64 · SPEC Kit 293
University of Oklahoma
To ensure that the best possible case is made for each candidate and that the evaluation of
all candidates is conducted on an equitable basis across the University, each tenure/promotion
packet should contain the materials specified below. Based on the data and information listed
below, the academic unit is asked to evaluate the candidate’s performance in teaching, research or
creative activities, and service to document that evaluation and to indicate how the candidate’s
expertise is expected to contribute to the short- and long-range educational goals of the academic
unit, college, and the University.
The forms attached to this memorandum should be completed for each candidate and
should appear in the order indicated on the “Dossier Checklist.” The Campus Tenure Committee
recommends labeled index tabs to clearly identify each section within a dossier. (Available to be
downloaded at http://www.ou.edu/provost/pronew/content/tenandpromomenu.html. Please follow
the sequence and numbering on the dossier checklist. Brevity is encouraged. A 2-3 page
summary of research is, in most cases, preferable to including copies of actual research
publications in the dossier. Nevertheless, the candidate has the right to include anything in the
dossier that he/she wishes. If included, copies of research publications should be in an appendix
at the end of the dossier so as not to obscure other required components of the dossier.
Part I: Procedures and Evaluation
1. The cover sheet for each packet is the completed "Summary of Recommendation
Concerning Tenure/Promotion." It provides a useful summary of data concerning the
candidate, information about the academic unit, and the vote of the eligible faculty. While
the unit is asked to complete this form, the Dean is expected to verify the completeness and
accuracy of the data.
Also note the following:
A. The definitions of a vote coded to grant or deny are self-evident. A vote coded as
abstain means that an eligible faculty member reviewed the dossier, participated
in the eligible faculty discussion and elected to cast a vote of abstain i.e., they
do not want to make either a positive or negative recommendation. However, it
is difficult for others who review the dossier to consider a vote to abstain as a
completely neutral vote some individuals interpret it as mildly negative.
A vote coded unavailable means that an eligible faculty member did not review
the dossier nor participate in the eligible faculty discussion and voting process.
This happens most typically when a faculty member is on sabbatical and out of
the country. A vote coded ineligible means that an otherwise eligible faculty
member is recusing themselves from casting a vote. This most typically occurs
when the candidate is a spouse of the eligible faculty member.
The eligible faculty vote, in order to be considered positive, should have a
majority of the votes coded grant as compared to the total number of votes
coded grant, deny, and abstain. Ineligible and unavailable votes should not be
used in computing the percentage.
B. A recommendation to Promote requires a majority decision of all those voting,
including those abstaining. Votes may only be to Promote, Not Promote,
Previous Page Next Page