FEEDBACK - Faculty Formal Review Procedures

This is a clarification, as different departments/divisions interpreted this preamble differently.  Some candidates were receiving mentoring during this early part of the process and were making substantial changes to their statements and files based on feedback from the initial reviewing body, which served simultaneously in a mentoring and evaluative capacity.  Other candidates were mentored only prior to submission of their files, and their files were closed while the initial reviewing body evaluated the file.  This clarification is to articulate that any mentoring of the candidate should occur BEFORE the submission of the file to the initial reviewing body. 

Notably, all candidates can submit a memo to "update" their files should their circumstances change (i.e. paper/book gets published since file submission). 

It has become increasingly challenging to solicit external peer evaluators' submissions of letters. This change addresses this concern and creates a more feasible target of four letters. One consideration is how much the candidate is involved with the process once submission has occurred. Previously, the candidate had to submit a list of 12-15 names (line 123) of potential letter writers. In some cases, this list would be exhausted without receipt of the requisite five letters, and the candidate would be asked to supply more names for potential letter writers. This creates significant anxiety for the candidate. In some sub-disciplines, it can be very challenging to identify peers at the Associate or above rank who can write letters on behalf of the candidate (the pool is inherently limited by discipline).

With this change, we seek to lower the anxiety for the candidate, reduce the burden on letter writers, and reduce the total number of solicited names.

"If more than ten letters are received, only the first (ten) received will be included in the file, based on date of arrival."

This will be fixed in the next draft.  We were aware of it at the November Faculty Council meeting, but Chair Gondek missed "the fix" prior to posting this version of the document.

These procedures will be implemented for all faculty starting their initial contracts after the publication of this document. Suppose you are currently on track for promotion. In that case, you may elect to "switch" and use this more recently updated document -OR- you may continue with the procedures in place from when your current promotion criteria were initiated.

When a range is supplied, the letter solicitors usually try to get the maximum number of confirmed writers, knowing that they will still make the minimum if a few fail to materialize.  If things go off track a bit and more than the maximum amount comes in, they should discard anything coming in after the maximum amount is received.  All choices about which letters to include should be made ONLY on the basis of the order in which the letters are received.

The candidate is asked to supply a list of individuals to serve as letter writers for the promotion file.  Prioritization of which letters to include should not be made by the candidate or the file keeper.  The inclusion of letters is based on the chronological order of submission.  However, the candidate can subset their list.  For example, if the candidate works in two diverse fields, they SHOULD tell their Dean and file keeper to pull from List A  -AND-  List B to accurately reflect the two diverse fields in which they work.  

 File Keeper can not make discretionary decisions about which letters to include.  Candidates should be mentored to select appropriate letter writers. (for example, R1 letter writers may disregard the directions and discuss the candidate in light of an R1 institution file.  Therefore, candidates may want to keep in mind balancing the types of institutions as well as the field of expertise as they select potential letter writers.)