Guidelines for the Preparation of Tenure Dossiers Kevin McLaughlin Dean of the Faculty September 13, 2018
Summary of 2011 procedural changes • minimum number of letters increased from 5 to 8; • candidate and committee generate lists independently, and committee combines them into final list • candidate does not see the list of proposed referees – but retains the ability to suggest referees and to identify individuals with whom there might be a conflict; • department submits the final list of proposed referees to the appropriate Dean for review and comment before soliciting letters; must include at least 3 names from candidate’s list • candidate is not informed of the exact vote in the department meeting.
Steps in the Preparation of the Tenure Dossier Submission of Candidate and Chair Selection of referee list to work together to department’s appropriate Dean, prepare material for committee for review the dossier BioMed and SPH Dossier is sent to Department’s dossiers sent to DoF for a preliminary meeting and vote relevant Dean for review review Dossier approved by DoF, final version submitted, case scheduled
Preparing the TPAC dossier • Reappointments, Promotions, Tenure Reviews and Senior Searches culminate with the preparation of a dossier to present the evidence on which the department’s recommendation is based. The materials should also describe and document the process and procedures by which the dossier was assembled. [The following steps in the process are numbered according to the TPAC Dossier Preparation Guide]
The TPAC Dossier Prep Guide has replaced the checklists for individual faculty actions
Required Materials Comments 1. Cover memo (which may be Be clear about electorate combined with the Department Retired faculty don’t vote Review, #4.) Secret ballot is preferred The specific recommendation Taking “straw votes” is not Final vote (with numbers) recommended; any such Names of faculty attending preliminary votes should be meeting during which the reported. vote was taken Include in quorum and Names of eligible faculty not official vote only those at this meeting present and/or participating Stipulated quorum for such in the discussion (via meetings telephone or video call-in).
Required Materials Comments Cover memo, continued: Summarize full range of views expressed during discussion. An explanation of the Draft memo is circulated to all reasons for abstentions (if voting faculty for comments any) and suggestions. Minority report to TPAC is An explanation of the views allowable if disagreements of those voting in the persist. minority Share minority reports with all members of the department who participated in the vote.
Required Materials Comments Cover memo, continued: Explain the intellectual terrain in The unit’s view of how which the candidate’s work is the candidate’s academic situated, her/his contributions specialty is important, to the field. Explain how the within the larger field or candidate met the needs and discipline expectations of the department A full and candid at the time of hire. discussion of the issues Provide an overview of the raised in the department evaluative process and meeting, and of the considerations that led to the strengths and recommendation. Address any weaknesses of the case concerns.
Required Materials Comments 2. Informing the candidate Positive vote: department chair informs candidate, All candidates should be preferably in person or by informed of the results of the phone department’s vote soon after Tie or negative recommend- the meeting (within a week) ation: letter from the chair, first vetted by voting faculty. [chair should inform candidate in person or by phone first, and tell them to expect letter]
Required Materials Comments 3. Waiver of right to appear The candidate should be at the department meeting invited well in advance of the meeting date. If the candidate chooses to appear, include a summary of appearance in the meeting minutes (#12).
Required Materials Comments 4. Department review A qualitative and frank (which may be combined assessment of the candidate with Cover Memo #1) Focus on published and/or Candidate’s scholarship and completed work professional development Summarize impact Discuss future trajectory Address strengths and weaknesses
Required Materials Comments Department review, Multiple modes of teaching continued: assessments: comparative data, peer observations, Candidate’s teaching student comments, review effectiveness in both of teaching materials, etc. undergraduate and graduate courses (you can refer to Letters from students are data included in next section, discouraged. Information on Teaching #5)
Required Materials Comments 5. Information on Dept will generate a Cognos Teaching report, “TPAC Tabular Summary of Teaching” (instructions are on the DoF Tenure and Promotions page) Comparative information is useful, i.e. how the ratings compare to those in similar courses. Include class observations by peers, (highly recommended, though not required)
New Guidelines for Peer Observation of Teaching are posted on this webpage
Guidelines for Peer Observation of Teaching • Recommendations as to frequency of observations, and the faculty ranks eligible to conduct them • To coincide with annual, reappointment, and tenure reviews, so that the reports can be incorporated into these reviews • Guidance regarding the conduct of peer observations
Required Materials Comments 6. Candidate’s current c.v. Brown format c.v. no longer required, c.v. should be logically and chronologically organized 7. Candidate’s statement No required format for statement (generally 2-5 pages) 8. Copies of annual reviews since last appointment If tenure review follows soon after last reappointment, consult with DoF about including the reappointment review in dossier.
Required Materials Comments 9. Copies of relevant Discuss deviations from department correspondence, standard solicitation letter including sample request to with DoF in advance of referees and responses contacting evaluators Include all declines and any substantive responses Provide full list of all those asked to write, indicating who suggested which referees – at least 3 should be from candidate’s list. (chart may be necessary for clarity)
Required Materials Comments 10. (at least) 8 letters* from See TPAC Dossier Preparation scholars who are not Guide for details on the advisors, close collaborators, number of letters required for or writers from an earlier other types of faculty actions action, although these people may supplement the requirements. *for tenure case
Required Materials Comments 11. Brief biographies of Indicate why the letter writers evaluator’s opinions are given particular weight by the department. Note any relationships with candidate, or previous Brown affiliation
Required Materials Comments 12. Minutes of the official Provide full accounting of meeting on this matter the issues discussed. Redact as appropriate to exclude personal/ irrelevant information, or discussion of other candidates. If candidate comes to the meeting, the minutes should indicate that.
Required Materials Comments 13. Department Standards TPAC will evaluate a and Criteria department’s s & c against the arguments advanced in support of the recommendation. 14. Publications Actual publications, or links embedded in a Word document. Hard copies of books are OK to submit (they’ll be returned to you after the case is complete)
Other Reviews Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor o At least 5 of the 8 letters required must be “arm’- length” o For those >7 years in rank, consider “full range of accomplishments and contributions” Promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer o 5 letters required, some of which may be from within Brown Reappointment reviews o Internal review only--no letters, bios, etc. Otherwise follow same general guidelines Non-Regular faculty (Professors of the Practice, Research) o See DoF Tenure and Promotions webpage for guidance
Distinguished Senior Lecturer New rank is designed to recognize exceptional performance, a consistent record of excellence in teaching and significant service to the department, University, and profession. Candidates must have served at least 6 years in rank as senior lecturer before they can be considered for promotion Senior lecturers who were eligible when the rank was created and wish to be considered for promotion, will be reviewed in 2017-18. Thereafter, recommendations for promotion will be considered at the time of reappointment.
Distinguished Senior Lecturer Department standards and criteria must be updated for this new rank 5 letters are required from evaluators external to Brown, additional letters may be from within Brown, and may be from senior lecturers as well as tenured or tenure-track faculty This year’s deadline for dossier submission is March 1
Recommend
More recommend
