Rationale

The goal of post-tenure review (PTR) in Nelson is threefold. First, it is designed to meet the requirements laid out in UW’s Faculty Policies and Procedures (7.17. Post-Tenure Review Policy). This is an institutional mandate.

Second, it allows an outlet where faculty can be afforded acknowledgment that their current activities meet expectations, while allowing any areas of opportunity or improvement to be qualitatively and constructively addressed by peers. We expect all but the very rarest cases would meet expectations, in keeping with a tradition where self-governing faculty perform exemplary work in teaching (40%), research (40%) and service (20%). It is expected that extremely or disproportionately high achievement in one or more areas may be balanced against more modest contributions in others, albeit with a goal that all faculty are productive serving in all these roles. It is expected that all cases are likely to meet expectations, acknowledging that rare cases deserve attention and support. This is unit necessity.

Third, the procedure is intended to allow Executive faculty to get a clear glimpse of the remarkable achievement of their peers and to learn what the portfolios of their peers in very different areas of scholarship look like. Part of being in an interdisciplinary community is the unusual opportunity to learn how artists excel, how atmospheric scientists achieve, and how historians shine. The process will further afford a view on where efforts of different faculty go in pursuit of that excellence. We seek to embody and to model, for other units, Nelson’s rare if not unique quality: being “Different, Together”. This is a Nelson distinction.

Resources

The Dean’s Office will provide and keep on file the following resources, accessible and annually updated, for all faculty:

1. A document stating performance expectations (6.07.  CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING TENURED PROFESSORS) from Nelson Institute Policies and Procedures (NIPP).

A supplementary document Guidelines for Merit Evaluation and Criteria for Excellence in Interdisciplinary Scholarship in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (former Appendix B) on evaluation of performance in interdisciplinary scholarship (drafted and approved previously by the Executive).

2. A standardized interface for PTR material submission will be maintained, based on the annual review interface. PTR candidates will be required to submit materials to that system, which will be made available to the PTR committee and later the Executive Committee, even where they have submitted similar (i.e. redundant) materials to any unit of a joint appointment. This assures standardized availability of all materials for all candidates.
3. A set of current metrics, smoothed over a three year average, of performance and participation mean levels for all Institute Executive members, including but not limited to: major monographs published and exhibitions mounted, significant awards, student credit hours taught, university-wide teaching awards, grants submitted and grants awarded (in number and dollar magnitude), # of publications submitted and published, committees chaired, committees served, # of graduate student mentees, of undergraduate mentees, and related data. These benchmark data will be aggregated to means/averages, used simply for reference. These metrics necessarily do not include key performance evidence of lower frequency contributions, of no less significance.

Given the diverse research expertise among Nelson faculty, it is important to recognize that key metrics may vary significantly in each PTR case, especially between qualitative and quantitative research disciplines. Historically, quantitative research has been favored, as common academic metrics are more easily applied in these fields. However, we emphasize the value of qualitative research and advocate for a broader evaluation of PTR components. These may include, but are not limited to, reviews of the scholar’s exhibitions, books, and other works; the impact of research on stakeholders; research contributions focused on underserved communities; invitations to review others' work; and participation in larger projects that integrate scholarly output. Additionally, requested lectures (including those for non-academic audiences), fellowships, and awards supporting ongoing research should also be considered.

Procedures

1. The Dean’s Office will seek to minimize the number of annual PTR cases every year, where possible. Tracking the upcoming dates of reviews over an 8-year period, we will encourage some faculty to have their review held one year earlier than scheduled, in an effort to “smooth” out the amplitude of the annual review load curve, seeking to keep the number of reviews across the Institute to no more than two per year, where possible. Given that many appointments are joint, this may not always be possible, but it is an aspirational goal.
2. The PTR committee will be formed annually.

1. 1. The committee will consist of all members of the previous year’s annual review committee (effectively making mandatory review committee service a two-year stint), with ad hoc members joining from units of joint appointments. Note that the annual review committee, and therefore the PTR committee, are already designed to span the four “divisions” of the university faculty (physical science, biological science, social science, and arts/humanities), though these categories may be collapsed (e.g. social sciences/humanities) where numbers are too low.
   2. Where the committee is formed by a partner unit (i.e. tenure home of a joint appointment), one member of the standing committee will be assigned to sit on the joint committee housed in the other unit.

3. The PTR committee and Executive Committee will be assigned a relatively limited set of tasks, with a clear division of labor.
   1. The PTR committee will be provided with access to the submitted materials of the PTR cases, as accessed through the submission portal, with sufficient time to review any and all cases before presenting before Executive.
   2. The PTR committee will review materials and write a short summary of the case, consisting of a summary report of no fewer than one page and no more than two pages. The report will stress areas of achievement and excellence and note areas with room for improvement or renewed effort. The PTR committee will not provide a ranking/rating or evaluation, only a summary of high points and notable features of the case.
   3. The Executive Committee will review the PTR summary and available materials and, by majority vote, assign a rating of either “Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations” to each reviewed case. Cases that are deemed to “Not Meet” expectations will be referred for further process at the Division and University level as per FP&P. It is expected that faculty may excel in one or two areas and not in others. Only failure to perform in all areas, or most/all areas, should be taken as evidence of not meeting expectations.
   4. The PTR committee, following the vote, and within 45 days, will meet with each candidate for no more than one hour to review the findings and provide congratulations, constructive feedback, requests for clarifications, encouragement, and recommendations for further improvement of performance.