3.6.3 Promotion and Tenure Reviews and Developmental Reviews: College of Arts and Sciences

I. PREAMBLE

The College of Arts and Sciences of Lewis & Clark is a college that deeply values teaching. Its faculty is a community of scholars and artists who care passionately about teaching and recognize teaching and scholarship or creative activity as mingled expressions of a single vocation. As representatives of the liberal arts and sciences, the faculty participate in and contribute to the broader academic discourse within and across disciplinary lines outside Lewis & Clark. That larger continuing conversation that the faculty engage in with their peers in turn informs teaching and learning at Lewis & Clark College.

II. TYPES AND SCHEDULES OF REVIEW

Apart from the review for all faculty that is undertaken biennially for the purpose of determining salary, there are two types of faculty review: promotion and tenure review and developmental review. In the event that the chair is the subject of review, the associate dean shall appoint a tenured faculty member to fulfill the chair’s role in the review process.

The promotion and tenure review for an assistant professor normally occurs in the sixth year from the time of initial appointment. Assistant professors shall normally be given three-year appointments and shall be reviewed in the second and fourth year after appointment in order to determine whether they are making satisfactory progress toward meeting the institution’s standards for promotion and tenure in the areas of teaching and scholarly or creative activity. Pretenure reviews will be conducted by a developmental review committee. Such reviews will also result in recommendations about whether the faculty member should be given a new three-year appointment that will replace the current appointment, thus extending the current appointment for three years beyond the year in which the review takes place. The only circumstances under which the probationary period can be extended shall be when the dean of the College, after consultation with the department chair (or surrogate) and with the associate dean, approves a request by a faculty member to extend the probationary period by a maximum of one year and specifies a new schedule for review. Such approval will be granted only when it is clearly in the interests both of the College and of the faculty member, for example, when a faculty member leads an overseas program or has taken a leave of absence for health or other personal reasons. The only circumstances under which the faculty member under review may request that the probationary period be shortened shall be when the department chair (or surrogate) recommends that an earlier promotion and tenure review than that specified in the letter of appointment is clearly in the best interest of both the College and the faculty member, and such recommendation is endorsed by the dean of the College.

An assistant professor granted tenure will also be promoted to the rank of associate professor.

Faculty may be appointed at the rank of associate professor or professor without tenure. In such instances, the schedule for review, including the promotion and tenure review and any developmental reviews, will be specified in the letter of appointment with the only exceptions being those noted above.

A promotion and tenure review is required for an associate professor to be promoted to the rank of professor. Associate professors are normally reviewed for promotion to the rank of professor in the sixth year of service as an associate professor. The chair (or surrogate if the chair is the subject of review) may recommend to the dean of the College that the review be advanced or delayed in accordance with the development of the reviewee.

One may apply for promotion to the rank of professor after a period of four years. Besides meeting the standards for promotion to the rank of professor, the applicant will then have to demonstrate a clear record of extraordinary performance as a teacher and national prominence in scholarly or creative activity.

Within two to three years of receiving tenure a faculty member shall request a discussion with the Dean of the College about professional development. This discussion does not replace the normal biennial salary review process, but may be conducted in connection with a normal salary review.

The goal of the discussion is articulation of a plan for continued development in teaching, scholarship or creative activity, and service. The plan should also help the faculty member to compile a robust portfolio that can form the basis for a case for promotion to Professor. The faculty member may also ask for additional discussion about the plan prior to submitting a file in support of a case for promotion to Professor.

To guide discussion, the faculty member should submit the following documents to the Dean of the College:

• A reflective statement containing a self-assessment of performance as a teacher, scholar, and College citizen and a plan for ongoing professional development.

• An optional assessment of the feasibility of the plan by a Department chair or colleague invited into the process by the faculty member.

In turn, the Dean of the College shall meet with the faculty member to discuss the plan, including implementation strategies, and write a letter to the faculty member summarizing the discussion. The Dean shall communicate with appropriate department chairs or program directors about issues in the plan that may affect the operation of a department or program.

If the faculty member opts not to be reviewed for promotion to Professor within six years of being tenured, the original plan should be updated periodically, preferably every five years after its first submission. The procedure for updating the plan shall follow that described above for generation and discussion of the original plan.

Professors seeking similar guidance in professional development are encouraged to follow the guidelines outlined above for associate professors.

In rare instances, the College may appoint new faculty at the rank of associate professor or professor with tenure. In such cases, the authorization for the position must stipulate that the appointment may be made with tenure. In addition, the dean of the College, in consultation with the department chair and the search committee, initiates the promotion and tenure review by the Committee on Promotion and Tenure (CPT). The CPT will review the faculty member’s dossier and recommend to the dean of the College whether the faculty member meets the College’s criteria for the granting of tenure and the appropriateness of the proposed rank. The dean of the College will participate in the meetings of the CPT but will not vote. The dean of the College shall recommend in writing to the president whether the faculty member should be granted tenure and at what rank.

Each faculty member will undergo a biennial salary review. In years when the faculty member has undergone either a promotion and tenure review or a developmental review, the materials prepared for that review will substitute for the materials called for in the section on procedures for salary review (see Faculty Salary Policy). No faculty member will be formally reviewed more than once each academic year.

III. PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEWS

The associate dean shall, after consultation with the dean of the College, the appropriate department chair (or surrogate–see procedure in preceding section), and the faculty member under review, select two tenured faculty, one from within the reviewee’s division and one from outside the reviewee’s division, to serve with the reviewee’s department chair (or surrogate) on a three-person developmental committee. The chair of the reviewee’s department (or surrogate) will chair the developmental review committee and, as a member of the committee, shall consult with the other tenured members of the department to bring the departmental perspective to the committee. If the faculty member under review holds the rank of professor, the two selected members of the developmental review committee shall normally also hold the rank of professor. Whenever possible and appropriate, the selected members of the developmental review committee will be drawn from previous developmental review committees for the faculty member under review.

In the case of an untenured or of a tenured associate professor, the developmental review committee shall be charged with judging whether the faculty member under review is making satisfactory progress toward promotion or tenure. In all cases of untenured faculty members under review, the developmental review committee shall also make a recommendation about reappointment based on its evaluation of the teaching and scholarship or creative activity of the faculty member under review. In all developmental reviews, the developmental review committee shall prepare a detailed written report assessing the quality of the faculty member’s teaching, scholarly or creative activity, and service, and outlining the rationale for its recommendation.

Prior to the developmental review committee’s formal submission of its report and the accompanying materials to the associate dean, the faculty member under review shall be given the opportunity to read the report, offer corrections of any factual errors that might be contained within it, and submit a written response to the associate dean, which will become part of the review materials. Such a response should be submitted within a week. The faculty member under review should also indicate in writing within the week to the associate dean that he or she has had an opportunity to read and respond to the report. The developmental review committee shall submit its report and recommendation to the dean of the College.

In the case of an untenured faculty member, if the developmental review committee does not recommend reappointment, the reviewee shall be given 10 days to respond in writing to the dean of the College.

In the case of an untenured faculty member, the dean of the College, in consultation with the associate dean, shall evaluate the review materials as well as the judgment of the developmental review committee. The dean of the College shall decide whether to reappoint the faculty member. The assessment and decision shall be communicated by the dean of the College in a letter to the reviewee.

In the case of a tenured associate professor, the dean of the College shall assess whether the reviewed faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward promotion. In the case of a tenured professor, the dean of the College shall assess whether the faculty member under review is maintaining the standards of excellence held by the institution.

IV. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEWS

Reviews for both tenure and promotion will be carried out by the Committee on Promotion and Tenure (CPT) provided for in the faculty bylaws. As part of the evaluation for promotion or tenure the associate dean, after consultation with the department chair or surrogate and the faculty member under review, shall solicit external reviews of the faculty member’s scholarly or creative activity from recognized scholars within the faculty member’s discipline. These reviews and the names of the reviewers will be confidential unless the College is compelled by a legal action to make them available.

The department chair or surrogate shall make these external reviews and the rest of the candidate’s file available to all tenured members of the department. The tenured members shall discuss the file and the department’s decision. Emeriti faculty are not considered to be tenured department members.

The department chair or surrogate shall submit to the dean a written assessment of the teaching, scholarship or creative activity, and institutional service of the faculty member under review. That assessment shall include the outcome of the departmental discussion and a specific recommendation about tenure or promotion. This letter will be signed by the department chair. All tenured department members will be asked to affirm, by their signature, that they have read the letter and that it accurately summarizes the departmental discussion. Should a tenured department member feel unable to sign this statement, he or she must submit an individual letter. Any such letters become part of the candidate’s file and are seen by the candidate, who is entitled to submit a response.

The faculty member under review shall be given the opportunity to read the chair’s report, offer corrections of any factual errors contained in it, and, if he or she wishes, submit a written response, which shall become a part of the review file. Such a response to the chair’s report should be submitted to the associate dean within one week. The faculty member under review should also indicate in writing to the associate dean within one week that he or she has had an opportunity to read and respond to the chair’s report.

The chair or surrogate shall forward all review materials to the associate dean. After reviewing the materials, the associate dean shall forward the review file to the CPT together with the chair’s recommendation and all external review letters.

At an early meeting of the CPT in which a faculty member’s review file is considered, the department chair or surrogate shall meet separately with the committee, if the CPT so requests, to answer questions of information and clarification. If additional questions or need for clarification should arise in the CPT’s deliberations, the department chair or surrogate may be invited back for further consultation. Dissent from the recommendation of the department chair or surrogate also requires that specific areas of disagreement be addressed by the CPT. A written response addressing the areas of disagreement should be sent to the department chair or surrogate. The dean of the College will participate in the meetings of the CPT but will not vote. The CPT shall make its recommendation about promotion and tenure to the dean of the College with a rationale for its recommendation, including, when appropriate, its reasons for differing with past reviews. A copy of the CPT’s recommendation shall be sent to the reviewee at the same time that it is forwarded to the dean of the College.

Based on an evaluation of the review materials and the judgments offered at the various stages of the review, the dean of the College shall make a recommendation about promotion and tenure in writing to the president. Should the dean of the College dissent from the CPT’s recommendation, he or she shall discuss the reasons for the dissenting judgment with the CPT prior to submitting a recommendation to the president. A copy of the dean of the College’s recommendation shall be sent to the faculty member under review and to the CPT.

If the dean of the College’s recommendation is not to tenure or not to promote, the faculty member under review shall be given 10 days from the time of receipt of this recommendation to request a grievance proceeding. Only after such a grievance procedure has been completed will the dean of the College forward his or her recommendation and all other review materials to the president.

Grievances can be made only on the grounds that the stated review procedures have not been followed (e.g., that the factual record contains errors or that due consideration was not given), or on the grounds of discrimination or specific violations of academic freedom. Such grievances, stating both the grounds and giving the evidence supporting the grievance, shall be made in writing within 10 calendar days from the date of notification of the review decision of the dean of the College. The grievance shall be referred by the dean to a committee composed of the three most recent past chairs of the CPT (formerly FCPT) who are on campus and are not directly involved in the case. The Grievance Committee shall determine whether the charges are warranted and make a recommendation to the president. In all cases, the president’s judgment shall be final.

V. THE REVIEW FILE

It is the responsibility of the faculty member under review in consultation with the associate dean and the department chair or surrogate to assemble the materials necessary for all reviews: updated curriculum vitae; the summary statements of past reviews; a statement of the candidate’s teaching philosophy, including responses to any concerns contained in the teaching evaluations, and plans for the future; a sample of the candidate’s course syllabi; a complete set of all teaching evaluations, for tenure candidates from the point of hire, for all others since the last review; a statement containing an overview of the candidate’s scholarly or creative activity in language that is understandable by the nonspecialist, placing this work in the context of the candidate’s field of interest, and describing his or her plans for the future; copies of all publications, papers, abstracts, performance and exhibit programs; a statement of the candidate’s service activities; together with other such materials as are appropriate (e.g., evaluations of a candidate’s teaching and advising provided by colleagues, former students, or alumni; reviews of the faculty member’s work; research grants and research grant proposals for scholarly and creative projects, and works in progress; a letter from the chair of any interdisciplinary programs in which the candidate participates).

The CPT will base its assessment of a candidate’s scholarly or creative activity on the work that is published, submitted for publication, displayed, and/or performed by the time the file has been submitted to the associate dean. However, candidates may add to their files critical responses to that work appearing after file submission (e.g., reviews of submitted articles, books, or grant proposals; letters of acceptance from publishers; published critical reviews of exhibitions or performances).

For promotion and tenure reviews, external confidential reviews of the reviewee’s scholarship or creative activity will be solicited on behalf of the review process by the associate dean after consultation with the department chair or surrogate and the faculty member under review. To assure confidentiality of both the review letters and their authors, external reviews will be added to the file by the associate dean and later removed from the file before it is returned to the faculty member. These guidelines should be followed when selecting reviewers:

• Normally, a candidate’s file should contain no fewer than four external reviews of scholarship and creative activity. When the candidate’s work crosses disciplinary boundaries, it may be appropriate to select more reviewers so as to represent the full range of a candidate’s work.
• When possible, at least one of the reviewers should be selected from peer or aspirant liberal arts colleges.
• The primary criteria for selection of reviewers should be that they a) possess demonstrated expertise in an appropriate field of scholarship and/or creative activity, and b) are capable of providing an objective evaluation of the candidate’s work. Thus, untenured faculty will not normally be invited to serve as reviewers. It is the responsibility of the associate dean and department chair, in consultation with the candidate, to see that reviewers meet these criteria.
• Because candidates are often acquainted with many key individuals in their fields, it is impossible—and unreasonable—to restrict the list of reviewers to individuals who have had no personal contact with the candidate. However, the following individuals should not normally be chosen to serve as reviewers: the candidate’s doctoral and postdoctoral mentors; individuals who have served as coauthors, collaborators, or coinvestigators on research or artistic projects; individuals with whom the candidate has had an intimate personal relationship.

VI. STANDARDS, CRITERIA, AND EVIDENCE

A. Standards for Review

Appreciating the variety of ways in which a faculty member can demonstrate a quality contribution to the institution, the CPT and developmental review committees will apply the following standards in evaluating performances.

1. Excellent teaching is expected in all reviews and shall have been demonstrated fully at the time of tenure. Performance in any other category, however superlative, will not be a substitute for excellent teaching in any review.
2. Excellent scholarly or creative activity will likewise be expected of all faculty in all reviews and shall have been fully demonstrated at the time of tenure.
3. Quality service to the institution will be expected of all faculty in all reviews. Candidates for tenure will be held to a different standard from other candidates from whom more College service will be expected.

Scholarship and teaching are the primary categories in all reviews. A recommendation to promote to the rank of professor indicates an evaluation by the CPT that the reviewee has demonstrated that he or she has continued to meet the standards for a teacher and scholar that were demonstrated at the time of tenure. Review for promotion to the rank of professor shall consider the reviewee’s performance in the rank of associate professor normally over a period of six years.

B. Teaching Criteria

1. Statement of Criteria

In all reviews, the faculty member must demonstrate that his or her teaching is excellent. The members of the CPT or developmental review committee should be guided by high standards of evaluation in the teaching category and should simultaneously recognize the diversity of pedagogical approaches that can result in excellent teaching. Specifically, the assessment of teaching should be based on such factors as peer and student evaluations, the quality of course syllabi, academic advising, and, when appropriate, course development, contributions to the core program, interdisciplinary teaching, overseas and other off-campus programs, student or faculty-student research, student-designed majors, and departmental honors projects.

The following questions, modified by the demands of a given discipline, will be asked by the CPT or developmental review committee in evaluating the teaching performance of faculty. The questions, taken collectively, will assist the CPT or developmental review committee in making an overall evaluation of the reviewee’s teaching performance.

1. What is it like to teach in the reviewee’s field? Should the CPT or developmental review committee modify any of the following questions in light of unique features of the reviewee’s field? Are there particular challenges that must be overcome in teaching this subject matter, which members of the CPT or developmental review committee should take into consideration in evaluating the reviewee’s teaching performance?

2. What are the reviewee’s own reflections on his or her teaching performance during the period under review?

3. Does the evidence demonstrate that his or her courses are current with knowledge and approaches in the field?

4. What are student perceptions of the reviewee’s teaching performance? Does the evidence demonstrate that the reviewee is responsive to student needs? Is a relationship struck with students in the classroom that is conducive to student learning? Is the reviewee available during office hours or by appointment for consultation with students outside of class time?

5. If the reviewee led an overseas or off-campus program during the period under review, are there special considerations pertinent to this program that should be taken into account (such as preparation for the program, teaching the orientation as an overload, teaching in a foreign setting)?

6. What is the nature and quality of nonclassroom work related to student learning? For example, does the reviewee sponsor independent study work, practica, senior thesis work, or independent research with students?

7. What is the reviewee’s performance in the capacity of premajor academic advisor or major academic advisor?

8. What is the nature of the reviewee’s performance in nondepartmentally based teaching, such as core program teaching, teaching interdisciplinary courses?

9. In the case of a faculty member hired with explicit responsibilities for program development, how has he or she fulfilled those responsibilities?

2. Evidence Relevant to Teaching Criteria

The reviewee bears the burden of demonstrating connections between the evidence provided in his or her file and answers to the questions listed above. All files must include student evaluations from all courses taught for the period under review, not to exceed six years. Evidence in support of teaching effectiveness may include other material such as syllabi, self-evaluations, evaluative statements by colleagues, students, or alumni.

C. Scholarly and Creative Activity Criteria

1. Statement of Criteria

In evaluating scholarly or creative activity, the CPT or developmental review committee should assess the quality of the reviewee’s current and ongoing work with the understanding that excellent scholarly or creative activity can take a variety of forms. Scholarly or creative activity should be subject to peer review, e.g., articles in refereed professional journals, books published by presses employing peer review, book chapters, publications in nonrefereed journals recognized by peers as of high quality, exhibits in juried shows, and performances for public audiences. The following questions, modified by the demands of a given discipline, will be asked by the CPT or developmental review committee in evaluating the scholarly or creative activity of faculty. The questions, taken collectively, will assist the CPT or developmental review committee in making an overall evaluation of the reviewee’s scholarly or creative activity.

1. What form(s) does scholarly or creative activity take in the reviewee’s discipline, and how is the quality of such activity determined? Are there particular challenges that must be overcome in engaging in scholarly or creative activity in this field at a liberal arts and sciences institution such as Lewis & Clark College?
2. What scholarly or creative activity has the reviewee been engaged in and produced during the period under review?
3. What are the reviewee’s own reflections on his or her scholarly or creative activity during the period under review?
4. Is there evidence that peers in the field find the work of the reviewee to be of high quality?
5. In the case of a faculty member under consideration for tenure, is there evidence that the reviewee’s work has moved beyond the doctorate or other terminal degree?
6. In the case of a faculty member under consideration for promotion to the rank of professor, what evidence is there of new scholarly or creative accomplishment since the time of tenure?
7. If the reviewee led an overseas or off-campus program during the period under review, to what extent has scholarly or creative activity by the reviewee been affected by participation in overseas or off-campus programs?
8. Besides ongoing and completed scholarly or creative works, what other scholarly or creative activities has the reviewee been engaged in, for example, refereeing scholarly or creative work, editorial advising, reviewing grant applications, or performing other professional services that reflect on peers’ regard for the quality of the reviewee’s work.

2. Evidence Relevant to Scholarly and Creative Activity Criteria

The evaluation of the quality of a faculty member’s scholarly or creative activity should be made by peers in his or her field, including external reviews in the case of candidates for tenure or promotion. Evidence may take a variety of forms so long as the reviewee and his or her department demonstrate the relevance of a given type of evidence in the reviewee’s field. Scholarly or creative activity may include books published by presses employing peer review, articles in refereed professional journals, book chapters, and publications in nonrefereed journals that are recognized by peers as of high quality. Other evidence will also be noted such as exhibits in juried shows, performances for public audiences, receipt of grants or fellowships that involve a quality assessment of the reviewee’s work, presentations of papers at conventions, service on editorial boards, and service as a referee for scholarly or creative activity or grant applications.

D. Institutional and Professional Service Criteria

1. Statement of Criteria

Contributions to service, including professional service to the broader community of which Lewis & Clark is a part, are essential to the life of the College. These contributions should reflect the diverse and special interests, talents, and career patterns of the faculty. Candidates for tenure will be expected to perform some service within their departments and at the College level, which might include service on search committees, departmental committees, work with student organizations, or appropriate off-campus professional activities. In evaluating service activity, the CPT or developmental review committee should assess the quality of the reviewee’s contributions. The following questions, taken collectively, will assist the CPT or developmental review committee in making an overall evaluation of the reviewee’s performance in the service category.

1. What has the reviewee contributed to the department? the College? the discipline? the broader community of which Lewis & Clark is a part?
2. What is the quality of this activity?

   Examples of institutional service are administrative responsibilities (including those associated with leadership of overseas and off-campus programs), College and community service, and activities in professional organizations.

Approved by the CAS Faculty May 31, 1991
Amended by the Faculty November 2, 1993
Editorial changes September 1, 1995
Amended by the Faculty April 23, 1996
Amended by the Faculty November 4, 1998
Amended by the Faculty November 6, 2002
Amended by the Faculty February 7, March 7, and May 2, 2007
Amended by the Faculty December 5, 2007

3.6.3.1 - Review Policies and Procedures for Lecturers
3.6.3.2 - Review Policies and Procedures for Adjunct and Visiting Faculty