Tenure and Promotion
for Extension Faculty:
Tips for the Evaluated and the Evaluators
Larry Smith
Executive Senior Vice Provost
Utah State University
Annual Utah Extension Conference
March 5, 2014
Tips for the Evaluated and the Evaluators
Know for certain what your
role and responsibilities
are, both as a candidate and as a
member of the advisory committee–
DON’T
GUESS
Larry Smith
Executive Senior Vice Provost
Utah State University
Annual Utah Extension Conference
March 4, 2014
Read the Faculty Code Section 405.4.
405.4 Tenure and Promotion:
Criteria for Faculty with Extension Ranks
4.2 Criteria for the Award of Tenure and for Promotion from Extension
Assistant Professor to Extension Associate Professor
 Tenure and promotion from extension assistant professor to
extension associate professor are awarded on the basis by which
an extension faculty member performs his or her role statement.
 Although extension faculty are expected to carry out the major
university functions of teaching, research or creative endeavors,
extension, and service, individual emphasis will vary as described
in the extension faculty member's role statement.
 Each candidate must present evidence of effectiveness in all of
the professional domains in which he or she performs and must
present evidence of excellence in the major emphasis of his or her
role statement.
405.4 Tenure and Promotion:
Criteria for Faculty with Extension Ranks
4.4 Criteria for Promotion from Extension Associate Professor
to Extension Professor
In addition to the criteria for promotion to extension associate
professor, promotion to the rank of extension professor:
 shall require an established outstanding reputation for excellence in
teaching, development of programs relevant to the identified
population, and extension, according to the role statement.
Fight TTWWADI:
“That’s The Way We’ve Always Done It”
Role of Tenure Advisory Committee
Old Code:
405.6.2 (1) Tenure advisory committee
The role of the tenure advisory committee is to assist the faculty member in the
achievement of tenure through appropriate counsel and advisement and to render
judgment that the faculty member has or has not attained the criteria for tenure.
Current Code:
405.6.2 (1) Tenure advisory committee (TAC).
The role and responsibility of the TAC is to provide an annual evaluation of a
faculty member's progress toward tenure and promotion. The TAC is responsible
for providing feedback to the faculty member with regard to progress toward
tenure and promotion, and shall recommend (a) to renew the appointment or (b)
not to renew the appointment (407.2.1(5)). In the final year of the pre-tenure
probationary period, the committee shall recommend (a) awarding promotion and
tenure or (b) denying promotion and tenure (407.2.1(5)).
Tips for theand
Evaluated
and the Evaluators
Your tenure
promotion
evaluation
is focused on performance relative to
the role statement.
 Make sure your role statement reflects what you are supposed
be doing.
 Make sure evaluative weights assigned to you are correct.
Larry Smith
Senior
Vice Provost
 Both candidate andExecutive
advisory
committee
members should be
Statestatement.
University
intimately familiar with Utah
the role
Annual Utah Extension Conference
Marchand
4, 2014
 When constructing the tenure
promotion dossier, provide
evidence that you are performing duties defined by the role
statement.
dossier
Tips forThe
the Evaluated
and is
the the
Evaluators
candidate’s responsibility
Code: 405.6.3 Candidate's File
The candidate is responsible for keeping his or her professional
file current and complete. This file is the primary source of
information for the tenure advisory committee or promotion
advisory committee. The file should include thorough
documentation related to the responsibilities outlined in the role
statement.
Larry Smith
Executive Senior Vice Provost
Utah State University
Annual Utah Extension Conference
March 4, 2014
Advisory committee members - WARNING!!
Any advice to the candidate about dossier content
should be made carefully!!
Candidates and the Dossier
 One binder
 Provide evidence of performance in line with duties in role
statement.
 Be creative in design and content, but make it easy to read and
follow.
 Self Assessment Statement Don’t just summarize the CV.
 You did X, Y, and Z…Why, and what IMPACT did it have, and
HOW do you know?
 CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!
 IMPACT, IMPACT, IMPACT!
 EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE!
Candidates and the Dossier
 Write so someone outside Extension can understand.

Extension Philosophy!!

Don’t include

This is not a scrapbook!
Advisory Committee Members and
Candidate Review

Concentrate on assessment and evaluation, not dossier design
and construction.

Conduct meetings properly.
 (Chairs) Discuss with others (in or outside of Extension)
how to conduct T & P meetings.
 Review role of ombudspersons.

Exert professional discretion; be honest and forthright.

Committee letters should NOT be CV summary; should be
serious assessment of performance:
 What are the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, and
WHY – what is evidence?

Be accurate in your letter, don’t exaggerate or gloss over
important feature of binder.

Address…
“elephants in the room”
External Peer Reviews

Selected by department head and advisory committee:
405.7.2(1)
“The department head or supervisor and the tenure
advisory committee shall mutually agree to the peer
reviewers from whom letters will be solicited.”

Up to half of external peer reviewers from the head and
committee; at least half from the candidate.
“At least one-half of the reviewers must be selected from
the candidate's list.”

External peer reviewers should be qualified to evaluate the
candidate.
“The reviewers must be external to the university and must
be held with respect in academe.”
External Peer Reviews (Continued)

External peer reviewers should not have a conflict of interest
with candidate.
“The candidate will be asked … to state the nature of his or
her acquaintance with each of them.”



Should be objective evaluators.
Should not be letters of recommendation or reference.
Department Heads:
1. Add paragraph biographies of the external peer reviewers
and explain why they were chosen.
2. Full length CVs not necessary.
3. Add copy of letter that went to external peer reviewers.
4. Add a list of materials that the EPR’s received.
Recommendation Letters
from Advisory Committees,
Department Heads, or Deans:
NEVER INCLUDE NAMES OR IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION OF EXTERNAL PEER
REVIEWERS!
NEVER INCLUDE NAMES OR
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
OF EXTERNAL PEER
REVIEWERS!
NEVER INCLUDE
NAMES OR
IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION OF
EXTERNAL PEER
REVIEWERS!
Take Home Messages

Understand correct process and responsibilities in code.

Candidates: Make case for tenure and promotion relative to the role
statement.

Candidates and Reviewers: Provide context and evidence for
strengths and weaknesses

Be thorough and honest. Address ‘elephants’.