THE
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
GUIDELINES
FOR APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION AND TENURE
Revised
Spring, 2004
Approved by the University
Council
April 22, 2004
Edited April 29, 2004
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
- Introduction to the
Guidelines
- Glossary
- Appointment, Promotion
and Tenure
- Contributions to
Teaching
- Contributions to
Research and Other Creative Activities
- Contributions in
Service to Society, the University and the Profession
- Requirements for
Ranks
- Procedures for
Appointments
- Promotion and Tenure
Unit
- Advisement
about Promotion and Tenure
- Third-year Review
- Preliminary
Consideration
- Procedures for
Promotion
- Preparing for
Promotion and/or Tenure-Unit Evaluation
- Reviews
- Appeals
- Instructors
and Temporary Assistant Professors
- Procedures for
Tenure
- Definition
- Criteria
- Regulations
- Tenure Process
- Appendices
Appendix A: Appointment Package Outline
Appendix B: Sample Letter Requesting a Reference
Appendix C: Outline -- Dossier for Promotion and/or Tenure
Appendix D: Recommendation for Promotion Summary
Appendix E: Sample Letter Requesting Evaluation for Promotion and/or
Tenure
Appendix F: Outline -- Cover Letter for Tenure
Appendix G: Recommendation for Tenure Summary
Appendix H: Outline -- Cover Letter for Promotion
Appendix I: Promotion and/or Tenure Check List
Members of the Task Force on Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Guidelines
2003-2004
Michael L. Wells
(Chair) |
School of Law |
| Alison F. Alexander |
College of Journalism and Mass
Communication |
William E. Barstow
|
College of Arts and
Sciences/Biological Sciences |
| Jonathon D. Crystal |
College of Arts and
Sciences/Psychology |
William D. Davis
|
College of Arts and Sciences/School
of Music |
| Cheryl D. Dozier |
University of Georgia at Gwinnett |
Robert E. Hoyt
|
Terry College of Business |
| Patricia L. Kalivoda |
Office of the Vice President for
Public Service and Outreach |
Charles H. Keith
|
College of Arts and
Sciences/Cellular Biology |
| Stefanie A. Lindquist |
School of Public and International
Affairs |
James N. Moore
|
College of Veterinary Medicine |
| David H. Newman |
School of Forest Resources |
| Susan C. Quinlan |
College of Arts and
Sciences/Romance Languages |
Mark E. Reinberger
|
College of Environment and Design |
| Randall L. Tackett |
College of Pharmacy |
| Patricia S. Wilson |
College of Education/Department of
Mathematics Education |
| Bonnie L. Yegidis |
Office of the Senior Vice President
for Academic Affairs and Provost |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The ad-hoc task force
appointed in August 2003 by Provost Arnett Mace to provide revisions to the 1995 University
of Georgia Guidelines for Appointment Promotion and Tenure is indebted to the guidance
and labor of several former senior administrators, to several task forces and committees
who have revised this document at stages and to the input of most of the faculty members
at the University of Georgia. Without their work, this document would have presented a
daunting task. We gratefully acknowledge them.
These Guidelines provide a
synthesis of all previous work in order to present a document that offers a holistic
approach to the continuing development and retention of exemplary faculty members as they
engage in teaching, research and service at the University of Georgia. Participatory
faculty governance is essential to the quality of academic life at this University.
- INTRODUCTION
TO THE GUIDELINES [return to Table of Contents]
The University of Georgia is the oldest
publicly-chartered institution in the nation and is the land-grant, sea-grant university
in the state of Georgia. As such, it has broad responsibilities for promoting the
advancement of knowledge in service to the people of Georgia, the nation and the world.
Faculty members play a central role in achieving the University's major objectives. For
more than two centuries, University faculty have discharged their responsibilities of
teaching, research and service in a distinguished manner, consistent with the mission of
the institution and the expectations of the state’s citizens. The faculty are
primarily responsible for attracting the very best students to the institution. For all of
these reasons, appointing, developing and retaining an outstanding faculty is critical to
the success of the University.
The processes for appointment, promotion and tenure must be fair, rigorous and
discipline-appropriate if the University is to attract, retain and recognize faculty
excellence. The University Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure
(Guidelines) are designed to ensure a process that is focused upon the successful
recruitment, development and evaluation of faculty. The purpose of this document is to
protect the rights of faculty and meet the needs of the institution. Appropriate
department heads and deans must provide newly appointed tenure-track faculty with these Guidelines,
as well as with the discipline-specific criteria mandated by these Guidelines. The
Glossary of this document defines the key terms and concepts of the Guidelines.
The University's broadly stated mission
is to teach, to inquire into the nature of things and to serve society. Primary
responsibilities of faculty of the University of Georgia are generally assigned in three
areas: (1) teaching, (2) research, scholarship and other creative activities, and (3)
service to society, the University and the profession. For purposes of promotion and
tenure, a faculty member must demonstrate excellence in the faculty member’s area(s)
of assignment. While there is no standard workload assignment across the institution,
faculty workload assignment is usually a mix of time assigned to teaching, research and
service. At the University level, the criteria for appointment, promotion and tenure
follow from these three areas of primary faculty responsibilities and these Guidelines
describe the criteria in general terms. Nevertheless, it is at the level of the
appointment unit that discipline-specific criteria for appointment, promotion and tenure
must be generated and consistently applied. Appointment, promotion and tenure of faculty
must fit a promotion/tenure unit's particular mission within the broader institution, thus
the need for criteria at the PTU level.
All review committees charged with
implementing these Guidelines must use discipline-specific criteria to evaluate the
quality of faculty performance relative to decisions regarding promotion and tenure. For
new faculty appointments, faculty must demonstrate the capacity or potential to achieve
the standards within the PTU, as well as the University. Review committees must apply all Guidelines
and criteria with fairness. Fairness means that the procedures for recommending a
candidate's appointment, promotion and tenure must include safeguards against error; such
procedural safeguards are outlined herein.
These Guidelines were formulated
on the basis of several foundational principles. Briefly, these principles are as follows:
- Faculty Development.
Professional development takes place at all stages of a faculty member’s career. New
faculty have distinct needs that are specific both to their disciplines and to their
stages of career development. Regular feedback through annual evaluations with department
heads is essential to ensure that faculty are knowledgeable about how to succeed at the
University of Georgia. The third-year review process is an integral part of this feedback
process and should serve as one measure to assess the progress of a faculty member within
his/her unit. Associate professors and full professors also have distinct career
development needs that should be recognized and accommodated at the University of Georgia.
For example, senior faculty members may require information about how to succeed as
academic leaders of the institution, perhaps contributing more broadly to the mission of
the institution and achievements of the University. The purpose of these Guidelines
is to articulate appointment, promotion and tenure processes as integral to faculty
development in order to create an environment of excellence, honesty and fairness.
- Principle of Flow. The
principle of flow was formulated to ensure that a candidate’s application receives
the fullest and fairest review possible, thus minimizing the potential for biased or
erroneous determinations. In accordance with this principle, these Guidelines
direct that a candidate’s promotion and/or tenure dossier will move forward to the
next level of review regardless of whether the lower-level recommendation was positive or
negative (although the candidate may terminate the process at any time). The principle of
flow therefore provides that faculty colleagues beyond the PTU will review the
candidate’s request for promotion and/or tenure even when such a request has not
received a favorable response at the PTU. Similarly, a negative recommendation from a
school/college committee will move forward to the University-level committee for
additional consideration. Review committees beyond the PTU may affirm the previous
recommendation or may identify substantive or procedural errors that require the
recommendation to be reversed or reconsidered. Although a candidate may ultimately appeal
a denial to the University Appeals Committee, the principle of flow eliminates the
necessity for such appeals early in the process, thus reducing the possibility of conflict
between the candidate and his/her colleagues within the PTU.
- Deference to Decisions of
Colleagues Closest to the Discipline. Although the principle of flow requires that
all formal PTU decisions be reviewed at higher levels, these Guidelines
nevertheless emphasize that faculty members within a discipline are in the best position
to render judgments about their colleagues’ achievements within the PTU. To
institutionalize deference to PTU determinations, therefore, these Guidelines
require a 2/3 majority to overturn judgments of the PTU and school/college committees.
This is the case even though the dossier, regardless of outcome, continues to flow forward
to the next level of review.
- Development and Use of Criteria
at the Promotion and Tenure Unit (PTU). Finally, these Guidelines require that
each appointment unit develop its own written criteria for promotion and tenure in order
to supplement these Guidelines with discipline-specific criteria. A unit’s
criteria must be accepted by the faculty within the appointment unit, and must be reviewed
and approved by the dean of the school/college and the Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost. New faculty members must be provided with these Guidelines and
with the discipline-specific criteria produced by the unit. In addition, any changes or
updates to these Guidelines or to the unit criteria must be promptly provided in
writing to faculty members within the unit. The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
and Provost also must be notified of and approve any such amendments to a unit’s
promotion and tenure criteria. Higher-level review committees will be provided with a copy
of the appointment unit’s criteria to use in evaluating a candidate’s dossier.
- Development and Use of Bylaws and
Procedures at Unit Level. In addition to the development of discipline-specific
criteria, these Guidelines assume that department/school/college bylaws or
procedures exist, or will be developed. These bylaws will describe the procedures that
will be used to constitute review committees and otherwise implement these Guidelines.
The University of Georgia is an
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution. In accordance with federal and state law
and with University Policy, no appointment, promotion or tenure decision will be
influenced by bias on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age,
veteran status or disability. Policy statements covering equal opportunity affairs and
sexual orientation may be reviewed at:
http://www.uga.edu/eoo and
http://www.uga.edu/provost/polproc/aapm/gap/general/40114.html
Voting faculty, committees, heads of
PTUs and deans are to consider a candidate’s qualifications against the criteria set
out in these Guidelines and against discipline-specific criteria developed by the
candidate’s appointment unit, using only the procedures specified within these
official documents.
All employees of the University of
Georgia are provided liability coverage by the Georgia Department of Administrative
Services and representation by the Office of the Attorney General of Georgia for actions
arising out of acts or omissions performed in the scope of employment. All of the
activities described in these Guidelines are University functions within the scope
of employment duties of University of Georgia faculty and staff.
- GLOSSARY
[return to Table of Contents]
Appointment unit – an
administrative unit within the University authorized to recommend the hiring of
tenure-track faculty. Usually such units are departments within schools or colleges. In
schools or colleges without departments and reporting directly to the Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost, however, the appointment unit will be defined
by the school/college faculty as a whole. Faculty in the appointment unit develop the
discipline-specific criteria that will be used by the PTU faculty charged with a review.
In addition, the appointment-unit faculty develop the procedures that will be used by
faculty in the unit charged with conducting faculty searches.
Appointment-unit head –
the designated person who is responsible for the administration of an appointment unit.
Usually this person is the department head, or, for schools or colleges without
departments and reporting directly to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost, the dean of the school or college.
Assistant professor –
the primary entry-level rank for tenure-track faculty at the University of Georgia.
Assistant professors should have the terminal degree appropriate for their disciplines.
Individuals in this rank cannot be tenured.
Associate professor –
the middle rank for tenure-track faculty at the University of Georgia. Associate
professors should have the terminal degree appropriate for their disciplines.
Candidate – a person
being considered for appointment to a tenure-track faculty position, or a tenure-track
faculty member under review for promotion and/or tenure, or an assistant professor during
the third-year review.
Conflict of interest – a
faculty member with a conflict of interest that would preclude his/her ability to render a
fair and objective review of a candidate’s request for promotion and/or tenure must
recuse himself/herself from participation in the review. Such conflicts of interest may
include those individuals who have an intimate relationship with the candidate (such as a
spouse) or those with professional/business conflicts of interest.
Dossier – Sections 3, 4
and 5 of the documentation submitted by a candidate and the appointment-unit head for
promotion and/or tenure in accordance with the Appendices to this document that address
the required components of the dossier.
Eligible voting faculty
– those tenure-track faculty who may vote on appointments, promotions or tenure. All
tenured and tenure-track faculty vote on appointments. All associate professors and
professors vote on candidates for promotion from assistant professor to associate
professor. Only professors vote on candidates for promotion from associate professor to
professor. All tenured faculty, regardless of rank, vote on candidates for tenure and
candidates under third-year review. All eligible faculty are expected to participate in
the PTU evaluation process and to vote, except those who are required to recuse
themselves. Eligible faculty may not abstain; however, they must not participate or vote
if there is a conflict of interest. Faculty who recuse themselves are not considered
eligible voters.
Full time – when used in
conjunction with employment, this term denotes a 100% workload during either an academic
or fiscal-year contract.
Instructor – the rank of
instructor is an entry-level position for the University. Candidates often do not have the
terminal degree appropriate for their disciplines. Individuals in this rank cannot be
tenured, although time earned while serving as instructor counts as time toward tenure.
Levels of Review –
recommendations for promotion and/or tenure may be made and reviewed in two or three
procedural stages, depending on the organizational structure of the candidate’s
school or college. For schools or colleges with departments, the first review takes place
within the PTU, the second review is performed at the school or college level, and the
third review is performed at the University level. For schools or colleges without
departments and reporting directly to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost, the first review takes place within the school or college, which operates as the
PTU, and the second review is performed at the University level.
Preliminary Consideration
– the vote of eligible voting faculty in the PTU to solicit external letters of
evaluation. The candidate must request that he/she be considered for preliminary
consideration. The vote of the faculty in the preliminary consideration of the candidate
is not included in the dossier that is prepared and submitted for review.
Principle of Flow – a
candidate’s promotion and/or tenure dossier will move to the next higher level of
review, regardless of whether the recommendation at a lower level was positive or
negative.
Probationary Period –
the time period that tenure-track faculty must serve, with the exception of receiving
tenure upon appointment, prior to becoming eligible for tenure at the University of
Georgia. The probationary period is five years, counting the year in which a faculty
member may be reviewed for promotion and/or tenure.
Procedural Errors –
errors in the promotion and/or tenure process that may have affected the outcome of a
vote. These include: (1) failure to conduct a third-year review or yearly performance
evaluations; (2) failure to consult candidates regarding external evaluations; (3) failure
of the PTU to vote in accordance with mandated procedures; (4) failure to evaluate a
candidate in accordance with PTU criteria; and (5) any other claims regarding failure of
the PTU to meet established procedural requirements as mandated by these Guidelines.
Professor – the highest
rank for tenure-track faculty at the University of Georgia. Professors should have the
terminal degree appropriate for their discipline.
Promotion and Tenure Unit (PTU)
– the organization of tenure-track faculty responsible for conducting votes on
promotion and/or tenure decisions. The PTU is defined by the University and by the
published bylaws or procedures of the unit, and is usually a department. In schools or
colleges without departments and reporting directly to the Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Provost, however, the PTU will be constituted by the school or
college in whatever manner the school or college deems appropriate.
Promotion/Tenure Unit (PTU)
Criteria – the written documentation created by the tenure-track faculty within
the appointment unit that describes in detail the expectations that must be met before a
candidate may earn tenure or be promoted to associate professor or professor. These
criteria must be in writing, must be accepted by tenure-track faculty in the appointment
unit, and must be approved by the department head and dean of the school/college and by
the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. Any revisions to these unit
criteria must be reviewed and approved by the dean of the school/college and by the Senior
Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. The PTU must use the written criteria
that the appointment units have established for promotion and/or tenure reviews.
Quorum – at the PTU
level consists of at least two-thirds of faculty eligible to vote. Absentee ballots do not
count toward the quorum, but may be cast as long as they are received by the PTU head
before the meeting begins. Otherwise, absentee ballots will be disregarded.
Scholarship – the
intellectual activities expected of every tenure-track faculty at the University of
Georgia as he/she carries out the University's missions: teaching, research and service.
School/College Committee
– in schools or colleges with departments, the committee(s) is (are) appointed by the
dean; these Guidelines recommend that these committees consist of at least five
eligible faculty members. No committee member may vote twice on a candidate’s
application for promotion and/or tenure, and must therefore be recused from voting on any
candidate from the member’s own PTU. In schools or colleges without departments and
reporting directly to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, the
school or college operates as the PTU.
School/College-Level Review
– consideration of the PTU recommendation (positive or negative) by the
school/college committee, except in schools or colleges without departments and reporting
directly to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, in which case the
school/college operates as the PTU and its recommendations are reviewed by the University
review committee.
Senior Faculty –
associate professors and professors at the University of Georgia.
Tenure – the status
granted by the University of Georgia to associate professors or professors, either upon
appointment or after a probationary period, ensuring protection against dismissal except
for cause.
Tenure-Track Faculty –
faculty members at the University of Georgia who hold the positions of assistant
professor, associate professor or professor. This term often is used in an inclusive
fashion and may describe both untenured and tenured faculty members.
Terminal Degree – the
highest degree awarded in a discipline. For most disciplines, the doctorate is the
terminal degree, except for a few areas such as studio arts.
Third-Year Review – a
faculty committee of the PTU reviews the achievements and performance of assistant
professors at the end of their third year of appointment, using the written criteria
developed by the unit. The intent of this review is to provide assistant professors with
feedback (in writing) regarding progress toward promotion and/or tenure, including the
vote for continuance of the candidate. This vote is advisory to the PTU head and/or the
dean. The letter documenting feedback from the third-year review must be included in the
promotion and/or tenure dossier at the time of the review.
University Appeals Committee – The University-level committee that reviews
negative recommendations for promotion and/or tenure from the University Review Committee.
The appeals committee is chaired by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost (who is an ex-officio, non-voting member) and consists of fourteen senior faculty
members, one representing each of the schools/colleges of the University of Georgia,
including a faculty member representing the Graduate Council.
University Level-Review
– is conducted by the University Area Review Committees, organized into general
discipline area committees. Each area committee will consist of at least seven tenured
professors, nominated by the deans of the University’s schools and colleges, and
appointed by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. The committee
chair is elected by the members of a particular committee. These committees review
recommendations concerning promotion and/or tenure from the school/college review
committees.
Votes – at the PTU
level, all recommendations are to be determined based upon a simple majority vote of the
participating eligible faculty. A tie is interpreted as a negative vote. The tally of the
vote is to be reported to the candidate within three working days from the date the vote
is taken.
Vote for Reversal of Lower-Level
Review – a 2/3 majority of eligible voters is required for a school/college or
University review committee to overturn a recommendation regarding promotion and/or tenure
provided by the next lower level of review.
Years in Rank – the time
a tenure-track faculty member has served in a particular position. For tenure
considerations, prior service as faculty at other colleges/universities or prior service
in other appropriate professional activities may qualify for consideration in meeting the
requirements for years in rank. According to Regents’ policies, faculty members must
meet the standard of being full-time employees during two semesters for a year to count
toward tenure under the semester system. Questions about fractional years should be
referred to the Office of Faculty Affairs.
- APPOINTMENT,
PROMOTION AND TENURE [return to Table of Contents]
Criteria for appointment, promotion and tenure at the University follow from the
University's mission to teach, to inquire into the nature of things and to serve society.
University of Georgia faculty must meet the following primary responsibilities: teaching;
research, scholarship or other creative activities; and service to society, the University
and the profession. Academic appointment, promotion and tenure are based upon a
candidate’s performance in these assigned areas. All faculty are expected to
participate in the critical activities of faculty appointment, promotion and tenure,
except when there exists a significant conflict of interest.
- Contributions
to Teaching [return to Table of Contents]
The Standard
Teaching communicates knowledge to
students and develops in them the desire and skills necessary to continue learning. The
University distinguishes between routine classroom performance and contributions to
teaching that draw upon the teacher’s depth and breadth of scholarship. Teaching
includes not only formal classroom instruction, but also advising and mentoring of
undergraduate and graduate students.
Documentation
Effectiveness in teaching is reflected
by student learning and improvements in the learning environment and curriculum. Evidence
of teaching effectiveness may include, but is not limited to, any combination of the
sources listed below. In joint instructional endeavors, the evidence should specify the
extent of each person's contribution.
- Honors or special recognitions for
teaching accomplishments.
- Development or significant revision
of programs and courses.
- Preparation of innovative teaching
materials, instructional techniques, curricula or programs of study.
- Collaborative work on
interdisciplinary courses, programs and curricula within the University or across
institutions.
- Effectiveness shown by student
evaluations and accomplishments.
- A list of courses and information
from student questionnaires designed to reflect teaching effectiveness and creativity,
rather than popularity. In such cases, information for all courses taught in the previous
three years that have been evaluated should be included unless a candidate seeks early
promotion, in which case information for two years is sufficient. The candidate should
report quantitative data for items that provide summary evaluations of the course and
instructor, if collected by the department or unit.
- Representative student comments that
attest to a teacher's abilities to arouse student interest and to stimulate their work
should be reported for the previous three years. Candidates seeking early promotion may
provide this information for the previous two years.
- Evaluation by students being trained
in clinical, laboratory, field or teaching-hospital activities.
- Letters of evaluation from former
students attesting to the candidate's instructional performance both within the traditional
classroom setting and beyond it.
- Performance of students on uniform
examinations or in standardized courses.
- Accomplishments of the teacher's
present and former students, including information to show the students' success both in
learning the subject matter of the discipline and in pursuing it to a point of intellectual
significance.
- Effective direction of graduate study
including theses and dissertations.
- Evidence of students coming from
other institutions especially to study with the teacher.
- Successful direction of individual
student work such as independent studies, special student projects and student seminars.
- Evidence of effective advisement of
students.
- Effectiveness shown by peer
evaluation of expertise in instruction.
- Peer evaluations by
colleagues/supervisors who are familiar with the candidate's teaching, have team-taught with
the candidate, used instructional materials designed by the candidate, or have taught the
candidate's students in subsequent courses.
- Selection for teaching special
courses and programs.
- Participation in special teaching
activities outside the University, including international assignments, special
lectureships, panel presentations, seminar participation and international study and
development projects.
- Membership on special bodies
concerned with teaching, such as accreditation teams and special commissions.
- Invitations to testify before
academic or governmental groups concerned with educational programs.
- Publication activities related to
teaching.
- Textbooks, published lecture notes,
abstracts, articles or reviews that reflect a candidate's teaching contributions and
scholarship.
- Adoption of a candidate's textbooks,
especially repeated adoption, by institutions.
- Presentation of papers on teaching
before learned societies.
- Grants related to instruction.
- Receipt of competitive
grants/contracts to fund innovative teaching activities or to fund stipends for students.
- Membership on panels to judge
proposals for teaching grants/contracts programs.
- Election to offices, committee
activities and other important service to professional associations and learned societies
including editorial work and peer review as related to teaching.
- Departmental and institutional
governance and academic policy and procedure development as related to teaching.
- Successful integration of teaching
and research or teaching and service in ways that benefit students.
- Contributions
to Research and Other Creative Activities [return to Table of
Contents]
The Standard
Research and creative accomplishments are the studious inquiry or examination, especially
critical investigation or experimentation, that have as their purpose to improve the
development, refinement and application of knowledge. These examinations may include
revisions of accepted conclusions, interpretations, theories or laws in light of newly
discovered facts, or the practical applications of such new or revised conclusions,
interpretations, theories or laws. Creative activities include innovative work in the fine
and performing arts; for example, the production of original paintings, sculptures,
ceramics, musical compositions, novels, plays, poetry and films; the development of plans
for projects in architecture and landscape design; and fresh interpretations in the
performing arts of music, drama and dance.
Inquiry and originality are central functions of the University. Faculty are to discover
new ideas, to fashion new interpretations of enduring ideas, and to participate in the
application of these ideas. Consequently, faculty should conduct research or engage in
other creative activities appropriate to their disciplines and to the missions of their
appointment units, and they should disseminate the results of their work through media
appropriate to their disciplines. Interdisciplinary and collaborative works are valid
forms of scholarly activity and will be judged as such as long as each candidate gives
clear evidence of his/her participation in each instance.
Faculty whose work assignments include research or other creative activities should
clearly demonstrate high quality in these endeavors. The University distinguishes between
the routine and the outstanding as judged by the candidate’s peers at the University
of Georgia and elsewhere. The principal standard should always be quality rather than
quantity.
Documentation
Evidence of research or other creative activities includes, but is not limited to, the
sources listed below. In joint endeavors, the evidence should specify the extent of each
person’s contribution (e. g. first author, supervisor).
- Research and/or scholarly
publications (indicate if peer-reviewed).
- Books, parts of books, reviews, book
reviews, monographs, bulletins, articles and other scholarly works published in refereed
journals, discipline-specific publications (i.e. law reviews), articles published in
professional publications, research reports to sponsors, accepted manuscripts, research
notes and bulletins.
- Creative products.
- Exhibition, installation, production
or publication of original works of architecture, dance, design, electronic media, film,
journalism, landscape architecture, literature, music, theater and visual arts.
- Performance, recording or production
of dance, literary, musical, visual arts or theatrical works from traditional or
contemporary repertoires of the performing arts, or other artistic works.
- Membership on editorial boards
reviewing publications, juries judging art works or juries auditioning performing artists.
- Scholarly reviews of publications
written by the candidate.
- Funded projects, grants, commissions
and contracts (include source, dates, title and amount) completed or in progress.
- Presentation of research papers
before technical and professional meetings.
- Other evidence of research or
creative accomplishments as appropriate (e.g. patents, new product development, new art
forms, citation index analysis).
- Record of participation in and
description of seminars and workshops (including short descriptions of activity, with
titles, dates and sponsor); indication of role in seminar or workshop (e. g. leader,
participant).
- Description of outreach or other
activities in which there was significant use of candidate’s expertise (e.g.
consultant, journal editor, reviewer for refereed journal, peer reviewer of grants,
speaker, service to government agencies, professional and industrial associations,
educational institutions).
- Description of new courses and/or
programs developed, including service-learning and outreach courses at home or abroad,
where research and new knowledge are integrated.
- Description of new computer software,
video or multimedia programs developed.
- List of honors or awards for
scholarship.
- Lists of grants and contracts for
improvement of instruction, with an indication of the candidate’s role in preparing
and administering grants and contracts.
- Application of research scholarship
in the field, including new applications developed and tested; new or enhanced systems and
procedures demonstrated or evaluated for government agencies, professional and industrial
associations, or educational institutions.
- Technology transferred or adapted in
the field.
- Technical assistance provided.
- Other evidence of impact on society
of research scholarship and creative accomplishment.
- Evidence of graduate and
post-doctoral students’ scholarly achievements (e.g. publications, awards, grants).
- Election to offices, committee
activities and important service to professional associations and learned societies,
including editorial work and peer review as related to research and other creative
activities.
- Contributions
in Service to Society, the University and the Profession [return to Table of Contents]
The Standard
Service to society refers to the function of applying academic expertise to the direct
benefit of external audiences in support of unit and University missions. It can include
applied research, service-based instruction, program and project management and technical
assistance. A faculty endeavor may be regarded as service to society for purposes of
promotion and tenure if the following conditions are met:
- There is utilization of the faculty
member’s academic and professional expertise.
- There is a direct application of
knowledge to, and a substantive link with, significant human needs and societal problems,
issues or concerns.
- The ultimate purpose is for the
public or common good.
- New knowledge is generated for the
discipline and/or the audience or clientele.
- There is a clear relationship between
the program/activities and an appropriate academic unit’s mission.
Service to the University includes,
but is not limited to, participating in departmental, school/college and/or University
committee work and/or governance; contributing to administrative support work (such as
serving as a college representative on a major University committee or task force); and
developing, implementing or managing academic programs or projects.
Service to the profession includes, but is not limited to, offices held and committee
assignments performed for professional associations and learned societies; development and
organization of professional conferences; editorships and the review of manuscripts in
professional association and learned societies publications; and review of grants
applications.
Documentation
Evidence of the effectiveness of service to society, the University and the profession
includes, but is not limited to, the sources listed below. In joint endeavors, the degree
each person contributes should be identified.
- Honors, awards and special
recognition for service activities.
- Program and project development and
other creative activities.
- Overview of needs assessment, and the
objectives, methods and target audience. Description of selected activities and/or
products that are most illustrative of the candidate’s contribution to the program.
- Description of how the program is
compatible with unit and University missions, and how the activities complement the
teaching and research missions of the unit and/or University.
- Description of the role of the
candidate’s professional expertise in the design and implementation of the program.
Did the activities demonstrate or test the applicability of the candidate’s
discipline to societal/human problems, require integration with other disciplines and/or
generate new knowledge for the discipline and/or audience? How was this knowledge
communicated to broader audiences? Has the program led to increased recognition of the
candidate’s professional expertise by external audiences?
- Description of impact. Identification
of the direct and indirect beneficiaries. What actions did the intended audience take as a
result of this work? Both quantitative evidence (e.g. changes in test scores, increased
production or widespread adoption of a product or technique) and qualitative evidence
(e.g. testimonials from clients, reviews by knowledgeable scholars/critics) should be
included.
- Service-based instructional
activities.
- Listing of the title or subject of
each distinct course or presentation, the type (e.g. curriculum, course, workshop), the
duration, the candidate’s role in creating each, the target audience and the method
of reaching the audience (e.g. conference presentation, site visit).
- Description of impact. Identification
of the direct and indirect beneficiaries. What actions did the intended audience take as a
result of this work? Both quantitative and qualitative evidence should be included.
- Consultation and technical
assistance.
- Listing of each type of assistance,
the clientele, the contribution and the number of times provided.
- Description of impact. Identification
of the direct and indirect beneficiaries. What actions did the intended audience take as a
result of this work? Both quantitative and qualitative evidence should be included.
- Applied research.
- Listing of publications relating to
service to society including books, book chapters, articles and scholarly papers (indicate
if peer-reviewed).
- Quality and impact of written
documents produced, including knowledge integration, creative solutions, technical manuals
or other outcomes of applied research as evaluated by clientele and peers.
- Service products.
- Exhibitions: Distinction between
juried or invitational exhibits; identification of work(s) and juror (juries); and/or
indication of regional, national or international exhibitions.
- Electronic products (e.g. computer
programs, web sites, CDs).
- Copyrights, patents and inventions
related to service activities.
- Contracts, grants and gifts related
to service activities.
- Other service activities.
- Selection for special service
activities outside the state or nation.
- Securing competitive grants and
contracts to finance development and delivery of service innovations.
- Requests by individuals from outside
the state or nation to study the candidate’s work and innovations.
- Development of patents or instruments
useful in solving important problems.
- Performance of clinical activities in
veterinary hospitals, psychology clinics, reading clinics, clinical pharmacy sites,
special education clinics and other clinical settings.
- Documentation of candidate’s
role in:
- Committee work at departmental,
school/college and/or University levels.
- University governance bodies and
related activities.
- Development, implementation or
management of academic programs, projects or study-abroad initiatives.
- Professional and learned societies,
including election to offices, committee activities, editorial work, peer review and other
important service.
- Development and organization of
professional conferences.
- Reviewing grant applications; and,
- Editing and reviewing of manuscripts
for professional association and learned societies’ publications.
- REQUIREMENTS
FOR RANKS [return to Table of Contents]
Each rank has distinct requirements
in terms of terminal degree, years in rank and expected levels of performance for each of
the criteria, consistent with Board of Regents policy and the requirements of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools. Terminal degree refers to the highest degree awarded
in a discipline; the doctorate is the terminal degree for most disciplines within the
University except for a few areas such as the studio arts.
Strong justification should be
provided in support of any recommendation for promotion to the rank of associate professor
or professor for candidates who have not earned the appropriate terminal degree in their
respective disciplines. Strong justification is also required in providing support for any
recommendation for early promotions. A promotion is considered early if the candidate will
have completed fewer than the following number of years in rank at the University of
Georgia: three years as instructor being recommended to assistant professor; four years as
assistant professor being recommended to associate professor; five years as associate
professor being recommended to professor.
Prior service as faculty at other
colleges/universities or prior service in other appropriate professional activities (as
defined by the PTU and approved by the dean) may qualify for consideration in meeting the
requirements for years in rank. A maximum of three years probationary credit may be
granted for this service. Probationary credit must be requested at the time of
appointment.
Instructor
The rank of instructor is an entry-level position for the University. Requirements include
the following:
Degree: Candidates may or may not
have the terminal degrees appropriate for their disciplines.
Years in Rank: Candidates do not need a minimum number of years in a lower rank.
Criteria: Candidates should show promise of moving toward excellence in the criteria
appropriate to their work assignments.
Assistant Professor
The rank of assistant professor is the primary entry-level position for employment as a
faculty member at the University. Requirements include the following:
Degree: Candidates should have the
terminal degrees appropriate for their disciplines.
Years in Rank: Candidates do not need a minimum number of years in a lower rank unless the
initial appointment was at the instructor level at the University of Georgia.
Criteria: Candidates should show promise of moving toward excellence in the criteria
appropriate to their work assignments.
Associate Professor
The rank of associate professor is the mid-career faculty rank at the University.
Requirements include the following:
Degree: Candidates should have the
terminal degrees appropriate for their disciplines.
Years in Rank: Under usual circumstances, candidates must serve at least four years as
assistant professor, including the year when the promotion will be considered at the
University level, before they are eligible for promotion to associate professor.
Criteria: Candidates must show clear and convincing evidence of emerging stature as
regional or national authorities unless their work assignments are specifically at the
local or state level.
Professor
The rank of professor is the highest rank at the University. Requirements include the
following:
Degree: Candidates should have the
terminal degrees appropriate for their disciplines.
Years in Rank: Under usual circumstances, candidates must serve at least five years as
associate professor, including the year when the promotion will be considered at the
University level, before they are eligible for promotion to professor.
Criteria: Candidates must show clear and convincing evidence of high levels of attainment
in the criteria appropriate to their work assignments and the missions of their units.
Unless the candidates' assignments are specifically regional, they should demonstrate
national or international recognition in their fields and the likelihood of maintaining
that stature.
Exceptions to the requirement of the
terminal degree for appointments to professorial ranks may be made for individuals whose
experience and accomplishments compensate for, or make irrelevant, the lack of a terminal
degree. A request for an exception is subject to approval by the Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Provost following receipt of supporting documentation and the
recommendation of a dean.
- PROCEDURES
FOR APPOINTMENTS [return to Table of Contents]
When filling a full-time faculty
position, the appointment unit head, director or dean will appoint a search and screening
committee. Members of the search and screening committee will perform their duties
according to Affirmative Action Guidelines, University policy and discipline-specific
criteria and procedures. The responsibilities of a search and screening committee in
general are as follows:
- prepare a position description;
- prepare an advertisement;
- place the advertisement in national
media appropriate for the discipline, as well as in media that will facilitate the
attraction of a diverse pool of candidates for the position;
- screen applicants for the position;
- identify a pool of applicants who are
qualified for the position; and
- arrange interviews for qualified
applicants. The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (or his/her
designee) must interview applicants for positions of professor, department head or higher.
All faculty members of the
appointment unit vote by secret ballot to recommend candidates for full-time, tenure-track
appointments in the unit. This vote will be reported to the faculty of the appointment
unit, as well as to the department head or dean.
The dean (or his/her designee) reviews
the vote of the appointment unit and any recommendations developed by the search
committee, and forwards his/her recommendation to the Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost. The President, after approving the appointment, forwards the
recommendation to the Chancellor's office. All faculty appointments must be presented to
the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia for final approval.
- PROMOTION
AND TENURE UNIT [return to Table of Contents]
The PTU is defined by the University and by the published bylaws or procedures of
the unit, and is usually a department. However, in schools or colleges without departments
and reporting directly to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, the
PTU will be constituted by the school or college in whatever manner the school or college
deems appropriate, consistent with their written bylaws.
Each unit is required to develop its
own criteria for promotion and tenure which must be implemented by the PTU. These
discipline-specific criteria may be written at the PTU or school/college level (or both)
consistent with the wishes of the faculty of the unit and approved by the dean. These
criteria must be in writing, must have the broad support of the faculty in the appointment
unit, must be consistent with these Guidelines, and must be approved by the
appropriate PTU head and/or dean, and by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
and Provost. It is the primary function of the PTU to evaluate a candidate's dossier
rigorously, exercising the judgment and discretion necessary in evaluating a
candidate’s overall contributions, following the criteria developed by the PTU and/or
college and appropriately approved.
- Advisement
about Promotion and Tenure [return to Table of Contents]
When a new faculty member is employed, the appropriate department head or dean will give
the faculty member a copy of these Guidelines and the specific written promotion
and tenure criteria of the appointment unit. The head of the PTU (department head, dean or
designee) will meet with the new faculty member to discuss these Guidelines and PTU
criteria, and specifically advise the new faculty member about promotion and tenure at the
University of Georgia. Faculty generally have assignments in areas central to the mission
of the University: teaching; research, or other creative activities; and service to
society, the University and the profession. Faculty may also have assignments in
study-abroad programs, and in collaborative educational programs between or among
teaching, research or service units. The faculty member's assigned workload must allow
time for satisfying the requirements for promotion and tenure. Questions about workload
assignment should be addressed first to the PTU head and then to the dean of the
school/college. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the individual faculty
member to be aware of the criteria in his/her appointment unit, as well as in these Guidelines.
Every instructor, assistant professor and associate professor must receive a written
annual evaluation conducted according to the defined criteria of the PTU, consistent with
Board of Regents policy. This review will include consultation by the appointment unit
head with the faculty member and preparation of a written report to the faculty member,
who may respond to the report in writing.
- Third-Year
Review [return
to Table of Contents]
The third-year review, a formative
process, occurs at the end of the third year of appointment for assistant professors.
These faculty members will prepare their dossiers detailing their achievements and
performance in their assigned area(s) of responsibility. This dossier should take the form
of Sections 4 and 5 of the promotion and tenure dossier (see Appendix C). The head of the
PTU will appoint a faculty committee, in accordance with the appointment unit bylaws, to
provide a thorough review of the individual’s dossier. This committee will contain no
fewer than three eligible faculty members. The review will be substantive and will provide
the faculty member with critical feedback about his/her progress toward promotion and/or
tenure at the University of Georgia. The third-year review committee will report its
findings to the PTU, and the eligible faculty will vote to recommend whether progress
toward promotion and tenure is sufficient. The committee will then report its
recommendations, along with the vote, to the PTU head. The PTU head will provide the
faculty member under review with a written report regarding his/her progress toward
promotion and/or tenure. The candidate may reply in writing to the report and any reply
becomes part of the report. The PTU head’s letter, and any response by the candidate,
will be included in the promotion and/or tenure dossier when it is developed.
In any year, a department head/dean may
determine not to extend a contract to a nontenured faculty member. This determination may
be made following a recommendation to the head by the unit faculty, consistent with the
department and the PTU’s written criteria.
- Preliminary
Consideration [return to Table of Contents]
In order to receive preliminary consideration for promotion and tenure, the
candidate must request that she/he be considered. Such a request suffices to receive
preliminary consideration, which typically occurs in the spring prior to the academic year
in which the promotion review process would occur. Each year, the PTU head will convene
(or contact, if the unit has faculty in various locations) the unit faculty eligible to
vote so they may consider those individuals who are being evaluated for promotion and
tenure. Based on an updated vita and other materials deemed relevant by the unit, the
eligible faculty will decide whether or not to proceed with the promotion and/or tenure
process for those faculty requesting preliminary consideration. The unit head is
responsible for informing the candidate within three business days of the unit’s
recommendation on whether or not he/she will be reviewed for promotion and/or tenure.
Preliminary consideration is not a formal part of the promotion and/or tenure process.
Therefore, the outcome of the vote for preliminary consideration will not appear in the
dossier.
If the preliminary consideration is positive, and unless the candidate requests in writing
otherwise, then the unit head proceeds with the review process and seeks external letters.
If the preliminary consideration is negative, the PTU head will not proceed with the
process nor seek external letters except as follows:
Assistant professors who are in their
fifth probationary year will be reviewed for promotion and/or tenure if they so request.
Assistant professors who are in their sixth or subsequent probationary year must be
reviewed unless they request not to have the review. Accordingly, in these cases, the unit
head will proceed with the review and seek external letters regardless of the preliminary
consideration vote.
The review process will proceed for faculty seeking promotion from associate professor to
professor the first year in which an eligible candidate wishes to be reviewed and every
fifth calendar year thereafter.
- PROCEDURES
FOR PROMOTION [return to Table of Contents]
The procedures for promotion include four major activities: (1) advising faculty
on promotion, (2) initiating the promotion process, (3) evaluating and making
recommendations from the PTU, and then (4) reviewing the dossier and making
recommendations at higher levels. Except at the discretion of the unit head following
consultation with the appropriate faculty, faculty who have been informed in writing that
their contracts will not be renewed following a specified year will not be reviewed for
promotion or tenure. Generally, activities should occur within a time frame appropriate
for faculty on academic-year schedules to complete the process and for the President to
receive the promotion recommendations by February 1. It is important for the candidate and
the institution that the dossiers be well-prepared and that review committees evaluate
each recommendation for promotion on the merits of the case presented following these Guidelines.
- Preparing
for Promotion and/or Tenure Unit Evaluation [return to Table of
Contents]
Two key steps in preparation for
evaluation are the responsibilities of the PTU head and the candidate. First, a dossier
must be prepared for evaluation by the appropriate PTU faculty. Preparation and
verification of the contents of the dossier is a cooperative endeavor between the PTU head
and the candidate, with the candidate having the final say about the dossier’s
contents, except for the requirement that all external letters of review be included.
Appendix C describes the elements required for the dossier.
For purposes of the PTU's evaluation, only Sections 3 (Unit Criteria), 4 (Vita), 5
(Achievements) and 6 (External Evaluations) of the dossier need to be included, unless the
PTU’s own procedures require the entire dossier. Sections 1 (Regents Summary Sheet)
and 2 (Cover Letters) are prepared following the PTU's evaluation.
While the faculty member is responsible
for assuring that all relevant and salient information is available, and for preparing the
vita according to these Guidelines, the unit head is responsible for preparing
Section 5 in a succinct and factual manner and having the candidate review and approve it
for accuracy. The faculty member must have reasonable access to departmental facilities
and services to prepare the vita and to organize information for the unit head to use in
preparing Section 5 of the dossier. Prior to the evaluation, the candidate should review
Sections 4 and 5 to assure that the information is accurate and includes all significant
information.
The second key responsibility of the PTU head is to obtain objective and impersonal
external appraisals of the quality of the candidate's contributions from persons highly
qualified to provide an assessment. Preferably five such appraisals will be obtained, but
in any event the PTU evaluation cannot be conducted with fewer than four external
appraisals available, at least two of which must be from a list of potential external
evaluators supplied by the candidate. Assessments should not be sought from terminal
degree advisors, postdoctoral advisors and personal friends. Appendix C describes this
process more fully, and Appendix E provides a sample form for requesting external letters
of evaluation.
The candidate constructs a list of up to six potential external evaluators and their
qualifications as reviewers. The PTU head must select and include in the dossier letters
of evaluation from at least two of the candidate's designated external reviewers and will
inform the candidate in writing when the letters have arrived. The candidate also
constructs a list of no more than three individuals who may not be contacted as external
evaluators. There should be no contact at all with these individuals during the promotion
and/or tenure review. The dossier must also include at least two letters from individuals
not on the candidate’s approved list. If one or two of the external evaluators cannot
or do not respond, another letter may be requested, maintaining a balance of letters from
the candidate’s list of letters and from the PTU’s list. All letters of
evaluation must be included in the dossier.
If the unit head is an associate professor, then the head, following consultation with the
PTU, will appoint a professor to chair the committee to review candidates for promotion to
the rank of professor. If the unit head is untenured, then the head, following
consultation with the PTU, will appoint a tenured professor to chair the committee to
review candidates for tenure. The unit head will retain responsibility for working with
the candidate to prepare the dossier for review, although the appointed chair will take
responsibility for preparing Sections 1 and 2 after the unit evaluation is completed.
- Reviews
[return to Table of Contents]
Normally, the promotion and tenure dossier will be subject to three levels of
review: the first review takes place within the PTU, when it renders its recommendation
concerning promotion and/or tenure. Following this review by the PTU, the dossier will be
reviewed at the school/college level and then at the University level. This three-level
review process will take place in those schools and colleges with departments. However, in
schools or colleges without departments and reporting directly to the Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost, there will generally be two levels of review:
the first is at the school level and the second is at the University level. In these
units, the school/college serves as the PTU. All reviews must be conducted in a rigorous
and equitable manner and must be free of political influence.
- Promotion/Tenure-Unit Review.
The PTU head convenes the appropriate faculty to conduct the PTU evaluation. Faculty
eligible to vote within their promotion and tenure units are as follows:
- On promotion to associate professor,
all associate professors and professors;
- On promotion to professor, all
professors;
- On tenure, all tenured faculty
members.
Voting Procedures
All eligible faculty are expected to
participate in the PTU evaluation process by voting yes or no, except for those who recuse
themselves because of a conflict of interest. There will be no abstentions at the PTU
level. The dossier will be considered at a meeting scheduled for this purpose, with a
quorum consisting of at least two-thirds of those faculty eligible to vote. Absentee
ballots do not count toward the quorum, but may be cast in writing so long as they are
received by the PTU head before the meeting begins. Otherwise, they will be disregarded.
Faculty members who recuse themselves are not considered eligible voters and may not
participate in the discussion and consideration of the candidate’s dossier. Faculty
from the candidate’s PTU will refrain from participating in any form of evaluation at
higher levels of review.
Eligible faculty within the PTU will vote by secret ballot, except for the PTU head. The
total number of yes and no votes must be recorded. More yes than no votes must be recorded
in order for the candidate to be approved. The PTU head’s vote must be revealed at
the time the votes are counted. All absentee and regular ballots must be counted by two
faculty members, with the results presented to the faculty before adjournment. The
candidate must be informed of the results of the vote, including the tally, within three
working days of the meeting.
Consistent with the principle of flow, all promotion and tenure dossiers move to the next
level of review, regardless of the vote, unless the candidate indicates he/she does not
wish to be considered further.
It is the responsibility of the PTU head to prepare Sections 1 (Regents Summary Sheet) and
2 (Cover Letter) of the dossier. If the PTU head voted against the promotion, then the
candidate may designate a senior faculty member from the PTU to substitute for the PTU
head. This person prepares Sections 1 and 2. Before a dossier goes forward, the candidate
should review Sections 1 through 4 for accuracy. Before the candidate does so, however,
identification of any external evaluators must be deleted. Since Section 1 reports results
and Section 2 represents a synthesis of faculty judgment, the candidate may correct only
manifest errors in reported facts.
Unless the PTU head voted against the
candidate, the dossier goes forward with a cover letter from the PTU head (or his/her
designee). The candidate may read and respond in writing to any cover letter or rationale
before it goes forward. The candidate must have access to this information, which includes
the vote of the eligible PTU faculty. Whether or not the PTU head prepares the cover
letter, he/she (or designee) is responsible for preparing a summary of the procedural
steps followed by the PTU in reaching its vote, including relevant dates where
appropriate. This statement is to be forwarded with the dossier.
If a faculty member has a joint appointment with .50 eft assigned to each of two
promotion- and tenure-granting academic units, then either unit may initiate consideration
for promotion and prepare the documentation. The documentation will be made available to
the appropriate faculties of the two academic units concerned. The vote of each unit
should be recorded in the dossier and provided to the candidate. If both units vote to
grant promotion, the dossier flows to the next higher level for review. However, if one
unit votes to promote the candidate and the other unit votes to deny, the dossier is
forwarded to the University Appeals Committee for action.
- School/College-Level Review.
- Deference to Initial
Determination. The burden of evaluating the qualifications and suitability of the
candidate for promotion and/or tenure is greatest at the first level of review.
Significant weight will be given at the higher levels of review to the judgments and
recommendations of lower-level review committees (particularly at the PTU level) and to
the principle of peer review.
- Appointment and Composition of
the School/College Committees. The dean appoints the members of the school/college
review committee(s); these Guidelines recommend that such committees consist of at
least five eligible faculty members of the school/college. The chair is elected from among
the tenured professors of the committee. Voting will be conducted by secret ballot with
two designated faculty members assigned to count the ballots. No members will abstain or
recuse themselves unless a significant conflict of interest exists requiring such recusal.
Faculty members who recuse themselves are not considered eligible voters and may not
participate in consideration and discussion of the candidate’s dossier.
- Procedures for Review Committees
from Schools/Colleges with Departments. In those schools or colleges with
departments, the first level of review takes place in the PTU in accordance with its
written criteria for promotion and/or tenure. Upon completion of that first-level review,
the PTU will transmit the candidate’s dossier to the school/college review
committee(s) in accordance with the procedures outlined above. At that time, the
candidate, PTU head or senior faculty member designated by the candidate may supplement
the record with claims regarding procedural error, if necessary. In all cases, at the
school/college committees review, the committee will review the case to ensure that no
procedural error exists. The committee also will ensure that the candidate meets the
criteria specified in these Guidelines, as well as criteria specified by the PTU.
The PTU’s recommendation may be reversed only if at least 2/3 majority of the
committee members vote to reverse the outcome at the lower level. Regardless of the
outcome of the school/college vote (favorable or unfavorable) the dossier will be
forwarded for a review at the University level. In addition, the committee must record the
rationale for its decision to affirm or reverse the lower-level decision. This rationale
must be in writing and must be transmitted, along with the tally of the vote, to the
candidate, who will have the opportunity to respond to the committee’s rationale
within seven working days. Any such response of the candidate will be included in the
dossier for consideration at the University level.
If the school/college committee finds a clear procedural error that likely affected the
substantive outcome of the lower-level review process, it may remand the case for
correction of the error by the PTU if such error can be corrected within the current
promotion/tenure cycle, after which the case will be resubmitted to the school/college
committee. In the event that the procedural error cannot be corrected at the lower level,
the committee may, with the candidate’s participation and cooperation, supplement the
record in any way necessary to allow for the fullest substantive and fair review possible.
Cases may occur in which the procedural error fatally undermined the candidate’s
ability to achieve a record worthy of promotion or tenure. In order to remedy such an
error, the committee may vote positively on the candidate’s application. The
committee may also determine that any procedural error at the lower-level was harmless
because it had no substantive impact on the candidate’s application for tenure, in
which case the committee may proceed to consider the substance of the candidate’s
application.
- Procedures for Schools/Colleges
without Departments. In those schools or colleges without departments and reporting
directly to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, the first level of
review takes place within the school/college, which serves as the PTU. This review takes
place in accordance with the school/college’s written criteria for promotion and/or
tenure, and in a manner that is consistent with these Guidelines. In these units,
the dean will not serve as the PTU head. The school/college will establish written
procedures for the selection of the PTU head.
- Role of the Dean. All
promotion and tenure decisions (including both positive and negative decisions) must be
sent to the dean of the school/college for review. The dean (or the dean’s designee)
will provide a thorough, independent evaluation of each candidate for promotion and/or
tenure. By this means, the dean will achieve several important objectives of the promotion
and/or tenure process. These include: (1) ensuring consistency in the application of the
standards for promotion and tenure within the school/college; (2) promoting fairness in
the promotion and/or tenure process; and (3) seeing to it that candidates for tenure are
central to the mission of the unit and school/college.
The dean will be an ex-officio, non-voting member of the school/college review
committee(s). After the vote has been taken at the school/college level, the dean (or
his/her designee) will write a letter evaluating the candidate, introducing the dossier as
it goes forward to the University Review Committee. The letter will include the vote of
the appropriate faculty of the PTU, as well as the vote of the school/college review
committee. The candidate may read and respond in writing to the dean’s letter before
the dossier moves forward to the University Review Committee. To that end, the candidate
must be given timely access to the dean’s letter. The candidate’s response will
be included in the dossier as it moves forward.
- University-Level Review.
- Appointment and Composition of
University Review Committees. The University Review Committees consider all
candidates for promotion and tenure, whatever the outcome of the previous levels of
review. University Review Committees will be established to consider candidates from
general discipline areas and thus will be organized into area committees such as:
| Fine and Applied Arts |
Physical Sciences |
| Humanities |
Social and Behavioral Sciences |
| Life Sciences |
Health and Clinical Sciences |
Professional and Applied Studies
|
|
Each University Review Committee will consist of at least seven tenured professors of the
University, nominated by the deans of the University’s schools and colleges, and
appointed by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. Members of these
University Review Committees must be active in their disciplines. Each committee will
elect a chair from among its members. At any time, individual members of a University
Review Committee may reveal their membership on a committee. After evaluations are
completed, the University publishes the membership of the University Review Committees.
The head of the PTU that originates the recommendation will decide, in consultation with
the candidate and with approval of the dean, which University Review Committee should
evaluate the candidate's dossier. A PTU need not route all of its candidates through the
same University Review Committee.
- Procedures for University Review
Committees. Consistent with the principle of flow, the University Review Committee
considers both positive and negative recommendations from the school/college review
committees. In making its recommendation, the University Review Committee will evaluate
cases (1) to assess the strength of the substantive evaluation of the candidate made by
the PTU and by external assessors in the discipline, thus ensuring that the prior
evaluation meets the criteria embodied in these Guidelines, (2) to assure
uniformity of standards across the disciplines represented, and (3) to determine whether
the school/college committees properly evaluated any claims of procedural error when such
error has properly been raised. The purpose of the University Review Committee is to
review generally the quality of evidence in the dossier and determine whether the dossier
as presented meets institutional standards.
Where a University Review Committee concludes that procedural errors exist that have not
been properly evaluated or remedied at the lower-level of review, the University Review
Committee may (1) remand the case to the school/college committee or to the PTU if such
error can be corrected within the current promotion/tenure cycle, with instructions
concerning how to proceed thereafter, (2) with the candidate’s participation and
cooperation, supplement the record in any way necessary to allow for the fullest
substantive and fair review possible, or (3) vote positively on the candidate’s
application if the error was fatal to the candidate’s ability to develop a record
worthy of promotion and/or tenure. The University Review Committee may also determine that
any procedural error was harmless because it had no substantive impact on the
candidate’s application for tenure, in which case the committee may proceed to
consider the substance of the candidate’s application.
In voting on a candidate, no members of a University Review Committee may recuse
themselves, absent a conflict of interest. Faculty members who recuse themselves are not
considered eligible voters and may not participate in consideration and discussion of the
candidate’s dossier.
A 2/3 majority of eligible voters is necessary for a University Review Committee to
overturn the recommendation brought before it for review. For example, if the PTU did not
recommend the candidate for promotion and/or tenure, and if the PTU’s unfavorable
decision was not reversed by the school/college committee, the University Review Committee
may reverse such an unfavorable result only by a 2/3 vote in favor of the candidate’s
application for promotion and/or tenure.
The University Review Committee will vote by secret ballot and record the total number of
yes and no votes. The result of the vote, including the tally, must be reported to the
committee before the meeting adjourns. In addition, the committee must record the
rationale for its decision to grant or deny the candidate’s application for promotion
or tenure. All such statements must be in writing and must be transmitted, along with the
tally of the vote, to the candidate, who will have the opportunity to respond to the
committee’s statement within seven working days. Such a statement will be included in
the dossier as it moves forward.
The University Review Committees transmit their written recommendations and accompanying
rationale to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. If the
recommendation is positive, the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
will forward the recommendation to the President for official University action. If the
recommendation is negative, the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
will forward the dossier to the University Appeals Committee, with the consent of the
candidate, which will evaluate the substance of the case as well as any procedural issues
identified by the candidate.
- Definition of Procedural Errors.
In evaluating cases for promotion and/or tenure, school/college and University Review
Committees may consider claims of procedural error. Such claims include:
- Failure to conduct a third-year
review or yearly performance evaluations.
- Failure to consult a candidate
regarding external evaluations.
- Failure of the PTU to vote in
accordance with mandated procedures.
- Failure to evaluate a candidate in
accordance with the unit criteria.
- Any other claims regarding failure of
the PTU to meet established procedural requirements as mandated by these Guidelines
or unit criteria.
In evaluating such claims, review
committees must also consider the candidate’s responsibility in the promotion and/or
tenure process.
- APPEALS
[return to Table of Contents]
When a candidate receives a negative recommendation from the University Review
Committee (either because the University Review Committee fails to overturn a negative
recommendation from a school/college committee, or because the University Review Committee
overturns a positive lower-level recommendation), the dossier is automatically forwarded
to the University Appeals Committee unless the candidate chooses to withdraw his/her
application in writing. The University Appeals Committee is chaired by the Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost (who is an ex-officio but non-voting member)
and consists of 14 professors, one representing each of the schools/colleges of the
University of Georgia, including a tenured professor representing the Graduate Council.
Faculty members representing each of the 13 academic schools/colleges will be selected by
the University Council through procedures they have developed to constitute faculty
committees. The representative from the Graduate Council will be nominated by the Dean of
the Graduate School, in consultation with that Council and with the Senior Vice President
for Academic Affairs and Provost. The University Appeals Committee must be constituted by
May 1 of every year for the upcoming promotion and/or tenure review cycle.
At the time the dossier is forwarded to the University Appeals Committee, the candidate
must be notified of his/her opportunity to further supplement the record with claims
regarding procedural error in the promotion and/or tenure process. Such claims must be in
writing and must be based on one or more of the following allegations of error:
- Significant procedural irregularities
(see Section VII 4) in periodic review and advisement or in the review process at the PTU
level.
- Significant procedural irregularities
or inadequacies in the process of review by the school/college or University Review
Committees, including the failure to vote in accordance with mandated procedures or to
operate in accordance with procedures mandated in these Guidelines.
The responsibility of the candidate
(or his/her designee) is to document in writing that the negative recommendation is
principally a consequence of one or more of the grounds listed above, and that therefore
the candidate’s qualifications did not receive a fair review.
The responsibility of the University Appeals Committee is to make its best judgment as to
(1) the existence of material failures, inaccuracies or procedural irregularities; (2)
whether or not these failures, inaccuracies or irregularities significantly impaired an
appropriate review of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion and/or tenure. At
its option, the committee may interview the candidate, the PTU head or the dean, as well
as any other individuals who are in a position to provide useful information about the
review.
By a simple majority vote of eligible
voters, the University Appeals Committee will advise (with supporting rationale) the
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost in one of three ways:
- that there appear to be no material
failures, inaccuracies or irregularities;
- that any failures, inaccuracies or
irregularities did not play a significant or controlling role in the negative vote; or
- that identified failures,
inaccuracies or irregularities did exist and may have interfered, or did in fact
interfere, with an appropriate vote on the performance record.
If the recommendation of the University Appeals Committee is that the grounds for appeal
were insufficient to have had an adverse effect on the results of the prior committee's
vote, then the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost will so inform the
candidate, PTU head and dean, and the negative recommendation will stand. If there is a
further review, it is made to the President.
If the recommendation of the University Appeals Committee is that the appeal has merit,
then the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost will take steps designed
to address the problem. These may include, but are not limited to, referral to the
original committee or formation of an ad hoc committee to make a substantive review and
recommendation, a direct recommendation for promotion and/or tenure to the President or
consultation with internal or external authorities.
The recommendations of the University Appeals Committee and the steps to be taken by the
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost should be communicated to the
candidate, PTU head and dean within five working days of receipt of the committee's
recommendation. When these steps are completed, the Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost will make his/or her judgment and accordingly inform the candidate,
PTU head and dean.
Any candidate who wishes to appeal to
the Office of the President must do so in writing. The appeal must be made within seven
working days of the receipt of the letter from the Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost, communicating the decision. In any appeal to the President, the
candidate must include a copy of the recommendation of the University Appeals Committee.
The President's recommendation will be based on a review of the record. There will be no
oral presentations by or on behalf of the candidate. Accordingly, it is the responsibility
of the candidate to inspect the record to ensure that it is complete.
- INSTRUCTORS
AND TEMPORARY ASSISTANT PROFESSORS [return to Table of Contents]
Promotion of Instructors Who Have Received the Terminal Degree
Promotion from instructor to assistant
professor is subject to the same requirements that govern new appointments at the
assistant professor level. The minimum requirement is the terminal degree appropriate for
the candidate's academic discipline.
Change of Status of Temporary Assistant Professors
A person who is very close to
completing the requirements for the terminal degree may be employed as a temporary
assistant professor, provided that all University policies including equal opportunity and
affirmative action guidelines are followed. When the person receives the terminal degree,
the temporary assistant professor rank may be changed to the assistant professor rank by
administrative action. That is, the unit head transmits the appropriate documentation to
the dean and the request proceeds accordingly. Board of Regents policy stipulates that
time in track as an instructor or temporary assistant professor counts toward tenure.
- PROCEDURES
FOR TENURE [return to Table of Contents]
- Definition
[return to Table of Contents]
The University grants tenure status to faculty members after a probationary
period in the profession to protect faculty from dismissal except for cause. The
probationary period is five years, including the year in which a faculty member is being
reviewed for tenure. As indicated earlier (see p.18), a request for probationary credit
toward tenure is made at the time of appointment.
Tenure is a status that serves the best interests not only of the individual, but also of
the University itself in its role as an instrument of a democratic society. In our society
and within the academy, we regard the search for knowledge to be of paramount importance,
and tenure for faculty members provides protection for scholars to broadly discover and
apply knowledge. The decision to grant tenure to a faculty member is an enduring
commitment that affects the future and continued growth in stature of the University of
Georgia and is therefore a process that must be handled rigorously and fairly.
- Criteria
[return to Table of Contents]
Candidates for tenure must have a record of exemplary performance in the
discharge of their primary responsibilities in teaching; research or other creative
activities; and service to society, the University and the profession. In addition, a
recommendation for tenure must also address a fundamental consideration: the University's
continuing and long-range need for what the candidate for tenure may be expected to do.
Tenure review committees are responsible for considering whether or not candidates are
likely to continue to be active and productive scholars over the extended period of time
that tenure supposes. The decision to grant tenure is one of the most important decisions
that faculty members and administrators make as stewards of the institution.
- Regulations
[return to Table of Contents]
Tenure resides at the institutional level. Institutional responsibility for
employment of a tenured person is to the extent of continued employment on a full-time
basis
- Employment Status.
Only associate professors and professors who are normally employed full-time by the
University are eligible to hold tenure. Faculty at the rank of associate professor and
professor may be tenured at the time of their appointment to the University, if their
established records are exemplary and merit tenure at appointment. This recommendation may
be made by the PTU and approved by the dean of the school/college, the Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost and the President, and with the consent of the
Board of Regents.
At the University of Georgia, instructors and assistant professors are not eligible for
tenure upon appointment. Assistant professors may apply for tenure at the same time they
are applying for promotion to associate professor if the minimum years of service for both
have been attained, and if the record of accomplishments merits tenure.
Nontenured faculty are employed on a year-to-year basis and may be terminated with timely
notice. Faculty with temporary or visiting appointments are not eligible for tenure and
are bound by the time limits specified. Persons with adjunct appointments, academic
professional appointments, public service appointments, and honorific appointments are not
eligible for tenure and are not bound by time limits.
- Time Limits.
Instructor. Tenure is not awarded at the rank of instructor. A faculty member may
serve no more than seven years at the rank of full-time instructor.
Assistant Professor. Tenure is
not awarded at the rank of assistant professor, and a faculty member may serve no more
than seven years at this rank.
Associate Professor and Professor. A maximum of seven years may be served without
the award of tenure when the initial appointment is made at the rank of assistant
professor, associate professor or professor. The maximum length of time served is up to 10
years if the initial appointment was made at the instructor level.
If the Board of Regents does not approve an institutional recommendation for tenure
following the seventh year (or tenth year for individuals initially appointed as
instructors) of full-time employment, the University may offer a terminal contract for one
additional year.
- Probationary Period.
To be eligible for tenure, the candidate must complete a probationary period of at least
five years of full-time service, including the year when tenure will be considered at the
University level, at the rank of assistant professor or higher. The five-year period must
be continuous, except that the University may permit a maximum of two years interruption
because of a leave of absence such as family medical leave (including the birth of a
child) or part-time service, provided that no probationary credit for the period of an
interruption is allowed. Requests for extension of the tenure probationary period due to a
family medical event are made in writing to the Office of the Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Provost. Additional information about medical leave may be found on
the Division of Human Resources web site.
A maximum of three years credit toward the minimum probationary period may be allowed for
service in tenure-track positions at other institutions, or for service as an instructor
at the University of Georgia or prior service in other appropriate professional activities
(as defined by the PTU and approved by the dean). The President defines such credit for
prior service in writing and the Chancellor approves such credit at the time of the
initial appointment to the rank of assistant professor or higher.
Nontenured faculty who are in their sixth probationary year and who have not been turned
down for tenure in their fifth year must be reviewed for tenure unless they request not to
be reviewed. Upon recommendation of the unit head, the dean and the Senior Vice President
for Academic Affairs and Provost, and with convincing justification, the President may
make an exception to the sixth year rule. Such exception must be requested prior to the
end of the fifth probationary year.
A faculty member loses tenure, or probationary credit toward tenure, under certain
circumstances: upon resignation from the institution; resignation from a tenured position
to take a nontenured position; or resignation from a position for which probationary
credit toward tenure is given to take a position for which no probationary credit toward
tenure is given. In the event the faculty member is again employed in a position eligible
for tenure, probationary credit for the prior service may be considered in the same manner
as service at another institution, consistent with the Board of Regents Policy on Tenure.
- Tenure
Process [return to Table of Contents]
The procedures for awarding tenure extend over several activities: advising about
the tenure process, initiating the tenure process, making recommendations from the tenure
units and performing reviews of documentation and the tenure unit’s recommendations.
Generally, the University should schedule activities so that faculty on academic year
appointments can complete the process in time for the President to receive the tenure
recommendations by February 1. These procedures, however, do not cover Regents-approved
academic administrators who do not have academic tenure when they are appointed as
administrators.
- Initiation of the Tenure Process.
The candidate, PTU head or tenured faculty of the PTU may initiate the tenure process. A
faculty member who has served the probationary period may request consideration for tenure
and provide evidence to support that request. At such a request, the head of the PTU will
convene the tenured faculty who would make the preliminary consideration concerning tenure
review. Based upon an updated vita and any other materials deemed relevant by the unit,
the unit faculty will decide whether or not to proceed with the tenure process for those
faculty who have requested tenure. This consideration should follow the same procedures
for preliminary consideration of promotion.
At this point, the tenure review process parallels the process for promotion. A dossier
must be prepared for evaluation by the PTU. Preparation and verification of the contents
of the dossier is a cooperative endeavor between the unit head and the faculty member.
Appendix C describes the elements required in the dossier.
In accordance with the principle of flow, all recommendations will go forward to the next
level of review and ultimately to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost. The PTU head and the dean must document the University's continuing and
long-range need for what the candidate for tenure may be expected to do. This is a
critical component of the tenure review process.
If a faculty member has a joint appointment in two tenure-granting academic units, then
either unit may initiate consideration for tenure and prepare the documentation. The
documentation will be made available to the appropriate tenured faculties of the two
academic units concerned. The vote of each unit should be recorded in the dossier and
provided to the candidate, and forwarded to the next higher level of review, as described
in Section VII. Since tenure resides at the institutional level, a candidate who is
recommended for tenure in one unit, but not in a second, may be granted tenure if the
record of achievements and need for services merit tenure at the institution.
- Recommendation by the PTU.
Recommendations for promotion and recommendations for tenure are separate actions and
require separate votes. However, the same procedures and materials (dossier) are used for
each. These Guidelines specify the procedures. Dossiers for candidates for tenure
who are not also candidates for promotion may include past letters of evaluation used for
promotion if they have been obtained within the last two years. Otherwise, new letters are
required.
- Reviews.
The same committees at the school/college and University levels that review promotion
recommendations also will review recommendations for tenure, using the same PTU criteria,
to ensure that the tenure criteria, regulations and procedures have been correctly
observed. The tenure review should parallel the promotion review in procedural steps. Each
review committee will consider tenure recommendations after it has considered promotion
recommendations. Separate votes on each are required.
- Tenure for Administrative Positions.
Faculty who serve as academic administrators may be tenured in their academic PTU, but are
not tenured as administrators per se. Academic administrators are faculty that carry Board
of Regents appointments as administrators. Academic administrators may have faculty rank
and tenure within PTU affiliations.
Academic administrators chosen from the tenured faculty retain their academic tenure as
faculty, but are not tenured as administrators. Academic administrators chosen from
nontenured faculty or from outside the University do not have academic tenure.
Tenured faculty will vote on an
academic administrator's eligibility for academic tenure in the PTU, preceding his/her
appointment. Assuming the candidate’s qualifications merit appointment as an
associate professor or professor and the vote of the faculty is positive, a tenured
faculty appointment may be extended to an administrator, consistent with Board of Regents
policy.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Appointment Package Outline
[return to Table of Contents]
Use to document the candidate's
qualifications for appointment as clearly as possible. Present sufficient evidence in a
concise fashion. The contents of the package and the way to organize them are described
below.
Section 1: Cover
Letter
In the cover letter, summarize the
evidence supporting the candidate's appointment.
- Background
Give the purpose of the appointment in relation to departmental and University needs. List
the duties the candidate is expected to fulfill, including the percentage of time assigned
to teaching, research and/or service. Give the vote of the faculty participating in the
recommendation. List the total number of yes and no votes of the participating faculty.
- Generalizations about the Candidate's
Achievements
Make generalizations about the candidate's accomplishments or potential in (1)
instruction, (2) research or other creative activities, and (3) service to society, the
University and the profession.
- Assessment of the Candidate's Stature
Make generalizations about the candidate's regional, national or international stature (if
appropriate) among those of his/her specialty and time within the discipline.
- Search Procedures
Describe the method and the extent of the search made for the candidate.
Section 2: Vita
Summarize the candidate's
professional activities and attainments in conventional vita form.
Section 3: Letters of
Reference
Obtain at least four letters of
reference from authorities who can provide a critical, detailed evaluation of the
candidate's work. Make all letters received a part of the candidate's appointment file.
Include the names, qualifications and institutional affiliations of individuals solicited.
A sample letter requesting evaluation is presented in Appendix B. E-mail correspondence
may substitute for a letter, but a written letter is requested for follow-up.
Section 4:
Appointment Materials
The University of
Georgia requires an appointment package of materials to create a faculty appointment.
These materials include an appointment form, curriculum vita, letters of recommendation,
degree certifications and appropriate personnel and budget forms. Individuals responsible
for making faculty appointments should check with the Office of the Senior Vice President
for Academic Affairs and Provost to ensure that all materials are properly completed and
submitted.
Appendix B: Sample Letter Requesting a Reference
[return to Table of Contents]
Dear YYYYY:
The University of Georgia is
considering the appointment of Dr. X to the rank of Z. On such appointments we seek expert
advice from outside our faculty as well as within. You have been recommended to us as
particularly able to evaluate X's qualifications for this position. We would appreciate
your candid opinion of the candidate's qualifications and any other information you can
provide that will help us in making a wise recommendation. We are especially interested in
the following:
- The quality and significance of the
candidate's professional publications
(artistic productions/performances).
- Candidate's reputation and relative
standing in (his/her) field.
- Candidate's general potential for
scholarly achievement.
We will make every effort to
maintain confidentiality of your review. However, these letters may be subject to release
under Georgia law. Your reply will be employed only in the appointment process. Thank you
for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Appendix C: Outline -- Dossier for Promotion and/or Tenure
[return to Table of
Contents]
The purpose of the dossier is to present evidence of the candidate's qualifications for
promotion and/or tenure. It should be prepared in a concise manner, not exceeding 25
pages. Include only summaries in the dossier. The contents and organization of the dossier
are described below.
Section 1: Regents
Summary Sheet(s)
Include items A and/or B as
appropriate to the purpose(s) of the dossier.
- Promotion Summary Sheet. Promotion
dossiers include the Recommendation for Promotion Summary Information form. Follow the
outline presented in Appendix D.
- Tenure Summary Sheet. Tenure dossiers
include the Recommendation for Tenure Summary Information form. Follow the outline
presented in Appendix G.
Section 2: Cover
Letter(s)
Include items A and/or B as
appropriate to the purpose(s) of the dossier.
- Cover Letter for Promotion. Promotion
dossiers include the Cover Letter from the department head, and the dean (or his/her
designee). Follow the outline presented in Appendix H.
- Cover Letter for Tenure. Tenure
dossiers include the Cover Letter for Tenure from the department head and the dean (or
his/her designee). Follow the outline presented in Appendix F.
Section 3: Unit
Criteria
Please include a copy of the
approved criteria for promotion and/or tenure.
Section 4: Vita
Summarize the candidate's
professional activities and attainments described in these Guidelines, and criteria
developed by the appointment unit. The candidate should add to the end of the vita a
letter no longer than two pages that describes the candidate's major accomplishments and
assesses the impact of each. Identify with an asterisk to the left of the entry those
media, exhibitions and performances that are of national or international standing.
Section 5:
Achievements
Describe and document the
candidate's achievements in relation to the criteria in these Guidelines in twelve
pages or less. Include data and information summaries where appropriate. Achievements
sufficiently documented in "Section 4: Vita" are preferably referenced by page
number rather than duplicated in Section 5. In addition, the dossier of candidates
recommended for professor must document the impact of the individual's work through, for
example, evidence of critical response, adoption of technology by the discipline area or
citations.
- Achievements in Teaching
Describe the candidate's work assignments for instruction since appointment or promotion
to the presently held rank, including the percent of time assigned to teaching, the
courses taught and their enrollments and the use of innovations in the delivery of
instruction. Then document the candidate's achievements by presenting pertinent sources of
evidence as listed in these Guidelines.
- Achievements in Research, Scholarship
and Other Creative Activities
Describe the candidate's work assignments for research, scholarship or other creative
activities since appointment or promotion to the presently held rank, and including the
percent of time assigned to research. Then document the candidate's achievements by
presenting pertinent sources of evidence as listed in these Guidelines.
- Achievements in Service to Society,
the University and the Profession
Describe the candidate's work assignments in service to society, the University and the
profession, since appointment or promotion to the presently held rank, and including the
percent of time assigned to service. Then document the candidate's achievements by
presenting pertinent sources of evidence as listed in these Guidelines.
- Conditions of Employment
For all individuals being recommended for promotion and/or tenure, include a copy of the
letter of original offer of appointment that specifies the major area of assignment of the
position as offered. If there have been PTU-approved changes in those responsibilities,
the PTU head should include a brief statement describing the changes and their rationale.
Section 6: External
Evaluations
Obtain at least four
from authorities outside the University who can provide a critical, detailed evaluation of
the candidate's work. Briefly state the qualifications for each person evaluating the
candidate. Provide the external evaluator with the candidate's vita and examples of the
candidate's best scholarly works. Obtain letters from individuals who know the candidate
professionally (preferably through his/her publications, presentations, artistic creations
or performances) and who are able to judge the candidate's reputation and relative status
in the field. Do not solicit letters from the candidate's former major professor, former
students, close associates or friends. Request a critical evaluation of the candidate's
performance and quality of scholastic achievements; do not solicit supporting letters or
personal references. Do not contact anyone the candidate has declared a non-evaluator.
Make all letters received a part of the candidate's promotion file. Appendix E presents a
sample letter format requesting a recommendation.
Appendix D: Recommendation for Promotion Summary
(two-page maximum)
[return to Table of Contents]
Name_________________________________________________________________________
Highest degree
earned___________________________________________________________
Present rank and title
____________________________________________________________
Number of years in present rank at
the University of Georgia (including current academic year)
______________________________________________________________________________
Number of years at the University of
Georgia (including current academic year)
______________________________________________________________________________
Total number of years of teaching
experience__________________________________________
Rank and title
recommended_______________________________________________________
(For promotions to assistant
professor only) Number of years of probationary credit toward tenure recommended for prior
service at the rank of instructor _______________
Type of tenure-track (circle one):
1. Tenured 2. Nontenured–on tenure-track 3. Nontenured–not on tenure-track
Documentation (Summary)
- Achievements in teaching
- Achievements in research or other
creative activities
- Achievements in service to society,
the University and the profession
Summary of the action of the
Promotion Review Committees
VOTE |
YES |
NO |
| Promotion and Tenure
Unit Review |
|
|
| School/College Review |
|
|
| University Review Committee |
|
|
Institution University of Georgia
Date_____________________
President______________________________________
Appendix E: Sample Letter Requesting Evaluation for Promotion and/or
Tenure
[return to Table of Contents]
Dear YYYYY:
The University of Georgia is
considering the promotion and/or tenure of Dr. X to the rank of Z.
To aid us in rendering a wise
promotion and/or tenure recommendation, we seek a thoughtful evaluation of the candidate's
contributions to the field. You have been recommended to us as a person who is in a
position to evaluate the scholarly contributions made by X. We do not ask for your
judgment about the candidate as a person. Instead, we seek your professional judgment of
the impact and quality of X's scholarly contributions. Specifically, we are interested in
the following:
- Length and nature of relationship
with the candidate.
- Your judgment of the quality and
significance of the candidate's professional publications (artistic
productions/performances). The judgment should be specific to particular works, or sets of
works. (Option added: Enclosed find work examples [reprints, books or other productions]
upon which we would particularly value your professional judgment.)
- The candidate's professional
reputation and standing as a scholar relative to outstanding people in the same field at
approximately the same stage of development.
The University of Georgia will use
your reply only in the promotion and/or tenure process. However, these letters may be
subject to release under Georgia law.
Thank you for your assistance in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Appendix F: Outline -- Cover Letter for Tenure
[return to Table of Contents]
In the cover letter, summarize the
evidence supporting the candidate's readiness for tenure. Include the information
specified below. The cover letter will be the principal letter of evaluation from the
tenure unit's faculty.
- Background
List the candidate's work assignments since appointment or since promotion to associate
professor giving the proportions of time allocated for instruction; research or other
creative activities; and service to society, the University and the profession. List the
total number of yes and no votes of the participating faculty.
- Probation
Specify the number of years of full-time service the candidate has completed. Specify how
much, if any, credit toward the minimum probationary period the candidate has been granted
for service elsewhere or for service at the rank of instructor at the University of
Georgia.
- Qualifications and Record of
Exemplary Performance
Make generalizations about the candidate's qualifications for the academic rank he/she is
to be tenured in and the specific duties he/she is assigned to do. Make generalizations
about the exemplary nature of the candidate's record in (1) teaching, (2) research,
scholarship or other creative activities, and (3) service to society, the University and
the profession.
- Need for Services
Demonstrate a continuing and long-range need for the candidate. Show how the duties
assigned to the candidate are essential to the unit fulfilling its mission at present and
in the future.
Appendix G: Recommendation for Tenure Summary
(Two page maximum)
[return to Table of Contents]
Name__________________________________________________________________________________
Highest degree
__________________________________________________________________________
Present rank and title
_____________________________________________________________________
Recommended for promotion this
academic year: Yes ______ No _____
Total number of years at the
University of Georgia______________________________________________
Years of probationary credit granted
_________________________________________________________
Documentation (Summary)
1. Qualifications and record of
exemplary performance in teaching, research or other creative activities and service to
society, the University and the profession.
2. Need for services.
Summary of action of the Tenure
Review Committees
VOTE |
YES |
NO |
| Promotion and Tenure
Unit Review |
|
|
| School/College Review |
|
|
| University Review Committee |
|
|
Institution University of Georgia
Date______________________ President_________________________________________
Appendix H: Outline -- Cover Letter for Promotion
[return to Table of Contents]
In the cover letter,
summarize the evidence supporting the candidate's promotion. Include the information
specified below. The cover letter will be the principal letter of evaluation from the
PTU’s faculty.
- Background
List the candidate's work assignments since appointment or promotion to the presently held
rank, giving the proportions of time assigned for teaching; research, scholarship or other
creative activities; service to society, the University and the profession. Give the vote
of the faculty participating in the recommendation. List the total number of yes and no
votes of the participating faculty.
- Generalizations about the Candidate's
Achievements
Make generalizations about the candidate's professional accomplishments in instruction;
research or other creative, scholarly activities; and service to society, the University
and the profession. Anchor these generalizations with cross-references to the pages of the
dossier and the exhibits where the evidence is presented.
- Assessment of the Candidate's Stature
Make generalizations about the candidate's regional, national or international stature
among those of his/her specialty and time within the discipline. Again, anchor these
generalizations with cross-references to the pages in the dossier and the exhibits where
the evidence is presented.
Appendix I: Promotion and/or Tenure Check List
[return to Table of Contents]
Name
___________________________________ Current Rank __________________________________
Department, School or College
_____________________________________________________________
Consideration (check one)
Promotion Only G Tenure Only G Promotion & Tenure G Promotion to:
_____________________
Items in Dossier (check all items) Yes
(1) Letter of Transmittal
(2) Table of Contents
(3) Section I - Regents’ Summary Sheet for Promotion (two page maximum)
Regents’ Summary Sheet for Tenure (two page maximum)
Summary Sheet of votes
(4) Section II - Department Head
Cover Letter
(Separate cover letters for tenure and promotion)
Dean’s Letter
(5) Section III – Vita
Candidate’s statement of “Major Accomplishments”
(For candidates seeking promotion to
associate professor: copy of departmental third-year review
report.)
(6) Section IV: Achievements (12 pg. or less)
Achievements in Teaching
Achievements in Research
Achievements in Service
(For candidates seeking promotion to associate professor: original letter of appointment.)
(7) Section V: External Letters
Documentation for external letters
(8) Diskette (Microsoft Word File)
1. Recommendation for Promotion Summary (two page maximum)
2. Cover Letter for Promotion and Tenure
3. Curriculum Vita
(This file/diskette does not replace
the dossier or information that is required in the dossier).