(Updated June 4, 2021 to reflect changes related to the COVID-19 Accommodations and CBA with UAOSU)
DEADLINES AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
-
Dossiers for 2024–2025 are to be submitted via the online system no later than February 14, 2025.
-
DocuSign is an acceptable method of obtaining signatures on all documents.
-
Final decisions for cases ending at the dean level should be communicated to Sara Daly in the Office of Faculty Affairs no later than April 11, 2025 (per instructions sent to college contacts).
UPLOADING DOSSIERS
- Instructions on how to upload each dossier to the online system have been communicated to each appointed college contact.
- Questions related to uploading dossiers to the online system should be directed to Sara Daly in the Office of Provost.
- Final decisions for promotions for Faculty Research Assistants, Research Associates, Instructors, Instructors (ESL), Instructors (ALS), and Instructors (PAC) will end with the dean's final decision. These dossiers should not be forwarded to the Office of Faculty Affairs for review.
- The Provost will formally communicate all promotion and tenure decisions to all candidates, including those ending with the dean's decision.
I. COVER PAGE
Include name of candidate, department/school and college, and what action is being requested (e.g. Promotion to Professor).
II. FORM A
Include check list
III. CONFIDENTIALITY WAIVER (optional)
All faculty have the option of signing a “
(Link downloads document) form for outside letters of evaluation. The signed original should be included in this section. Execution of the waiver is voluntary. If the candidate chooses not to sign the waiver of access, include a statement to that effect in this section.
IV. POSITION DESCRIPTION
A copy of the candidate's current position description must be included. If significant shifts in assignment have occurred, earlier position descriptions should be included. With significant assignment changes, include a table that summarizes FTE distribution among primary activities over time. Refer to the “
V. CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT - Part A and Part B
PART A: The candidate must include a statement (three-page maximum, single-spaced, 12- point font, one-inch margins) that addresses the individual's contributions in their primary assigned duties (e.g., teaching and advising; scholarship and creative activity; service and/or other assignments), including DEI. DEI efforts can be reported in the context of position duties as applicable or as a separate category.
PART B: An optional COVID-19 impact statement may be included (one page maximum, 12 point font, one inch margins). This statement is in addition to the 3-page candidate statement and does not impact the length of that statement. COVID-19 impact statements describe the impact of the pandemic on the ability to perform duties in the position description. Impacts may include the following examples: personal circumstances that impede work, lack of access to research facilities and sites, inability to collect data, publication delays, cancelled conferences and seminars, or other circumstances attributable to the changed landscape of working under pandemic conditions.
As required by the OSU P&T Guidelines, students will be invited to participate in the review of faculty for promotion and tenure.
PART A: Guidelines for the Student Evaluation Letter
(approved by Faculty Senate on June 12, 2008, approved by President Ray on July 20, 2008)
The purpose of the student evaluation letter is to document the student perspective of the candidate’s effectiveness as a teacher and advisor. To provide the university with a consistent source of information for the process, the unit P&T committee and the unit supervisor should endeavor to obtain individual student letters using the following process.
- The unit chair or head or designee requests a list of names of current and recent students, including advisees from the candidate.
- The unit P&T committee and the supervisor (normally unit chair or head) jointly generate an additional list of current and recent student names.
- The unit chair or head or designee requests letters of reference from that combined list. An attempt should be made to request input from students whose collective experience represents the profile of the teaching and advising duties of the faculty member. For example, if a faculty member teaches all undergraduate courses, it is appropriate for all letters to come from undergraduates. If the faculty member teaches a combination of undergraduate and graduate courses, the students should have a combination of backgrounds that will provide sufficient information to evaluate the candidate’s performance.
- Letters to the students requesting the evaluative reference must inform the student as to who will see their review letters. Access to those letters will be determined by whether the candidate has signed a waiver of access. Students must also be informed that only signed letters will be included in the process.
- As a rule, ½ of the letters should be from the list generated by the candidate and ½ from the list generated by the unit. The total number of letters should be between 4-12, depending on the extent of the candidate’s teaching duties.
- Units who use a series of standardized questions to help guide student input are strongly encouraged to work with the Office of Faculty Affairs and the Office of General Counsel prior to asking for information from students.
- Letters received from student referees are kept on file in the unit office. Consult the OSU records retention schedule for the required period the letters must be kept on file. (
http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/archives/schedule/admin.html). The names of the students and the content of the letters are kept confidential if the candidate has signed a waiver of access. - The unit chair or head or designee will form a student committee, whose task it is to write a letter summarizing the input from student referees. The student committee is intended to be an independent voice of evaluation, and whose membership is determined by a transparent process approved by a majority of the faculty members in the unit. Members of this committee:
- Should be current students.
- May be individuals from whom letters were solicited.
- Should not be a current advisee of the candidate (letters from current advisees may be included in the student input).
- The student committee should not have access to the entire dossier. The student committee will be provided with the student referee letters, the student-related teaching and advising portion of the dossier (i.e. excluding faculty peer review), plus any additional available information pertinent to their review. The department head or chair should consult with the Office of Faculty Affairs if there are questions regarding the relevancy of additional parts of the dossier to the student letter.
- The student chair of the student committee is selected by the P&T committee or unit supervisor. The duty of this committee is to write a summary letter that includes information from the student referee letters and the teaching and advising portion of the dossier.
- The student committee should be instructed to include in its summary the perspectives represented by all the student referee letters (e.g. not to integrate opinions into an intermediate position).
- All members of the student committee sign the summary letter and present it to the unit P&T committee and unit supervisor. The summary letter and the names of the individuals on the student committee will be known to the candidate and P&T committee even if the candidate has signed a waiver of access.
- The student committee section of the dossier must include:
- A description of the process used in the unit for the selection of the student committee;
- A copy of the instructions given to the students;
- A short description of the group of students that provided letters, the nature of their relationship to the faculty member and whether the candidate or the P&T committee nominated the student to be a member of the committee; and
- The summary letter from the student committee, signed by the members of the committee.
PART B: Guidelines for the Peer Review of Teaching Letter
Peer evaluations should be based on a review of course syllabi, texts, assigned reading, examinations, class materials, and other assessments such as attendance at lectures as appropriate for the field and subject area. Peer teaching evaluations should be systematic and on-going, following unit guidelines for peer review of teaching. A letter from the peer teaching review committee that summarizes all peer teaching reviews over the evaluation timeframe should be included in the dossier. Faculty are strongly encouraged to seek periodic peer teaching reviews and work with their supervisors to schedule these reviews on a timely basis.
- Departmental Faculty Committee Letter
- Department Chair or Department Head Letter
- Letters from Other Administrators with Supervisory Responsibility
- College or Unit Promotion and Tenure Committee's Letter
- Dean, Director, Vice President, or Vice Provost's Letter
These letters are to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidate's performance. If the candidate reports to, or works closely with, more than one supervisor, letters from each should be included. These letters should not simply be a restatement of evaluations at previous administrative levels and should summarize and comment on key points in the letters of evaluation solicited from qualified reviewers in the candidate's field. Evaluators should be identified only by a coded reference number or letter when referring to a comment in a confidential letter and every effort should be made to maintain anonymity of the reviewer when referencing comments. All letters must be signed by all committee members.
The vita for promotion and/or tenure review should be formatted to follow the section headings below.
The year, major field of study, and degree obtained from each institution should be identified. The year, location, and institution for each position held since the baccalaureate should be included in this section.
- Credit Courses - Present a chronological listing of course numbers, term, year, and number of students enrolled.
- Non-Credit Courses and Workshops - Present a chronological listing of noncredit courses, international training programs held in the U.S., workshops, seminars, Extension programs, and continuing education programs in which candidate has had a major responsibility. Indicate the candidate's role (program participant, program organizer, etc.).
- Curriculum Development - List primary contributions in curriculum development and give dates (e.g. courses developed, curriculum committee service, etc.).
- Graduate and Undergraduate Students and Postdoctoral Trainees - List current and former graduate and undergraduate students and postdoctoral trainees for whom the candidate has had a major instructional or mentoring responsibility. Indicate instructional role (major professor, graduate committee member, thesis or project mentor, etc.) and year the degree was or will be completed.
- Team or Collaborative Efforts, If Any - Indicate special efforts undertaken to team or collaborate with another individual, group, or institution in the planning or delivery of instruction.
- International Teaching, If Any - Identify instructional activities (short and long-term) and/or curricular developments that have taken place in countries other than the United Sates. Indicate the location, time frame, and nature of the teaching experience (i.e. workshop, seminar, course, etc.).
- Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E) – Identify students and researchers trained/mentored as part of the work/curriculum, student-led innovations and startups under faculty mentorship, incorporation of I&E skills into classroom, and/or curricular development/enhancements based on I&E work.
2. Student (eSET) and Participant/Client Evaluation
Summarize all course/program evaluations with numerical ratings. Results from evaluations by learners or participants of every course taught by the candidate should be included in tabular format. The number of students/clients in the course who submitted evaluations should be identified. The summary should include an analysis of performance over time, e.g. same course by term and year, as well as comparisons of the course to department and/or college norms on important variables such as required /not required, core or elective, and level (100, 200...), etc. Letters from individual students, clients, or program participants should not be included.
For courses taught from Spring 2020 through Winter 2022, it is at the faculty member’s discretion to use Electronic Student Evaluation of Teaching (eSET) scores in their annual periodic review of faculty materials and promotion and tenure dossiers, without prejudice. This applies to all courses, including Ecampus courses. Supervisors do not have access to eSET scores for this time period, so faculty will need to access their scores through the eSET website. In lieu of eSET scores, faculty may want to provide narrative about how they modified their course(s) for remote delivery and worked with students to ensure their success.
For courses in which a faculty member opts to not include eSET scores due to COVID-19, please include the following notation: “Course eSET scores omitted per COVID-19 accommodations recommendations.”
3. Advising
Describe advising/counseling responsibilities, both formal academic advising (give number of student advisees, how often they typically meet with the adviser), and co-curricular advising (e.g. faculty adviser for student professional organization). Provide evaluations of advising performance, including dates, and describe how student input was obtained. Evaluation will consider the innovation and creativity of the services, and their effectiveness; it may be based on systematic surveys of and assessments by students and former students who received these services, when signed by the students.
4. Other Assignments
For faculty with primary responsibilities other than teaching and advising, information that identifies these duties and the indicators for assessing effectiveness should be included in this section.
- Other Assigned Duties - Provide a paragraph which describes or summarizes the assigned responsibilities, target audience, collaborative aspects, international activities and number of individuals served.
- Participant/Client Evaluation - Summarize evaluations highlighting the services provided and, to the extent possible, the impact of these services on identified needs.
Scholarship and creative activity are understood to be intellectual work whose significance is validated by peers and which is communicated. As specified in the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, such work in its diverse forms is based on a high level of professional expertise; must give evidence of originality; must be documented and validated as through peer review, critique or validation by evidence of market acceptance (e.g., outside investments, sales, licensing fees); and must be communicated in appropriate ways so as to have impact on or significance for publics beyond the University, or for the discipline itself.
- Refereed papers or juried exhibitions or compositions should be listed separately from non-refereed papers or indicated with an asterisk.
- All authors should be given in the order they appear in the paper (not "with John Smith and Kathy Brown"). Date of publication, volume, and pages must be given. When work that is the product of joint effort is presented as evidence of scholarship, clarification of the candidate's role in the joint effort should be provided in the dossier.
- Where not obvious, the dossier should explain how the work was validated and communicated. It is also important to know the significance of the scholarship and creative activity and the stature of the sources in which they appear. These can be commented on after each listing, and discussed in letters of evaluation from the promotion and tenure committee, the Department Chair, Head, Director, or Dean.
2. Presentations - For professional meetings, symposia, and conferences, note the dates, location, and role of the faculty member (e.g. organizer, chair, invited speaker, discussant, presenter). Where these are presented as scholarship or creative activity, explain the validation process and the significance or stature of the event.
3. Sponsored Research - List grant and contract support (dollar amount) along with funding agency or organization, dates and name of principal investigator. Grant and contract support may also include industry-sponsored activities (contracting and material transfer agreements, research, services and testing), non-profit and foundation support, or government commercialization programs (e.g., Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) and Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants, National Science Foundation-Partnerships for Innovation (NSF-PFI), state and/or local funding opportunities).
4. Intellectual Property - List patent applications, patents awarded, copyrights (including software), trademarks, tangible property (e.g., cell lines), trade secrets & know how, germplasm protection, invention disclosures, novel data products, novel processes & procedures, installation of creative works, or commissioned works. Include titles and dates as appropriate.
5. Use and Licensing - List usage of product/service/method/data (including examples where product/service/method/data is made freely available), licensed intellectual property and technologies (e.g., database access, cultivar and software releases, novel animal models for industrial use), royalty generated, discipline and/or unit-specific evidence of societal impact.
6. Entity Creation – List startup/spinout organizations (including for-profit, non-profits and foundations to allow for broad recognition of societal impact) founded on specific university intellectual property including funds raised/follow-on funding (e.g., private and public commercialization funds beyond SBIR/STTR, private equity investment), revenue/funds generated, people impacted & people employed.
7. List other information appropriate to one's discipline.
D. SERVICE
Faculty service is essential to the University's success in achieving its central mission. Service is an expectation for promotion for all ranks at Oregon State University.
List departmental, college, and University committees (or other responsibilities), with dates.
2. Service to the Profession
List involvement with professional associations/societies, especially offices held, research advisory or review panels, and other evidence of regional, national, or international stature and service to the profession. Provide dates for all activities.
3. Service to the Public (professionally related)
List service provided to the public which is consistent with professional training and responsibilities. Provide dates. Service that is relevant to a faculty member's assignment, and which draws upon professional expertise or contributes significantly to university relations, is considered and valued in promotion and tenure decision. This service can include examples of engaging with industry, governments, non-profits, foundations, communities and/or other entities/individuals that can be linked to the university mission.
4. Service to the Public (non-professionally related) (optional)
Community service not directly related to the faculty member's appointment, though valuable in itself, and ideally a responsibility of all citizens, is considered in promotion and tenure decisions to the extent that it contributes to the University.
5. If service is a significant percentage of FTE, outcomes or impact should be described.
E. AWARDS
Include awards received from professional organizations/societies, Oregon State University, civic or community groups. The nature of the award (including its stature and significance) and reason received, e.g., teaching and advising, scholarship, etc., should be identified. The awards should be grouped, to the extent possible, into the following headings.
2. State and Regional Awards
3. University and Community Awards
IX. LETTERS OF EVALUATION
Solicited Letters of Evaluation from Outside Leaders in the Field (6 minimum, 8 maximum) for professorial faculty; no letters required for Faculty Research Assistants, Research Associates, Instructors, Instructors (ALS), Instructors (ESL) and Instructors (PAC).
For professorial faculty, letters should generally be from leaders in the candidate's field, chosen for their ability to evaluate the parts of the dossier for which they have specific expertise. Letters should not be solicited from co-authors or co-principal investigators who collaborated with the candidate in the last five years. In general, letters should not be solicited from former post-doctoral advisers, professors, or former students. If letters from any of these generally excluded evaluators are critical to candidate assessment, a detailed explanation of why their participation is essential and of why there is expectation for objectivity must be provided by the unit leader who requested their letter. Letters should generally be from tenured professors or individuals of equivalent stature outside of academe who are widely recognized in the field. External letters for professorial faculty should never be solicited from clients or others whom the candidate has directly served in his/her/their work.
Professorial candidates must submit a list of 5-8 evaluators who meet the criteria stated above and from this list at least three letters will be obtained for the final dossier. If additional names are needed, these will be obtained from the candidate by the unit head. The other evaluators are to be selected by the chair, head, director, dean, or faculty committee according to practices determined within the unit. All letters must be requested by the unit chair, head, director, dean, or the unit's promotion and tenure committee chair, not the candidate. Provide a brief (paragraph) description of the outside evaluators indicating how they meet the criteria. More detail must be provided if an evaluator would generally be excluded, per the preceding paragraph. Clearly indicate which outside reviewers were chosen by the candidate. If an evaluator was suggested by both the candidate and others, that evaluator will be considered among the candidate’s pool of evaluators unless there is clear indication in the description of that evaluator why he/she/they should be included in the “other evaluator” pool. In the final dossier, no more than half of the letters of evaluation can be from the list suggested by the candidate.
For Faculty Research Assistants, Research Associates, and all categories of Instructors, external letters of evaluation are not required and should not be included.
A representative form letter can be found at
Additional letters from sources other than administrators, unit promotion and tenure committees, the student committee, and external reviewers are not necessary. Signed letters of support or advocacy from friends, colleagues, students, and clients should be included only if they are necessary for fairness and balance. If there is some compelling reason to include such letters, the unit supervisor should write a statement identifying the significance of the letters, whether solicited or unsolicited, and the need to include them in the dossier. All letters should be letters of evaluation and should be open to the candidate. Include any other material that may be relevant to a full and fair review. Do not include supplemental materials with the dossier (such as copies of journal articles, etc.). Those materials should be kept within the department and available upon request by the University Promotion and Tenure Committee.
XI. CANDIDATE'S SIGNED STATEMENT
Prior to the dossier receiving its first formal review by the unit promotion and tenure committee, the candidate should sign a statement that he or she has reviewed the open part of the dossier and that it is complete and current. The candidate retains the right of access to recommendations added by deans, heads, chairs, directors, and unit promotion and tenure committees.