External Evaluations Video Transcript

>> Hi, I’m Katharine Stewart, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs here at NC State.

>> This video’s part of a series about our reappointment, promotion and tenure process. And this video focuses on external evaluations.

>> This video is designed for faculty who are going up for review as well as department heads and others who are involved with reviewing or requesting such letters.

>> I’ll cover four questions that the Provost’s Office commonly hears on this topic.

>> First, how are potential evaluators identified and how can you determine conflicts of interest?

>> Evaluators should be accomplished senior scholars in the candidate’s field. They’re often working in an area of the candidate’s emphasis such as a sub-discipline, or in scholarship of teaching and learning, or scholarship of engagement and extension. Candidates for promotion or tenure are expected to provide a list of potential reviewers to their department heads. Department heads and DVF members will also identify potential reviewers.

>> A conflict of interest is defined as an existing or prior close working relationship with the reviewer, such as a former major professor or a frequent coauthor. One rule of thumb to consider is whether the evaluator would enjoy some benefit such as in reputation or visibility as a result of the candidate’s receiving promotion or tenure.

>> Faculty candidates may wish to provide their department heads with a list of individuals that they feel would be in conflict as evaluators and why, along with their list of potential reviewers to assist the head in determining the final group of evaluators, though this isn’t required.

>> The next question we often hear in the Provost’s Office is about the materials that should be sent. Different departments have different traditions about what to send. But it should be an appropriate sample of the candidate’s scholarly or creative work. Some departments also send a copy of the candidate’s SME to provide context for the candidate’s effort across the realms of faculty responsibility. It’s important that material sent to evaluators are not substantially different from what will go into the dossier. That way, members of the DVF and college RPT committee won’t be confused by external letters that describe materials that they themselves haven’t seen.

Along with the annotated list of evaluators that goes into section seven of the dossier, the department head should include a brief description of the materials that were sent.

>> So what happens to the letters once they’re received? All external letters that are received before the deadline for finishing the dossier should be included in section seven, no matter how many there are. However, letters that are received too late to be included in all phases of the review should not be included at all. Our university regulation states that the aim should be to obtain five external letters. But sometimes, five don’t make it in time, despite good efforts. In these cases, the department head must provide a reason for the low number as part of his or her written recommendation.

>> Finally, NC State’s template for requesting external letters specifically asks evaluators not to recommend for or against promotion or tenure. But many letter writers do this anyway. What then? Of course, the letters cannot be edited post hoc in any way. So such recommendations cannot be removed. Departmental voting faculty, department heads, college RPT committee members and deans should all avoid quoting these kinds of recommendations from external evaluators in their summaries. Instead, focus on substantive comments made by evaluators about the quality and impact of the candidate’s work.

>> I hope this has been helpful for you as you prepare for the RPT review process. For more information, contact your department head, your college RPT liaison, or me. And also, please check out the links at the end of this video, which include the NC State regulation about external evaluations, and the link to the template for requesting such letters. Thanks for listening.