College of Arts and Sciences
Faculty and Staff Resources

Professional Review, Promotion, and Tenure

  •  

     

    College of Arts and Sciences Policies Regarding Professional Review, Promotion, and Tenure

    Note: the policies of the College of Arts and Sciences are a supplement to and do not supercede the policies of Seattle University. Please review the Faculty Handbook and the University Rank and Tenure File Preparation Guidelines in Academic Affairs Faculty Policies and Procedures.

    Annual Professional Review

    All full time faculty participate in a yearly process of review conducted by the Chairs of their departments. The process requires that faculty use the Annual Professional Review form. The forms for the use of tenured or tenure-track and full-time non tenure-track faculty are available from the Dean's office or at the following link: .

    Due dates for the APRs are:

    For full time tenure, tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty: 2nd Monday of February
    For department chairs: 3rd Monday of February

    Please note that these are the dates for APRs to be turned in to the Associate Deans. Due dates to department chairs are set by individual chairs.

    Syllabi, course materials, and, where appropriate or required, the conducting of classes, should be peer-reviewed by methods approved in the College. The Arts and Sciences student evaluations, which are required for all classes, should also be reviewed. The professional review must include the teaching of Core classes for those faculty teaching in the Core, and these classes must be reviewed according to Core as well as departmental criteria.

    In the course of reviewing their performance for the past calendar year, faculty should also discuss their plans for scholarly development or research, the development of new courses, needs for institutional support and the like. Based on these meetings, the Chair will inform the Dean of the state of the department and the faculty and will make requests for institutional support.

    NOTE: Only those faculty who participate in the process of the annual review will be eligible to receive an increase in salary. The Faculty professional review form is also used for the purpose of allocating performance-based salary increases.

    Exceptions to January Timeline

    The review of faculty in the first year toward tenure replaces the process of the annual review for that year. NOTE: the Annual Professional Review form is included with all materials required for the third year review file.

    Faculty on a full year's sabbatical will report on their sabbatical in the Fall quarter of their return to the Dean and the Provost, as required by the Faculty Handbook (11.4.e,). This report replaces the Annual Professional Review for the calendar year during which two or more quarters of the sabbatical occurred. For example, a report on a sabbatical taken for a full year in AY 2005-2006 will count as the Annual Professional Review in January, 2007. Faculty who take only a one-quarter's sabbatical in any given year will complete the Annual Professional Review as usual.

    Formal Reviews of Progress Toward Tenure

    All candidates for rank and tenure are expected to conform to University policies. These articulate the minimal standards for rank and tenure and apply across all programs and colleges at Seattle University.

    What follows are the A&S guidelines for rank and tenure. It is recommnded that all new faculty meet with their department chairs to review both the College and University guidelines and to establish a timeline for progress toward rank and tenure.

    In addition to the Year-One-Through-Seven timeline below, all tenure track faculty will complete APRs every year, in accordance to the APR guidelines stated above, except during the first contract year. Please note that APRs are included in both the third year mid-probationary and sixth year tenure files.

    YEAR ONE:
    New Faculty are reviewed by means of a letter from their Chairs at the end of the academic year. The chairperson's letter should be submitted to the appropriate divisional Dean by the 3rd Friday in June. In preparation for the chair’s review, faculty are asked to submit a one- to two-page reflection on teaching, scholarship, and service, along with a list of teaching, scholarly, and service activities performed during the year. This list should include the following: 1) for teaching, courses taught, mean and median student evaluation scores for the course as a whole and the first five evaluation questions, and all original student evaluations (including spring quarter, if available); 2) for scholarship, a list of projects completed or in progress; 3) for service, a list of service commitments. Chairs are encouraged to help new faculty to keep service commitments, including academic advising, to a minimum during the first year. Departments are encouraged to conduct a formative review at some point during the first year. No summative peer reviews of teaching are mandated. For definitions of summative and formative reviews, please see Differences between Formative and Summative Assessment of Teaching. Formative reviews go to individual faculty. Formative reviews, including those done through the Collegium, should NOT be included in 3rd year probationary or tenure files. The chair’s first year letter will be included in the faculty member’s file at the time of the third year review.  

    YEAR TWO:

    For the purposes of the tenure process, faculty must have at least two summative peer reviews of teaching completed during the second year. Faculty may choose to have a third summative review completed this year. If they do not, the third summative review must be completed during the fall of Year Three. Faculty may have the same course section evaluated more than once within a given quarter, but only one of these summative peer reviews may count towards the required number (as noted by URTC, p. 6).

    The Executive Committee and the Dean have approved a form to be used for summative peer reviews, available at the following link:

    Peer Review Form  

    For further details on the Peer Review process, see section titled “Peer Review of Teaching” below.

    YEAR THREE:
    By the second Friday after winter quarter classes start, the candidate’s third-year review file and the department’s evaluation are submitted to the Dean’s Office. This means that the faculty member must submit this file to the department by a prior deadline established by the department chair. The third-year file is a mid-probationary review and must follow University guidelines for tenure file preparation (see above link). At least three summative peer reviews of teaching must be included. No formative peer reviews of teaching should be included.  After the departmental review committee reviews the faculty file and completes its evaluation, a department representative (tenured) summarizes the department's recommendation in a letter to the College Rank and Tenure Committee; this letter should be signed by the entire committee, and include minority reports when these exist. In accordance with URTC (p. 3), the Chair writes a separate letter with his or her recommendations (see URTC, p.3, for guidelines on chair letters).  The College Rank and Tenure Committee reviews the file to assess the faculty member’s teaching, scholarship, and service, and makes recommendations to the Dean. The Dean and faculty member meet to discuss the Committee and departmental comments sometime in late February or early March. All letters and recommendations (departmental, College Rank & Tenure Committee, Dean) are sent on to the Provost’s Office for review. According to the Faculty Handbook (section 5.3.f), the Provost may choose to review the entire file.

    Once faculty submit the third-year file to the Dean, they may apply for a one quarter pre-tenure sabbatical. Please refer to the Junior Faculty Professional Development Grant Policy and Application on the Academic Affairs website for details on this application. It should be noted that the pre-tenure sabbatical represents a release from all teaching and service obligations (departmental, college, and university level), for the sole purpose of pre-tenure scholarship.

    YEARS FOUR & FIVE

    Faculty must have three additional summative reviews completed in the two years before applying for tenure; that is, during years 4 and 5. Faculty may have the same course section evaluated more than once  within a given quarter, but only one of these summative peer reviews may count towards the required number.

    In the spring of Year 5, faculty also prepare for an external review of scholarship/creative work and submit a list of between six and eight potential external reviewers to their department chairperson (please see following section, “College of Arts & Sciences Policy for External Review,” for full details).  

    YEAR SIX: 

    The faculty member's tenure file must be prepared according to the University's criteria and ready for review by the departmental review committee at the latest by the 2nd Monday in September. (Some departments hold their review at the end of Spring quarter in year five.) According to the Faculty Handbook (section 5.5.c), “the minimum size of a departmental personnel review committee shall be three (3) tenured faculty members. If the department does not have three (3) qualified tenured members who can form the personnel review committee, the personnel review committee of the relevant school or college, in consultation with the Dean … , shall appoint sufficient additional tenured faculty members.” After the departmental review committee determines its recommendation concerning tenure and votes, a department representative (tenured) summarizes the department's recommendation in a letter to the College Rank and Tenure Committee; this letter should be signed by the entire committee, and include minority reports when these exist. The Chair writes a separate letter with his or her recommendations. The file should then be brought to the Dean's office by the first Monday in October. The College's Rank and Tenure Committee will review all files and make recommendations by Thanksgiving to the Dean who, in turn, will submit the files to the Provost's office by December 1st. The dean will also provide a written summary of his or her own recommendation and the reasons for that recommendation to the candidate. In forming her or his own recommendation, the dean shall give due weight and appropriate consideration to the recommendation of the Departmental and College Review Committees.

    YEAR SEVEN: 

    If the faculty member is granted tenure, this is the faculty member's first year of tenure at Seattle University. If denied tenure, this is the last contract year; those in their last contract year may choose to complete an APR at their discretion.

     

    SummativePeer Reviews of Teaching:

    Summative Peer Reviews of classes are especially important for providing a perspective on a teacher's competence not available from the Student Evaluation forms. The Executive Committee and the Dean have approved a form to be used for summative peer reviews, available at the following link:

    Peer Review Form

    Classes must be peer reviewed according to the guidelines of the College's Peer Review form and the procedures of one's department.

    NOTE: Peer reviews that are to be part of the record must be authorized by the chair, whose signature on the peer review indicates that it has been accepted as part of the record.

    College of Arts and Sciences Schedule of Peer Reviews for tenure track faculty:
    Year Three: Three summative reviews required by FALL of Year Three.
    Year Five: Three summative reviews required (from years four and five) by SPRING of Year Five.

    For Promotion only: at least three peer evaluations from the two years preceding the application.

    Arts and Sciences Form for Student Assessment

    All courses in the College of Arts and Sciences are to be evaluated using the standard student evaluation form for the College. Toward the end of the quarter, the Dean's office distributes electronic evaluation forms to the students registered in each class After the evaluations have been tabulated by the Dean’s office the faculty member and Chair receive the entire evaluation (both the numerical summary and written comments) for review and for the departmental record.

    When compiling a file for promotion and/or tenure, faculty are required to include the original student comments and responses as well as the summary results for each class. 

     Template for Reporting Student Evaluations

     

    College of Arts and Sciences Policy for External Review of Scholarship and Creative Work for Tenure and/or Promotion to Associate Professor

    Creative Work for Tenure and/or Promotion to Associate Professor
    In the College of Arts and Sciences, candidates for tenure and/or promotion to associate professor are required by the College to provide two evaluations from peers outside the university which can speak to the quality and significance of the candidate’s scholarly/creative work.

    If the nature of the work is scholarship:
    Candidates for tenure and/or promotion to Associate Professor are asked to submit a list of
    six to eight names of potential external reviewers to their department chairpersons. For each name, the candidate should indicate briefly the professional qualifications of the potential reviewer and describe any personal or professional relationship between the reviewer and the candidate. Candidates may indicate their initial top two preferences from this list. The chairperson may consult with other tenured members of the department concerning the list of reviewers and may propose additional names. The final list of reviewers will be selected by the chairperson.

    When the list of external reviewers has been chosen, the appropriate divisional Associate Dean will write to request their services. Two completed external review letters are required for tenure and promotion (per URTC).External reviewers will be offered an honorarium for their assistance and it will be explained that their participation and letters of review are confidential to the fullest extent permitted by law. When the external reviewers have agreed to participate, they will be sent copies of the candidate’s scholarly work (a representative selection of the candidate’s work made jointly by the candidate and the department chairperson) along with a copy of the University and College written standards of scholarship for tenure and promotion to associate professor. Along with the scholarship samples, the  candidate has the option of submitting a statement describing the nature and context of her/his work.

    Reviewers will be asked to evaluate the “the quality and significance of the candidate’s scholarly work” in the context of Seattle University’s mission. The reviewer will also be asked to comment on whether both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed works, taken as a whole, meet the Faculty Handbook standards for tenure and/or promotion to associate professor (“evidence of scholarly achievement and professional activity, as well as promise of continued scholarly development”) as well as meeting any written standards developed for the College.

    Timetable for External Reviews of Scholarship:

    March 15

    • Faculty indicate their intention to apply for tenure and promotion.
    • Faculty nominate external reviewers to department chairperson.

     March 20

     April 1

    • Associate Dean solicits external reviewers.
    • Faculty submit copies of research materials.
    • Dean's office orders copies of candidates' books, if needed.
    • Materials are mailed to reviewers as confirmations are made.

    1st Monday in September

    • Reviews due.

     

    If the nature of the work is creative (e.g., in the visual or performing arts):
    Candidate must document evidence of creative achievement and professional activity as well as promise of continued creative development. This work must include at least one presentation or performance for a recognized arts organization (theatre, gallery) off campus. Two types of review are required:

    1. Individual creative works. The candidate’s work must be evaluated at the time of performance or public presentation; therefore he/she will accumulate external reviews over an extended period of time. These reviews may include, but are not limited to: solicited external reviews by professionals in the artist’s field, newspaper or magazine reviews, letters of acceptance for juried exhibits or productions. These reviews will be kept on file until the time of the candidate’s application for promotion.

    2. Portfolio of creative work. The portfolio will include an artist’s statement, representations of work, and the reviews of individual creative works compiled at the time of performance or presentation. Two reviewers having academic positions outside Seattle University will be asked to review this portfolio of materials submitted by the faculty member. The selection of outside reviewers will follow the process and timeline outlined above for scholarly work. The reviewers of the portfolio will be asked to evaluate the faculty member’s overall achievement and development as a creative artist based on the evidence of the faculty member’s total body of work and in the context of Seattle University’s mission.  

    College of Arts and Sciences Policy for External Review of Scholarship and Creative Work for Promotion to Full Professor

    Associate Dean Kathleen La Voy is available to answer candidates' questions about these guidelines confidentially.

    Candidates for promotion to full professor are required by university policy to provide "at least three evaluations from peers outside the university which can speak to the quality and significance of the candidate's scholarly work."

    If the nature of the work is scholarship:
    Candidates for promotion to full professor are asked to submit a list of six to eight names of potential external reviewers to their department chairpersons. For each name, the candidate should indicate briefly the professional qualifications of the potential reviewer and describe any personal or professional relationship between the reviewer and the candidate. Candidates may indicate their initial top two preferences from this list. The chairperson may consult with other tenured members of the department concerning the list of reviewers, and may propose additional names. The final list of reviewers will be selected by the chairperson.

    When the list of external reviewers has been chosen, the Associate Dean will write to request their services. Three letters from external reviewers are required per URTC. External reviewers will be offered an honorarium for their assistance and it will be explained that their participation and letters of review are confidential to the fullest extent permitted by law. When the external reviewers have agreed to participate, they will be sent copies of the candidate’s scholarly work (a representative selection of the candidate’s work made jointly by the candidate and the department chairperson) along with a copy of the University and College written standards of scholarship for promotion to full professor.  Along with the scholarship samples, the  candidate has the option of submitting a statement describing the nature and context of her/his work.

    Reviewers will be asked to evaluate the “the quality and significance of the candidate’s scholarly work” in the context of Seattle University’s mission. The reviewer will also be asked to comment on whether both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed works, taken as a whole, meet the Faculty Handbook standards for promotion to full professor (“a sustained record of significant scholarly and professional activity”) as well as meeting any written standards developed for the College.

    Timetable for External Reviews of Scholarship: 

    March 15

    • Faculty indicate their intention to apply for tenure and promotion.
    • Faculty nominate external reviewers to department chairperson.

     March 20

     April 1

    • Associate Dean solicits external reviewers.
    • Faculty submit copies of research materials.
    • Dean's office orders copies of candidates' books, if needed.
    • Materials are mailed to reviewers as confirmations are made.

    1st Monday in September

    • Reviews due.

    If the nature of the work is creative (e.g., in the visual or performing arts):
    Candidate must document evidence of creative achievement and professional activity as well as promise of continued creative development. This work must include at least one presentation or performance for a recognized arts organization (theatre, gallery) off campus. Two types of review are required:

    1. Individual creative works. The candidate’s work must be evaluated at the time of performance or public presentation; therefore he/she will accumulate external reviews over an extended period of time. These reviews may include, but are not limited to: solicited external reviews by professionals in the artist’s field, newspaper or magazine reviews, letters of acceptance for juried exhibits or productions. These reviews will be kept on file until the time of the candidate’s application for promotion.

    2. Portfolio of creative work. The portfolio will include an artist’s statement, representations of work, and the reviews of individual creative works compiled at the time of performance or presentation. Three reviewers having academic positions outside Seattle University will be asked to review this portfolio of materials submitted by the faculty member. The selection of outside reviewers will follow the process and timeline outlined above for scholarly work. The reviewers of the portfolio will be asked to evaluate the faculty member’s overall achievement and development as a creative artist based on the evidence of the faculty member’s total body of work and in the context of Seattle University’s mission.

     

    Resources for File Preparation: 

    Faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences are asked to use these resources to organize their promotion and tenure files, in order to facilitate the work of the review committees.

    • Faculty Handbook sections 2-5 cover policies of faculty appointments, criteria for apointment and promotion in academic rank, and procedures for evaluation of faculty.
    • Rank and Tenure File Preparation Guidelines give an overview of the file application structure and what must be included across all disciplines. 
    • Rank and Tenure Electronic File Preparation Guidelines provide instructions for preparing and saving the file for electronic review.
    • Using Shared Drives for Rank and Tenure provides instructions on accessing SU shared directories from a PC or Mac as well as how to connect from an off-campus computer. 
    • Administrative Coordinator to the Deans, Heather Reis Fike, will provide candidates with grade distribution reports and shared drive access for electronic file submission.
    • College Administrative Specialist, Cat Aurelio, will provide candidates with comparative teaching evaluation data.
    • Asociate Dean Kathleen La Voy is available to answer candidates' questions about these guidelines confidentially as someone who does not participate in the review of files.

       

    •  

       

    Updates to the guidelines presented on this page were approved by the Arts and Sciences Executive Committee May of 2013.