Quick Index

Preparation of Promotion and Tenure Documentation
Resume
Departmental Procedures
The Department Chair's Narrative Report
Teaching Performance
Scholarly Performance
Service
School/College Procedures
The School/College Dean's Narrative
Extension Activities
External References
Letters of Support

Checklist of Essential Documentation

COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PREPARATION OF
PROMOTION AND TENURE DOCUMENTATION

The promotion and tenure policies of the Missouri University of Science and Technology represent a mechanism for assuring that the faculty, who are the key resource of an institution, have the talents, abilities, and inclination to carry out the full mission of the University. The granting of tenure represents a major commitment on the part of the institution and with the selection process, it is one of the dominant tools in shaping the quality, productivity, and performance of the departments that make up the University. The promotion and tenure documentation must adequately demonstrate that thorough consideration has been given to all facets of the abilities and performance of a faculty member being considered for promotion and tenure.

Additional information on the completion of the dossier is inserted in this folder. The basic dossier should be assembled within this folder, which is supplied by the Office of the Provost. Please note that the folder is to hold only the summary documents and the letters of recommendation. Additional supporting material should be bound separately in a form which is appropriate for handling and study by the campus Promotion and Tenure Committee and others with the responsibility for making recommendations on promotion and tenure decisions. The name of the candidate and the department should appear clearly on the outside of the primary folder and on all bound supporting materials.

Please note the attached memo from Past President Olson. This memo, while almost two decades old, represents the philosophy that has traditionally been followed in evaluating materials for promotion and tenure at the University of Missouri. Please note the special requirements for documenting quality teaching, including teaching of mature audiences through continuing education, the role of research contribution to promotion and tenure, and the need for special justification for individuals with special duties or assignments. Also note the importance of new talent and, in particular, note that a special justification will be necessary before tenure will be awarded to candidates holding their Ph.D.s from Missouri S&T.

Past President Olson's memo also emphasized the necessity for adequate documentation and verification. The memo specifically suggests that teacher evaluation questionnaires and information from classroom visitations are needed. We have learned from prior cases that numerous letters of support from individual students are not particularly helpful.

In the area of research, supporting evidence is needed indicating that the research has had some reasonable degree of impact on the discipline. The evaluators place special value on outside evaluations by authorities in the field. Such letters of evaluation must come from distinguished experts in the area. It is the comments in these letters and the quality of the experts chosen which are most commonly brought up in discussions of promotion and tenure cases. Anything which causes suspicion or taints these letters is very damaging to the candidate. Ideally, these letters would be solicited by a disinterested party, preferably the Dean or one of his representatives, and would be mailed directly to the Dean for inclusion in the dossier. Biographical information on the references, which clearly indicates the degree of expertise in the discipline, should be included. Letters from former research advisors, relatives, close friends, and any other persons with possible conflict of interest, should be carefully labeled "letters of support".

The guidelines from former President Olson also address service. The mere listing of activities provides little support for the recommendation. The quality and level of the service contributions must be documented. It is clear that service, particularly departmental service and service to the University, is an important consideration in tenure. The absence of real service to the University places the candidate's loyalty and future benefit to the University in some question. However, evidence of unusual service contributions cannot, by themselves, be considered to be sufficient grounds for approval of recommendation for either promotion or tenure.

It is obvious that others can view our tenure and promotion recommendations much more dispassionately than we can. When we prepare our tenure documents we must look at them with a cold dispassionate eye to see that the documents themselves support the candidate and are indicative of the message we are trying to present concerning the quality and reputation of the department in which the individual is seeking tenure and promotion.

Back to the Quick Index

RESUME

It is important that the resume convey as accurately as possible the experience and ability of the candidate. Incomplete information, and information which may be regarded as being suspicious or misleading, can weaken an otherwise strong case. Those evaluating the resume will evaluate both what is stated and what is omitted.

While there is no intent to dictate the precise form of the resume, at a minimum it should contain the following items:

Other items may be included in the resume. However, in each case the candidate should carefully evaluate what is included to be sure that its impact will be positive on an evaluator who is looking primarily for scientific evidence supporting an academician involved in scholarly research, teaching, and university and departmental service.

Back to the Quick Index

COMMENTS CONCERNING
DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES

The procedures for promotion and/or tenure require that each dossier contain a copy of the departmental procedures with specific references to faculty participation. The procedures permit special criteria for recommending promotion and/or tenure providing that such criteria conform to the general guidelines and policies as set forth in Policy Memorandum II-10 and in the University Academic Tenure Regulations. If there are special criteria or unusual circumstances which might affect the candidacy of the individual in question, a notation of the facts and circumstances should be included.

Back to the Quick Index

COMMENTS CONCERNING THE NARRATIVE REPORT BY THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR

The department chair's narrative report should include any additional background on the candidate's service at Missouri S&T, the candidate's professional experience at other institutions, and other relative experience not reported in the candidate's vita. The department chair should highlight special contributions of the individual to the mission of the department. Note that a person with special duties requires unusually detailed justification. Documentation of special assignments, analysis of the success of the individual in those special assignments, a clear statement of the benefit to the institution of the special assignment, and, if possible, documentation of the approval for the special assignment by a Dean or Provost.

Note the University's requirement for sustained contribution. The department chair should address issues related to periods of apparent inactivity in the candidate's record. Note that this requirement also requires extra justification for a so-called early recommendation for promotion. Such early recommendations, i.e., prior to the sixth year, are to be rare and are to be restricted to exceptional cases. While an exception can be requested for market conditions as a special condition, an unusually strong justification is required to utilize this motivation for requesting early promotion and/or tenure.

Narratives by the department chair should directly address any controversies on the deliberations of the departmental review committee. The departmental committee is able to make judgements based on knowledge that is not contained in the dossier. The campus Promotion and Tenure committee, the Provost, and the Chancellor must base their decisions on materials actually included in the dossier. It is critical that the dossier support the recommendation of the departmental committee. This is particularly important with respect to evidence of teaching quality where the departmental committee may have inside knowledge which is undocumented in the dossier and which is inconsistent with information available from other sources. The department chair's narrative should address the nominating and review committee's voting patterns. Attempts to avoid addressing these issues tend to raise questions concerning the validity of all of the documentation.

The department chair's analysis of a candidate's teaching contributions to the overall mission of the department are particularly important. The chair is also frequently aware of the comments and concerns of students which are expressed to him as a consequence of his office. The department chair should also address possible limitations in the teaching expertise of the candidate. Is the candidate able to teach the full range of departmental courses? Is the candidate effective in both large and small classes, in laboratories, and lecture sessions? Can the candidate teach effectively to both undergraduates and graduate students?

Since the mission of the campus includes continuing education of professionals in the discipline, it is particularly important to address the ability of the candidate to present advanced professional material to a mature audience of professionals who are knowledgeable in the area. In this regard, documentation of successful experience in teaching short courses, etc., should be included in the section on teaching performance.

As a similar matter, the applied research done through Extension is a critical part of the University's mission relating to the transfer of technology to benefit industry in the state. Such research should be evaluated on a par with other equivalent research contributions and discussed in this narrative. The documentation should be included in the section on evidence of research.

A representative selection of research papers should be included in a separately bound appendix to the dossier. This should not be an exhaustive collection, but rather a sample of the most important contributions. The department chair's narrative should discuss the quality of the research and the contributions that research makes to the department, including an assessment of the impact the research has on the undergraduate instructional program of the department. The emphasis should be on the quality of the research and the impact that the research has had on the discipline.

It is particularly important to address the comments in the letters of recommendation from external referees relative to research quality.

It is appropriate to address the issue of the willingness and ability of the candidate to participate in Extension. The department chair should address the implications of the candidate's ability and willingness, or the lack of it, to participate in continuing education activities as it would impact the candidate's success in assisting the campus and department in fulfilling their missions.

The narratives should clarify and explain national offices and honors, etc. The level and quality of the candidate's contributions to professional organizations should be addressed.

The revised qualifications for professorial ranks state that all faculty members are expected to be involved in a reasonable level of service to the department and to the institution through committees and other service activities. Such services and activities are essential to the functioning of the University and to the department. A faculty member must be willing to gracefully accept and fulfill the service duties which are required by collegiality and those which benefit the institution. Candidates for tenure, in particular, should have demonstrated the ability and willingness to assume a greater degree of participation as they move into more senior positions on the campus and those currently in positions of leadership retire. In order to assure the effective functioning of the institution in the future, these issues must be addressed in detail in the department chair's narrative. The department's comments in this regard are especially important in tenure recommendations because the department chair is usually in the best position to judge past and future service contributions of a young faculty member.

The department chair's comments are, perhaps, the single most important part of the dossier. The effort involved is large, but the promotion and tenure decisions have a critical impact on the future of the department.

Back to the Quick Index

COMMENTS CONCERNING TEACHING PERFORMANCE

Teaching performance is critical in consideration regarding promotion and tenure. There are continuing concerns that Policy Memorandum II-10 will be interpreted only in terms of research. It should be noted Policy Memorandum II-10 refers to matters of professional recognition which may have a basis other than research and that the teaching contribution for faculty is an essential factor in a positive recommendation for promotion. There are very few cases in which recommendations for promotion will be based on research alone. Such cases require special justification to demonstrate that an individual who can only contribute significantly to one facet of the University's mission should be tenured.

Evidence of teaching quality should be presented. Candidates are encouraged to show evidence in addition to the computer-processed student assessments. However, the value of this evidence is compromised unless it is obtained in a method which demonstrates impartiality. Extensive documentation should be included in a separately bound appendix.

Student input on teaching can be obtained from the campus- generated computer-processed student assessments. Self-administered evaluations which are self-tabulated cannot be accepted as reliable. Departmental evaluations which are administered and interpreted by an impartial third party provide positive data on student acceptance of teaching.

Student letters of support are of value if they are solicited by a third party under controlled conditions. If used to document teaching effectiveness, student letters must be collected in a manner which is statistically meaningful and which is administered by individuals who do not have a vested interest in the outcome. Letters of support randomly selected by a neutral third party and returned to the third party can provide useable data on teaching quality.

A self-assessment of teaching technique, goals, and methods by the candidate may assist the committee in understanding the individual's teaching performance.

Peer evaluation of a candidate's teaching by senior faculty members is particularly valuable in evaluating the currency of course content, the appropriateness of examinations, the validity and fairness of examinations and grading procedures, the appropriateness of the material covered, the currency of the material, and other factors related to the quality of the course offering. Comments by peers on other aspects of a candidate's teaching are less appropriate unless the peers have actually conducted a series of class visitations.

Under the new revision of Policy Memorandum II-10, teaching and research activities in Extension are to be evaluated as a part of the total teaching and research responsibilities of the candidate. Teaching within Extension is particularly important in that it demonstrates the ability of the candidate to teach an audience of mature professionals. Since, by policy, Extension requires student assessment of Continuing Education offerings, this data should be available for incorporation into discussions on teaching. Appropriate documentation should be included in the appendix as evidence of teaching quality.

Back to the Quick Index

COMMENTS CONCERNING SCHOLARLY PERFORMANCE

Evidence on research should include a representative selection of research papers in a separately bound volume. This should not be an exhaustive collection but rather a sample of the most important contributions.

It might be noted that the ability to evaluate one's own work and evaluate the contribution of one's publications is, itself, an indication of professionalism. Care should be exercised in categorizing and grouping refereed publications, unrefereed publications, conference proceedings, abstracted talks, invited lectures, general talks, and other scholarly contributions. Miscategorization or overstating the importance of a contribution causes the evaluators to question the candidate's standards and judgement.

Back to the Quick Index

COMMENTS CONCERNING SERVICE

The draft version of Policy Memorandum II-10 states, "All faculty members are expected to be involved in a reasonable level of service to the department and institution through committees and other service activities." In order to fulfill its functions, the departments, the schools, and the University need the participation of the faculty in a range of service activities. A candidate who is not carrying his share of the department's service load is imposing on his departmental colleagues. A faculty member must be willing to gracefully accept and fulfil the service duties which are required by collegiality and those which will benefit the institution. It is clear that service, particularly departmental service and service to the University, is an important consideration in tenure. Candidates for tenure should have demonstrated the ability and willingness to assume a greater participation in service activities as they move into more senior positions on the campus. The absence of real service to the University places a candidate's loyalty and future benefit to the University in question.

The mere listing of service activities, however, provides little support for a tenure recommendation. In this section, the service activities should not only be listed but the level of contribution and the effectiveness of those service contributions should be indicated. For example, if the candidate made a significant contribution as a member of a campus committee, such as drafting a report, undertaking a survey, etc., these contributions should be documented. As in the case with research publications, extensive documentation should be included in a separately bound appendix.

Back to the Quick Index

COMMENTS CONCERNING SCHOOL/COLLEGE PROCEDURES

The procedures for promotion and/or tenure require that each dossier contain a copy of the school/college dean's procedures with specific references to faculty participation. Section II.2 of the Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Recommendations provide the guidelines for development of the review procedure. If there are special criteria or unusual circumstances which affect the candidacy of the individual in question, a notation of the facts and circumstances should be included.

Back to the Quick Index

COMMENTS CONCERNING THE SCHOOL/COLLEGE DEAN'S NARRATIVE

The divisional deans should review and address the critical issues. The divisional deans should review the department chair's comments noting the guidelines in the section on the department chair's narrative.

As a result of the dean's broader responsibility, issues related to school-wide responsibilities in the area of service and the contribution of the individual to the divisional goals in teaching and research should be stressed.

The dean's narrative should specifically address the nominating and the review committee's voting pattern and address any differences between the recommendations of the dean and the recommendations to the dean by the divisional advisory committee. Since the campus Promotion and Tenure Committee is generally aware of these debates, failure to address controversial issues provides particular problems for the committee.

Back to the Quick Index

COMMENTS CONCERNING EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

The completed form is a listing of the last five years of extension and public service activities. It should include teaching from short courses, research done through Continuing Education, and the details of technology transfer efforts, and similar Continuing Education activities.

Note that the teaching and research undertaken through Extension are to be included with other on-campus teaching and research. Such contributions should also be documented with other similar efforts in the sections on teaching and research.

Back to the Quick Index

COMMENTS CONCERNING EXTERNAL REFERENCES

Letters of external evaluation are expected. Three such letters are considered to be a minimum. In cases where a departmental review committee is small, more external support may be advisable. The evaluations by external references should address the stature of the candidate, including research, publication, and professional activity.

The external referees should be impartial (distant observers.) Letters of support from collaborators, former advisors, and friends of the candidateshould be included as letters of support.

Letters of external evaluation should be solicited by the dean or department chair and from experts in the candidate's field chosen by neutral parties. The letters should be returned directly to the department chair or Dean. The procedures and controls exercised in soliciting and handling letters of reference should be indicated. All such contributions should be included in the dossier.

Back to the Quick Index

COMMENTS CONCERNING LETTERS OF SUPPORT

Letters of support from former advisors, collaborators, friends, and colleagues should be included in this section. The methods and conditions under which the letters of support were received should be noted. In the past, the campus Promotion and Tenure Committee has expressed concerns about the inadequacy of external letters. In many cases, the quality of the reviewers and their impartiality have been strongly questioned. A letter from a potentially partial reviewer should be included here as a letter of support rather than as a report from an external referee. Letters intended to truly be external references should be solicited by either the dean's office or the department chair's office utilizing names supplied by an independent third party other than the candidate.

The conditions under which the departmental peer evaluation was administered and interpreted should be clearly indicated. Letters of support from peers should indicate the conditions under which they were received, whether they were solicited by an independent third party or received unsolicited. A comment on the tradition of the department or the unit in this regard would be appropriate.

Back to the Quick Index