![[OSU Ph
ysics logo]](http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/Images/osu-physics.gif)
This document is a supplement to Chapter 5 of the Rules of the University Faculty (Additional Rules Concerning Faculty Appointments, Reappointments, Promotion, and Tenure), the Office of Academic Affairs procedural guidelines for promotion and tenure reviews, and any additional policies established by the College of Mathematical and Physical Sciences (CMPS) and the University. Should those rules and policies change, the department shall follow those new rules and policies until it can update this document to reflect the changes. In addition, this document must be reviewed, and either reaffirmed or revised, at least every four years on appointment or reappointment of the department Chair.
This document is effective after approval by the dean of CMPS and the provost of the University. It sets forth the departmental mission and, within that mission and the missions of CMPS and of the University, its criteria and procedures for faculty appointments, and its criteria and procedures for faculty promotion, tenure, and rewards including salary increases. In approving this document the dean and provost accept the mission and criteria of the department and hold the department responsible for applying their high standards in evaluating continuing faculty and candidates for positions.
The faculty and the administration in the Department of Physics are bound by the principles articulated in the Faculty Rules 3335-6 1 and 3335-7. 2
The Department of Physics is dedicated to the discovery and transmission of scientific knowledge. It strives for research, teaching and service competitive with the best physics departments in the country.
Excellence in research involves advancing the state of the art of knowledge in each of the sub-disciplines represented in the department. It requires continuously evaluating and updating the areas where we concentrate our research efforts to insure that they are at the forefront of their respective fields. It necessitates hiring, and then promoting, only outstanding new faculty to preserve and enhance the Department's and College's strength in research.
Excellence in teaching involves (1) providing learning systems for Physics undergraduate service courses that fully engage all our students, (2) introducing innovation to improve learning in courses designed primarily for our majors, (3) continuous updating of our upper level undergraduate and graduate courses to provide stimulating and exciting learning opportunities for these students, (4) helping to develop excellent research and workplace skills for all our students through mentoring their work on research and dissertations, and (5) regularly evaluating teaching quality, both by peers and students, to improve our education product to the highest possible level.
Excellence in service involves (1) serving responsibly on committees within the Physics Department, CMPS, and the University, (2) serving on professional committees at state, national, and international levels, (3) providing professional service in editorial and reviewing activities and evaluating colleagues at other universities involved in the promotion and tenure process, and (4) sharing the fruits of our educational and research endeavors with the community beyond the University.
The Personnel Resources Committee (PRC) is charged with advising the faculty and the Chair of the department on matters of new faculty hiring, and thus it is appropriate here to describe this committee. The PRC shall have at least seven members appointed for two-year terms with three or four members being replaced each year. The composition of the committee should be representative. It may be asked to prepare long-range hiring plans that will satisfy the needs for departmental growth and replacement of faculty vacancies. Research groups may recommend special hiring opportunities; the PRC will evaluate the request and advise the faculty and the Chair.
When an appointment of a foreign national is under consideration, the Department will consult with the Office of International Education.
Consistent with the goals and mission of the Department of Physics at The Ohio State University, to promote and enhance our research efforts to a level of competitiveness with the best physics departments in the country, and to raise our teaching and service efforts to equally high levels, the criteria for appointment of tenure track faculty must meet the highest possible standards of excellence. The expectation for the successfully appointed assistant professor is that the candidate has the promise to meet or exceed the department's official criteria for promotion and tenure. For appointments at the associate or full professor levels, the expectations for scholarly achievement must meet or exceed the department's criteria for promotion to those levels. In general, the successful candidate must have high promise for performing independent, significant and visible research, excellence in teaching, and good departmental service. Since these can be difficult to gauge at the time of appointment, there must be a strong consensus within the department and within the relevant area of specialization (if one exists) before appointing a new faculty member. (See section 3.4 for voting rules.) The following is a list of criteria that must be met by the successful candidate as determined by the chosen area of specialization within the department and as agreed to by the department as a whole:
In contrast to the tenure-track appointments described above, appointments to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure and Professor do carry immediate tenure. They represent, therefore, critical decisions both for the Department of Physics and for the person involved, and as such merit the most serious consideration.
Appointments at these levels generally entail tenure. However, a probationary period may be granted, according to the Faculty Rule 3335-6-03. 3, by petition, for a period not to exceed four years. If the department decides that a probationary period is needed, it will typically petition for a probationary period of four years.
The visiting faculty rank is to be conferred on a person with faculty credentials who typically holds a faculty appointment at another institution. It is expected that the visiting faculty member will be collaborating with a regular faculty member within the department. Evidence of the collaboration should be provided in the nominating letter from a regular faculty member. Original and subsequent appointments will be at a rank compatible with the person's qualifications.
The Lecturer position is to be used only when a specific instructional need is identified in the department. The person appointed to the Lecturer position is expected to have the qualifications to teach the course. Evidence of qualifications includes advanced degrees and/or experience on the topics in the course.
Criteria for original appointments and re-appointments in this category will be the same for regular faculty of comparable rank.
The adjunct faculty position is an honorific title given to appropriately qualified individuals who provide substantial services that require a faculty title in the department. These positions are not compensated. Adjunct faculty will work closely with regular faculty in the department on instructional and/or research activities. For an adjunct position to be appropriate there must be a specific departmental need such as teaching courses, advising graduate students, or providing research project leadership that would enhance the graduate program. The criteria for the adjunct appointment are determined by level of the appointment.
If the person receives an adjunct appointment for teaching a course, that person must provide evidence of the capability for good teaching and of good knowledge of the material taught in the course. Evidence of this includes an advanced degree and/or teaching experience in the subject area. The expected good communication skills will be judged through any appropriate means such as an interview.
If the purpose for the adjunct appointment is for research collaboration along with student advising, the criterion for appointment is evidence of research excellence as judged by publications, letters of recommendation, and experience in performing and directing research within a government laboratory, company or university.
The appointment rank, whether for teaching a course or for advising a student, should be based solely on the research record of the applicant.
Courtesy appointments are no-salary appointments for regular Ohio State faculty from other tenure initiating units. A courtesy appointment should be based on an expectation of the appointee's substantial involvement in the department offering the courtesy appointment; continuation of the appointment should reflect ongoing contributions. Unlike auxiliary appointments, courtesy appointments do not require formal annual review. However, courtesy appointments will be reviewed every five years. (See Section 3.7.)
Requests to hire new tenure-track faculty may originate in various ways. Research groups may request a position, either as part of a long range plan adopted by the faculty or as a perceived special opportunity or replacement. Standing departmental committees or special ad hoc committees appointed by the Chair may also request a position to address a specific need of the department. Special requests are reviewed by the PRC that then makes a recommendation to the faculty and the Chair. Next, the Chair calls a meeting of the faculty to discuss the PRC recommendation and to act on the faculty request. If approved by the faculty, the Chair will appoint a search committee. This committee will include an Affirmative Action Advocate.
Candidates for a regular faculty position should submit to the Chair a résumé containing a summary of their educational background, professional experience and interests, list of publications, and the names and addresses of persons qualified to provide letters of evaluation. The leading candidates will then normally be invited to visit the department, to speak informally with the Chair and members of the faculty, and to deliver a prepared lecture at a department colloquium or seminar. Advance notice of the lecture, together with copies of the candidate's résumé, will be distributed to the faculty with a covering note that the person is being considered for a regular appointment and requesting that pertinent comments be made to the Chair in writing. In a faculty meeting giving careful consideration to all competing candidates, a positive vote from at least 2/3 of the regular faculty present sanctions the Chair recommending to the Dean that a candidate be appointed. If the Chair's likely recommendation is contrary to that of the faculty, the chair shall consult with the faculty before making a final decision.
Consideration of prior service credit is possible only by written agreement before appointment, approved by the Provost. Appointment at senior ranks requires approval of the Office of Academic Affairs, even if tenure is not offered.
Searches for regional campus faculty will be performed by a search committee formed by the Department of Physics including at least one member from the Regional Campus and one member who shall be designated the Affirmative Action Advocate. A short list of not more than five candidates will be chosen by the committee. Those candidates will be invited to Ohio State to meet faculty and make presentations both at the regional campus and Columbus campus. The candidates will be interviewed by the dean or an associate dean of CMPS and the regional campus dean or designee. The committee will present a rank-ordered list of candidates to the faculty of the Physics department at the Columbus campus that will then recommend a rank-ordered list of candidates to the deans of CMPS and the regional campus.
The procedures for hiring tenured faculty are similar to those given above for tenure-track faculty. However, the requirements on the candidate to be hired with tenure must at least be at the level of the requirements to be promoted to Associate Professor with tenure or Professor as described in Section 6 below, depending on the level of the appointment. Appointments at senior ranks require approval of the Office of Academic Affairs.
Appointments of auxiliary faculty can be initiated by an individual faculty member by application to the Chair. Excepting the appointment of lecturers and senior lecturers, the appointment must then be approved by the faculty. Lecturers and senior lecturers appointments can be approved by the Chair or designee. The recommendation of the department is sent to the dean of CMPS by the Chair of the department, together with the Chair's recommendation. Each nomination must be accompanied by a curriculum vitae and, in the letter of nomination, a justification of the level of the appointment and a description of the services the nominee could provide the department.
Since appointments of auxiliary faculty must be renewed on an annual basis, a decision for nonrenewal would occur either by an absence of a request for renewal, or by an insufficiently positive vote of the departmental faculty, i.e., less than two-thirds majority. Nonrenewal can also occur by a negative decision of the CMPS dean.
A courtesy (no-salary) appointment can be initiated by an individual faculty member in the department. The nomination includes both a complete curriculum vitae and letter to the Chair explaining why the appointment is appropriate, particularly the expected contributions of the nominee to the department. If the appointment is approved by the faculty, the Chair will write a letter to the CMPS dean expressing both the department's desire and motivation to extend the courtesy appointment and the Chair's recommendation. After approval by the dean, the recommendation will be sent to the provost. If approved at that level, the appointment goes into effect. Once appointed, a courtesy appointee shall be reviewed every five years to determine if the reasons for the appointment are still in force.
Termination of courtesy appointments can be initiated by a faculty member in a recommendation to the departmental Chair, or by the Chair. It must then be approved by the tenured departmental faculty excluding those with either adjunct or courtesy appointments. Termination could also result from a negative review in the regular five-year review process. Termination could be based on nonsatisfaction of the departmental expectations for the holder of the courtesy appointment, but could also result from other departmental criteria for such appointments. If the Chair concurs with the tenured faculty's termination recommendation, it is referred to the Dean of CMPS. If the Dean concurs, the position is terminated.
At the time of appointment, probationary faculty members shall be provided with all pertinent documents detailing Department of Physics, College, and University promotion and tenure policies and criteria. If these documents are revised during the probationary period, probationary faculty members shall be provided with copies of the revised documents.
The promotion and tenure and annual review processes for assistant and associate professors are closely coupled in the Department of Physics. They are both conducted during Autumn Quarter by the Promotion, Tenure, and Review Committee. The membership of this committee consists of Physics faculty with rank higher than the faculty member being reviewed. Only faculty in the Department of Physics who hold at least a 50% appointment are eligible.
Before the Autumn Quarter each year the Chair appoints a separate subcommittee of the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee to review the performance of each assistant and associate professor. The subcommittee, normally consisting of two faculty, is termed the Review Subcommittee. The Chair will designate one member of the Review Subcommittee to serve as a mentor, but the identities of the remaining members will not be made known to the faculty member under review. The Review Subcommittee, after carefully examining and discussing the information specified below, will prepare a candid and discerning written report for the Chair and for the person reviewed. The Chair may wish to discuss the report with the faculty member under review whom, in any case, the Chair must provide an opportunity for a response to the report before it is discussed by the full Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee.
The report of the Review Subcommittee will be read at Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee meetings in Autumn Quarter. A vita and list of publications for each faculty member under review will be available for review before the meeting and a limited number will be brought to the meeting. It is the responsibility of the Review Subcommittee Chair to have available at the faculty meeting all information supplied to the Review Subcommittee. Following any discussion of the Review Subcommittee report, the full Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee shall prepare a report that includes the voting, a summary of the discussion at the meeting and that appropriately incorporates the Review Subcommittee report. This report will include, at an appropriate time, a recommendation whether the faculty member under review shall be considered as a candidate for promotion and/or tenure. In this case, the Chair will appoint a Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee (See Section 6) in the subsequent Spring or Summer quarter to begin the review process and to provide names of persons for outside letters of evaluation to be used in the following year's Promotion, Tenure and Annual Review process.
In the case of a non-tenured faculty member, the report of the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee must also contain a recommendation to reappoint or not reappoint the faculty member to another probationary year. In the case of a recommendation of nonrenewal in the first, second, third, or fifth year of appointment, fourth year review procedures will be followed, with the exception of requests for external evaluations. The Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee may authorize the Review Subcommittee to prepare its report, with the Vice Chair for Administration coordinating the process and signing the report.
The fourth year review of probationary faculty follows a process similar to those for tenure and promotion at the Department of Physics and College levels. (See faculty rules 3336-03 (C) especially (2) and (4), OAA Handbook Section X and the relevant College Document.) The Chair will solicit letters from recognized scholars, outside the department, recommended by the Review Subcommittee shortly after its appointment. (See Section 6.6.) Renewal of the appointment of a probationary Assistant Professor for the fifth year requires the approval of the Dean of the College. The Chair may wish to discuss the report of the Review Subcommittee with the Assistant Professor whom, in any case, the Chair must provide an opportunity for a response to the report before the faculty meetings.
It is not the duty of the Review Subcommittee to review or to set the general staffing needs of the department or to make explicit comparisons or rank orderings of the person under review with other members of the department.
Prior to its deliberations, the following information should be given to the Review Subcommittee about the faculty member under review.
Faculty members should be encouraged to continually maintain a personal file of the information mentioned above so that it can be supplied to the Review Subcommittee at short notice in the Autumn Quarter. The mentor should inform the faculty member under review if a significant amount of information is missing, and make every effort to correct the deficiency. New faculty members should be supplied with a copy of this document so they may begin the systematic collection of the information required for the Annual Review.
The evaluation by the Review Subcommittee of the faculty member's teaching performance is particularly important for effective mentoring. The results of student evaluations may be used as an early warning indicator of possible teaching problems. Information from peer reviews will further aid in diagnosis and treatment of problems. If a faculty member's student evaluation results, as informed by peer reviews, are significantly below the departmental average, then the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee may recommend appropriate actions. Such measures may include additional classroom visitations by faculty with a subsequent written report containing possible suggestions for improvement, and a plan of action by the faculty member for making such improvements as advised.
Following the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee meetings, the member of the Review Subcommittee designated as mentor will meet with the faculty member under review to consider the report and the discussion in the faculty meeting. It is appropriate at each of these meetings for the mentor to discuss the departmental view of the faculty member's overall performance; in particular the mentor has an obligation to discuss any perceived shortcomings. It is the obligation of the department Chair to foster this mentoring process, and provide any appropriate advice and counsel.
The Chair will meet with each faculty member to discuss that faculty member’s report.
The responsibility for such evaluation in the department rests with the Chair who may independently seek the advice and opinions of persons within or outside the department. The Chair will report annually, in writing, to the individual person in the spirit of mentoring outlined above. This will normally be done following the annual salary review discussed in Section 5.0 below.
As described below, merit salary recommendations for all faculty members in the Department of Physics will be based on contributions in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Performance over the immediate past year as well as sustained performance over the previous three years will be considered in reaching salary judgments. It should be noted that expectations for Promotion and Tenure presented in Section 6.0 below are the same as those that guide salary exercises.
Each year, all faculty members will be requested to update their curriculum vitae and to provide details on professional activities in the areas of teaching, research, and service for the previous academic year. This annual report will become part of the faculty member's personnel file and will be an important part of the salary determination process. Faculty will also be invited to provide in writing any additional information relevant to salary adjustments. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to see that personal professional achievements are brought to the attention of the department. After reviewing the annual reports of the faculty, documentation of teaching performance, and other pertinent information (equity and market factors, promotions, etc.) the Chair, in consultation with the Vice-Chairs, will make recommendations to the Dean regarding salary adjustments. The Chair will strive to be as fair and unbiased as possible in making salary recommendations and will apply to the extent possible criteria that reflect the collective standards of the faculty for individual performance. The Chair will write to inform each faculty member of the basis for the salary decision.
Documentation used in the consideration of merit salary increases shall include:
The departments in the College of Math and Physical Science are expected to establish and exercise high standards for the awarding of tenure, since a positive tenure decision strongly affects the quality and future of the department. The standards for tenure should be based on nationally established signatures of excellence. Furthermore, the pattern of performance over the probationary period should yield a high degree of confidence that the candidate will continue to develop professionally.
Above all, candidates should be held to a high standard of excellence in research. The faculty of the Department of Physics are expected to participate and make significant contributions in all three of the areas of teaching, research, and service, but some tradeoff may exist between those three areas in establishing the acceptability of performance. In the Department of Physics, research is given priority in all tenure and promotion cases.
The evaluation of a candidate should involve a careful comparison with peers both inside and outside the department. At this level it is appropriate to look for strong evidence of achievement as well as promise.
The candidate for promotion should have established a strong research program. Major factors in evaluating the research program include demonstrated quality of research, the ability to choose significant problems and carry them through to publication in refereed journals, evidence of external recognition, the ability to secure external grant and/or contract support, and the potential for continued research productivity.
The candidate for promotion should have established a record of quality in instruction as determined by the combination of factors described under teaching in Section 5.
The candidate for promotion should have established a record of competent service to the department and/or discipline. Service to the department would typically include participation in the work of departmental committees at a level that does not compromise research and teaching performance. Service to the discipline includes reviewing papers and proposals.
Promotion to this level should be based on a carefully considered judgment that the individual has made and will continue to make significant contributions to the profession. Evidence of recognition of these contributions by the physics community should be of major importance in these decisions. The same criteria of excellence in research, instruction, and service apply here as at other levels, but judgments of the balance that exists among them should fully recognize the particular talents of the individual concerned.
The candidate for promotion should have established a record of research achievements and publications notably affecting the field. In addition the candidate should have demonstrated excellence in instruction, documented as described in Section 6.8. The candidate should have demonstrated service at the leadership level to the department and/or University and service to the discipline at the national level.
Promotion to Professor should not be considered to be an automatic result of longevity in the position of Associate Professor. In those infrequent cases where such promotion does not appear to be in the best interest of the department, it is appropriate that the Chair inform the faculty member of this judgment.
Regional campus faculty in the Department of Physics are expected to excel in the areas of teaching, research, and service. However, it is recognized that teaching is the major mission of the regional campus, and this will be reflected in promotion and tenure decisions.
Prior to Autumn Quarter each year the Chair appoints a separate subcommittee of the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee (See Section 4.) to review the performance of each assistant and associate professor to be considered for promotion and/or tenure. The subcommittee, normally consisting of four members, is designated the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee. The Chair will appoint one member of the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee to serve as a mentor, but the identities of the remaining members will not be made known to the faculty member under review. In addition, one member of this Subcommittee will serve as Procedures Oversight Designee.
The Chair shall ensure the Subcommittees (1) treat all candidates for promotion and tenure in a consistent and fair manner and (2) avoid advocating any particular action by the faculty.
Procedures for promotion may be normally initiated in two ways. (1) A faculty member may initiate these procedures at any time following consultation with the Chair and/or faculty mentors. The Chair will normally ask the faculty member's Review Subcommittee to consider a request, and to prepare a report for the Promotion, Tenure, and Review Committee meeting. In accordance with the University rules, a faculty member's request to be considered for promotion may not be rejected by the department more than three years in a row. In the case of a positive recommendation and approval at a Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee meeting, (see 6.2 below), the Chair will appoint a Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee for the following academic year. This committee will meet in the Spring or Summer quarter to begin the review process and to provide names of persons for external letters of evaluation to be used in the Annual Review the following Autumn Quarter. (2) A recommendation for consideration of promotion during the following year may arise during the annual review process of the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee, either in response to the report of the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee or as an independent conclusion of its own. There may also be other circumstances when the Chair may choose to form a Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee.
The Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee will have for consideration all the letters of evaluation (in accordance with 6.6 below) and will be provided with copies of the University Policies on Faculty Appointments, Promotions and Tenure in addition to the information regularly supplied to the Review Committee (See Section 4.1.2) before its deliberations. The Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee, after carefully examining and discussing the specified information and making a careful comparison with contemporaries at leading institutions will prepare a candid and discerning written report for the Chair and candidate. It is not the duty of the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee to review or to set the general staffing needs of the department or to make explicit comparisons or rank orderings of the candidate with other members of the department.
On receiving the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee report, the Chair will notify the candidate who may wish to review the essential contents of the report before the meetings of the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee (See 6.7 below). Confidentiality for persons who supplied information will be respected to the extent possible, consistent with the Ohio Open Records Act. The Chair shall discuss the report with the candidate whom, in addition, the Chair must provide an opportunity to respond to the report before the meeting.
The report of the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee will be read and discussed at a meeting of the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee and is an important part of the promotion process. Information on the present status of all contemporaries named in the report and/or letters of evaluation should be available to eligible faculty and to the candidate consistent with the Ohio Open Records Act.
A vita and list of publications for each faculty member under review will be available for review before the meeting and a limited number will be brought to the meeting. It is the responsibility of the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee Chair to have available at the faculty meeting all information supplied to the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee. After sufficient discussion of the candidate’s case, the faculty present at the meeting will vote whether or not to recommend tenure and/or promotion. At least 50% of the available faculty should be present for this vote. The vote itself will be via a secret ballot where the ballot choices will be: in favor, against, or abstain. At least 2/3 of the voting faculty must vote in favor for a positive tenure and/or promotion recommendation. This action constitutes the recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee to the Chair. Following the Promotion and Tenure Committee meeting, the Vice Chair for Administration will prepare the final report of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. This report will include the voting and a summary of the discussion at the meeting, and it will appropriately incorporate the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee report. That Subcommittee will review the report and verify its accurate representation of the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee deliberations. It will then be transmitted to the Chair, who will forward the final report and all supporting material to the Dean, including the Chair's own evaluation of the case.
The Chair will inform all Assistant Professors having fourth year annual review, and all candidates for promotion and/or tenure of the departmental recommendations following meetings of The Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee. The candidate may provide written comments on the departmental review for inclusion in the dossier within 10 calendar days of being notified.
Letters of evaluation from respected members of the candidate's area of expertise will be requested from persons chosen by the Chair from lists of names provided by both the candidate and the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee. At least six letters should be obtained. No more than one-half of the letters contained in the final dossier should be from persons suggested by the candidate. (See section B.3 in ##FIX 3335-47-04. 4) At least three of the evaluation letters should be from persons who are senior to the candidate and who may be considered impartial and unbiased, and who have not collaborated with the candidate. The persons writing evaluation letters should be asked to comment on the quality of the candidate's research and compare the candidate with a list of contemporary researchers at other leading academic institutions and, if relevant, national and industrial laboratories. Letters of evaluation should be requested sufficiently early (approximately 2 or 3 months) so they are available to the Subcommittee during its deliberations.
Because of the obvious importance of these meetings to the future of the department all eligible faculty are expected to attend these meetings in entirety. Accordingly, at the time of the appointment of the separate Review and Promotion & Tenure Subcommittees, the Chair will notify each faculty member in writing, approximately three months in advance, of the time, date, location, and expected duration of the meetings so that appropriate adjustments of schedules, classes, etc. can be made. These meetings will generally be held during Autumn, but never during the Summer quarter.
Documentation maintained by the Department of Physics used to assess performance of a faculty member is described below.
The Chair of the Department of Physics routinely maintains personnel files for each member of the faculty. It is essential that this record be accurate and complete and that the faculty member be aware of the nature and content of the material included.
The major categories of information to be filed include:
With the sole exception of student evaluation forms, the file cannot include anonymous comments or letters.
Following the provisions governing personnel files given in the University Faculty Rules, information from this file is available to the faculty member. Confidentiality for persons who supplied information will be respected to the extent possible, consistent with the Ohio Open Records Act.
The Physics department maintains its own student evaluation system. Every quarter and in every class SET forms are distributed. The forms are filled out and collected without the instructor being present. These forms contain multiple choice questions covering a wide variety of topics ranging from quality of instruction to choice of text. The SET database contains statistical information for each course surveyed. The database is grouped into nine different areas including upper division classes, grad classes, P11X, P13X, P103, P161, P107, P101, and P109, allowing for statistical comparisons on a quarter by quarter basis. The database includes all quarters starting with Autumn 1996. All instructors receive a statistical summary of the student responses, including historical data.
In addition to the multiple-choice questions on the SET form, space is provided for written student comments. Copies of the student comments are given to the appropriate instructor. The department keeps a typed record of all comments for Assistant and Associate Professors for future use in tenure and/or promotion cases.
Each assistant and associate professor should be annually peer-reviewed. The written result of the peer review is shared with faculty member under review.
Peer review of teaching consists of a more senior faculty member visiting (perhaps several times) a course of the faculty member under review and writing a summary of observations that may include interviewing members of the class visited. The summary for the specific course should address the overall quality of teaching and the basis for that evaluation (e.g., in-class observation, including when it occurred; review of syllabus, examinations and homework; discussions with students in the class).
The peer review addresses in a different form some areas that are sampled with the SET's. These areas include general organization of the class, use of visual materials, skill at interpreting abstract ideas, use of examples, encouragement of questions and student participation, and the interest in the students. In addition, the peer review addresses areas not on the SET form, but relevant to effective instruction. Specific observations and comments are an important part of this process.
Faculty Rule 3335-47-05. 5 (A) sets forth general criteria for appeals of negative promotion and tenure decisions. Further detail on appeals alleging improper evaluation is contained in Faculty Rule 3335-5-05. 6 This rule requires candidates who believe that they have been improperly evaluated to seek to resolve the matter informally before filing a formal appeal under that rule.
3335-47-05. 5 Criteria and procedures for appeals of negative promotion and tenure decisions and appointment nonrenewals and for seventh year reviews.
(A) Appeals. It is the policy of The Ohio State University to make decisions regarding the renewal of probationary appointments and promotion and tenure in accordance with the standards, criteria, policies, and procedures stated in these rules, supplemented by additional written standards, criteria, policies and procedures established by departments and the CMPS. If a candidate believes that a nonrenewal decision or negative promotion and tenure decision violates this policy, and therefore the candidate alleges that it was made improperly, the candidate may appeal that decision, Procedures for appealing a decision based on an allegation of improper evaluation are described in rule 3335-5-05 6 of the Administrative Code.
Faculty Rule 3335-47-05 5 (B) sets forth the conditions of and procedures for a seventh year review for a faculty member in the Department of Physics denied tenure as a result of a sixth year review.
3335-47-05. 5 Criteria and procedures for appeals of negative promotion and tenure decisions and appointment nonrenewals and for seventh year reviews
(B) Seventh year reviews. Every effort should be made to consider new information about a candidate's performance before a final decision is made if the new information becomes available before a decision is rendered. In rare instances, a department may petition the dean to conduct a seventh year review for an assistant professor who has been denied promotion and tenure. Both the eligible faculty of the unit and the Chair must approve proceeding with a petition for a seventh year review. The petition must provide documentation of substantial new information regarding the candidate's performance that is germane to the reasons for the original negative decision. Petitions for seventh year reviews must be initiated before the beginning of the last year of employment because the seventh year review, if approved, would take place during the regular university review cycle of the assistant professor's seventh and last year of employment.
If the dean concurs with the department's petition, the dean shall in turn petition the provost for permission to conduct a seventh year review. If the provost approves the request, a new review will be conducted equivalent to the one that resulted in the nonrenewal of the appointment. The conduct of a seventh year review does not presume a positive outcome. In addition, should the new review result in a negative decision, the faculty member's last day of employment is that stated in the letter of nonrenewal issued following the original negative decision.
Following notification of denial of tenure at conclusion of the sixth year review, the affected faculty member may not request a seventh year review, appeal the denial of a seventh year review petition initiated by the department, or appeal a negative decision following a seventh year review.
|