CLAS Home > For Faculty > Promotion & Tenure > Joint Review

Promotion & Tenure Review for Jointly Appointed Faculty in Liberal Arts & Sciences Departments

In reviews of jointly appointed faculty, the College implements the following procedures and models for cooperation of the jointly appointing departments, in accordance with the University policy stated in the Final Report to the Provost of the Interdisciplinary Committee on Faculty Issues, Appendix B.

Change to University/Collegiate Guidelines
[tentatively approved for implementation beginning in 2000-2001]
Models for Joint Review by Two Units within the College
[tentatively approved for implementation beginning in 2000-2001]

Changes to the University/Collegiate Procedural Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure Decision-Making

The Office of the Provost has tentatively approved, for implementation within the College, the following changes:

From "Overview of Process"

If the candidate holds a joint appointment, the written offer of appointment states which unit is primary for purposes of promotion and/or tenure reviews. It also states whether each unit will make an independent and primary decision (the usual arrangement in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences) or whether one of the departments will be limited to a subordinate consulting role. For joint appointments already existing at the time these procedures are adopted, the Dean in consultation with the DEOs of the two units will define the review procedures.

For probationary faculty holding joint appointments, the candidate's promotion dossier must include the original agreement between the DEOs of the jointly appointing units and the probationary faculty member concerning his/her teaching and service commitments to each unit. The dossier must also include any revisions of the original agreement. [See section I.B.3.b.]

The two departments must agree on formulate a single list of external evaluators, and eligible faculty in each department must examine the same promotion record. The Dean, in consultation with the DEOs of the two units and the faculty candidate, determines the number of external evaluations to be sought (within the range of 4 to 8 evaluations established by the University) for each review and approves a single list of evaluators. Each department votes separately. The DEO of the secondary unit transmits his or her recommendation and the report and vote of his or her departmental faculty to the DEO of the primary unit, who places these documents in the promotion record.

From I.B.3 "Materials to be included in the candidate's dossier"

The dossier will contain the following, in the order listed -- except that information on a CV that follows the College's model CV need not be repeated elsewhere. (For the model CV, click here.)

a. the "Recommendation for Faculty Promotion" cover sheet, with the section that is to be filled out by the candidate completed (available from the Office of the Provost);

b. [For probationary faculty holding joint appointments only], the original agreement between the DEOs of the jointly appointing units and the probationary faculty member concerning his/her teaching and service commitments to each unit and any subsequent revisions of the original agreement.

b. c. [on the model CV] a record of the candidate's educational and professional history, consisting of the following sections in the order listed:
[all subsequent subsections of the I.B.3 will be re-lettered]

From I.D.2(b) "Selection of External Evaluators"

For jointly appointed faculty, if the two appointing units specify different numbers of external evaluations, the larger number specified will be sought., the Dean, in consultation with the DEOs of the two units and the faculty candidate, determines the number of external evaluations to be sought (within the range of 4 to 8 evaluations established by the University) for each review. The Dean, in consultation with the DEOs of the two units, approves a single list of evaluators. The two departments must agree on a single list of external evaluators, and the eligible faculty in both departments must have access to the same set of external evaluations.

Back to the Top

Models for Joint Review in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Under the Revised Procedural Statement

The Office of the Provost has tenatively approved, for implementation within the College, the following models:

1. For Joint Appointments Greater Than 0% In Both Units.

Model 1A: The Two Units Conduct Separate But Parallel Review Processes.

The DEO of the unit designated as primary is responsible for informing the candidate of the timing of the required tenure review. Both DEOs meet with the candidate to ensure that the promotion dossier contains the necessary materials. If one or both units require materials in addition to those required under the College/University Guidelines, those materials must be in the promotion dossier available to both units. If deadlines in the two units differ, the review follows the deadlines of the unit designated primary for the purpose of the review process.

Each unit may form its own departmental promotion & tenure committee for the candidate, producing separate and independent assessments of teaching, of research/creative work, and of service. Both committees submit their assessments to the DEO of the unit designated as primary, who enters them into the promotion record and transmits copies to the candidate. If the candidate responds to the assessments of either or both committees' assessments, that response is submitted to the DEO of the unit designated as primary, who enters it into the promotion record.

The Dean, in consultation with the DEOs of the two units and the faculty candidate, determines the number of external evaluations to be sought (within the range of 4 to 8 evaluations established by the University) for the review and approves a single list of evaluators. The DEO of the unit designated as primary solicits the letters of evaluation and keeps a record of the process.

Both Departmental Consulting Groups have access to identical copies of the promotion record. Each DCG votes separately and reports its discussion separately; each DEO writes a separate letter of recommendation. The reports and votes of both DCGs are transmitted to the DEO of the unit designated primary, as is the letter of recommendation of the secondary unit's DEO. The DEO of the unit designated primary places these documents, and his/her own recommendation, into the promotion record, and transmits to the candidate copies of both DCGs' reports and both DEOs' letters.

When the review is completed at the College level, the Dean informs the DEOs of both units of her recommendation to the Provost and of the vote of the College's Committee on Faculty Tenure and Promotion. The DEO of the unit designated primary informs the candidate of the decisions at the College level.

Model 1B: The Two Units Form a Joint Promotion & Tenure Committee.

The two units form a joint departmental promotion & tenure committee for the candidate, some members of which have appointments in one of the units and others in the other unit. The representation of each unit on this joint committee is roughly proportionate to the percentage of the candidate's appointment in that unit. The joint committee writes assessments of the candidate's teaching, research, and service and submits the assessments to the DEO of the unit designated as primary, who ensures that each departmental consulting group has identical copies of the promotion record.

In other ways, the review process is identical to that in Model 1A above.

Back to the Top

2. For a Joint Appointment that is 0% In One Unit.

The College allows a unit to take a "subordinate, consultative" role only in cases where the candidate has a 0% appointment in that unit. The internal peer assessment of teaching, research/creative work, and service is conducted solely by the department designated primary, though that unit may invite one or more eligible faculty members from the secondary unit to serve on the departmental promotion & tenure committee. The consultative role of the secondary unit is fulfilled in one of the two ways described below. The Dean, in consultation with the DEOs of the two units, will determine which of these two methods will be used to provide a secondary, consultative role for the unit of 0% appointment. The DEO of the primary unit ensures that a timeline is established and agreed upon to allow faculty eligible to vote on the decision in each department time for deliberation and to allow the candidate time to respond to the DCG report and DEO recommendation from one unit before the discussion in the other unit.

Model 2A: Discussion and Vote of the Departmental Consulting Group in the Unit of 0% Appointment Precede the Discussion and Vote in the Unit of Primary Appointment.

Before the Departmental Consulting Group of the primary unit meets to discuss the promotion record, the DCG of the secondary unit discusses the record. The vote and record of that discussion and the recommendation of the DEO of the secondary unit are entered into the promotion record and the candidate has the opportunity to respond before the DCG of the primary unit meets to discuss the record. The vote and report of the secondary unit's DCG, the recommendation of the secondary unit's DEO, and the candidate's response (if any) are therefore among the materials that inform the discussion in the primary unit's DCG.

Model 2B: Discussion and Vote of the Departmental Consulting Group in the Unit of 0% Appointment Follow the Discussion and Vote in the Unit of Primary Appointment.

After the report of the primary unit's DCG discussion and vote and the recommendation of the primary unit's DEO have been entered into the promotion record, and after the candidate has had the opportunity to respond, these documents are transmitted to the secondary unit to be placed in that unit's copy of the promotion record. The DCG of the secondary unit then discusses the record and votes whether to endorse or not to endorse the decision of the primary unit. The report of the secondary unit's discussion and vote and the recommendation of the secondary unit's DEO are entered into the promotion record and are transmitted to the candidate by the DEO of the primary unit.