Promotion and Tenure

I. Major Steps
II. Promotion Record
III. Joint Appointments
IV. Info for Dossier
V. Department Level
VI. Collegiate Level
VII. University Level
Appendix A

Approved by the Faculty 3/6/2015
Approved by Provost Office 4/10/2015

Promotion is an essential aspect of an academic career in the College of Education at the University of Iowa. It signifies and recognizes academic vitality and excellence, as well as encourages the continued growth and maintenance of standards of academic excellence. The following information is intended to provide procedures specific to the promotion process for tenured and tenured-track faculty in the College of Education. It updates earlier policies and procedures in the College and incorporates the adopted campus “Procedures for Tenure and Promotion Decision-Making” effective for the 2005-2006 academic year.

General Principles

The Procedures for Tenure and Promotion Decision-Making establish a uniform system of procedures to be used in the College of Education. These Procedures rely upon several principles: (1) Decisions granting or denying tenure or promotion should be based on a written record of achievement. (2) The content of the record that will be relied upon should be known by the candidate and the decision-makers, except as otherwise provided for in these procedures. (3) Except for variation related to the nature of the candidate’s academic activity, the content of the record should be the same for all candidates in the same academic unit. (4) The governing procedures should be the same for all candidates in the College. (5) Collegiate procedures should be applied consistently to all candidates. (6) Each faculty member participating in the promotion decision-making process may do so at only one level of the process: departmental, collegiate, or provostial. Faculty with collegiate or provostial administrative appointments of 50% or greater shall participate in their administrative office, except in rare and special circumstances at the discretion of the Provost.

Definitions. The term “promotion” refers to both promotion and tenure, except where the Procedures clearly distinguish between them.

The term “scholarship” refers to creative work as well as traditional research and publication.

A “candidate” is any faculty member for whom it is the year of required review or any faculty member who has indicated his or her interest in being reviewed for tenure and/or promotion.

The “dossier” is the primary materials assembled by the candidate as described in Section I.B. The dossier contains appendices all or part of which may be transmitted with the dossier to successive participants in the process as described in Section II.

The “Promotion Record” is the dossier plus all of the materials that are added to it and transmitted to successive participants in the evaluation process.

The Department Review Committee consists of at least three faculty appointed by the DEO who will name one faculty member as chair. The Department Review Committee will evaluate the teaching, scholarship and service of candidates who are being considered for promotion and tenure in their department. The Department Consulting Group consists of all tenured members of the candidate’s department at higher academic ranks (and, for tenure decisions, tenured faculty members of the same rank), excluding the Collegiate Dean and Provost, faculty with collegiate or provostial administrative appointments of 50% or greater, and any faculty member with a disqualifying conflict of interest. If there are fewer than four faculty members in a department who are qualified to serve on the Department Consulting Group, the department must identify qualified University of Iowa faculty members from outside the department to serve on the Department Consulting Group (for a minimum of four faculty members in total). The “Collegiate Consulting Group” consists of five faculty appointed by the Dean in consultation with the Departmental Executive Officers (DEOs). The duties of the Collegiate Consulting Group are described in Section VI.A.

The term “Departmental Executive Officer” or “DEO” throughout the Procedural Guidelines refers to the person or entity who has been expressly designated by the College to perform one or more of the functions assigned by these procedures to the DEO. The duties of the DEO are described in Section V.

“Participate” means to have input into a promotion decision, including but not limited to such activities as preparing a written report or review of the candidate’s work, participating in a formal discussion of the candidate’s qualifications, voting on a recommendation for or against promotion, or providing consultation except as provided for elsewhere in these procedures.

I. Major Steps and Reviewers in the Process

Declaration of intent. Any candidate who wants to be considered for promotion and/or tenure must inform the Departmental Executive Officer (DEO) in writing no later than May 31 of the intent to submit a dossier for the next academic year. The DEO will then inform the Dean no later than June 1. At the same time, the candidate must suggest external reviewers to the DEO and submit materials for external review. Later additions can be sent to External Reviewers at the candidate’s request. Consideration for tenure and promotion normally occurs during the 6the year for probationary assistant professors.
Dossier preparation. The formal dossier and the appendices must be submitted by uploading dossier materials to the Faculty Electronic Promotion Record (EPR). To assist candidates, the Dean’s Office will provide an electronic document library after receiving notification that a candidate will be seeking promotion. The EPR will include the major sections of the dossier to be completed and guidelines for completing each section. The candidate must upload a dossier by September 1 of the academic year in which the promotion is to be considered. At the September filing, the dossier should be complete except for pertinent additional information that is not available at the time the dossier is first submitted (e.g. acceptance of an article for publication). Other material (e.g., external letters, letters reflecting further evaluative comments by appropriate groups, and the candidate’s optional responses at different stages in the review process) together with the dossier form the complete Promotion Record.
Department Review Committee. The DEO will appoint a review committee of at least three faculty, naming one faculty member as chair, to evaluate the candidate’s teaching, scholarship and service. Different review committees may be appointed by a DEO to evaluate different candidates being considered for promotion in their department. Members of the committee must be tenured faculty members in the College at higher academic ranks (and, for tenure decisions, tenured faculty members of the same rank), excluding the Collegiate Dean and Provost, faculty with collegiate or provostial administrative appointments of 50% or greater, and any faculty member with a disqualifying conflict of interest. The majority of the members of the committee must be in the same collegiate department as the candidate (unless there are fewer than two faculty members who can serve). The committee does not vote on whether or not to grant the promotion; instead, they file separate written reports, evaluating the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service. The reports are then added to the dossier in the appropriate sections.
Identification of external reviewers. Selection of external reviewers may begin immediately following declaration of intent. It will be based on a joint process in which the candidate recommends possible reviewers to the DEO, the DEO solicits suggestions from the Department Review Committee, and a final list is suggested by the DEO to the candidate and the Dean. Consistent with the University Procedures, it is the responsibility of the DEO to determine the final list of reviewers; to keep track of all suggested reviewers as well as their credentials and reasons for being nominated or selected; and to account for who did and did not provide a review and why. The DEO will send selected materials to a minimum of five external reviewers for each candidate no later than August 1. A minimum of four completed reviews must be included in the dossier.
Department Consulting Group. This group consists of all tenured members of the candidate’s department at higher academic ranks (and, for tenure decisions, tenured faculty members of the same rank), excluding the collegiate Dean and Provost, faculty with collegiate or provostial administrative appointments of 50% or greater, and any faculty member with a disqualifying conflict of interest. If there are fewer than four faculty members in a department who are qualified and available to serve on the Department Consulting Group, the DEO will identify comparable faculty members in the College from outside the department to serve on the Consulting Group for a minimum of four faculty members in total. Particularly in the case of smaller departments in the College, the DEO may choose to name the entire Department Consulting Group to serve as the Department Review Committee, in which case the Group must still meet, in accordance with University procedures, to discuss the case, and report a formal vote. The DEO will call a meeting of the Department Consulting Group and the first order of business will be the election of a chair to direct the meeting and to prepare a report of the meeting procedures and the vote. The vote must be taken by secret ballot for or against the granting of promotion. The DEO may attend the meetings of this Group, but may not vote or contribute to the written report summarizing the discussion. The written report, including the recommendation and vote, is submitted to the DEO as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record and the DEO adds the report to the dossier.
DEO’s Recommendation. Upon receiving the recommendation of the Department Consulting Group, the DEO prepares a written recommendation, adds that recommendation to the dossier and forwards the dossier and all supporting materials to the Dean.
Collegiate Consulting Group. Upon receiving the dossier from the DEO, the Dean begins a review of the case for promotion and directs the Collegiate Consulting Group, on behalf of the College, to do so as well. The Collegiate Consulting Group will meet to discuss the candidate’s qualifications, to vote for or against the granting of promotion, and to prepare a summary report of the discussion and documentation of the vote. The committee’s final report including the recommendation and vote is submitted to the Dean to become part of the Promotion Record. Previously known in the College of Education as the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure, the Collegiate Consulting Group, will consist of four or five tenured full professors in the College who are appointed to the Group for a three-year term. Each DEO will forward the name of a departmental representative. In addition, the Dean may appoint one full professor at large for the purpose of creating additional perspectives and diversity in the Group’s deliberations. The Dean will appoint a chair of the Group from among its members. The full committee is to be established no later than October 15.
Dean’s Recommendation. Based on the Promotion Record, the collegiate Dean will recommend that promotion be granted or denied in a separate letter to the Provost for each candidate, along with a copy of the Promotion Record.

II. The Promotion Record

These procedures as required by the University for Colleges are meant to insure that candidates for promotion and tenure are evaluated in a consistent fashion, the evaluation is documented clearly and consistently, the dossier provides a clear and complete record of these evaluations and the candidate is given several opportunities to respond in writing to evaluations before the Provost makes a final recommendation on the case to the Board of Regents. The following procedures establish a uniform system for evaluating candidates for promotion and tenure in the College of Education. The formal dossier and the appendices should be prepared for submission via the Faculty Electronic Promotion Record (EPR).

The qualifications of a candidate for promotion will be determined on the basis of the Promotion Record, which, when it reaches the Office of the Provost, will consist of the following material, in this order:

the “Recommendation for Faculty Promotion” cover sheet;
the Collegiate Dean’s letter making a recommendation to the Provost;
the recommendation, vote, and report of the Collegiate Consulting Group;
the Departmental Executive Officer’s letter making a recommendation to the Dean;
the recommendation, vote, and report of the Department Consulting Group;
the candidate’s letters correcting errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service; the candidate’s letter following receipt of the recommendation of the Departmental Executive Officer and the recommendation, recorded vote and summary report of the Department Consulting Group; and the candidate’s letter(s) following receipt of the recommendation of the Dean and the recommendation and recorded vote of the Collegiate Consulting Group, if the candidate has submitted any such letters;
the candidate’s educational and professional history (i.e., Curriculum Vitae [C.V.] preferably in the order listed:
1. a list of institutions of higher education attended, preferably from most to least recent, indicating for each one the name of the institution, dates attended, field of study, degree obtained, and date the degree was awarded;
2. a list of professional and academic positions held, preferably from most to least recent, indicating for each one the title of the position, the dates of service, and the location or institution at which the position was held; and
3. a list of honors, awards, recognitions, and outstanding achievements, preferably from most to least recent;
a section on the candidate’s teaching, including
1. the candidate’s personal statement on teaching;
2. documentation of peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching by the Department Review Committee; and
3. other materials related to the candidate’s teaching [ref. IV];
a section on the candidate’s scholarship, including
1. the candidate’s personal statement on scholarship;
2. documentation of external peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship;
3. documentation of internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship by the Department Review Committee; and
4. other materials related to the candidate’s scholarship [ref. IV];
a section on the candidate’s service, including
1. the candidate’s personal statement on service;
2. documentation of peer evaluation of the candidate’s service by the Department Review Committee; and
3. other materials related to the candidate’s service [ref. IV];
supplementary material to be added to the Promotion Record as expressly provided in these procedures or collegiate procedures, entered in the appropriate section of the Record. Material added to the original dossier or materials in the original dossier that are amended should be labeled as such, including the date when added or amended and with amendments clearly marked.

Although Annual Reviews of Probationary Faculty are not ordinarily a part of the Promotion Record, they shall be added by the DCG, DEO, CCG, or Dean if they are used to support a recommendation for or against promotion.

A candidate has the right to withdraw his or her dossier from further consideration at any point before the Provost has made his/her final decision regarding tenure and/or promotion. In the case of a mandatory tenure review, withdrawal of the dossier must be accompanied by a letter of resignation effective no later than one year past the end of the current appointment. If a candidate withdraws his or her dossier from further consideration, the original dossier, including appendices and any supplemental materials added by the candidate, shall be returned to the candidate. All other materials in the Promotion Record at the time of withdrawal shall be returned to the candidate’s department, which shall retain them following the normal departmental or collegiate schedule for retention of promotion and tenure materials. The candidate shall not have access to these materials.

A college, or department with the concurrence of its college, may apply in individual cases to the Provost for an exemption from any of these procedures for a legitimate and valid reason. The college or department has the burden of convincing the Provost that the exemption adds value, fairness and weight to the evaluation.

These Procedural Guidelines apply to tenure-track faculty only.

III. Joint appointments

In the case of a non-0% joint-appointment candidacy for promotion, the departments shall form (a) joint internal review committee(s) (See Section C. below), roughly proportional in its (their) makeup to the percentage of faculty effort in each department and with at least one committee member from each department. The DEO(s) or the candidate may seek approval of the dean(s) for an alternative structure in exceptional circumstances, including cases of marked discrepancy between percentage of effort and percentage of salary support across the two units, or in the case of a joint but non- interdisciplinary appointment, such that joint review is inappropriate. When standard review procedures differ between units (e.g., delegation of review of teaching, research and service to separate subcommittees vs. using a single internal review committee for all three areas), a joint decision shall be made establishing procedures that are mutually acceptable to the faculty member and the units in advance of deliberations of the review committee[s]. The joint internal review committee shall report, both in writing and at (a) meeting(s) with at least one internal review committee member from each department present, to each Department Consulting Group.
The departments involved must determine, together with the affected faculty member, whether the Department Consulting Groups will meet jointly or separately and, if jointly, whether the DCGs will have joint or separate votes and reports. If separately, (a) if a faculty member holds a 50-50 joint appointment, each DCG will make an independent and primary decision using its college’s written policy governing promotion decision- making; (b) if a faculty member holds a 1% to 49% joint appointment in a department, the departments involved must determine, together with the affected faculty member, whether each DCG will make an independent decision or whether the DCG in which the faculty member holds the smaller percentage appointment will be limited as described in section C below. These determinations should be made by mutual agreement of the faculty member, both DEOs, and the Dean(s) early in the joint appointment and set forth in a letter of agreement, copied to the Provost.
If a faculty member holds a 1% to 49% appointment in a department, and a determination is made that that department shall not make an independent decision, then that department shall participate in the following manner:
1. The Department Consulting Group shall:
  1. receive the candidate’s dossier including the letters of the external reviewers;
  2. review and discuss the candidate’s qualifications;
  3. make a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion based on a secret-ballot vote;
  4. write a brief report of its discussion, including its vote and recommendation for or against the granting of promotion. If a majority of the DCG requests, it may delegate writing this report to the DEO.
2. The DEO shall:
  1. write a letter
    1. reporting the DCG discussion, including its vote and recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, if requested by a majority of the DCG to do so, and
    2. making an independent recommendation that promotion be granted or denied;
  2. add the DCG report, if any, and this letter to the Promotion Record, and
  3. submit the Promotion Record to the primary department in time for consideration by the DCG of that department.
    Similarly
3. the Collegiate Consulting Group of the college in which a faculty member has a 1% to 49% appointment shall:
  1. receive the candidate’s Promotion Record from the DEO of the primary department;
  2. review and discuss the candidate’s qualifications, and
  3. make a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion based on a secret-ballot vote, with a brief report of its discussion if the recommendation is negative. If a majority of the CCG requests, it may delegate writing this report to the Dean.
4. the Dean shall:
  1. write a letter
    1. reporting the CCG discussion, including its vote and recommendations for or against the granting of promotion, if requested by a majority of the CCG to do so, and
    2. making an independent recommendation that promotion be granted or denied;
  2. add the CCG report, if any, and this letter to the Promotion Record;
  3. submit the Promotion Record to the primary college in time for consideration by its CCG.
If a faculty member holds a 0% joint appointment in a department, that department may be limited to a subordinate consultative role in the tenure and promotion process and the affected departments may decide how this role shall be carried out. These determinations should be made by mutual agreement of the faculty member, both DEOs, and the Dean(s) at the beginning of the joint appointment and set forth in a letter of agreement, copied to the Provost.

IV. Information that should be contained in the dossier to document and evaluate Teaching (H), Scholarship (I), and Service (J) as outlined above in Section II.

Teaching. A record of the candidate’s teaching at The University of Iowa, including:
1. Items supplied by the candidate:
  1. the candidate’s personal statement on teaching (consisting of a summary and explanation--normally not to exceed three pages--of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning teaching, and comments on these accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier related to teaching);
  2. a list of the candidate’s teaching assignments and course enrollments on a semester-by-semester basis, preferably from most to least recent;
  3. a list of graduate student dissertations and theses directed or co-directed, including each student’s name, degree objective, and outcomes; and first post-graduate positions; and post-doctoral students supervised;
  4. a list, by year, of the number of advisees, by degree level, with a description of the nature of the advising activities;
  5. a list of other contributions to instructional programs;
  6. copies of course materials such as syllabi, instructional Web pages, computer laboratory materials, etc.;
  7. a summary of student evaluations of teaching with means provided for each item when used repeatedly in a given course;
  8. and, as an appendix to the dossier, copies of student evaluations of teaching for each course taught. The candidate will include all student evaluations of teaching in her or his custody for each course taught.
2. Items supplied by the DEO: evaluations of teaching shall be included as outlined in part V.C.
Scholarship. A record of the candidate’s scholarship, including:
1. Items supplied by the candidate:
  1. the candidate’s personal statement on scholarship (consisting of a summary and explanation--normally not to exceed three pages--of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning scholarship, and comments on these accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier related to scholarship);
  2. a list, preferably from most to least recent, of the candidate’s publications or creative works (with, for each multi-authored work or coherent series of multi-authored works, a brief statement of the candidate’s contribution to the work or series of works);
  3. a list of all published reviews of scholarship of which the candidate has knowledge;
  4. a list of any externally funded grants or contracts received by the candidate;
  5. a list of invited lectures and conference presentations;
  6. a list of pending decisions that might affect the promotion deliberations, including grant proposals, book contracts, and other publishing decisions anticipated in the near future;
  7. a list of all inventions and patents;
  8. and, as an appendix to the dossier, copies of the candidate’s published work (and work that is in print or has been accepted for publication), indicating where each work has been or will be published.
2. Items supplied by the DEO:
  1. external peer evaluations of scholarship shall be as outlined in V.D.
  2. internal peer evaluations of scholarship shall be as outlined in V.D.
Service. A record of the candidate’s service to the department, college, university, profession, and community, including:
1. Items supplied by the candidate
  1. the candidate’s personal statement on service (consisting of a summary and explanation--normally not to exceed two pages--of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning service, and comments on these accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier related to service); and
  2. a categorical list, preferably from most to least recent within each category, of offices held in professional organizations; editorships of journals or other scholarly publications; service on review panels; service on departmental, collegiate, or university committees; departmental, collegiate, or university service positions; relevant community involvement; and other contributions.
2. Items supplied by the DEO: internal peer evaluation of service shall be included as outlined in V.E. Within the appropriate section(s) of the dossier, the candidate has the right to add other information relevant to his/her record in teaching, scholarship, or service that is deemed to be important in the candidate’s judgment.

V. Procedural Details in the Evaluation—Department Level

Preparing the Dossier
1. It is the responsibility of the Departmental Executive Officer to keep the candidate informed of their promotion and tenure decision review date. This should be done in writing in the year of appointment to a tenure-track position, in the year of any contract renewal, and by April 15 of the academic year prior to the tenure decision due date. Candidates are to be informed of the material that is required to be included in the promotion dossier, and of the candidate’s responsibility to compile and submit the dossier by September 1 of the academic year of the promotion decision.
2. It is the candidate’s responsibility, with the advice of the Departmental Executive Officer, to compile and submit substantive material for inclusion in the promotion dossier (the core of the Promotion Record) on or before September 1.
3. It is the responsibility of the Departmental Executive Officer to advise the candidate in compiling material for the dossier, to complete the compilation of the dossier (and subsequently to complete compilation of the Promotion Record by adding materials to it throughout the departmental decision-making process), and to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the Promotion Record serves as a fair and accurate evaluation of the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, and is not purely a record of advocacy for the candidate. The responsibility to advise the candidate in compiling the dossier material is not limited to the immediate period of the tenure and promotion review, but rather is an ongoing responsibility that begins when the faculty member is appointed to the department.
4. Where the volume of material of a particular kind which is required to be included in the dossier is large and potentially unmanageable, a candidate, in consultation with the Departmental Executive Officer, may select and identify representative portions of the required material for special attention. Only the material selected as representative will become part of the Promotion Record and will be transmitted to successive participants in the promotion decision-making process. Required materials segregated from the representative material will be available for review and will be located in a readily accessible location under the Departmental Executive Officer’s custody. If any participant in the promotion decision-making process relies upon initially segregated material in preparing a written evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications, that material should be added to the Promotion Record with the fact of that addition noted, and the candidate should be notified in writing of the addition at the time that it is made.
5. The candidate’s work in progress that is not completed by the specified date but that is anticipated to be completed in the fall--early enough for full and deliberate evaluation, as determined by the Departmental Executive Officer--may be identified at the time the dossier is submitted and added to the dossier if and when it is completed.
6. Other materials (including updated CVs and personal statements) that could not have been available by the specified date but which are completed early enough for full and deliberate evaluation may be added to the promotion dossier by the candidate at any time through the Departmental Executive Officer. Materials added to the original dossier or materials in the original dossier that are amended, should be labeled as such, including the date when added or amended and with any amendments clearly marked.
It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service as described in the following sections, C-E.
Evaluation of the Candidate’s Teaching
1. It is the candidate's responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluations of the candidate's teaching by participating in the following process:
  1. observations of the candidate's teaching are to be of classes taught during the fall semester of the review year or during the previous academic year. At least two different peer reviewers must observe the candidate’s teaching for a minimum of two observations. These two observations must be of two different class instances. Each observer must consult with the candidate about the details of the observer’s plans so as to avoid an undue burden on the candidate or observer and to avoid disrupting any observed class or other teaching situation.
    1. the preferred format for teaching observations is for a candidate to be observed teaching real-time (in person or online) in a class where they serve as the primary instructor. As many observations as possible should be in this format. An observer may also observe a class where the candidate is not the primary instructor but serves as such during the observation, watch an unedited videorecording of a class, and/or examine the website and materials associated with a class delivered asynchronously online.
    2. each teaching observation must include an examination of course syllabi and other course materials sought from the candidate. Whenever possible and for at least one observation, the observation must include discussion (in the candidate’s absence) or written communication with students in the observed class about their experiences in the class.
    3. at the request of the candidate, teaching observations may occur during the academic year prior to the promotion and tenure review. In this case, observers are to be named by the DEO. Each observer will prepare and sign a written report for the DEO who will share the results with the candidate and, in the fall semester, with the Department Review Committee. These reports are intended to go beyond a mere description of what the candidate has included in the dossier and provide a thorough evaluation of the quantity and quality of the candidate’s teaching from a departmental perspective.
    4. the candidate may elect to have the teaching observations occur during the fall semester of the review year. In this case, the two non-chair members of the Department Review Committee will provide the observations, and each will prepare a written report.
  2. Department Review Committee evaluations of the candidate's teaching will be contained in a report that analyzes the relevant materials in the Promotion Record and will include these elements:
    1. a summary analysis of the teaching observations;
    2. a comparative analysis of the quality of the candidate's teaching in the context of the candidate's department or unit;
    3. a summary analysis of the student evaluations of teaching contained in the promotion record, including department average comparison data where possible;
    4. a description, where appropriate, of the balance between the candidate's undergraduate and graduate teaching;
    5. a description and assessment of the candidate's academic advising responsibilities;
    6. a consideration of any special circumstances concerning the faculty member's teaching performance;
    7. a summary analysis of supporting materials including course syllabi and other course materials.
  3. The Department Review Committee will submit their report to the DEO to become part of the Promotion Record.
2. Letters from Graduate Students in Tenure and Promotion Decisions
  1. In addition to the above, DEOs will ask candidates to supply a representative list of graduate students with whom the candidate has worked in professional situations that allow mentoring or advising, for example, thesis committees, comprehensive examination committees, independent studies, and other comparable situations of the individual candidate’s choosing. After viewing the list provided, the DEO may ask for more student names if the list is deemed to be insufficiently representative. The DEO will then write to all the students listed asking them for a written, confidential evaluation of the candidate’s skills as a graduate mentor and advisor. The letters would be sent directly to the DEO and would become part of the promotion record reviewed by the Department Consulting Group, the Collegiate Consulting Group, the Dean, and the Provost.
  2. Such letters are meant to supplement, but not replace other forms of student evaluation of teaching as listed in IV.A.1.
  3. The candidate will have access to these letters only if there has been a negative recommendation, only if the candidate requests them, and only after they have been redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the students.
  4. Within the College, these letters are permissible but not mandatory. However, departments must endorse and follow consistent procedures within the College for every candidate considered for promotion and/or tenure.
  5. No unsolicited letters evaluating the candidate’s teaching, whether signed or anonymous, will be entered into the Promotion Record.
Peer Evaluation of the Candidate’s Scholarship
1. It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining external peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship as follows:
  1. At least five (but no more than eight) external evaluators of the candidate’s scholarship will be identified on or before August 1. The candidate and DEO will select a representative sample of the candidate’s work to be sent to each reviewer. A minimum of four completed reviews must be included in the dossier.
  2. The DEO will solicit from the candidate a list of appropriate external reviewers from peer institutions (e.g. AAU, CIC or Big Ten, major public, Carnegie Research I) or institutions in which the corresponding department or individual evaluator is of peer quality, and add suggestions to the list.
  3. The DEO will give the list to the Department Review Committee who will add other potential external reviewers and return the completed list to the DEO.
  4. The DEO will share the completed list of potential external reviewers with the candidate. The candidate shall identify any potential external reviewers with whom s/he has worked in any capacity and describe the nature of the relationship. If the candidate feels that any potential external reviewer on the list might be unfairly biased, the candidate may prepare a written objection and give it to the DEO, who will take the objection into consideration when selecting external reviewers.
  5. In identifying potential external reviewers, all participants in the selection process will take into account the standing of the prospective reviewer in the discipline, the likely knowledge of the reviewer of the material to be reviewed, the apparent impartiality of the reviewer, and the contribution of the reviewer to achieving an overall “balanced” review among the reviewers on any criterion for which there might be a range of perspectives. It is critical to avoid any situation in which a personal and/or professional relationship (including advising, mentoring, co- authoring, etc.) between the candidate and a prospective reviewer could undermine the reviewer’s apparent impartiality.
  6. The DEO will determine, in consultation with the Dean, which of the potential external reviewers will be asked to provide a letter of review.
  7. The DEO, using a form letter that substantially conforms to the sample letter contained in the Appendix, will ask the reviewers to provide an assessment of the quality and quantity of the candidate’s scholarship.
  8. After or in anticipation of an invitation to an external reviewer to evaluate the candidate’s published work, neither the candidate nor any other faculty other than the DEO or Dean will communicate with the reviewer concerning the subject of the review or the review process.
  9. The DEO will keep a record (separate from the promotion record) of:
    1. the list of suggested reviewers;
    2. the names of persons invited to review;
    3. the names of actual reviewers;
    4. comments submitted by the candidate, the DEO, and the internal faculty reviewers; and
    5. correspondence and other communications between the DEO or Dean and invited reviewers and actual reviewers.
  10. All letters received from external reviewers will be entered by the DEO into the dossier in the section dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship, along with
    1. a list of all invited reviewers--indicating whether the reviewer was suggested by the candidate, the DEO, or the Department Review Committee--and a brief explanation of why any invited reviewer declined;
    2. the candidate’s written objection to any potential external reviewer on the basis of unfair bias, if a letter was solicited from that reviewer over the candidate’s written objection;
    3. a copy of the letter or letters of solicitation sent by the DEO to external reviewers;
    4. a brief description prepared by the DEO of each external reviewer’s qualifications;
    5. a statement by the DEO of how the reviewer knows the candidate’s work, if it is not obvious from the reviewer’s letter; and
    6. an explanation of why the choice of a reviewer was made, if the reviewer is not from a peer institution (e.g. AAU. CIC or Big Ten, major public, Carnegie Research I).
2. An internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship will be carried out by the Department Review Committee whose members will analyze the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, excluding the external evaluations of the candidate’s scholarship.
  1. The faculty members who perform the internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship will enter their report into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship. The report will contain the following elements:
    1. a statement concerning the norms for publication and/or creative activity in the relevant field (including the balance of refereed/non-refereed works);
    2. a brief description of the quality of the journals or other forums in which the candidate’s work has appeared;
    3. a brief description of the norms of authorship and co-authorship in the field;
    4. a summary analysis of invited lectures and conference presentations;
    5. a summary statement, where appropriate, regarding the generation and administration of external funds;
    6. an analysis of the candidate’s progress toward or success in the development of a research agenda; and
    7. where appropriate, a statement regarding the candidate’s national or international reputation in the field.
Peer Evaluation of the Candidate’s Service
1. It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluation of the candidate’s service by participating in the following process:
  1. The Department Review Committee will carry out the internal review of the candidate’s service.
  2. The peer evaluation of the candidate’s service will be contained in a report that analyzes the relevant materials in the Dossier, and will include a comparative analysis of the quality of the candidate’s service in the context of the expected service contributions in the department, college, University, community, State of Iowa, and the profession.
  3. The Department Review Committee will submit their report to the DEO who will enter it into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s service.
informing the candidate of the peer evaluations and the candidate’s opportunity to respond
1. The DEO will send to the candidate a copy of the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service that have been entered into the appropriate sections of the Promotion Record.
2. The candidate will be allowed six working days to access the internal peer evaluation report. The candidate will then be allowed six working days to submit, in writing, any corrections of errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service.
3. If the candidate submits a letter correcting errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service, the DEO will place it in the Promotion Record before the Department Consulting Group makes its recommendation.
The Department Consulting Group
1. Following the principle that each individual participating in the promotion decision-making process may vote for or against the granting of promotion to a candidate only once, Department Consulting Group members who are also members of the Collegiate Consulting Group will participate in the promotion decision for a candidate from their department at the departmental level and may not participate in the Collegiate Consulting Group’s deliberations or voting in regard to the candidate.
2. The Promotion Record available to the Department Consulting Group will consist of the candidate’s dossier with appendices (publications and student evaluations of teaching, including those student evaluations added to the Promotion Record by the DEO); the external peer evaluation of scholarship; the internal peer evaluations of scholarship, teaching, and service, entered into the appropriate sections of the Record; and the candidate’s letter correcting errors in the internal peer evaluations, if any.
3. The Department Consulting Group will meet to discuss the candidate’s qualifications, to vote by secret ballot for or against the granting of promotion, and will assign one or more of its members to prepare a summary report of the discussion and documentation of the final vote and recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, based on the criterion that a simple majority defines a positive recommendation for promotion, enter that information into the Promotion Record This report shall not reiterate the details of the internal and external peer reviews or restate other material already in the dossier; rather, it shall identify those specific aspects of the dossier that formed the basis of the Department Consulting Group recommendation.
4. The results of the Department Consulting Group’s vote and the summary report of its discussion will be submitted to the DEO to become part of the candidate’s Promotion Record and will also be provided to the candidate, redacted as needed to protect the confidentiality of any individual contributions, whether from students, external reviewers, or University of Iowa faculty members. The summary report will include the number of faculty eligible to vote, the number of absent faculty and the final vote.
5. The candidate will be allowed six working days to access the Department Consulting Group report. The candidate will then be allowed six working days to submit in writing to the DEO any corrections in factual errors about the candidate’s record in the Department Consulting Group’s summary report of its discussions.
6. If the candidate submits a letter correcting errors in the Department Consulting Group’s summary report, the DEO will enter it in the Promotion Record before making a recommendation to the Dean.
7. Faculty unable to attend the meeting may elect to vote, in absentia, with the DEO. Absentee ballots must reach the DEO before the meeting and, to insure confidentiality, must be included with other ballots at the time of the ballot count.
The Departmental Executive Officer
1. The Departmental Executive Officer will be responsible for arranging a meeting of the Department Consulting Group. The date for this meeting will be scheduled well in advance to provide optimal opportunity for the attendance of the full departmental faculty. The DEO may attend the meetings of the Department Consulting Group, but may not vote or contribute to the written report summarizing its discussion.
2. The Departmental Executive Officer will be responsible for reviewing all Department Review Committee and Department Consulting Group reports for thoroughness and compliance with College policies.
3. Based on the Promotion Record, the DEO will recommend that promotion be granted or denied in a separate letter to the collegiate Dean for each candidate
4. As with the Department Consulting Group report, the DEO’s letter to the Dean should not reiterate the details of the material that already is in the dossier. Rather, it will explain her or his reasons for recommending for or against promotion, and, when the recommendation of the Department Consulting Group is not followed, will explain why the contrary recommendation is being made and will address any disagreement between the DEO’s evaluation and the evaluation of the Department Consulting Group as reflected in the summary report of the Department Consulting Group’s discussion.
5. Even if the DEO recommends that the candidate be promoted, the DEO’s letter to the Dean will address any negative aspects of the Promotion Record; and, if tenure is to be granted, the DEO will indicate in the letter to the Dean how the candidate has met the criteria for tenure.
6. The DEO’s letter will be submitted to the Dean as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record.
Informing the candidate of the Departmental Executive Officer’s decision and the candidate’s opportunity to respond
1. At the same time that the Promotion Record is submitted to the Dean, if the DEO’s recommendation is negative, the DEO will provide the candidate with a copy of the DEO’s letter to the Dean.
2. The candidate will be allowed six working days to request access to the Promotion Record in the Dean’s Office with the following provisions:
  1. the candidate will have access to the external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship only if the Department Consulting Group or DEO recommends against promotion, only if the candidate requests them, and only after they have been redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers;
  2. any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers who have not elected to waive their confidentiality; and
  3. the student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the DEO will be available to the candidate only if the Department Consulting Group or DEO recommends against promotion, only if the candidate requests them, and only after the evaluations have been redacted to protect the confidentiality of student evaluators.
3. The candidate has the right to submit a letter in response to the DEO’s letter to the Dean and will be allowed six working days after receiving access to the Promotion Record, including redacted versions of any confidential documents that have been requested, to submit a letter to be included in the Promotion Record.
4. If the candidate submits a letter of response, the Dean will place the letter in the Promotion Record and a copy of the letter shall be provided to the DEO.

VI. Procedural Details in the Evaluation--Collegiate Level

The Collegiate Consulting Group
1. The Collegiate Consulting Group has been defined previously. If a member of the Collegiate Consulting Group is from the same department as a particular candidate, that member may not participate in the Collegiate Consulting Group’s deliberations or voting in regard to that candidate. The Collegiate Consulting Group member may provide input and participate in the vote only at the departmental level.
2. The Dean and the Associate Deans may attend the meetings of the Collegiate Consulting Group, but the Dean may not vote or contribute to the written report summarizing its discussion. The Dean shall decide how the Associate Deans will participate in the tenure and promotion decision-making process at the collegiate level.
3. The Promotion Record available to the Collegiate Consulting Group will consist of the Promotion Record available to the DEO, the DEO’s letter, and the candidate’s letter of response (if any) following receipt of the Department Consulting Group’s recorded vote and summary report and the recommendation of the DEO. The appendices to the Promotion Record (consisting of student evaluations of teaching and publications) are part of the Promotion Record, and are physically moved to the Dean’s custody when the Promotion Record is forwarded to the Dean by the DEO.
4. If the Collegiate Consulting Group finds it necessary for clarification or supplementation of the Promotion Record, the Collegiate Consulting Group may submit to the Department Consulting Group and/or the DEO a written request for additional information. The Collegiate Consulting Group will enter any information thus obtained into the Promotion Record.
5. The Collegiate Consulting Group will meet to discuss the candidate’s qualifications and to vote for or against the granting of promotion stating the criterion vote (e.g., simple majority) that defines a positive recommendation for promotion. The chair of the Collegiate Consulting Group will appoint a committee member to prepare a summary report of the discussion and documentation of the final vote. This summary report will be entered into the Promotion Record.
6. The results of the Collegiate Consulting Group’s vote and the summary report of its discussion will be submitted to the Dean to become part of the candidate’s Promotion Record. If the CCG’s recommendation to the Dean is negative and contrary to that of the DCG or DEO, the candidate also shall be provided with a copy of the CCG’s vote and summary report.
7. If the CCG’s recommendation is negative and contrary to that of the DCG or DEO, the candidate, upon request, will have access to the Promotion Record, with the following provisions:
  1. the candidate will have access to the external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship only after they have been redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers;
  2. any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers; and
  3. the candidate will have access to the student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the DEO only after the evaluations have been redacted to protect the confidentiality of student evaluators.
8. The candidate will have six working days to request access to the Collegiate Consulting Group’s recommendation. After receiving access to the CCG’s recommendation, the candidate will have six working days to submit a letter of response to the CCG’s summary report. When any materials that were not available at the time of the departmental action are forwarded by the DEO to the Dean, the Dean, in consultation with the DEO, will make a determination whether it is likely that the new material would have substantially altered the departmental evaluation of the candidate’s record by the Department Consulting Group and/or the DEO. If, in the Dean’s judgment, a substantial change in the departmental evaluation is likely, the Dean will return the case to the DEO for reconsideration of the Promotion Record, as appropriate, so that the Dean will be able to act in the light of an accurate indication of departmental judgments
The Dean
1. Based on the Promotion Record, including the response of the candidate, if any, to the Collegiate Consulting Group report, the collegiate Dean will recommend that promotion be granted or denied in a separate letter to the Provost for each candidate.
2. The Dean’s letter to the Provost will explain the Dean’s reasons for recommending for or against promotion. As with previous steps in this process, the Dean’s letter to the Provost shall not reiterate the details of material that already is in the dossier; rather, it shall identify those aspects of the dossier that formed the basis of the Dean’s recommendation.
3. When the Dean’s recommendation is contrary to the vote of the Departmental Consulting Group, the recommendation of the DEO, and/or the vote of the Collegiate Consulting Group, the Dean’s letter will explain why the contrary recommendation is being made.
4. The Dean’s letter will be submitted to the Provost as part of the Promotion Record.
5. At the same time that the Dean’s letter is submitted to the Provost, the Dean will inform the DEO of the recommendation that has been forwarded. The DEO, in turn, will inform the members of the DCG of the Dean’s recommendation and also will inform the candidate if the Dean’s recommendation is positive.
6. The Dean will send to the Provost one copy of the Promotion Record for each candidate in the college, along with one copy of the college’s written policy governing promotion decision-making.
Informing the candidate of the Dean’s decision and Collegiate Consulting Group’s vote and report and the candidate’s opportunity to respond
1. At the same time that the Promotion Record is submitted to the Provost, if the Dean’s recommendation is negative, the Dean will provide the candidate with a copy of the Dean’s letter to the Provost and the Collegiate Consulting Group’s recorded vote and summary report.
2. The candidate then, upon request, will be allowed six working days to access to the Promotion Record, with the following provisions:
  1. the candidate will have access to the external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship only if there has been a negative recommendation, only if the candidate requests them, and only after they have been redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers;
  2. any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers;
  3. the candidate will have access to the student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the DEO only if there has been a negative recommendation, only if the candidate requests them, and only after the evaluations have been redacted to protect the confidentiality of student evaluators.
3. The candidate will be allowed six working days after receiving access to the Promotion Record, including redacted versions of any confidential documents that have been requested, to submit a letter of response to the Dean’s recommendation and any additional information to be included in the Promotion Record.
4. If the candidate submits a letter of response to the Provost for inclusion in the Promotion Record, a copy of the letter also will be provided to the Dean.

VII. Procedural Details in the Evaluation--University Level

The Provost
1. The Promotion Record available to the Provost will consist of the Promotion Record available to the Dean, the Dean’s letter, and the candidate’s letter of response (if any) following receipt of the Collegiate Consulting Group’s recommendation, the recorded vote and summary report (if any), and the recommendation of the Dean. Although the appendices to the Promotion Record consisting of student evaluations of teaching and publications are part of the Promotion Record, they will not normally be physically moved to the Provost’s custody unless the Provost requests them.
2. When any materials that were not available at the time of the department or collegiate action are forwarded to the Provost, the Provost will make a determination whether it is likely that the new material would have substantially altered the evaluation of the candidate’s record. If, in the Provost’s judgment, a substantial change in the department or collegiate evaluation is likely, the Provost will return the case to the DEO for any appropriate supplementary action, including additional review by the Dean if appropriate, so that the Provost will be able to act in the light of an accurate indication of department and collegiate judgment.
3. On the basis of the Promotion Record available to the Provost, the Provost will make a decision that promotion should be granted or denied, and will recommend that the Board of Regents grant promotion to those candidates determined to be deserving.
4. In making the promotion decision, the Provost may, at the Provost’s discretion, consult with other administrators, including the associate provosts and the collegiate deans.
Informing the Dean, the candidate, and the DEO of the Provost’s recommendation
1. The Provost will inform the Dean in writing of the Provost’s recommendation to the Board of Regents.
2. The Dean will inform the candidate in writing of the Provost’s recommendation to the Board of Regents, and in the case of a recommendation against promotion or tenure will inform the candidate of the availability and enclose a copy via certified mail of the official Faculty Dispute Procedures as explained in the University Operations Manual (III.29, sections 1-5).
3. The collegiate Dean will inform the DEO of the Provost’s recommendation and the DEO, in turn, will inform the departmental faculty.

APPENDIX A

Sample Letter from DEO to External Evaluator

A Departmental Executive Officer’s letter to solicit an external evaluation must:

Be neutral in tone;
Indicate the rank for which the candidate is being considered and whether the promotion includes the awarding of tenure;
Explicitly state what portion of the candidate’s work the reviewer is to assess;
Request that the reviewer not communicate with the candidate or with faculty other than the DEO;
State that the reviewer’s response will be protected as confidential; and
Request a brief biographical sketch if one has not been obtained by other means.

The following is a sample letter from the DEO:

Dear :

As I mentioned to you on the telephone (or by e-mail) on (date), (name) will be considered for tenure and promotion to (proposed rank) in the Department of (name) during this academic year. I am grateful to you for agreeing to serve as an external evaluator.

Professor _______________'s curriculum vitae, his/her personal statement on scholarship (or artistic work), and copies of the publications (or creative works) you have agreed to review will be available to you online. They will include: (list works).

Insert URL, ID and password from list provided by Dean’s Office.

If you have problems logging in, please contact___________________;(8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., CDT, M-F).

We would like you to critique the quality of this work and, if possible, to assess its quantity and quality in comparison to the work of others in this discipline at comparable stages in their careers. We would particularly appreciate your evaluation of the contribution that the candidate’s work has made to the field, viewing each published (or creative) work separately or in combination as seems appropriate. We would be interested in your judgment of the quality of the journals (or exhibits) and the importance of the conferences through which Professor (name) has communicated this work. We also would be interested, of course, in any other insights you may have about Professor (name)’s scholarly (or artistic) accomplishments. Please also include a statement of how you know the candidate and his or her work. In this context, please address any circumstances that might raise issues of impartiality as they related to your assessment of the candidate.

If you have any questions about Professor (name)’s materials or experience, please contact me directly. In accordance with our governing procedures, we must ask you not to communicate with either the candidate whose work you are reviewing or other members of the department or college concerning your evaluation or the review process.

Your letter will be available to the tenured faculty in this department as well as to the Dean, the Collegiate Committee on Faculty Promotion and Tenure, and the Provost’s Office. Beyond that we will regard your letter as a confidential document. Your evaluation will be made available to the candidate only upon his/her explicit request following a negative recommendation at various stages of the review process, and then only after your name and other identifying information have been removed.

Please send a signed copy of your letter by (deadline) to me via (acceptable method) at (contact information).

[If it is not possible otherwise to obtain a short statement of the reviewer’s qualifications, add the following paragraph:] Would you please send me a brief biographical statement when you send your letter? Although our departmental faculty know you and your work well, the Dean, the Collegiate Committee on Faculty Promotion and Tenure, and the Provost would find your biographical sketch helpful when reviewing your letter.

Again, thank you for your willingness to help us with this important review process.