Faculty Personnel Committee 2002-2003 Report to the Senate

The Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) has now completed its work for the 2002-2003 academic year. The FPC consists of ten elected faculty members and two student representatives (when possible). The faculty members each have one vote and the students are non-voting participants in the deliberative process. Five faculty are chosen from the College of Arts and Sciences and five from various professional schools. The faculty on this year's committee were: Dare Baldwin (Psychology), Tom Bivins (Journalism and Communication), Dianne Dugaw (English), Tom Dyke (Chemistry), Mark Johnson (Philosophy), Randall Moore (Music), Chris Phillips (Mathematics), Ying Tan (Art), Jim Terborg (Business), James Tice (Architecture). Mark Johnson served as Chair of the FPC, and the one student representative was Mena Ravassipour.

During the 2002-2003 academic year, the FPC advised the Provost on thirty-six cases involving tenure and/or promotion. The breakdown of the cases was as follows:

Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure 18
Tenure Only 4
Promotion to Professor 13
Senior Instructor with Tenure 1

The FPC held seventeen meetings during the current academic year, each lasting from one and one- half to two and one-half hours. In addition, each faculty member spent approximately two to three hours per week reading files. Each member was responsible for writing the FPC report on three to four cases, which required a substantial additional time commitment beyond merely reading a file.

Most of the files were very well prepared, adhering strictly to the guidelines found in two key sources: (1) A Faculty Guide to Promotion and Tenure at the University of Oregon (Office of Academic Affairs), and (2) Timetable and Guidelines for Recommending Promotion and/or Tenure for Faculty Members (Office of Academic Affairs). We strongly urge everyone connected with the preparation of tenure and promotion files to follow these guidelines carefully, which would remedy many of the problems encountered by the FPC each year in evaluating the files.

Every year the FPC Final Report includes a litany of complaints about the preparation of files plus pleas for strict adherence to guidelines. This year's FPC is no different in this respect. We have singled out the following issues for special attention, based on specific problems we encountered with a small number of the files we were reviewing.

• Every professional school that has a separate promotion and tenure document should include a copy of it in the file. Because standards for research quantity and quality may vary across fields and disciplines, it is crucial to have an explicit statement of expectations and standards for research, as well as for teaching and service. These standards should be applied in a consistent fashion for all cases within a specific department, college, or school, and they should be consistent with university-wide guidelines.
• University guidelines specify a maximum of six to seven letters from outside reviewers. We believe that each file should contain at least five letters and not more than seven, unless special circumstances dictate otherwise, in which case the reasons for this variation should be provided. This year we saw the number of external letters range from four to ten or more.
• It is important to explain the reputation of any schools and programs of the external reviewers, within the candidate's field(s). It should be made clear why the reviewer is qualified to evaluate the candidate's work.
• The same materials for review should be sent to all of the reviewers, unless there is a compelling reason for not doing so, in which case an explanation for the difference should be given in the Department Head's evaluation letter.
• Ample time for a considered response from external reviewers is crucial. The FPC recommends a minimum of two months (and preferably longer) between the receipt of materials and the deadline for the reviewer's report. We noted one case in which the period between the date of the letter requesting the review and the deadline for the review was less than a month!
• The FPC noted more than one occasion when there was an obvious discrepancy between the assessment of external reviewers and that of the candidate's department or school. When this occurs, the reasons for this should be addressed by the Department Committee and/or Department Head's letter. Deficiencies and strengths alike should be examined.
• Connections between the candidate and external reviewers should be explained in detail, minimally in brief statements identifying the reviewers, but also, if appropriate, in the Department evaluation. Some units did an outstanding job of this, while others left us speculating, without evidence to resolve our doubt.
• Each evaluating unit (especially at the department level) should give explicit guidance concerning the significance, if any, of the ordering of authors for publications and grants. Also, the extent of the candidate's contribution to publications and grants should be clarified
• Each department should provide an explanation of the relative weighting to be given to various types of publications, such as peer-reviewed book chapters, peer-reviewed articles, non-peer- reviewed articles, peer-reviewed conference proceedings, extended abstracts, and so forth. The FPC members cannot be expected to know these weightings for areas outside their fields.
• In support of the previous three comments above, we strongly recommend that each department supply a list of publications (separate from that provided in the c.v.) from the date of appointment or last promotion that (a) classifies each publication according to such categories as: peer-reviewed article, scholarly monograph, peer-reviewed book chapter, refereed conference proceedings, textbook, non-refereed article, etc., and (b) indicates (with an underline or asterisk) faculty co-authors.
• It should be made clear in the Department Committee evaluation how we are to regard various types of books listed by the candidate.
  • First, are they research books, textbooks, or some other kind of scholarly publication
  • Second, what is the department, school, or college's policy on the relative weighting of scholarly research monographs versus textbooks?
  • Third, to what extent are books of various types to be considered scholarly or creative activity? It should be made clear on the c.v. which books are primarily textbooks, and when appropriate, information about such books should be included in the teaching section of the file.
• It is extremely useful to have an account of how courses are grouped by various departments and schools in calculating teaching averages and comparing them to department means.

In closing, the members of the FPC once again wish to express their gratitude for the excellent work of Ms. Carol White. Her efficient and highly professional handling of the details and mechanics of the processing of the files helped us do our job better and kept us on track. Carol cracks the whip with a gentle hand.