Third Year Review

GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY THIRD YEAR REVIEW

Purpose:        The purpose of the "Third Year Review" is to assist tenure-track faculty, continuing lecturers, and continuing clinical faculty to assess their progress toward tenure midway through the probationary period.  The review is advisory and is to be a constructive, developmental evaluation.  Effective beginning fall 2008, the following apply to the faculty member’s third year reviews:  All third year reviews will be accomplished in the fall of the fourth year. 

• All third year reviews will be accomplished in the fall of the fourth year.  This will provide faculty three full years of work to submit for review.  Moreover, receiving feedback in the fall of one's fourth year still gives faculty sufficient time to incorporate recommendations of the committee into their work over the next year and a half.
• Librarians will undergo a separate third year review process, per the existing university-wide practice.  A copy of these materials will be submitted in a sealed packet to the campus Dean of the Library by the librarian under review.
• A third year review will be required for all lecturers and faculty on clinical appointments, is consistent with the recommendations of the Faculty Senate that the processes for reviewing lecturers and clinical appointments should be essentially the same excluding the expectation of research.
• Third year review is mandatory.  Failure of a faculty member or an academic unit to complete a third year review may be grounds for a decision not to reappoint probationary faculty members, clinical appointees, and lecturers.
• A third year review may be delayed one year based on a written request submitted by the faculty member's dean.  Requests must be submitted during the year prior to the third year review and should demonstrate a clear justification for delaying the process.
• Tenure-track faculty members who have been awarded time towards tenure are also required to participate in the third year review process.  This may necessitate doing a review after one or two years after being appointed.  The goal should be to provide feed-back to the faculty member with sufficient time for the faculty member to respond to the observations of her/his peers.  Minimally, this requires a review to be completed one year prior to the tenure decision.  In most cases, it is desirable for a faculty member to have two years between the third year review and the submission of the tenure dossier.

Process and Time lines:

Early Fall                      Tenure-track faculty, continuing lecturers, and continuing clinical faculty in their fourth year of service meet with the Semester department/division chair/dean to review tenure procedures, University and departmental criteria for tenure, and the contents of a tenure dossier, and to outline a plan moving toward tenure.

By September 24th     Third year tenure-track faculty, continuing lecturers, and continuing clinical faclty submit a draft tenure dossier to a departmental/divisional review committee.

By October 15th         The departmental/divisional committee assesses the dossier based on departmental/divisional tenure criteria and writes a letter of evaluation to the candidate.  The committee then forwards the dossier on to the University Third Year Review Committee.  The attached form is due to the office of Academic Affairs by October 20^th. A sealed copy of the letter is maintained at the department/division level in a file separate from the faculty member's personnel file.*  .

By November 15th     The University Committee assesses the dossier based on Indiana University and IUK tenure criteria and writes a letter of evaluation to the candidate.  The committee then returns the dossier to the candidate.  The attached form is due to the office of Academic Affairs by November 20^th A sealed copy of the letter is maintained at the department/ division level in a file separate from the faculty member's personnel file.*

*Sealed copies are to be accessed only in case of a Board of Review or other appeals inquiry resulting from a negative tenure review.

Suggested Dossier Format:  Third Year faculty are encouraged to seek out model dossiers as examples.  Chairs and senior faculty can assist.  The following listing represents items commonly included in a tenure dossier.  See IU Kokomo's 1993 Promotion and Tenure Criteria for types of possible supporting evidence.  In general, the candidate should provide evidence for claims made in the narrative.  Dossiers are commonly assembled in hard-backed three-ring binders with appropriate tabs marking each section.

Suggested Order and Sections:

Table of Contents

Introduction/Narrative Summary of Contents

Current Curriculum Vita

Copies of Annual Reports

Teaching Section

Statement of philosophy

Teaching evaluation summary (for all courses)

List of courses taught

Discussion of course development/teaching innovations

Syllabi and other supporting documentation

Peer review comments (as appropriate depending upon departmental criteria)

Research Section

Statement of research agenda

Copies of all articles, presentations, etc.

Other supporting evidence

External review letters (if recommended by department)

Service Section

Narrative statement of service goals/agenda

List of service activities

Copies/evidence of service contributions

Prepared by Susan B. Hannah, Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Reviewed by the Academic Council and the Third Year Review Committee

Fall 2009 Revised