- Items that comprise the Complete Review File
- A. Letter from Department Chair. B. Letter from Department Review Committee.
- C. A Personal Statement (paginated).
- D. A Current Curriculum Vita (paginated).
- E. Annual Evaluations.
- F. Reappointment Recommendations from the DRC, Chair, CRC, and Dean.
- G. Copies of Publications and/or Documentation of Creative Work.
- H. External Letters/Record of External Letters for College of Liberal Arts and Sciences RPT Review (not required for reappointments).
- I. Record of External Letters for College of Liberal Arts and Sciences RPT Review
- J. Evidence relating to research/creative activity, teaching, and professional service contributions.
- K. Letter(s) from Chairs(s)/Director(s) of Secondary Unit(s).
- L. Departmental Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure.
- M. Appropriate Current Forms as Listed on the CLAS RPT Checklist.
General Instructions for Preparing and Reviewing the File
It is the responsibility of the Department to make the case for either a positive or a negative RPT recommendation for each of its faculty members. To this end, the Chair is responsible for insuring that all required documents are provided so that the file is complete when it arrives at the Dean’s Office. Equally important is the quality of the argument that is put forward in the Department and Chair letters: appropriate documentation and analysis are necessary for either a positive or a negative recommendation. All materials included in a faculty member’s file will be identified by source. Data provided by the candidate, the Department Review Committee (DRC), or other sources should be labeled, and the Department Chair should provide a written explanation for any potentially confusing materials contained in the file. All faculty members are evaluated in three areas of performance: research/scholarly and creative activity, teaching, and professional service (includes service to the institution, the profession, and the public). These three areas are not necessarily discrete categories, but often overlap. In addition, evaluation of faculty productivity should take into account both quantitative and qualitative measures. Because the RPT review is the review of a career, determining whether the faculty member’s contributions to date merit the awarding of reappointment, or tenure and/or promotion, the contributions that a faculty member has made in positions previous to his/her appointment at UNC Charlotte must be considered. If a faculty member is applying for tenure and promotion earlier than the sixth probationary year, the faculty member must be evaluated according to the department and college RPT criteria. A faculty member does not merit tenure because his/her trajectory as an assistant professor is strong. The faculty member must clearly demonstrate that he/she has met or exceeded the RPT guidelines. While the faculty member is responsible for providing the CV, personal statement, and documenting materials, the Department Chair and the Department Review Committee have a joint responsibility for the following:
- Requesting a evaluative letter from the chair/director of any secondary unit, for which the faculty member has made scholarly, teaching, or professional contributions. This is a required document for those faculty members who have contractual obligations in the secondary unit. (This option is also noted in the “CLAS RPT Documentation: Guidelines for Candidate Files.”) The letter must be part of the file from the point of initial review.
- Providing appropriate guidance to the faculty member as s/he prepares the RPT file, using the “CLAS RPT Documentation: Guidelines for Candidate Files” as a guide;
- Providing a context in which to discuss the faculty member’s contributions. This context should include the faculty member’s workload, the department mission, the state of the discipline, and the department culture and work environment.
- Answering any questions that may be raised in the faculty member’s articulation of his/her contributions and/or in the external letters (in the cases of tenure and/or promotion applications).
- Covering the cost of any scholarly products that are sent to the external reviewers.
Items that comprise the Complete Review File
Below are the items that comprise the Complete Review File to be forwarded to the College Review Committee and the Dean. Forms: RPT Checklist (PDF)
A. Letter from Department Chair. B. Letter from Department Review Committee.
The letters referred to in A. and B. above should provide a positive or negative recommendation for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion. They should articulate the impact of the faculty member’s scholarly activity, teaching, and professional service. These letters are very important for the upper levels of review, because they interpret the discipline and the department culture. It is just as important for the Chair and the DRC to remember that their letters will be read by non-specialists as it is for the faculty member writing his or her personal statement. To that end, the DRC and Chair should explain any issues and answer any questions raised in the external letters. However, in order to ensure confidentiality, neither the reviewers’ names nor any identifying information should be mentioned in the DRC’s and Chair’s letters. The Chair’s letter should provide a broader perspective than the DRC’s letter, addressing issues raised in the DRC’s letter where appropriate. Taken together, the letters from the DRC and Chair should answer the following questions with regard to teaching:
- What contributions does the faculty member make to the teaching mission of the Department?
- What does the faculty member teach? How many courses? What is the class size? How many class preparations is he/she responsible for? How many new preparations has he/she been responsible for since arriving? How many new courses has he/she taught?
- How many graduate students has he/she taught? How many independent studies has she/he conducted? How many honors students has she/he taught?
- What kind of teaching experiences does the Department normally expect of a faculty member at the time of reappointment? At the time of promotion and tenure? At the time of promotion? Has the faculty member been provided opportunities to have these experiences?
- Does the faculty member contribute to the General Education program?
- What part of the faculty member’s load consists of teaching graduate courses?
- What other teaching contributions has the faculty member made? (i.e., program development; publications on teaching; ad hoc workshops for students; supervising student clubs/publications; undergraduate research; internships)?
- What is the context for the teaching evaluations?
- Compared with other junior faculty
- Compared with other like classes (in terms of size; in terms of their role in the General Education program; in terms of their role in the major).
- Has the faculty member exhibited development in his/her teaching ability?
- How are textbooks written by the faculty member evaluated?
- If the faculty member has teaching experience at a previous institution (or institutions), has this experience been incorporated into the DRC and the Chair’s assessments?
Taken together, the letters from the DRC and Chair should answer the following questions with regard to research:
- What is the impact of the faculty member’s work? Why is it significant? What important questions is the faculty member asking?
- Is the research focused? Does it contribute to the discipline?
- What level of productivity is expected at the time of reappointment? At the time of promotion and tenure / promotion to full professor?
- How visible/prestigious are the publication venues in which the faculty member has published? What mechanisms does the department have to evaluate the quality of publication venues that might be outside the discipline?
- How are conference presentations evaluated? What kinds of conferences has she/he presented at? In which cases have papers been vetted?
- What work had been prepared/published prior to the faculty member’s arrival at UNC Charlotte?
- Can the faculty member work independently?
- Does the faculty member have external funding? Is external funding necessary in order for the faculty member to do his/her research?
- Have there been submissions?
- Have any proposals been awarded?
- Has the faculty member received a faculty research grant? If so, has it been used as seed money for the submission of an external grant? If not, what is the product?
- Has the department provided a peer-reviewed evaluation for scholarly products that are non-traditional (for example, digital media)?
- Is engaged scholarship (when a faculty member brings his/her expertise into the community to produce a scholarly product) appropriately documented and evaluated, so that the nature and impact of the contribution can be recognized?
The letters should also address the faculty member’s professional service contributions. Junior faculty members should be gradually acculturated to departmental and university service. As much as possible, institutional service should be related to professional expertise. Equally if not more important than department and university service is service the faculty member provides to his/her profession.
C. A Personal Statement (paginated).
The candidate is expected to prepare a self-assessment of his or her performance in each of the major areas for review. This assessment should be written in the first person and organized according to the guidelines articulated in the Guidelines for Candidate Files.
D. A Current Curriculum Vita (paginated).
Citations of publications should be in bibliographic form common to the discipline and should include pagination. Citations of exhibitions and performances should be in standard form devised by the Department. This document should be understandable to faculty members outside the field. For further guidance, faculty members should consult the guidelines articulated in the Guidelines for Candidate Files.
E. Annual Evaluations.
A copy of all the candidate’s annual evaluations within the Department (or in the case of promotion to full professor, annual evaluations for the past five years) as well as a copy of the candidate’s letter of appointment, or other documentation from the Chair enumerating unusual faculty duties or responsibilities.
F. Reappointment Recommendations from the DRC, Chair, CRC, and Dean.
Candidates for conferral of permanent tenure and/or promotion to the rank of associate professor should submit reappointment letters from DRC, Chair, CRC and Dean.
G. Copies of Publications and/or Documentation of Creative Work.
Candidates for conferral of permanent tenure and/or promotion to the rank of associate professor should submit copies of all publications and/or documentation of exhibitions and performances. Candidates for professor should select a representative sample of publications and/or documentation of exhibitions and performances, including all since the last promotion.
H. External Letters/Record of External Letters for College of Liberal Arts and Sciences RPT Review (not required for reappointments).
The overall goal in selecting reviews for academic files is to choose objective, qualified individuals capable of rendering unbiased, authoritative evaluations. These reviewers will be active members in the faculty member’s field, usually holding positions in UNC Charlotte’s peer or aspirational peer institutions. An effort should be made to exclude anyone having a close association with the faculty member. The reviewers who have agreed to submit letters will be listed on the form, “Record of External Letters for College of Liberal Arts and Sciences RPT Review.” At the request of the Department Chair, the faculty member should provide approximately six names, with contact information and a rationale for the appropriateness of each reviewer. At the same time, the faculty member should be given the opportunity to request that certain reviewers be excluded from consideration, either because of bias or conflict of interest. There should be no further consultation with the faculty member regarding external letters. The Chair, in consultation with the DRC and other senior faculty members in the Department, should then identify between three and six potential reviewers. This list should be compiled without reference to the names on the candidate’s list. Once both lists have been generated, the Chair will then consult with the DRC and the Dean on a final list of external reviewers. The final selection of reviewers is confidential. Chairs should not send materials to reviewers until the reviewers have been contacted and have agreed to act as reviewers. Ideally, the chair should identify at least six outside reviewers who will agree to serve. Each reviewer selected will be identified as having come from the list compiled by the candidate, the list compiled by the Chair, or both lists. All letters received become part of the faculty member’s permanent file. The letter to reviewers should provide the following information:
- UNC Charlotte’s mission
- Departmental mission and goals
- Faculty member’s workload over the period of review
- A Request for discussion of the candidate’s contribution to the field
- Deadline by which the letter should be received (a week or so before the DRC actually needs the letter)
- Statement indicating that the letter will be kept as confidential as possible, under North Carolina’s policies.
I. Record of External Letters for College of Liberal Arts and Sciences RPT Review
J. Evidence relating to research/creative activity, teaching, and professional service contributions.
Faculty members should consult the guidelines articulated in the Guidelines for Candidate Files.
K. Letter(s) from Chairs(s)/Director(s) of Secondary Unit(s).
If the candidate has an ongoing affiliation with programs or departments outside his or her home department, the file should contain letters from the chairs or program directors of those units documenting the faculty member’s contributions to those units. The letter must be part of the file from the point of initial review. The letter is not a recommendation for reappointment or promotion and/or tenure, but an evaluation of the contributions made by the faculty member in a particular area of his/her work at UNC Charlotte.
L. Departmental Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure.
M. Appropriate Current Forms as Listed on the CLAS RPT Checklist.
Guidelines for Department Review Committees and Department Chairs (Revised August 2010) View