Dossiers for candidates seeking promotion may include letters from internal or external evaluators at the discretion of the Unit and as articulated in the Unit’s AEP plan.. For the purpose of this manual, “internal” is defined as former or current faculty or staff members within the candidate’s Unit. The Unit’s AEP plan should expressly set forth the number of evaluation letters, if any, required for promotion to the third level. Candidates should be informed of the University’s perspective on appropriate evaluators and the right of the Unit to select from the candidate’s nominations those that the AEP Review Committee deems appropriate.
For instructional PTK candidates seeking promotion to the third level, unless the Unit’s AEP plan explicitly states otherwise, the University recommends the solicitation of at least three evaluation letters, one of which should be from an evaluator who is external to the candidate’s Unit (but may be internal to the University). For research PTK candidates, unless the Unit’s AEP plan explicitly states otherwise, the University recommends the solicitation of at least three evaluation letters, one of which should be from an evaluator who is external to the University. External letters should be solicited from individuals who are considered at or above the candidate’s rank in a corresponding academic title series, or in a leadership position of a program or organization outside academia. Units have discretion in determining the qualifications needed in order for an external evaluator to be considered at or above the candidate’s rank. The required qualifications should be expressly set forth in the Unit’s AEP plan. The evaluators nominated by the candidate should be familiar with the candidate’s work, but not current collaborators. It is a good idea to nominate more than the number of evaluators that are required by the Unit’s AEP plan, in case any nominee is unavailable to serve as an evaluator.
The candidate may not contact evaluators to determine their willingness to provide information, or to inquire about the contents of the evaluation. In this selection process, the candidate may also identify non-preferred reviewers (i.e., individuals who may have personal or subjective reasons to react negatively to the candidate’s promotion case). In this case, the candidate must provide a written statement with reasons, which will be filed with the Unit Head and accessible to faculty involved in selecting evaluators for the review.
If a candidate is being reviewed less than three years after being reviewed for promotion to a mid-level PTK faculty rank, new evaluators should be chosen unless there are strong justifications for repeated selection. The AEP Committee Chair should discuss the matter with the Unit Head and the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs prior to selecting and contacting any potential external reviewers.
The Committee should solicit letters well in advance of their deadline. Initial contact shall be made via email to establish whether the evaluator is available to provide a letter within the required time frame. The email should include an explicit deadline for reply in order to determine the need for contacting additional evaluators. The Committee must create a log that lists all of the evaluators to whom a formal request was sent, including those individuals who do not reply or decline to write. In the log, the initial date that the evaluator was contacted should be included, when candidate materials were sent (if different from initial communication), and the date of response (either when the evaluation was received or the reviewer declined to review). The letter log should also indicate which evaluators are collaborators with, or mentors of, the candidate. A template for the letter log is available on the Office of Faculty Affairs website (copied in the Appendix). Copies of the letters (or emails) of refusal must be included in the dossier.
Once the evaluator has agreed, a formal packet of materials should be distributed. A reminder email shall be sent within one week of the submission deadline if the letter is still outstanding at that time. Example text of such emails is provided in the Appendix; all such correspondence shall be recorded in the letter log.
Upon finalization of the list of evaluators, the Committee should create a one-paragraph summary of each evaluator’s credentials. CVs of the evaluators should not be included. It is helpful if the order of these summaries mirrors the order of letters in the dossier.
Because AEP review committees at all levels should have access to the same external and/or internal letters, late arriving letters should not be included in the dossier, nor be used for evaluative purposes during deliberations. Unsolicited letters are not included in the dossier and should not be relied upon for evaluative purposes during deliberations.
Although the contents of the letters are to be shared with eligible voters at each level of review, these letters are highly confidential and must not be shared with the candidate or others who will not be voting on or evaluating the candidate for promotion. Candidates may not contact evaluators to determine their willingness to provide information or to enquire about the contents of the evaluation.
The following guidelines should be followed in presenting letters:
- Letters that arrive in time for consideration by the first level AEP Review Committee must be included in their entirety;
- Letters in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation; and
- The bookmark for each letter should clearly indicate whether the evaluator was nominated by the candidate, or by the committee.
Letters to evaluators should use the text provided in the Appendix as a template; specific items for evaluation may be added, when appropriate, and after review and approval by the Office of Faculty Affairs. Attachments to the letter should include the criteria for promotion, any agreement of modified Unit criteria for promotion, the candidate’s CV and Personal Statement, and a list of scholarly and teaching materials being sent, or made available, to the evaluator. For instructional PTK candidates, their teaching portfolio should also be provided to evaluators. The attachments should be listed within the sample letter.