Promotion and Tenure

1) Where should candidates undergoing a review for promotion or promotion with tenure first turn with questions?

They should first turn to the chair of the Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Committee in their unit. Although OAA is always happy to answer any questions, most questions from candidates can better be answered at the local level by individuals familiar with the unit’s APT document and departmental practices.

2) A candidate wants to include work on a specific project under both teaching and research in the Core Dossier. Is this permitted?

The dossier should not contain any duplicative material. If the candidate is unsure where to include a specific project, the chair of the P&T Committee should recommend the best location in the dossier. The candidate may include a brief explanation of how the material relates to both sections in the narrative portions of the dossier.

3) A candidate wants to include material in the Core Dossier from time spent at another institution. Is this permitted?

Use the date of hire or date of last promotion, whichever is most recent. However, such material may be included if the eligible faculty consider it relevant to the review (e.g., research work begun at another institution and completed at Ohio State; national awards and prizes). Where included, the candidate should clearly indicate what material is work completed at Ohio State, and what material is from time spent at a previous institution.

4) A candidate for promotion to professor wants to include material in the Core Dossier that was included in their mandatory review. Is this permitted?

The current review should focus on the accomplishments since the date of the mandatory review. The eligible faculty may allow a candidate to include information from before the date of last promotion if it feels such information would be relevant to the review. Where included, the candidate should clearly indicate what material is work completed since the date of the mandatory review, and what material is from prior to the mandatory review.

5) A candidate for promotion to professor wants to include verbatim student comments for the past ten years. Is this permitted?

OAA discourages including material that is older than five years old in the teaching section of the dossier. Furthermore, verbatim student comments are not to be included. Instead, a summary of the comments is to be included in the dossier. This summary can be written by a member of the P&T committee or by a staff member. The POD and the candidate should review the summary to ensure that it is representative of the student comments. The candidate should not prepare the summary.

6) A candidate would like to include additional material in the dossier. How do they do this?

Additional materials may be requested by the eligible faculty and appended at the end of the Core Dossier. These materials should only be forwarded to the college at the request of the dean. They should not be forwarded to OAA.

7) Should a work in progress be included in the list of publications?

Only works that have been submitted for review should be listed in Section (1)(k) of Research. Works that are being drafted and not yet submitted may be included in the narrative section (3) under Research.

8) Are conference presentations and published abstracts of the same presentation considered double counting or considered different things?

No, these should be treated as different entries.

9) How should candidates be advised to document conference presentations that were accepted but unable to be delivered due to COVID-related cancellations or postponements?

The following guidelines should be used when documenting information about presentations from Spring 2020. 

• If the presentation was accepted, and the conference was cancelled.
  • Include the presentation in the list and add a note that the presentation was not delivered due to the conference being cancelled.
  • A note can read: 
    • This presentation was accepted by the conference committee. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the conference was cancelled, and I was not able to give this presentation.
• If the presentation was accepted, the conference was NOT cancelled, but travel restrictions resulted in the faculty member being unable to attend.
  • A note can read:
    • This presentation was accepted by the conference committee. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I was unable to attend the conference due to university- sanctioned travel restrictions and was, therefore, unable to give this presentation.
•   If the presentation was accepted, the conference was moved online, and the presentation was given.
  • Include the presentation in the same manner as for other conferences. A note can be added, but is not needed, that the conference was moved from a face-to-face format to an online format.
  • A note can read:
    • This presentation was accepted as an in-person presentation. Due to COVID- 19, the conference was moved online, and I presented in the online format of the conference.
• If the presentation was accepted, the conference was moved online, and the presentation was not given.
  • Do not include this presentation in the dossier
•  If a presentation was postponed, but it was going to be used to meet a benchmark, include in the dossier with the future date.
  • A note can read:
    • This presentation was accepted as an in-person presentation for a conference scheduled in Spring 2020. Due to COVID-19, the conference was postponed to [DATE]. I am scheduled to present this session/poster/etc. at that conference, and the acceptance of my proposal has been affirmed.

10) As it pertains to clinical faculty, does OAA have formal definition of what “Practice” is?

There is no specific definition.

Clinical/teaching/practice are faculty appointments of the same type that are fixed term contract appointments that do not entail tenure. These faculty are teacher/practitioners and shall be engaged primarily in teaching activities related to: (a) courses or instructional situations involving live patients or live clients, (b) courses or instructional situations involving the simulation of live patients or live clients, (c) courses or instructional situations involving professional skills, or (d) teaching as defined in chapter 3335-6-02(A)(2) of the Faculty Rules.

11) If there are three authors on a publication, do they all claim 33% or does the first author claim 34%?

In cases of multiple authorship, a narrative description (approximately 50 words) of the candidate’s intellectual contribution and percentage of contribution is required. The authors should determine percentage effort among themselves.

For grant applications, the candidate may provide the approximate percentage of their contribution in relation to the total intellectual effort involved in the grant proposal if the unit or college requires this information.

1) A department has a tenured faculty member with a 50% FTE appointment in the department, but the faculty member’s tenure is in the other department. Can they vote on P&T cases in the department in which they do not hold tenure?

No. An individual is only a member of the eligible faculty in the unit where their tenure resides.

2) A candidate is under consideration for promotion to professor, but the department has only two professors. How should they proceed?

The department chair, in consultation with the dean, will appoint a professor from another department in the college to serve as a member of the eligible faculty for this review. The outside member(s) should not serve as chair of the committee of the eligible faculty or POD for the review.

3) A member of the committee of eligible faculty is going to be out of town when the committee meets to discuss and vote on a candidate’s promotion. Is the faculty member permitted to vote?

Members of the committee of eligible faculty who are unable to be physically present for the discussion may vote only if they participate in the entire discussion via audio or teleconferencing (e.g., phone, Zoom).

4) A member of the committee of the eligible faculty has co‐authored an article with the candidate under review for promotion. Is this a conflict of interest?

Maybe. OAA’s position is that a conflict exists when the faculty member is co‐author on a significant portion (at least 50%) of the candidate’s published work. In instances where the collaboration is less significant, the guiding principle is whether or not the collaborator’s individual, professional investment in the candidate’s success could cloud their reading of the dossier. The committee of eligible faculty should discuss the potential conflict and the chair of the committee or the TIU head (depending on the unit’s APT document) should rule on the conflict before discussion begins on the candidate’s dossier.

5) The TIU head wants to attend the meeting of the committee of the eligible faculty. Is this permitted

OAA requires that TIU heads be ex officio members of every TIU committee, including the committee of eligible faculty. As a member of the committee, the TIU head has the right to attend and speak at these meetings, though the Rules of the University Faculty prohibit the TIU head from voting. In some units the TIU head runs the meeting, yet in others they attend primarily to listen and answer questions that arise.

6) Is someone on Faculty Professional Leave a member of the committee eligible faculty?

Faculty on approved leave are not considered for quorum unless they declare, in advance and in writing, of their intent to participate in all P&T proceedings for all candidates they are eligible to vote on.

7) Are associate deans permitted to participate in the deliberations of the committee of eligible faculty

Faculty Rule 3335-6-04(B)(1) states that “with the exception noted below, eligible faculty are tenured faculty of higher rank than the candidate excluding the tenure initiating unit chair, the dean and assistant and associate deans of the college, the executive vice president and provost, and the president. For tenure reviews of probationary professors, eligible faculty are tenured professors excluding the tenure initiating unit chair, the dean and assistant and associate deans of the college, the executive vice president and provost, and the president.”

8) Are vice provosts eligible to participate in P&T at the TIU level?

Vice provosts are eligible to serve on the committee of eligible faculty. The vice provost for academic policy and faculty resources, though eligible, should not participate in the process, as they represent the university in the latter stages of the process.

1) What should be included in the description of external evaluators submitted to OAA?

If the evaluator is directly in the field, only a very brief description of qualifications is needed to establish credibility. A longer and more detailed explanation is needed if the credibility of the evaluator needs some further justification (i.e., the reviewer is not at a peer institution, is in another field, does not have the usual terminal degree in the field). OAA does not require anything in addition to Form 106. A CV, if required by the dean, should not be forwarded to OAA.

2) An individual asked to write an external review turns out to be a research collaborator. What should be done in this instance?

There are two options. Either the letter could be included with any additional letters requested by the candidate and solicited by the TIU head, or the letter could be removed after consultation with the dean and OAA.

3) Can confidentiality be guaranteed to individuals who are asked to write an external evaluation?

No. The Ohio Public Records Act requires that public records be made available upon request. Documents generated for P&T reviews are public records. Candidates and others may request access to these documents, and units must provide them. Units may inform the evaluators that the candidate has asked to view the evaluation letters, but they are not required to do so under the law. Units may remove the name and address of the reviewer before making them available, but they must provide the entire letter if specifically requested by the candidate. If letters are requested, OAA recommends that they be supplied once the department and TIU letters are complete and during the comments period.

4) Is the total number of external reviews requested relevant?

No. Only the number of external reviews received is important. The number of external reviewers who decline or do not respond has no value and may not be factored into deliberations.

5) Faculty Rule 3335-6-02(D) seems to address diverse ways that faculty contribute to the field and the institution (i.e., administrative leadership in addition to sustained engagement in excellent teaching and research). Can external reviewers be asked to comment on a candidate’s performance and impact in leadership/service?

Yes, this relates to “flexible pathways” for promotion, and OAA recommends using different language in the solicitation for reviews of individuals with different assigned duties.

6) How far out do P&T chairs typically send out materials to external evaluators?

Approximately three months before completed evaluations are due, the person designated by the TIU to solicit external evaluations should send out letters of invitation to the prospective evaluators.

7) Can the candidate see the solicitation letter to external reviewers to ensure whether the letter reflects their responsibilities?

Yes, candidates can see the solicitation letter. Any requested changes are to be approved by the P&T committee chair and TIU head. OAA has a standard template for external evaluations (see sample letters 201 & 203 found in the Sample Documents section).

8) Do external letters for clinical/teaching/practice faculty promotions follow the same standards as tenured faculty?

External evaluations for clinical/teaching/practice faculty are optional. However, if they are required, it should be clear in the APT document what is expected from external reviewers and clearly noted in the solicitation of letters.

1)  Is the POD a voting member of the committee of the eligible faculty?

Yes.

2) Could someone on Faculty Professional Leave act as a POD?

OAA recommends against having faculty on FPL serving in such a role, as the POD should be someone who is on-duty.

3) Can someone else from the P&T committee, other than the POD, serve as the pre-reviewer?

OAA strongly recommends that the POD serve as the pre-reviewer. The POD’s duties includes:

• Checking the candidate’s dossier to assure that it is prepared correctly using the most current dossier format, asks the candidate to make needed changes, and verifies requested changes were completed.
• Specifically affirming that the accuracy of all publications and creative works listed in the dossier has been verified.

A unique POD can be assigned for each individual case or multiple cases, or a single POD can be assigned to manage the pre-review for all cases in a unit.

4) How should feedback from the POD be documented? Is this an official communication from the committee?

If a dossier is not prepared correctly, the POD is to ask the candidate who prepared the dossier to make needed changes. These are not official communications included in the dossier, but the candidate should be given explicit feedback about any changes that are required in the core dossier.

1) Can a candidate request an extension to their review period based for reasons other than birth or adoption?

Faculty Rule 3335-6-03(D) provides the circumstances under which faculty may obtain exclusion of time—personal illness, care of a seriously ill or injured person, an unpaid leave of absence, or factors beyond the faculty member’s control. Such requests will be reviewed by the unit and OAA. (See COVID-19 section for information about the automatic COVID-19 extension.)

2) How is a conflict of interest determined?

OAA guidelines provide that at a minimum, faculty with a familial or comparable relationship with a candidate must not participate in a review of that candidate. In addition, a close professional relationship may give rise to a conflict of interest, such as when a faculty member is co-author on a significant portion of the candidate’s publications, has collaborated with the candidate on major grants supporting research, has served as the candidate’s dissertation advisor, is dependent in some way on the candidate’s professional activities, or has a relationship with the candidate that has created a bias

3) Can a candidate be considered a non-mandatory at any time?

Under the Faculty Rule 3335-6-04, a candidate may ask to be considered for non-mandatory promotion and tenure review or for promotion review at any time; however, the tenure initiating unit P&T committee may decline to put forth a faculty member for formal non- mandatory promotion and tenure review or promotion review if the candidate's accomplishments are judged not to warrant such review.

A probationary faculty member (i.e. assistant professor, probationary clinical/teaching/practice or research faculty, lecturer) may be denied a non-mandatory consideration for promotion and tenure every year up to their mandatory review year. A non-probationary faculty member (i.e. associate professor) may be denied a non-mandatory consideration for promotion once.

4) Due to extraordinary performance in teaching and/or service, can an assistant professor be tenured and not promoted to associate professor.

No, an assistant professor cannot be tenured without promotion.

5) If something irregular happens in a meeting in the committee of the eligible faculty, what should the chair or POD do?

Significant procedural errors (those that reasonably could affect the outcome of deliberations) are to be corrected before the review continues. If a review body or unit administrator becomes convinced that such an error has occurred, that body or administrator is to take necessary steps to correct the error at the level of review at which it occurred. The case is to be fully reconsidered from that point on.

If the error occurs during the course of a meeting and can be corrected, it should be corrected and the meeting should continue. If the error cannot be corrected during the meeting, the meeting should be stopped, no vote should occur, and the error should be corrected before the process continues.

6) What if the discussion needs to go beyond the allotted meeting time? Must another meeting be scheduled or must a vote happen even if some believe the deliberations were insufficient?

If the committee believes that further deliberation is required, and members of the committee are not available to continue, another meeting should be scheduled—only to include those people who participated in the first meeting. A vote should not occur if the committee determines that deliberations were insufficient.

7) Is the percentage of the vote determined on the basis of actual votes cast?

Only yes or no votes will be counted in determining whether the required majority for a positive vote is or is not achieved. An abstention indicates that an individual does not wish to go on the record with a position. As such, abstentions are not counted as votes, but they are counted when determining a quorum. When calling for a voice vote, the TIU head should not call for abstentions as this would force the individual to go on record.

8) How does the process for a candidate on a regional campus differ?

Regional campus faculty are first reviewed by the regional campus faculty according to the process established on that campus and then by the regional campus dean and director. The regional campus review focuses on teaching and service. The regional campus dean and director forwards the report and recommendation of the regional campus review to the TIU head, from which point the review follows the same course as all promotion and promotion and tenure reviews.

9) How are decisions communicated from the TIU head?

The TIU head is to inform each candidate in writing after completion of the TIU review process of the recommendations by the eligible faculty and TIU head and of the availability for review of the written evaluations by the eligible faculty and TIU head.

According to University Faculty Rule 3335-6-01, if the TIU head’s recommendation is contrary to the recommendation of the committee of eligible faculty, they “will communicate in writing to the faculty body that made the recommendation the reasons that the recommendation was judged not to be supported by the evidence.”

10) How are decisions communicated from the dean?

Once the dean completes their letter to the executive vice president and provost, they will inform the candidate and the TIU head of the completion of the college-level review and of the availability of the reports. The candidate and TIU head will be provided with copies of those reports. University rules and OAA guidelines regarding the comments process will then be followed.

According to University Faculty Rule 3335-6-01, if the dean’s recommendation is contrary to the recommendation of the committee of eligible faculty, they “will communicate in writing to the faculty body that made the recommendation the reasons that the recommendation was judged not to be supported by the evidence.”

1) When must student comments be summarized?

For all courses in which the candidate used an open-ended evaluation instrument to collect student input (including open-ended questions on fixed-response evaluations if collected by the unit for this purpose), someone other than the candidate must summarize the comments on a course-by-course basis for inclusion in the dossier. The TIU head will assign this task to a faculty member (not the candidate) or qualified staff member. State in the dossier the name and role (such as faculty member or staff member) of the person who wrote the summaries. OAA recommends that the candidate review these summaries prior to inclusion in the dossier.

2) For regional campus faculty members, who should summarize written comments? Someone from the regional campus or someone from the department?

Either is fine. The POD, another member of the P&T committee, or a staff member assigned by the TIU head can summarize the comments. If the POD is not the one who summarizes the comments, both the POD and candidate are to review the summaries to ensure accuracy.