View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Page | 1
Guide to Completing the:
Written Recommendation of the
Departmental Committee
For Candidates Moving from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
Approved by Faculty Executive – May 28, 2008 Updated – May 2012
Page | 2
Table of Contents
Part 1 – Letter Template 3
This section provides a template for all departments to follow when composing the
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee
Part 2 – Letter Contents 5
This section provides an overview of the information that must be included in the
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee
Part 3 – Data Sources and Yellow Document References 8
This section provides a listing of the relevant University regulations as well
as a listing of sources of information for composing the Written
Recommendation of the Departmental Committee
Part 4 – Samples 12
This section provides Departments with a starting point for their own
letters.
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 1 – LETTER TEMPLATE
Page | 3
PLEASE NOTE: All recommendations must follow this template. The Written
Recommendation of the Departmental Committee should be between 2 - 4 pages in length. The
only time that a letter should be longer than 4 pages is if the request is to lapse or to not grant
Tenure/CAWAR – in those instances, the Department is expected to provide full details and
these letters are usually 4-6 pages in length.
See Part 2 – Letter Contents (page 5) for further details on each section.
June 30, 20xx
Dr. DEAN, Chair
Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee
HSC-2E1
Dear Dr. DEAN:
Re: Dr. B. Hopeful, Recommendation for CAWAR and Promotion to Associate Professor
On behalf of the Department/School of ____________ Tenure and Promotion Committee consisting of
(provide names), I am pleased to recommend Dr. B. Hopeful for CAWAR and promotion to Associate
Professor effective July 1, 20xx. …..
This section of the letter describes the Departmental T&P Committee's recommendation and
should be 1 -2 paragraphs in length.
See: Part 2 – Letter Contents – Departmental Recommendation (page 5) for more information on
what to include in this section
Dr. Hopeful is a _________who specializes in _________ .....
This section of the letter should include a short statement forming the introduction of the
candidate and is typically 1 - 2 paragraphs in length.
See: Part 2 – Letter Contents – Introduction of the Candidate (page 5) for more information on
what to include in this section.
Dr. Hopeful spends a substantial portion of her time in.. . .
This section of the letter will range from 1 - 2 pages in length and will describe the candidate's
contributions in the specific categories of education, research (or scholarly clinical activities) and
University/Professional/Community and/or Administrative Contributions
Do not provide the percentage of time spent in each category
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 1 – LETTER TEMPLATE
Page | 4
See: Part 2 – Letter Contents – Academic Contributions (page 5) for more information
The recommendation for CAWAR and promotion to Associate Professor for Dr. Hopeful was based on ...
This section of the letter outlines the discussion of the Departmental T&P Committee and is
typically 1 -2 paragraphs in length
o If any members of the Departmental T&P Committee have voted against the
recommendation, the reasons should be included in these paragraphs.
It should include an explanation of how the Departmental T&P Committee reached the
recommendation
o Ensure that the letter includes comments from every referee and include the
Departmental Committee’s response to all negative points raised by all
reviewers (even if the reviewer determined that Tenure/CAWAR was justified).
Letters that are missing this information will be returned to the department for
review.
See: Part 2 – Letter Contents – Conclusion (Page 7) for more information
Sincerely,
Dr. J. Smith
Chair/Associate Dean
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 2 – LETTER CONTENTS
Page | 5
A. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION
Generally 1-2 paragraphs in length
List the members of the Departmental/School Tenure and Promotion Committee and the
Departmental T&P Committee's recommendation.
Include the vote of the Departmental T&P Committee and note any technical abstentions (see
page 8 for a definition).
Give a brief description of the academic appointment history
Include any adjustments to the academic clock - i.e. approved requests to stop the clock; years
credited when converted from a CLA, etc. (see page 9 for examples)
List whether the appointment is standard or accelerated. (see page 10 for examples)
State if the person is being reviewed as a Clinician Educator.
o If so, follow the Guidelines for Reporting Clinical Scholarly Activities In a Tenure and
Promotion Dossier
B. INTRODUCTION OF THE CANDIDATE
Generally 1-2 paragraphs in length
Provide a short statement describing the candidate.
Include the following:
o Educational background, outlining the degrees and designations received.
o Description of main research focus or brief overview of scholarly clinical activities
o Brief overview of educational contributions. Detailed explanation will be included in the
next section.
Note: this information is provided to the reviewers as part of the Chair's letter to External Reviewers,
the paragraph in that letter can be reused in this section.
C. ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTIONS
This is the main section of the document and will be 1-2 pages in length.
Although the R4 will be used at the departmental level, it does not form part of the submitted
dossier - please do not provide percentages for each section.
The layout of the academic contributions section will differ depending on whether the candidate
is being reviewed as a research educator or as a clinician educator.
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 2 – LETTER CONTENTS
Page | 6
Below is an outline for each stream:
RESEARCH EDUCATOR1 CLINICIAN EDUCATOR
2
Education
Summarize the type, amount and quality of
teaching activities.
Summarize other educational contributions as
appropriate (eg. leadership, administration,
curriculum development)
Respond to any perceived deficiencies or
negative points raised
Education
Summarize the type, amount and quality of
teaching activities.
Describe, in detail, other educational
contributions in the realm of leadership,
administration and scholarly activities. (eg.
curriculum development, evaluation,
presentations)
Respond to any perceived deficiencies or
negative points raised.
Research
Summarize the type and quality of the
candidate's research. Highlight the following
types of information: number, scope and value
of grants awarded as PI; co-PI; academic
awards, invitations to presentations, critical
reviews of published works, etc
If a referee does not appear to be at arm's
length, include an explanation from the
Departmental Committee.
Respond to any perceived deficiencies or
negative points raised.
Academically Oriented Clinical Activities
Using the approved criteria listed in the
summarize the effectiveness and scholarly
contributions in the area of clinical service,
using subheadings from the Clinical Activities
Dossier where appropriate.
Although referees do not have to be arm’s
length, if a referee appears to have a conflict of
interest with the candidate, include an
explanation from the Departmental Committee.
Respond to any perceived deficiencies or
negative points raised
University/Professional/Community/
Administrative Contributions
Summarize the types and quality of the
candidate's service to the above communities.
Include scholarly clinical contributions if
applicable.
University/Professional/Community/
Administrative Contributions
Summarize the types and quality of the
candidate's service to the above communities.
Include research contributions if applicable
1 This is the typical University faculty member. The term research educator is internal terminology for FHS.
2 The term Clinician Educator, must be used in the submitted documentation to differentiate these candidates
from the typical University faculty member. Note a more specific template for these letters is being developed.
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 2 – LETTER CONTENTS
Page | 7
D. CONCLUSION
Generally 1-2 paragraphs in length
Briefly outline the discussion of the Departmental Committee, explaining how the Committee's
recommendation was reached.
o Ensure that the letter includes comments from every referee and include the
Departmental Committee's response to all negative points raised by all Committee
members and/or reviewers (even if the reviewer determined that Tenure/CAWAR was
justified). Letters that are missing this information will be returned to the department for
review.
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 3 – DATA SOURCES AND YELLOW DOCUMENT REFERENCES
Page | 8
Relevant sections of the McMaster University Revised Policy and Regulations with Respect to Academic
Appointment, Tenure and Promotion (2012) are noted below.
A. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion
Tenure/CAWAR and promotion to Associate Professor are inextricably linked. A recommendation
from a Department cannot be for Tenure/CAWAR or promotion only; it must be for Tenure/CAWAR
and promotion to Associate Professor.
See: Section III 19
Members of the Department/School Tenure and Promotion Committee
Only faculty members with Tenure/CAWAR should be members of a Departmental T&P Committee.
Exceptions to this regulation are rare and must be approved by the Faculty T&P Committee.
If a Departmental T&P Committee member without Tenure/CAWAR is to be reviewed for
Tenure/CAWAR and promotion, the member reviewed must resign from the Departmental
Committee for that review cycle. The member can resume his/her role on the committee once the
review cycle has been completed.
See: Section III 38
Technical Abstentions
A member of a Departmental Committee who is a significant collaborator with a candidate for re-
appointment, tenure, permanence, and/or promotion should not be present when that candidate’s case
is discussed and/or voted on. In this event, a technical abstention shall be recorded.
See: Section III 38(f)
If a member of the Departmental T&P Committee has provided a letter of reference for the candidate,
they must be noted as a technical abstention.
See also: SPS B4 - Academic Collaborators in Appointment, Tenure, Permanence and/or Promotion
Proceedings
Timing of Academic Review for Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion to Associate Professor
Tenure/CAWAR must be considered during the fifth year of appointment. If the Department decides
to take no action in the fifth year of a Tenure-track/Special appointment, the candidate must concur in
writing with this decision. Final review of the candidate's case for Tenure/CAWAR must occur in the
sixth year.
See: Section III, 28
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 3 – DATA SOURCES AND YELLOW DOCUMENT REFERENCES
Page | 9
Changes to the Academic Clock
Appointment conversion
Weighting assigned upon conversion from Contractually Limited to Tenure-track/Special
See: SPS A2
Special Leave of Absence:
Leave is not normally granted to faculty members on tenure-track/special appointments.
If the faculty member is engaged on research or academic work while on special leave of
absence, the time spent will normally be counted as part of the appraisal period. The faculty
member's preference for counting or not counting the time of special leave of absence will be
followed for a single leave of up to one academic year.
See SPS C3, C4, C5
Pregnancy/Parental Leave (Stop the Clock provision)
A faculty member who is on, has taken, or was eligible for leave in connection with the birth or
adoption of a child shall have the opportunity for up to one year from the birth or adoption of a
child to elect to have academic decisions deferred, in normal circumstances, by one year.
See C4
Academic Start Date
When a faculty member starts on a date other than July 1, per the yellow document, their
academic start date is the following July 1
See Section II (9)
However, if the person wishes to waive this “free period” and have the academic clock begin at
the July 1 prior to their start date, this can be done through the following process:
1. Faculty member writes a letter to their chair requesting that they be considered for
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion based on the earlier date.
2. Departmental Committee approves this request and sends a copy for the Dean’s faculty file.
3. When reviewed for promotion, the Departmental letter includes a reference to this request
(example: Dr. Smith joined the Department in September of 2009, however she has asked that
her academic clock start July 1, 2009. The departmental committee agreed with this request
and as such, Dr. Smith is being brought forward in her 5th year, which is considered
standard.)
Acceleration
A candidate with outstanding success in teaching, research or both may be considered for
Tenure/CAWAR in the fourth year of his appointment.
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 3 – DATA SOURCES AND YELLOW DOCUMENT REFERENCES
Page | 10
A candidate who has had full-time faculty status at another university, or who has had extensive
postdoctoral work or other relevant professional experience, may be considered for Tenure/CAWAR
during the second, third or fourth years of appointment.
See: Section III 28
B. INTRODUCTION OF THE CANDIDATE
This paragraph should provide a brief outline of the person's educational background and area of research
specialization.
Data sources: Candidate's Submission, CV, Chair's letter to referees
C. ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTIONS
The layout of academic contributions will differ depending on whether the candidate is being reviewed as
a clinician educator or as a research educator. The total length for the entire section will be between 1-2
pages.
Below is an outline for each stream:
RESEARCH EDUCATOR3 CLINICIAN EDUCATOR
4
Education
Data sources: CV; Candidate’s Submission; Peer
Review of Teaching; Student Teaching Evaluation;
Letters from Referees.
Education
Data sources: CV; Candidate’s Submission; Peer
Review of Teaching; Student Teaching Evaluation;
Letters from Referees.
Note: the percentage of time spent in education should only be noted if the person has had a special
exemption granted to spend less than the minimum 20% of his/her time teaching.
Research
Data sources: CV; Candidate’s Submission; Letters
from Referees
Academically Oriented Clinical Activities
Data sources: CV; Candidate’s Submission; Letters
from Referees; Clinical Activities Dossier
3 This is the typical University faculty member. The term research educator is internal terminology for FHS
4 The term Clinician Educator, must be used in the submitted documentation to differentiate these candidates
from the typical University faculty member.
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 3 – DATA SOURCES AND YELLOW DOCUMENT REFERENCES
Page | 11
University/Professional/Community/
Administrative Contributions
Data sources: CV; Candidate’s Submission; Letters
from Referees
University/Professional/Community/
Administrative Contributions
Data sources: CV; Candidate’s Submission; Letters
from Referees
D. CONCLUSION
Data sources: Letters from Referees, discussions at Departmental T&P Committee meetings
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 4 – SAMPLES
Page | 12
Samples of letters that follow the above guidelines are provided for the each section of the letter
excluding the section on academic contributions as this will vary with each individual under review.
Departments are encouraged to add to these samples using the Departmental letters from successful
Tenure/CAWAR and promotion cases. Please note that these letters are highly confidential and should be
stored appropriately.
Note: the samples shown pertain to the most frequent recommendations. If your case does not fit one
of the categories below, please contact the FR office for advice.
A. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION
Standard (5th year)
On behalf of the School of Nursing Tenure and Promotion Committee (including Dr. …… 1 am
pleased to recommend Dr. Beatrice Hopeful for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor effective
July 1, 2014. Dr. Hopeful has a significant and productive history with the School of Nursing. She
joined McMaster as a Lecturer in 1992 and then was appointed in a full-time contractually limited
position as Assistant Professor from 1995 - 1998. In 1998 she left the University to continue to
develop clinical nursing expertise in Community Health Nursing, rejoining the faculty in a
contractually limited position in 2005. Dr. Hopeful was successful in receiving a tenure-track position
as of July 1, 2011 and requested that 3 years of her CLA be counted towards her tenure review.
In 2012, she was granted a stop the clock in connection with her maternity leave. In taking this into
account, her start date for academic purposes is July 1, 2009. Dr. Hopeful is being brought forward in
her fifth year, which is considered standard. The vote of the Committee was unanimous.
Standard (6th year)
On behalf of the Department of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences Tenure and Promotion
Committee consisting of myself, Dr. G……, I am pleased to recommend Dr. Beatrice Hopeful for
Tenure and promotion to Associate Professor effective July 1, 20014. Dr. Hopeful joined McMaster
University as an Assistant Professor in the tenure track category on July 1, 2008.
Dr. Hopeful is being brought forward in her sixth and final year which is considered standard. By
mutual consent of Dr. Hopeful and the Departmental Committee, no action was taken in her fifth
year. The vote of the Committee regarding this case was unanimous.
Accelerated (Clause 28 d i)
On behalf of the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Tenure and Promotion
Committee (Dr. ….), I am pleased to recommend Dr. Beatrice Hopeful for CAWAR and promotion to
Associate Professor effective July 1, 20014. Dr. Hopeful initially joined McMaster as an Assistant
Professor in the Tenure Track Category on July 1, 2010.
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 4 – SAMPLES
Page | 13
Dr. Hopeful is being reviewed in her fourth year at McMaster, which is considered accelerated. Dr.
Hopeful has had outstanding success in her research program and the department requests that she be
considered for tenure and promotion based on clause 28(a) (i) A person whose first appointment to
this University is as a full-time Assistant Professor in a tenure-track position and who has had
outstanding success in teaching, research, or both, may be considered for tenure in the .Fourth year
of his or her tenure-track appointment(s), but not earlier. A recommendation for tenure made in this
year will be treated as an accelerated one.
The vote of the Committee was unanimous.
Accelerated (Clause 28 a ii)
On behalf of the Tenure and Promotion Committee of the Department of Medicine (consisting of Drs.
….. and myself), I am pleased to recommend Dr. Beatrice Hopeful for CAWAR and promotion to
Associate Professor effective July 1, 2014. Dr. Hopeful initially joined McMaster as an Assistant
Professor in the Special Category on July 1, 2010.
Dr. Hopeful is being reviewed in her fourth year at McMaster, which is considered accelerated. Dr.
Hopeful was a full time Assistant Professor at the University of XX from January 2008- June 30,
2010 and the department requests that her previous faculty experience be considered based on clause
28(a) (ii) An individual whose first appointment to this University is as a full-time Assistant Professor
in a tenure-track position but who has had full-time faculty status at another university following
completion of the doctorate.. . ..may be considered for tenure during the second, third or fourth years
of the tenure-track appointment at McMaster.. .
The vote of the Committee was 11 for and 2 against. The reasons for the negative votes are
discussed below.
B. INTRODUCTION OF THE CANDIDATE
Dr. Hopeful obtained her BSc (with Honours) from the School of Human Biology, at the University
of X in 1998. Following this, Dr. Hopeful attended YY University where she obtained a PhD (2002)
in Medical Sciences. Subsequently, Dr. Hopeful completed a post-doctoral fellowship in our
department, where she worked under the supervision of Dr. Z. This was followed by an additional
post-doctoral fellowship at AB University under the supervision of Dr. C.
Dr. Hopeful has developed a specialization in translational research which has led to numerous
presentations and publications of her work. Additionally, she had undertaken a heavy educational
commitment, contributing to the Undergraduate Medicine program and through the creation of a new
graduate course.
C. ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTIONS
No samples provided -samples to be collected within the department
Tenure/CAWAR and Promotion Dossier
Written Recommendation of the Departmental Committee for
Tenure/CAWAR & Promotion to Associate Professor
PART 4 – SAMPLES
Page | 14
D. CONCLUSION
No negative comments were received
The application considering Dr. Hopeful for CAWAR and promotion to Associate Professor was
based on personal interviews, the CV, candidate's statement, educational dossier, peer review of
teaching, and internal and external letters of reference. In summary, the Departmental Committee
strongly supports this recommendation and agrees with the statement by Dr. X, of the University of
XYZ ... based on her accomplishments and their significance, wholeheartedly support this application
for promotion and CAWAR.
Negative comment received
The Committee discussed the issues raised by Dr. X concerning Dr. Hopeful's educational
contributions. Based on the information sent to Dr. X, the Committee understands why he would
draw the conclusion that ... her educational contributions are lacking. Although she does participate
in course teaching, her CV does not show any student supervision or mentoring, at my university this
is a requirement for promotion to Associate Professor. However, as Dr. Hopeful's educational
contributions are mainly in the undergraduate realm, there has been little opportunity for formal
supervision. The Committee discussed these concerns and felt that while relevant, Dr. Hopeful is a
well respected undergraduate educator with a healthy research program and they agreed with the 3
other external references that deemed her suitable for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor.
Recommended