66 · SPEC Kit 293
University of Oklahoma
For promotion candidates, the next page of the packet is the “Recommendation of
Committee A” (with the individual vote of each member recorded) as required by
Regents' policy, which provides that each member record an independent opinion, by
name, without obligation to represent majority departmental opinion. Individual
members may submit separate reports, that is, each member must record his/her own
vote by name, and also has the option of submitting a separate report articulating the
reasons for their decision.
5. The next page of the packet is the “Recommendation of the Chair/Director” (with
supporting reasons).
It is essential that all these recommendations specify how the candidate fulfills the unit's and
University's criteria for tenure and/or promotion in the areas of Teaching and Advising,
Research and Creative Activity, and Service. If the candidate to be considered has been
hired with special stipulations or exceptions with regard to the unit’s criteria for tenure and/or
promotion, such conditions should be explicitly stated in the packet.
6. The “Recommendation of the College Dean” should follow the same format as the
Recommendation of Committee A and the Chair/Director.
7. The next page of the packet should be the “Description of External Evaluators.” At least
three confidential letters of evaluation are required for inclusion in both tenure and
promotion packets from off-campus scholars or distinguished professionals in the
field who have access to the records or creative work of the candidate. The purpose of
external peer evaluations is to provide an independent, unbiased evaluation of the
candidate’s scholarly attainment. Someone other than the candidate (usually the Chair
and/or Committee A and/or other relevant departmental committee) does the authoritative
selection of evaluators and corresponds with evaluators. The Chair/Committee A, or the
candidate, may suggest, submit for consideration, or propose potential evaluators. Units
should allow, indeed encourage, the candidate to suggest some names. Some appropriate
balance should be sought in selection between names suggested by the candidate and
suggested by others. However, at least three of the external evaluators chosen by the
unit should have no close academic or personal connections with the candidate:
Ph.D. advisers and committee members, coauthors, and close personal friends should
not be asked to evaluate the candidate. In rare cases, such as when a candidate has a
very narrow and specialized field of expertise, one or two evaluators with a close
professional connection may be included. It is the responsibility of the unit to explain and
justify such exceptions to the general requirement.
The academic unit should describe the method of selection of all evaluators. The unit should
also justify the method and the selection of the particular evaluators chosen.
8. Please include copies of the letters sent to external evaluators as the next pages of the
packet. On the advice of Legal Counsel, the following information should be included in
requests for external letters of evaluation:
“As part of this review process, we are soliciting assessments of Professor_______’s
research contributions from academic colleagues and distinguished professionals outside of
the University of Oklahoma. These letters of evaluation are treated as confidential by the
University to the extent we are permitted to do so by law. These assessments will become
part of Professor_______’s tenure dossier to be reviewed in accordance with our
http://www.ou.edu/provost/pronew/content/Tenure-Promotion-06-07.pdf
University of Oklahoma
For promotion candidates, the next page of the packet is the “Recommendation of
Committee A” (with the individual vote of each member recorded) as required by
Regents' policy, which provides that each member record an independent opinion, by
name, without obligation to represent majority departmental opinion. Individual
members may submit separate reports, that is, each member must record his/her own
vote by name, and also has the option of submitting a separate report articulating the
reasons for their decision.
5. The next page of the packet is the “Recommendation of the Chair/Director” (with
supporting reasons).
It is essential that all these recommendations specify how the candidate fulfills the unit's and
University's criteria for tenure and/or promotion in the areas of Teaching and Advising,
Research and Creative Activity, and Service. If the candidate to be considered has been
hired with special stipulations or exceptions with regard to the unit’s criteria for tenure and/or
promotion, such conditions should be explicitly stated in the packet.
6. The “Recommendation of the College Dean” should follow the same format as the
Recommendation of Committee A and the Chair/Director.
7. The next page of the packet should be the “Description of External Evaluators.” At least
three confidential letters of evaluation are required for inclusion in both tenure and
promotion packets from off-campus scholars or distinguished professionals in the
field who have access to the records or creative work of the candidate. The purpose of
external peer evaluations is to provide an independent, unbiased evaluation of the
candidate’s scholarly attainment. Someone other than the candidate (usually the Chair
and/or Committee A and/or other relevant departmental committee) does the authoritative
selection of evaluators and corresponds with evaluators. The Chair/Committee A, or the
candidate, may suggest, submit for consideration, or propose potential evaluators. Units
should allow, indeed encourage, the candidate to suggest some names. Some appropriate
balance should be sought in selection between names suggested by the candidate and
suggested by others. However, at least three of the external evaluators chosen by the
unit should have no close academic or personal connections with the candidate:
Ph.D. advisers and committee members, coauthors, and close personal friends should
not be asked to evaluate the candidate. In rare cases, such as when a candidate has a
very narrow and specialized field of expertise, one or two evaluators with a close
professional connection may be included. It is the responsibility of the unit to explain and
justify such exceptions to the general requirement.
The academic unit should describe the method of selection of all evaluators. The unit should
also justify the method and the selection of the particular evaluators chosen.
8. Please include copies of the letters sent to external evaluators as the next pages of the
packet. On the advice of Legal Counsel, the following information should be included in
requests for external letters of evaluation:
“As part of this review process, we are soliciting assessments of Professor_______’s
research contributions from academic colleagues and distinguished professionals outside of
the University of Oklahoma. These letters of evaluation are treated as confidential by the
University to the extent we are permitted to do so by law. These assessments will become
part of Professor_______’s tenure dossier to be reviewed in accordance with our
http://www.ou.edu/provost/pronew/content/Tenure-Promotion-06-07.pdf
