DRAFT
August 22, 2005
Revision of P&T recommended revisions and response to Senate discussions
Senate leadership:
Doug Johnson
Carol Johnston
Susan Mattson
Richard Morris
Paul Patterson
Duane Roen
Office of the University Provost:
Nancy Gutierrez/Marjorie Zatz
Background
ASU’s process for promotion and tenure reviews has undergone several changes in the last few
years (see end of document). Along with these procedural changes, a Promotion and Tenure task
suggested several major revisions in 2003, several of which were accepted by the University
Provost.
During AY 2004-05, a working group was appointed to develop an implementation plan based
on the recommendations of the previous year’s P&T Task Force. This plan had several
elements, but particularly recommended replacing the campus P&T committees with
individualized ad hoc committees. In addition, it was recommended that an advocate be assigned
for each faculty member; this advocate would normally be the chair.
The campus senates met in the spring and each expressed a number of questions and issues
regarding the implementation. The faculty leadership from the three campuses and a
representative from the University Provost’s Office met several times in the early summer to
consider the comments made by the Tempe and west campus senate members at their last
meetings.
These concerns rested particularly upon the ad hoc committee structure and the advocate:
1. Ad hoc committees:
 “Near” expertise does not justify the extreme logistics needed for this structure
 Unintended consequences might occur: a candidate “shopping” for committees,
reluctance for collaboration
 Consistency of evaluation would be called into question
 Changes in disciplinary areas might complicate candidate’s decision
2. Advocate
The P&T Task Force recommended an advocate at the same time it recommended an ad hoc
committee structure, comprised partly of internal and partly of external people. The advocate
would normally be the department chair, and the function of the advocate would be to explain
the faculty member’s contributions within the context of unit mission and goals. In this scenario,
an advocate makes sense since some committee members would have no knowledge about local
1
DRAFT
August 22, 2005
cultures. In an ad hoc committee structure with only internal people, the advocate makes less
sense. In a structure of standing disciplinary committees, in which each committee has
representatives from each campus, the advocate is less necessary. Further, since in the ASU
system all files go forward, even when not supported by the chair, identifying the chair as the
usual advocate is problematic.
Thus, the proposed addition of an “advocate” seems unwieldy and unnecessary.
The Function of each review level
As we discussed these concerns, we focused on the role of the university committee within the
structure of the entire P&T review, as well as the roles of the other levels.
Each level of review is responsible for insuring the integrity of the review process. Each level
provides a different perspective on the faculty member’s file.
At the unit level, the unit committee and the chair evaluate the faculty member’s contributions as
a teacher/scholar within the context of the unit’s goals. These evaluators bring to their
evaluations both intrinsic knowledge of the departmental academic environment and the
workings of the field nationally and internationally. These reviews are the most substantive, for
the reviewers are situated within the candidate’s field. The objective of procedures at the unit
level should be to create sufficient confidence in its evaluation process that most of its
recommendations are accepted at higher levels of review.
At the college level, the perspective is different because the college committee and the dean
evaluate the faculty member’s contributions in light of the college mission. This means that the
reviewers look at the role of the unit in achieving college goals, and the role of the faculty
member in the unit’s level of participation. They examine the unit letters and the external letters
for evidence that the faculty member actively participates in the instructional and scholarly work
of the field. Because the faculty member and the college reviewers are members of the same
college, the reviews provide local expertise in regards to broad disciplinary and interdisciplinary
contributions, both in scholarship and in teaching. However, this level of review normally
cannot speak with authority to the faculty member’s role in knowledge creation or instructional
responsibilities in his/her field.
At the university level, the university committee and the provost(s) take the broadest perspective
on the file. They may or may not be in the faculty member’s college. They look for the faculty
member’s positive impact on the unit and college goals. They particularly rely on the unit letters
and the external letters to provide evidence for impact upon the discipline. Overall, they look for
a strong and credible argument that the faculty member contributes to the mission of the unit and
college, and that the faculty member is making a difference in the field. They expect to see both
qualitative and quantitative evidence for the assertions in the file. They look that the
recommendations offered at each level are documented and evident to justify those
recommendations.
2
DRAFT
August 22, 2005
Recommendations
I. Standing area committees
Standing disciplinary committees should replace the current campus committees. These
committees would bring “near” expertise without the stress on resources required by an ad hoc
committee structure.
The university review level will involve six broad area committees consisting of seven faculty
members each. The first five area committees of the six listed below are ones often used by
social science researchers who focus on issues such as career development. The sixth area
captures those faculty members whose expertise lies in certain professional areas of business and
the public sector:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Arts and Design
Humanities
Sciences
Social Sciences
Engineering and Technology
Managerial and Legal Studies
Of the seven faculty members in each of these area committees, one will be an elected member
from each of the ASU campuses; the remaining members will be nominated by the university
provost, in consultation with campus provosts. The list of nominees will be sent to the Senate
leadership for concurrence. Any unfilled elected positions will revert to the Senate for
appointment. The rationale behind appointment of particular faculty to each committee is to
achieve as much balance as possible in terms of gender, ethnicity, and specificity within the
broad area. Members will serve staggered three-year terms. Each committee will elect a chair
who will serve for 1 year.
Faculty candidates for promotion and/or tenure will select the area committee that will review
their files. This selection will be based on the faculty candidate’s discipline, teaching, and
scholarship direction.
The campus representatives will be elected by the respective academic senates at each site. The
Senate committee on committees for Tempe and West campuses will prepare a slate of eligible
candidates (at least 2 from each campus); the ASU Academic Senate committee on committees
will prepare the slate for the East campus as well as the downtown campus when it becomes
active if its governance structure does not include a senate. The ballots will then be submitted to
the faculty assemblies at each campus for electronic vote. When feasible, candidates for the
ballot will be Full Professors, and will be solicited by the committees on committees through an
open call, through nominations by individual faculty, and through input from unit administrators.
When necessary, an experienced, tenured Associate Professor will be considered for service.
Each committee candidate will indicate which broad area committee they wish to serve on in
terms of how it best fits their discipline, teaching interests and scholarship areas. Faculty who
3
DRAFT
August 22, 2005
are elected or appointed to serve on the university level committees should not serve on college
or department personnel advisory committees.
II. Elimination of the Advocate
The proposed addition of an “advocate” seems unwieldy and unnecessary with this new structure
and should not be a required element. However, the university-wide broad area committees
should be empowered to seek clarification of material in candidates’ files, whenever such
clarification would explain issues/questions/ambiguities in the file. This culture change—
whereby the committees would take action to seek answers to their questions—is strongly
recommended.
III. Training
The Office of the University Provost, in collaboration with the campus provosts and faculty
leadership, will provide a series of workshops to train the members of the university committees.
These workshops will be scheduled during fall 2006.
IV. Suggested Timeline
In early fall, 2005, the academic senates will review the revised proposal. If accepted, the
following timeline should be put in place:
March, 2006
Provosts offices notified of faculty planning to apply for tenure and/or
promotion.
Spring 2006
Campuses elect members of area committees through regular
Senate processes
Provost of the University, in consultation with campus provosts,
nominates remaining members for Senate leadership approval.
Meeting times scheduled for spring 2006, so that faculty members can
adjust teaching/ work schedules
Fall 2006
Training for committee members, provided by the Office of the University
Provost
4