Revisions approved by the faculty, 04/27/15
Revision approved 06/02/16

Introduction

The Writing Program, in its policy and procedures for the recommendation of tenure and/or promotion for its faculty, seeks to be consistent with the statements of tenure and promotion policy and procedures of the University and the College of Arts and Sciences. These statements include general criteria for promotion and tenure, as well as departmental rights and responsibilities in the development of candidate materials and the formulation of recommendations. They also establish minimum eligibility in terms of years of service, important deadlines for recommendations or decisions, and candidates' responsibilities and rights throughout the process. Within the general framework of the College and University criteria for promotion and tenure, candidates in the Writing Program will be evaluated by criteria specific to the discipline (the study of writing and rhetoric) and to the mission of the department, as stated in the Writing Program Policies for Promotion and Tenure (1989; updated 2003 and 2013).

The Director of the Writing Program serves as department chairperson and is referred to hereafter as "department chair."

I. Constitution of Committees

A. The Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee

Only tenured full-time faculty appointed at least 50% in the Writing Program are eligible to participate in formal deliberations and to vote on a candidate's application for tenure. All such persons holding tenure at the time a colleague is to be considered for tenure will constitute the departmental tenure committee for that candidate. For this purpose tenured status includes those who have received notice from the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs that they have been granted tenure.

B. The Departmental Promotions Committee

The promotion committee will consist of at least two qualified voting members from the department. All full-time tenure-track faculty who are appointed at least 50% in the Writing Program, and who hold the rank of Associate Professor or above are eligible to participate in formal deliberations on a candidate's application for promotion. Those voting on promotion to full professor will be department members appointed at least 50% in the Writing Program who hold the rank of full professor. If the number of full professors eligible to vote on the case is fewer than four, the department chair will, after consultation with the candidate and faculty, invite full professors from the affiliate faculty and/or other Syracuse University faculty members who hold the rank of full professor to bring the total number of full professors eligible to vote on the case to four. The faculty members invited to participate in the case will help develop the candidate's case, read the candidate's materials, attend the meeting where the case for promotion is discussed, and cast votes on the promotion case that, together with the vote of full professors in the department, will constitute the departmental vote that will be forwarded to the College Promotion and Tenure Committee. In cases where the department chair is a candidate for promotion, the most senior faculty member will manage the case, fulfilling the functions assigned in these procedures to the department chair.

C. Procedures For Joint Appointments

In the case of joint appointments in the College of Arts and Sciences, candidates will provide materials to each department in which they will be considered for promotion and tenure, following the procedures of that department, so that each department can submit its own recommendation to the College Committee. To the extent possible, the department chair will cooperate with the other department(s) of appointment, if necessary making minor revisions in these procedures, to make this parallel process efficient and manageable for the candidate.

II. Initiation of Tenure and Promotion Cases

Tenure cases, and coinciding promotion cases, will automatically be initiated in accordance with the University's guidelines for reappointment or tenure, with the exception of a candidate requesting consideration for early tenure. Promotion cases not coinciding with tenure cases are to be initiated by eligible candidates.Faculty members should notify the department chair of their candidacy by March 1st of the academic year preceding the academic year in which the College committee is to consider the case.

III. Candidate Preparation

The department chair, in close consultation with the candidate, will determine both the timeliness and the specific procedures to be followed in the preparation of the candidate's formal papers and case for tenure and/or promotion. This includes (but is not limited to) the timely solicitation of outside letters of recommendation, as described below.

In this process the candidate is free to select one or more faculty colleagues from within the department to assist him or her in preparing the formal papers. Such assistance does not imply an advocacy role for the mentor.

The candidate is responsible for providing one copy of a complete set of the materials selected, in consultation with the department chair, for review by outside evaluators. It should be submitted in time to send to reviewers in June before a fall review. Each set is to consist of:

--a complete bibliographic record of scholarly accomplishment [indicating which work has been completed in rank]
--a curriculum vitae
--copies of publications and other relevant materials, including teaching materials and documentation of intellectual work performed in the context of service, selected for outside review
--a short statement (2-3 pages) that contextualizes the selection and the work for the reviewer.

These materials do not include Form A.

The department is responsible for copying additional sets of these selected materials for distribution to outside reviewers by the department chair. In addition, by no later than August 1st, the candidate is responsible for providing, for use by the departmental Review Committee, one copy of a more comprehensive set of materials, including any that have become available since distribution of the selected sets to reviewers. Some materials (e.g., course evaluations or letters from students) will be placed in the dossier by the department.

This expanded set for internal use is to consist of (at least):

--1 copy of Form A (as described in College policies and procedures)--a complete bibliographic record of scholarly accomplishment, as part of Form A [indicating which work has been completed in rank]
--a curriculum vitae
--1 copy of all publications for tenure cases; otherwise, 1 copy of all publications since the last promotion
--a list of courses taught by the candidate since appointment or the last promotion, semester by semester, with the number of students enrolled
--for tenure, 1 copy of all available undergraduate student evaluations for courses taught since appointment; for promotion, 1 copy of all available undergraduate student evaluations for courses taught in the last four years
--1 copy of graduate course evaluations or letters that are on file in the department, or that are otherwise collected by a systematic and open process
--1 copy of teaching (or other) materials referenced in Form A.

The candidate may also include other letters and materials necessary or useful to document and evaluate performance in teaching, scholarship, or service, including outside evaluations in such forms as published reviews, pre-publication critiques, and other comments by outside scholars on published or unpublished work.

If letters are solicited from undergraduate students, graduate students, alumni, or others, one or more of these procedures will be followed: 1) names will be drawn from class lists; 2) names of potential respondents will be solicited from departmental faculty and others, including the candidate; and 3) candidates will be requested to submit a selected list of students they have taught (or mentored or advised), noting any special relationship they had as mentor, advisor, research associate, etc.

Form A must be turned in to the department by August 1st and will be distributed to the eligible voting faculty as soon as it is available. (These clean copies must be preserved without markings, returned to the department, and turned over to the college when the department is finished with them.)

A complete set (two copies, except for books) of all other materials provided by the candidate, in addition to letters from external reviewers and other relevant documentation, will be made available by the department chair to the eligible voting faculty on reserve in the Writing Program, no later than ten days before the departmental meeting.

IV. Soliciting Outside Reviews

A. Number Of Reviews Sought

The department chair should seek substantially more than five reviews in order to ensure timely receipt of at least six. Requests to reviewers should be made starting March 15th preceding a fall review. The recommended number is at least seven. Receipt of reviews will be carefully monitored so that backup requests can be made when necessary. All reviews received will be forwarded to the College Committee.

B. Source Of Reviewers

The department chair is encouraged to solicit reviewer recommendations from the following sources.

1) departmental faculty, especially those with research in related areas
2) other experts (both at Syracuse and at other institutions)
3) collaborators of the candidate
4) the candidate.

The department chair will compile a list of outside experts from these sources, keeping the candidate's list separate. The candidate is invited to comment on the appropriateness of the list. The chair will then contact these experts to get a commitment before sending materials to be reviewed. The chair begins at the top of the list provided by the candidate until at least two of the candidate's choices agree to provide a written review in the time line specified (to be received one week before the departmental meeting for deliberations). Meanwhile the chair also acquires at least four other outside reviewers on the departmental list developed independently from the candidate.

Requests to reviewers should ask for evaluation not only of research and scholarship, but also of intellectual work in other areas of effort (teaching, service, leadership) as appropriate to the candidate and the materials made available. The basis for selecting the reviewers will be documented, and a brief biography or a curriculum vitae will be included for each reviewer.

V. Departmental Review Of The Candidate's Work

By April 30, a three-person ad hoc Review Committee for each candidate will be appointed by the department chair, in consultation with the candidate. The membership of the committee will be known to the candidate.

The Review Committee for each candidate consists of three tenured faculty members in the Writing Program. At least one of the three tenured faculty members will be drawn from the group eligible for the relevant departmental Promotion and/or Tenure committee for this candidate. One senior faculty member serves as chair of the Review Committee.

The Review Committee's function is to gather and assess evidence about the candidate's performance from multiple sources, including, for example: materials from the candidate, interviews with students, peers, and others in a position to evaluate the candidate's performance; solicitation of letters; teaching observations; and other means as appropriate. The committee's investigative responsibilities are subdivided into teaching, scholarship, and service.

The Chair of the Review Committee will meet with the candidate as soon as possible after the committee is appointed to answer questions, review due dates for materials, and establish a process of communication with the committee. The candidate and Review Committee should stay in communication during the process to make sure that it goes smoothly.

Following its investigation, the committee will prepare and submit a document to the Departmental Committee on Promotion and/or Tenure. The written report will summarize the Review Committee's findings under the headings "teaching," "research and scholarship," and "service"; the intellectual work of administration may be addressed as it crosses these categories. The chair of the Review Committee should comment on any significant relationship linking or integrating work in these three categories. The Committee may also address other issues relevant to departmental and disciplinary criteria, including leadership, collaborative scholarship, citizenship, and collegiality. No formal recommendation for promotion and/or tenure is to be included in the report. The written report of the Review Committee should be made available to eligible faculty voters at least one week before their deliberations and vote. The report is confidential to the eligible faculty voters and the College committee.

VI. Formal Deliberations And Voting

All fulltime tenured faculty and faculty senior in rank acting as the Joint Promotion and Tenure Committee will meet to review evidence, deliberate, and vote on a recommendation. The department chair will schedule the meeting in a timely manner to submit materials to the college as required and will conduct the meeting. Members of the Review Committee will attend during the presentation of the report by the chair of the Review Committee in order to answer questions about the report.

Only those eligible faculty attending the meeting may vote, except that, in case a faculty member eligible to vote is unable to attend, the department chair will authorize an absentee ballot. All eligible voting faculty not at the meeting will be provided with copies of the Review Committee's report and asked to vote. The vote for promotion and tenure for candidates applying for tenure will take place on a single ballot. When an applicant is applying for both promotion and tenure, the department will vote separately to arrive at a recommendation on promotion and a recommendation on tenure. Voting is by secret written ballot. Faculty members will be requested to state reasons for both positive and negative votes on the secret ballots. A simple majority of those voting authorizes a favorable recommendation from the department.

The department chair will keep a record of the deliberations and the faculty vote and write a report for the College committee (Form B) that reports the vote, summarizes the department's evaluation of the evidence considered in its deliberations, comments as appropriate on the special features of the case, including reasons for positive and negative votes, and presents the department's recommendation to the college committee. The department chair is responsible for forwarding to the College committee multiple copies of a complete set of all materials relevant to the case, as required by the procedural guidelines of the College, and for sending on in a timely manner further information or materials submitted during consideration of the case by the College committee or requested by the College committee.

As soon as possible, and no more than three days after the faculty deliberations and vote, the department chair will meet with the candidate to report the faculty recommendation, the vote, and his or her interpretation of the principal reasons for the recommendation. At the candidate's request (made within 30 days), this information should be provided in writing.

VII. Yearly Review Of Untenured Faculty

The department chair is responsible for submitting an annual departmental report and recommendation on untenured faculty in March of each year, reviewing each in the categories of teaching, research, and service. A primary source for the evaluation is the Curriculum Vitae Update submitted by each faculty member in January. In addition, to assist the chair in preparing the review senior faculty will be requested one month before the report is due to provide feedback on untenured faculty members' work in any or all categories of effort during that year. Untenured faculty will be asked to suggest additional names of peers or others who might be consulted about their teaching or service during that year, and the chair will request such feedback in a timely way. In addition to such consultations and the CV Update, the chair will also take into consideration for the evaluation any letters on the faculty members' performance submitted by themselves or others for the file; student evaluations; classroom teaching observations; and other sources of information about each faculty member's performance that year. Each untenured faculty member will be assigned a research mentor and a teaching mentor from among the department's tenured faculty. During the first semester of an untenured faculty member's appointment, the faculty member will submit a list of his or her preferences for research and teaching mentors. The Chair will draw upon this list and consultation with the prospective mentors in order to appoint research and teaching mentors. Research mentors will meet regularly to discuss the faculty member's scholarship in progress, read drafted manuscripts, and offer advice about the research trajectory of the untenured faculty member, as requested. Teaching mentors will regularly discuss teaching issues with the faculty member, offer support when challenging circumstances arise, and observe classes at least once per year, which will include a formal teaching observation report. The department chair will seek feedback from both mentors in writing the annual departmental report for untenured faculty members.

VIII. Contract Renewal and Mentoring for Nontenured Faculty

When a tenure-track faculty member's contract is to be considered by the department for renewal, the department chair will initiate a spring review that follows the same procedures as those described for a tenure and promotion review above, except that no external letters will be solicited and a different timetable is followed. The Review Committee's report will be discussed and voted upon at a meeting of the tenured department faculty. Voting is by secret ballot and is open to those with tenure.

Approved by the Writing Program Faculty
April 17, 2000. Revised 2006, 2013, 2015, and 2016.

Browser not supported