after a full and fair disclosure of the situation. Then exhaust the channels for informal inquiry within the University before trying formal complaints. If you feel you received an unwarranted negative decision, there are a number of avenues open to you. You should proceed with the realization that process, not standards, is the only ground for appeal and that any action you take needs to be taken judiciously. The internal channels that are available include:

• Your department head and your department's Affirmative Action liaison
• The dean of your college or school
• The Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (207 Johnson Hall, ext. 3081)
• The Director of the Office of Affirmative Action (472 Oregon Hall ext. 3123)

Administrators can look into your file, correct proven errors and obvious injustices, and advise you about other courses of action. If after seeking good advice, you still feel that a formal complaint is justified, you can invoke university grievance procedures;you can consult with the local AAUP chapter for clarification on grievanceprocedure and rights; and you can go to the Oregon Bureau of Labor, to the Civil Rights Division, or in some cases, directly to the Oregon Courts.

 

Post Tenure Reviews Back to top

Tenured faculty members are expected to maintain a consistently satisfactory level of performance in the essential areas of research, teaching, professional growth, leadership, and service. At least once every three years, each tenured professor's record of performance is subjected to a thorough examination of peer review. The purpose of these reviews is to identify faculty members who merit special recognition or need special assistance. The criteria are the same as those for promotion and tenure: continuing professional growth, scholarly activities, creative and artistic achievement, maintenance of high quality of teaching, exercise of leadership in academic and administrative service, and service and activities on behalf of the larger community. The process of review also mirrors that for promotion and tenure, except that the case is developed by an elected or appointed departmental committee and is not submitted to the university-wide Faculty Personnel Committee. The dean and the Provost do review the case and may comment on it. For more information see the Post Tenure Review Policy. 

The standards for promotion to full professor mirror those for tenure and promotion to associate professor: high quality performance in both teaching and service is a must and national or international prominence in scholarship or artistic performance is expected as well. Promotion to full professor does not come automatically with longevity at UO. While some faculty members retire asassociate professors, this is not in the best interest of the university or the individual. One mission of a research university is the contribution of new knowledge and levels of performance. Our resources and faculty workloads are allocated to allow for research. Productivity in your discipline is as much arequirement of the job as is meeting your responsibilities to your students, your department, and the broader university community. In addition to your service as teacher and university community member, you need to stay active as a scholar in your discipline at a level that merits recognition and promotion to full professor within six to ten years of your becoming an associate professor. Standards for promotion do not change over time - when seeking promotion to Professor, you are expected to have as productive - if not more so- a scholarly record after ten or twelve years, as you needed to be promoted to a tenured associate professorship after six years. It is recognized that there is variability in career paths across the UO's many disciplines, therefore, a shift in the weighting of teaching versus research versus service accomplishments may be carried out in some cases, with promotion to Professor as the proper reward for excellence.

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.