Updated Content Type

April 2019
4.3.5 Evaluation of Faculty Members

Purpose

Annual evaluations provide administrators, faculty, professionals, and staff an opportunity to meet with their immediate supervisors for a personal review of activities and accomplishments and a planning session for future objectives and goals. Leadership at the unit level can have a most direct and significant effect.

Peer evaluations, which come less frequently, attempt to put wider resources into the review processes, resources that are represented by one's colleagues and their collective experience and wisdom. Since promotion and tenure recommendations are heavily dependent on peer evaluations, it is essential that candidates have early indications from their colleagues regarding their progress in the areas of teaching, research and creative activity, and service. The chair's role in these latter activities is to facilitate and coordinate the processes and to provide leadership wherever appropriate.

Annual Evaluation of Faculty

The intent of the annual evaluation procedure is to:

  • Provide the faculty member and the chair with an opportunity for personal review
  • Provide an accurate means of planning and evaluation of a faculty member's professional growth and development
  • Provide each faculty member and the University with timely and documented information concerning the faculty member's achievements and goals.

In addition to the above, these appraisals form the basis for merit pay increases. Annual appraisals are not intended to take the place of either development or committee evaluations for promotion or tenure or of the periodic peer review of faculty.

Each year, the department chair meets in person with each faculty member in the department, including permanent part-time faculty, to discuss the faculty member's development during that year and plans for the coming year. The period covered in this meeting is the twelve-month period of time since the last appraisal.

Prior to their annual meeting, the chair and the faculty member complete a draft of the Faculty Appraisal and Planning Form. During the discussion, the faculty member is shown a copy of the mid-ratings (median) for the entire department as established by the chair's preliminary evaluation of the department's faculty. In some cases, the rating of an individual faculty member may be changed as a result of this discussion. After all faculty have met with the chair, final mid-ratings (median) for the entire department are calculated and recorded on each faculty member's form. If the faculty member takes exception to any of the chair's ratings, the faculty member's rating for that item is also recorded on the form. After the interview has been completed, the chair and the faculty member sign the final copy. The faculty member's signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with the appraisal, but simply that it was discussed in detail with the chair.

The data required at the top of the form are self-explanatory. Full-time is checked if the person is full-time with the University and if all University responsibilities are being evaluated in the appraisal and planning form even though the individual may not be 100 percent funded by the department. Part-time personnel, or personnel whose appraisals and planning form covers only part of their University responsibilities, are designated by indicating the proportion that is devoted to the department and is being appraised. For faculty with joint appointments, their appraisals and plans are combined on one form, after the evaluating chair has consulted with the second chair. Otherwise, two separate forms, based on separate evaluations and requiring separate interviews must be prepared.

For each of the three areas (teaching, research and creative activity, and service), the percent of the faculty member’s workload assigned to that area is indicated. These percentages are very important because readers, in interpreting these appraisals, weigh each area according to the percent of effort assigned to that area for the individual faculty member.

For each area or item, the chair writes a narrative appraisal of the faculty member's relevant activities and then rates the person's performance on that activity. The criteria to be used as the bases for these judgments are the criteria for performance of faculty members at each rank as codified under the promotion criteria accepted by the department, college, and University promotion and tenure committees, and by the Provost's office, and should take account of the individual faculty member's particular responsibilities

A 9-point scale for the ratings anchored at the end points with the terms unsatisfactory and outstanding is utilized. N/A (Not Applicable) should be used only in those cases where there is no requirement for that individual to engage in that particular activity. In other cases, N/R (Not Rated) may be used. For example, a new Ph.D. might be given N/R in research and creative  activity because that individual's research program is too new to be evaluated meaningfully, but should not be given N/A because assistant professors, even new ones, are expected to engage in scholarly activity.

Faculty members may add other materials to support their ratings on their activities, especially where they believe that a different appraisal should have been given. Chairs also may add materials they consider appropriate. Along with a copy of the Faculty Appraisal and Planning Form, copies of additional materials should be provided to the faculty member, the chair/department, the dean, and the provost.

It is recognized that no chair or any single individual can duplicate the judgment of several committees, nor can performance during a single year determine one's promotion, nor can these procedures match the extensive and intensive evaluation that takes place when a person comes up for promotion. Faculty appraisal and planning sessions provide an opportunity: 1) for faculty members to inform their chairs more completely and accurately about their activities; 2) for chairs to give the faculty their best judgments on how well the faculty have fulfilled their responsibilities during the year prior to appraisal; and 3) for the faculty member and chair to discuss the faculty member's plans for the coming year. The intent is to determine mutually acceptable goals that develop the faculty member's strength or correct any weaknesses.

Foreword: A Mission Statement for the University

The University of Delaware exists to cultivate learning, develop knowledge, and foster the free exchange of ideas. State-assisted yet privately governed, the University has a strong tradition of distinguished scholarship, which is manifested in its research and creative activities, teaching, and service, in line with its commitment to increasing and disseminating scientific, humanistic, artistic, and social knowledge for the benefit of the larger society. Founded in 1743 and chartered by the state in 1833, the University of Delaware today is a land-grant, sea-grant, and space-grant, and urban-grant university. 

4.3.6 Categories of Faculty Activity

The three major areas of faculty scholarly activity are (1) Teaching and Instruction; (2) Scholarship and Research and Creative Activities; and (3), Professional, and University Service. Precise demarcation between the three major areas is often difficult and sometimes impossible; in any case, all activities of a faculty member must be considered as an integrated whole. Therefore, every department must maintain discipline- and departmental- specific descriptions of appropriate activities in each category of activity. Faculty activity in each of the areas may vary from year to year, or even semester to semester, according to the interests and abilities of the faculty member, and according to the needs of his or her department, college, or the University as agreed to by the chairperson and dean.

Teaching: Under this category, shall be included: examples may include but are not limited to the following: all scheduled classes (and academic advising involved therein), seminars, laboratories, thesis and research supervision, clinical and field activities, advisement and any other instructional activity.

  • Facilitating the acquisition of knowledge through course delivery
  • Community engaged educational programs including extension presentations
  • Supervision of academic service learning activities
  • Clinical teaching
  • Study abroad programs
  • Distance education and off-campus educational initiatives
  • Continuing education
  • Contract courses or programs for specific audiences
  • Educational programs for alumni
  • Participatory curriculum development
  • Academic advisement for undergraduate students
  • Academic advisement of graduate students
  • Teaching and mentoring of undergraduate student researchers
  • Teaching and mentoring of graduate student researchers
  • Attendance at venues of teaching professional development
  • Assessments of course effectiveness

 

Scholarship and Research Research and Creative Activities: Under this category, shall be the following: examples may include but are not limited to the following:

·         Research, usually presented through publication of scholarly work or through appropriate colloquia

·         Creative development in those fields in which the faculty member receives public recognition for his or her professional contributions to society or to the University. Included are such activities as plays (composition or production), music (composition or performance), art exhibitions, patents, etc.

·         Professional development involving the presentation of papers or chairing sessions at professional meetings, serving as an officer or committee member of a professional organization, editorial duties, professional consulting, and other similar activities. Alternatively, these activities can be considered under the Service section for those units that specify such professional development activities under Service in their P&T document.

  • Dissemination of research (books, book chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles), including basic and applied discovery, teaching pedagogy, and community-based, contractual, and patent discovery, etc.
  • Creative activities such as plays (creation, production, and/or performance), poetry, fiction, music (composition and/or performance), art and dance exhibitions, etc.,
  • Presentation of scholarly work at appropriate colloquia, seminars, conferences, and lectures,
  • Grants and contracts awarded to conduct research,
  • Translational and application of research for community engagement,
  • Cooperative Extension and applied technical publications
  • Creation of and contributions to software projects.

Public, Professional and University Service: Included in this category shall be: Under this category, examples may include but are not limited to the following:

·         University service, such as nonacademic advisement of students (career, professional, or personal); activities such as living/ learning experiences, for which no academic credit is given; departmental committees and special assignments; college senates, committees, and special assignments; University Senate, committees, and special assignments; service to the University of Delaware Chapter of the AAUP; administrative and quasi-administrative appointments; and participation in student affairs related activities (Rev. 5/02)

·         Public and Community service (local, state, regional, national, international), such as technical assistance or consultation for public or community organizations, election or appointment to boards, commissions, committees, legislative bodies, or the like outside the normal professional calling of the faculty member in the teaching or research function.

·         Professional service to the faculty members’ discipline and its organizations such as service for professional associations.

·         Creative activities outside the normal professional calling of the faculty member; for example, participation in orchestras or ensembles, shows of paintings, musical or literary productions, and the like, which enhance or improve the University as a community of learning.

  • University service, such as a) nonacademic advisement of students (advising student groups or providing career, professional, or personal advisement), b) departmental committees and special assignments, c) college senates, committees, and special assignments, d) University Senate committees and special assignments, e) service to the University of Delaware Chapter of the AAUP, f) administrative appointments, and g) participation in activities related to student affairs
  • Integrated scholarly service including chairing sessions at professional meetings, serving as an officer or committee member of a professional organization, editorial duties, grant reviewing, professional consulting, expert testimony and other similar activities
  • Policy analysis
  • Service to community-based institutions
  • New business ventures based on scholarly knowledge
  • Dissemination of results in public presentations and popular publications
4.4.17 Expedited Tenure Review

When a faculty hiring action includes the award of tenure, an expedited tenure review process is required. This expedited review process involves a minimum of three external review letters from distinguished scholars, selected by the departmental P&T Committee, in consultation with the department chair. The letters may include evaluation letters submitted as part of the application. The candidate must provide a dossier of work for review by the department and the external reviewers. This can be an abbreviated dossier, but it must include evidence of the quality of the candidate’s teaching, research/creative activities, and service. After review and recommendation by the department P&T committee, the dossier—including the external review letters— will be sent for review to the department chair, the dean, and the provost. All expedited reviews must be completed prior to the effective hire date. In the event of an unfavorable decision by the Provost, candidates will be required to apply for the award of tenure no later than their third year.

4.1.1 Faculty Appointment Policy

4.1.1 Faculty Appointment Policy

This policy shall apply to all academic units for the appointment to an academic rank. The policy shall be applicable to all full- and part-time positions, permanent and temporary positions, joint, secondary, affiliated, and adjunct positions, regardless of funding source.

·         To appoint any person to an academic rank requires a positive recommendation from the faculty of the academic unit to which the person is to be assigned, and the rank shall be specified in the recommendation.
·         In the case of an appointment of an external candidate, the academic rank of such appointee must be approved by a favorable vote of those faculty in the academic unit who are eligible to vote under the department’s bylaws and/or promotion and tenure document in cases involving the promotion of an internal candidate for promotion; furthermore, appointments with tenure must be approved by the faculty in such academic unit who are eligible to vote under the department’s bylaws and/or promotion and tenure document in cases where tenure is granted to an internal candidate. Academic rank also must be approved by the Provost, and appointments with tenure must be approved by the Provost and President.
·         Departments may specify in their promotion and tenure documents what, if any, evidence is required to be submitted by a senior external candidate for an appointment to support the granting of tenure in cases where the candidate does not already hold tenure in his or her current academic position and/or a promotion in rank above that of his or her current academic position. Departments may require “mini-dossiers” that include less information and fewer external letters of review than are required of internal candidates for promotion and/or tenure.

·         There shall be a search committee for each new or vacant faculty position. The University of Delaware Recruitment Manual for faculty, professional and salaried staff members sets forth the policy governing the establishment of search committees and the search procedures for filling faculty positions.
·         The college dean and department chairperson act for the college and department faculty, respectively. It is understood that they consult with college or department faculty according to college and department policies and procedures in making their recommendations.

The full-time teaching assignment at the University of Delaware is twelve credit contact hours or 18 teaching contact hours per week per semester for the academic year. In practice, however, the University adheres to a policy of "administered" teaching loads. Under this arrangement, department chairpersons and deans are encouraged to vary the teaching loads of individual faculty members so long as the total teaching obligations are met with the teaching personnel available. This flexible arrangement makes it possible for the chairpersons to make assignments of individual faculty members on a semester-to-semester basis to stimulate research and scholarship or to provide for unusually heavy committee assignments.

4.1.6 Non‐Tenure Track Faculty

Individuals hired on full-time temporary appointments who are appointed subsequently as primary, full-time, continuing Continuing Track faculty will have their previous time of service counted in the computation of subsequent contract renewal periods. No individual will receive a three- or five-year "rolling" contract without a full peer review.

In the event of an unsatisfactory annual evaluation during the term of a multi-year contract, a full peer review may be conducted. If a peer review confirms the unsatisfactory performance set forth in the annual evaluation, the individual will receive one full year's notice in writing of contract termination (see "Terminations and Non-Renewals" in the Faculty Handbook).

In the event of programmatic and/or budgetary reductions, individuals serving on multiple year contracts will receive one full year's notice in writing of contract termination (see "Terminations and Non-Renewals" in the Faculty Handbook).

Sabbaticals: Faculty appointed as Continuing Track faculty (see "Appointments" above) are eligible for sabbaticals at the end of the sixth year of appointment if their appointment is renewed for a three-year appointment (as stipulated in "Term and Contract Renewal" above) and with review and approval through regular University procedures. Continuing Track faculty are eligible for subsequent sabbaticals on the same schedule as tenure-track faculty. (Rev. 5/2016)

Merit Pay: Merit pay for non-tenure track faculty will be awarded on a basis consistent with the written workload agreement for such faculty. The annual evaluation of performance for purposes of merit pay will be consistent with the applicable department/college promotion and tenure criteria.  

Peer Reviews: Peer reviews shall be consistent with the applicable department/college promotion and tenure criteria and consistent with the written workload agreement for each non-tenure track faculty member.  

Career Development and Salary Adjustments: Salary adjustments for Continuing Track faculty parallel to promotional increments for associate professors are made upon contract renewal for three years at the end of the initial six-year probationary period and parallel to the promotional increment for full professors at the start of the first five- year "rolling" contract. However, individuals holding primary appointments as full-time, Continuing Track faculty (see "Appointments" above) will not be awarded promotional increments should there be a change in their academic rank. (Policy added in entirety 8/96, Vice President for Administration to reflect Collective Bargaining Agreement; revised 5/00 Vice President for Administration in consultation with AAUP; editorial correction 8/00.) (Rev. 5/2016)

Stop the Review Clock: The six-year probationary period shall be extended for one year upon a Continuing Track faculty member submitting a “Stop the Review Clock” electronic web form. This policy applies to Continuing Track faculty members who become the parent of a newborn or newly adopted child and is a primary or coequal caregiver of the child or who is granted a leave of absence pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 for a period of at least one semester. The faculty member will continue to perform faculty duties at full salary. The extension shall take effect upon submission of the “Stop the Review Clock” electronic web form by the faculty member to the chair/director. Submission of the “Stop the Review Clock” electronic web form must be made within one calendar year of the birth or adoption of the child or of the commencement of the FMLA leave. Apart from the birth or adoption of a child, a Continuing Track faculty member may extend the probationary period for any reason approved by the appropriate chair/director and dean, for example illness of the faculty member or of his/her immediate family, but may do so only twice, resulting in no more than two one-year extensions of the probationary period. A Continuing Track candidate who extends the probationary period under this provision shall be reviewed for contract renewal under the same academic standards as a candidate who has not extended the probationary period. The Continuing Track candidate shall not be penalized in any way for requesting and receiving extensions of the probationary period, whether or not the additional time is used. Extension of the probationary period does not affect the faculty member’s right to apply for contract renewal prior to the terminal year, regardless of time in rank. Stopping the review clock for one year postpones any subsequent second-year or fourth-year review.

 

4.4.11 Promotion Dossiers

A.    Student evaluations, properly tabulated and summarized. The procedures used in administering the evaluations should also be described. Where available comparable departmental evaluations and past measures of the candidate's performance should be provided. (Note: Student evaluations should only be used in conjunction with other indicators to measure teaching competence, not just popularity. The type and size of courses should be taken into account).

B.     Samples of student comments from student evaluations. The means by which these samples were selected should be provided.

C.     Testimonials from a selection of former and current undergraduate and graduate students. The procedures for drawing the sample should be clearly described.

D.    Course portfolio evaluation

E.     Student performance in later sequential courses

F.      Standardized test scores

G.    Self-evaluation

H.    Long-term follow-up of students

I.        In-person classroom observation and evaluation in courses taught by the candidate, done by university faculty and/or staff (such as from the Center for Teaching & Assessment of Learning), chosen for their pedagogical expertise.

J.       Teaching awards (e.g., Faculty Senate Excellence in Teaching)

 

  • Teaching narrative with self-evaluation and teaching philosophy.
  • In-person classroom observation and evaluation in course(s) taught by the candidate, done by university faculty and/or staff, chosen for their pedagogical expertise.
  • A collection of recent syllabi, examinations, assignments, and/or other teaching materials. The candidate might annotate these materials to indicate what learning goals they address, how and why they are used, and their effectiveness.
  • Attendance in teaching workshops, possibly with reflections on how the workshop informed and improved teaching.
  • Incorporation of best practices (perhaps as evidenced in empirical studies) into the classroom.
  • Evidence of student learning (e.g standardized test results, samples of student work, pre/post assessment).
  • Testimonials from a selection of former and current undergraduate and/or graduate students. The procedures for drawing the sample should be clearly described.
  • Teaching awards (e.g., Faculty Senate Excellence in Teaching).
  • Sample comments from student course feedback (collected using institutional measures). The means by which these samples were selected should be provided.
  • Quantitative student course feedback (collected using institutional measures) properly tabulated and summarized. The procedures used in administering the feedback should also be described in context. Where available, comparable departmental measures should be provided. Student course feedback can reflect unconscious bias and may not reflect student learning. Such measures should only be considered in conjunction with other indicators of teaching quality.
1.2 Bylaws and Regulations of the University Faculty Senate

1. Quorum - defined in Constitution.

2. Order of Business - defined in Constitution.

3. Standing Committees (passed by Senate on December 14, 1970).

 

There shall be the following standing committees of the Senate:   

•   Committee on Academic Appeals

•   Academic Priorities and Presidential Advisory Review Committee

•   Budget Committee

•   Committee on Committees and Nominations

•   Committee on Cultural Activities and Public Events

•   Committee on Diversity and Inclusion

•   Coordinating Committee on Education

•   Executive Committee

•   Committee on Faculty Welfare and Privileges

•   Committee on General Education

•   Committee on Graduate Studies

•   Committee on Instructional, Computing, and Research Support Services

•   Committee on International Studies

•   Library Committee

•   Committee on Promotions and Tenure

•   Committee on Research

•   Subcommittee on Retiring, Retired, and Emeriti Faculty

•   Committee on Rules

•   Committee on Student and Faculty Honors

•   Committee on Student Life

•   Committee on Undergraduate Studies

4.3.5 Evaluation of Faculty Members

Peer Evaluation of Faculty

On recommendation of the Faculty Senate and approval by the administration, "faculty members at all ranks should be subject to periodic reviews at reasonable intervals of time." The recommended intervals are at least every two years for instructors and assistant professors, every three to five years for tenured associate professors, and every five to seven years for full professors. These reviews are to be conducted by duly established committees of faculty.

In addition, the department chairperson reviews annually each department member on a Faculty Appraisal Form. This review is discussed with the faculty member, and the form is signed by both the faculty member and the department chairperson.  

Principles Guiding the Peer Evaluation of Faculty Members: Faculty members at all ranks shall should be subject to periodic reviews at reasonable intervals of time.

Reviews of individual faculty members will normally originate with the individual department. (Since the academic organization of the University varies, references to department should sometimes read division or college, and references to chairperson should sometimes read director or dean.) Such reviews should involve a substantial number of faculty members but not the chairperson.

Faculty members under review have the right to supply such evidence that they feel may be necessary to a fair evaluation of their merits. This should not preclude departments or others properly involved in the review process from soliciting and using other evidence, but in every such instance, the faculty member should be informed of the source of that evidence.

Appropriate administrative officers may make independent evaluations within the review process.

Upon completion of the review, the faculty member will be apprised of the results. Faculty members shall be required to include their contract renewal reviews as part of their dossier for promotion and tenure; this should include the evaluations or reviews conducted by the established committees of the faculty and by the corresponding administrative office (e.g., department chair). (Rev. 5.10.07)

Faculty members are fully entitled to the rights of appeal. Reviews of individual faculty would not be a substitute for competency hearings of tenured faculty. They may serve, however, as a basis for instituting such hearings. In the event of a competency hearing, due process would be observed, with the burden of proof residing with those instituting the hearing.

Periods of Peer Evaluation: Instructors and assistant professors will should be reviewed at least every two years but normally no more often than once a year. Not later than the fall of the sixth year of service, assistant professors must should be reviewed for promotion.

Tenured associate professors should be reviewed at least once within every three to five year period of service but normally not more often than every two years. Non-tenured associate professors should be reviewed in the year prior to their eligibility for tenure.

Full professors should be reviewed at least once every five to seven year period of service, but normally not more often than every two years.

Departmental Responsibility: The department chairperson organizes and coordinates reviews of faculty.

Reviews of instructors and assistant professors should be conducted with the participation of associate and full professors in the department. In no case should faculty members be reviewed without the participation of at least two members of their department, one of whom, if possible, must be a rank at least one step higher than the person under review.

Associate professors should be reviewed by professors in the department. In those departments where fewer than two professors are available to conduct such a review, the chairperson of the department may request professors from other related departments to serve on the review body.

Full professors should be reviewed by a committee of at least three of their peers. In small departments, professors from other related departments may be asked to serve at the request of the chairperson.

These provisions specify minimum requirements. A department may choose to constitute the whole department, or any other designated authority, to serve as a review body. A department may choose to include in the review body faculty members at the same rank or lower rank of the person being evaluated so long as such persons do not constitute a majority of the body.

Submission and Evaluation of Documents and Other Evidence: The faculty member under review should assemble a dossier of materials that he or she regards as appropriate and convincing evidence of his or her abilities in the three major areas of evaluation (see below). The faculty member should be notified of the date that the dossier is required by the chairperson. This date should be in sufficient time before the review date, which should also be specified.

The review body or the chairperson of the department may request additional evidence from: (a) the faculty member under review; (b) other sources within the University, such as experts in related fields, committee chairpersons, and colleagues; (c) similar sources outside the University. In all instances under (b) and (c), the faculty member should be informed that such evidence is being requested. If any evidence is requested in confidence, the faculty member must be told the source of such confidential information. He or she may then communicate to the review committee in writing his or her position as to the qualifications of that source.

The review body should evaluate the evidence and the faculty member's abilities in each of the three major areas. A report summarizing the reasons for or against a favorable judgment should then be forwarded to the dean of the college along with the chairperson's independent evaluation. A copy of the report of the review body, of the chairperson, and of any other administrator may be delivered to the faculty member under review upon request.

Administrative Evaluations: Appropriate administrative officers, such as chairpersons, deans, provost, vice-provost, and president may review the dossier of each faculty member reviewed whenever a recommendation for sabbatical, promotion, and/or tenure is made by the department, or whenever there is a significant and substantial change in the status or conditions of employment of any faculty member. Further evidence may be solicited in accordance with the same procedures stipulated under "Submission and Evaluation of Documents and Other Evidence" above.

Reporting Results of Reviews: Each faculty member is entitled to a personal interview with the chairperson of the department and, upon request, a written report of his or her review. Wherever possible, the interview and report should carry specific indications where evidence has been satisfactory or, when it has not been, specific recommendations for improvement before the next review.

Appeals: A faculty member may appeal the decision of the review body by requesting another review within a semester of the first review, and he or she may request a new committee. This request may be rejected by the department, but is subject to appeal to the appropriate college and University committees.

6/95, Modified and approved by Provost and AAUP 12/3/04, 5/07

4.3.5 Evaluation of Faculty Members

Purpose

Annual evaluations provide administrators, faculty, professionals, and staff an opportunity to meet with their immediate supervisors for a personal review of activities and accomplishments and a planning session for future objectives and goals. Leadership at the unit level can have a most direct and significant effect.

Peer evaluations, which come less frequently, attempt to put wider resources into the review processes, resources that are represented by one's colleagues and their collective experience and wisdom. Since promotion and tenure recommendations are heavily dependent on peer evaluations, it is essential that candidates have early indications from their colleagues regarding their progress in the areas of teaching, research/creative/scholarly activity, and service. The chair's role in these latter activities is to facilitate and coordinate the processes and to provide leadership wherever appropriate.

Annual Evaluation of Faculty

The intent of the annual evaluation procedure is to:

  • Provide the faculty member and the chair with an opportunity for personal review
  • Provide an accurate means of planning and evaluation of a faculty member's professional growth and development
  • Provide each faculty member and the University with timely and documented information concerning the faculty member's achievements and goals.

In addition to the above, these appraisals form the basis for merit pay increases. Annual appraisals are not intended to take the place of either development or committee evaluations for promotion or tenure or of the periodic peer review of faculty.

Each year, the department chair meets in person with each faculty member in the department, including permanent part-time faculty, to discuss the faculty member's development during that year and plans for the coming year. The period covered in this meeting is the twelve-month period of time since the last appraisal.

Prior to their annual meeting, the chair and the faculty member complete a draft of the Faculty Appraisal and Planning Form. During the discussion, the faculty member is shown a copy of the mid-ratings (median) for the entire department as established by the chair's preliminary evaluation of the department's faculty. In some cases, the rating of an individual faculty member may be changed as a result of this discussion. After all faculty have met with the chair, final mid-ratings (median) for the entire department are calculated and recorded on each faculty member's form. If the faculty member takes exception to any of the chair's ratings, the faculty member's rating for that item is also recorded on the form. After the interview has been completed, the chair and the faculty member sign the final copy. The faculty member's signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with the appraisal, but simply that it was discussed in detail with the chair.

The data required at the top of the form are self-explanatory. Full-time is checked if the person is full-time with the University and if all University responsibilities are being evaluated in the appraisal and planning form even though the individual may not be 100 percent funded by the department. Part-time personnel, or personnel whose appraisals and planning form covers only part of their University responsibilities, are designated by indicating the proportion that is devoted to the department and is being appraised. For faculty with joint appointments, their appraisals and plans are combined on one form, after the evaluating chair has consulted with the second chair. Otherwise, two separate forms, based on separate evaluations and requiring separate interviews must be prepared.

For each of the three areas, teaching, research/creative/scholarly activity, and service, the percent of the faculty members effort assigned to that area is indicated. These percentages are very important because readers, in interpreting these appraisals, weigh each area according to the percent of effort assigned to that area for the individual faculty member.

For each area or item, the chair writes a narrative appraisal of the faculty member's relevant activities and then rates the person's performance on that activity. The criteria to be used as the bases for these judgments are the criteria for performance of faculty members at each rank as codified under the promotion criteria accepted by the department, college, and University promotion and tenure committees, and by the Provost's office, and should take account of the individual faculty member's particular responsibilities

A 9-point scale for the ratings anchored at the end points with the terms unsatisfactory and outstanding is utilized. N/A (Not Applicable) should be used only in those cases where there is no requirement for that individual to engage in that particular activity. In other cases, N/R (Not Rated) may be used. For example, a new Ph.D. might be given N/R in research/creative/scholarly activity because that individual's research program is too new to be evaluated meaningfully, but should not be given N/A because assistant professors, even new ones, are expected to engage in research/creative/scholarly activity.

Faculty members may add other materials to support their ratings on their activities, especially where they believe that a different appraisal should have been given. Chairs also may add materials they consider appropriate. Along with a copy of the Faculty Appraisal and Planning Form, copies of additional materials should be provided to the faculty member, the chair/department, the dean, and the provost.

It is recognized that no chair or any single individual can duplicate the judgment of several committees, nor can performance during a single year determine one's promotion, nor can these procedures match the extensive and intensive evaluation that takes place when a person comes up for promotion. Faculty appraisal and planning sessions provide an opportunity: 1) for faculty members to inform their chairs more completely and accurately about their activities; 2) for chairs to give the faculty their best judgments on how well the faculty have fulfilled their responsibilities during the year prior to appraisal; and 3) for the faculty member and chair to discuss the faculty member's plans for the coming year. The intent is to determine mutually acceptable goals that develop the faculty member's strength or correct any weaknesses.

Peer Evaluation of Faculty

On recommendation of the Faculty Senate and approval by the administration, "faculty members at all ranks should be subject to periodic reviews at reasonable intervals of time." The intervals are at least every two years for instructors and assistant professors, every three to five years for tenured associate professors, and every five to seven years for full professors. These reviews are to be conducted by duly established committees of faculty.

In addition, the department chairperson reviews annually each department member on a Faculty Appraisal Form. This review is discussed with the faculty member, and the form is signed by both the faculty member and the department chairperson.  

Principles Guiding the Peer Evaluation of Faculty Members: Faculty members at all ranks shall be subject to periodic reviews at reasonable intervals of time.

Reviews of individual faculty members will normally originate with the individual department. (Since the academic organization of the University varies, references to department should sometimes read division or college, and references to chairperson should sometimes read director or dean.) Such reviews should involve a substantial number of faculty members but not the chairperson.

Faculty members under review have the right to supply such evidence that they feel may be necessary to a fair evaluation of their merits. This should not preclude departments or others properly involved in the review process from soliciting and using other evidence, but in every such instance, the faculty member should be informed of the source of that evidence.

Appropriate administrative officers may make independent evaluations within the review process.

Upon completion of the review, the faculty member will be apprised of the results. Faculty members shall be required to include their contract renewal reviews as part of their dossier for promotion and tenure; this should include the evaluations or reviews conducted by the established committees of the faculty and by the corresponding administrative office (e.g., department chair). (Rev. 5.10.07)

Faculty members are fully entitled to the rights of appeal. Reviews of individual faculty would not be a substitute for competency hearings of tenured faculty. They may serve, however, as a basis for instituting such hearings. In the event of a competency hearing, due process would be observed, with the burden of proof residing with those instituting the hearing.

Periods of Peer Evaluation: Instructors and assistant professors will be reviewed at least every two years but normally no more often than once a year. Not later than the sixth year of service, assistant professors must be reviewed for promotion.

Tenured associate professors should be reviewed at least once within every three to five year period of service but normally not more often than every two years. Non tenured associate professors should be reviewed in the year prior to their eligibility for tenure.

Full professors should be reviewed at least once every five to seven year period of service, but normally not more often than every two years.

Department Responsibility: The department chairperson organizes and coordinates reviews of faculty.

Reviews of instructors and assistant professors should be conducted with the participation of associate and full professors in the department. In no case should faculty members be reviewed without the participation of at least two members of their department, one of whom, if possible, must be a rank at least one step higher than the person under review.

Associate professors should be reviewed by professors in the department. In those departments where fewer than two professors are available to conduct such a review, the chairperson of the department may request professors from other related departments to serve on the review body.

Full professors should be reviewed by a committee of at least three of their peers. In small departments, professors from other related departments may be asked to serve at the request of the chairperson.

These provisions specify minimum requirements. A department may choose to constitute the whole department, or any other designated authority, to serve as a review body. A department may choose to include in the review body faculty members at the same rank or lower rank of the person being evaluated so long as such persons do not constitute a majority of the body.

Submission and Evaluation of Documents and Other Evidence: The faculty member under review should assemble a dossier of materials that he or she regards as appropriate and convincing evidence of his or her abilities in the three major areas of evaluation (see below). The faculty member should be notified of the date that the dossier is required by the chairperson. This date should be in sufficient time before the review date, which should also be specified.

The review body or the chairperson of the department may request additional evidence from (a) the faculty member under review; (b) other sources within the University, such as experts in related fields, committee chairpersons, and colleagues; (c) similar sources outside the University. In all instances under (b) and (c), the faculty member should be informed that such evidence is being requested. If any evidence is requested in confidence, the faculty member must be told the source of such confidential information. He or she may then communicate to the review committee in writing his or her position as to the qualifications of that source.

The review body should evaluate the evidence and the faculty member's abilities in each of the three major areas. A report summarizing the reasons for or against a favorable judgment should then be forwarded to the dean of the college along with the chairperson's independent evaluation. A copy of the report of the review body, of the chairperson, and of any other administrator may be delivered to the faculty member under review upon request.

Administrative Evaluations: Appropriate administrative officers, such as chairpersons, deans, provost, vice-provost, and president may review the dossier of each faculty member reviewed whenever a recommendation for sabbatical, promotion, and/or tenure is made by the department, or whenever there is a significant and substantial change in the status or conditions of employment of any faculty member. Further evidence may be solicited in accordance with the same procedures stipulated under "Submission and Evaluation of Documents and Other Evidence" above.

Reporting Results of Reviews: Each faculty member is entitled to a personal interview with the chairperson of the department and, upon request, a written report of his or her review. Wherever possible, the interview and report should carry specific indications where evidence has been satisfactory or, when it has not been, specific recommendations for improvement before the next review.

Appeals: A faculty member may appeal the decision of the review body by requesting another review within a semester of the first review, and he or she may request a new committee. This request may be rejected by the department, but is subject to appeal to the appropriate college and University committees.

 

Modified and approved by Provost and AAUP 12/3/04 

1.2 Bylaws and Regulations of the University Faculty Senate

11. Eligibility and Election of Officers and Committee Chairs of the Senate

 

Eligibility for nomination, appointment, or service as Senate Officers or committee Chairs shall be restricted to full-time voting Faculty who are not appointed to serve in an official capacity for the Offices of the President, the Provost, any Vice President, or the Dean of any College, including but not limited to administrative officers of the University (including deputy, associate, assistant and vice provosts), academic deans (including deputy, associate and assistant deans), and department chairs or academic program directors (as defined in the Policy Guide for Department Chairs and Academic Program Directors).  Faculty who serve in a temporary capacity for an administrative office as a member of a search committee, standing committee, or ad hoc committee shall not be deemed ineligible because of this service.

March 2019
4.4.1 Faculty Promotion and Tenure

Departmental documents should also include the procedure for choosing the departmental promotion and tenure committee and should specify what constitutes discipline- and departmental- specific standards within all areas of teaching, research/creative activities, and service in the context of assigned workload. required levels of achievement for each rank, such as excellence in research or teaching or in both. Faculty candidates for promotion and/ or tenure will be evaluated based on the criteria in their department’s approved promotion and tenure guidelines appropriately weighted for their workload for the period under review. (Rev. 3/4/08; Rv. 5/2016)

3.1.9 Grades

Changes in grade, in most cases, are initiated by the instructor of the course. A change in a permanent grade must also have the approval of the dean of the college where the course is offered if the dean does not approve the change. Occasionally, a change of grade may be initiated by a department chair but only when the course instructor has left the University and cannot be located or is deceased.

4.4.2 Mentoring for Faculty Promotion & Tenure

Section added December 2018

4.4.11 Promotion Dossiers

4.4.11 Promotion Dossiers

It is the individual's responsibility to present the best case for promotion since he or she is most clearly involved in the outcome. It is extremely important that the dossier be well organized and carefully prepared because superfluous or confusing information may obscure more than it enhances one's qualifications and achievements. Unless otherwise noted in the faculty appointment letter, all work in rank, even if conducted at other institutions of higher education, shall be considered for promotion and tenure. It shall be the faculty's responsibility to include evidence of this work in his/her dossier and to clearly identify when and where this work was performed. (Rev. 5/10/07).

All dossiers should be organized under the following headings in this order:

  1. Introductory Material
    1. Contents and Guidelines
      1. Recommendation for Promotion Form
      2. A table of contents
      3. A copy of the University, college, and department promotion and tenure criteria
    1. Application for Promotion
      1. Candidate's letter requesting promotion
      2. A curriculum vitae
      3. Candidate's statement (optional)
    1. Two and Four Year Reviews for Faculty Seeking Promotion to Associate Professor
      1. Reviews conducted by the corresponding department committee
      2. Reviews or evaluations conducted by the department chair
    1. Internal Recommendations
      1. The department committee's recommendation
      2. The chairperson's recommendation
      3. College committee's recommendation (if any)
      4. Dean or director's recommendation or endorsement
      5. University committee's recommendation
      6. Any appeal materials (appeals and rebuttals)
    1. External Recommendations

1. List of the external reviewers who were nominated by the candidate versus those nominated by the department, and the criteria used to request from specific reviewers

2. Procedure for choosing external reviewers (See Section 4.4.12)

a. Solicited external evaluations serve as a major indicator of an individual's impact on the profession and are always required for promotion. Although the number may vary by rank and department or division, every dossier must include external reviews solicited by the departmental committee and written by highly qualified individuals with established reputations in the candidate's field. These statements should analyze and evaluate critically the candidate's work and accomplishments during the review period and they should also comment on the candidate's potential for future development.

b. The solicitation of these evaluations must follow these guidelines:

1)  A candidate will submit a list of potential reviewers, some of whom will be approached for recommendations. The department committee will suggest additional reviewers. This total list of names will be greater than the total number of letters solicited. Although the candidate must be informed of all potential reviewers and have an opportunity to comment on them, it is the department committee, and not the candidate, that makes the final selection. The final list of names will not be given to the candidate so as to preserve confidentiality of the reviewers.

2)  Candidates must not contact potential reviewers about the promotion process at any time.

3)  Letters of evaluation will be confidential and external reviewers will not be mentioned by name or affiliation in any recommendations or evaluations. Reviewers may be referred to by number.

4)  Each review should be accompanied by the letter requesting the evaluation, a curriculum vita or biographical statement describing the reviewer's credentials, and a statement of relationship to the candidate. Insofar as reasonable and possible, only reviewers without personal ties to the candidate should be selected.

5)  If a candidate has collaborative works, it must be clear to the external evaluator what the candidate's contributions were to the finished work. Reviewers must be able to determine whether an individual can execute research in his or her own right.

6)  External teaching evaluations should attest to the candidate's pedagogical competence, knowledge of the subject matter, organization and preparation, ability to stimulate intellectual curiosity and willingness to work, innovative capacity, and such.

7)  External service evaluations will be required for those CT faculty whose primary contracted area of responsibility is service. The external evaluations can be performed locally, but should be external to the academic unit

3. Letters of evaluation from peer reviewers together with supporting material. These letters will be numbered sequentially for reference. (Rev. 5/2016)

4.4.12 External Reviewers

Added section

4.4 Promotion and Tenure

Faculty Handbook Section 4.4 Promotion and Tenure

4.4.11 Career Development of Assistant Professors

There should be a major plan worked out with every new arrival to a unit so that there is an orderly progression to promotion, within a reasonable time. Participation should be offered in a number of activities, and help and assistance given as needed. A coordinated plan of development suited to the academic unit and the candidate concerned should be devised and updated annually. In units that have a considered plan for their members, this progression is worked out in detail with allowance for an orderly development in all of the three categories that are concerned in promotion. Teaching functions and the setting up of courses should take priority. Then a research program should be mounted and, finally, some shouldering of service responsibilities should be undertaken. A new assistant professor should not be heavily laden with service commitments in the first year. The entire commitment should be under the guidance of senior people, or a single designated mentor, who should take an active role in career development.

New Section

 

4.4.2. Mentoring for Faculty Promotion and Tenure

 

All instructors/assistant professors are entitled to receive formal mentoring to support an orderly and timely progression to promotion. Each Department’s and/or College’s bylaws should include a formal mentoring protocol using available resources that is regularly appraised and updated for effectiveness. Chairs should consult with each assistant professor (mentee) in their unit to mutually identify a senior faculty mentor other than the chair. The minimum standard is one assigned mentor. The effectiveness of the mentor-mentee pairing should be evaluated by the faculty members at the end of each academic term. The main focus of formal mentoring is to support the mentee’s familiarity with departmental and institutional culture, timelines, and interpretation of policies and departmental practices. Formal mentoring begins as early as possible, once a faculty member accepts the position; it becomes especially important surrounding career development opportunities such as workload planning, learning about the cultural aspects of promotion and appraisal, etc. There should be regular formal meetings of the mentor and mentee, ideally several times a semester but at minimum once per semester. The mentor should be recognized by the chair for this service during appraisal and review.

 

The need for mentoring for the purpose of career development and promotion does not end after the probationary period. Therefore, each Department’s and/or College’s bylaws should include formal mentoring protocols to provide advice for Associate Professors to support their advancement and growth.

 

 

Faculty Handbook 4.4 Promotion and Tenure

4.4.2 Mentoring for Faculty Promotion and Tenure: Adding a Section, Deleting a Section and renumbering

4.3.8 Use of Databases in Evaluating Faculty Members

Section added

4.3 Workload and Evaluation

Added section 4.3.8 Use of Databases in Evaluating Faculty Members

November 2018

The use of analytics for evaluating faculty must be done judiciously and within the context of the individual’s work and field, and must be subordinate to long-accepted standards of peer review. Reviewers shall avoid over-reliance on third-party analytical data in making tenure and promotion decisions. The department/unit must clearly stipulate if, how, or whether analytics are to be used in the promotion process. Furthermore, any data and analytics to which candidates do not have access over the course of the review period cannot be used for evaluating faculty or included in reviews of the dossier. (Rev 3/2018)

4.4 Promotion and Tenure

4.4 Promotion and Tenure

4.4.4 Departmental  Responsibilities Statement on Workload:

Workload shall be assigned with the expectation that the faculty member will have the opportunity to meet the criteria for satisfactory peer review, contract renewal, and promotion and/or tenure. An individual’s assigned workload during the review period shall be considered in the promotion and/or tenure and peer review process in a manner consistent with the approved promotion and/or tenure and peer review criteria written by each department. 

Candidates for promotion and/or tenure are required to report their assigned workload as part of their dossier so that all reviewers—including external reviewers—have a clear sense of their workload in the various areas of their effort and can judge their achievements fairly. 

1.1 Constitution of the Faculty of the University of Delaware

SECTION IV:

The Senate shall consist of the President of the University,; the Provost,; the Vice President for Research, Scholarship, and Innovation; the Vice President for Student Life,; one additional administrator holding a full-time faculty appointment designated by the President and/or the Provost; the Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Planning, the Vice Provost for Research, the Deans of the Colleges,; the elected Senate officers, ; the elected faculty senators of the Units,; two elected professional librarians,; and four elected student senators (two graduate students and two undergraduate students) of the University. Each member of the Senate (hereinafter called a senator) shall have the right to vote. In no case shall the number of non-elected senators exceed twelve.twenty percent of the Senate. For each upcoming academic year, the Senate office must be notified by August 15 as to the names/positions of those chosen by the President and/or the Provost for that academic year.

3.1.9 Grades

A system of letter grades of A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D, D-,  F, L, LW and Z  is employed except for those courses approved for Pass/Fail grading. With some restrictions, students may elect the Pass/Fail option for one elective course each semester. Students electing the option are graded with the usual letter grade, but the grade of P is entered into the academic record for any letter grade of D or higher. A cumulative index of 2.0 is required for graduation for undergraduates, and a 3.0 for graduate students. A grade of Z should be given when a student unofficially withdraws from a class (stops attending and fails to complete sufficient graded requirements). For the complete University Grading Policy see:  http://www1.udel.edu/registrar/faculty_staff/gradeinfo.html

In the seventh week of the semester, each faculty member will be provided with grade rosters indicating the freshmen and first time undergraduates  other newly matriculated undergraduate students enrolled in his or her classes. Faculty are responsible for reporting a meaningful mid- semester letter grade (A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D, D-, F, L, LW or F Z) for each of these students in accordance with the Registrar's Office guidelines. (Rev. 5/6/85; Implemented Fall 1991)

 Near the end of the semester, class lists will be provided for each faculty member. On or around the last day of class for the term, grade rosters will be available on-line to faculty members. These lists  grade rosters should be checked for completeness and discrepancies reported to the Registrar's Office. Faculty are responsible for reporting a final grade for each student at the end of the semester, in accordance with Registrar's Office guidelines. When a grade of F or Z is recorded for a student, the last date of attendance or date of last graded assignment will be required. In the event that a student fails to complete a course for illness or other reason deemed adequate by the instructor, the grade of I (Incomplete) is may be given. The appropriate catalogs should be consulted concerning the various other grades used at the University.

Changes in grade, in most cases, are initiated by the instructor of the course. A change in a permanent grade must also have the approval of the dean of the college where the course is offered if the dean does not approve the change. Occasionally, a change of grade may be initiated by a department chair but only when the course instructor has left the University and cannot be located or is deceased.

If a student has a grade grievance, the student must follow the specified procedure in the Student Guide to University Policies, "Grade Grievance and Other Related Academic Complaints." In cases where a student has filed a grade complaint under these procedures, the decision of the ad hoc committee appointed by the Academic Appeals Committee of the Faculty Senate shall be final.

The Student Judicial System is mandated to impose an automatic grade of “F” if a student is found guilty of academic dishonesty (Rev.4/81) If a student is responsible for committing an act of academic dishonesty, the faculty may impose a grade penalty. See Section 3.1.5 of this document and the Student Guide to University Policies for more details.

 

Credit toward a baccalaureate degree is given for all courses in which a grade of D- or higher is earned by the student. In graduate programs, courses with grades lower than a C- cannot be counted toward a graduate degree. In both undergraduate and graduate degree programs, all grades are averaged to determine satisfactory completion of degree requirements. (Editorial revision 5/98)

 

Please see also “Delaware’s Grading System” in the UD Catalog.

3.1.13 Student Class Attendance and Excused Absences

By action of the University faculty, the responsibility for defining attendance expectations is left to the individual faculty member, subject to the guidelines given below. Thus it is of great importance that early in each course the instructor make clear to each student what attendance expectations are, and how absences due to "relatively minor" illnesses, as described below, are to be communicated. The use of the syllabus to list attendance expectations and means of communicating about illnesses is recommended. In order to be in compliance with Federal financial aid regulations, the University requests that the instructor of record for each course identify, to the registrar’s office, individual students who have never attended class or participated in any class activities by the last day to register or add courses each term.  

Foreword: A Mission Statement for the University

The University of Delaware exists to cultivate learning, develop knowledge, and foster the free exchange of ideas. State-assisted yet privately governed, the University has a strong tradition of distinguished scholarship, which is manifested in its research and creative activities, teaching, and service, in line with its commitment to increasing and disseminating scientific, humanistic, artistic, and social knowledge for the benefit of the larger society. Founded in 1743 and chartered by the state in 1833, the University of Delaware today is a land-grant, sea-grant, space-grant, and urban-grant university.

4.4.10 Promotion Process Schedule

Appeals are possible at every level (see Section 4.4.3 for more information regarding the appeals process and schedule.) but must be made to the committee or administrator whose decision is being appealed. An intention to appeal must be given to the appropriate body within five working days of notification of the decision. An appeal includes: (1) a letter documenting the basis of the appeal, usually written by the candidate; and (2) a scheduled meeting with the appropriate person or committee. It is strongly recommended that the candidate attend the appeal meeting. Representatives of the candidate can also attend and participate in the appeal meeting. Appeals must be handled within two weeks, except under extenuating circumstances. The University Faculty Senate Committee on Promotions and Tenure will hear no appeals beyond March 1, and the Provost's Office will hear no appeals beyond April 15. Any appeals not heard by these dates must be carried over to the following academic year.

 

Revised text being moved to 4.4.3:

Appeals are possible at every level, but must be made to the committee or administrator whose decision is being appealed. Appeals are typically made on the grounds of procedural irregularities, the interpretation of evidence in the dossier, or the introduction of new evidence. An intention to appeal must be given to the appropriate body within five working days of notification of the decision. An appeal includes: 

(1) a letter documenting the basis of the appeal, usually written by the candidate; and (2) a scheduled meeting with the appropriate person or committee. It is strongly recommended that the candidate attend the appeal meeting. Representatives of the candidate can also attend and participate in the appeal meeting. Appeals must be handled within two weeks, except under extenuating circumstances. The University Faculty Senate Committee on Promotions and Tenure will hear no appeals beyond March 1, and the Provost’s Office will hear no appeals beyond April 15. Any appeals not heard by these dates must be carried over to the following academic year.

February 2018
1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

Diversity and Inclusion

This committee shall review all University policies and practices pertaining to diversity and inclusion in the recruiting and retaining of students and faculty. The committee shall submit an annual report in May evaluating the status of policies and practices, including current data on the recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty and students. It shall recommend for consideration by the Senate statements of goals, policies, and practices pertaining to (1) the recruitment, retention, promotion, and general well-being of underrepresented faculty; (2) teaching by faculty that contributes to an inclusive, dynamic campus community in which underrepresented populations are welcomed, represented, and engaged; and (3) encouraging faculty research that furthers knowledge of diversity in its many forms.  As part of charge (2), the committee will perform the ongoing review of new and revised courses seeking to fulfill the multicultural course requirement. This review will be conducted by a subcommittee of three members selected at the discretion of the chair.

The committee shall consist of five six faculty members who shall serve three-year terms, one of whom shall be appointed chair by the Committee on Committees and Nominations, one graduate student who shall serve a one-year term, and two undergraduates who shall serve one-year terms. The Committee will also consult regularly with the Vice Provost for Diversity in order to ensure open lines of communication between faculty and administration about diversity initiatives on campus. Initial appointments of committee members shall be staggered to ensure continuity on the committee.

1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

Library Committee

This committee shall consist of the Vice Provost for Libraries and Museums; one faculty member from each of the several colleges (with the exception of the College of Arts and Sciences which shall have three, one of whom shall be from a discipline in the Humanities); two undergraduate students; and two graduate students; and two elected librarians or members of the library professional staff, who may be the same librarians who serve as elected members of the faculty senate. All members of the Committee are voting members. One of the faculty members shall be appointed chairperson. Meetings of the committee shall be open to all librarians (workload permitting) unless a closed session is deemed necessary by the chairperson or the Vice Provost for Libraries and Museums.

4.1.6 Non‐Tenure Track Faculty

In the second and fourth year, a full peer review will be conducted.  In the sixth year, on the basis of recommendations from the full peer review and chair/director/dean, and with the approval of the provost, individuals will receive either a seventh terminal year appointment or a three-year contract subject to annual review. In the second year of the three-year contract, the chair/director/dean will recommend whether the individual will be afforded a contract of four years in length to begin after the three-year contract. Subject to satisfactory annual evaluations, during the last year of a four-year contract, a fourth full peer review will be conducted. Subject to the recommendation of the peer review and chair/director/dean, and with the approval of the provost, the individual will receive a five-year contract on a "rolling" basis, subject to an annual review. Faculty on five year rolling contracts are subject to the peer evaluation every five years of faculty as defined in the Faculty Handbook. Contract renewal is subject to the notice provisions of the Faculty Handbook, "Terminations and Non-Renewals." (10/13/05), revised 12/09/05. Note that CT faculty members being considered for promotion to Associate Professor or Professor must be externally evaluated (see section 4.4.2).

1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

Section 1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

Academic Priorities and Presidential Advisory Committee

This committee shall provide advice concerning long-term priorities for the University to the sitting Faculty Senate President, and when appropriate, to the Office of the Provost, and to the Office of the President.

This committee is charged with the responsibility of participating in Academic Program Reviews (APRs), which is the function of the Provost Office in conjunction with the Faculty Senate.  The Committee shall advise the Provost on all matters pertaining to APR’s including the selection of units for review.  In May, the Committee will obtain a list, from the Deputy Provost for Academic Affairs, of all programs scheduled for review in the coming year.  This committee will maintain a written log of all APR’s. This committee will meet at least once a year with the Provost and Deputy Provost to review APR reports for the current year and progress on addressing concerns raised in APR reports from the previous year. 

The committee also shall provide historical perspective and recommendations to the Faculty Senate President on matters deemed to be of importance to the Senate, the faculty, or the academic well-being of the University.

This committee shall appoint a replacement for the Past President should a vacancy occur. The replacement will be a former President of the University Faculty Senate.

The committee shall consist of the sitting Senate President, President-Elect, and three to five former Senate Presidents appointed by the Committee on Committees and Nominations. Members shall serve two-year terms, with one former Senate President joining and one leaving each year, if feasible. The sitting Senate President Past President serving on the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will serve as chair of the committee.

The Committee shall meet as least once every month during the fall and spring semester, or more frequently if required. (Rev Feb 2017; Feb 2018)

4.4.15 Stop the Tenure Clock

Addition of new Section 4.4.13

The pre-tenure probationary period shall be extended for one year upon a tenure-track faculty member submitting a “Stop the Tenure Clock” electronic web form. This policy applies to tenure-track faculty members who become the parent of a newborn or newly adopted child and is a primary or coequal caregiver of the child or who is granted a leave of absence pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 for a period of at least one semester. The faculty member will continue to perform faculty duties at full salary. The extension shall take effect upon submission of the “Stop the Tenure Clock” electronic web form by the faculty member to the chair/director. Submission of the “Stop the Tenure Clock” electronic web form must be made within one calendar year of the birth or adoption of the child or of the commencement of the FMLA leave. Apart from the birth or adoption of a child, a tenure-track faculty member may extend the probationary period for any reason approved by the appropriate chair/director and dean, for example illness of the faculty member or of his/her immediate family, but may do so only twice, resulting in no more than two one-year extensions of the probationary period.

A tenure candidate who extends the probationary period under this provision shall be reviewed for promotion and tenure under the same academic standards as a candidate who has not extended the probationary period. The tenure candidate shall not be penalized in any way for requesting and receiving extensions of the probationary period, whether or not the additional time is used.

Extension of the probationary period does not affect the faculty member’s right to apply for tenure prior to the terminal year, regardless of time in rank. Stopping the tenure clock for one year postpones any subsequent second-year review, fourth-year review, or eligibility for a junior faculty research leave for one year.

December 2016
1.2 Bylaws and Regulations of the University Faculty Senate

In accord with Section IV, Article 7, of the Constitution, the Committee on Committees and Nominations, whose composition and charge are prescribed under the Standing Committee document, shall provide for the Senate a slate of nominees at the May April meeting for review by the Faculty Senators before the election at the May meeting. The slate shall should have at least two eligible candidates for each office or position, and the name of any eligible candidate who wants to stand for election shall appear on the slate. Nominations to the slate from the floor are permitted. In the event that there are three or more nominees to an office, and if in the balloting no individual receives a majority, the subsequent ballot will be between the two nominees receiving the highest plurality. The Chair of the Committee on Committees and Nominations and the Faculty Senate Secretary shall oversee the voting including counting the votes and certifying their authenticity.  The winners will be announced at the May meeting without specific vote totals; however, such totals shall be provided to nominees upon request to the Chair on the Committee on Committees and Nominations or the Faculty Senate Secretary.”

4.1.2 Secondary, Joint, Affiliated, and Visiting Faculty Appointments

Effective immediately, all The term Ssecondary Ffaculty appointments refers to an academic appointment made to a professional in the same or another department. If the person does not have a core faculty appointment (that is, they are a professional and don't have a faculty appointment to "return to"), then a faculty appointment for them would be "secondary."

The term Joint Faculty appointment will refers to an academic appointment made to someone with a primary academic appointment in another department unit. This joint appointment may be split funded between departments units or funding might reside entirely in the home (primary) department unit. In other words, if the person has a core faculty appointment, their additional faculty appointments are "joint," whether funded or unfunded. When a joint faculty appointment involves joint funding or workload, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) must be created among the units and deans involved. The MOU must specify that the chair/director of the home unit retains the sole responsibility and authority for the annual appraisal and planning process. The MOU should specify how input from the other unit will be obtained prior to decisions on appraisals, merit raises, and promotion and tenure decisions, and it should describe how workload will be assigned. In cases where there is no joint funding or workload assignments, a MOU is encouraged, but not required. Holding a joint appointment shall in no way abridge a faculty member’s rights in their home unit.

Affiliated faculty are members of the academic staff who are appointed as members of the academic staff for a limited period of time during the year(s) in which they are actively involved in the teaching and research program of the University. Persons holding appointment as Affiliated (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, or Instructor) must make a contribution to the University in the form of teaching, research, or consultation.

Affiliated status is accorded only after the regular academic review and evaluation. Rank is established according to the same criteria as regular faculty, and the unit shall be responsible for determination of initial rank and promotions. Such determinations do not require the approval of the College or University promotion and tenure committees. Affiliated faculty are not eligible for tenure. No stipend is paid unless an additional appointment, such as an adjunct appointment, also exists; terms of appointment are annual only up to three years, and contracts are not automatically renewed.

Rank is reviewed annually. Recommendations for promotion do not have to go through the usual committee procedures, but evidence beside a vita sheet should be forwarded to indicate meritorious service (e.g., teaching evaluations if the chief duties are in teaching). Affiliated faculty receive University I.D. cards and have access to the Library; they may purchase parking permits and football tickets at faculty rates. They may not participate in the tuition fee waiver program. Although not members of the University voting faculty, some departments or colleges may give them voting rights in their own units; the practice varies.

Adjunct faculty (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, or Instructor) are those persons who teach a course (or courses) at the University on a supplemental ("S") contract and who are not otherwise fulltime faculty of the University. Rev 9/2013

Visiting faculty include individuals, usually faculty, who come from another institution to the University for a specified period of time. The expectation is that these individuals will return to their home institutions at the end of their appointment period at the University of Delaware.

Benefits for visiting faculty include:

  •                           Blue Cross/Blue Shield
  •                           Dental Insurance
  •                           Fee Waiver

               University I.D. card which will provide access to all facilities and associated privileges

 

1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

Undergraduate Studies - This committee shall consist of the University Provost or his or her designee; the Associate Provost for Admissions and Financial Aid or his or her designee; the University Registrar or his or her designee; three faculty members from the College of Arts and Science (if feasible, one from natural sciences and mathematics, one from arts and humanities, and one from social and behavioral sciences) and one faculty member from each other undergraduate college, one of whom shall be chairperson; one representative from the Associate in Arts Program, one representative of the Committee on Graduate Studies; and three undergraduate students. 

October 2016
1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

ACADEMIC PRIORITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE:

This committee shall provide direct faculty advice concerning long-term priorities for the University to the Office of the University Provost. The committee will also advise the Office of the University Provost in preparing materials for Middle States Accreditation reviews and updates, which occur on a five-year interval. The committee will be provided with information secured by the Coordinating Committee on Education and other Faculty Senate committees concerning such matters as budgets and programs under review, and it will meet regularly with the University Provost.

This committee shall appoint a replacement for the Past President should a vacancy occur.  The replacement will be a Past President of the University Faculty Senate.

The committee shall consist of five eight members, who shall be the present and three most recent six former chairpersons of the Faculty Senate Coordinating Committee on Education and one former winner of the Francis Alison Award. In the event that a former chair of the Coordinating Committee cannot serve, another former Senate officer President may be appointed as a substitute. Members shall serve four-year terms, with one Senate member joining and one leaving each year. The committee will elect its own chair. 
(Committee established 9/94)

1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

General Provisions Regarding Committees:

Elections for the standing Committee on Committees and Nominations shall take place at the regular May meeting of the Senate so that this committee is fully constituted on September 1 of each year; and this committee shall prepare its nominations for other committees for action at the following regular May meeting of the Faculty Senate. Officers of the Senate (who with the chair of the Committee on Committees and Nominations form the Executive Committee) shall take office on September 1. Committee members and chairs shall take office on September 1 following their election or appointment. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee may appoint a temporary replacement to serve as a non-voting “Acting Officer” during the period of a vacancy.  A replacement for a Past President vacancy may be appointed by the Academic Priorities Review Committee.

1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

General Provisions Regarding Committees:

Elections for the standing Committee on Committees and Nominations shall take place at the regular May meeting of the Senate so that this committee is fully constituted on September 1 of each year; and this committee shall prepare its nominations for other committees for action at the following regular May meeting of the Faculty Senate. Officers of the Senate (who with the chair of the Committee on Committees and Nominations form the Executive Committee) shall take office on September 1 July 1. Committee members and chairs shall take office on September 1 following their election or appointment.

1.2 Bylaws and Regulations of the University Faculty Senate

Responsibilities and Powers of Officers, Section 12:

  1. Responsibilities and Powers of Officers
    (in addition to those structured in Article IV of the Constitution)

The President of the Senate shall preside at meetings of the Senate. He or she shall also serve as chairperson and preside at meetings of the Executive Committee (the officers of the Senate).  The term of the President and the members of the Executive Committee shall commence on July 1 of the year in which he/she will preside and end June 30. Outgoing and incoming Executive Committees are encouraged to meet during July and August to assure transfer of knowledge.

1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

COCAN:

The committee shall consist of one member who is elected for a two-year term from and by each Unit as defined in the Constitution of the Faculty, and three Faculty members-at-large, elected for two-year terms by the Faculty Senate. Following this election, the Faculty Senate shall select one of the faculty designees to act as chairperson for a one two-year term and who will also serve as a member of the Executive Committee. If feasible, at least one committee member shall be a senator. 
(Committee Revised fall 1988)

September 2016
1.1 Constitution of the Faculty of the University of Delaware

At the first regular May meeting the Senate shall elect a President-Elect, and in alternate years, a Vice President or a Secretary from the full-time voting faculty of the University. The President Elect shall assume the office of President of the Senate in the second year of office. The Vice President shall serve for two years and may not be reelected for one additional, consecutive two-year term.  The Secretary shall serve for two years and may not be reelected for one additional, consecutive two-year term.  The Secretary of the Senate shall also serve as Secretary of the University Faculty. (Rev. Fac Sen. 4/25/91; 9/15/97; 2/2003) 

August 2016
3.4 Academic Program Review

Faculty Handbook Section 3.4 Academic Program Review

 

Academic Program Review (APR) is a function of the Office of the Provost in conjunction with the University Faculty Senate and is coordinated by the Deputy Provost for Academic Affairs. It is designed to evaluate the quality, productivity, and the role of each academic unit and program in the fulfillment of the University's mission and strategic goals. (The term "unit" herein refers to an academic department, a college, or a program.) APR serves to encourage self-study and planning within units, to ensure comparability among review reports, and to strengthen the linkages connecting the planning agendas and practices of individual units with those of their colleges and of the University as a whole. Reviews inform budgetary planning decisions at every level of administration.

 

The Provost and Deans select units for review. Academic units will normally be reviewed at ten year intervals, but this schedule may be accelerated in individual cases at the discretion of the Provost. Wherever possible, APR reviews will be combined with accreditation or other mandated reviews. The Senate Academic Priorities Review Committee will have the opportunity to suggest programs or programmatic areas for review. The Deputy Dean Provost for Academic Affairs coordinates all reviews, working with the unit under review and with the review panel to ensure that the process will be fair, efficient, and effective.

 

Each review is conducted by a review panel, composed of five members, all from disciplines related to that of the unit under review.  The Dean responsible for the unit under review in conjunction with the unit submits names of potential reviewers to the Deputy Provost for Academic Affairs for approval.  Four reviewers are selected from the approved list of potential reviewers.  The fifth reviewer is a University of Delaware faculty member of another unit and is chosen by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and Nominations. The Review Panel members will be selected as follows:

  • one University of Delaware member or external member chosen by the Dean of the college whose unit is under review or, in the case of the review of a college, by the Provost
  • one University of Delaware member chosen by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and Nominations
  • one University of Delaware member from the faculty of another unit or external member chosen by the unit under review
  • two external members representing the discipline of the unit under review chosen by the Deputy Provost in consultation with the head of the unit and the Dean of the unit's college.

 

Further information on the Academic Program Review process may be obtained online or from the Office of the Deputy Provost.

 

 

July 2016
4.1.6 Non‐Tenure Track Faculty

Upon successful peer review and contract renewal at the end of the third two-year contract, an Instructor will be promoted to the rank progress to the title ofSenior Associate Instructor”.

Upon successful peer review and contract renewal following the thirteenth-year review, a Senior Associate Instructor will be promoted to the rank progress to the title ofMaster Senior Instructor” upon beginning the rolling five-year contract.

June 2016
4.2.15 Open Access Policy

new policy added June 2016

May 2016
4.1.6 Non‐Tenure Track Faculty

Scope: The following terms of employment apply to individuals holding primary appointments as full-time, non-tenure track faculty. These policies do not apply to individuals holding part-time, secondary, contingency or adjunct appointments as non-tenure track faculty. These policies do not apply to faculty appointed to tenure track positions.

Those faculty members of the University of Delaware employed on continuing renewable contracts will be known as Continuing Track (CT) faculty members.

It is anticipated that, in the future, the focus of appointments will be to hire "tenure track" faculty. Within the context of this primary commitment, non-tenure track faculty will be hired to supplement capacity in programs with special needs that justify these types of appointments.

Appointments: Continuing Track or Temporary Non-Tenure Track Faculty: Non-tenure track faculty appointments may be continuing or temporary. They are for a defined term and do not involve a tenure commitment.

Individuals holding primary appointments as full-time, Continuing non-tenure Track faculty are hired through regular University procedures governing new position approval, recruitment and affirmative action. Continuing appointments must be supported from recurrent sources of funds. Continuing non-tenure Track faculty are eligible for promotion in academic rank and sabbaticals under the same criteria and procedures that apply to tenure-track faculty.

Temporary, full-time non-tenure track faculty are hired through University procedures for temporary appointments and are appointed to one-year contracts. Unless specifically approved by the Provost, these appointments are renewable for a maximum of two additional years. An exception to this maximum may be made for research faculty, as described below. Temporary, non-tenure track faculty are not eligible for promotion and sabbaticals. Continuation of the temporary position beyond one year is contingent on availability of funding, departmental needs, and performance, and notice of nonrenewal is not required. (10/13/05)

Types of Non-tenure Track Faculty: Continuing Track and temporary non-tenure track faculty may be hired as instructional, clinical, public service or research faculty. The workloads of instructional, clinical, public service, and research non-tenure track faculty are administered by the chairs/directors of the academic programs in which the appointments are made in a manner consistent with University guidelines, approved program procedures and collective bargaining requirements. (Rev. 10/01).

Instructional faculty have responsibilities for scheduled University course instruction and related student advisement as well as for instructional support activities.

Clinical faculty have major responsibilities in clinical supervision and instruction (including, for example, clinical nursing supervision, student teaching, internships, field placements, and practicums) and/or professional practice supervision (including, for example, HRIM and business practices) with the balance of workload involving regularly scheduled instructional and advisement responsibilities as well as related professional and scholarly contributions. CT faculty members who fulfill a special role in a clinical setting where they educate students by means of significant contact with patients may carry the modified title “Clinical [Assistant /Associate] Professor.”

Public service faculty have major responsibilities for college- (or departmental/school based-) public service programs (including applied research, technical assistance, and community and professional development training and education) with on-going responsibilities for regularly scheduled undergraduate and/or graduate instruction and advisement, and with the balance of workload involving clinical and professional practice supervision, and related professional and scholarly contributions. CT faculty members who have prior professional practice in industry, business, or public service essential for the faculty role, may carry the modified title “[Assistant/Associate] Professor of Practice.”

The aforementioned criteria for assigning the two modified titles “Clinical” and “of Practice” must be assiduously maintained.

Research faculty have major responsibilities for externally-funded and sponsored programs of research. Since the salary of research faculty derives largely or exclusively from grants and contracts, research responsibilities generally constitute all or most of the research faculty's workload. While research faculty do not have ongoing responsibilities for regularly scheduled undergraduate and graduate instruction and advisement, they may supervise undergraduate and graduate students who participate in their research programs. Occasionally, research faculty may participate in scheduled instruction, on a voluntary basis, so long as that participation is consistent with their research responsibilities.

External funding to support the appointment of research faculty must be continuous during the term of an appointment contract. Because appointments are made to fulfill external grant and contract responsibilities, the renewal limit on temporary appointments does not apply; renewals may be approved that are congruent with the terms of external contracts.

Academic Rank: Non-tenure track faculty must meet the minimum requirements for the academic rank of "instructor," which generally requires the master's degree or equivalent qualifications in an appropriate field of instruction with evidence of sustained effective teaching ability; for clinical positions, there must also be demonstrated evidence of appropriate practical field experience.

Upon successful peer review and contract renewal at the end of the third two-year contract, an Instructor will be promoted to the rank of “Senior Instructor”.

Upon successful peer review and contract renewal following the thirteenth-year review, a Senior Instructor will be promoted to the rank of “Master Instructor” upon beginning the rolling five-year contract.

Non-tenure track faculty may hold higher academic ranks and to do so must meet the same criteria for academic rank as is required for tenure track faculty.

Continuing Track faculty may hold professorial ranks and are eligible for promotion according to approved departmental/school guidelines.  

  • Two- and four-year peer reviews should be required for contract renewal of newly-hired CT faculty members.
  • Units with CT faculty members must have clearly defined promotion criteria at all ranks for CT faculty as part of their approved Promotion and Tenure document.
  • Clear criteria for CT faculty promotion must be included in all college and University Promotion and Tenure documents.

Term and Contract Renewal: Individuals appointed as Continuing non-tenure Track faculty (see "Appointments" above) will have a six-year probationary period comprised of three successive two-year appointments, subject to annual review and a recommendation for contract renewal by the chair/director/dean.

In the sixth second and fourth year, a full peer review will be conducted.  In the sixth year, and on the basis of recommendations from the full peer review and chair/director/dean, and with the approval of the provost, individuals will receive either a seventh terminal year appointment or a three-year contract subject to annual review. In the second year of the three-year contract, the chair/director/dean will recommend whether the individual will be afforded a contract of four years in length to begin after the three-year contract. Subject to satisfactory annual evaluations, during the last year of a four-year contract, a fourth second full peer review will be conducted. Subject to the recommendation of the peer review and chair/director/dean, and with the approval of the provost, the individual will receive a five-year contract on a "rolling" basis, subject to an annual review. Faculty on five year rolling contracts are subject to the peer evaluation of faculty as defined in the Faculty Handbook. Contract renewal is subject to the notice provisions of the Faculty Handbook, "Terminations and Non-Renewals." (10/13/05), revised 12/09/05. Note that CT faculty members being considered for promotion to Associate Professor or Professor must be externally evaluated (see section 4.4.2).

Individuals hired on full-time temporary appointments who are appointed subsequently as primary, full-time, Continuing non-tenure Track faculty will have their previous time of service counted in the computation of subsequent contract renewal periods. No individual will receive a three- or five-year "rolling" contract without a full peer review.

In the event of an unsatisfactory annual evaluation during the term of a multi-year contract, a full peer review may be conducted. If a peer review confirms the unsatisfactory performance set forth in the annual evaluation, the individual will receive one full year's notice in writing of contract termination (see "Terminations and Non-Renewals" in the Faculty Handbook).

In the event of programmatic and/or budgetary reductions, individuals serving on multiple year contracts will receive one full year's notice in writing of contract termination (see "Terminations and Non-Renewals" in the Faculty Handbook).

Sabbaticals: Faculty appointed as Continuing non-tenure Track faculty (see "Appointments" above) are eligible for sabbaticals at the end of the sixth year of appointment if their appointment is renewed for a three-year appointment (as stipulated in "Term and Contract Renewal" above) and with review and approval through regular University procedures. Continuing Track faculty are eligible for subsequent sabbaticals on the same schedule as tenure-track faculty.

Merit Pay: Merit pay for non-tenure track faculty will be awarded on a basis consistent with the written workload agreement for such faculty. The annual evaluation of performance for purposes of merit pay will be consistent with the applicable department/college promotion and tenure criteria.  

Peer Reviews: Peer reviews shall be consistent with the applicable department/college promotion and tenure criteria and consistent with the written workload agreement for each non-tenure track faculty member.  

Career Development and Salary Adjustments: Salary adjustments for Continuing non-tenure Track faculty parallel to promotional increments for associate professors are made upon contract renewal for three years at the end of the initial six-year probationary period and parallel to the promotional increment for full professors at the start of the first five- year "rolling" contract. However, individuals holding primary appointments as full-time, Continuing non-tenure Track faculty (see "Appointments" above) will not be awarded promotional increments should there be a change in their academic rank. (Policy added in entirety 8/96, Vice President for Administration to reflect Collective Bargaining Agreement; revised 5/00 Vice President for Administration in consultation with AAUP; editorial correction 8/00.)

4.4.4 Candidate’s Rights and Responsibilities

Paragraph 2:

A faculty member has the right to apply for promotion in any academic year (subject to the "Promotion Process Schedule"). However, tenure-track faculty in their terminal year may not apply for promotion. Time-in-rank is not a criterion for promotion. Candidates must compile a record sufficient to warrant promotion prior to starting this process. Each candidate will submit a promotion dossier to the department in accordance with the "Promotion Process Schedule." This dossier is the basis of promotion decisions and it is the responsibility of the candidate to prepare an organized and cogent dossier, representing the case for promotion as well as possible. The organization of the dossier is described in "Promotion Dossiers."

Paragraph 6:

Other than letters from solicited peer reviewers and those individuals in the promotion ladder shown above, only materials approved by the candidate may be added to the dossier after its submission by the candidate. These materials might be recent publications or journal acceptances and may be added to the dossier at any time during the promotion process. Candidates must document by means of a dated cover note as having given specific permission for any additions to the dossier after the September 1 submission deadline.

4.4.1 Faculty Promotion and Tenure

paragraph 3:

Departmental documents should also include the procedure for choosing the departmental promotion and tenure committee and should specify required levels of achievement for each rank, such as excellence in research or teaching or in both. Appropriate modes of scholarly publication may also be specified. Faculty candidates for promotion and/or tenure will be evaluated based on the criteria in their department's approved promotion and tenure guidelines appropriately weighted for their workload for the period under review. (Rev. 3/4/08)

4.4.11 Promotion Dossiers

Attachment 1

4.4.9 Promotion Dossiers

It is the individual's responsibility to present the best case for promotion since he or she is most clearly involved in the outcome. It is extremely important that the dossier be well organized and carefully prepared because superfluous or confusing information may obscure more than it enhances one's qualifications and achievements. Unless otherwise noted in the faculty appointment letter, all work in rank, even if conducted at other institutions of higher education, shall be considered for promotion and tenure. It shall be the faculty's responsibility to include evidence of this work in his/her dossier and to clearly identify when and where this work was performed. (Rev. 5/10/07).

All dossiers should be organized under the following headings in this order:

I.      Introductory Material

  • Contents and Guidelines

1. Recommendation for Promotion Form

2.   A table of contents

3.   A copy of the University, college, and department promotion and tenure criteria

B.      Application for Promotion

1.  Candidate's letter requesting promotion

2.  A curriculum vitae

3.  Candidate's statement (optional)

C.      Two and Four Year Reviews for Faculty Seeking Promotion to Associate Professor

1. Reviews conducted by the corresponding department committee

2. Reviews or evaluations conducted by the department chair

D.      Internal Recommendations

1. The department committee's recommendation

2. The chairperson's recommendation

3. College committee's recommendation (if any)

4. Dean or director's recommendation or endorsement

5. University committee's recommendation

6. Any appeal materials (appeals and rebuttals)

E.       External Recommendations

1. List of the external reviewers who were nominated by the candidate versus those nominated by the department, and the criteria used to request from specific reviewers

2. Procedure for choosing external reviewers

a. Solicited peer external evaluations serve as a major indicator of an individual's impact on the profession,  (These evaluations will appear in the dossier under I.E.1.) and These peer evaluations are always required for promotion. Although the number may vary by rank and department or division, every dossier must include outside peer external reviews solicited by the departmental committee and written by highly qualified individuals with established reputations in the candidate's field. These statements should analyze and evaluate critically the candidate's work and accomplishments during the review period and they should also comment on the candidate's potential for future development.

b. The solicitation of these evaluations must follow these guidelines:

1)  A candidate will submit a list of potential reviewers, some of whom will be approached for recommendations. The department committee will suggest additional reviewers. This total list of names will be greater than the total number of letters solicited. Although the candidate must be informed of all potential reviewers and have an opportunity to comment on them, it is the department committee, and not the candidate, that makes the final selection. The final list of names will not be given to the candidate so as to preserve confidentiality of the reviewers.

2)  Candidates must not contact potential reviewers about the promotion process at any time.

3)  Letters of evaluation will be confidential and peer external reviewers will not be mentioned by name or affiliation in any recommendations or evaluations. Reviewers may be referred to by number.

4)  Each peer external review should be accompanied by the letter requesting the evaluation, a curriculum vita or biographical statement describing the reviewer's credentials, and a statement of relationship to the candidate. Insofar as reasonable and possible, only reviewers without personal ties to the candidate should be selected.

5)  If a candidate has collaborative works, it must be clear to the peer external evaluator what the candidate's contributions were to the finished work. Reviewers must be able to determine whether an individual can execute research in his or her own right.

6.  External teaching evaluations that should attest to the candidate's pedagogical competence, knowledge of the subject matter, organization and preparation, ability to stimulate intellectual curiosity and willingness to work, innovative capacity, and such. These evaluations will be solicited by the departmental Promotion and Tenure committee.

7.  External service evaluations will be required for those CT faculty whose primary contracted area of responsibility is service. The external evaluations can be performed locally, but should be external to the academic unit

3.   Letters of evaluation from peer external reviewers together with supporting material. These letters will be numbered sequentially for reference.

II.    Evidential Materials

A. Teaching

Teaching is an extremely important factor in promotion decisions and one must incorporate into the dossier several kinds of evidence. Possibilities include:

Peer evaluations that attest to the candidate's pedagogical competence, knowledge of the subject matter, organization and preparation, ability to stimulate intellectual curiosity and willingness to work, innovative capacity, and such. These evaluations will be solicited by the departmental Promotion and Tenure committee.

1.  Student evaluations, properly tabulated and summarized. The procedures used in administering the evaluations should also be described. Where available comparable departmental evaluations and past measures of the candidate's performance should be provided. (Note: Student evaluations should only be used in conjunction with other indicators to measure teaching competence, not just popularity. The type and size of courses should be taken into account).

2.  Samples of student comments from student evaluations. The means by which these samples were selected should be provided.

3.  Testimonials from a selection of former and current undergraduate and graduate students. The procedures for drawing the sample should be clearly described.

4.  Course portfolio evaluation

5.  Student performance in later sequential courses

6.  Standardized test scores

7.  Self-evaluation

8.  Long-term follow-up of students

9.  In-person classroom observation and evaluation in courses taught by the candidate, done by university faculty and/or staff (such as from the Center for Teaching & Assessment of   Learning), chosen for their pedagogical expertise.

10. Teaching awards (e.g., Faculty Senate Excellence in Teaching)

    B. Scholarship

1. Solicited peer evaluations serve as a major indicator of an individual's impact on the profession. (These evaluations will appear in the dossier under I.E.1.)

These peer evaluations are always required for promotion. Although the number may vary by rank and department or division, every dossier must include outside peer reviews solicited by the departmental committee and written by individuals with established reputations in the candidate's field. These statements should analyze and evaluate critically the candidate's work and accomplishments and they should also comment on the candidate's potential for future development.

The solicitation of these evaluations must follow these guidelines:

a. A candidate will submit a list of potential reviewers, some of whom will be approached for recommendations. The department committee will suggest additional reviewers. This total list of names will be greater than the total number of letters solicited. Although the candidate must be informed of all potential reviewers and have an opportunity to comment on them, it is the department committee, and not the candidate, that makes the final selection. The final list of names will not be given to the candidate so as to preserve confidentiality of the reviewers.

b. Candidates must not contact potential reviewers about the promotion process at any time.

c. Letters of evaluation will be confidential and peer reviewers will not be mentioned by name or affiliation in any recommendations or evaluations. Reviewers may be referred to by number.

d. Each peer review should be accompanied by the letter requesting the evaluation, a curriculum vita or biographical statement describing the reviewer's credentials, and a statement of relationship to the candidate. Insofar as reasonable and possible, only reviewers without personal ties to the candidate should be selected.

e. If a candidate has collaborative works, it must be clear to the peer evaluator what the candidate's contributions were to the finished work. Reviewers must be able to determine whether an individual can execute research in his or her own right.

1. Evidence of scholarly attainment including:

a. Published Materials. Books, refereed and other articles, conference proceedings, works of art, recordings, and other permanent additions to the candidate's field are to be listed in the dossier. For all of these works, the candidate should make clear the extent to which the work has been peer reviewed. For collaborative works, the candidate's contributions(e.g., percent effort, specific activities performed, etc) should be clearly indicated. Different fields have entirely different traditions that determine the order of names associated with these works (e.g., alphabetically or by seniority) and the significance of the order of the names should be clearly stated in the dossier. The rationale for the choice of journals chosen for publishing one’s work should be clearly indicated, as well as the level to which the works have contributed to the field.

b. Awards and prizes.

c. Lectures/presentations/performances at other institutions or conferences, specifying if these were local, national, or international, and whether they were peer-reviewed or not.

d. Unsolicited Peer  External Evaluations. There are other kinds of information that can be interpreted as peer external evaluations, although not of the same kind as derived through solicitation. This material, which should also be included in the dossier since it too describes the candidate's accomplishments, includes among others: articles citing the individual's work and the reasons for its importance; reprinting of articles or parts of books in collections of distinguished contributions to a subject, and so forth.

e. Professional Activity Prior to University Employment. Scholarly productivity for promotion to the rank of associate professor generally cannot be based on work completed in earning the doctorate or other appropriate terminal degree or postdoctorate work prior to arrival at the University of Delaware. The research involved for that degree or postdoctorate work was one of the reasons for initial employment; promotion, on the other hand, must consider evidence of scholarship accomplished subsequent to that performed for the degree or postdoctorate work.

This requirement does not mean that publications based on the dissertation should be totally ignored. Rather, the candidate must offer clear evidence of substantial scholarly achievement made after the awarding of the doctorate or other appropriate terminal degree or postdoctorate work.

Like research, any prior teaching or service plays its role in the hiring contract, the level of monies involved, and the responsibilities attached to it. Prior activity plays little or no role in the promotion except to form a meaningful context against which later development and accomplishments can be judged. There must be evidence of continuing productivity.

f. Prestigious Grants. The acquisition of research or other grants, such as Guggenheim or NSF awards, is obviously a testimony to a person's competence and reputation and should be described in the dossier. The candidate’s contribution, and the funds coming to the candidate, should be clearly indicated, especially in projects with multiple principal investigators.

g. Reviews of Published Materials, Performance, or Exhibits.

h. Unpublished Material. Unpublished material may in some circumstances be an important indicator of a candidate's competence and achievements. Its evaluation, however, must be especially thoughtful. In particular, if it is to be a formal part of the dossier, it should be sent to outside reviewers for a critical assessment of its merits. The comments are meant to apply to unpublished manuscripts as well as so-called "in house" publications, such as research reports that are not subject to an external review process.

i. Other Evidence of Scholarship Appropriate to the Profession. This type of evidence, if important for a department, should be indicated in the department's promotion and tenure document.

   C. Service

Service includes innumerable types of activities rendered for the benefit of the department, college, university, community, profession, or nation. Willingness to undertake such work and competence in performing it are taken into account in the promotion process. Evaluating service is difficult. Promotion and tenure committees need to know when there has been an outstanding level of service that has taken appreciable effort or service that has been done in some way that can be noted as excellent. Other than that, the main concern is that a person has fulfilled his or her service commitment under the criteria of the academic unit concerned and that the unit is satisfied. Administrative responsibilities can be considered as part of the service component, but they may not be used as a substitute for accomplishment in a scholarly discipline. 

 

 

4.4.10 Promotion Process Schedule

The time schedule for the promotion process is shown below. Whenever possible, these deadlines should be anticipated and dossiers forwarded (with recommendations) at an earlier date. (Note: Candidates can be required by department policy to submit dossiers before September 1.)

15 March        30 April
Candidate notifies chair of intention to apply for promotion in writing. Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee begins the process of soliciting peer evaluations. 

1 September
Dossier to Department Committee and Chairperson. 

1 October
Department's recommendation to the Chairperson. 

15 October
Chairperson's recommendation to the College Committee and Dean. 

1 December 
College Committee's recommendation to the Dean. 

2 January
Dean's recommendation to the University Promotions and Tenure Committee. 

15 February
University Promotions and Tenure Committee recommendations to Provost. 

28 February     15 March
Provost's recommendations. 


Appeals are possible at every level, but must be made to the committee or administrator whose decision is being appealed. An intention to appeal must be given to the appropriate body within five working days of notification of the decision. An appeal includes: (1) a letter documenting the basis of the appeal, usually written by the candidate; and (2) a scheduled meeting with the appropriate person or committee. It is strongly recommended that the candidate attend the appeal meeting. Representatives of the candidate can also attend and participate in the appeal meeting. Appeals must be handled within two weeks, except under extenuating circumstances. The University Faculty Senate Committee on Promotions and Tenure will hear no appeals beyond March 1, and the Provost's Office will hear no appeals beyond April 15.  Any appeals not heard by these dates must be carried over to the following academic year. (Rev. Fac. Sen 2/98) 

1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

Education, Coordinating Committee

This committee shall oversee be a continuing center for overviewing the broad educational affairs of the University; for providing in a larger context and will provide liaison and coordination among the various educational committees of the Senate and the Office of the Provost. for the It will examine ation and preparation of educational proposals; and for providing liaison and coordination among the following enumerated educational committees. presented by other Senate committees and will provide leadership for University level educational initiatives, which may include initiating proposals to be considered by the Senate1.  It shall survey academic impacts, weaknesses and strengths. It will help formulate and assess educational policies and practices and make recommendations. Mindful of Trustee and Administrative responsibility for the University’s fiscal affairs, and at the same time recognizing budgetary matters as a main instrument of academic development, this committee is authorized to confer with the Provost concerning the establishment of academic priorities and their implementation, and such other related budgetary matters as may arise.  It will consult with the Senate Budget Committee to assess the financial impact of academic proposals and initiatives as appropriate. 

1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

 

Library Committee

 

This committee shall consist of the Vice Provost for Libraries and Museums; one faculty member from each of the several colleges (with the exception of the College of Arts and Sciences which shall have two three, one of whom shall be from a discipline in the Humanities); one two undergraduate students; and one two graduate students.  All members of the Committee are voting members.  One of the faculty members shall be appointed chairperson. The primary roles of the committee are to advise the Vice Provost for Libraries and Museums on both the needs and foci of the academic community and to provide feedback on the libraries’ current and proposed activities. An important secondary role is to advise the Faculty Senate on policies and practices that relate to the libraries.(Rev 3/2016)

Pages

Log an Update