| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195
Deans of the Schools and Colleges
Dear Colleagues:
As we enter Autumn Quarter, tenure and promotion
considerations are beginning in the departments, Schools and
Colleges. Last year, I appointed an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
of distinguished faculty to advise me on promotion and tenure
matters. I previously shared with you that Committee's report
and recommendations.
The majority of the recommendations from the
Committee concern the documentation provided in the review
process. While each unit has its own guidelines and traditions,
particularly as they relate to the relative weight placed
on the various criteria for tenure and promotion, some institution-wide
criteria and processes and mandated. This letter outlines
procedures that will be followed this year in considering
out faculty colleagues for promotion and tenure.
The record of the faculty member is the basis
for the decision. Hence, it is essential that the candidate
personally assemble his/her materials, which, of course, will
be supplemented by other department/School/College materials.
In order to achieve some consistency in the materials provided,
a candidate should have, at minimum, the following
materials in his/her
packet:
- A current vita. The faculty member's
vita should include a list of publications, with all authors
of published materials listed in the identical order as
they appear on the published manuscript, and the length
-- page numbers -- of each publication listed.
- A summary of teaching evaluations.
All too often, a candidate's packet contains either undocumented
platitudes of teaching performance or all raw data in a
disorganized form. Candidates should prepare a list of all
courses taught (since time of last promotion or, if being
considered for tenure, since time of initial appointment)
with indication of teaching evaluation outcome, based on
EAC student evaluations or school- or department-designed
evaluations. The raw data on
which the summary list is based should be available to the
department faculty, chair and dean, but need not be forwarded
to the Provost. Copies of all Peer Evaluation of Teaching
reports should be included with the candidate's packet,
and forwarded to the Provost.
- Summary of service. The candidate
should be reminded that departmental, school, college, university,
professional, and community service are considered in promotion
and tenure matters. Summaries by the candidate of these
activities are expected to be included in the packet.
The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee spent considerable time thinking
about the proper methodology for soliciting
external letters. At least two, and preferably not more
than five, external letters of evaluation must be solicited
prior to the departmental faculty's considering the candidate,
as those letters are part of the dossier.
The department chair (dean in an un-departmentalized college
or school) is responsible for soliciting these external evaluations,
at least two of which must be from faculty at comparable
universities. (Others, if appropriate, could be from industry,
government agencies or laboratories, etc. However, persons
at comparable universities are usually in a better position
to provide relevant observations about the candidate.) Solicitation
should be undertaken in a neutral format, not
as requests for support, and efforts should be made, as appropriate,
to provide the external evaluator whatever written materials
(candidate’s publications and vita) the evaluator may
need to do a thorough job.
Each department, school, or college has its own traditions
on how outside evaluators are identified: some ask the candidate
for suggestions of evaluators, while others do not involve
the candidate at all. Whatever process is used, the documentation
provided by the chair should include an explanation of the
process, as well as a copy of the solicitation letter and
the originals of all external evaluations received.
The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee did note that soliciting outside
letters was “problematic” when there is a faculty
recommendation to postpone. At the same time, having external
evaluations is often influential in the determination of whether
a postponement is the correct action, and having them is particularly
important at the dean’s level. I am not sure there is
an answer to this dilemma. The general rule is that external
letters should be solicited before the faculty votes its recommendation;
however, in “obvious” postponement cases, the
solicitation of such letters may be waived, with an explanation
forwarded with the dossier.
In my view, one of the most important documents in any promotion
or tenure consideration is the chair’s letter to the
dean (or the dean’s letter in an un-departmentalized
college or school). As the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee noted,
chairs
“need to understand the importance of providing information
beyond full descriptions of the candidate’s record
and accomplishments in all three areas specified by the
Faculty Code. The nature and content of faculty discussion
in tenure and promotion meetings must be a part of the record
as well as a clear statement about the unit’s criteria
for tenure and promotion. (Insofar as possible, the chair
should explain the basis of negative votes.) In addition,
the chair’s letters need to offer an independent assessment
of the candidate and of his/her role in the present and
future development of the academic unit.”
This statement fully describes my expectations of what a
chair's letter should contain.
The Faculty Code requires that department chairs meet annually
with assistant professors and document the nature of the discussion
and progress of the faculty member towards tenure. On occasion
it may be necessary to refer to these summaries so that a
comparison of the periodic advice given and the outcome of
the tenure decision can be made for consistency purposes.
Similarly, deans' letters need to provide insight into the
views of the College Council, explaining the reasons for the
vote at that level, particularly in the instance of divided
votes or votes different from those of the department. Where
the college Council or dean makes a recommendation different
from that of the department, greater detail is even more important.
With this documentation, there should be fewer instances
requiring me to go back to the dean for additional information
or clarification. This will improve my ability to make these
decisions in an efficient and timely manner.
Please note that in 2000, this paragraph is no
longer the case and the University does assure confidentiality:
Another item to note. A recent Washington Supreme Court decision
interpreted the State's Public Records Law to be very broad
in its application. It appears that the University can no
longer assure external reviewers, or our own faculty and chairs
who provide materials in these processes, that their written
letters, comments, and analyses can be kept confidential.
We should not, therefore, make any assurances of confidentiality
in our requests for evaluations of candidates.
I have determined that having the direct advice of a faculty
group was very useful to me. I intend to again appoint an
Ad Hoc Faculty Advisory Committee to assist me in particularly
difficult decisions. Following the advice of the last committee,
I will not submit all cases to the Committee for input, but
only those which I believe greater input would be useful (for
example, when the dean and department recommendations differ).
Please feel free to share this letter with your department
chairs.
Sincerely,
Signed: Laurel L.Wilkening, Provost
|
