Guide to Completing the - McMaster Faculty of Health Sciences · curriculum development, evaluation, presentations) Respond to any perceived deficiencies or negative points raised

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




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




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


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.





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)


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.


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.


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.



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.





Page | 7

D. CONCLUSION


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.




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.


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





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.





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


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


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


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.





Page | 11




from Referees




from Referees

D. CONCLUSION

Data sources: Letters from Referees, discussions at Departmental T&P Committee meetings




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.


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.




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.


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.


No samples provided -samples to be collected within the department




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.

Documents

Guide to Completing the - McMaster Faculty of Health Sciences · curriculum development, evaluation, presentations) Respond to any perceived deficiencies or negative points raised