The
Writing of Reports
In the
actual writing of reports, Chairs and senior members should
be guided by section II.A.12.b. of the Faculty Handbook: "These
reports should be made with extreme care and with the intent
to endorse and, when defects exist, to correct."
The reports
should not only evaluate the past performance of junior members
but also give clear directions about what they should be doing
to continue their development during the next probationary
period.
The reports
should be comprehensive in that they are based upon all materials
available for review. The reports should include the analysis
of the SAC meeting as well as the peer review of teaching
that goes beyond both the SAC's observations and the CEFs.
The reports must also include, but need not be limited to,
an evaluation of all scholarly materials published or accepted
for publication at the time of evaluation, including those
which might have been written before the candidate came to
Holy Cross. Even if, for example, journal reviews of a publication
have yet to appear, senior members should not delay making
their own written review until a later report. If in the future
more is known about a publication, it may then be re-evaluated.
CTP members
request that departments make a detailed and specific assessment
of articles and the journals in which they appear, and assess
the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate's research.
It is the responsibility of the department to see to it that
the candidate's performance in the area of research and publication
is evaluated adequately. Normally the tenured and senior members
of the department should carry out this evaluation themselves.
If the tenured and senior members believe that they do not
have the expertise to do this, then the department Chair may
request permission to seek an outside review of the candidate's
scholarship. College guidelines on seeking outside review
must be followed. (See the section following on soliciting
outside reviews.)
When reviewing
scholarship, senior members should keep in mind that the seeking
and acquisition of grants, whether for the individual, the
department, or the institution, should be considered scholarly
activity.
Probationary
and tenure reports on a junior member should, over the entire
probationary period, have a sense of continuity. Later reports
should pick up themes of previous reports in order to show,
in particular, how the junior member has developed professionally
in response to earlier reports.
If, after
adequate discussion, there remain significantly different
views among senior members, separate reports can be written
which develop the respective evaluations thoroughly and coherently.
This may happen even if the separate reports share the same
positive or negative recommendation. Junior members are not
well served by single reports which, in order to reflect a
consensus, conceal substantial disagreements among the senior
members.
Junior
members should be informed of their right to respond to the
Committee on Tenure and Promotion, in care of the Dean's office,
in writing their reports. If they wish to respond, they should
do so promptly. If the junior member responds to a pre-tenure
evaluation report, the Chair shall inform the senior members
so that they may read the response for purposes of communication
and information only. In the case of a response to a tenure
report, the Chair shall inform the senior members after the
Board of Trustees has communicated its decision to the candidate.
If any additional material is submitted to the Faculty File
in the Dean's Office after November 1 in the tenure year,
the Dean's Office shall inform the Department's representative
to the CTP as the materials arrive.
