Dossiers for 1996-97 are due in the Office of Academic Affairs by February 14, 1997.
Exceptions may be made be advance arrangement.
Please submit in three-ring binders, assembled as follows:
Include name of candidate and table of contents. All pages should be numbered.
Include check list (sample attached).
All faculty have the option of signing a "Waiver of Access" form for outside letters of evaluation. The signed original should be included in this section. A copy of the current waiver form is attached. Execution of the waiver is voluntary.
A copy of the candidate's current position description should be included. If significant shifts in assignment have occurred, earlier position descriptions should be included. Within each position description, identify expectations and the approximate percentage of responsibility associated with these three areas: teaching, advising, and other assigned duties; scholarship and creative activity; and service.
The candidate should include a statement (three page maximum) that addresses the individual's contributions in the areas of teaching, advising and other assignments; scholarship and creative activity; and service.
As required by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, students must be invited to participate in the review of faculty for promotion and tenure. The supervisor of the tenure unit will select and invite an appropriate number of students to evaluate that portion of the candidate's dossier related to teaching. A letter of evaluation written by the student representatives will be added to the dossier. Units may develop a similar process for evaluating the delivery of programs to other clients.
It is important that these letters be of evaluation and not simply letters of advocacy. They should address both the strengths and relative weaknesses in the candidate's record of performance. These letters should not simply be a restatement of evaluations at lower administrative levels. Summarize primary points made by each external evaluator for faculty who have signed "Waiver of Access" forms. Identify evaluators only by a coded reference number or letter when referring to a comment in a confidential letter. All events in the dossier should be dated.
The vita for promotion and/or tenure review may vary from the standard vita. It should be formatted to follow the section headings below.
The year, major field of study, and degree obtained from each institution should be identified. The year, location, and institution for each position held since the baccalaureate should be included in this section.
Present a chronological listing of course numbers, term, year, and number of students enrolled.
Present a chronological listing of non-credit courses, international training programs, workshops, seminars, Extension programs, and continuing education programs in which candidate has had a major responsibility. Indicate the candidate's role (program participant, program organizer, etc.)
List primary contributions in curriculum development and give dates (e.g. courses developed, curriculum committee service, etc.)
List current and former graduate students and postdoctoral trainees for whom the candidate has had a major instructional responsibility. Indicate instructional role (major professor, graduate committee member, etc.) and year the degree was or will be completed.
Indicate special efforts undertaken to team of collaborate with another individual, group, or institution in the planning or delivery of instruction.
Identify instructional activities (short and long-term) and/or curricular development that have taken place in countries other than the United States. Indicate the location, time frame, and nature of the teaching experience i.e. workshop, seminar, course, etc.
Summarize all course/program evaluations with numerical ratings. The number of students/clients in the course who submitted evaluations should be identified. The summary should include an analysis of performance over time, e.g. same course by term and year, as well as a comparisons of course to department and/or college norms on important variables such as required/not required, core or elective, and level (100, 200…), etc. Letters from individual students, clients, or program participants should not be included in this section.
Peer evaluations should be based on a review of course syllabi, texts, assigned reading, examinations, class materials, and other assessments such as attendance at lectures as appropriate for the field and subject area (Faculty Handbook, p. 43). For each entry, give course and term, a brief description of the review process, and the peer's evaluation.
Describe advising/counseling responsibilities, both formal academic advising (give number of student advisees, how often they typically meet with the adviser), and co-curricular advising (e.g. faculty adviser for student professional organization). Provide evaluations of advising performance, including dates, and describe how student input was obtained.
For faculty with primary responsibilities other that teaching and advising, information that identifies these duties and the indicators for assessing effectiveness should be included in this section.
Provide a paragraph which describes or summarizes the assigned responsibilities, target audience, collaborative aspects, international activities and number of individuals served.
Summarize evaluations highlighting the services provided and, to the extent possible, the impact of these services on identified needs.
Scholarship and creative activity are understood to be intellectual work whose significance is validated by peers and which is communicated. As specified in the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, such as work in its diverse forms is based on a high level of professional expertise; must give evidence of originality; must be documented and validated as through peer review or critique; and must be communicated in appropriate ways so as to have impact on or significance for publics beyond the University, or for the discipline itself.
Faculty service is essential to the University's success in achieving its central mission. Service is an expectation for promotion for al ranks at Oregon State University.
List departmental, college, and University committees (or other responsibilities), with dates.
List involvement with professional associations/societies, especially offices held, research advisory or review panels, and other evidence of regional, national, or international stature and service to the profession. Provide dates for all activities.
List service provided to the public which is consistent with professional training and responsibilities. Provide dates. Service that is relevant to a faculty member's assignment, and which draws upon professional expertise or contributes significantly to university relations, is considered and valued in promotion and tenure decision.
Community service not directly related to the faculty member's appointment, though valuable in itself, and ideally a responsibility of all citizens, is considered in promotion and tenure decisions to the extent that it contributes to the University.
Include awards received from professional organizations/societies, Oregon State University, civic or community groups. The nature of the award and reason received, e.g., teaching and advising, scholarship, etc., should be identified. The awards should be grouped, to the extent possible, into the following headings.
Solicited Letters of Evaluation from Outside Letters in the Field (5 minimum, 8 maximum)
Letters should generally be from leaders in the candidate's field, chosen for their ability to evaluate the candidate's scholarly work. Only in rare cases should letters be solicited from co-authors, co-principal investigators, former professors, or former students. Letters should generally be from tenured professors or individuals or equivalent stature outside of academe who are widely recognized in the field.
As described in Promotion and Tenure Guidelines (July, 1995), the candidate may submit a list of individuals meeting these criteria and, from this list, at least three will be selected by the department chair or head (or chair of the unit's Promotion and Tenure Committee). The other reviewers are to be selected by the chair, head, dean, or faculty committee according to practices determined within the unit. All letters must be requested by the department chair, head, dean, or the unit's promotion and tenure committee chair, not the candidate.
A representative form letter is attached, but any reasonable variation is acceptable. Include a copy of the actual letter used. Each reviewer should be sent a copy of the candidate's position description, personal statement, and current vita. Copies of publications are not usually sent to reviewers, but may be sent at the discretion of the individual soliciting the letter. Provide a log of contacts with the reviewers, including letters and telephone calls. Letters from external reviewers should be available prior to initiating the review of the dossier.
Additional letters from sources other than administrators, unit promotion and tenure committees, the student committee, and external reviewers are not necessary. Signed letters of support or advocacy from friends, colleagues, students, and clients should be included only if they are necessary for fairness and balance. If there is some compelling reason to include such letters, the unit supervisor should write a statement identifying the significance of the letters, whether solicited or unsolicited, and the need to include them in the dossier. All letters should be letters of evaluation and should be open to the candidate. Include any other material that may be relevant to a full and fair review.
Prior to the dossier receiving its first formal review, the candidate should sign a statement that he or she has reviewed the open part of the dossier and that it is complete and current. The candidate retains the right of access to recommendations added by deans, heads, chairs, directors, and unit promotion and tenure committees.