Skip navigation

Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences (AHSS)

AHSS

ARTS, HUMANITIES & SOCIAL SCIENCES

 

Liberal arts education is at the heart of the University of Denver. Our faculty, staff and students come together in a shared quest for knowledge of the human condition.

Hiring & Performance

Promotion & Tenure

2012 AHSS Promotion and Tenure Procedural Guidelines

These guidelines are to supplement the University of Denver Faculty Personnel Guidelines Relating to Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure, revised in 2001 and approved by the Board of Trustees on June 8, 2001.

Any faculty members who began their tenure-track position before Fall 2011 will be bound by the previous version of the AHSS Promotion and Tenure Procedural Guidelines, with the provision that faculty members will be evaluated by the committee constituted by the new guidelines.

The divisional committee upholds the Faculty Personnel Guidelines Relating to Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure, which state that 'promotion to a higher rank is primarily recognition of excellent performance in teaching and scholarly and/or creative activity. Consideration is also given to contributions to the institutional self-governance of the University and to public service' (4.2, 5.3)

The divisional committee reviews personnel recommendations coming from departments concerning the promotion of someone at the university to a rank carrying tenure, or a new appointment from outside to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. The dean participates in considerations of tenure as per the procedures below. The dean will also consider the pre-tenure review.

All departmental committees evaluating tenure and promotion are to follow the guidelines in both this document and the University of Denver Faculty Personnel Guidelines Relating to Appointment, Promotion and Tenure.

Pre-Tenure Review

Pre-tenure reviews should be completed as per the guidelines in the Faculty Personnel Guidelines Relating to APT, section 5.2.

The department shall give the pre-tenure evaluation to the dean, who will evaluate the candidate's progress toward tenure based upon the evidence in the record. The dean will meet with the candidate and the department chair as well as the chair of the pre-tenure review committee together to discuss the evaluation. The dean will write a letter confirming the discussion concerning points of development toward tenure for the candidate's personnel file. The candidate and the department chair will also receive a copy of the letter.

Tenure and Promotions

Department level:

Participants:

  • A. Departmental tenure and promotion committee - rank and number of participants to be determined by departmental by-laws
  • B. Department chair

Timing:

  • April 2012: produce list of external reviewers with input from candidate (see 3.,B.,7. below)
  • June 1, 2012: contact external reviewers and receive their agreement to serve - ten contacts is a good number with which to start; AHSS strongly recommends at least six external reviews; the Faculty Personnel Guidelines require at least three.
  • August 1, 2012: send candidate's materials to external reviewers with November 1 as the deadline for receiving external reviewers' reports
  • November/December: read reports from external reviewers and begin to prepare:
      The departmental tenure and promotion committee recommendation, and
      The department chair recommendation
  • January 2013: finalize the departmental recommendation and the chair recommendation
  • February 1, 2013: submit the departmental recommendation and the chair recommendation to the Dean's Office

Candidate's Material (compiled by department):

  • A. Collected in a binder (ten copies) with tabs, which should read:
      Department chair's statement.
      Departmental tenure and promotion committee's statement.
      Candidate's statement.
      Candidate's curriculum vitae.
      Committee service.
      Sample letter sent to external reviewers.
      External reviews.
      Courses taught.
      Evidence concerning teaching.
      Annual performance reports and chair's evaluations.
      Pre tenure departmental review report.
      Supporting materials, with a description of the contents. Should include initial advertisement for the position; scholarly and creative work submitted for evaluation.
      Departmental promotion and tenure guidelines.
  • B. Description of Material:
      Department chair's statement:
      a. Addresses the candidate's teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and University service as a separate recommendation from that of the departmental tenure and promotion committee; addresses the candidate's level of distinction and promise for continued professional growth.
      b. Explains how the candidate's teaching and research/scholarship/creative activity fit into the department's program and into the candidate's field of study, and how the external reviewers constitute adequate representation of the candidate's field.
      c. Describes the stature and nature of the candidate's publication outlets and/or sites of public creative activity. A good letter will also include a discussion of conventions in the field concerning co-authorship, if relevant.
      d. Summarizes the rationale for the recommendation.
      Departmental tenure and promotion committee's statement:

a. Addresses the candidate's teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and University service as a separate recommendation from that of the department chair; addresses the candidate's level of distinction and promise for continued professional growth.

b. Explains how the candidate's teaching and research/scholarship/creative activity fit into the department's program and into the candidate's field of study.

c. Describes the stature and nature of the candidate's publication outlets and/or sites of public creative activity, and how the external reviewers constitute adequate representation of the candidate's field. A good letter will also include a discussion of conventions in the field concerning co-authorship, if relevant.

d. Summarizes the rationale for the recommendation.

3. Candidate's statement:

a. Addresses the candidate's accomplishments, as well as her/his views and philosophy of teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and University service.

b. Explains how the candidate's teaching and research/scholarship/creative activity fit into the department's program and into the candidate's field of study.

c. Projects how the candidate's teaching and research/scholarship/creative activity will develop in the next few years.

4. Candidate's curriculum vitae:

a. Personal information: full name; home address; University address;

b. Education and training, with degrees and dates;

c. Professional employment, with most recent position listed first;

d. Professional association/society memberships;

e. Publications: books, monographs, refereed professional journal articles, refereed book chapters, non-refereed professional journal articles, non-refereed book chapters, and book reviews listed in a standard bibliographic format; all references should distinguish among materials that are "published," "accepted for publication" (include projected date of publication), and "submitted for publication"; all jointly-published material should distinguish between primary and secondary authorship;

f. Performing arts and art contributions: exhibitions, productions, recitals, performances, etc.; all references should distinguish among invited, competitive, juried and non-juried, single-artist and multi-artist contributions;

g. Professional conference participation and lectures: papers presented, panel participation (chairing, commenting, organizing), roundtable participation, poster sessions, lectures, etc;

h. Professional contributions: editorial board membership, manuscript reviewing, jury participation, grant reviewing, etc;

i. Research grants: external funding and University of Denver funding;

j. Miscellaneous: service, awards, honors.

5. Committee service: departmental, divisional, and University committee and other service, listing types and dates.

6. Sample letter sent to external reviewers:
relevant questions include "how would you compare the candidate's work and professional reputation to those of others in the field at a similar stage in their careers?"; "where on the scale of mediocre to outstanding do you place the candidate's work?"; "what is your view of the recognition achieved by the candidate thus far, and what is your view of the candidate's future potential?"; external reviewers should be made aware of the nature of the department in which the candidate resides (e.g., doctoral program or not; graduate program or not); please ask the external reviewers to state their relationship to the candidate (e.g., professional colleague, but does not know personally; dissertation advisor; co-author, etc.).

7. External reviewers:
Contacting ten potential external reviewers is a good number with which to start; AHSS recommends that at least six external reviews be included in the tenure and promotion or promotion material presented to the divisional committee and the Dean. The University of Denver Faculty Personnel Guidelines require at least three. Guidelines for selecting external reviewers:

a. the candidate, the committee and/or the department chair should submit in writing the names of suggested external reviewers;

b. the committee has the right, but not the obligation, to limit the candidate's suggestions to no more than one-half of the final list of possible reviewers;

c. the committee shall share with the candidate the final list of possible reviewers; each reviewer should be identified as selected by the candidate, by the department committee, the department  chair, or a combination of them;

d. the committee should ensure an adequate representation of external reviewers not personally closely associated with the candidate, e.g., dissertation advisors, co-authors;

e. the committee or the department chair -- not the candidate -- should request the letters from the proposed external reviewers;

f. material sent to the external reviewers may include published and unpublished material submitted by the candidate; not all such material, however, must be sent to every external reviewer;

g. faxed and e-mailed external reviews should ultimately be accompanied by a personally signed and dated letter if at all possible;

h. telephoned evaluations are not acceptable;

i. candidates may or may not be personally acquainted with the external reviewers; the dissertation advisor of the candidate is an acceptable reviewer but must be identified as such; co-authors should also be identified;

j. an external reviewer must be recognized as a significant figure in the candidate's field and one whose appraisal would be of value in the University's deliberations;

k. the committee or the department chair must provide the c.v. and a brief biographical statement of each external reviewer, including a judgment of stature in the field and a partial list of publications.

8. Courses taught:
complete listing of courses taught each year, with course numbers, titles, and quarter in which taught; for candidates for promotion to full professor, only courses taught since attaining the rank of associate professor are necessary.

9.  Evidence concerning teaching, including teaching evaluations and other evidence chosen from the list in subsection (b) below:
(please see suggested organizational template in following subsection).

a. Summaries of student evaluations should be presented for each class taught by the candidate; these summaries should identify the course by number and title, with student  enrollment included; the typical summary would list the average numerical scores for each of the student evaluation criteria (e.g. "preparation," "knowledge," etc., using the current evaluation form); those summaries should be set alongside, for comparison purposes, departmental courses and Core courses taught by other faculty members. Departments and candidates may also provide representative summaries of comments from evaluations.

b. Other evaluations of teaching are also expected. Departments and candidates must provide a selection from: syllabi, linked to the candidate's statement concerning her or his philosophy of teaching; reports of class visits by other department members; letters from alumni addressing the candidate's teaching, which the department may solicit; peer analysis of teaching materials (syllabi, projects, assignments). For guidance in performing evaluation exercises, please see appendices to the teaching task force report, available on the AHSS website under "resources for faculty." Departments should look for a convergence of assessment of teaching across instruments.

10. Annual performance reports and chair's evaluations:
the candidate's annual performance (self-) reports and the chair's annual written evaluations.

11. Pre-tenure departmental review report.

12. Supporting materials:
list of contents of the supporting materials sent to the Dean's office and available for the perusal of the divisional tenure and promotion committee and the Dean; there should be only one such collection of material, sent to the Dean's office, that would include, for instance, published and unpublished research, course syllabi, slides of art work, music scores, concert or gallery programs, written reviews of the candidate's work, etc.f

4. Procedure:

A. All committee votes must be taken by secret ballot.

B. All committee deliberations must remain confidential in all respects (with exceptions granted only by the Provost).

C. The departmental recommendation shall be communicated to the candidate in writing.

D. The committee members may not discuss their position or their vote with the candidate.

E. If the departmental and/or chair recommendation is negative, and if the candidate requests it, the candidate will be provided with a written memo stating the specific reasons for the negative recommendation, If the Department recommendation is negative the candidate has the right to a departmental review as specified in university APT section 7.3.

Divisional Level:

Participants:

A. Arts and Humanities: one member from each department, including, if possible, one untenured, tenure-track person;

B. Social Sciences: one member from each department including, if possible, one untenured, tenure-track person;

C. Dean: organizes and attends divisional committee meetings

2. Timing:

  • February 1, 2013:  receive recommendations and candidates' supporting material from departmental committees and department chairs.
  • March 1, 2013:  submit divisional committee recommendations to the Dean's Office.

3. Standards of Review

A. The divisional promotion and tenure committee will evaluate promotion and tenure cases from departments. The committee will evaluate the candidate by relying upon the evidence presented in the dossier. If the dossier is incomplete given standards presented in the guidelines, the committee may return the dossier back to the department so the department may complete it.

B. The divisional committee shall make an independent evaluation and recommendation regarding tenure and promotion based on the candidate's dossier and accompanying letters from the chair and the department's tenure and promotion committee. The divisional committee determines if the chair and department T&P committee recommendations are supported by the evidence presented in the dossier. Foremost consideration is given to the expertise and conscientious judgment of the candidate's department colleagues. The university values all the work that a faculty member has done, and will especially value work done while at the institution.

C. The divisional committee may choose to solicit clarifications from the department's promotion and tenure committee when considering a case. Clarifications might include inquiring about conventions concerning co-authorship, the status of different kinds of scholarship and creativity in the field, or expectations about research/creativity productivity given the teaching load in the department. The committee may request written clarification concerning the dossier or the recommendation regarding tenure, or any of the associated materials, from the department's chair.

4. Procedure:

A. Initial discussion of the candidate, based upon the evidence presented in the dossier

1. Each committee member indicates his or her relationship (professional and personal) to the candidate;

2. A committee member who has a conflict of interest must recuse her or himself from all committee deliberations and voting concerning the candidate. Recusal means not being present at or participating in the discussion or the vote concerning a candidate. A conflict of interest includes having a close personal relationship (for example, spouse, domestic partner or parent) with the candidate. For other close relationships (close friendship, business relationship, extensive collaboration), the committee member should consult with the dean concerning participation. A committee member who cannot make a decision based upon the evidence for any other reason shall also recuse her or himself.

3. Each committee member must be present for every discussion, except in the case of a conflict of interest.

B. Further discussion of the candidate - all committee members participate; the Dean may also participate in this discussion but may not attempt to influence the committee's recommendation.

C. Final vote - all committee members vote, using a secret and written ballot; the Dean

does not vote but tabulates and announces outcome to the committee.

D. Assignment of responsibility to draft the committee's report to be sent to Provost, including minority report, if that is desired.

E. Marking and signing the final committee recommendation by each committee member (at this point, the votes by the committee members are no longer secret from the other divisional committee members, from the Dean, from the Provost, from the Chancellor, or from the Board of Trustees).

F. Marking and signing the Dean's recommendation.

G. Forwarding the recommendations to the Provost.

H. Committee members may take notes prior to and during the deliberations; after recommendations have been made, all notes are submitted to the Dean for filing.

I. All committee discussion is completely confidential; only the Dean may discuss with the candidate the substantive evaluation of the candidate by the committee. The dean may do so at at his or her discretion--No member of the committee may discuss her or his position or vote with the candidate.

J. Once the final document is signed, the Dean will contact the candidate and the candidate's chair with news of the committee's and the Dean's decisions.