Written Assessments, Recommendations, and Responses in RPT Review
REG 05.20.33
Authority: Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
History: First Issued: Fall 2000.
Additional References:
RPT Process Description
Contact Info: Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs (919-513-7741)
1. Introduction
A key part of the reappointment, promotion,
and tenure review process is the contribution made by faculty colleagues,
department heads, deans, and candidates in developing meaningful written
assessments, recommendations, and responses. The aim of this documentation
is to provide formal record of review of the quality and impact of the
accomplishments of each candidate for reappointment, promotion, and tenure.
These elements of the review are to be fully shared among all participants:
the candidate, the departmental voting faculty, the department head, the
college reappointment, promotion and tenure committee, the dean, the University
Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee, and the senior academic
administrators who conduct the final portion of the review. The department
head, the dean, and the provost each have defined coordinating responsibility
in assuring the timely and appropriate sharing of these materials during
the course of the review.
2. Guidelines
2.1. Written Assessments by Departmental
Voting Faculty and College and University Reappointment, Promotion and
Tenure Committees.
A written assessment is a brief description of the views expressed by the
members of a group regarding the quality and impact of the accomplishments
of the candidate. It describes the essential salience of the assessments
expressed by members of the group relative to the candidate's Statement
of Mutual Expectations and the applicable criteria. Written assessments
done at the department level, by the departmental voting faculty, focus
on relevance to departmental criteria and the Statement of Mutual Expectations.
Those prepared at the college level, by the college reappointment, promotion
and tenure committee, should focus on college level criteria and should
address the degree to which it is clear that the department review maintained
its relevance to stated departmental criteria and was undertaken in a manner
that supports a fair decision. Those prepared at the university level,
by the University Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee upon the
request of the provost, focus on university criteria and address the degree
to which the college and department level reviews maintained their relevance
to stated college and departmental criteria and process. Assessments
should be limited to 2 pages in length. The following points should
be considered in preparing written assessments:
2.1.1. Provide description rather than argument.
Do not compose written assessments as arguments for or against the proposed
action nor as a justification for the vote of the group. Rather focus
on describing the judgments expressed in the group as to quality
and impact of the accomplishments of the candidate relative to the appropriate
criteria. For example, avoid the use of statements such as, "The candidate
should be promoted because... ", or "On this basis we justify our vote
to... ."
2.1.2. Be inclusive in scope. Describe
the range of clearly expressed peer viewpoints on the quality and impact
of the candidate's work. It is not the role of the written assessment to
represent only the viewpoints on which all or a majority of the members
of the review group agree; rather, it should describe the range of viewpoints. The degree to which the written assessment identifies perceived strengths
and weaknesses will, to subsequent reviewers, inform the interpretation
of the summative vote.
2.1.3. Refer only to the accomplishments
of the candidate who is the subject of the review. Make no reference
to any other individuals, by name or any other means by which those persons
can be uniquely identified. The written assessment is about the views
of the quality and impact of the accomplishments of the candidate relative
to the Statement of Mutual Expectations and the appropriate criteria rather
than relative to the accomplishments of any other individual or individuals. Moreover, the written assessment should make no reference to personal characteristics
of the individual, but rather it should focus on the accomplishments of
the individual.
2.2. Written Recommendations
by Heads and Deans.
Recommendations are prepared by department heads and deans based on their
own evaluation of each case, informed by the written assessments preceding
them. In summary fashion, they recount the strengths and weaknesses
of the case for the proposed action and make a recommendation that either
endorses or does not endorse the proposed action. Recommendations
should reflect on the quality and impact of the accomplishment of the candidate
relative to the Statement of Mutual Expectations and applicable criteria.
In cases of recommendations for non-promotion of tenured faculty, the recommendation
should identify areas in which improvement should be sought by the candidate.
Recommendations should refer only to the accomplishments of the candidate
and should not refer to other individuals by name or other means of identification. Recommendations should be limited to 2 pages in length.
2.3. Candidate Responses.
Candidate responses provide opportunity for the candidate to offer clarification
at the completion of the department review (i.e., to the department
head within five business days upon receipt of the departmental voting
faculty vote and assessment and the department head's recommendation) and
at the completion of the college review (i.e., to the dean within
five business days upon receipt of the college committee vote and assessment
and the dean's recommendation). Responses should be limited to 2
pages in length.
2.4. Role of Department Head, Dean, and
Provost in Coordinating the Sharing of Written Assessments, Vote Tallies,
Recommendations, and Optional Responses. All formal communication between the candidate and all other participants
in the candidate's review should be provided through the coordination of
the department head.
2.4.1. At the department level, the department
head provides coordination of the review and shares the department head's
written recommendation with the departmental voting faculty and the departmental
voting faculty's written assessment and vote and the department head's
written recommendation with the candidate in a timely fashion to permit
an optional response from the candidate within five business days; the
department head shares any candidate response with the departmental voting
faculty and adds to the dossier the department assessment and vote, recommendation,
and response before forwarding the dossier to the dean.
2.4.2. At the college level, the dean provides
the coordination of the review and, with the assistance of the department
head, shares the dean's written recommendation with the college committee
and the college committee's written assessment and the dean's written recommendation
with the departmental voting faculty and the candidate in a timely fashion
to permit an optional response from the candidate within five business
days; any response to the college level review by the candidate is submitted
by the candidate to the department head who provides it to the departmental
voting faculty and the dean, who shares it with the college committee and
adds to the dossier the college assessment and vote, recommendation, and
response before forwarding to the provost.
2.4.3. At the university level, the provost
provides coordination of the review. If the University Reappointment,
Promotion, and Tenure Committee provides a written assessment upon the
request of the provost, with the assistance of the dean and department
head, the provost shares the assessment with all reviewers and the candidate
in a timely fashion to permit an optional candidate response within five
business days; any response by the candidate to a University Reappointment,
Promotion, and Tenure Committee written assessment is submitted by the
candidate to the department head who provides it to the departmental voting
faculty and the dean, who shares it with the college committee and transmits
it to the provost, who shares it with the University Reappointment, Promotion,
and Tenure Committee. The provost adds the assessment and response
to the dossier prior to completion of the review.
