This workshop was held March 3, 2015 and was intended for deans and department heads involved in the professional evaluation of faculty for their Third-Year (Pre-Tenure) Review. The Third-Year Review of pre-tenure faculty represents a key step on the tenure track, providing an in-depth analysis and valuable feedback to the faculty member regarding progress toward tenure. This is a critical juncture in that contract renewal at the third year is not automatic; the major criterion behind the decision to renew a contract is evidence of significant progress towards establishing a record appropriate for tenure.

1. Materials presented are for general informational purposes only
and do not constitute official University rules, policies or
practices or interpretations or summaries of such rules, policies
or practices. No warranties or representations are made as to
the accuracy of any information presented. Any discrepancy
between the information presented here and the official rules
and policies of the University of Oregon is not intended to and
does not alter or amend the official rules and policies.

2. Third-Year Review
Presented by Ken Doxsee
Vice Provost For Academic Affairs
March 3, 2015
Mid-Term

3. Timing of the Review
• For tenure-track faculty without tenure
• Timing established at time of appointment
• Usually occurs during last year of initial contract
• If no credit for prior service – typically in 3rd year
• If credit for prior service – typically mid-way between hire
and expected tenure review
• Completed ≥1 one month before end of contract

4. Process
• Department/unit head requests materials from
faculty member
• Department/unit head assembles file
• File provided to committee of tenured faculty
• Committee prepares report, including assessment
of progress toward tenure & promotion
• Department/unit head prepares independent
report and recommendation
Fall term

5. Faculty Member’s Responsibilities
• Curriculum vitae
• Scholarship portfolio
• Comprehensive portfolio of scholarship/research/creative practice
• Appropriate evidence of (inter)national recognition or impact
• Personal statement
• Teaching, scholarship/research/creative practice, service
• Discussion of contributions to institutional equity and inclusion
• Teaching portfolio
• Service portfolio

6. Process
• Department/unit head requests materials from
faculty member
• Department/unit head assembles file
• File provided to committee of tenured faculty
• Committee prepares report, including assessment
of progress toward tenure & promotion
• Department/unit head prepares independent
report and recommendation

7. Department/Unit Head’s Responsibilities
• Summary reports from student teaching evaluation process
• Recent peer evaluation of faculty member’s teaching
• Establish review committee comprised of tenured faculty

8. Process
• Department/unit head requests materials from
faculty member
• Department/unit head assembles file
• File provided to committee of tenured faculty
• Committee prepares report, including assessment
of progress toward tenure & promotion
• Department/unit head prepares independent
report and recommendation
• (Department/unit vote by eligible faculty)

9. Process
• Committee and department/unit head reports provided to
faculty member
• Faculty member may provide response and/or additional
information within 10 days from receipt of reports
• File, including any response or additional information from
faculty member, submitted to Dean
• Dean prepares independent report and recommendation
• May consult with appropriate persons
• May obtain and document additional relevant information

10. Process
• Dean shares report and recommendation with faculty member
• Faculty member may provide response and/or additional
information within 10 days from receipt of reports
• File, including any response or additional information from
faculty member, submitted to Provost or designee
• (Include contract renewal documents)
• Provost or designee decides terms and duration of any
subsequent appointment and communicates review decision to
faculty member ≥1 month prior to end
of current contract

11. General Remarks
• The key question: Given the work accomplished and the
trajectory, is the candidate on a pathway to an unequivocally
positive recommendation for tenure?
• Formative and summative evaluation
• Contract renewal is a key decision point
• Three outcomes possible
• Renewal extending to tenure decision
• Terminal one-year contract
• Renewable one-year contract with stipulations

12. Outcomes and Associated Process
• Unequivocally positive: readily make tenure if current
trajectory is sustained  Three-year renewal
• Unequivocally negative: will clearly not make tenure if
current trajectory is sustained  One-year terminal
contract and dismissal
• Problematic but still possible: might make tenure with key
corrections in effort  One-year contract with
stipulations

13. Conducting the Review: Suggestions
• Engage the discussion in two parts
• Diagnostic review of vita and accomplishments
• Evaluative review of prospective success and
what is needed (or lacking if things are going
negative)
• Focus on the vita and accomplishments,
not on the person

14. Closing Comments
• All three outcomes are routinely reached
• It is difficult to tell a colleague that things
are not working
• It is difficult to be told that things are not
working
• It is more difficult to be told this later, in the
context of a denial of tenure
• It is not always a shock

15. Questions
Ken Doxsee
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
346-2846
doxsee@uoregon.edu