1. Guidelines for the Preparation of Tenure Dossiers Kevin McLaughlin Dean of the Faculty September 7, 2016

2. Summary of 2011 procedural changes minimum number of letters increased from 5 to 8; candidate and department generate lists independently, and department combines them into final list candidate no longer has the right to see the list of proposed referees – but does retain the ability to suggest referees as well as to identify any with whom there is a potential conflict; department submits the final list of proposed referees to the Dean for review and comment before soliciting letters; must include at least 3 names from candidate’s list practice of informing the candidate of the exact vote in the case of a negative recommendation discontinued.

3. Steps in the Preparation of the Dossier Selection of departmental committee Submission of letter writer list to appropriate Dean, for review Candidate and Chair work together to prepare dossier material Departmental meeting and vote Dossier is sent to DoF for a preliminary review Dossier approved, final version submitted, case scheduled

4. Preparing the TPAC dossier Reappointments, Promotions, Tenure Reviews and Senior Searches culminate with the preparation of a dossier which presents the evidence on which the departmental recommendation is based. It also provides a description of the procedures that were followed by including materials which document the various steps of the process.

5. Cover memo  The specific recommendation  Final vote (with numbers)  Names of faculty attending meeting at which vote taken  Names of eligible faculty not at this meeting  Stipulated quorum for such meetings  Be clear about electorate  Retired faculty not eligible to vote  Include only those present and/or participating in the discussion (via telephone or Skype) in quorum and official vote tally.  Secret ballot is preferred  Taking “straw votes” is not recommended; any such preliminary votes should be reported. Required MaterialsComments

6. Cover memo  An explanation of the reasons for abstentions (if any)  An explanation of the views of those voting in the minority  Summarize full range of views expressed during discussion.  Draft memo circulated to all voting faculty for comments and suggestions.  Minority report to TPAC is possible if disagreements persist.  Any such minority reports must be made available to all members of the department who participated in the vote. Required MaterialsComments

7. Cover memo  The academic unit’s view of the importance of the candidate’s academic specialty within the larger field or discipline  A full and candid discussion of the issues raised in the department meeting, and of the strengths and weaknesses of the case  Explain the intellectual terrain in which the candidate’s work is situated, his or her contributions to the field. Explain how well the candidate has met the needs and expectations the department had at the time of initial appointment.  Provide an overview of the evaluative process and considerations that led to the recommendation. Address any concerns. Required MaterialsComments

8. Waiver and informing the candidate  All candidates should be informed of the results of the departmental vote shortly after the meeting.  Waiver of right to appear at the department meeting.  Positive vote: the news should be told to the candidate by the chair.  Tie or negative recommendation: Letter from the chair, first vetted by voting faculty.  The candidate should be asked well in advance of the meeting. If the candidate chooses to appear, include a summary of appearance in #12, Meeting Minutes. Required MaterialsComments

9. Department review  Candidate’s scholarship and professional development  Candidate’s teaching effectiveness in both undergraduate and graduate courses [May be included in cover memo]  A qualitative and frank assessment of the candidate  Focus on published and/or completed work  Summarize impact  Discuss future trajectory  Address strengths and weaknesses  Multiple modes of assessment. Use comparative data, peer observations, student comments, etc.  Letters from students are not encouraged. Required MaterialsComments

10. Information on Teaching List of courses taught since last appointment  If possible, provide comparative information, i.e. how the ratings compare to those in other similar courses.  Include class observations by peers, if available  Department staff can generate a Cognos report for this Required MaterialsComments

11.  Candidate’s current c.v.  Candidate’s statement  Copies of annual reviews since last appointment  Brown format c.v. no longer required  No required format for statement  If tenure review follows soon after last reappointment consult with DOF Required MaterialsComments

12.  Copies of relevant department correspondence, including sample request to referees and responses  (at least) 8 letters* from scholars who are not advisors, close collaborators, or who wrote at an earlier time, although these may be included as additional to the 8 required. *for tenure case. Checklists provide details on # of letters required for other types of faculty actions  Discuss deviations from standard solicitation letter with DoF in advance of contacting evaluators  Include all declines and any substantive responses  Provide full list of all those asked to write, indicating who suggested which referees – at least 3 should be from candidate’s list Required MaterialsComments

13.  Brief biographies of letter writers  Copies of minutes of the official meeting on this matter  Indicate to TPAC why opinions of the evaluator are given particular weight by the department.  Note any relationships with candidate, or previous Brown affiliation  Provide full accounting of the issues discussed.  Redact as appropriate to exclude personal/irrelevant information, or discussion of other candidates. Required MaterialsComments

14.  Department Standards and Criteria  Teaching evaluations  TPAC will evaluate a department’s s & c against the arguments advanced by the department in support of the recommendation.  Department staff can generate a Cognos report for this. Required MaterialsComments

15. Other Reviews  Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor o At least 5 of the 8 letters required must be “arm’s length” o For those >7 years in rank, consider “full range of accomplishments and contributions”  Promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer o 5 letters required, some of which may be from within Brown  Reappointment reviews o Internal review only, so no letters, bios, etc. Otherwise follow same general guidelines.  Non-Regular faculty o See the checklists for guidance.

16. Distinguished Senior Lecturer  New rank is designed to recognize exceptional performance, a consistent record of excellence in teaching and significant service to the department, University, and profession.  Candidates must have served at least 6 years in rank as senior lecturer before they can be considered for promotion  We will review all eligible senior lecturers who wish to be considered for promotion in this academic year and AY17-18. After this time, recommendations for promotion will be considered at time of reappointment.

17. Distinguished Senior Lecturer  Departmental standards and criteria must be updated  5 letters are required from evaluators external to Brown, additional letters may be from within Brown, and may be from senior lecturers as well as tenured or tenure-track faculty  DoF has extended the deadline for dossier submission from November 1 to December 15.

18. Senior Searches Special considerations o Timeline o When to solicit letters, and for how many candidates?

19. Important deadlines in the tenure process Early April DOF notifies academic unit chair/directors of upcoming tenure review candidates April 15 The chair/director, consulting with candidate, selects 3+ person tenure committee May 1 The candidate and tenure committee create independent lists of potential evaluators June 1 The combined (candidate & committee) list and brief evaluator biographies are submitted to appropriate dean (DOF/BioMed/SPH) for review. After approval, chair or tenure committee contacts potential evaluators using the standard solicitation letter.

20. Important deadlines in the tenure process November 15 The candidate has until this date to submit materials to the dossier. January 7 Dossier is due to DoF – Review by TPAC, which makes a recommendation – Dossier is passed to Provost, who may take up to 30 days to review June 30 Notification of tenure decision must occur by this date. In the case of a negative decision, the appointment would terminate a year from this date.

21. Important deadlines in the reappointment process June 30 DOF notifies academic unit chair/directors of upcoming reappointment review candidates – Department may form a reappointment committee, or hold a meeting of senior faculty September 15* Reappointment dossier due DOF/BioMed/PH November 1 Notification of reappointment decision must occur by this date. In the case of a negative decision, the appointment would terminate in 8 months (June 30). * For June 30 contract end dates. Dossier due date for appointments ending December 31 is March 1.

22. sample TPAC comment form Opinion Form Tenure, Promotion and Appointment Committee September 21, 2016 Recommendation by the Department of Anthropology that Louis Leakey be appointed as Professor, with tenure, effective July 1, 2015 (Please select one number) No (1-5; where 1=strong opposition) Yes (6-10; where 10=strong support) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Please use this space for any additional comments you wish to provide about this case.