Guidelines for the Preparation of Tenure Dossiers

Kevin McLaughlinDean of the Faculty

October 14, 2014

Summary of 2011 procedural changes

• minimum number of letters increased from 5 to 8;• candidate and department generate lists independently, and

department combines them into final list• candidate no longer has the right to see the list of proposed

referees – but does retain the ability to suggest referees as well as to identify any with whom there is a potential conflict;

• department submits the final list of proposed referees to the Dean for review and comment before soliciting letters; must include at least 3 names from candidate’s list

• practice of informing the candidate of the exact vote in the case of a negative recommendation discontinued.

Steps in the Preparation of the Dossier

Selection of departmental

committee

Submission of letter writer list to

appropriate Dean, for review

Candidate and Chair work together to prepare dossier

material

Departmental meeting and vote

Dossier is sent to DoF for a

preliminary review

Dossier approved, final version

submitted, case scheduled

Preparing the TPAC dossier

• Reappointments, Promotions, Tenure Reviews and Senior Searches culminate with the preparation of a dossier which presents the evidence on which the departmental recommendation is based. It also provides a description of the procedures that were followed by including materials which document the various steps of the process.

Cover memo

The specific recommendation Final vote (with numbers) Names of faculty attending

meeting at which vote taken Names of eligible faculty not at

this meeting Stipulated quorum for such

meetings

Be clear about electorate Retired faculty not eligible to

vote Include only those present and/or

participating in the discussion (via telephone or Skype) in quorum and official vote tally.

Secret ballot is preferred Taking “straw votes” is not

recommended; any such preliminary votes should be reported.

Required Materials Comments

Cover memo

An explanation of the reasons for abstentions (if any)

An explanation of the views of those voting in the minority

Summarize full range of views expressed during discussion.

Draft memo circulated to all voting faculty for comments and suggestions.

Minority report to TPAC is possible if disagreements persist.

Any such minority reports must be made available to all members of the department who participated in the vote.

Required Materials Comments

Cover memo

The academic unit’s view of the importance of the candidate’s academic specialty within the larger field or discipline

A full and candid discussion of the issues raised in the department meeting, and of the strengths and weaknesses of the case

Explain the intellectual terrain in which the candidate’s work is situated, his or her contributions to the field. Explain how well the candidate has met the needs and expectations the department had at the time of initial appointment.

Provide an overview of the evaluative process and considerations that led to the recommendation. Address any concerns.

Required Materials Comments

Waiver and informing the candidate

All candidates should be informed of the results of the departmental vote shortly after the meeting.

Waiver of right to appear at the department meeting.

Positive vote: the news should be told to the candidate by the chair.

Tie or negative recommendation: Letter from the chair, first vetted by voting faculty.

The candidate should be asked well in advance of the meeting. If the candidate chooses to appear, include a summary of appearance in #12, Meeting Minutes.

Required MaterialsComments

Department review

Candidate’s scholarship and professional development

Candidate’s teaching effectiveness in both undergraduate and graduate courses

[May be included in cover memo]

A qualitative and frank assessment of the candidate

Focus on published and/or completed work

Summarize impact Discuss future trajectory Address strengths and weaknesses

Multiple modes of assessment. Use comparative data, peer observations, student comments, etc.

Letters from students are not encouraged.

Required Materials Comments

Information on Teaching

List of courses taught since last appointment

If possible, provide comparative information, i.e. how the ratings compare to those in other similar courses.

Include class observations by peers, if available

Required Materials Comments

Candidate’s current c.v.

Candidate’s statement

Copies of annual reviews since last appointment

Brown format c.v. no longer required

No required format for statement

If tenure review follows soon after last reappointment consult with DOF

Required Materials Comments

Copies of relevant department correspondence, including sample request to referees and responses

(at least) 8 letters* from scholars who are not advisors, close collaborators, or who wrote at an earlier time, although these may be included as additional to the 8 required.

*for tenure case. Checklists provide details on # of letters required for other types of faculty actions

Discuss deviations from standard solicitation letter with DoF in advance of 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

Required Materials Comments

Brief biographies of letter writers

Copies of minutes of the official meeting on this matter

Indicate to TPAC why opinions of the evaluator are given particular weight by the department.

Note any relationships with candidate, or previous Brown affiliation

Provide full accounting of the issues discussed.

Redact as appropriate to exclude personal/irrelevant information, or discussion of other candidates.

Required Materials Comments

Department Standards and Criteria

Teaching evaluations

TPAC will evaluate a department’s s & c against the arguments advanced by the department in support of the recommendation.

Use of Cognos or Banner report is encouraged.

Required Materials Comments

Other Reviews

Promotion from Associate Professor to Professoro At least 5 of the 8 letters required must be “arm’s length”o For those >7 years in rank, consider “full range of

accomplishments and contributions”

Promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturero 5 letters required, some of which may be from within

Brown

Reappointment reviewso Internal review only, so no letters, bios, etc. Otherwise

follow same general guidelines.

Non-Regular facultyo See the checklists for guidance.

Senior Searches

• Special considerationso TimelineoWhen to solicit letters, and for how many

candidates?o Recommendation should be based on all available

evidence, including any letters solicited in a second round of requests

Important deadlines in the tenure process

• Early April DOF notifies academic unit chair/directors of upcoming tenure review candidates

• April 15 The chair/director, consulting with candidate, selects 3+ person tenure committee

• May 1 The candidate and tenure committee create independent lists of potential evaluators

• June 1 The combined (candidate & committee) list and brief evaluator biographies are submitted to appropriate dean (DOF/BioMed/SPH) for review. After approval, chair or tenure committee contacts potential evaluators using the standard solicitation letter.

Important deadlines in the tenure process

• November 15 The candidate has until this date to submit materials to the dossier.

• January 7 Dossier is due to DoF– Review by TPAC, which makes a recommendation – Dossier is passed to Provost, who may take up to 30 days to

review

• June 30 Notification of tenure decision must occur by this date. In the case of a negative decision, the appointment would terminate a year from this date.

Important deadlines in the reappointment process

• June 30 DOF notifies academic unit chair/directors of upcoming reappointment review candidates– Department may form a reappointment committee, or hold a meeting

of senior faculty

• September 15* Reappointment dossier due DOF/BioMed/PH

• November 1 Notification of reappointment decision must occur by this date.

• In the case of a negative decision, the appointment would terminate in 8 months (June 30).

* For June 30 contract end dates. Dossier due date for appointments ending December 31 is March 1.

sample TPAC comment form

Opinion FormTenure, Promotion and Appointment Committee

September 17, 2014

Recommendation by the Department of Anthropology that Louis Leakey be appointed as Professor, with tenure, effective July 1, 2015

(Please select one number) No (1-5; where 1=strong opposition) Yes (6-10; where 10=strong support)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please use this space for any additional comments you wish to provide about this case.