Promotion and Tenure

Guidelines and Procedures

OSU Promotion and Tenure

COE Promotion and Tenure

CCE Promotion and Tenure

Promotion and Tenure Guidelines

School of Civil and Construction Engineering (CCE)

These guidelines supplement the Oregon State University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines found in the OSU Faculty Handbook at the following link:

https://facultyaffairs.oregonstate.edu/faculty-handbook/promotion-and-tenure-guidelines

Promotion and tenure (P&T) in CCE will follow the criteria stipulated in the OSU Faculty Handbook, criteria and procedures set forth by the College of Engineering (COE), and the policies and procedures within CCE. Faculty are encouraged to review the OSU, COE, and CCE criteria and procedures as part of the P&T process.

CCE P&T Procedures

1. The School Promotion and Tenure Committee (SPTC) will consist of all tenured faculty in the School. SPTC voting members for a specific P&T case will be those SPTC members at and above the academic rank that the candidate for P&T is pursuing, unless stipulated otherwise for special circumstances as described below.
2. Establishment of Ad-hoc Subcommittees:
   1. For each promotion and tenure case, an Ad-hoc Subcommittee (AHSC) will be formed to present the candidate’s dossier, solicit input on the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, and write a draft letter for the dossier on behalf of the SPTC. The draft letter will present the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate as well as the outcome of the faculty vote.
   2. The School Head will appoint the AHSC members for each case. The School Head will also appoint the Chair of each AHSC amongst the members of the AHSC.
   3. The AHSC will consist of at least three members representing a diverse group from the SPTC. The AHSC will generally consist of one member knowledgeable in the candidate’s general area of expertise, one at-large member, and another member who will act as the Chair of the AHSC.
   4. The AHSC will normally be composed of eligible SPTC voting members. However, the School Head may appoint non-voting SPTC members, SPTC members who are at the same present level as the candidate, or experts from outside the SPTC, if needed to provide representation of the candidate’s general area of expertise on the AHSC. The AHSC established for tenure-track candidate cases will include only tenure-track faculty. The AHSC established for instructor candidate cases may include both tenure- track and non-tenure-track faculty, and shall include at least one non-tenure-track faculty. The School Head will notify the SPTC of the make-up of the AHSC for each candidate at a faculty meeting.
   5. As part of their review of the candidate’s dossier, AHSC members may:
      1. ask the candidate for clarifications of dossier content;
      2. ask the candidate for additional information about dossier content; and
      3. speak with collaborators of the candidate to collect additional information about the dossier, if needed.
3. External Letters of Evaluation:
   1. External letters of evaluation will be solicited by the School Head.
   2. For tenure-track faculty candidates, the School Head will request the names of six potential external reviewers from both the candidate and the AHSC (total of 12 potential reviewers). For Instructor candidates, the School Head will request names of four potential external reviewers from both the candidate and the AHSC (total of 8 potential reviewers). The suggested reviewers shall: As described in the OSU Faculty Handbook, letters should generally be from tenured professors or individuals of equivalent stature outside of academe who are widely recognized in the field. In addition, it is recommended that individuals from outside of academe hold a PhD in the same or a closely related field to the candidate, and meet one or more of the following criteria: work as an adjunct professor/instructor, or participate on a research team with academic partners, or be an active member of accreditation teams, or be an active member of an industry advisory board for an academic program.
      1. Not be a collaborator as defined in the OSU Faculty Handbook;
      2. For external reviewers who hold academic faculty positions: Be at a level above the present level of the candidate; and
      3. Not be employed at OSU.
   3. The School Head will select at least three reviewers from the list provided by the candidate. The remaining reviewers will be selected by the School Head from the list provided by the AHSC. The School Head will seek input from the SPTC members regarding which potential reviewers to select.
   4. The School Head will contact each selected reviewer to ask that they prepare and submit a letter of evaluation. To inform their evaluation, the School Head will send the reviewers a copy of the candidate’s dossier, copies of three papers authored by the candidate and provided by the candidate (for tenure-track faculty only), and a description of the OSU P&T criteria for the level which the candidate is pursuing.
4. Student Letters of Evaluation:
   1. Student letters of evaluation will be solicited by the School Head. The School Head will select at least three students from a list of potential student evaluators provided by the candidate. The remaining three student evaluators will be selected by the School Head with input from the AHSC members familiar with the candidate’s teaching. The School Head will share the final list of student evaluators with the AHSC, and evaluators will be finalized at that time.
   2. Student evaluators can be current or recently-graduated (within 1 year) undergraduate or graduate students. Students should have taken at least one course from the candidate. Graduate students advised by the candidate are eligible to write a letter of evaluation for the candidate.
   3. The student letters received will be summarized into a single evaluation letter by one or more other students. Leaders from the civil, construction, and architectural engineering student organizations, such as the ASCE, AGC, ITE, and DBIA student chapters, will be asked to provide a summary evaluation of the individual student letters. The summary evaluation letter will not identify the names or identities of the original letter writers.
5. Peer Teaching Evaluation: The CCE Teaching Evaluation Committee (TEC) will conduct a review and peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching for Assistant Professors (annually), Associate Professors (biennially), and Instructors (approximately annually, depending on rank). A summary letter of these evaluations will be prepared by the TEC Chair and included in the dossier.
6. Dossier Review and Content:
   1. The complete dossier, including all external letters, the student summary evaluation letter, and the peer teaching evaluation letter, will only be available for review by the AHSC and the eligible SPTC voting members for each case.
   2. Candidates may append new information to the dossier. Consult the CCE P&T Timeline (provided below) for the timeframe in which additional information may be appended to the dossier.
7. Presentation of Dossier to Faculty:
   1. The AHSC will present a summary of the candidate’s dossier at a meeting of the School faculty (tenure-track and non-tenure-track).
   2. The purpose of this presentation is to promote an open evaluation process, provide an overview of the candidate’s case, and solicit input on the candidate’s promotion case from beyond just eligible SPTC voting members. The meeting should begin with a review of the OSU P&T criteria related to the candidate’s level of promotion. The focus of the presentation will be on the candidate’s scholarly activities, teaching, service, collegiality, and involvement in diversity, equity, and inclusion, as presented in the dossier.
   3. Only the consensus of external and student reviewer letters will be presented, i.e., whether the reviewers in general support or not support promotion and/or tenure. No direct quotes from, or information about, the reviewers will be discussed or presented, and care shall be taken to make sure reviewers are not personally identified.
8. Dossier Evaluation Meeting:
   1. Following presentation of the dossier to the faculty, the AHSC and eligible SPTC voting members will have a meeting to discuss the merits of the case, present the external School of Civil and Construction Engineering P&T Guidelines Revised June 9, 2022 4 review letters, and discuss content for the SPTC evaluation letter. An initial draft SPTC letter of evaluation prepared by the AHSC may be presented at this time to support and guide the discussion.
   2. Only eligible SPTC voting members shall be present during the dossier evaluation meeting.
9. Voting on P&T Case:
   1. Voting Eligibility:
      1. Faculty eligible to vote on each case are defined in the OSU Faculty Handbook.
      2. Faculty who meet the requirements set forth in the OSU Faculty Handbook are eligible to vote. All faculty, including those who are on sabbatical or leave during the academic year, can vote if, and only if, they participate in the dossier review and evaluation process, e.g., review the dossier and attend Faculty presentations/meetings at which the dossier is discussed. If they are unable to participate in person, Faculty may request that the meetings be conducted to also accommodate virtual/online participation.
   2. Voting Process:
      1. Voting will be conducted online using a ballot created in Qualtrics or other secure online survey application provided by OSU. Separate Qualtrics survey ballots will be created for each case and sent by email to eligible voters; each email will contain a link that leads to two consecutive surveys, one that identifies the voter, and the second is the actual ballot. The surveys will be confidential. Links to each survey will be emailed to each eligible SPTC voting member.
      2. All eligible SPTC voting members will have three business days to vote on the case following the AHSC and SPTC meeting.
   3. Voting Form:
      1. The survey ballot will contain a question to confirm that the voter has participated in the dossier review and evaluation process, along with separate questions about promotion and/or tenure as applicable to the case.
      2. The survey ballot will contain three vote options regarding promotion and tenure: For, Against, or Abstain. A “For” vote indicates that the voter supports promotion or tenure. An “Against” vote indicates that the voter does not support promotion or tenure. An “Abstain” vote indicates that the voter abstains from voting. Eligible voters may abstain if they feel they have a conflict of interest or are unqualified to vote.
      3. For cases involving both promotion and tenure, if a voter votes “No” on promotion, the voter may not vote on tenure.
      4. The survey ballot will also contain a field where the voter can enter comments to justify/support their vote and list strengths and weaknesses School of Civil and Construction Engineering P&T Guidelines Revised June 9, 2022 5 about the case. Documenting strengths and weaknesses is critical to the process and voters are encouraged to document these in their ballot.
   4. Voting Results:
      1. Results of the voting shall be counted by the AHSC or their delegates.
      2. In the case when the candidate does not receive at least 2/3 of the eligible faculty voting in favor of promotion or tenure, the dissenting faculty have the option to prepare and include a single letter in the dossier that explains their reasons for the dissent. If this is the case, the AHSC Chair will inform the dissenting faculty of the option to write a letter. The dissenting faculty will have three business days to prepare and submit a letter.
10. SPTC Evaluation Letter:
    1. Following the presentation of the dossier to the faculty and subsequent SPTC meeting, the AHSC will prepare an SPTC evaluation letter based on their review of the dossier that incorporates the input received at the meeting. The letter will be made available to eligible SPTC members for review and input.
    2. After the voting results have been tallied, the letter will be updated to include the SPTC vote results for the candidate along with the input received from the SPTC members.
    3. A statement shall be added to the letter stating that signatures on the letter are intended to affirm that the letter reflects the vote and discussion by the SPTC, and that they have participated in the P&T review process.
    4. The letter will then be routed through DocuSign for eligible SPTC voting member signatures. e. After completion of the SPTC evaluation letter, the letter will be added to the candidate’s dossier.
11. School Head Evaluation Letter:
    1. The School Head will conduct an independent review of the candidate’s dossier. The School Head will prepare an evaluation letter giving their recommendation regarding promotion and/or tenure.
    2. The evaluation letter from the School Head will be added to the candidate’s dossier prior to the School Head meeting with the candidate.
12. The School Head will meet with the candidate individually to review the completed dossier including the SPTC letter and School Head letter.
13. Resolving questions or unforeseen issues: If a question or issue arises that is not addressed in these guidelines, the CCE P&T Coordinators will refer to the OSU P&T criteria and COE P&T guidelines and criteria for guidance in answering the question or resolving the issue. The CCE P&T Coordinators may also contact the OSU Office of Faculty Affairs and/or the COE for recommendations on answering the question or resolving the issue. If the OSU/COE criteria and/or personnel do not provide a clear answer to the question or resolution to the issue, School of Civil and Construction Engineering P&T Guidelines Revised June 9, 2022 6 the CCE P&T Coordinators will prepare an answer or make a decision in consultation with the School Head, and communicate it to the affected parties.

CCE P&T Annual Schedule

Deadlines for the promotion and tenure process vary from year-to-year. Typically, the candidate, in consultation with the School Head, will decide to move their case forward in the Spring term and the candidate will begin preparation of the candidate’s dossier at that time. The candidate should also discuss the timing of their P&T case evaluation during annual reviews prior to going up for promotion and/or tenure. The candidate must have their portion of the dossier completed and ready for submission in accordance with COE and OSU guidelines. All dossiers must be submitted by the candidate to the School typically in June for tenure and/or promotion cases, and in January for mid-tenure cases. Specific calendar dates for the submittal deadlines are provided by the University and should be consulted.

The CCE P&T process will follow approximately the same schedule each year. The steps undertaken in the process, responsible parties, and approximate dates are provided in the attached CCE P&T Timeline. It should be noted that the dates included in the timeline are approximate; the actual dates may vary from year-to-year.

P&T Guidelines Approval

These guidelines were presented and reviewed by the CCE faculty in Spring term 2022. The substantive changes to the guidelines were approved by a majority vote of tenured faculty, tenure- track faculty, and instructors following a meeting on June 1, 2022.

* Approximate dates. Actual dates may vary from year-to-year.

* Approximate dates. Actual dates may vary from year-to-year.