Typically career faculty promotion reviews have three levels of review:
Review Article 19 in the most recent CBA
Department/Unit Review
Typically, department/unit review consists of three steps:
- Department/Unit committee review and recommendation
- Department/Unit review and recommendation (if applicable)
- Department/Unit head review and recommendation
Department/Unit Committee Review and Recommendation
Most unit policies indicate that a personnel or promotion committee will carry out the initial review of the dossier. If there are too few eligible faculty members to form a review committee within the candidate’s unit, the unit head should consult with the dean (or vice president or vice provost, as appropriate) to establish a committee, drawing appropriate faculty members from outside the unit. While there is no requirement to consult with the candidate regarding the selection of members for such a committee, it is reasonable to do so to avoid any potential concerns about the appropriateness of the committee.
The unit committee should review, evaluate, and critically discuss the full file. Following this discussion, the committee should conduct a vote; only the final vote tally is to be revealed in the committee’s report.
Given the wide range of positions and instructional responsibilities held by career faculty, it is difficult to provide general guidance for the review and analysis of a promotion file. Representative matters for consideration are listed below; relevant elements from this list should be complemented by other considerations appropriate to the particular candidate for promotion.
For informational materials related to career faculty review processes, see Guides, Forms, and Templates.
Committee Report
The report from the unit committee should provide an analysis of the case that goes beyond what may be gleaned from the candidate’s curriculum vitae. Since this is the first of several stages of internal review, it is important that the committee present all aspects of the case fully. The review should be one of analysis, not advocacy, and it should present a critical evaluation of the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses relative to the standards of the unit and discipline.
If external reviewer letters are part of the file, any discrepancies or contradictory opinions within the reviewers’ letters should be addressed in a forthright fashion. Simply ignoring negative remarks does not advantage the candidate, nor does the rejection of comments from an “outlier” reviewer simply because they are not consistent with other comments received. In the absence of meaningful engagement with such comments in the report, subsequent reviewers may be left wondering if the “outlier” was in fact the only reviewer who was able to identify a real and critical issue in the case—whether in support of or arguing against the promotion.
For career instructional faculty, the unit committee plays a significant role in the analysis of the candidate’s teaching record. Teaching will meet expectations when it is professional, inclusive, engaged, and research-informed. The quantitative data provided from student Course Evaluations or the Student Experience Surveys cannot be used as the sole standard for assessing teaching quality. Instead, personal committees will consider supervisor reviews, peer reviews, faculty self-reflections if included, and relevant sections of the personal statement, in addition to student comments and other materials provided in the teaching portfolio.
The personnel committee may use provided materials for the Evaluation of Teaching section of the committee report to assist the committee in following the expectations of the UA-CBA MOU and the Provost. There is an additional, optional template for the evaluation of teaching for committees and department/unit heads.
For career research faculty, the unit committee’s evaluation will place significant focus on the expectations detailed in the candidate’s position description.
If applicable, the report should include a discussion of the candidate’s record of service, as summarized in the candidate’s CV and statement and exemplified in the service portfolio.
The report must include commentary on the candidate’s discussion of contributions to equity and inclusion and any evidence of these contributions provided by the candidate.
The unit committee report must be signed and dated by all members of the committee.
Department/Unit Review and Recommendation (if applicable)
If a unit committee carried out the initial review, that committee’s report should be reviewed and voted on by all eligible faculty within the unit. (However, research career faculty may not have a faculty vote as a required part of their promotion process: Consult with your unit head regarding the faculty vote.) It is not expected that this broader faculty review will be accompanied by a separate report, but the unit head’s report (discussed below) should include a summary of any meetings of the eligible faculty held to discuss the case. As with the unit committee vote, the vote by all eligible faculty must be by signed, secret ballot, and the signed ballots should be confidentially retained, with only the final vote tally revealed in the unit head’s report.
Typically, tenure-related faculty and career faculty at or above the rank being sought are allowed to vote on career faculty promotion cases. These and other details, including who is allowed to review a promotion file and voting rights for faculty on leave are described in the unit's shared governance documents.
Department/Unit Head Review and Recommendation
The unit head must prepare an independent report and recommendation. This report should consist of two parts: 1) an administrative summary of the unit’s handling of and position on the case, and 2) the unit head’s independent evaluation of the case.
Administrative summary: If the unit committee report does not do so, the unit head should provide a brief explanation of the unit’s review process and any special processes or considerations involved with the review. This summary should clarify any special conditions of the appointment or special duties and obligations for which the candidate’s performance is to be particularly evaluated. It should include an explanation of who in the unit was eligible to vote on the particular candidate (consistent with the unit’s shared governance policy), and it must include a summary of any formal faculty discussion preceding the official vote. Votes at the unit level on promotion cases must be by signed and secret ballot, with only the tally revealed to the voting faculty and recorded on the voting summary. The unit head should provide an explanation for any abstentions or recusals and/or reasons why some faculty may not have participated in the review and voting process (e.g., conflict of interest, sabbatical leave, etc.).
Unit head’s evaluation: The unit head should include their independent evaluation and recommendation including analyses of scholarship, teaching, service (depending on job description), and contributions to institutional equity and inclusion. This review should be independent from that of the unit committee, and the unit head’s recommendation need not coincide with either the unit committee or the vote of the eligible members of the unit. The unit head should objectively and honestly discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate. The unit head’s review should be one of analysis, not advocacy. (As noted above, a candidate is not well served when negative statements are ignored or comments from an “outlier” reviewer are rejected simply because they are not consistent with other comments received.)
Do not duplicate material presented by the unit committee. Internal reviewers will appreciate additional insights provided by the unit head that help them to interpret the file, particularly in cases of conflicting opinions among the reviewers and/or unit faculty. It is the responsibility of the unit head to independently analyze any such diverging opinions and to indicate the reasoning that led to their conclusions about the merits of the case.
For instructional faculty, the unit head should follow the same process described above for the committee when evaluating teaching. The head’s letter should address each of the tenants of teaching quality – professional, inclusive, engaged, and research-informed, with a concluding sentence for each indicating whether the candidate has met, exceeded, or not meet the unit's expectations. The evidence used for this evaluation should include supervisor review, peer review of teaching, student comments from the pre-2019 Course Evaluations or post-2019 Student Experience Surveys, and Instructor Reflections or other materials provided by the candidate in their statement or teaching portfolio.
The department head may use the provided materials for the Evaluation of Teaching section of their report to ensure it follows the expectations of the UA-CBA MOU and the Provost. Our Guides, Forms, and Templates page also hosts department/unit head report templates for career faculty reviews. Further, there is an additional, optional template for the evaluation of teaching for committees and department/unit heads.
The report from the unit head must be signed and dated.
Forwarding the File
The complete primary and supplementary files should be carefully reviewed to ensure all required documents are provided and in the correct locations in the dossier template before sending them forward.
Librarians and career instructional faculty files will be reviewed by the appropriate dean and then the Office of the Provost. Career research faculty will be evaluated by the Office of the Vice Provost for Research and Innovation.
Review by Vice President, Dean, or Director
The appropriate vice president, dean, or director will review the file, may consult with appropriate persons, and may ask for and document additional non-confidential information. Once the file is complete, a separate report is prepared, with recommendations, and shared with the candidate. The candidate has 10 days from receipt of the report to provide responsive material or information, which will be included in the file. The file is then submitted to the Office of the Provost or the Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation. At any time prior to this point of the process a candidate may withdraw their file.
Provost Review & Formal Notification of Approval/Denial
The provost or designee reviews the file and decides whether to grant promotion. The candidate is notified of the decision in writing. The member must receive three days' notice of any meeting or hearing with a dean or the provost or designee regarding recommendations or decisions on promotion. The member may have a colleague or union representative present at the meeting as an observer.
Successful candidates for promotion assume their new rank and receive an 8% increase in their base salary beginning in the next academic or fiscal year or the nearest next term of their employment should their contract not begin with fall term. Unsuccessful candidates may reapply for promotion after employment by the university for an additional three years at an average of .5 FTE or greater, accrued at no greater than three terms per academic year. Unsuccessful candidates may appeal as provided by Article 21, Tenure and Promotion Denial Appeal.
Promotion is elective and not “up or out.” Unsuccessful candidates can continue employment at current rank as long as eligible to do so under Article 16, Notices of Appointment. Librarians should refer to their unit policies regarding the next steps following an unsuccessful promotion review.
Requesting File Access
Faculty seeking access to their review file should contact the Office of the Provost (otp@uoregon.edu) at the conclusion of the personnel review process to assure the process and file are complete. OtP will work with the deans and ELR to provide access to the file in accordance with the employee’s signed waiver letter or in the absence of a waiver process.