This workshop provided information to department heads, office managers, and key support staff involved in the assembly of Promotion and Tenure files. We discussed the general process, timelines, and guidelines surrounding the preparation of a file, and we introduced a new system for the digital preparation and submission of dossiers. In addition, we reviewed possible complications in promotion and tenure cases, the timing of full professor cases, interpreting credit for prior service, solicitation of external reviewers, peer review of teaching, and other topics critical to the assembly and submission of complete files. Particular attention was paid to processes that are affected by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

1. Materials presented are for general informational purposes
only and do not constitute official University rules, policies or
practices or interpretations or summaries of such rules, policies
or practices. No warranties or representations are made as to
the accuracy of any information presented. Any discrepancy
between the information presented here and the official rules
and policies of the University of Oregon is not intended to and
does not alter or amend the official rules and policies.

2. Preparing Promotion and
Tenure Files
Department Heads, Office
Managers, and Key Support
Staff
Ken Doxsee
Vice Provost For Academic Affairs
February 24, 2015

3. • Preliminary Work
o Department Head notifies faculty of requirement for
upcoming review (required tenure decision)
o Candidate discuss with Department Head (optional
tenure decision, promotion to full professor)
o Candidate’s contributions to the process
o Identification and solicitation of external reviewers
• Department Review
o Personnel Committee – usually report and vote
o Vote by voting faculty (signed, secret ballot)
o Department Head report and recommendation
P&T Process and Timetable
Winter of
previous year
Early Fall
Spring of
previous year

4. P&T Process and Timetable (continued)
• School/College Review
o Personnel or Advisory Committee (elected) –
report and vote
o Dean – report and recommendation
• University Review
o Faculty Personnel Committee (elected) –
report and vote
o Provost – review and decision
Fall/Winter
Winter/
Spring
Decision announcement target date: May 1

5. P&T Process and Timetable (continued)
SEPTEMBER 15
• Due date for all deans to submit to Academic Affairs, a list of those in the
school/college being considered for promotion and/or tenure
• Subsequent revisions may be made
• Upon receipt of list, Academic Affairs delivers sets of binders to each school/college to
be filled with the required elements of the case
o Each binder should contain identical information
o Completed red, blue and green binders are delivered to Academic Affairs with
supplemental materials for the case. Black binders are kept by the
school/college
o (Electronic submission)

6. P&T Process and Timetable (continued)
NOVEMBER 15
• Due date for completed files and supporting materials from departments in the
College Arts and Sciences to be submitted to the Dean.
NOVEMBER 30
• Due date for all units (excluding CAS) to submit to Academic Affairs, files and materials
involving tenure cases
JANUARY 15
• Deadline for all units (excluding CAS) to submit completed files and supplemental
materials to Academic Affairs
MARCH 15
• Deadline for the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) to submit completed files and
supplemental materials to Academic Affairs. Essential, however, for the vast majority
of CAS files to be submitted prior to this date.

7. Constructing the Dossier
{A review in the approximate order of its construction}
http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/promotion-tenure

8. Candidate’s CV
• Signed and dated
• Updates permissible – prefer simple list of updates (signed and
dated) rather than a full updated CV
• Always include the CV as seen by the external reviewers as well
as any updates

9. Candidate’s CV (continued)
• Full profile (including teaching and service)
• Education: Include graduation dates, mentor’s names
• Distinguish peer-reviewed publications from other research or
writing activity
• Present the complete bibliographic citation in the style appropriate
to your field’s principal journal(s)
• Provide full lists of co-authors in the published order
• Appropriately sort work in areas other than conventional publication
(e.g., performances, exhibitions, etc.)
• Recommended: reverse chronological order

10. Candidate’s CV (continued)
• Manuscript/accomplishment status
o In press: galleys + commitment to publish (volume or date?)
o Accepted: all revisions complete, but not yet in press
o Accepted with revisions: revision + editorial decision required
o Revise and resubmit: additional review anticipated
o Submitted: no review yet completed
• “The Book”
o Signed contract, manuscript complete and accepted, with no
further revision (copy edit/galley proof can be pending)

11. Candidate’s CV (continued)
• Include section for work in progress
• Important in discerning future potential
• Dissertation, other theses, technical reports, working papers, etc. –
be clear regarding peer review process
• Electronic publications – ditto
• Conferences and other appearances
• Provide full reference to event, date, location
• Distinguish (and separate) peer-reviewed
• Recommend reverse chronological order
• Avoid padding with local contributions (e.g., guest lectures –
place in teaching or service section)

12. Candidate’s Statement
• Signed and dated
• Updates permissible
• Always include the statement as seen by the external
reviewers as well as any updates

13. Candidate’s Statement (continued)
• Short: perhaps 5-6 pages
• General vs. professional readership
o Balance; display your ability to teach
• Accomplishments, current activities, and future plans for research,
teaching, and service
• Statement regarding contributions to institutional equity and inclusion
• Significant focus on research and teaching; less so on service
• Consider using the statement to help the reader understand anything
“unusual” in your record
o Co-authorship contribution, author order
o Gaps

14. Statement of Waiver
• File must contain signed and dated statement by candidate
• Retaining full access, or
• Waiving all rights of access, or
• Partial waiver
• This statement must be completed prior to request for external
evaluations

15. Sample Non-Waiver Letter from the Candidate
Dear [whomever is assembling the file]:
I have been informed of my rights of access, pursuant to Oregon
Revised Statute (ORS) 351065 (Sect. 3,4,5,6) effective 1995, to the
full evaluative file being prepared for consideration of my case for
promotion [and/or indefinite tenure, as appropriate], and of the
possibility of waiving this right for certain categories of material.
I wish to retain my legal right of access to all materials in my file.
Sincerely,
[Candidate]

16. Sample Full Waiver Letter From the Candidate
Dear [whomever is assembling the file]:
I have been informed of my rights of access, pursuant to Oregon Revised
Statute (ORS) 351065 (Sect. 3,4,5,6) effective 1995, to the full evaluative file
being prepared for consideration of my case for promotion [and/or indefinite
tenure, as appropriate]. However, it is my view that referees’ evaluations should
be kept confidential. Consequently, I hereby waive in advance my legal right of
access to see the evaluative materials submitted by all referees in conjunction
with my promotion [and or tenure] review. I make this waiver with full
knowledge of my legal rights under Oregon Law and without duress. You should
feel free to inform prospective referees that I have submitted this waiver and
agreed voluntarily to forego any legal rights of access to these materials which I
possess under Oregon Law.
Sincerely,
[Candidate]

17. Sample Partial Waiver Letter from the Candidate
I have been informed of my rights of access, pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute
(ORS) 351065 (Sect. 3,4,5,6) effective 1995, to the full evaluative tile being prepared
for consideration of my case for promotion [and/or indefinite tenure, as
appropriate]. However, it is my view that external referees’ evaluations should he
kept confidential. Consequently, I hereby waive in advance my legal right of access
to see the evaluative materials submitted by all referees external to the University of
Oregon in conjunction with my promotion [and or tenure] review. I make this waver
with full knowledge of my legal rights under Oregon Law and without duress. You
should feel free to inform prospective external referees that I have submitted this
partial wavier and have agreed voluntarily to forego any legal rights of access to
these materials which I possess under Oregon Law.
I wish, however, to retain my legal right of access to all letters submitted by
individuals affiliated with the University of Oregon.

18. Statement of Duties & Responsibilities
• Objective statement
• Purely factual
• Increasingly common practice – provide copy of position description

19. “Conditions of Appointment” Section
• For tenure cases, must include the most recent contract
o documenting time frame for the tenure review
o documenting the deadline for the tenure decision
• May include official administrative letters of understanding
o evaluation procedure for “split” appointments
o limited range of activities on which promotion will be based
o credit granted for prior service at other institutions
o extended time for tenure for reasons such as pregnancy or
childbirth

20. “Teaching Evaluations” Section
• Goal is to investigate and evaluate all aspects of an individual’s
teaching--large class, small group, graduate seminar,
curriculum development. Ph.D., Master’s, or professional
student supervision, academic advising, etc. Information on all
such activities should be sought.
• Hires from other institutions
• Recognize that some materials may not be available
• Attempt to include as comprehensive a package as possible

21. • List of courses taught
• Summary table – quantitative evaluations (including class size,
percent response, departmental comparison data)
• Sample evaluation form
• Copies of all quantitative summaries
• Copies of all signed qualitative comments (in supplementary
file)
• Peer evaluations
o Pre-tenure: at least one in each of years 3, 4, and 5
o Tenured associate professor: at least one every other year
Teaching – Department Responsibilities

22. • List of teaching awards
• List of supervised students, sorted by kind and including dates
and role (e.g., chair, advisor, committee member)
o Postdoc, doctoral dissertation, masters thesis, honors
thesis
• No need to list every single independent study course unless
this defines the nature of your teaching effort
• Teaching portfolio – not required, but common
o In supplementary file
o Syllabi, innovative materials (including electronic), etc.
o Illustrative, not exhaustive
Teaching – Candidate’s Responsibilities

23. Letters from Students
Include both solicited and unsolicited student letters, but only if
signed and dated
• Student letters are not required
• Inundation is not needed or desirable

24. Supplemental File
• Separate folder(s) clearly identified with name of candidate and
college/school, or department
• Supplemental teaching evaluation data
o One set of printouts and signed statements. Unsigned
narrative student evaluations are unacceptable and should
not be included in the file. It is illegal to quote from unsigned
evaluations in summary statements prepared for the file.

25. Supplemental File (continued)
• Evidence of professional activities – collection of supporting
documents relating to professional growth, scholarly activities,
and creative and artistic achievement
• Publications, programs of recitals, design portfolios, etc.
• Other relevant materials, including work in progress
• Brief statements summarizing the relative standings of professional journals and
whether or not papers in them are reviewed
• Brief statement on book publishing summarizing standing and explanation of
unusual publishing patterns characteristic of a field.
• Teaching portfolio
• Service portfolio
• Evidence of contributions to equity and inclusion

26. Letters of Evaluation
• Candidate may provide list of suggestions
• Department independently creates list; if the candidate suggests
reviewer on the department list, that reviewer NOT listed as “suggested
by the candidate”
• Reviewers at or above the rank being sought, at comparable
institutions
• Department selects external reviewers
• Clear majority of “untainted” reviewers
• Requested by department head via standard form letter
• Avoid directing the witness (“We are trying to get Professor X
promoted”)
• Include example of each letter in the dossier

27. Letters of Evaluation (continued)
• Referees must be notified in advance regarding waiver status
• Ask reviewers to compare candidate with other scholars at comparable
stages in their academic careers
• Indicate whether, in their opinion, assuming satisfactory teaching and
service, the candidate would achieve tenure and or promotion at their
institutions
• Referees must indicate special relationships to the candidate, e.g.,
dissertation supervisor, research collaborator, co-author, etc.
• All letters received must be included in the file

28. Letters of Evaluation (continued)
• Include both solicited and unsolicited letters
• Written declinations included at the end of section
• Reconcile letters received with list of letters solicited on the Promotion
and Tenure Checklist
• Place unsolicited letters AFTER solicited letters
• Letters from students on teaching and supervision belong in teaching
section

29. Sample Request for Evaluation Letter to External Referees
Dear Professor _______________________:
Dr. John/June Jones of our Department of Phrenology is being considered for promotion from Assistant
Professor to Associate Professor with indefinite tenure. Such promotions are made only after consulting
specialists in the appropriate discipline, both at the University of Oregon and elsewhere.
Your name has been submitted as one who could provide a useful evaluation of Dr. Jones’ professional
achievements and reputation. I shall be grateful if you could write a letter to me, outlining what you know of
[his/her] scholarship, research, accomplishments, publications, and general stature within the profession. A
comparison of Dr. Jones with the best associate professors in the same field would be appreciated. If possible,
please indicate if Dr. Jones would meet requirements for promotion (or tenure) at your current institution. We
recognize that the granting of tenure involves prediction and assessment of potential; if you have any special
observations about Dr. Jones in that area, we would be pleased to receive them. [Requests for information on
specific points can be included here.] I enclose a bibliography and curriculum vitae for your convenience and
copies of publications for your specific evaluation.
INSERT EITHER RETAIN ACCESS or WAIVER PARAGRAPH HERE
Your reply to this letter within the next two months will be most helpful, since we are now preparing all the
necessary documents for Dr. Jones’ promotion dossier.

30. Sample Paragraph Retaining Full Access
In as much as Oregon law permits full access of a faculty member
to his or her personnel files, I must tell you that your letter will be
seen by Dr. Jones should [he she] request access to [his/her] file.

31. Sample Paragraph Waiving Access
Although Oregon law permits full access of a faculty member to his or
her personnel files, Dr. Jones has voluntarily waived in advance [his/her]
legal right of access to [the appropriate items a defined by the
candidate’s specific waiver], with the expectation that this waiver will
enable referees to prepare thorough and candid letters. Since this
waiver has been reviewed for its legality, I can assure you that the
University will not disclose your letter to the candidate, although we
cannot predict whether challenge in a court might result in such
disclosure. With the waiver, however, Dr. Jones retains [his her] right to
request a substantive summary of all evaluative remarks, carefully
edited to avoid disclosure of the identity of the referee.

32. List of Materials Sent to Reviewers
• Candidate’s Statement
• Candidate’s Vita
• Published Work (during period under review) - list
• Selected works in progress may be included - list
• Unit’s Promotion and Tenure Criteria

33. Biographical Sketches of External Reviewers
• Short but complete, with description of the person and their standing in the
field, relationship to the candidate, and whether suggested by the candidate
or chosen by the Department.
• Do not include vitas here; provide in supplemental file.
Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, MIT
Chomsky is one of the three or four most important scholars of linguistics in the
20th century. He is the originator (along with his teacher Zellig Hams) of the
theoretical framework for linguistic analysis known as “generative linguistics.”
Chomsky has no known relationship to the candidate.
Selected by the Department

34. Departmental Committee Recommendation
• Analysis, not just information from the vita
• Strengths and weaknesses relative to department and discipline standards
• Fully present all aspects of the case – analysis, not advocacy
• Context for scholarship/creative practice
• Ranking, status of journals, publishers, venues, etc.
• Peer reviewed vs. not
• Comments on the stature of the external referees
• Other information relevant to appraising the candidate’s work
• Research grants, fellowships, etc., if normal to the field
• Not size or number of awards but recognition by rigorous
competitive review
• Discrepancies in publishing and/or funding record

35. Departmental Committee Recommendation (cont’d)
• Analysis of candidate’s record of teaching
• Statistical data from student evaluations
• Address anomalies
• Comparisons with rest of department and/or faculty teaching courses of
similar size, character or content
• Evaluative summary of signed written students comments
• Review and comment on teaching portfolio
• Discrepancies between student and peer evaluations
• Analysis of the candidate’s record of service
• Report must be signed by all members of the committee

36. Department Head’s Evaluation
• Administrative summary of the department’s position on the case
• Brief explanation of department’s review process
• Clarification of special conditions, duties or obligations
• Explanation of who votes
• Summary of faculty discussion preceding official vote
• Departmental votes secret; only tally revealed to faculty and recorded on
voting summary sheet
• Explanation for abstentions or recusals
• Justification for an earlier-than-usual process
• Independent review and appraisal of the case
• Report must be signed.

37. School/College Personnel Committee Report
• “Secondary reviewers” – in general, lack expertise to review and evaluate
the scholarship; focus on overall record, external reviews, and
departmental reports
• Criteria employed are those of the school /college /unit
• May request additional information, including additional outside letters
• Each committee member’s vote is recorded and part of the file forwarded
to Academic Affairs

38. • Independent from department level review – analysis of
qualifications relative to school/college standards
• Attempt to address any issues that have been overlooked
• Outlying evaluations
• Manuscript status
• Co-authorship issues
• Evidence of independent progress in cases where book is
rooted in dissertation
• In early cases, discussion of exceptional merits of case
Dean’s Evaluation & Recommendation

39. • Dean (or associate dean, if designated) meets with candidate after
dossier reviewed at school/college level and prior to submission of file
to Academic Affairs
• Information presented in the departmental report
• General content of outside letters
• Summary of recommendations made to date, including Dean’s
• Three days’ notification of meeting required
• If member of bargaining unit, candidate may bring non-
participating observer or non-participating representative from
United Academics
Dean’s Evaluation & Recommendation

40. • Candidate may request a redacted copy of the Dean’s report.
• Redaction should be carried out to obscure reviewer identity at
this stage regardless of waiver status. Academic Affairs can
assist with the redaction.
• Do not prepare or provide redacted copies or substantive
summaries of any other materials in P&T files
• Requests from faculty member for such materials,
generally as part of formal appeal of a negative decision
from the Provost, directed to and handled by Academic
Affairs
Dean’s Evaluation & Recommendation (Continued)

41. Evaluation Criteria
Written statement explaining criteria used within the
department to evaluate faculty for promotion to associate
professor with tenure and to full professor.

42. Voting Summary
Yes No Abstain
Department Summary
Total Faculty: ______ ______ ______
Tenured Faculty: ______ ______ ______
College or School Committee
Total Membership: ______ ______ ______
Tenured Faculty: ______ ______ ______

45. The Digital Dossier
Created with Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro

46. If you don’t see the Welcome page and you want to …

47. Double click the icon (not the name) of the desired section.

48. Document Menu
Insert Pages
From File …

49. Fillable forms: P&T Checklist, Voting Summary, Teaching Checklist

50. • Navigate first to the Home screen
• Select Save Portfolio As …
• Choose a name
oCandidate last name, first name (Department)
• Check to see what you have saved – ensure entire
portfolio was saved as a single file
Saving the Digital Dossier

51. We still have details to work out …
• Notification of Academic Affairs in advance (as always)
• Submission of the digital dossier
oWeb site?
oEmail?
oIn-person via USB drive?
• Archiving – Interim, continue to provide ONE hard copy (red
folder)
Submission of Digital Dossiers

52. Questions
Ken Doxsee
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
346-2846
doxsee@uoregon.edu