|
Tenure and/or Promotion SPS 15B |
|
|
DISCLAIMER: If there is a discrepancy between this electronic policy and the written copy held by the Policy owner, the written copy prevails.
It is the Departmental Chair's responsibility to inform tenure-track appointments of the performance normally expected of successful candidates for tenure and promotion. The dossier that is prepared for consideration by Departmental,1 Faculty and Senate committees on tenure and promotion represents the candidate's performance, its assessment, and recommendation by the Departmental evaluating committee. The Chair must ensure that the dossier is prepared properly and in a timely fashion (see McMaster University Revised Policy and Regulations with Respect to Academic Appointment, Tenure and Promotion, 1992 [ATP document, or "yellow" document], Section II, Clauses 7 and 14; Section III, Clauses 22 to 26, Clause 33[a] and Clause 53. -- same Sections and Clauses in 1998 document).
The information is compiled to give you and your candidates critical information on what to include in a dossier for tenure and/or promotion. Please bear in mind that the purpose of the information is to assist the candidate in presenting his or her case the most effectively, in accordance with the requirements of Senate.
1. DOSSIER: CONTENTS
(a) The first page of every dossier should consist of a "table of contents" (see p. C*21 for example). The table needs to enumerate, in sequence, the material in the dossier. Each item on the model page attached, represents a "section" of the dossier.Because Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committees consider cases across all departments in the Faculty, standardization of the sections of each dossier is extremely useful to the Committee. This is even more true in the case of the Senate Committee on Appointments, which considers material from across Faculties.Remember, Faculty and Senate Tenure and Promotion Committees must act equitably. One way the Committees ensure this is by considering the same categories of information about each candidate. Having identical sections in each dossier is the mechanism that achieves this end. Each Faculty Committee can demonstrate that it sought the same categories of information, and it can request an explanation from a Department if it chooses not to enter information in a category.
With respect to Departments, they should present information in the form desired by higher level Tenure and Promotion Committees (i.e., what is presented here), else they run the risk of disadvantaging their candidate. Failure to present a candidate's case properly, can lead to grievance charges against the Chair of the Departmental Tenure and Promotion Committee, who is normally the Departmental Chair.
It is better to have each section of the dossier identified -- and a section left blank -- (if necessary) than to omit the section because nothing is entered in it.
(b) Note the room for the Chair's signature at the bottom of the Table of Contents. By signing, the Chair acknowledges that all the material required for assessment of the case has been included for the evaluating committees. The "table of contents" page, with signature added, therefore also constitutes a "checklist" of material in the dossier.(c) Use blank coloured pages, or page tabs, to demarcate distinct sections of the dossier. The dossier should have 11 sections following the "table of contents".
back
- 1 For a faculty member holding joint appointment in two or more Departments, or a person teaching in a Programme, consult clause 30 (a) Section III for instruction on apportionment of responsibility for carrying out the academic assessment.
2. CURRICULUM VITAE
(a) The McMaster University Revised Policy and Regulations with Respect to Academic Appointment, Tenure and Promotion (1992) [and 1998] (ATP document, or "yellow" document) says:[Section III, clause 30(b)]: "It is the responsibility of each faculty member who is eligible to be considered for re-appointment, tenure, and/or promotion to prepare and maintain an up-to-date curriculum vitae in accordance with the guidelines approved by the Senate Committee on Appointments (SPS No. 15)" .
(b) The format for the cv is stated in a document of the Senate Committee on Appointments (SPS No. 15 ), and may be obtained from the Senate Secretariat in Gilmour Hall. Make sure your candidate has a copy of SPS No. 15, and also give the candidate a copy of this document, since it contains more information than is found in SPS No. 15.
(c) Curricula vitae must follow the exact format, in the sequence presented, including sequence within every category.
(d) Section (f) of SPS No. 15 states "Current status at McMaster". In addition to the information that is to be on the cv in this section, the Senate Committee on Appointments wants dates that apply (e.g., first appointment at McMaster; date tenure was conferred; etc.) to be listed.
(e) Section (l) of SPS No. 15 states "Courses Taught (last five years)". In addition to what is listed in this section, candidates may add other information relevant to teaching, including courses developed, innovations in teaching, research and/or publications on teaching and learning, and professional development activities related to teaching (paragraph 3, p. C*13, SPS No. 10 [1994] "University Policy on the Encouragement of Teaching Excellence").
(f) Section (n) of SPS No. 15 deals with Research Funding. Under this heading, the cv should state the mechanism whereby the principal investigator on each grant is identified. For example, "The principal investigator's name is underlined on each of the grants listed below".
The names of the individual(s) to whom the grant is awarded should be listed. List the name of the single recipient, if the grant was obtained by one person only.
Remember, disciplinary conventions differ, and the majority of the people evaluating the cv at the Faculty and Senate levels are not likely to be from the candidate's discipline. What is "obvious" to people with inside knowledge is usually not at all obvious to people from other disciplines. By spelling out the names of grant recipients, and identifying the principal investigators in the case of multiple grant holders, what is implicit is made explicit, and thus everyone has the same information.
(g) Section (n) of SPS No. 15 states "Research Funding (last five years)". Does this mean that only information over the last five years may be listed? The answer is "no". We interpret "last five years" to mean the minimum number of years for which relevant information must be listed. However, a candidate may choose to include all of his or her funding record instead.
(h) Section (o) of SPS No. 15 deals with Lifetime Publications. Under this heading, the cv should state the mechanism whereby the principal author (senior author) of each article/chapter/book is identified. For example, "The principal author's name is underlined on each of the entries below".
(i) SPS No. 15 does not stipulate what "sensible standard" should be used to include all author names and initials. However, the Provost and the Dean of Graduate Studies strongly recommend that the sequence of authors be the exact replica of the sequence under which the manuscript was published.
For example, if the exact sequence of authors in the table of contents of a journal is Weaver, J., Johnson, J. And Simpson, E., it is
correct to list in Johnson's curriculum vitae the authors as Weaver, J., Johnson, J. and Simpson E., but it is
incorrect to list in the curriculum vitae the authors as Johnson, J. (With Weaver, J. and Simpson, E.).
3. CANDIDATE'S SUBMISSION (OPTIONAL EXCEPT FOR HEALTH SCIENCES)
(a) In some disciplines, it is the practice for the candidate to provide a statement about his or her teaching, research, and other interests and accomplishments. These statements are usually no more than two pages long, and are intended to provide, in general language rather than disciplinary jargon, information about the candidate.(b) Health Sciences departments must include statements on the candidate's distribution of responsibilities over four areas of performance (teaching, research, university/professional/community service and administrative contribution) over the last five years.
4. WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE
This letter (or memo) contains the recommendation of the Departmental Committee. It is written by the Chair of the Committee, who is normally the Chair of the Department.The reasons for the recommendation are articulated in this letter, and must cover undergraduate and graduate teach-ing, research and university/community/professional service (Section III 1992 [and 1998] ATP document). Health Science departments may include among their reasons, evidence from a fourth category, "administrative duties" (Appendix A, clause 2, 1992 [and 1998] ATP document).
5. STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION
(a) Information from student evaluation questionnaires "will be consolidated by the department into a report, consisting of a tabulation of numerical data on the form containing the questions, together with an evaluative summary of written comments" (see Section II, Clause 4 of SPS No. 10[1994] "University Policy on the Encouragement of Teaching Excellence"). It is the tabular data and evaluative summary that are entered into the candidate's dossier.Do not include piles of paper in this section. Follow the Senate's requirements as given in 5(a) above.
(b) All courses should be evaluated (Section II, Clause 2 of SPS No. 10 [1994]) over all years of service at McMaster University, but minimum is all courses over the last five years (SPS No. 15, Section [l]).
(c) The student evaluation questionnaires are those developed by each Faculty for its courses (Section II, Clause 1 of SPS No. 10 [1994]).
6. PEER TEACHING EVALUATION REPORT
The peer evaluation report is prepared by the Chair of the Department, or by the Chair's delegate. Guidelines for the categories of information that are entered into this report are given in Section III, paragraph 3 of SPS No. 10 (1994).Please note that the peer evaluation report is the result of the interviews with the candidate, students, and colleagues, and possibly, external reviewers. It does not contain the raw data upon which the result is based, for example, letters, memos, documents. The latter, however, are normally collected into a candidate's "teaching portfolio", which is used primarily in the candidate's interview with the Chair or the Chair's representative (Section III of SPS No. 10 [1994]).
7. STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE ON HIS OR HER TEACHING
This is a one or two page statement submitted by the candidate for placement in the dossier after he or she has seen the evaluation of teaching which is part of the Department's submission (see #5 above). The opportunity for the candidate to make such a statement is stipulated in clause 8, Section III, 1992 [and 1998] ATP document.
8. LIST OF EXTERNAL REFEREES AND THE BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF EACH
(a) This is the list of six possible referees from among whom the actual external referees are chosen (Clause 12, Section III, 1992 [and 1998] ATP document). If more than six potential referees are considered, in those rare instances when fewer than three agree to assess the candidate's work, the additional names must be listed in the dossier.(b) A paragraph following each name should provide the brief biographical sketch that justifies the Senate requirement that the potential referees be known for their work in fields relevant for the candidate (Clause 12, Section III, 1992 [and 1998] ATP document).
The minimum information that should be provided in a biographical sketch of referees is set out below.
(i) name;When a "candidate" is being considered for promotion to the rank of Professor, the referees must be scholars with respected national and/or international reputations who can assess whether the candidate is known widely on the basis of scholarship" (Clause 11, Section III, 1992 [and 1998] ATP document).(ii) rank and position;
(iii) institution or company and current address, telephone and FAX numbers, and electronic mail address;
(iv) degree(s) held including the granting institution(s) and the date(s) earned;
(v) areas of specialization;
(vi) professional experience or expertise relevant to the individual's activities;
(vii) evidence of recent/major scholarly activity (e.g., bibliographic references to three or four recent/major publications);
(viii) details of any previous affiliation with the University and the candidate -- not to disqualify anyone, but to ensure that the affiliation is acknowledged when a potential reviewer is named.
(c) The external referees must all be "arm's length" from the candidate. This means that none should have any relationship with the candidate, be it personal (e.g., relative, former classmate, friend, etc.) or professional (e.g., thesis supervisor or committee member, co-investigator, co-author, current or former colleague, etc.).
9. LETTERS FROM EACH EXTERNAL REFEREE
At least three letters must be obtained but all letters received must be part of the file (Clause 14, Section III 1992 [and 1998] ATP document).
10. LIST OF SCHOLARLY REFEREES INSIDE McMASTER UNIVERSITY
(a) Ideally, all reviews of scholarly work are done by people external to the University. Nevertheless, the 1992 [and 1998] ATP document (clause 13, Section III) does permit soliciting the views of internal referees in addition to the external referees.(b) The dossier should contain the same information about internal referees as is described for external referees in 8(a), (b), and (c).
11. LETTERS FROM EACH INTERNAL REFEREE
No more than three such letters should be obtained.
12. SAMPLE COPY OF THE CHAIR'S OR DEAN'S LETTER SENT TO REFEREES, AND THE GUIDELINE FOR REFEREES.
A copy of the Chair's letter and the Guideline for referees is placed in the dossier.
Approved by the Senate Committee on Appointments
May 24, 1995
TENURE AND/OR PROMOTION DOSSIER: Dr. E. Z. Rider Table of Contents
Curriculum vitae
Candidate's submission (optional except for Health Sciences)
Departmental Committee's recommendation
Student Teaching evaluation tables
Peer teaching evaluation report
Statement of Candidate on his (or her) teaching
List of external referees and biographical sketch of each
Letters from each external referee
List of scholarly referees inside McMaster University and biographical sketch of each
Letters from internal referees
Sample copy of Chair's or Dean's letter sent to referees, and the attached Guidelines for referees
I indicate by my signature that this index describes precisely the contents of the dossier of Dr. E. Z. Rider; that this dossier is complete and ready for consideration by the appropriate committee.
_________________________ _________________________ Department Chair (signature) Date
Contact Department: University Secretariat
MUFA - pdk
February 2004