Documentation for Promotion and/or Tenure Recommendations

Quick Index

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.

The review of candidates is facilitated by the information provided by the candidate and others in the promotion and/or tenure dossier. A blank dossier binder is provided to the candidate by the Office of the Provost and sections of the dossier are noted below with comments and instructions.

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/or tenure. The candidate should be thoroughly familiar with the University of Missouri Collected Rules and Regulations (CRR), Missouri S&T Promotion and/or Tenure Procedures, and relevant campus policy memoranda. 

Additional information on the completion of the dossier is reported below. The dossier should be assembled within the blank dossier binder supplied by the Office of the Provost. Please note that the dossier binder is to hold only the summary documents for each section that are noted, external letters, and the letters of support. Additional supporting materials should be provided in a separate binder. The separate binder should include a representative selection of research papers. This should not be an exhaustive collection, but rather a sample of the most important contributions. The name of the candidate and department should appear clearly on the outside of the primary binder and on all bound supporting materials. The department, area and campus Promotion and Tenure committees will evaluate the record of the candidate based on the information contained within the dossier. Do not make assumptions regarding what is generally known about your record.


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


PROCEDURES

Department, area subcommittee and campus committee procedures should be included in the dossier. The department procedures should be included prior to the dossier being forwarded from the department to the Provost Office. Other committee procedures are included in the dossier prior to the dossier being forwarded to the Provost’s Office. 


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


COMMENTS CONCERNING DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES AND DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE NARRATIVE

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. 

The Department Committee narrative should summarize the discussion of the department Promotion and Tenure committee regarding their deliberations of the dossier. The narrative should include the perspectives of the committee with regard to the scholarship, research, teaching, and service contributions and accomplishments of the candidate. Before deliberations regarding the candidate’s dossier, the committee should review pertinent Collected Rules and Regulations regarding promotion and tenure:

The above documents clarify the expectations for promotion and tenure that should form the foundation of the discussion regarding the dossier and the candidate’s promotion and/or tenure case. Prior to their deliberations, each committee member should also review their department’s promotion and tenure policies with regard to procedures, as well as expectations for promotion and/or tenure. 


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


COMMENTS CONCERNING THE NARRATIVE REPORT BY THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR

The department chair’s narrative should summarize the candidate’s contributions and impact to the department and institution in the areas of teaching, research, and service. The narrative should principally include the chair’s perspective on the candidate’s performance in these areas. CRR 310.020 and 320.035 describe institutional expectations in each of these areas and these documents should form the basis for the development of the chair’s narrative. Another document the chair should consult in drafting the narrative include Missouri S&T Policy Memorandum II-10, which describes the qualifications for assistant, associate and full professor. 

Any further information the chair feels should be known about the candidate should also be included in the narrative. The chair should address any controversies regarding the committee deliberations and any periods of apparent inactivity in the candidate’s record.  Note that recommendations for “early” promotion and tenure are rare and are restricted to truly exceptional cases (CRR 310.020 and CRR 320.035). The department chair’s comments constitute a critically important part of the dossier and should be based on the measures and considerations outlined in CRR 320.035, sections B.1 – Philosophy, B.2.a – Sustained Contributions, B.2.b – The Role of Research and Other Scholarly Contributions, B.2.c – The Role of Teaching, including Extension, and B.2.d – The Role of Service. For promotion to Professor, section B.2.f discusses additional considerations. The chair is encouraged to review these sections of the Collected Rules and Regulations prior to developing the narrative. 

Research and Scholarship (CRR 320.035 B.2.b

The quality of the scholarship and research and the contributions that the candidate’s activities in this area make to the department and the discipline should be discussed. The sustained nature of these contributions (CRR 320.025 B.2.a) should also be considered. The assessment of research and scholarship should include a comparison to departmental expectations and may also discuss the role of the candidate’s scholarship and research on the undergraduate instructional mission of the department. It is particularly important that the chair address the comments in the letters from external referees relative to research quality. 

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 by comparison to equivalent research contributions and discussed in the narrative. The significance of any technology transfer or economic development activities of the candidate should also be discussed, as should any important external collaborations that have proven beneficial to the candidate and/or institution. 

Teaching (CRR 320.035 B.2.c)

The department chair’s analysis of the candidate’s teaching contributions to the educational mission of the department should be reviewed. The chair may also be aware of comments and concerns of students, which should be addressed. The chair should also discuss possible limitations in the teaching capabilities 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, laboratories, and lecture sections? Can the candidate teach effectively to both undergraduate and graduate students? How does teaching effectiveness compare to departmental expectations? 

Since the mission of the campus includes continuing education of professionals in the discipline, the narrative should also 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, when available. The ability and willingness of the candidate to participate in continuing education activities should also be discussed. 

Service (CRR 320.035 B.2.d)

A faculty member must be willing to gracefully accept and fulfill the service duties that are required by collegiality and those that 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. These issues must be addressed in the department chair’s narrative. The department chair’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 new faculty member.  The narrative should clarify and explain national offices, honors, etc., and the level and significance of the candidate’s contributions to professional organizations should be addressed. As appropriate, the chair’s narrative should address the issue of the willingness and ability of the candidate to participate in Extension.

Other

The chair’s narrative should directly address any controversies on the deliberations of the department promotion and tenure committee. The narrative report should also 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 (CRR 320.035 B.2.g). 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 should be included. 


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


AREA SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW AND NARRATIVE

The Area Subcommittee shall review and address the contributions and performance of the candidate in the areas of research and scholarship, teaching, and service. It is expected that the Area Subcommittee will provide a broader perspective of the dossier through comparison to related disciplines based on its broader membership compared to the Department Committee. 

Prior to its deliberations, members of the Area Subcommittee should review CRR 310.020 and CRR 320.035.  In particular, committee members should review:

Members of the Area Subcommittee should also review the instructions and narratives provided in the Department Committee’s Narrative and Department Chair’s Narrative sections. During their deliberations, the Area Subcommittee should also consider any Institutional goals in their area that are pertinent to the review of the dossier. Lastly, the Area Subcommittee’s narrative should specifically address any differences between the recommendation of the Area Subcommittee and the recommendations of the Departmental Committee and Department Chair.


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


CAMPUS COMMITTEE’S NARRATIVE

The Campus Committee shall review and address the contributions and performance of the candidate in the areas of research and scholarship, teaching, and service. It is expected that the Campus Committee will provide a broader perspective of the dossier based on its broader membership compared to the Department Committee and Area Subcommittee. 

Prior to its deliberations, members of the Campus Committee should review CRR 310.020 and CRR 320.035. In particular, committee members should review:

Members of the Campus Committee should also review the instructions and narratives provided in the Department Committee’s Narrative, the Department Chair’s Narrative and the Area Subcommittee Narrative sections. During their deliberations, the committee should also consider any Institutional goals that are pertinent to the review of the dossier. Lastly, the Campus Committee’s narrative should specifically address any differences between their recommendation and those of the Area Subcommittee, Departmental Committee and Department Chair. 


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


SUPPLEMENTAL CAMPUS COMMITTEE RESPONSE

Missouri University of Science and Technology Promotion and Tenure Procedures allow for the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee to respond to the letter provided by the Provost. That response, if any, should be included in this section. If the committee does not wish to respond to the Provost’s letter, that should also be indicated in this section. 


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


SOLICITATION AND INCLUSION OF LETTERS FROM EXTERNAL REVIEWERS

Letters from external reviewers assessing accomplishments of the candidate and worthiness for promotion and/or tenure are required.  Five such letters are considered to be a minimum, though six or seven letters is more desirable. 

The attached form should be completed and included, together a brief description of the process used to select reviewers. For each reviewer selected, a brief reason for selection should be given. Please note that each assessment provided by an external reviewer must be included in the dossier. Reviews cannot be excluded for any reason after being received. Approximately one-half of the nominations for external reviewers may be made by the candidate and one-half by the department. All parties shall attempt to exclude individuals with personal ties to the candidate.

The final selection of external reviewers is to be made only by the department chair or department P&T Committee. At least half of the reviewers selected should be from nominees other than those supplied by the candidate (not including reviewers nominated by both). If the department chooses not to select anyone nominated by the candidate, an explanation shall be provided to the candidate. 

The professional stature of the reviewer, including research, publication, and professional activities, should also be reported and the qualifications of the reviewer must be appropriate so that the reviewer is able to provide an impartial assessment of the dossier. Letters should be solicited from peer or greater ranked departments and from reviewers of higher rank. Letters of support from collaborators, former advisors, and friends of the candidate should be included in the section on “Letters of Support,” not as external references. External reviewers must be able to provide an independent assessment of the candidate. A curriculum vita for each reviewer who has submitted a letter shall be included. 

The external review letters shall be returned directly to the department chair for inclusion in the dossier. The evaluations by external reviewers should address the accomplishments of the candidate and the reviewer should indicate, in his/her opinion, whether the candidate is deserving of promotion and/or tenure.


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


LETTERS OF SUPPORT

Letters of support from former advisors, collaborators, friends, and colleagues may be included in this section. The methods and conditions under which the letters of support were received shall be noted. In the past, the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee has expressed concerns about the inadequacy of some external letters. In many cases, the quality of external 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 an evaluation from an unbiased external referee. Letters intended to truly be external references should be solicited by the department chair.

A page should be included in this section indicating the conditions under which letters of support were received, i.e., whether they were solicited by an independent third party, solicited by the candidate, or received unsolicited. A comment on the tradition of the department or the unit in this regard is appropriate. All letters of support must indicate the title of the letter writer or the relationship of the letter writer to the candidate, i.e., colleague, faculty member, administrator, student, former student, etc. 


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


CURRICULUM VITAE OR RÉSUMÉ

It is important that the Curriculum Vita (CV) or Résumé convey as accurately as possible the experience and contributions of the candidate.  Incomplete information, and information that may be regarded as 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 CV, at a minimum it should contain the following items:

NAME AND CURRENT SCIENTIFIC ADDRESS.

ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE: This section should include the department, University, dates of attendance, and any degree obtained. The title of any dissertations or theses, along with the name of the advisor, should be a part of this information.

WORK EXPERIENCE: The CV should include a complete work experience history, including position held, industry or work place and dates of employment.

SCHOLARLY CONTRIBUTIONS: It is in the area of research and scholarship that the judgment of those evaluating the resume is most critical. Publications should be categorized and separately listed, grouping books, refereed publications, conference proceedings, other publications, abstracted talks, invited lectures, and other scholarly contributions. Considerable care should be exercised in reporting this information accurately. Miscategorization, for example, of a non-refereed conference proceedings paper as a refereed journal paper causes the evaluator to question the candidate’s standards and judgment. Such negative impressions are far more dangerous to the candidate than the absence of one additional refereed paper in the CV. Refereed conference papers should be listed separately from refereed archival (journal) papers.  The degree of contribution in all co-authored papers should be indicated. 

All publications, refereed or other, should include the following information to be acceptable: the authors, title, name of the journal, volume of the journal, page number, and date (month and year) of publication. If the contribution is in a book, it should also include the name of the editor and the publisher, as well as the city and state where the publisher is located. To be acceptable, the contribution should have sufficient information so that it can be located in a library. Presentations and verbal contributions should contain the location and the date of the presentation, the sponsoring society, and should provide sufficient information so that an interested evaluator could locate evidence of the contribution made by the given talk.

RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS: The CV should include any grants or contracts received, the title of the grant or contract, the granting agency, the dollar value of the grant or contract, the number of years over which the dollar figure was actually expended, and the precise contribution of the candidate. The division of labor between the other investigators should be clearly delineated, as in the case of publications. Over reporting, in this case, tends to have a negative impact on the evaluators.

TEACHING: The CV should indicate teaching experience, including the university or college, the dates of teaching service, the general subjects taught, and the academic level of the courses. Course numbers and detailed course descriptions inappropriately lengthen the resume and should be included elsewhere.

DEPARTMENT AND UNIVERSITY SERVICE: Committees and special responsibilities should be listed along with the dates involved. However, the length of the list is not as important as the evaluation of colleagues as to the contribution made in performing these duties. Thus, clarification of the contribution is important. 

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AND SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS: The resume should list memberships in professional societies, along with the titles of any offices held and the dates of service. Listing of social, fraternal, and religious organizations is optional and usually does not affect the evaluation.

Other items may be included in the CV: 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 scholarly or creative evidence supporting an academician involved in scholarly activities and research, teaching, and university and departmental service.

Scholarly presentations, exhibits, or showings of creative works should be described in sufficient detail to allow the evaluator to properly assess the scholarly achievement or contribution made by the work.


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


COMMENTS CONCERNING SCHOLARLY PERFOMANCE

CRR 320.035, Section B.2.b – The Role of Research and Other Scholarly Contributions describes the distinguishing characteristics of the faculty member. The university expects faculty members to be engaged in scholarly activities appropriate to their discipline. The faculty member may obtain guidance on research and scholarship expectations from their chair. Activities in these areas are to be at the highest level and should demonstrate that the individual’s contributions have had an impact on the discipline, i.e., that the research should have made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge recognized by professional colleagues.Evidence of effective and sustained research must be presented. 

Typical examples of scholarship include publication of journal articles where expert evaluation is required for publication; favorable reviews of books, appointments or awards that require evaluation of professional competence; and frequent citations by other scholars. Depending on discipline, the awarding of research grants and the development of a research effort funded through external sponsorship are further representative activities that are expected of faculty members recommended for promotion and/or tenure. Additional examples are provided in CRR 320.035

For this section, evidence of research, scholarship, and creative activity should include a representative selection of publications, performances, or exhibits that are contained in a separately bound volume. This should not be an exhaustive collection, but rather a sampling of the most important contributions. 

This section of the dossier should also include a completed SPONSORED RESEARCH ACTIVITIES LATEST FIVE YEAR SUMMARY and a self-assessment by the faculty member of their scholarly and research accomplishments. The self-assessment may also include a statement of research philosophy and a description of research plans. It should be noted that the ability to evaluate one’s own work and the significance of one’s publications is, in itself, an indication of professionalism. In the supplemental volume, care should be exercised in categorizing and grouping refereed publications, un-refereed 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 judgment.


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


COMMENTS CONCERNING TEACHING PERFORMANCE

CRR 320.035 states that teaching performance is critical in consideration regarding promotion and/or tenure. Evidence of teaching quality should be presented and candidates are encouraged to show additional evidence of teaching effectiveness beyond computer-processed student assessments (CET Evaluations). Student’s solicited comments during this process provide additional depth. The candidate is encouraged to provide representative student comments, both good and poor.  Extensive documentation should be included in a separately bound volume.

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, 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.

Self-administered evaluations that are self-tabulated cannot be accepted as reliable. Departmental evaluations that are administered and interpreted by an impartial third party provide positive data on student response to pedagogical and instructional methods used.

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 that 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 techniques, goals, and methods utilized and developed by the candidate may assist the committee in understanding the individual's teaching performance. The candidate is strongly encouraged to include a self assessment of teaching effectiveness and philosophy. 

Teaching activities in Extension and Distance Education are to be evaluated as a part of the total teaching 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 of teaching effectiveness. Appropriate documentation should be included in the appendix as evidence of teaching quality.


BACK TO QUICK INDEX


COMMENTS CONCERNING SERVICE

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.” Other aspects of expectations with regard to service are discussed in CRR 320.035 B.2.d. The candidate is encouraged to review both of these policy documents.  

In order to fulfill its functions, academic departments and the University need the participation of the faculty in a range of service activities. A candidate who is not carrying his or her share of the department’s service load is imposing on colleagues. A faculty member must be willing to gracefully accept and fulfill the service duties that are required by collegiality and those that 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. 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 promotion and/or tenure recommendation. In this section, the service activities should not only be listed, but the level and effectiveness of the candidate’s service contributions should be reviewed in a self-assessment. 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 and discussed. As for research publications, extensive documentation should be included in a separately bound volume.

If no service activities are reported, a page signed by the candidate should be included in this section indicating this.


BACK TO 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 short courses, research done through Continuing Education, the details of technology transfer efforts, and similar Continuing Education activities.

Note that 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. The Department Chair or Vice Provost for Academic Affairs can provide guidance regarding appropriate information to include in this section. 

If no extension activities are reported, a page signed by the candidate should be included in this section indicating this. 


BACK TO QUICK INDEX