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.

Third-Year Review Presented by Ken Doxsee Vice Provost For Academic Affairs March 3, 2015 Mid-Term

Timing of the Review For tenure-track faculty without tenure Timing established at time of appointment Usually occurs during last year of initial contract If no credit for prior service – typically in 3 rd year If credit for prior service – typically mid-way between hire and expected tenure review Completed ≥1 one month before end of contract

Process Department/unit head requests materials from faculty member Department/unit head assembles file File provided to committee of tenured faculty Committee prepares report, including assessment of progress toward tenure & promotion Department/unit head prepares independent report and recommendation Fall term

Faculty Member’s Responsibilities Curriculum vitae Scholarship portfolio Comprehensive portfolio of scholarship/research/creative practice Appropriate evidence of (inter)national recognition or impact Personal statement Teaching, scholarship/research/creative practice, service Discussion of contributions to institutional equity and inclusion Teaching portfolio Service portfolio

Process Department/unit head requests materials from faculty member Department/unit head assembles file File provided to committee of tenured faculty Committee prepares report, including assessment of progress toward tenure & promotion Department/unit head prepares independent report and recommendation

Department/Unit Head’s Responsibilities Summary reports from student teaching evaluation process Recent peer evaluation of faculty member’s teaching Establish review committee comprised of tenured faculty

Process Department/unit head requests materials from faculty member Department/unit head assembles file File provided to committee of tenured faculty Committee prepares report, including assessment of progress toward tenure & promotion Department/unit head prepares independent report and recommendation (Department/unit vote by eligible faculty)

Process Committee and department/unit head reports provided to faculty member Faculty member may provide response and/or additional information within 10 days from receipt of reports File, including any response or additional information from faculty member, submitted to Dean Dean prepares independent report and recommendation May consult with appropriate persons May obtain and document additional relevant information

Process Dean shares report and recommendation with faculty member Faculty member may provide response and/or additional information within 10 days from receipt of reports File, including any response or additional information from faculty member, submitted to Provost or designee (Include contract renewal documents) Provost or designee decides terms and duration of any subsequent appointment and communicates review decision to faculty member ≥1 month prior to end of current contract

General Remarks The key question: Given the work accomplished and the trajectory, is the candidate on a pathway to an unequivocally positive recommendation for tenure? Formative and summative evaluation Contract renewal is a key decision point Three outcomes possible Renewal extending to tenure decision Terminal one-year contract Renewable one-year contract with stipulations

Outcomes and Associated Process Unequivocally positive: readily make tenure if current trajectory is sustained  Three-year renewal Unequivocally negative: will clearly not make tenure if current trajectory is sustained  One-year terminal contract and dismissal Problematic but still possible: might make tenure with key corrections in effort  One-year contract with stipulations

Conducting the Review: Suggestions Engage the discussion in two parts Diagnostic review of vita and accomplishments Evaluative review of prospective success and what is needed (or lacking if things are going negative) Focus on the vita and accomplishments, not on the person

Closing Comments All three outcomes are routinely reached It is difficult to tell a colleague that things are not working It is difficult to be told that things are not working It is more difficult to be told this later, in the context of a denial of tenure It is not always a shock

Questions Ken Doxsee Vice Provost for Academic Affairs