Report From the Tenure and Promotion Task Force

• Home
• Academic Affairs Program Prioritization
• Administrative List
• Administrative Searches
• Faculty Awards Program
• Faculty Mentoring
• Faculty Resources
• Faculty/Staff Fitness Program
• New Faculty
• New Faculty Orientation
• Promoted and Tenured Faculty for 2009
• Prospective Faculty
• Resources for Female Faculty, Staff, and Students
• Safety on Campus
• Site Index
• Teaching Portfolio

Report From Tenure and Promotion Task Force

Submitted to Provost Robert Bates
Chair: Warwick Bayly

Task Force Members: Greg Hooks, Sociology; Ursula Mazur, Chemistry; Tracy Skaer, Pharmacy; Ken Butterfield, Management and Decision Sciences; Greg Kessler, Architecture; Leonard Orr; English; Ginny Steel, Libraries; Judy Mitchell, Education; Margaret Bruya, Nursing; Barry Swanson, FSHN; Fran McSweeney, Provost's Office.

The Tenure and Promotion Task Force met on a regular basis from the time it was convened in March 2003 until mid-December, 2003. In the course of these meetings it grappled with some weighty issues that reflect the diverse nature of faculty duties at WSU and the various ways in which individual academic units have made determinations regarding tenure and promotion. Members of the task force worked well together and many individuals contributed large amounts of time to the review process and the preparation of this report.

The process by which the task force arrived at the recommendations below involved an initial review of documents provided by your office and general discussion of perceived major difficulties with the existing tenure and promotion evaluation process. Throughout our deliberations we relied heavily on the recommendations made by a similar task force that reported to Provost Bataille in June 1999. As a result of this initial dialog, several key points emerged:

1. There is great variation in the standards and ways in which faculty are prepared and evaluated for tenure and promotion. Development and articulation of consistent procedures that can and will be applied across the university is essential.

2. There is a need to upgrade expectations in some areas.

3. Examples of what might represent minimum standards should be incorporated in any guidelines. These will be purely advisory and qualitative in nature. They are not intended to be prescriptive.

4. All documents/guidelines should include information that is relevant to faculty on urban campuses, including library services, extension, administrative services, as well as teaching and scholarship.

AS A RESULT OF OUR DELIBERATIONS, WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS.

Following these specific recommendations we have added several appendices, which incorporate some of these recommendations as well as offer commentaries and guidelines for the conduct of particular aspects of the tenure and promotion process at WSU. These are designed to address various issues that we believe require clarification and /or are perceived sources of existing procedural inconsistencies.

1. DEVELOP A MANUAL ON ALL ASPECTS OF FACULTY PERFORMANCE REVIEW.

We recommend that the Provost engage the services of a technical writer to prepare a manual that addresses the numerous issues of faculty evaluation, including tenure and promotion. The manual should include material currently available in the Faculty Manual. It should include information currently in the Provost's Guidelines for the preparation of tenure and promotion files, and it should address common misconceptions about tenure and promotion (e.g., that tenure is a right; that the tenure decision is based on a simple majority of the faculty ballots). It should also contain a timeline of the tenure and promotion process (see RECOMMENDATION #7) along with some guidelines and checklists (see RECOMMENDATION #8). Finally, it should clarify some topics that are currently confused. For example,

1. When may a candidate withdraw from consideration?

2. Who writes the context statement and what should the statement contain?

3. What are the standards for early promotion and tenure?

4. What procedures should be followed when a new faculty member is offered an appointment with tenure?

5. What are the procedures for evaluating people with split appointments?

6. How should the situation be resolved when the tenure and promotion guidelines for different units (e.g., college, department) contain conflicting information?
   This manual should be placed on the provost's web page and should be distributed to faculty members at the time of their initial appointment. Vice Provost McSweeney has a list of the deliberations of our committee that should be included in such a manual.

2. MANDATORY MENTORING.

Each new faculty member shall have a mentor or mentor/advisory committee. The identity of the mentor or the advisory committee shall be mutually agreed on by the pre-tenure faculty and the department chair or unit head. It is recommended that this occur in the first semester of appointment and it is required by the end of the first year unless the faculty member waives the right to such advice. The mentor or the chair of the mentor/advisory committee must accept this responsibility in writing. We recommend that the department chairs or unit director not serve as the appointed mentor or be part of any designated mentoring committee.

The department chair bears the responsibility of mentoring associate professors to the rank of full professor. The chair can handle this responsibility by him or herself or (s)he can delegate it to another full professor or committee of full professors. It is not expected that all associate professors will become professors. Nevertheless, all associate professors should be given guidance during their work towards the higher rank.

While mentoring is mandatory, the individual faculty member is ultimately responsible for his/her performance and the quality of his/her application for promotion and/or tenure. It is not the function of the mentor or advisory committee to ensure that candidate is granted tenure and;/or promoted.

3. MANDATORY COLLEGE ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

Each college should appoint or elect a tenure and promotion advisory committee that will be used to consider applications for tenure and/or promotion, and also third year reviews. Effort should be made to ensure representation of groups that may not have been adequately represented in earlier parts of the process (e.g., women, ethnic minorities). This committee should be comprised of one or two tenured senior faculty representatives from each department or equivalent unit in the college unless the size of the college is such that the size of the committee would be unwieldy. In these instances, the advisory committee will be made up of representatives of thematically linked departments or units within the college (e.g., arts and humanities, social sciences, physical sciences, biological sciences). The purpose of such advisory committees is to provide a broader examination of a candidate's qualifications in terms of the expectations and standards of the disciplines represented by the college. Such committees are intended to be advisory to the dean. A written summary of the conclusions of the college advisory committee should be included in the dean's summary of the case.

We recommend that department chairs not be part of any college Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee. Members of such committees must abstain from considerations of a person whom they have evaluated during earlier parts of the process. This advisory committee should have the chair's analysis (but not faculty ballots) as part of the material to review and should be able to request more information or meet with the chair for additional clarification if it would help the committee's deliberations.

4. APPOINTMENT OF A PROVOST'S LEVEL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

The committee carefully considered the question of appointing an advisory committee at the level of the provost, and there was no clear-cut opinion on the advisability of doing so. Appointing such a committee will entail more work and it may slow the tenure and promotion process. Nevertheless, such a committee provides a number of advantages that might outweigh the disadvantages. The committee would provide a broader perspective on individual tenure and promotion cases than is currently available and it would help educate committee members about the tenure and promotion process and difficult issues associated with this process. It would provide needed advice to the provost on hard decisions. It would help to ensure more uniform procedures across the university by educating the faculty about the procedures and standards used in other colleges. Ensuring uniform procedures will become even more important and difficult with the development of the urban campuses and with the increasing emphasis on interdisciplinary teaching and research, and the split appointments that will likely accompany such activities.

We did not determine the exact format of this committee but it should be made up of professors, possibly from college committees, and have representation from each urban campus and college with the exception of Nursing and Pharmacy, which would be jointly represented by one person, chosen from either college on an alternate basis. . Members should be appointed in consultation with the faculty senate for staggered, limited, terms. (e.g., each year, one third of the committee might be appointed to a three-year term). Committee members will be expected to excuse themselves when any candidate from their college or in the case of urban campuses, is considered. The committee should have access to all of the information on which the tenure and promotion decision is to be based. To speed its work, the committee should be allowed to break into subcommittees to review individual cases, but problematic cases should be discussed by the group as a whole. The committee should provide a written recommendation to the provost on each case.

5. DEVELOPMENT OF A STANDARDIZED, WEB-BASED, ANNUAL REVIEW FORM.

Development of a standardized annual review form could contribute to promotion and tenure in several ways. Delivery of the form to new faculty members would make the university's expectations clearer. Year-round availability of the form would make it easier for faculty members to keep track of their activities. The task of preparing an annual review report could be simplified if some information (e.g., teaching responsibilities) was downloaded automatically to the form from a central database. A standardized form would make the final tenure and promotion files easier to read by converting them to a standard format. The form could make tenure and promotion files easier to prepare because annual reviews could be merged to form the basis of this file. Finally, using the merged annual reviews as an initial tenure and promotion file might make it clearer that the tenure and promotion decision should follow logically from earlier performance evaluations. Ideally this standardized form would eventually lead to electronic submission of most, if not all, tenure and promotion cases.

6. MERGER OF ANNUAL AND PRETENURE REVIEW.

The current system of annual and pre-tenure reviews is cumbersome and time consuming. In addition, people seem confused about the structure and function of the two different reviews. We suggest that the annual review and pre-tenure reviews be merged into one yearly faculty performance review. To retain important aspects of each type of review, the performance review should be slightly different for pre-tenure and post tenure faculty members. In particular, the mentor/mentoring committee and the tenured faculty should have input with respect to progress towards tenure. The chair is responsible for the language in both the annual review and the assessment of progress towards tenure. While the task force recommends merging the two reviews into one document , it is unsure of whether privacy issues regarding the annual review preclude this. The attorney general's office should be consulted on this matter.

The current annual review process would remain unchanged for the tenured faculty. That is, the review and numerical rating would cover only the work done in that year. Conducting the review would be the responsibility of the chair who could consult others or not as (s)he saw fit. The chair would not be required to meet with each faculty member to discuss the results of the review, but faculty members could request such a meeting. Each faculty members would sign his/her review to indicate that (s)he had read it, but (s)he could respond in writing to any aspect of the review with which (s)he disagreed. The outcome of the performance review would be used primarily to assign raises and any other benefits that became available.

Performance reviews for pre-tenure faculty members would be changed to include elements of both the current annual review and the current pre-tenure review. The faculty member would be given a review and a numerical rating based on his/her performance in the last year. The numerical rating would be used to assign raises and other benefits. In addition, the review for pre-tenure faculty would evaluate cumulative performance since the date of hire. The department chair would be required to consult other members of the tenured faculty when conducting this cumulative evaluation. The department chair would also be required to discuss the results of the annual and cumulative reviews with the untenured faculty member in a single meeting.

One of the annual reviews for pretenured faculty members would remain an intensive review (the third-year review). This review will follow all of the procedures used for tenure with the exception that no outside letters would be required. This review will usually be conducted in the spring of the third year of employment, but it could be conducted in other years under extraordinary circumstances. As a new recommendation, we suggest that this intensive pre-tenure review should be made optional for all appointments that are made with three years or fewer until the tenure review. In instances in which letters of appointment indicate consideration for tenure following the fourth year of employment, completion of a pre-tenure review should be conducted after three years and not sooner.

A faulty member with a joint appointment should be given only one performance review. The lead department specified in the letter of initial appointment (see RECOMMENDATION #7) should take responsibility for this review, but should consult with the other department(s).

7. IMPROVE LETTERS OF INITIAL APPOINTMENT AS WELL AS THE COMMUNICATION OF GUIDELINES FOR TENURE AND PROMOTION.

Every new faculty member should have his/her duties and associated allocation of time to instruction, research, and service clearly stated in his/her letter offering employment. Copies of the departmental and college criteria for tenure and promotion should be attached to the letter. In the case of joint appointments on a single campus (including ones in which the appointment is evenly split between two units), letters of appointment must indicate which department is to function as the lead for purposes of faculty evaluation.

New faculty cannot be appointed with tenure without having had their credentials formally evaluated using the same process as applies to all applications for tenure. The only allowable departure from this process is in regard to external letters. Letters written in support of the initial application for the position may also be applied to the tenure application, providing they: a) have been written no more than 12 months prior to the time of consideration for tenure; and b) address factors relevant to tenure considerations. There must still be four letters in the application package. This might require an additional letter being requested, in which case it should be from an individual of the department chair's choosing. Therefore, any letters of employment with tenure should contain wording indicating that the granting of tenure is contingent upon the recommendation of the faculty, and college, and the approval of the Provost in accord with policies and procedures described in the WSU Faculty Manual.

Any anticipated deviation from the university, college or departmental criteria for tenure and promotion should be described in the appointment letter. (E.g. "Because your scholarly work centers on electronic publishing, electronic publications will be considered as part of the process for evaluating your scholarship.") It is critical that faculty members are aware, at the time of appointment, of the expectations to which they will be held by the institution. While these topics are part of the discussion and interview process, they should be formally included in letters of appointment.

Expectations and duties can change. In such instances any change in the respective balance of teaching, research, and service duties should be officially agreed to by the department chair or unit director and a document reflecting this be placed in the faculty member's official record.

The expected allocations of time to teaching, research and service at the time of appointment, and any subsequent agreed upon changes should be made known to mentors or mentoring committee members at or prior to the time the mentoring relationship starts, as well as to voting faculty and college advisory committees as part of the evaluative procedure for tenure and/or promotion.

8. THERE SHOULD BE GENERAL AGREEMENT AND GUIDELINES ON HOW TO DEFINE SERVICE AND ITS ROLE IN THE TENURE AND PROMOTION PROCESS

The definition of "service" and its importance in consideration concerning tenure and promotion, is a thorny one, as there is great variation in this topic. We strongly recommend that each unit be expected to define "service" as it is recognized by that unit. We have also incorporated some suggestions into the guidelines included in Appendix A. Whether external, university-wide or within a college, service can include professional service, university service, or community service that reflects the academic expertise of the candidate. If a faculty member has an administrative assignment, that information and the expectations for tenure and/or promotion need to be included in the letter appointing her/him to the position.

9. DEVELOPMENT OF A DETAILED TIMELINE.

There is some confusion about when particular people should carry out particular tasks. (e.g., when should the urban campus Chancellors and the Pullman Deans discuss their common cases?) Development of a more detailed timeline than currently exists would make everyone's responsibilities clearer. It is particularly important that this timeline specify the time at which input is to be provided by the relevant administrators at the urban campuses or by the other departments in the case of a joint appointment. The timeline should also specify when the activities of the provost's advisory committee should occur, if such a committee is reappointed.

10. DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES AND CHECKLISTS.

Three sets of guidelines and checklists should be developed to assist the individuals responsible for the critical steps in the evaluation process. One set of guidelines and an accompanying checklist should exist for the individual faculty member. A second set should be prepared for the faculty member's mentor or mentoring committee. The third set of guidelines should make clear the role of the department chair. These guidelines should specify the individual's responsibilities in detail.

These guidelines should make it clear that the chair and dean's roles in the tenure and promotion process are evaluative. The chair and dean should not only analyze and explain the unit's responses, but should also provide a clear personal recommendation.

The chair should evaluate the performance of the faculty member being considered given the departmental criteria and the common expectations within the discipline. It is especially important that the chair describes, interprets, and evaluates any information or votes that may differ from the recommendation ultimately offered by that chair. That is, the chair's role is not just to provide a merit rating or recommendation for tenure or promotion, but also to explain and justify such recommendations in light of the data, other evaluations, and the standards of the department and discipline.

The Dean's role is to interpret the recommendations from the department in light of the standards of the broader discipline represented by the college/unit and the university, and to make a recommendation to the provost. Any recommendations, votes or advice from the college tenure advisory committee should be reported and evaluated as part of the dean's analysis and recommendation.

11. CLARIFY THE GUIDELINES FOR TENURE AND PROMOTION TO ALL RANKS, PARTICULARLY TO THAT OF FULL PROFESSOR.

We make some suggestions for the contents of these guidelines in Appendix A but these suggestions will require further work.

12. APPOINT A COMMITTEE TO CLARIFY ISSUES RELATED TO TENURE AND PROMOTION AT THE URBAN CAMPUSES.

Some problems related to the urban campuses are simple and would not require the appointment of a committee to resolve them. For example, our tenure and promotion guidelines should be revised to reflect the new position titles used at the urban campuses. We need to clarify who should be consulted at the urban campuses; when they should be consulted; and how they should be consulted.

Other problems are more difficult and lead to our suggestion to appoint a new committee. For example, the committee should address the question of how to keep standards for promotion and tenure consistent across the different campuses? It should also address the question of where tenure is held? If, for example, someone at an urban campus is tenured in sociology, is tenure system-wide or is it only for the particular urban campus or department? Because there are so many issues related to tenure and promotion at the urban campuses, we suggest the appointment of a separate committee.

We also recommend that when a faculty member at an urban campus is appointed to a department with its administrative base in Pullman, that faculty member's application for tenure and/or promotion must contain a context statement from the Chancellor or the Chancellor's designee detailing the duties and performance provided by the applicant at the urban campus. (see addendum B). The context statement referred to in this recommendation is different from that for which the candidate is responsible. The Chancellor's statement should be evaluative and made available to all the voting faculty prior to balloting. The Chancellor's statement should also be included in the materials that are forwarded to the dean and provost for their respective reviews. Please see Appendix B for some additional recommendations.

In closing, we would be glad to meet with the provost to discuss any part of our report. We suggest that input be solicited from the faculty senate and from other concerned faculty groups before any part of our report is finally adopted.

---

Appendix A - Guidelines Regarding Tenure and Promotion

It is essential that Washington State University (WSU) has a distinguished faculty. Consequently, the careful and objective evaluation of faculty applying for tenure and/or promotion is critical to the university's ability to accomplish its missions. While the development of detailed or rigid guidelines or criteria for tenure and/or promotion are neither realistic nor appropriate, it is important that guidelines exist that maintain a reasonable balance between due process for the faculty and the goals and objectives of the institution and its various colleges and departments. Ultimately decisions regarding tenure and/or promotion, must hinge on professional evaluations rendered by an applicant's colleagues. It is the responsibility of those providing these evaluations to ensure that their opinions are soundly based as they must be adequately reviewed and are subject to appeal.

Optimal performance of the university requires a faculty with a variety of training backgrounds, interests, and assignments. However, level of performance in assigned duties and scholarship are important commonalities shared by all faculty and, as such, serve as the most significant factors in tenure and promotion evaluations.

Evidence of satisfactory scholarship is required for a favorable tenure or promotion decision. The degree or extent to which scholarship is evident must be related to the duties assigned to the candidate. For example, expectations may differ considerably for a faculty member who has 75 percent of his or her time allocated to teaching, with 20 percent to research, and 5 percent for academic service when compared to someone with a 65 percent research, 20 percent instruction, and 15 percent academic service commitment. In the first instance, emphasis would be placed on excellence and scholarship related to teaching, but there would still be an expectation of some good quality research productivity and involvement in activities such as departmental or college governance. In other words, a small assignment to a particular activity does not mean that there is no performance expectation in this regard. In the latter example above, evidence of effective teaching and active participation in activities like student advising and shared governance would be expected as well as a record that reflects excellence and productivity in research.

In the context of these guidelines, scholarship denotes advanced study, acquired knowledge or skills, and recognition in some special field. Writing and oral presentations are a vital part of scholarship. Scholarship may be related, but not limited, to research. Research is studious inquiry, investigations, or experimentation aimed at the revision or verification of accepted conclusions in the light of newly discovered facts. Clearly there are many other manifestations of scholarship, particularly in the creative and liberal arts.

Instruction is defined as teaching in formal classroom settings, small groups of students, advisement of graduate students and post-professional trainees, and continuing education or outreach activities.

Service encompasses multiple varying activities that include extension and other forms of public service administration, particularly as provided by department chairs, unit directors, and associate deans; academic service as it relates to the governance of the department or comparable unit, college, and university; and external professional service, which may involve activities related to an individual's specialty or professional organization.

Promotion to Associate Professor

For faculty appointed initially at the assistant professor rank, promotion to associate professor will normally coincide with attainment of tenure. Rarely, where there is a strong and compelling record of achievement and performance, promotion to associate professor may precede the granting of tenure. Faculty are expected to submit credentials for promotion to associate professor and the awarding of tenure in the fall following the completion of their fifth year of employment in a tenure-track position at the university. Occasionally, assistant professors may be considered for tenure and promotion to associate professor before the completion of five years employment as a tenure-track faculty member. Prior approval from the Provost is required for such consideration.

The potential for national or international prominence on the basis of scholarship in the predominant activity (teaching, research or service or a combination of these) is an important criterion that must be considered when assessing an application for promotion to associate professor. Similarly, it is important to determine whether the candidate would be tenured and/or promoted at the best of our peer institutions. For this reason, it is essential that, to the extent possible, external letters address this point.

Faculty appointed initially in the rank of associate professor without tenure, should already have a significant record of scholarship and performance, with a strong possibility of attaining tenure following additional years of service to WSU. In all instances, the evaluation for the awarding of tenure should be based on performance at WSU that closely reflects the responsibilities outlined in the performance letter as well as any modifications made subsequent to the candidates beginning employment at WSU (see above ).

Faculty appointed as assistant professors who have time in rank at other institutions may request, prior to their hiring by WSU, credit for productivity at the former institution. Decisions regarding whether or not credit will be extended, and its amount, should be determined by the chair and dean, with approval by the Provost. The decision should be communicated to the assistant professor in the hiring letter. The chair may elicit opinions from department faculty as part of this process if (s)he wishes.

Promotion to Professor

Candidacy for promotion from associate professor to professor may be initiated by the faculty member, one or more departmental professors, or the department chair. Only under exceptional circumstances will a person be recommended for promotion to professor when he or she has served as associate professor for fewer than 6 years. In such instances, prior approval for consideration for promotion to professor must be obtained from the Provost.

Time in rank is not the primary consideration for promotion. Instead, candidates must show clear and convincing evidence of high levels of attainment in the criteria appropriate to their work assignment and to the mission of their units. While specific criteria for judging the merits of individual faculty may vary among units, overall standards may not vary. Satisfaction of minimum criteria at the college, school or department levels is not sufficient to ensure promotion. In fact, some faculty members will complete their careers without being promoted to the rank of professor.

The quality and quantity of the accomplishments of a professor are expected to be at a significantly higher level than that of the associate professor. The scope of these accomplishments should also be on a broader national or international level. Attainment of the rank of professor is an indication that, in the opinion of colleagues, the individual has made, and continues to make, outstanding contributions in the area of their major work assignment. Demonstrable national, and preferably, international prominence is required for promotion to professor. In rare instances, promotion to professor may be made in recognition solely of outstanding teaching, or in recognition solely of superior research or professional service. Regardless of the work category in which the candidate is strongest, there must be demonstrated evidence of scholarship.

The Evaluation Process

Candidates for promotion and/or tenure are ultimately responsible for reporting their accomplishments. All input must be in writing and should address professional issues. Comments about family troubles, children, illness, disability, maternity leave, etc. should not be a part of the record with the exception that the chair or dean might wish to comment on information not readily available to faculty but which might have affected the case.

Each college should appoint or elect a Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee. Effort should be made to ensure representation of groups that may not have been adequately represented in earlier parts of the process, e.g., women, ethnic minorities in the college or unit. This committee should be comprised of tenured senior faculty representatives from each department or equivalent unit in the college, or thematically linked units in the college in the event that the college's size would make such a committee unwieldy. The purpose of such advisory committees is to provide a broader examination of a candidate's qualifications in terms of the expectations and standards of the disciplines represented by the college. Such committees are intended to be advisory to the dean. The results of the committee's deliberations should be discussed in the Dean's summary.

Evaluators at all levels should judge cases on their merit and the department, college, and university expectations, and not in comparison with others in the department with tenure already or being considered at the same time. It is natural for such comparisons to be thought about, but each case must stand on its own merit.

If there are cases where candidates have not achieved expectations for tenure, the facts should be stated directly and explicitly. Evaluators should not "explain away" the failures by saying for example, that there was poor mentoring by a faculty member or there wasn't enough support for renovating a laboratory, unless there is direct proof that advice and/or events were directly responsible for lack of productivity. In those cases, the situation should be dealt with by the chair and dean, and not used as an excuse. In cases of documented institutional culpability, there may be the need to make the case for a delayed tenure review.

In the cases of promotion from associate professor to professor, there should be clear indication of the progress made since the faculty member achieved tenure. Items that were "counted" to achieve tenure cannot then be used for promotion to professor. For example, if a book manuscript was responsible for a favorable tenure decision, that same book cannot be used to argue for promotion to professor several years later.

In cases where faculty evaluations or letters bring up potential improprieties or inattention to university policy, the chair or dean must follow up prior to forwarding the case to the provost. If necessary, the entire process may have to begin anew.
Collegiality or personality can be used to evaluate faculty but only insofar as those issues affect the ability of the faculty member to work to accomplish the goals of the unit. If such issues are raised, the interference must be specifically identified.

The Role of the Dean and Department Chair or Unit Director

The chair's and dean's roles in the tenure and promotion process are also evaluative. Their reports should not only analyze and explain the unit's responses, but should also provide a clear personal recommendation from herself or himself. Chairs and deans must exercise caution in using names of either other colleagues or external reviewers in their analyses. For example, it is most advisable to refer instead to "one faculty member" or "two of the external reviewers".

Chairs and deans must refrain from making evaluative statements that could be construed as promises related to future actions. Frequently a chair or dean is enthusiastic about a candidate and is tempted to make such promises. It is appropriate to comment on faculty member's progress in annual reviews and third-year reviews and indicate what needs to be done to improve a faculty member's record. However, no one can predict the career trajectory for a faculty member.

The chair should evaluate the performance of the faculty member being considered based on the departmental criteria and the common expectations within the discipline. It is especially important that the chair describe, interpret and evaluate any information or votes that may differ from the recommendation ultimately offered by that chair. That is, the chair's role is not just to provide a merit rating or recommendation for tenure or promotion, but also to explain and justify such recommendations in light of the data and other evaluations, as well as the standards of the department and discipline.

Chairs should indicate the quality of the journals or presses as well as the competitive nature of some grant competitions. They should also define the significance of publications such as proceedings and abstracts. In some cases, these are simply the summary of a conference presentation; in other cases, these are very competitive publications.

The Dean's role is to interpret the recommendations from the department in light of the standards of the broader discipline represented by the college/unit and the university, and to make a recommendation to the Provost. Any recommendations, votes or advice from the college tenure advisory committee should be reported and evaluated as part of the Dean's analysis and recommendation.

The Chair's and Dean's votes cannot be counted at the department level, regardless of the total number of votes cast.

The Role of Senior Faculty

It is the duty of senior faculty to thoughtfully participate in the evaluation of all applicants (barring conflicts of interest) for tenure and promotion to associate professor in their academic departments or units. Since this process is an evaluative rather than an actuarial one, faculty must provide the reason for votes they may cast. Doing so permits persons who are involved in later stages of the process an opportunity to evaluate differences in votes or to interpret and explain the collective decision.
In some past cases, faculty have abstained from voting, citing lack of knowledge about the candidate. Tenure cases are extremely important to the candidate, but equally important to the department and the institution. It is the obligation of the chair to ensure that all information is available for review and discussion. There should be no reason for faculty to abstain except for legitimate conflicts of interest. Abstaining or refusing to vote because one did not agree with a previous tenure or promotion decision is unacceptable and a dereliction of the senior faculty member's responsibilities.

Prior to the time of senior faculty deliberations and subsequent voting, all relevant documents (departmental criteria, letter of appointment for the faculty member being considered, annual progress towards tenure reports) and input, including that from other related units (institutes, research stations, branch campuses, etc.) must be available for scrutiny.

Faculty who have appointments that might provide more than one occasion to participate in such evaluations (joint appointments, department chair, dean, membership of advisory committees etc.) should do so only once.

Retired faculty and faculty with less than 0.5 FTE appointments cannot vote on tenure and promotion cases, even if they are teaching or actively involved in research.

External Letters of Evaluation

A standard university wide letter (drafted by the Provost) should be sent to all external evaluators. Four external letters should be sought; two from individuals suggested by the candidate and two selected by the chair or unit head. The candidate should submit a list containing at least three names from whom the two letters will be requested. This list should not include former mentors, collaborators, or faculty who worked at one of the candidate's former institutions when the candidate was there.

The faculty member does not have veto power over the reviewers selected by the department. Faculty being evaluated should not have contact with the external reviewers related to their reviews and generally, should not be provided with the names of external reviewers selected. Internal reviewers are not appropriate.

Reviewers should be at the senior level (if not, an explanation should be provided) and should come from comparable research or land-grant institutions. It is not useful to have positive reviews for tenure from faculty who are judging records based on their own institution if that institution is not comparable to or better than WSU. However, it is recognized that there are very good faculty at institutions that would not be regarded as peers, and that these individuals are worthy external reviewers. In instances in which such a person is asked to provide a letter, the basis for this action must be clearly justified in the page(s) submitted by the chair or unit director summarizing the reviewers' backgrounds.

---

Appendix B -- Recommendations on Evaluating Faculty at Urban Campuses

RECOMMENDATION 1 THE DIRECTIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ANNUAL REVIEWS, THIRD-YEAR REVIEWS, AND TENURE REVIEWS FOR THE FACULTY MEMBERS SHOULD BE CLEAR AND CONSISTENT.

For faculty members at the urban campuses, this requires clarifying the interactions of the Chancellors, the academic area Directors, and the department Chairs. Currently there exists variant language that leads to confusion. Faculty at urban campuses must be provided adequate opportunity to participate in the reviews of all departmental faculty who are being considered for tenure and/or promotion, not just those located at the same urban campus. This means that all materials submitted by candidates must be available to urban campus faculty who have their academic home in the same department as the candidate. This also applies to candidates with appointments split between more than one department.

RECOMMENDATION 2 EVALUATIONS FOR TENURE AND /OR PROMOTION OF URBAN CAMPUS FACULTY REQUIRE THE SIGNATURE OF THE AREA DIRECTOR AND CHANCELLOR AS WELL AS THE CHAIR AND COLLEGE DEAN.

This change makes sense as the Campus Dean position does not exist currently. The Area Coordinators would work in consultation with the chairs; and the College Deans would then be working in consultation with the Chancellors.

RECOMMENDATION 3 TERMINOLOGY MUST BE MADE CONSISTENT.

The organization of the university and particularly the urban campuses have undergone rapid change in the last two years. This is not reflected in documents such as the Faculty Manual or the guidelines from the Provost and Deans, let alone in the guidelines used by different departments. Some Pullman faculty are still unclear as to the existence of Academic Directors and Chancellors at the urban campuses and certainly do not understand their roles.

There is a greater confusion about the titles and roles of the people at the urban campuses variously referred to as "program coordinators," "academic coordinators," "supervisors," "academic area directors," "area/program coordinators" and "urban campus area coordinators." All of these titles apparently refer to a single position.

RECOMMENDATION 4 THE URBAN CAMPUS CONTEXT STATEMENT MUST BE CLARIFIED.

What should be included in a context statement prepared by an urban campus administrator in reference to the performance of an urban campus applicant for tenure and/or promotion? Is it a performance evaluation written by the academic area Directors? Is it about the circumstances particular to the campus and situation of the faculty member in which the Director and faculty member collaborate? Is it a general, non-evaluative statement about the campus and the situation of the academic area there, so that there is one statement for all of the faculty members in that academic area, written by the Director? Is it required for all faculty members throughout the system, or is it only required for faculty members who are not based in Pullman, or is it optional?

Comments or Questions?

Please direct your comments or questions to Warwick Bayly .

Office of the Provost, PO Box 641046, Washington State University, Pullman WA 99164-1046, 509-335-5581, Contact Us