Elements of a Dossier

An overview: Every submission will contain three elements: (1) an electronic file, (2) two hard copies of the file, one including the original materials from which the electronic file was created, (3) a single hard copy of representative pieces of scholarship. (4) a teaching dossier (optional). Because the contents of the original dossier will be optically scanned, please DO NOT USE STAPLES OR INCLUDE DOUBLE-SIDED MATERIALS. Please DO NOT include the supplemental materials (elements 3 and 4) within the electronic dossier. Colleges are responsible for returning all supplemental materials to candidates after the Campus APT Committee has finished its deliberations. Dossiers failing to conform to these guidelines will be returned to the College for corrective action before they are submitted for evaluation to the University APT Committee!

Please note that thisprocedural manual lists requirements at the University level of review. Department and colleges may ask for more material (e.g., more pieces of scholarship) and may choose to use hard copies.

SECTION A: TRANSMITTAL FORM

#1. Transmittal Form: The first page of the dossier should be the transmittal form. Information from the transmittal form is entered into both the ARS database and our office personnel database, so please check the accuracy of information on the transmittal form, especially the record of votes, the dates of meetings, and the type of appointment (e.g., 9-mo., 12-mo., etc.). For new appointments, the New Faculty Appointment Information form with the proposed salary and start dates must accompany the dossier.

Candidate’s Name: Give the candidate’s full legal name.

UID No: Avoid disclosing Soc. Sec. Numbers by listing University ID number.

Citizenship: Tenure is granted to non-U.S. citizen candidates contingent on their possession of a visa status that permits continued employment by the University.

Summary of Votes: Record the number of (1) positive votes, (2) negative votes, (3) mandatory abstentions, (4) voluntary abstentions, (5) absences due to leaves, illnesses, etc., and (6) the total number eligible to vote. The sum of the numbers in categories 1-5 should equal the total number of faculty members eligible to vote in the relevant APT body. Please be sure that the numbers recorded on the transmittal form match the numbers reported in APT Committee Reports.

Mandatory abstentions often arise whenever a faculty member could vote twice, e.g., at the College and Department level. In these cases, the faculty member is permitted to vote only at the lower level (policy references #1, #2, and #3). If a faculty member is eligible to vote within two Departments (because both the candidate and the voter have similar joint appointments), the voting faculty member may only vote in the tenure home and must abstain from voting in the second unit. A mandatory abstention may arise for other reasons, such as when a faculty member is the candidate’s spouse.

Consistent with University APT policy, only tenured faculty above the rank the candidate currently occupies may vote on that candidate’s case (policy reference). Hence, even though a unit’s Plan of Organization may allow votes from other faculty (those below the rank to which the candidate aspires or non-tenured faculty), such votes should not be recorded on the Transmittal Form or in any other part of the dossier.

Secondary Unit: If a candidate has a permanent joint appointment in a unit with eligible voters, record the votes of the secondary unit and the recommendations of the unit’s administrator.

SECTION B: EVALUATIVE STATEMENTS

#2. Dean's Letter: This letter should state the Dean’s personal assessment of the reasons the candidate merits or does not merit promotion (policy reference).

The letter should contain an honest and balanced assessment of the candidate’s scholarship, teaching, mentoring, and service, and a clearly stated recommendation. If this recommendation differs from that of the Department APT Committee, College APT Committee, or the Department Chair, the reasons underlying the dissent should be explained. Please pay careful attention to negative votes and try to explain the reasons for these votes. Additionally, the Dean has a unique “local” perspective of importance to campus wide decisions. The Dean can provide a context for evaluating the candidate through characterizing the strengths of the Department, its role in the college, and the role of the candidate in enhancing the excellence of the Department. Because colleges differ in their mission, the letter should also discuss the expectations of the college and Department for promotion. If the candidate’s original appointment was based on expectations that differ significantly from commonly accepted criteria, the Dean should discuss the source and nature of the criteria on which the candidate is to be evaluated.

When either the College APT Committee or the Dean make a negative recommendation, the Dean should (a) write a brief letter summarizing the nature of the considerations on which the negative decision was based, (b) allow the Chair of the College APT Committee to review and, if necessary, correct the information, ( c ) send the summary to the candidate and (d) include the letter in the dossier as an attachment to the Dean’s letter (policy reference). In non-departmentalized colleges, the Dean should always send a letter of notification to the candidate (see the instructions for Chairs’ letters).

#3. College APT Committee Report: This report should include the date of the meeting and the names of committee members.

The report should include a statement of the exact vote and the reasons for the recommendation (policy reference) and it should address the same areas as the Department APT report described in #5.

When the vote is not unanimous, the report should try to explain the reasons for the negative votes or the abstentions. If the assessment differs from the Department vote, please explain why. Minority reports are permissible but not required.

#4. Department Chair's Letter: The letter should contain the Chair’s independent evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, mentoring, and service, and should make a clear recommendation supported by the reasons for it (policy references #1 and #2).

As with the Dean’s letter, the University APT Committee finds the Chair’s letter to be most useful when it places the performance of the candidate in the context of the Department or discipline and comments on the APT Committee’s report. It is particularly useful for informing the Committee about the criteria used to evaluate the candidate and the Chair’s assessment of the candidate with respect to those criteria. These criteria should be appended to the Chair’s letter. The letter need not reiterate the basic information about the case. Instead, Committees look for the Chair’s interpretation of the information about the candidate. They seek an honest and balanced assessment of the candidate’s scholarship, teaching, mentoring, and service, and a clearly stated recommendation. If this recommendation differs from that of a Department APT Committee, it is helpful to explain the reasons. The Chair should also attempt to explain reasons for negative faculty votes when they are known.

The Chair’s letter should have two attachments, the Department’s APT criteria and the candidate notification letter. The notification letter must be sent to the candidate within two weeks of the decision meeting, regardless of the outcomes of 1st level decisions. The Chair should (a) write a brief letter summarizing vote and the general nature of the considerations on which the department and chair’s decision was based, (b) allow the Chair of the Department APT Committee to review and, if necessary, correct the information before the letter is sent to the candidate, (c) send the summary assessment to the candidate and (d) include the letter in the dossier which will be forwarded to the next level of review. (See Candidate Notification of APT Decision Table)

#5a. Department APT Committee Report: (policy reference) The report of the Departmental APT Committee has two clearly separable parts.

• The first part 5(a) describing the decision meeting, is ordinarily written by the Chair of the APT Committee or his or her designee and reports the discussions and the exact vote, as well as any department rules about the number of votes required for a positive recommendation. The report should contain the meeting date and be signed by its author.
• The second part 5(b), the evaluative report, is often written by an initial review subcommittee (whose members should be identified) (policy reference). It summarizes and evaluates the candidate’s research, service, mentoring, and teaching contributions in light of the standards of the department and of the discipline. Neither report is shown to the candidate. They are incorporated into the dossier sent by the unit head to higher levels of review (policy reference).

It is helpful to address the following questions when preparing the evaluative report:

1. What are the standards and expectations of the department or the discipline with respect to the candidate and how are they measured?
2. What are the candidate’s major contributions in these areas? Why are these contributions important?
3. Has the candidate met or surpassed the unit’s standards and expectations?
4. What evidence supports the Review Committee’s evaluation?

This information is particularly helpful in areas like the performing arts and Maryland Cooperative Extension with distinctive expectations for promotion. It is important to consider the audience to whom this report will be addressed, which includes faculty and administrators outside the Unit

For additional information, please see a set of important suggestions for evaluating faculty performance.

Minority APT Report: (policy reference) Members of the Department APT Committee who do not think that the APT Committee Report adequately represents their views may write a signed minority APT report that will become part of the dossier.

#6. Summary Statement of Professional Achievements: (policy reference) This summary is designed to insure that Committees have correct and complete information about the candidate on which to base their evaluation and their explanations of the candidate’s credentials. The summary, written by the Department IRC Committee or its representative, is a factual statement of the candidate’s accomplishments in the areas of research, scholarship, or creative activity; teaching, mentoring, and advising; and service. It is an internal statement not to be mailed to external reviewers. The Summary Statement should place the candidate’s accomplishments in research, scholarship, extension activities and/or artistic performance in the context of the broader discipline and the candidate’s professional achievements in service and teaching in the context of the responsibilities of the Unit, the College and the University and the greater community. It should be a neutral description; no evaluation of the candidate’s work should be included. The candidate must be shown the Summary Statement at least 2 weeks before the unit deliberates the candidate’s case. Candidates must certify in writing that they have seen it, and must be allowed to draft a rejoinder before it is used by the Department APT Committee as the basis for its discussion and vote. Thus the date on this report should predate the meeting on which the case is decided. If there is a rejoinder, the summary must acknowledge receipt and consideration of the rejoinder. To facilitate production and “certification” of the report, Units may wish to inform candidates in advance of the deadlines for reviewing the Summary Statement and for return of the signed Statement with any rejoinder.

#7. Candidate's Curriculum Vitae: The faculty member’s curriculum vitae should be signed and dated to certify that it is accurate and current. The c.v. should be prepared no later than the beginning of the academic year in which the candidate is reviewed and should be included in each request for external evaluation. The c.v. that is read by the First-Level Committee and sent to external referees is the official c.v. for the candidate. If there are subsequent changes, the First-Level Administrator should forward a memo containing these changes to higher levels of review. Thus the date on the c.v. must predate the date of the voting meeting and the Committee must not change the c.v. during the course of the review! Candidates should avoid submitting frequent minor changes in their c.v., such as the graduation of a doctoral student or the submission of an article.

The c.v. should present aa portrait of the candidate's accomplishments in as concise a manner as possible. To aid the review committees, the c.v. should carefully follow the University's c.v. format.

#8. Reputation of Publication Outlets:

The department should provide an appraisal of the reputations of the journals, presses, and other outlets (e.g., theaters, exhibits, etc.) for the candidate’s scholarship/creative activity. Indicate whether peer review is required. Departments should develop a standard, stable, credible method of rating journals and should present these ratings and when possible, the rate of acceptance to the journal or other medium. The following fictional table suggests how the information should be provided. It contains just those outlets where the candidate's work appears and it uses objective indices. We have chosen acceptance rate and impact but there may be other more credible or appropriate indices.

In addition, please include article citation counts. Units may prefer to put these in the Evaluative Report (#5) and Summary Statement (#6) so candidates can verify the counts.

#9. Candidate's Personal Statement: (policy references #1 and #2) This statement provides candidates with the opportunity to make a case for their promotion based on a demonstrated record of achievement. The statement ordinarily describes the questions addressed by the candidate and indicates their importance to the candidate’s field of research or scholarship, progress made in addressing these questions, and directions of future research. These statements should be relatively short, 3-4 pages, and directed toward readers who may not be specialists in the candidate’s field. The personal statement should be signed and dated. The statement should be prepared no later than the beginning of the academic year in which the candidate is reviewed and should be included in each request for external evaluation (Viewing examples of past personal statements may assist faculty in preparing their own statements.) The statement should be signed and dated. The personal statement should be prepared no later than the beginning of the academic year in which the candidate is reviewed and should be included in each request for external evaluation (policy reference).

SECTION D: EXTERNAL EVALUATIONS

#10. Log of Letters of Evaluation: The Committee shall solicit letters of evaluation from 6-8 widely recognized authorities in the field, chosen from a list that shall include individuals nominated by the candidate. At least three letters and at most one-half of the requested letters shall be from persons nominated by the candidate (policy reference). Higher level APT committees question the credibility of letters from the candidate’s mentors and collaborators, and heeds closely the comments of evaluators from highly ranked institutions.

The Committee must include a list of all the evaluators to whom a letter was sent, even if the reviewers do not reply or decline to write. The letters of refusal should be part of the dossier. Include the dates letters were requested, and the dates when either the evaluation was received or the reviewer declined to write a review. The table below provides the format for the letter log. A template for the letter log is available in Word. The order of letters in the dossier should correspond to the order of letters in the log and the letters should be grouped by requestor (candidate or review unit). Because the First-Level APT Committee should have access to the same external letters as subsequent levels of review, late arriving letters should NOT be included in the dossier nor used for deliberations. If letters were solicited by the Committee to determine the role of the candidate in collaborative research, the letter soliciting the input and the responses should appear in section 5b following the evaluative report.

Please indicate on the letter log which refees are collaborators with or mentors of the candiate and in the credentials section justify their inclusion as referees.

#11. Credentials of External Evaluators: The credentials of each external evaluator should be provided in a paragraph. Do NOT include c.v.s of evaluators. The order of the paragraphs should mirror the order of entries in the log and the order of inclusion of letters in the dossier. Please do not put each evaluator’s credentials on a separate page.

It is important to justify the choices of evaluators and to indicate the type and quality of the institution or program with which the evaluator is associated.

#12. Sample Letter Used to Solicit External Evaluations: (See two sample letters to external evaluators) The letter used to solicit external evaluations is usually sent by the Chair of the First-Level APT Committee. The letter should be neutral, asking for an honest evaluation rather than for support for the faculty member’s promotion. The letter should ask the evaluator to comment on:

• the candidate's ranking among his or her professional peers (or cohort);
• the candidate’s chances for promotion and where appropriate, tenure, in the evaluator’s Department, a key element in the evaluation;
• the impact of the candidate's work on the field;
• the quality of the candidate’s teaching, if this is known.

Departments have the option of sending teaching dossiers including syllabi, examinations, and other instructional material to external reviewers for their evaluation. Reviewers may be asked to comment on the scope and currency of the instructional materials, and their appropriateness to the discipline and to the level of the course.

Attachments to the letter should include the criteria for promotion, the candidate’s c.v., and personal statement and a list of scholarly and teaching materials being sent to the evaluator. Please list the attachments within the sample letter. (The Unit should provide expectations to candidates about the amount of materials reviewers should be reasonably asked to evaluate.)

#13. Responses of External Evaluators: It may facilitate dossier preparation to request that these letters be sent as electronic attachments. The Chair of the First-Level Review Committee should receive suggestions of potential reviewers from the candidate. Then the Committee should select reviewers from that list and choose their own referees. The Committee should solicit the external evaluations well in advance of their deadline. Committees should request a minimum of six responses from external evaluators (outside UMCP), at least three but no more than half of the referees shall be chosen by the candidate (policy reference). Avoid an excessive number of letters (e.g. 10 or more). Only letters that arrive for timely consideration before the vote of the First-Level (Department) Unit should be included in the dossier. Should an insufficient number of letters be received, the case may still go forward. However, Units should be aware that the absence of the requisite number of letters may weaken the case for the candidate. Although the contents of the letters are to be shared with eligible voters at each level of review, these letters are highly confidential and should not be shared with the candidate or others who will not be voting on or evaluating the candidate for promotion. Candidates may NOT contact referees to determine their willingness to provide information, or to inquire about the contents of the evaluation.

The following procedures should be followed in presenting letters:

• All letters received in response to solicitation must be included in their entirety if the letters arrive for timely consideration by the first level of review.
• Letters in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation.
• Indicate clearly on each letter whether the evaluator was selected by the candidate or committee.

• Avoid choosing an evaluator who is the candidate’s dissertation advisor, former teacher, co-author, or student.
• When a candidate is re-reviewed, as in the case of someone coming up for Professor shortly after being reviewed for promotion to Associate Professor, new evaluators should be chosen unless there are strong justifications for repeated selection.
• Evaluators should ordinarily hold the rank of Professor or its equivalent.
• The credibility of evaluators is an important factor in judging the merits of the candidate’s case and the evaluator’s input. Because an evaluator is asked to address whether the candidate would be promoted at his or her institution, the prestige of the institutional affiliation of the evaluator and the accomplishments of the evaluator should be taken into account in selecting external referees.
• Candidates often are confused about the procedures for selecting external referees. It is useful to inform them of the University’s perspective on appropriate referees and the right of the Department to select from the candidate’s nominations for referees the specific ones the APT Committee deems appropriate. Candidates should also be informed about the rules of confidentiality.

SECTION E: TEACHING

#14. a. Data and Analysis of Student Teaching Evaluations: Summarize and analyze the data on teaching evaluations. (See a sample table of analyzed data ) Do not send raw, unanalyzed data. These data belong in the teaching portfolio. Sometimes Departments include a summary in their APT report. If so, simply indicate in this section the page where the summary can be found. Avoid duplication of materials. Please do not include these in personal statements! Please include the material gathered through the new course evaluation system. For previous data:.

• Include a clear explanation of the rating system as well as a comparison with the norms of the Department and/or College.
  
• Provide an explanation of the level and student composition of the courses and a sample questionnaire. If a particular instructor’s teaching load for a period of time consisted principally of generally unpopular required courses or if there was a particularly significant event in a given semester that might have influenced student opinion, such facts should be made known.

#14. b. Data and Analyses of Peer Evaluation of Teaching: Many units engage in peer review of teaching based on classroom visits by colleagues. At a minimum, peer evaluation should include evaluation of course syllabi, examinations, and other instructional material by members of the Unit or external evaluators, and discussions of curriculum development, introduction of innovative uses of technology, special contributions to the teaching mission of the Department or to special programs like Honors, Gemstone, and College Park Scholars, participation in programs for the improvement of teaching, and teaching awards received by the candidate. Departments may require a teaching portfolio including syllabi, examinations, and other instructional material. Only ONE copy of the portfolio may be submitted to the University APT Committee. Do not include these portfolios in the electronic dossier file.

#14. c. Mentorship, Advising, Research Supervision: A list of past and current undergraduate and graduate students for whom the candidate has served as principal advisor should be provided in the c.v. in separate sections. Where relevant, lists or numbers of past and current graduate and undergraduate students for whom the candidate has served as academic advisor should be included on the c.v. It is unnecessary to repeat these data in this section. However, this section should include evaluative discussion of undergraduate and graduate advising, supervision of theses and dissertations, and mentoring of students and colleagues.

Appendices to the Dossier (one copy only)

Two Representative Samples of Scholarship identified by the candidate.

Teaching dossier (optional).

Back to APT Procedures Manual main page.