chairs' workshop
Preparing Effective Dossiers for PRB Review
Presenter: Lucinda Finley, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs (VPFA)
October 19, 2005, 9:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m., Center for Tomorrow
These notes build on Susan Davis’ minutes of the April 26th, 2005 of the Annual PRB informational meeting. I am including only information not addressed in April. I suspect much of the material below is already known by Unit Heads but I’d rather err on the side of putting as much information in writing as possible --GDV
- The VPAA website is now available. It has links to tenure & promotion documents including the September 2004 Promotion & Tenure Guiding Principles Statement from the President and Provost.
- The PRB also has a website. Finley emphasized that a chair (unit head), candidate, or any other interested party should refrain from contacting PRB members with any questions regarding a PRB-bound personnel action because that PRB member will have to recuse him/herself from voting on the case. Note: as of this writing the PRB has an out-of-date listing of members.
- The chair’s (unit head) letter should refer to all external evaluators by letter or number so that identities do not have to be expunged with ink.
- Never submit a full CV for an external evaluator as part of the dossier– just a short biographical statement.
- All chairs are encouraged but not required to submit dossiers electronically- all the information should be submitted on one (not original plus 11 which is the practice for paper dossiers) CD. Supplemental material can be digitized or sent in paper in an additional small box. Note: Donna Serafin will be available for assistance to any unit head who wants to lead the way with electronic dossier transmission. Also, it was clear that at some time in the future electronic dossiers will be required by PRB.
- The tenure clock can be stopped for family circumstances (childbirth, adoption, elder care), personal or family member serious illness, and unforeseen impediments to research such as catastrophic destruction of data sets, delays in setting up lab space, etc. In no circumstances can a faculty member on a tenure track be switched to a qualified title because he/she needs more time to complete publications.
- Legitimate clock stoppages as defined above will not be held against the candidate by the PRB/Provost/President as long as the chair’s letter thoroughly documents and explains the adjustment in the dossier.
- It is myth that a person can only be put forward for a promotion to Full Professor/Librarian once. If the case is denied, a dossier can be put forward three years later. The most compelling criterion for advancing to the rank of Full Professor/Librarian is an unequivocal national reputation as a top person in the field. There is no short-time bias against such promotions. In other words, a person might be ready as soon as just a few years after achieving Associate rank. The Provost jumped into the discussion and said that UB has too many faculty at the Associate rank and needs to be working toward putting more faculty forward to Full Professor/Librarian provided they meet the national top reputation criterion. He suggested faculty at Full Professor/Librarian rank meet once a year to review the CVs of those in their departments at the Associate rank to determine who might be put forward soon and/or mentored to be put forward in the future.
- Candidates for tenure or promotion to Full Professor/Librarian should provide chairs (unit heads) with a list of outside disinterested evaluators not to contact and that list should be honored. They should not be compiling lists of disinterested outside evaluators to contact. It is up to the chair/unit head to flesh out such a list without the assistance of the candidate. And in fact, the candidate should not be told who is being contacted for an external disinterested review. Disinterested evaluators are not mentors, co-authors, research collaborators, current, or former colleagues. However, disinterested evaluators should not be completely unaware of the candidate’s work. There is a gray area which includes journal special issue editors, editor of a book of collected works and conference panel organizers. If the role of such people is akin to being peer reviewers, they can be considered disinterested. It is important for the chair to clearly explain the selection process of disinterested outside evaluators.
- It is highly advisable to solicit more than four outside disinterested letters. Chairs (unit heads) might consider asking up to eight people. This is because some people may reveal themselves to be not disinterested in their letters. Also, some people may not respond in time or at all.
- It is unthinkable not to have at least one AAU disinterested outside evaluators regardless of the discipline in a dossier. The more the better. Chairs must explain any non-AAU picks.
- Only two internal letters are required. These are “interested” reviewers letters. These letters focus on teaching, services and collegiality. They do not present a detailed review of the candidate’s scholarship. If they do address research it has no standing with PRB because they are not disinterested. Candidates should not provide the chair (unit head) with a list of potential internal reviewer. However, the candidate is encouraged to inform the chair (unit head) of names of people he/she would not want contacted. Note: It was brought to Finley’s attention that the sample letter from her office for soliciting reviewers implies that internal reviewers do review the candidate’s scholarship. She promised to redraft the sample letter because it is misleading as to the role of the internal reviewer.
- The chair’s (unit head) letter is a key component of the dossier in addition to the outside
disinterested evaluators and the departmental (APT) vote. It is the role of the chair’s
(unit head) letter to bring the candidate and his/her research to life. The chair’s (unit
head) letter must deal forthrightly with any weaknesses in the dossier and anticipate and address
any potential issues of concern to PRB such as gaps in research productivity, lower than normal
service contributions, etc.
Please see sample letters provided as follows:
A: Chair’s Effective Letter (Sciences) [PDF]
B: Mock Case #1 (Humanities) – Dossier Summary [PDF]
C: Mock Case #1 (Humanities) – Effective Chair’s Letter [PDF]
D: Mock Case #2 (Health Sciences) – Dossier Summary [PDF]
E: Mock Case #2 (Health Sciences) – Ineffective Chair’s Letter [PDF]
Content provider: Gemma DeVinney
Comments: lib-staffweb@buffalo.edu
Last update:
10 November, 2009