Department of English Expectations of Faculty
Revised March 2007
General Expectations
As part of the College of Arts and Sciences, the Department subscribes to the scholar-teacher-participant model of faculty responsibility described in the College's "Guidelines on Promotion and Tenure." Like the College, the Department expects faculty to demonstrate achievement in three areas—teaching, scholarly or creative work, and service--and to attain the different degrees of achievement in these areas that are appropriate for each level of reappointment and promotion, as described in the College's "Guidelines." These are the criteria by which decisions about reappointment, tenure, promotion, post-tenure review, and merit salary increases will be made.
Teaching
The Department expects good teaching from faculty. While recognizing that good teaching may be accomplished and measured in various ways, we agree that it includes: knowledge of subject matter; organization of course material in an understandable fashion; respect for students and accessibility inside and outside the classroom; contribution to curriculum design and development; advising of students; and membership in and/or direction of thesis and dissertation committees, as appropriate to rank. The Department’s peer and student evaluations, as well as the teaching portfolio maintained in the department, are important tools for measuring the quality of faculty teaching for reappointment, promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review.
Scholarship, Applied Research, Creative Activity
The Department expects tenure-track and tenured faculty to be actively engaged in scholarship, applied research, and/or creative activities. Such activities are demonstrated in various ways, resulting in work such as: journal articles, book chapters, books (among which could be monographs, textbooks, edited books, novels, and collections of stories, poems or essays), edited journals, stories, poems, and nonfiction essays. External grants, fellowships, prizes, and awards are also considered significant indicators of scholarly and creative achievement. Review and reference essays, book reviews, presentations of academic papers, and readings from creative works are ordinarily considered to have lesser importance.
The body of a faculty member's work should demonstrate a sustained program of scholarship, applied research, and/or creative activity contributing to her/his areas of specialization.
The quality and significance of publications and presentations, and of the journals, presses, books, and other venues in which they appear, are important criteria for evaluating these contributions. Ordinarily the most highly regarded work appears in peer-reviewed venues.
The Department, like the College, recognizes the appropriateness and importance of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work, and will give it full consideration.
Faculty work may appear in traditional print and/or electronic media, and may include collaborative as well as single-authored work.
Service
While the Department recognizes the primary importance of teaching, scholarly/applied research, and creative achievement in the excellence of undergraduate and graduate degree programs, we expect all faculty to perform regular service to the Department, the institution, and the profession. While untenured faculty are expected to serve as members on the Department's internal committees, we avoid the appointment of untenured faculty to internal administrative positions (as Directors of programs, Associate Head, etc.), and expect that untenured faculty will not be very heavily involved in College and University service. If, because of contingencies, an untenured faculty member has been called on to provide exceptional levels of service, this increases the significance of service in evaluations for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Tenured faculty are expected to accept additional reasonable service assignments.
Procedures for Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion
In order to give each candidate due consideration, the Department has traditionally followed set procedures through each of these decision-making processes. In this document we are articulating procedures consistently followed in past years, and are adding a limited number of new procedures. Specifically, this document establishes the assignment of a dossier advisor to the candidate, an early review of CVs for potential candidates for full professors, and written notification of decisions and recommendations.
In general, these procedures are based on the processes described in the College "Guidelines" and also reflect the recommendations in the College's supplementary document, "Best Practices in Tenure and Promotion." It is the candidate's responsibility to review these documents, as well as any English department documents referred to below, as they prepare their dossiers. In the description below, the deadlines indicated are estimates that may shift to reflect changes in College deadlines or other contingencies. It is the responsibility of the Department head to inform candidates of any changes in a timely fashion.
The reappointment procedure, the first review of dossiers for both levels of promotion, and the review of CVs for potential candidates for full professors are internal procedures of the English Department, and are not governed by the Faculty Senate's 2004 resolution "On the independence of departmental committees for promotions and tenure" (see CAS "Best Practices," Appendix A). Only the second, final reviews, at which the official vote to recommend or not recommend a candidate for promotions and tenure is taken, are so governed.
The proceedings of all faculty meetings at which candidacies for reappointment, tenure and promotion are considered are confidential, as are any written notes of those meetings, to the extent permitted by University policy and by law. The written summaries of the faculty's decisions and recommendations given to the candidates by the head shall not include any reference to individual faculty views or any other confidential material.
A. Reappointment
Assistant Professors present their dossiers for consideration for reappointment to a second four-year term during their third year of service.
1. In November of the candidate's third year, the candidate submits the dossier to the tenured faculty. See "English Department Faculty Reappointment Dossier Guidelines" (appended) for a description of the contents and form of the reappointment dossier.
2. In early December, the tenured faculty will meet to discuss the candidacy. The department head will chair the meeting and will appoint a tenured faculty member to take notes. At the end of their deliberations the tenured faculty will vote, by secret ballot, to recommend or not recommend the candidate for reappointment. After the meeting has adjourned, the head will consult with the faculty member who took notes, and will prepare a brief written report of the meeting that includes a summary of the deliberations and a list of substantive recommendations for the candidate.
3. The Department head will inform the candidate in writing of the decision about recommendation for reappointment, including the faculty vote, as soon as possible after those decisions are taken. (The head may more immediately give the candidate verbal notification of the results, but this must be followed by the formal written notice.)
4. If the candidate has been recommended for reappointment, the Department head will meet with the candidate to discuss the tenured faculty's recommendations about the candidate's progress toward tenure, and to address any questions or concerns the candidate may have. The head will provide the candidate with a copy of the chair's report of the meeting, including the tenured faculty's substantive recommendations about the progress toward tenure (for instance, if the candidate is advised to reduce service commitments, achieve certain publication goals, improve classroom teaching, etc.).
B. Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
Assistant Professors ordinarily present their dossiers for consideration for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor in their sixth year of service. The preparation of the dossier and initial stages of review begin in the fifth year of service. While an Assistant Professor who has already established sufficient credentials may apply for tenure and promotion early, the candidate wishing to do so should consult with the Department head to determine whether an early application is viable.
1. At the beginning of the candidate's fifth year, the candidate will consult with the Department head about the tenure and promotion process, including the preparation of the dossier. The candidate and the head together will decide on a tenured faculty member who will act as the candidate's primary advisor on the tenure and promotion process, and who will guide the candidate's preparation of the dossier.
2. The dossier for tenure and promotion should carefully follow the format indicated in the University's Promotion and Tenure form. All documentation should be complete and all materials presented clearly. The dossier should be complete in content (except for external reviewers' letters and the summaries written by the head and/or senior faculty) and correct in form by the time of the tenured faculty's review in the spring of the fifth year. The candidate and the advisor should consult frequently throughout the fifth year in order to ensure the dossier's completeness and correctness.
3. The candidate will submit the dossier to the Department head by mid March of the fifth year, at least one month in advance of the scheduled meeting of the tenured faculty at which the candidacy will be considered. The head, together with the candidate's advisor, will review the dossier and inform the candidate if anything needs to be corrected or added. The head and advisor will have the dossier approved for the tenured faculty's review at least two weeks in advance of the scheduled meeting.
4. In April of the fifth year, the tenured faculty will meet to discuss whether the candidate's scholarly/creative materials (CV, publications, works in progress, etc.) should be sent out for external review. For the first review, the department head may be present for all discussion but must leave for the vote. A tenured faculty member appointed by the head will take notes of the meeting, and will also oversee and verify the vote. The candidate's advisor on the preparation of the dossier is expected to play a substantial role in the deliberations, ensuring that the candidate's record is fully and accurately represented. At the end of their deliberations the tenured faculty will vote, by secret ballot, to recommend or not recommend that the candidate's record be sent out for external review. After the meeting has adjourned, the head will consult with the faculty member who took notes, and will prepare a brief written report of the meeting that includes a summary of the deliberations and a list of substantive recommendations for the candidate.
5. The Department head will inform the candidate, verbally or in writing at the head's discretion, of the tenured faculty's and the head's decision about sending the record out for review as soon as possible after that decision is taken.
6. If the candidate's scholarly/creative materials will be sent out for review, the Department head and the candidate's advisor will meet with the candidate to discuss: what materials the candidate should gather to be sent out; the tenured faculty's recommendations, if any, for revisions of the dossier; and any questions or concerns the candidate may have about the process or outcome. The head will provide the candidate with the report of the meeting, including the substantive recommendations for revision of the dossier.
7. By August 1, the beginning of the sixth year of service, the candidate will submit the revised dossier to the head. The head and the candidate's advisor will review the dossier and inform the candidate if anything needs to be corrected or added. The head and advisor will have the dossier approved for the tenured faculty's review at least two weeks in advance of the scheduled meeting.
8. In mid to late August, the tenured faculty will meet to discuss whether the candidate should be recommended for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor. The department head may be present during the first, informational portion of the meeting. A tenured faculty member elected by the assembled faculty will chair the second, deliberative portion of the meeting; another tenured faculty member, appointed by the chair, will assist the chair in taking notes. The candidate's advisor on the preparation of the dossier is expected to play a substantial role in the deliberations, ensuring that the candidate's record is fully and accurately represented. At the end of their deliberations the tenured faculty will vote, by secret ballot, to recommend or not recommend the candidate for tenure and promotion. As provided in the Faculty Senate's 2004 resolution, soon after the meeting the chair will provide to the head a signed written summary of the tenured faculty's deliberations, including the range of arguments given both for and against promotion and tenure (see CAS "Best Practices," Appendix A for further details of the elected chair's responsibilities and the uses of the chair's report). This report will also include a list of substantive recommendations, if any, for revision of the dossier. The head will then distribute the report to the tenured faculty for possible corrections, corrections to be submitted within three business days of distribution.
9. The Department head will inform the candidate in writing of the tenured faculty's and the head's separate decisions about recommendation for promotion and tenure, including the faculty vote, as soon as possible after those decisions are taken. (The head may more immediately give the candidate verbal notification of the results, but this must be followed by the formal written notice.)
10. If the candidate is recommended for tenure and promotion, the Department head and the candidate's advisor will meet with the candidate to outline any recommendations for further revision of the dossier and the timeline for submission of the dossier to the College. The head will provide the candidate with the chair's report of the meeting, including any substantive recommendations for revision of the dossier.
11. If the candidate is not recommended for tenure and promotion, the Department head and the candidate's advisor should meet with the candidate to discuss the remainder of the candidate's work in the department, including service and teaching obligations.
C. Promotion to Full Professor
Associate Professors may apply for promotion to full Professor at any time after their first promotion when their further scholarly/creative accomplishments will support their application. While the College "Guidelines" indicate that it is customary to review the record of an Associate professor for promotion during the fourth year (for a fifth year recommendation), there is no prohibition of or disadvantage to either earlier recommendations for promotion (where the candidate's achievements support such a recommendation) or later applications. A candidate who has not passed the initial stages of review, or who has not been recommended for promotion, may repeat the application at a later time. The preparation of the dossier and initial stages of review begin in the year before the year in which the recommendation might go forward.
1. The potential candidate is strongly advised to consult with the Department head a year or two before the candidate plans to submit the promotion dossier. The head should advise the candidate about the viability of the scholarly/creative record in the promotion process and, if the case looks viable, work with the candidate to identify a full Professor to act as advisor to the candidate during the promotion process.
2. In November of the year before the final review would take place, the candidate will submit a complete, current CV to the Department head. In early December, the full Professors will meet with the Department head to discuss the CV and consult on the readiness of the candidate to apply for full professor. The Department head will then advise the candidate about whether to apply at this time, communicating any recommendations of the Professors with regard to the preparation of the dossier and/or the need for additional achievement before seeking promotion. If, with the consultation of the Professors, the head does advise going forward with an application, then the candidate should immediately begin preparing the dossier. If an advisor for the dossier and promotion process has not yet been assigned to the candidate, the head should do that at this time.
3. The procedures and timetable for the preparation of the dossier, the first review and decision about whether to seek external reviews, and the final review, are substantially the same as those described for tenure and promotion to Associate in B.2-10 above, with these substitutions:
a. "full Professor(s)" for "tenured faculty" and/or "tenured professor(s)";
b. "year before final review" for "fifth year" and "year of final review" for
"sixth year";
c. "promotion to full Professor" for "tenure and promotion to Associate Professor" and "tenure and promotion."
d. at the end of B.8, add, "or, if the candidate has not been recommended, the full professor's substantive recommendations for future applications."
4. If the candidate is not recommended for promotion at the Department level, the Department head and the candidate's advisor will meet with the candidate to discuss plans for future applications. The head will provide the candidate with the chair's report of the meeting, including any substantive recommendations of the full Professors for future applications. If the candidate is recommended at the Department level but not recommended at a higher level of review, the head will seek information about the recommendations of the higher level and communicate them to the candidate.
Questions about the expectations and procedures for reappointment, and for tenure and promotion, should be referred to the Department head.