Faculty Affairs

Reappointments and Promotions without Tenure

Reappointments or Promotions without Tenure

All filed should be submitted to the Dean's office in CD format.

A. Tenure track 

The review for reappointment without tenure is intended to be a rigorous appraisal of the candidate. The review has two major goals: 1) to evaluate the candidate's past record to ensure that the faculty member's performance merits a second term appointment, and 2) to examine the candidate's teaching and research history and future agenda in order to judge the candidate's potential for tenure at Duke by the end of the second term. The departmental review takes place during the year preceding the last full academic year of the current appointment. The department evaluates the review committee's recommendation and forwards it to the Dean no later than four months prior to the end of the review year. Consult the deadlines published in the Provost's procedures.
 
Initiation of the process: The Chair informs the faculty member when the review begins and nominates a review committee for the Dean's approval. When the Dean has approved the committee, the Chair informs the candidate of its membership. Department chairs should not serve on review committees. However, in small departments where the review committee comprises all department members entitled to vote, the Chair should be present for all discussions so that the Chair's letter to the Dean is fully informed by the committee discussions, which also double as departmental discussions, just as the committee vote doubles as the departmental vote.  

Review Committee Responsibility: The committee: 

  • requests from the candidate a current curriculum vitae that should include the information required by the Provost's procedures, section 2, as well as the additional materials listed therein; Appendix II below offers a template for soliciting items from the candidate.
  • Departments may solicit but are not required to solicit assessments from outside evaluators. Candidates may request that external evaluations be solicited. Although candidates may not select specific evaluators, they may both suggest evaluators and identify evaluators they would ask the committee not to contact. Any lists of potential evaluators suggested or excluded by the candidate should be included in the dossier. If evaluations are solicited, they should be modeled on the sample letter in the Provost's procedures; 
  • The committee evaluates the candidate's record in order to write a report and recommendation based on the evidence, attending to all those items required by the Provost's procedures.  

Department Action:

The department discusses in confidence the report of the review committee and votes on it by secret ballot at a meeting of the appropriate members of the department ). Department bylaws should contain a definition of voting rights. The Chair does not vote except in a tie. (In small departments where the review committee comprises all department faculty eligible to vote – as described above – the vote of the review committee on the recommendation should be by secret ballot, with the Chair in attendance but not voting.) The numerical vote is to remain confidential among those faculty present at the meeting where the vote was taken, except as revealed in the Chair's transmittal letter to the Dean; elsewhere it should be reported only as positive or negative and its nature (split or unanimous) should not be revealed. After the vote, the Chair should inform the candidate of the department's recommendation, using the sample letter provided by the Provost's procedures.  

Response to Department Action:

The Chair forwards the department's recommendation to the Dean, with one paper copy of the candidate's complete dossier (retaining one on file; Note: beginning with the 2009/10 academic year, only CDs will be accepted) and with a letter addressing sequentially the points listed in section 5 of the Provost's requirements, with two exceptions: The Chair need not suggest three additional external evaluators, nor need the Chair rank the candidate among the tenured faculty, although the Chair should comment on the probability of the candidate's receiving tenure in the department. The Chair should append for the Dean's and Provost's review a draft letter to the candidate summarizing the results of the review. See Appendix III for a sample draft. 

After reviewing the dossier and checking it for completeness, the Dean transmits the dossier to the Provost with a letter addressing those issues required. The Provost examines the record and the recommendations and consults with the Dean. When a final decision is reached, the Dean transmits it to the Chair, along with any suggested changes in the Chair's draft review summary to the candidate. The Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss the review and gives the faculty member the (perhaps revised) written review summary, with a copy to the Dean. If the decision is favorable, the Dean prepares a reappointment letter for the candidate. (Once approval has been granted for the second term appointment, the faculty member becomes eligible for a junior faculty research leave.) If the decision is unfavorable, the Dean sends the candidate a termination letter compatible with the candidate's term of appointment. 

B. Non-tenure track 

The review for reappointment and promotion of non-tenure track faculty is intended to be a rigorous appraisal of the candidate.  It should evaluate the candidate's past record and future plans to ensure that the faculty member's performance and potential merit an additional term appointment, consonant with department's aims and goals. The review occurs during the year preceding the last full academic year of the current appointment. Files are due in the Dean's office no later than four months prior to the end of the review year. Consult the deadlines published in the Provost's procedures. 

Initiation of the process: The Chair informs the faculty member when the review begins and nominates a review committee for the Dean's approval.  Although chairs should not serve on review committees, in small departments where the review committee comprises all department members entitled to vote, the Chair should be present for all discussions so that the Chair's letter to the Dean is fully informed by the committee discussions, which also double as departmental discussions. Upon approval, the Chair informs the candidate of the committee's membership.

Review Committee Responsibility: The committee: 

  • requests from the candidate a current curriculum vitae that should include the information required by the Provost's procedures, section 2, as well as the additional materials listed therein (the candidate is solely responsible for making these materials available); 
  • departments may solicit but are not required to solicit assessments from outside evaluators. Candidates may request that external evaluations be solicited. Although candidates may not select specific evaluators, they may both suggest evaluators and identify evaluators they would ask the committee not to contact. If evaluations are solicited, they should be modeled on the sample letter in the Provost's procedures; In the case of reappointments, or promotions at the full professor level, a minimum of three independent external evaluations are required (see the sample letter in the Provost's procedures); 
  • the committee evaluates the candidate's record in order to write a report and recommendation based on the evidence, attending to all those items required by the Provost's procedures. 

 
Department Action: The department discusses in confidence the report of the review committee and votes on it by secret ballot at a meeting of the appropriate members of the department. The Chair does not vote except in the case of a tie. (In small departments where the review committee comprises all department faculty eligible to vote, the vote of the review committee on the recommendation should be by secret ballot, with the Chair in attendance but not voting.) The numerical vote is to remain confidential among those faculty present at the meeting where the vote was taken, except as revealed in the Chair's transmittal letter to the Dean; elsewhere it should be reported only as positive or negative and its nature (split or unanimous) should not be revealed. Department bylaws should contain a definition of voting rights. After the vote, the Chair should inform the candidate of the department's recommendation, using the sample letters provided by the Provost's procedures. 
 
Response to Department Action:

The Chair forwards the department's recommendation to the Dean, with one paper copy of the candidate's complete dossier (retaining one on file; Note: beginning with the 2009/10 academic year, only CDs will be accepted) and with a letter addressing sequentially the points listed in section 5 of the Provost's requirements, with two exceptions: The Chair need not suggest three additional external evaluators, nor need the Chair rank the candidate among the tenured faculty. The Chair should append for the Dean's and Provost's review a draft letter to the candidate summarizing the results of the review.  See Appendix III for a sample draft.
 
For all regular rank, non-tenure track ranks, the Dean of Arts and Sciences makes the final determination on reappointment. When a final decision is reached, the Dean transmits it to the Chair, along with any suggested changes in the Chair's draft letter to the candidate. The Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss the review and gives the faculty member the written review summary, with a copy to the Dean. If the decision is favorable, the Dean prepares the appropriate reappointment letter for the candidate. If the decision is unfavorable, the Dean sends the candidate a termination letter compatible with the candidate's term of appointment. In the event of a negative determination, the candidate may appeal the decision to the Dean and the Provost.