V. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
The University expects faculty members will achieve distinction in teaching (which includes most extension activities) and scholarship (usually through research) and provide exemplary service as collegial and constructive members of the University and professional Community. The relative emphasis to be expected for these areas is determined by the position description.
The following sections are meant to clarify the application of the University standards to the promotion and tenure process in the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology.
A. Identification of Candidates for Promotion and/or Tenure
1. The expected process is for individual faculty members to take the initiative to put their own name into consideration; this usually involves consultation with the mentoring team and Department Chairperson.
2. The Department P&T Committee may initiate the process.
3. The Department Chairperson may put a candidate forward for consideration.
4. Only Assistant Professors in their 6th year will be automatically considered for promotion and tenure.
B. Evaluation of Professorial Candidates for Promotion and/or Tenure
General Expectations: The Department expects the candidate to be creative in his or her position, to produce a body of significant, high quality work, to show initiative in developing programs and disseminating results, and thereby to gain the positive recognition of others in the profession and among users of their services. Contributions are expected in all areas of academic endeavor. A positive recommendation for promotion or tenure will be based on the candidate's past record and future potential as an effective member of the academic community.
Departmental P&T Committee evaluation of Teaching will be based on:
1. Documentation in the CV, including list of courses taught by term, a summary of the standardized "Student Assessment of Teaching" forms and list of teaching honors (See sample CV).
2. Reports of Peer Teaching Review Teams.
3. Written comments and surveys solicited from former students and Graduate Teaching Assistants.
4. The candidate's statement of teaching goals and accomplishments.
5. Written and oral reviews of the teaching portion of the candidate's dossier by a Student Teaching Assessment Committee and a Peer Teaching Assessment Committee.
6. Other material as relevant to the case.
Departmental P&T Committee evaluation of Advising will be based on:
1. Documentation in the CV, including the number of undergraduates advised (if any) by year and program, and a list of graduate students advised, including year of degree and current position.
2. College of Science "Evaluation of Undergraduate Advising" summaries as available.
3. The candidate's statement of advising goals.
4. Solicited letters of evaluation from current and former graduate students and from undergraduate advisees.
Departmental P&T Committee evaluation of Scholarship will be based on:
1. Documentation in the CV, including lists of publications, grants and other research support, other research communications (seminars, workshops, symposia, etc.), and honors for scholarship (see sample CV).
2. Published manuscripts and manuscripts in press since the last promotion. The candidate should identify the five publications he or she regards as the most significant since the last promotion.
3. Candidate's statement of research or scholarship goals and accomplishments.
4. Solicited external peer letters of evaluation.
5. Evaluation of other assigned duties will be conducted as appropriate, based on the position description.
Departmental P&T Committee evaluation of Service will be based on:
1. Documentation in the CV of candidate's collegial and constructive service to the Department, College, University and his or her profession (see sample CV).
2. Solicited external letters of evaluation, as appropriate.
C. Process for Evaluation of Teaching and Advising
Teaching and advising are important parts of most faculty position descriptions and their evaluation is an important component of most P&T evaluations. Teaching is an integral part of most Extension appointments, and Extension teaching will be evaluated in a manner parallel to the procedures described here. Teaching and advising effectiveness will be reviewed and evaluated by a Student Teaching Assessment Committee and by a Peer Teaching Assessment Committee. The Department solicits written comments from a sample of former students. The comments must be signed, and they are available to the candidate, but only upon specific request.
Student Teaching Assessment Committee: As directed by the State Board of Higher Education and the OSU Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, students shall participate in the review and assessment of the teaching portion of the dossier. The Department Chairperson shall appoint a Student Teaching Assessment Committee comprised of both graduate and undergraduate students to evaluate those portions of the candidate's dossier related to teaching. These include summaries of the standardized "Student Assessment of Teaching" forms, the letters summarizing the results of the Peer Teaching Review Teams, outcome surveys of former students, comments from Graduate Teaching Assistants supervised, and the candidate's statement of teaching philosophy. The Student Committee summarizes its evaluation in a written letter to the appropriate Dean or Deans and participates in the discussion of the P&T Committee relevant to the teaching activities of the candidate. The letter becomes part of the dossier.
Peer Teaching Assessment Committee: The P&T Executive Committee appoints the Peer Teaching Assessment Committee. The Peer Committee includes two department faculty members and a faculty member from outside the department. The Peer Committee is responsible for evaluating the teaching and advising portions of the dossier. The teaching review is based on numerical summaries of "Student Assessment of Teaching" scores, written comments solicited from former students, review of course syllabi and other materials provided by the candidate, the letters summarizing the results of the Peer Teaching Review Teams, and the candidate's statement of teaching philosophy. Evaluation of advising is based on the College of Science "Assessment of Advising" form, letters solicited from current and former graduate students and undergraduate advisees, and statement of advising philosophy.
The Peer Committee summarizes its evaluation in a written letter to the appropriate Dean(s) and participates in the discussion of the P&T Committee relevant to the teaching and advising activities of the candidate. The letter becomes part of the dossier.
D. Evaluation of Faculty Research Assistants for promotion to Senior Faculty Research Assistants
A FRA may be promoted to Senior FRA in recognition of distinguished professional service. Promotion, however, is not automatic, nor is it granted for years of service alone. Because Senior FRAs are not granted tenure, employment is always contingent on performance and availability of funds.
Oregon State University's minimal criteria for promotion of FRAs to Senior FRAs are stated in the OSU Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure. The University guidelines state those candidates for promotion to Senior FRA must have:
1. Completed at least 4 years of service.
2. A graduate degree appropriate to the field in which the research activities are performed or comparable educational or professional experience.
3. Demonstrated a high level of competence, achievement, and potential in research or serve effectively in a position requiring high individual responsibility or special professional expertise.
4. Demonstrated a high degree of initiative in research and leadership among research colleagues in the Department, as documented in authorship, management responsibilities, and creative approaches to research.
Within the Department of Botany & Plant Pathology, the following additional criteria and considerations apply to candidates for promotion to Senior FRA:
1. Candidates for promotion to Senior FRA must have the support of the supervising faculty member.
2. FRAs who do not hold a graduate degree but hold a Bachelor's degree in an appropriate field may be considered for promotion to Senior FRA after 6 years of service. The issue of comparable educational or professional experience must be clearly addressed by the FRA and the supervising faculty member in the candidate's dossier.
3. FRAs who have not yet met the required years of service (4 or 6 years within BPP), but have previous experience and have demonstrated expertise and achievement within their field sufficient to warrant promotion may be considered on an individual basis. However, in such cases, the FRA must have been employed within the Department for at least 2 years by September 15 of the year of review.
4. The promotion time-line is at the discretion of the supervising faculty member and is dependent upon both the nature of a position and the contributions made by the FRA. Some positions may not have the latitude to allow incumbents to demonstrate the professionalism and superior achievement necessary for promotion to Senior FRA. Positions without possibility of promotion should be so identified by the supervisor.
5. The supervising faculty member is responsible for careful counsel of the FRA concerning promotion and for writing a supportive letter for the promotion dossier.
6. The candidate's file will be evaluated by the Department's Senior FRAs, who will prepare a letter of evaluation addressed to Chair, P&T Executive Committee. This letter becomes part of the dossier.
7. The Senior FRA who serves on the Mentoring Team will be present for discussion of the candidate's file with the P & T Committee.
FRAs who wish to be considered for promotion should notify their supervisor and the P&T Executive Committee before the end of Spring term.