Promotion and/or Continuing Appointment Reviews for On-Track Academic Professionals

Instructions to Administrators and Candidates

We would like to receive all of the material submitted by the candidates as PDF documents on a CD-ROM. Please see below for a complete list of required materials. Please distribute these guidelines to your faculty who will be considered for promotion and/or continuing appointment in AY 2008/09 and provide any necessary assistance in preparing their documents in PDF format.

On a second CD-ROM (CD#2), and also as PDF documents, please submit the completed Request for Academic Personnel Action form (http://provost.asu.edu/forms), along with any other forms used by the college, all unit/college evaluation letters, Record of Outside Letters (http://provost.asu.edu/forms), external/internal review letters (plus the c.v.s of the external reviewers), and current copies of the academic unit’s and college’s approved promotion and continuing appointment review process criteria.

All college and university committees meeting to review continuing appointment and/or promotion files must inform the academic unit administrator or dean/university librarian (as appropriate) if there are major faults or omissions in the material or if significant questions or possible misunderstandings arise. The academic unit administrator or dean/university librarian may send additional letters to the committee as the case progresses if there is a need to either clarify or provide additional information.

All information received after the file has left the academic unit is forwarded on through each review level to the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University to be added as an Appendix to the candidate’s file. A brief statement should be written at each review level stating whether or not the new material would change their earlier recommendation in any way. Also, the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University should be notified that additional materials are on their way to be added to the candidate’s case file.

Unit/college evaluation should include:

1. The academic unit personnel review committee evaluation of position effectiveness, professional development and contribution and service in relation to approved academic unit criteria.
2. The academic unit administrator’s independent recommendation in relation to academic unit goals (if applicable, include an analysis of teaching success).
3. The college peer review committee evaluation and recommendation.
4. Dean/university librarian’s independent evaluation and recommendation.

Internal evaluation letters should address the following:

1. Analysis of the candidate’s position effectiveness.
2. Detailed evaluation of the quality and impact of the candidate’s professional contributions and service.
3. Assessment of expected future contributions.
4. clear specifications of the candidate’s contributions to collaborative projects (including external funding where applicable).
5. Comparative analysis of the candidate’s standing in the field, relative to national peers.
6. If the committee vote is not unanimous, the evaluation letter must explicitly state the minority view in the letter.

A substantive evaluation of the case must be provided and questions arising at earlier levels of review directly addressed. Do not repeat case details that have already been described in earlier letters. Rather, evaluate the case, correct misstatements, substantiate or challenge claims, and provide additional perspectives. Whatever the recommendation, the letter must make a statement and provide support. Each level of review has a different perspective on the candidate and this perspective should be evident. Be scrupulous in providing evidence and documentation for important assertions about the case.

External/internal reviewers should not be identified within the text of unit/college review letters.

If applicable, a summary analysis of teaching evaluations prepared by the academic unit administrator should be provided. The administrator should explain special challenges and/or teaching accomplishments and describe how teaching is evaluated in the unit. It is highly desirable that some data comparing the candidate’s student evaluations with the academic unit or college averages be presented. For example, at the very least, the candidate’s course ratings should be compared to academic unit averages in similar courses.

An evaluative statement from any additional units should be included if the academic professional has a joint or affiliated appointment.

The dean/university librarian should provide a cover list including the names of all academic professionals in the college that are going through the review process, listed by department, who are being considered for promotion and/or continuing appointment.

External/Internal Evaluations

Please also see the General Guidelines for the Solicitation of External Review Letters.

The final list of external/internal reviewers should include half from the candidate’s list of suggested reviewers and half from the unit administrator’s/dean/university librarian’s list of suggested reviewers. Include identifying information about the reviewers only on the grid/form provided by the Office of the Executive Vice President and University Provost. Provide detailed information about each reviewer’s qualifications, stature in the field, and familiarity with the candidate’s overall performance contributions. Anticipate potential questions from evaluators within ASU who are not in the candidate’s discipline/research area. Providing such detailed background information is particularly important if the general guidelines for selecting reviewers are not followed (e.g., selecting a distinguished academic in the field as a reviewer, but that academic is not affiliated with a research university).

All original external/internal review letters received must be included. A copy of the letter used to request the reviews must also be included (see http://provost.asu.edu/forms). No more than ten letters should be formally solicited. Academic unit administrators should feel free to contact potential reviewers prior to the formal solicitation to identify those potential reviewers most likely to respond. Additional reviewers may be contacted in an attempt to ensure at least five responses.

Current letters from reviewers in the candidate’s field of expertise may come from within ASU, although not from people already assigned to play a role in the review process. Every attempt should be made to solicit external/internal evaluations whenever possible and appropriate given the candidate’s workload expectations. External/internal reviews for scholarly contributions are required. If possible, academic unit administrators and deans/university librarian should explicate any troublesome or confusing statement made by a reviewer.

Instructions to Candidates

Please provide the following material as PDF documents on CD-ROM (CD#1):

1. Table of contents for the materials in candidate’s submission.
2. A job description of the candidate under review.
3. A statement of not more than four pages written by the candidate to put past work into perspective and to outline future goals growing out of that work. The statement should assist reviewers to determine relationships among the individual’s job performance, professional development and contributions, service, and how these activities have built the foundation for continued professional growth. An additional statement related to position effectiveness (up to 2 pages in length) may be added.
4. A current curriculum vitae, presenting a record of professional activities and contributions to the academic unit, college, institution, and profession. This might include institutional and professional service, professional publications, papers presented, grants, etc. The individual effort of the academic professional in collaborative activities should be specified.
5. A copy of up to four publications or other material reflecting scholarly/creative and professional endeavors of the candidate. A portfolio documenting overall professional activity may be submitted as one piece of evidence.
6. Optional, if the candidate’s responsibilities include instruction: supplemental materials providing evidence of instructional effectiveness may be submitted for up to 2 courses, e.g., syllabi, copies of major tests and assignments, reading lists, web sites, CDs, etc.

Contents of review packets submitted to the unit/college to be sent to external/internal reviewers:

1. Current curriculum vitae.
2. Personal statement (optional, unless required by unit/college).
3. A copy of up to four publications or other material reflecting scholarly/creative and professional endeavors of the candidate. A portfolio documenting overall professional activity may be submitted as one piece of evidence.