ES P&T Guidelines

Guidelines for Review, Contract Renewal, Promotion, and Tenure in Ethnic Studies

Adopted by Ethnic Studies Core Faculty, May 2007

Ethnic Studies (ES) is both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. This is to say that, on the one hand, it can encompass multiple disciplinary and methodological approaches, and, on the other hand, it sometimes involves borrowing insights or methods from one or more disciplines and bringing them to bear on research within the context of another discipline. Within an institution structured primarily along traditional disciplinary lines, the nature of an interdisciplinary field can result in particular challenges related to personnel reviews. One purpose of these guidelines is to anticipate and to help to minimize those challenges.

Personnel and review committees for Core₁ faculty members in ES should include faculty members from the core faculty and participating faculty who can, collectively, provide expertise to evaluate multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research and teaching. When necessary and appropriate, additional committee members may come from outside the participating faculty. Within the parameters set out in individual contracts and hiring documents, research and teaching expectations for ES in terms of quality and quantity are comparable to those of related departments in the social sciences and humanities (e.g., Anthropology, English, History, Philosophy, Political Science, Romance Languages, and Sociology). However, ES also has some expectation of interdisciplinary engagement in research and teaching, as reflected in participation in interdisciplinary professional organizations and conferences and/or publication in interdisciplinary journals and in teaching of multiple disciplinary approaches in lower-division ES classes. Furthermore, ES understands that it would not be appropriate to evaluate some core faculty members solely according to the standards of a single discipline. For this reason, external reviewers and personnel committee members will often come from a variety of fields and disciplines in order to provide a full evaluation of the scholar’s merits. ES personnel and review committees will always include at least two members of the core and/or participating faculty unless otherwise specified in hiring contracts.

Because of the idiosyncratic history of Ethnic Studies, most faculty members have specific memoranda of understanding and/or offer letters that outline--with varying degrees of detail--individual procedures for tenure and promotion. The ES guidelines should supplement such documents, when necessary, and provide guidance to the candidate and the Program Director in navigating the tenure and promotion process. Nothing in these guidelines preempts either University personnel guidelines or preexisting documents pertaining to an individual faculty member.

These guidelines are divided into three parts: (I) Expectations of the candidate for each stage of review, promotion, and tenure; (II) Procedures for these reviews and the obligations of the candidate, the Director, and the personnel committee; and (III) Special considerations pertaining to promotion and tenure.

All candidates for tenure and promotion are strongly encouraged to consult the UO Faculty Guide to Tenure and Promotion: http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/tenureguide/tenureguide.html.
I. Expectations

A. Expectations at the Third-Year Review

1. Research

By the mid-point of the third year of faculty members’ probationary periods, they should be able to show evidence of progress toward the research expectations for tenure.

Journal Articles and Book Chapters

If faculty members plan to stand for tenure based on articles/chapters, this evidence will include the publication of peer-reviewed, single- or first-authored book chapters and/or journal articles within the previous two and a half years, with additional articles/chapters in preparation or under review. The expectation in their third year will be that these candidates are publishing or attempting to publish in “top” venues. Assistant professors are encouraged to consult with senior faculty and with the Director early in their careers about what venues are most appropriate for their scholarship.

Book Manuscripts

If candidates plan to stand for tenure with a published book, evidence in the third year could include some combination of the following:

(1) A completed book manuscript based on the dissertation and a book proposal, ready to submit to presses by the fourth year of the probationary period. The candidate’s third-year statement should detail changes and/or additions to the dissertation in its conversion to a book manuscript.

(2) Substantial revisions and/or additions to the dissertation toward the completion of a book manuscript. The candidate’s third-year statement should detail these changes and offer a plan for completing the manuscript, with the understanding that press review should ideally begin in the fourth year.

(3) Substantial progress toward completion of a new book manuscript, separate from the dissertation. The candidate’s statement should include detailed plans for its completion, with the understanding that press review should ideally begin in the fourth year.

Additional Research

In either the article/chapter or book path toward tenure, further evidence of progress toward tenure and promotion can include a published or in-progress edited collection and/or acceptance for publication of part of the dissertation and/or a separate study in a journal or edited collection. By themselves, the following are not adequate evidence in the third year of satisfactory progress toward tenure and promotion: conference participation, invited lectures, book reviews, dictionary and encyclopedia entries, and other “minor” publications.

2. Teaching

By the mid-point of the third year, faculty members will normally have some experience teaching large lower-division courses and smaller upper-division classes. They should also have experience advising majors and minors in the Program (although they normally do not advise undergraduates during their first year). The Program does not expect them to have advised graduate students.

Based on observations of teaching by multiple tenured members of the core faculty, class evaluations by students, and syllabi and other course-related materials, the Program expects faculty members to have become good teachers by their third year. If they appear to have difficulty matching the quality of instruction normally expected in the Program, they should detail in their third-year statement what measures they have taken/are taking to improve their teaching (e.g., consulting with senior faculty members or working with the Teaching Effectiveness Program). The Program looks not so much for popularity among students but rather for excellence at promoting critical thinking about the role of race and ethnicity in society and at encouraging students to articulate their own, independent analyses.

3. Service

By the mid-point of the third year, Ethnic Studies faculty members should have a record of contributing to the governance of the Program through participation on Program committees and regular attendance at Core Faculty meetings (although faculty members do not normally serve on subcommittees other than the Curriculum Committee in their first year).

The College and University regularly demand high levels of service from Ethnic Studies faculty members because of their expertise and the unique symbolic value they often hold for the University’s diversity mission. These demands, especially in the case of untenured faculty members, are typically much higher than for faculty in other fields. The Program expects that, as part of their commitment to the service mission of Ethnic Studies, its faculty will fulfill some of these requests for service on campus and in the community. Faculty members’ third-year statements should draw connections, when appropriate, between their service and their research and teaching, demonstrating how the former has benefited the latter.

However, it is in the interests of the individual faculty members, the Program, the College, and the University that service loads for ES faculty should not interfere with either research or pedagogical missions. Normally, the need to turn down requests for service outside the Program will be higher during the first three years, as faculty members adjust to professorial responsibilities. Therefore, assistant professors during the first three years of their probationary period are strongly encouraged to seek the approval of the Program Director before agreeing to College-level or University-level committee work (including hiring committees outside of ES), guest lectures for classes elsewhere on campus, student organization advising, high-level obligations to national professional organizations, conference organization, etc. Such requests will need to be weighed against one another and against faculty members’ primary obligations to the research and teaching missions of the Program.

B. Expectations for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

1. Research

Quantity

Tenure expectations in Ethnic Studies include the following:

(1) Either publication of a single-authored scholarly book with a university press or other press possessing a solid reputation in Ethnic Studies or publication of a substantial number of single- or first-authored articles or book chapters (not book reviews, comments, or dictionary or encyclopedia entries) in peer-reviewed academic outlets. Publication means that no further revision (beyond minor copy-editing and/or index compilation) is required and that no additional review is pending. Letters from journals or presses may be required to confirm publication status.

and

(2) Some evidence of additional scholarly activity or promise of future productivity, such as additional articles or book chapters (these need not be single- or first-authored), an edited or co-edited scholarly collection or anthology (but not a scholarly dictionary or encyclopedia), a translation or critical edition, and/or substantial work in progress or under review.

and

(3) Some evidence of a growing national scholarly presence, such as presentations at national conferences, invitations to speak at academic institutions, service reviewing manuscripts for journals or presses, participation on journal or press editorial boards, receipt of external research grants or postdoctoral fellowships, published book reviews, inclusion in conference proceedings, organization of panels, roundtables, or workshops at national venues, or receipt of external research awards such as a “best article” award.

These three components balance against each other, but are weighted in decreasing order, such that significantly high productivity in category 2 could even out a slightly lower productivity in category 1, but high productivity in category 3 would not (although it could mitigate low productivity in category 2 provided that expectations were met in category 1).

Quality of Research

Quantity of publication is not an absolute standard; the quality and nature of the scholarship are important mediators in its evaluation. While quality can be difficult to measure, review committees will look to evidence of originality, importance, and impact or promise of impact in the field. Indicators of these factors can include reports from external evaluators, citations of a candidate’s published work, and venue of publication (i.e., “top” peer-reviewed journal articles or chapters in edited collections published by “top” academic presses will weigh more heavily in evaluations than publications that are less well placed or have less impact). The Program makes no automatic distinction between journal articles and book chapters, instead making its evaluation for quality and impact according to a holistic evaluation of each piece of scholarship. If candidates plan to stand for tenure based on articles/chapters, the expectation will be that they have published at least some of their work in “top” venues. Candidates are encouraged to consult with senior faculty and with the Director early in their careers about what venues are most appropriate for their scholarship.

Other Considerations for Research

Nature of scholarship can also mediate quantitative expectations. Thus, for example, publications requiring extensive archival research or fieldwork that could only be conducted over several years will necessarily take longer to appear in print than other types of research.

If a candidate’s scholarly trajectory has changed significantly since the receipt of the Ph.D., the Program assumes that the record will show some evidence of delay as a new research agenda got off the ground; however, the overall expectations for tenure and promotion remain unchanged.

2. Teaching

Teaching Expectations

Ethnic Studies prides itself on its reputation for high-quality teaching. As a small program with a disproportionate teaching and service mission on campus, it places significant weight on teaching excellence for tenure and promotion. The Program expects faculty members to share responsibility for teaching large lower-division courses and smaller upper-division classes. Faculty members also share responsibility for advising majors and minors in the program. They may also devote time to serving on graduate committees outside ES, but this is not an expectation for tenure and promotion.

Bases for the Evaluation of Teaching Quality

Multiple indicators of teaching quality will balance one another to provide an assessment of teaching quality. These can include the following: the candidate’s teaching statement, observations of teaching by multiple tenured members of the core faculty across the span of the faculty member’s probationary period, class evaluations by students, syllabi and other course-related materials, evidence of additional mentoring and advising at the graduate and undergraduate levels, and awards for excellence in teaching and mentorship.

The Program looks not so much for popularity among students but rather for excellence at promoting critical thinking about the role of race and ethnicity in society and at encouraging students to articulate their own, independent analyses. Peer review and qualitative evaluations, as a rule, will be more effective at gauging these accomplishments than strictly numerical evaluations.

3. Service

Internal Program Service

Ethnic Studies faculty members should contribute to the governance of the Program through participation on Program committees and regular attendance at Core Faculty meetings.

Other Service

The College and University regularly demand high levels of service from Ethnic Studies faculty members because of their expertise and the unique symbolic value they often hold for the University’s diversity mission. These demands, especially but not only in the case of untenured faculty members, are typically much higher than for faculty in other fields. The Program expects that, as part of their commitment to the service mission of Ethnic Studies, its faculty will fulfill some of these requests for service on campus and in the community. Service expectations for tenure are therefore comparatively high, and a faculty member’s service record is an important part of the tenure evaluation.

However, it is in the interests of the individual faculty members, the Program, the College, and the University that service loads for ES faculty should not interfere with either research or pedagogical missions. Therefore, assistant professors are encouraged to discuss requests for service with both their faculty mentors and the Program Director before agreeing to College-level or University-level committee work (including hiring committees outside of ES), guest lectures for classes elsewhere on campus, student organization advising, high-level obligations to national professional organizations, conference organization, etc. There is no rule for when one should decline such requests, but they must be weighed against one another and against the faculty member’s primary obligation to the research and teaching missions of the Program.

C. Expectations for Post-Tenure Reviews

1. Research

During post-tenure reviews before promotion to full professor (e.g., in the third, sixth, or ninth year after tenure), the normal expectation is that an associate professor will be able to demonstrate evidence of progress toward the research requirements for promotion to full professor.

2. Teaching

In addition, tenured faculty members should continue growing as teachers and demonstrate leadership in the development of the ES curriculum.

3. Service

Finally, the Program expects tenured faculty members to offer service to the University at levels above those of assistant professors in ES.

D. Expectations for Promotion to Full Professor

1. Research

Quantity of Research

In terms of quantity of research for promotion to full professor, expectations in Ethnic Studies include the following within six to ten years beyond promotion to associate professor with tenure:

and

(2) Evidence of additional scholarly activity or promise of continuing productivity, such as additional articles or book chapters (these need not be single- or first-authored), an edited or co-edited scholarly collection or anthology (but not a scholarly dictionary or encyclopedia), a translation or critical edition, and/or substantial work in progress or under review.

and

(3) Evidence of a national or international scholarly presence, including some of the following: presentations at national and international conferences, invitations to speak at academic institutions, service reviewing manuscripts for journals or presses, participation on journal or press editorial boards, receipt of external research grants or postdoctoral fellowships, invited book reviews, or receipt of external research awards such as a “best article” or “best book” award.

Quality of Research

Standards for the quality of publications for promotion to full professor are similar to those for promotion to associate professor with tenure, if not higher. At this point, the impact of a scholar’s work becomes easier to judge, but there still remains no easy formula for all cases.

2. Teaching

Expectations for and evaluation of teaching for promotion to full professor are similar to those for promotion to associate professor with tenure. In addition, the Program normally expects that candidates will have demonstrated leadership in developing the Ethnic Studies curriculum at the UO.

3. Service

Internal Program Service

Candidates for full professor should normally have an established record of contributing to the governance of the Program at levels at or above those of assistant professors, through participation on Program committees and regular attendance at Core Faculty meetings.

Other Service

The Program expects that, as part of their commitment to the service mission of Ethnic Studies, its faculty will fulfill some requests for service on campus and in the community. Service expectations for promotion to full professor are therefore high, and a faculty member’s service record is an indispensable part of the tenure evaluation. Promotion is never the sole result of research and teaching. However, it is in the interests of the individual faculty members, the Program, the College, and the University that service loads for ES faculty should not interfere with either research or pedagogical missions. Promotion is therefore never the sole result of service or of service and teaching.

Candidates should attend University or College promotion-to-full workshops at least once, shortly after promotion to associate professor, in addition to familiarizing themselves with the UO Faculty Guide to Promotion and Tenure: “One mission of a research university is the contribution of new knowledge and levels of performance; our resources and faculty workloads are allocated to allow for research; and productivity in your discipline is as much a requirement of the job as is meeting your responsibilities to your students, your department, and the broader university community. So in addition to your service as teacher and university community member, you need to stay active as a scholar in your discipline at a level that merits recognition and promotion to full professor within six to ten years of your becoming an associate professor” (1994 edition). The Guide goes on to note, cryptically, that “there is variability in career paths across UO’s many disciplines; therefore, a shift in the weighting of teaching versus research versus service accomplishments may be carried out in some cases, with promotion to Professor as the proper reward for excellence” (1994 edition). Given the vitality and fast-changing intellectual climate of Ethnic Studies, however, promotion to full professor without research excellence at least comparable to that necessary for tenure would be an exceptional phenomenon.

II. Procedures

A. Procedures for Pretenure Reviews

NOTE: Procedures may vary significantly for faculty members with tenure homes outside of ES. Those faculty members are encouraged to review tenure expectations and procedures for that department. To the extent that ES is involved in personnel reviews for these faculty members (and to the extent that these procedures are compatible with procedures agreed upon at the time of a faculty member’s hire), the following procedures will apply where appropriate.

1. Candidate Obligations

Pretenure Annual Reviews: Years 1, 2, & 4

During the spring term, assistant professors will submit an updated copy of their CV to the Director.

Third-Year (and Contract Renewal) Reviews

During the winter term of their third year, candidates should begin working on a statement describing their progress toward tenure thus far. The statement normally includes three sections, devoted to research, teaching, and service, respectively. It should be between four and five single-spaced pages. Rather than repeat the contents of the CV, this statement should offer a context for understanding the CV, casting achievements in research, teaching, and service into a coherent narrative. It should clearly address third-year expectations of the Program.

Before the end of the winter term, candidates should share this statement, an updated copy of their CV, and a research sample with a faculty mentor for feedback on format, style, content, etc. Candidates should submit their statement, CV, and a sample of their research to the Director by the first day of the spring term.

2. Committee Obligations

Pretenure Annual Reviews: Years 1, 2, & 4

There is no personnel committee involvement in these reviews.

Third-Year (and Contract Renewal) Reviews

Convened during the winter term, the third-year personnel committee is responsible for evaluating candidates’ progress toward tenure, based on their third-year statement, CV, and teaching evaluations. It normally includes three tenured faculty members, at least two from the Core Faculty. When appropriate to a candidate’s scholarship, a third member may come from outside of the Core Faculty. The committee should submit a written report on the candidate’s progress toward tenure to the Director by April 16. This report should provide a detailed assessment of the candidate’s research, teaching, and service. All members of the committee must sign the report.

3. Director Obligations

Pretenure Annual Reviews: Years 1, 2, & 4

During the spring term, the ES Director will meet with untenured, tenure-track appointed faculty members to discuss their progress toward tenure in terms of research, teaching, and service. Leading up to each meeting, the Director will arrange for a senior core faculty member to observe the teaching of each assistant professor and to submit a report to the Director. The Director will review the report as well as student evaluations and an updated copy of faculty members’ CVs.

Third-Year (and Contract Renewal) Reviews

In the fall term, the Director should communicate with the candidate regarding the review process and expectations. In the winter term, the Director should solicit members for the third-year-review committee and appoint a chair for the committee. Before April 26, the Director will arrange a meeting of the tenured Core Faculty to discuss the report and will then write a letter to the CAS Dean including the following: a report on the discussion of the tenured faculty, an independent assessment of the candidate’s progress toward tenure, and a recommendation for or against contract renewal. The Director will forward this letter (signed by the candidate), along with the committee report (signed by the candidate), and the candidate’s CV and statement (both signed by the candidate) to the Dean by May 1.

4. Third-Year-Review Timeline

Fall: The Director communicates with the candidate about the review process.

Winter: The candidate drafts a statement and prepares a curriculum vitae and research samples. The Director convenes a personnel committee.

First Day of Spring Term: By this date, the candidate submits all review materials to the Director.

April 16: By this date, the committee submits its report to Director.

April 26: By this date, the tenured Core Faculty convenes and discusses the committee report.

May 1: By this date, the Director submits the candidate dossier and a recommendation to the CAS Dean.

B. Procedures for Tenure-and-Promotion Reviews

1. Candidate Obligations

During the spring term of their fifth year, candidates should begin working on a tenure statement. The statement normally includes three sections, devoted to research, teaching, and service, respectively. It should be between five and six single-spaced pages. Rather than repeat the contents of the CV, this statement should offer a context for understanding the CV, casting achievements in research, teaching, and service into a coherent narrative. It should describe the substance of the candidate’s research clearly and describe the overall coherence and importance of the candidate’s research agenda. It should avoid specialized language and jargon, with an audience of senior faculty outside Ethnic Studies in mind. Furthermore, it should speak specifically to the tenure expectations of the Program. When appropriate, it should draw connections among the candidate’s research, teaching, and service. If applicable, candidates should take the opportunity in this statement to explain the meaning of co-authorship and author order in their field, as well as the significance of any awards, fellowships, or distinctions they have received.

In early April, candidates should share a draft of this statement and their CV with their faculty mentors for feedback on format, style, content, etc. They should give a final copy of the statement and the CV to the Director by April 25, along with clean copies of all published work since the time of their appointment at the UO and any other materials they desire to be included in the tenure file. Also due at this time is a signed letter from the candidate indicating a desire to retain or to waive rights of access to confidential letters of recommendation and evaluation. Further explanations of options for waiving, retaining, or partially waiving rights of access, along with sample language for letters appear in the UO Faculty Guide to Promotion and Tenure. Candidates may also submit copies of unpublished manuscripts if (1) the candidate wants these included as part of the tenure review and (2) they represent work accepted for publication or currently under review for publication (with the expectation that they will be accepted within the next twelve months). Further material that might be requested from the candidate can include, but is not limited to, documentation of publication status and evidence confirming academic peer review of publications. Candidates have the right to continue to submit material and/or updated CVs for inclusion in their files after April 25, but these might not be included in materials sent to external reviewers.

In considering possible names to give the Program for external reviewers, candidates should consider experts in their field(s) of senior rank at institutions that are at least comparable to the UO (e.g., AAU universities). Normally, possible reviewers should not have substantial personal connection to candidates (e.g., a former thesis advisor, relative, or co-author), although there may be exceptions (e.g., as when only a candidate’s co-author or former advisor is qualified to offer a coherent picture of the candidate’s research agenda as a whole). Candidates should be aware, however, that the Dean’s Advisory Committee (DAC) and Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) often give more weight to letters by evaluators chosen by the Program and without a substantive personal connection to the candidate. Furthermore, the University does not obligate the Program to solicit candidate-nominated reviewers.

All candidates should attend Academic Affairs and CAS workshops on tenure and promotion at least twice, once during their first three years and again in their fifth year, in addition to familiarizing themselves with the UO Faculty Guide to Promotion and Tenure: http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/tenureguide/tenureguide.html.

2. Committee Obligations

Convened during the spring term of the candidate’s fifth year, the tenure-and-promotion committee is responsible for determining whether or not candidates have met Program expectations for tenure and promotion to associate professor. It bases its evaluation on the candidate’s submitted research, the tenure statement, the CV, teaching evaluations (both peer evaluations and student evaluations), and external evaluations of the candidate’s research. It consists of three tenured faculty members, at least two from the Core Faculty. When appropriate to a candidate’s scholarship, a third member may come from outside of the Core Faculty. Committee members should begin reading the candidate’s publications and reviewing teaching evaluations during the summer, and it should submit a written report to the Director by October 10. This report should provide a detailed assessment of the candidate’s research, teaching, and service, and make a recommendation for or against tenure and promotion. All members of the committee must sign the report.

3. Director Obligations

In the winter term of the candidate’s fifth year, the Director should communicate with the candidate regarding the review process and expectations. In the spring term, the Director should solicit members for the tenure-and promotion committee and appoint a chair for the committee. The Director should also generate a list of possible external reviewers in consultation with the tenured members of the Core Faculty and, when appropriate, members of the participating faculty. After generating this list, the Director normally consults with the candidate regarding possible reviewers, as well as reviewers who might be inappropriate. A final list should include around 10 names to ensure the securing of at least six reviewers, a majority nominated by the Program. The Director may not contact potential reviewers before obtaining a signed letter from the candidate indicating a desire to waive, retain, or partially waive rights of access to the dossier. The Director should attempt to secure external reviewers by May 1 and request receipt of external reviews by September 15.

Before October 25 of the candidate’s sixth year, the Director will arrange a meeting of the tenured Core Faculty to discuss the report of the tenure-and-promotion committee. All tenured members of the Core Faculty (except the Director) will vote for or against tenure and promotion using signed, secret ballots. Faculty members may also abstain. All ballots will remain in a secure place as part of the faculty member’s personnel file. The Director will then write a letter to the CAS Dean including the following: a report on the discussion and vote of the tenured faculty, an independent assessment of the candidate’s progress toward tenure, and a recommendation for or against tenure and promotion. The Director will forward this letter, along with the committee report, and the rest of the candidate’s tenure file to the CAS Dean’s office by November 1. After submitting the file to the Dean’s office, the Director normally informs the candidate of the outcome of the faculty vote (for or against) and the Director’s own recommendation to the Dean (in the process, the Director must ensure that there is no breach of confidentiality for other faculty members or for the external reviewers).

4. Tenure-and-Promotion Timeline

Winter (Year 5): The Director communicates with the candidates. The candidate should begin thinking about possible external reviewers, but not share these yet with the Director.

Early April (Year 5): The candidate drafts a statement and revises the CV, sharing both with the faculty mentor. The Director generates list of potential external reviewers.

April 25 (Year 5): The candidate submits all materials to the Director, including a signed letter retaining or waiving rights of access to the tenure dossier.

May 1 (Year 5): The Director solicits external reviewers.

Summer: The committee reviews the candidate’s tenure materials.

September 15: External reviews are due.

October 10 (Year 6): Committee report and recommendation are due.

October 25 (Year 6): By this date, the tenured core faculty votes (Director abstains).

November 1 (Year 6): By this date, the Director submits the dossier and an independent recommendation to CAS Dean.

November-February (Year 6): The Dean’s Advisory Committee discusses the dossier and makes a recommendation to the Dean. The Dean then makes a recommendation to the Provost and meets with the candidate to discuss the recommendations up to this point. Following this meeting, the candidate may write a written response to the recommendations, possibly rebutting a negative recommendation.

February-May (Year 6): The Faculty Personnel Committee discusses the dossier and makes a recommendation to the Provost. Finally, the Provost may request a meeting with candidates before making a decision to grant or not to grant tenure and promotion.

June 15 (Year 6): By this date, the Provost makes a decision on tenure and promotion.

C. Procedures for Post-Tenure Reviews

Post-tenure reviews take place every three years following tenure. They follow similar procedures as the third-year review. For associate professors, evaluation takes place with a view toward the progress of the candidate toward promotion to full professor.

D. Procedures for Promotion-to-Full Professor Reviews

Procedures for promotion to full professor are similar to those for promotion to associate professor with tenure, with a few changes. The personnel committee should only include full professors, external reviewers should normally hold full-professor rank or its equivalent, and only full professors on the core faculty vote on promotion (participating faculty may also be enlisted to help staff the personnel committee). Since promotion to full professor is not mandated, it is incumbent on candidates to notify the Director early in the spring term of their intention to stand for promotion. The personnel committee and external reviewers typically emphasize scholarship, teaching, and service since the candidate’s last promotion, except when consideration of earlier material offers insight into a candidate’s career trajectory.

III. Special Personnel Considerations

A. Faculty with Tenure Homes Outside of Ethnic Studies

Procedures and expectations may vary significantly for faculty members with tenure homes outside of ES. Those faculty members are encouraged to review tenure expectations and procedures for that department. To the extent that ES is involved in personnel reviews for these faculty members (and to the extent that these procedures are compatible with procedures agreed upon at the time of a faculty member’s hire), the following procedures will apply where appropriate.

B. Early Reviews

According to the UO Faculty Guide to Promotion and Tenure, candidates for early tenure decisions “must have established in the shorter time unequivocal evidence, both in published scholarship or its equivalent in the arts, and in teaching, that the quality equals or surpasses that required in sixth-year cases” (1994 edition).

C. Scholarship of Pedagogy

Publication of instruction manuals, study guides, and textbooks can serve as evidence of teaching and service excellence. Research on education, on pedagogy, and on the teaching of Ethnic Studies, however, can serve as evidence of research excellence if it meets the requirements of other research (e.g., peer review and impact).

D. Negative Decisions

In the case of negative tenure recommendations within the Program or College, candidates can submit a rebuttal to be included in the dossier before it proceeds to the University level.

E. Co-authorship

Faculty members in ES are encouraged to engage in collaborative research, although this does create a practical problem for evaluation of research. Candidates’ statements should therefore elaborate on the role the candidates played in compiling and disseminating collaborative research. Furthermore, it is a good idea to keep documentation of one’s degree of participation in collaborative projects.

F. Publication Venues: Electronic Publications, Book Chapters, Journals, and Presses

The Program makes no automatic distinction between electronic and physical publication venues or between journals and book chapters. (Indeed, because of its interdisciplinary nature and the disciplinary focus of the most prestigious journals, edited collections have historically made a greater impact than journals in shaping the field of Ethnic Studies.) The Program looks primarily to two considerations in evaluating publication venues: status in the field (potential impact) and peer review (intellectual rigor). If candidates have questions about the status of electronic publication venues or the status of a journal or press, they should consult their faculty mentors and/or the Director.

While not meant to be exhaustive, the following alphabetical lists offer a guideline to assist faculty in identifying appropriate publishing venues for book manuscripts, edited collections, and book chapters. There are always exceptions, but the creation of this list acknowledges that the presses that have historically defined and shaped the interdisciplinary field of Ethnic Studies have not always been the same presses that publish highly specialized books in traditional disciplines. Therefore, scholars outside of ES often do not know how to assess the potential impact of some presses in the field.

In addition, since Ethnic Studies has evolved as a field concerned with impact outside of the academy, trade presses have published many of the best and most influential books. (These presses have also often felt less constrained by traditional disciplinary marketing constraints.) The trade presses listed below have all published highly regarded books by top scholars in Ethnic Studies. Faculty members may choose to publish through trade presses; however, for tenure and promotion reviews, they must demonstrate proof that manuscripts and book chapters have passed through a rigorous, academic peer review process before publication. Junior faculty members are encouraged to consult regularly with their faculty mentor and/or the Program Director regarding appropriate publishing venues.

Top University Presses in ES