APPENDIX F
GUIDELINES FOR THE TENURE AND PROMOTION PROCESS
[These guidelines, provided by the Promotion and Tenure Committee, are updated and revised periodically.]
General advice: Guide the committee’s reading of your file. Have a clear rationale for what you include and communicate the importance of each piece to the committee.
F.1 Contents of the File
F.1.1 Overview
• Table of Contents
• letter of application to chair/Dean
• personnel data sheet
• curriculum vitae
• Faculty Annual Activity Reports and Annual Performance Reviews
• letters of recommendation
• rationale
• appendices
F.1.2 Letter of Application to Chair/Dean
Advice: This should be no longer than one paragraph, describing the basic criteria that have been met (i.e. the length of service here or in the rank, the completion of degree requirements, etc.).
F.1.3 Personnel Data Sheet This is inserted by the Academic Affairs Office with your signature.
F.1.4 Curriculum Vitae
Advice: Candidates generally should follow the format included in the Faculty Handbook as Appendix C. This has provided uniformity and allowed the mention of service items which might not be included in usual career formats. Cf. §5.5.2.
F.1.5 Faculty Annual Activity Reports (FAARs) and Annual Performance Reviews (APRs) by the Chair/Dean
Advice: Be sure these are signed. If any are missing or late, make sure that the chair/Dean addresses this in his/her letter.
F.1.6 Letters of Recommendation
Advice: Include multiple sources (chair, departmental colleagues, faculty colleagues, professional colleagues, perhaps some graduated students) clearly substantiating specific claims related to the criteria. Omit letters which attest only to general character.
F.1.7 Rationale
Advice: The candidate should explain as clearly and concisely as possible (in no more than ten pages) how he or she meets all the general (§6.2) and specific (§6.3) criteria for promotion and/or tenure. In many instances the explanation could be as short as a sentence. Discussion of performance in the areas of teaching, professional activity and service will normally be fairly lengthy.
F.1.8 Appendices Include here representative materials that attest to effectiveness and achievement, not merely meeting normal expectations (office hours, etc.).
G.1.8.1 Student Evaluation Computer Sheets from the Dean’s Office and/or Tables Providing Descriptive Evidence
Advice: Because teaching is very difficult to evaluate, make a concerted effort to include other useful sources of information about quality of teaching. Consider visitation reports, awards, publications or presentations about teaching, and formal involvement in programs focused on improving your teaching. Aim to present converging lines of evidence instead of depending upon a single measure. If you include student comments, provide a clear interpretation of them. Do not include all the individual pages. The inclusion of selected favorable student comments is unpersuasive.
F.1.8.2 Representative Syllabi, Tests, and Assignments
Advice: Do not include all materials you have used during the period under review. Select examples which, with explanation if necessary, will help the committee understand what you are trying to accomplish in the classroom and how you go about it. If necessary, annotate materials.
F.1.8.3 Proof of Achievement in Professional Activity
Advice: Include only the material relevant to your time at Mary Washington (for tenure) or at your current rank (for promotion). It is sufficient to include photocopies of the first page of an article or a table of contents from a book rather than an offprint or photocopy of the full text. Visual work produced in media other than print can be represented by photographs. Describe electronic or digital products clearly, explaining what they do and how you designed them. Do not include books, videotapes, films, or computer programs.
F. 2 Physical Appearance of the File
F.2.1 The amount of material should fit within one ring binder no more than two inches thick.
F.2.2 Avoid using plastic sleeves and folders with pockets.
F.2.3 Number the pages in an organized fashion.
F.2.4 Use section dividers.
F.3 Expectations for the Constituents in the Process
F.3.1 The Dean The Dean should verify that materials are submitted on time and, on the specified date, close the portfolio. The Dean should make portfolios available to the committee promptly in a way that facilitates the committee’s work and protects the confidentiality of the portfolios. The Dean should brief the committee clearly on relevant institutional constraints before it begins deliberating and assist both the committee and the candidates in protecting the confidentiality of the process. After the committee forwards its recommendations, the Dean may meet with them to clarify the recommendations. In reaching her/his own recommendations, the Dean should consider first whether or not the candidate’s record of achievement as represented in the portfolio satisfies the relevant criteria. The Dean may also consider two other factors: institutional constraints on promotion or tenure; and additional information about the candidate’s performance which s/he has learned through formal processes and which is clearly represented in the candidate’s personnel folder. In no case is the Dean to grant any credence to anonymous or informal claims about the candidate’s performance.
Advice: Candidates should review information contained in the Dean’s personnel folder as they begin preparing their portfolios.
F.3.2 Department Chair The chair’s letter should explain the candidate’s role in the department. How do the candidate’s courses fit into the department’s enterprise? In what significant ways does the candidate contribute to the department’s operation? The chair should take extra care to explain the department’s style of operation, so that the candidate’s important roles can be more adequately understood. The committee also needs guidance on intangible contributions, as we presume that complementary strengths enhance a department’s overall value. The committee might miss such values as native speaker, strong experimentalist, exceptional discussion leader, or student-writing advocate unless the department describes them. The chair’s letter should also explain the significance and quality of the candidate’s professional activity. The chair’s letter should then give an honest summative evaluation of the candidate’s work in all three areas. The committee asks for the chair’s best, most careful judgment of the candidate’s work over an extended time. That judgment should be based on specific information reported in the letter and (usually) reflected in the series of evaluations which the portfolio contains. Finally, the committee assumes that the chair has verified the accuracy of all substantive claims on the candidate’s curriculum vitae.
F.3.3 Departmental Colleagues Departmental colleagues should explain the candidate’s role in the department (teaching, service): How do the candidate’s courses fit into the department’s enterprise? In what significant ways does the candidate contribute to the department’s operation? In addition, the departmental colleagues’ letters should help to explain the significance of the candidate’s professional activity. The letters should also address the areas shared by the candidate and the writer. Recommendations should be based on specific information.
F.3.4 Institutional Colleagues Institutional colleagues should explain the specific contexts in which they have worked with the candidate and evaluate her/his performance in those areas. Recommendations should be based on specific information which is reported in the letter.
F.3.5 Colleagues in the Discipline Candidates should see that these references address the context in which the candidate’s work has become known and the standing of the candidate’s work within the discipline or the profession.