Engineering Center, Room 301
115 Library Drive
Rochester, MI 48309-4479
Dean's Office: (248) 370-2217
Academic Advising: (248) 370-2201

SECS Departmental Criteria

SECS Departmental Criteria and Procedures


Re-Employment, Tenure and Promotion

Review Statement

School of Engineering and Computer Science
Oakland University

Consisting of the
University Standards for Re-employment. Promotion and Tenure
School of Engineering and Computer Science Criteria and Procedures for Employment,
Reemployment, Tenure and Promotion

Approved by SECS CAP on February 12, 2015
Approved by SECS Assembly on October 2, 2015
Approved by FRPC on October 12, 2015

Approved by Oakland on November 9, 2015
Effective:   Fall 2016

University Standards for Re-employment, Promotion & Tenure


School of Engineering and Computer Science Criteria and Procedures
for Employment, Reemployment, Tenure and Promotion




    1. Teaching

    2. Scholarly Activity

    3. Service


    1. C1 Re-Employment Review

    2. C2 or C3 Re-Employment Review

    3. C4/D1 Re-Employment with Granting of Tenure Review

    4. Promotion to Full Professor Review

    5. Review of Special Instructors

    6. Review of Visiting Faculty

    7. Review of Part-Time Faculty


    1. Initiation of Reviews

    2. Advisory Committee

    3. Evaluation Committee

    4. Procedures for Assembly of Dossier

    5. Advisory Committee Procedures

    6. Evaluation Committee Procedures

    7. Procedures for Evaluating Visiting and Part-Time Faculty

    8. Appeal

APPENDIX A - Curriculum Vitae (and standard letters)
APPENDIX B - Organization of the Core Dossier
APPENDIX C - Deadlines for Submission of Review Dossiers
APPENDIX D - Distribution of Dossiers

University Standards for Re-employment, Promotion & Tenure

In all reviews for tenure and promotion Oakland will consider the candidate's entire record, emphasizing efforts and accomplishments since attainment of current rank. The candidate's record at Oakland University generally will be of particular importance. Oakland's evaluation of the candidate will consider:

  • the programmatic and institutional setting of the candidate's work at Oakland and the nature of the candidate's assignments and responsibilities;

  • the quality of the candidate's accomplishments;

  • the relation of all these factors to the objectives of the area or department, the goals of the college or school or institute, and the mission and long range vision of the university.

Oakland's evaluation focuses on the candidate's efforts and accomplishments in three areas:

  • teaching or performance as a university librarian, as appropriate to the appointment;

  • intellectual contributions such as scholarship, research, and creative activities;

  • service.

Teaching and University Librarianship

The term "teaching" refers to all instruction and advising activities that affect or support the academic progress of students. These activities include classroom, laboratory, studio, field, and clinical teaching and evaluation; the supervision of research, writing, independent study, practica, and performance; individual and group advising and mentoring; preparation of courses; development of curricular and instructional materials; instructional innovations; and application of new educational technologies.

The phrase "performance as a university librarian" refers to initiating, planning, organizing, and implementing library programs, including application of technology and effective communication with and service to library users.

A candidate for tenure must show substantial evidence of achievement in teaching and/or performance as a university librarian. Such evidence must be obtained through use of systematic procedures for student and peer review. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, assessments of the instructor's preparation through peer review of syllabi, reading lists, class and library handouts, tests, examinations, and other course and library materials in all formats; student appraisals such as course evaluations and solicited and unsolicited letters; evidence of student achievement; and success in sharing teaching philosophies and methodologies and in obtaining grant support relating to teaching and/or university librarianship.


Intellectual Contributions - Scholarship, Research and Creative Endeavors

Because of the comprehensive and diverse nature of Oakland University's mission, Oakland recognizes in its reviews a broad range of intellectual contributions. Such contributions improve theory and practice and support the present and future quality of instruction at Oakland University.

Scholarship and research include:

  • basic, theoretical or applied research;

  • scholarship that applies the research to the betterment of society, institutions, groups, and individuals;

  • peer recognition of the above as reflected in publications in refereed journals, other peer-reviewed publications, and critical reviews as appropriate to the discipline;

  • successful efforts in securing competitive or professionally significant external funding in disciplines where research is traditionally supported by grants;

  • scholarship that interprets, draws together, and brings new insights to bear on original research, gives meaning to isolated facts and puts them in perspective, or creates connections across disciplinary lines;

  • scholarship that involves not only transmitting knowledge but transforming and extending it as well through carefully planned and continuously examined pedagogical procedures that stimulate active learning and encourage students to be critical and creative thinkers with the capacity to go on learning after their college days are over.

"Creative activities" refers to works of artistic expression, production, or performance, and includes such activities as composing, writing, directing, performing, and conducting.

The most important evidence of scholarship, research, and creative activities is that authorities in the discipline(s) or field(s), including authorities outside the institution, have critically evaluated the work as meeting high standards (e.g., publications in refereed journals, grants and other funded research proposals). A candidate for tenure is expected to have made substantial progress toward maturity as a scholar or creative artist and to have established the presumption of continued growth in these areas.


The term "service" refers to the following activities:

  • Public, institutional, and professional service through work that grows out of the university's programs and mission and has the potential for substantial and positive effects on a community, profession, or external perceptions of the university, and that draws upon the candidate's professional competence. Such service includes not only contributions to the organizational work of academic professional associations and societies at all levels but also activities that extend Oakland's scholarly and instructional capabilities into various external agencies and communities.

  • University service through committee work or governance activities in the area, department, school, institute, college, or the university; for faculty, university service includes service as a role model and mentor for colleagues and students. Documentation of the candidate's service should recognize these distinctions and, particularly in the case of public, institutional, and professional service, should indicate the relationship of the candidate's service activities to the programs and mission of the university and to the candidate's instruction, intellectual contributions, and professional responsibilities. A candidate's involvement in university service should reflect an appropriate sharing of general faculty obligations in university governance.

Evidence of service should speak to its magnitude, complexity, and duration and may be derived from the testimony of those served; from evaluations provided by others involved in service work; from reports, articles, instructional materials and other documents produced through service; and from grants and funded projects, honors, and awards received in recognition of service.

Oakland regards teaching or performance as a university librarian and intellectual contributions as the most crucial areas of development for candidates for non-tenured reemployment or for tenure. Oakland normally will expect the record of candidates for tenure to show some accomplishments in service.

Beyond their achievements at the time of tenure all candidates for professor are expected to have continued their development in teaching or performance as a university librarian and in intellectual contributions and service. In addition, candidates for professor are expected to have demonstrated excellence and creativity in teaching or performance as a university librarian including application of technology, or to have achieved wide recognition beyond the institution as authorities or leaders in intellectual contributions or wide recognition in public, institutional, and professional service. In disciplines where research is traditionally supported by grant support, external funding is desirable for consideration of promotion to professor. In addition, candidates for professor must demonstrate potential for sustained involvement in teaching, research, and service.

School of Engineering and Computer Science Criteria and Procedures for Employment, Reemployment, Tenure and Promotion

    The reputation of the School of Engineering and Computer Science is largely a result of the accomplishments of its faculty. These accomplishments may be divided into three areas of responsibility, namely teaching, scholarly activity, and service. When considering candidates for re-appointment, promotion and/or tenure, their potential and performance in the three areas shall be evaluated with primary consideration given to the nature and quality of the contribution the candidate makes to the fulfillment of the roles and missions of the department and the school. Although this document will elaborate a more specific set of criteria and expectations against which candidates for re-appointment, promotion and tenure will be evaluated, it is understood that the overriding consideration will be the candidate's ability to contribute significantly to the work of the department and the school in both the short and long range, and to demonstrate a commitment to the traditions of scientific inquiry and the dissemination of knowledge.

    In this document, "Association" means the Oakland University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, and "Oakland" means the Board of Trustees of Oakland University or its authorized delegate. In instances where there is a contradiction between the contents of this document and either the Policies and Procedures of the Committee on Appointment and Promotion (CAP) of the School of Engineering and Computer Science or of the Faculty Agreement, then the terms of the Faculty Agreement and then of the CAP Policies and Procedures shall prevail in that order.

    The primary role of the Department and of the School is to contribute to the academic mission of the University in specified branches of engineering and in computer science. To fulfill this role, faculty members have responsibilities in teaching, scholarship and service, The various activities by which responsibilities may be met are listed below.

  1. Teaching
    Teaching potential and accomplishment are among the major criteria for recruitment, re-employment and promotion of faculty members. Activities directly relating to the instructional role include the following:

  1. Communication of a system of concepts and methodologies through lectures, supervision of laboratory sessions and seminars.
  2. Direction of project and independent study courses for undergraduate and graduate students.
  3. Direction of teaching assistants.
  4. Development of new courses, or revision and improvement of existing courses.
  5. Development of new teaching laboratories, or revision and improvement of existing teaching laboratories.
  6. Development of software and/or hardware systems for instruction.
  7. Development of innovative teaching methods.
  8. Publication of textbooks, laboratory manuals, or other instructional materials used at Oakland University or other universities.
  9. Publication of articles on innovative teaching methods or curriculum design in educational journals.
  10. Contributions to the improvement and updating or curricula of the school.
  11. Presentation of short courses for practicing professionals.
  12. Obtaining grant support related to teaching.
  13. Direction of MS theses and PhD dissertations.


  1. Scholarly Activity
    Scholarly potential and accomplishment are among the major criteria for recruitment, re-employment and promotion of faculty members. These criteria are used to judge how well a faculty member has developed expertise in an area of engineering or computer science through intense concentration of effort on problems or to a particular technical area as part of a continuous program of cumulative impact. Evidence of success in such endeavors may be determined from the following:
  1. Documentation of accomplishments through publications in recognized journals.
  2. Presentation of research results at professional meetings and in conference proceedings.
  3. A record of external research support.
  4. A record of direction of student research.
  5. Publication of technical books.
  6. Publication of technical reports and patents.
  7. Documented evidence of the use of candidate-developed software and/or hardware in the greater scientific community.
  8. A record of invited technical seminars, talks, or similar presentations.
  9. Advising and graduating Ph.D. students.
  10. A list of citations.
  1. Service
    Faculty members are expected to participate in activities that are supportive of the academic functions of the University and of their profession. Examples of service include:
  1. Participation in committees of the Department, School and University.
  2. Participation in the administration of the department. or of the school.
  3. Academic advising.
  4. Support of department members and other university faculty, in their professional development and in carrying out their responsibilities.
  5. Seeking financial support for department and school programs.
  6. Development of special facilities for the department or school.
  7. Advancement of the profession through service in national and international organizations and through support of student professional societies.
  8. Community, governmental or industrial service in a professional capacity.
  9. Participation in recruitment and retention activities.

Because of the applied character of the engineering and computer science professions, contributions made by an individual in a governmental or industrial environment may also be considered relevant. Such contributions might be evidenced in reports, patents, short courses, etc. The writing of textbooks may be counted under teaching or scholarly activity, depending upon the character of the published material.


    The overriding consideration in the evaluation of faculty members who are under review for re-employment, awarding of tenure and/or promotion, shall be the cumulative effect that the candidate has on the overall ability of the department and school to fulfill their missions within the University. This effect is determined by assessing the demonstrated performance and promise for future achievement in the categories of teaching, scholarship and service. In the special case of awarding of re-employment or job security for special instructors, only demonstrated performance and promise for future development in teaching and service shall be considered. In the evaluation of scholarly activity the quality of work and definition of a specific area of interest and scholarship is of prime importance, however, publication in refereed journals is still necessary. Faculty members shall be rated as unsatisfactory or satisfactory in each of the categories. The accomplishments needed to achieve a satisfactory rating will, of course, vary with the review level, and these are discussed as part of the criteria given below. The department and the CAP do not construe re-employment or promotion at any level to guarantee the next level of promotion. The continual academic progress of the individual, and not past achievement alone, is the basis for continued advancement through the academic ranks.

  1. C1 Re-Employment Review
    For Cl re-employment, the candidate must achieve a rating of satisfactory in each criteria area and show potential for continued development as a scholar and teacher.

During the initial appointment the candidate typically will have taught two or three different courses. These may vary from introductory level to advanced courses in the candidate's area of expertise. It is expected that the candidate will have developed the courses, introducing his or her own notes, teaching methodologies and laboratory experiments. Usually the candidate will have acquired some experience in supervising teaching assistants in the laboratory and may have directed research assistants in connection with establishing a program or scholarly activity. When constructive criticism has been received from students and colleagues, it is expected that the candidate will have responded positively to improve his or her teaching effectiveness.

Scholarly Activity
The candidate should have formulated research goals and should have formulated a clear direction of future research. This direction should be evidenced by research projects in progress and by submission of proposals for external and internal funding. It is important for the candidate to have demonstrated a commitment to scholarly activity through organization of time to permit significant progress.

During an initial appointment the candidate will likely have been appointed to department or school committees, but usually will not have been designated as chair or assigned responsibility for carrying out special tasks. Service expectations of the candidate at this level include regular attendance at meetings, a responsible attitude with respect to committee business, and concern for the programs and operations of the department and the school. Although a candidate at this level is encouraged to be a participating member of relevant professional societies, specific accomplishments in this capacity are not required.

  1. C2 or C3 Re-Employment Review
    For C2 or C3 re-employment, the candidate must achieve a satisfactory rating in each criteria area and have exhibited growth as a teacher and scholar.

As a result of their previous experience, candidates for C2 and C3 review should have acquired the knowledge and developed the confidence so that their course preparation time will have been reduced, thereby permitting greater effort to be directed toward service tasks and scholarly activity. Deficiencies in teaching performance noted in earlier reviews should have been corrected. There should be evidence that the candidate has a genuine enthusiasm for teaching, a willingness to take on a range of assignments, and the ability to undertake new courses without significant difficulty.

Scholarly Activity
The candidate undergoing C2 or C3 review should have demonstrated the ability to perform as an independent scholar through published works or articles accepted for publication in refereed journals. There should be evidence that his/her research program has a well-defined direction which shows promise of continued research achievements. The candidate should have submitted proposals for research funding and should be contributing to the scholarly thrust of the department through collaboration with colleagues, consultation and seminar activity.

Typical experience for a candidate for the C2 or C3 review would be service on one or two key committees of the department or school as well as some lesser assignments. He/she should have achieved a record as a contributor and as a person who can be counted on to complete service tasks in a timely fashion. Occasionally, a candidate at this level may have had the opportunity to chair a department committee or to fill a significant service role outside of the department. Professional service external to the university may include such activities as a reviewer for a technical journal, an organizer for a technical session of a conference, or a member of a technical committee within a professional society.

  1. C4/Dl Re-Employment with Granting or Tenure Review
    For promotion to, or re-employment as, associate professor with tenure, the candidate must achieve a satisfactory rating in each criteria area, exhibited growth as a teacher and scholar, and additionally have demonstrated excellence and creativity in teaching or research with evidence of continued productivity.

A candidate undergoing a C4 or Dl review, typically will have demonstrated expertise in several courses which have a significant role in the curricula of the school. Further, it is expected that the candidate has demonstrated effectiveness as a teacher as evidenced by student and peer evaluations, and can provide instructional leadership in certain areas of the curricula. Excellence in teaching can be demonstrated through student and peer evaluations, publication of textbooks or referred articles in educational journals, laboratory or course development, or success in obtaining external funding to advance the educational mission of the School.

Scholarly Activity
A candidate undergoing a C4 or D1 review, should have a record of high quality research work and show evidence of continued productivity as a scholar. The record should include a list of publications in refereed journals and may be augmented by presentations at professional meetings. Letters from impartial reviewers from outside Oakland University, who are experts in the field of the candidate must be part of the record. Support from an external funding agency is one indication that the candidate has achieved status as an independent investigator. Another is the publication of several significant papers during the untenured years.

The service experience for a candidate undergoing a D review should include several assignments as a committee member within the department or school, one of which should have been as chair of a key committee. The service experience for a candidate undergoing a D1 review should include several significant assignments as a committee member within the department or school, one of which should have been as chair of a key committee.  The service experience for a candidate undergoing a C4 review should include, for example, assignments as a committee member within the department or school.  He/she must have demonstrated an understanding for the service role in the university setting and have shown the ability to contribute to it in a significant way. Service may be augmented by activities in national and international professional societies, such as serving as a reviewer for a journal, organizing or chairing technical sessions at conferences, and holding membership on technical committees.


  1. Promotion to Full Professor Review
    In reviewing dossiers for promotion to full professor, the department and the school are primarily concerned with the evidence which bears on the academic maturity of the candidate. In addition to earning a rating of satisfactory in each criteria area, the candidate must have demonstrated excellence and creativity in teaching, or have achieved recognition beyond the institution as an authority or leader in either scholarly work or professional service.

The candidate must have offered a reasonable variety of courses and consistently demonstrated a high quality of instruction as evidenced through student and peer evaluations. He/she should have shown leadership in pedagogical areas, such as defining the shape of the curriculum, assisting junior faculty members in the solution of pedagogical problems or applying new educational technologies.

Scholarly Activity
For promotion to full professor, the candidate should have a record that is indicative of significant growth as a scholar in an area of his/her profession since receiving tenure. Evidence for this includes the quality of refereed and other publications, success in efforts to secure significant external funding, the recognition which has been achieved, and the leadership role that the candidate plays in the scholarly life of the department and the research community at large.

Significant service to the department, school and university is expected of candidates for promotion to full professor. This should include acting as a mentor to junior faculty members. The record may be augmented by professional service to the community and service to the profession.

  1. Review of Special Instructors
    For re-employment of and/or granting of job security for special instructors, a rating of satisfactory in teaching and service is required. For a first re-employment review, the requirements for satisfactory ratings are as described in paragraph IV.A. For subsequent re-employment reviews, the requirements for satisfactory ratings are as described in paragraph IV.B. For job security review, the requirements for satisfactory ratings are as described in paragraph IV.C.

  1. Review of Visiting Faculty
    For continuation as a visiting faculty member, the candidate must achieve a satisfactory rating in teaching as described in paragraph IV. A, B, C or D above, depending on the visitor's rank and years of experience. In addition, any scholarly and/or service expectations assigned to the candidate at the time of hire should also be evaluated and satisfactory ratings achieved, again using criteria associated with the candidate's rank and experience.

  1. Review of Part-Time Faculty
    For continuation as a part time faculty (lecturer or special lecturer), the candidate must, as determined by the chairperson, achieve a satisfactory rating in teaching and additionally have demonstrated high professional standards, reliability, conscientiousness, and availability to students. For first reemployment, the teaching criteria in IV.A should be applied. For any subsequent reemployments, the teaching criteria in IV.B should be applied.

  1. Review of Research Faculty for Re-employment as Research Faculty

The candidate must demonstrate satisfactory or excellent achievement in scholarly work at least at the level of candidates for promotion to the rank of full professor (see IV.D), and have reasonable expectations of continued external funding at a level of at least that required to support the candidate’s research program.


  1. Initiation of Reviews

    1. On or before October 15, the department chair, the chair of the CAP and the dean, shall determine all the faculty to be reviewed under paragraphs 4I.C(I), C(2), C(4), D(I), H and 42A,B of the Faculty Agreement.

  1. The department shall carry out the in-depth review procedures (described in Section V -F and V -G below) for all members of the bargaining unit whose re-employment or promotion is mandated by the Faculty Agreement.

  1. Promotion to full professor is initiated by the individual faculty member. By February 1 of the academic year preceding the review, the candidate shall inform the department in writing that he/she wishes to be put forward for promotion to full professor. This notification must be accompanied by a completed core dossier. By March 1, the department chair will review this information with a committee composed of all full professors in the department and the department chair will decide whether or not to nominate the candidate for promotion to full professor. The department chair will compose a letter to the candidate summarizing the results. This letter must be included in any subsequent review steps. If the decision is not to nominate and the candidate does not withdraw from the process, in writing, by March 15, the review will proceed as self-nomination according to the procedures described below.

  1. In-depth review procedures for early promotion to associate professor and tenure may be initiated upon recommendation by the department chair upon advice of the tenured members of the department or by the dean. Such recommendations shall be made by October 15. In cases of early tenure, the department considers whether the individual demonstrates an extraordinary pace toward the achievement of academic maturity. An individual who is recommended for early tenure should have established an exemplary reputation in his/her field, and should exhibit qualities which predict continued productivity after promotion.

  1. Advisory Committee
    The assembly of information for the dossier of a candidate shall be the responsibility of the candidate and the Advisory Committee.

The department chair, in consultation with the other department chairs within the school, shall establish an advisory committee for each candidate, with one member designated as chair. For candidates for promotion to full professor and C3 review, the committee shall be appointed by April 1, and the dossier shall be due in the department chair's office by October 1. For all other candidates the committee shall be appointed by October 15 and the dossiers shall be due in the department chair's office by January 15. The Dossier Committee shall be divided into three functional subgroups, (except for special instructors whose subgroups shall be teaching and service), with up to two persons serving on each subgroup. The subgroups shall be:

  1. Teaching Subgroup

  2. Scholarly Subgroup

  3. Service Subgroup

Members of the committee must be tenured members of the faculty with primary appointments in the school. They need not be members of the candidate's department. The department chair shall not chair the Advisory Committee. If the candidate is being reviewed for promotion to full professor then the committee members must also be full professors.

  1. Evaluation Committee
    This committee shall evaluate the candidate's credentials.

The Evaluation Committee shall consist of all tenured members of the department (full professors only in the case of candidates for full professor), plus members of the Advisory Committee who are not members of the candidate's department.

  1. Procedures for Assembly of Dossier
    With the advice of the Advisory Committee the candidate shall prepare a review dossier consisting of two major components, namely a core dossier and supporting materials. The core shall be bound separately from the supporting materials.

  1. Core dossier: The minimum components of the core dossier are:

    1. The curriculum vita in the form shown in Appendix A. Copies of the sample form are available from the department chair. The curriculum vita shall include:

      1. Education

      2. Prior professional employment record

      3. Consulting experience

      4. Oakland appointment record

      5. Oakland instruction record, listing all courses chronologically, enrollment, and whether student evaluations are available.

      6. Course/laboratory development

      7. List of undergraduate student projects directed, including student's name, project title and date.

      8. List of master's theses and doctoral dissertations directed as major advisor, including student's name, title of the work, the date and whether the document is available.

      9. Ph.D. committee membership, the chair, student's name and dates.

      10. A bibliography, listed within categories, with full information, including co-authors. Categories should include books, published articles, papers and reports, reviews and abstracts. Although usually organized chronologically from most recent papers completed to the earliest, it may be beneficial to organize the bibliography by subject matter. For co-authored publications there must be a statement indicating whether the candidate is the principal author and outlining the candidate's contribution to the overall effort covered by the publication. A statement must be included which indicates the total number of citations, excluding self-citations. Also, the search engine used to find the citations should be stated. Optionally, the number of citations may be included for each publication. For very selective conferences, the acceptance rate may be included after the listing of a conference paper.

      11. Presentations, including how selected for participation, title of talk, name of organization, place of presentation, listed chronologically with dates.

      12. Research in progress; current research activity that is likely to be published or presented.

      13. Grants applied for, to whom, dates and status of funding.

      14. Service, committees and other service work with dates, whether chair, and categorized according to department, school, university or professional service.

      15. Awards and honors.

      16. Miscellaneous.

  1. A brief self-statement of notable accomplishments, educational objectives and professional goals, including what one hopes to achieve as a teacher and scholar, how one's career at Oakland University reflects these goals, and any anticipated changes in professional direction.

  2. Departmental, CAP and FRPC memoranda pertaining to previous reviews, if applicable. Written feedback given to candidate by department chair concerning annual activity reports. Letters of appointment and re-appointment.

  3. Letter from the department chair initiating the review.

  4. Letters received for evaluation of teaching.

  5. Letters received for evaluation of scholarly activity.

  6. Letters received for evaluation of service.

  1. Supporting Materials: The second part of the dossier consists of supporting materials and the teaching, scholarly activity and service portions of these should be bound separately to permit examination with relative ease by the Evaluation Committee, the CAP, and the FRPC.

  1. Supporting Materials for Teaching: The following materials should be included in support of teaching:

    1. List of courses taught in past and class enrollments.

    2. The last three years of completed student evaluation forms.

    3. At least three years of the School of Engineering and Computer Science statistical summaries of teaching evaluations.

    4. Representative course syllabi, handouts and examinations.

    5. Documentation of new courses developed and how the course has impacted the program.

    6. Documentation of unpublished software developed and used in class instruction, including course numbers and semesters for which it has been used.

    7. Any other evidence that the candidate feels reflects on his/her teaching effectiveness.

  1. Supporting Materials for Scholarly Activity: The following materials are expected in support of scholarly activity:

    1. A reprint or a photocopy of each publication or proceeding.

    2. Copies of manuscripts that are in press, together with a copy of the letter of acceptance.

    3. Copies of manuscripts in the process of revision, together with copies of the referee's letters of comments and editor's letter.

    4. Copies of manuscripts that have been submitted for review, together with copies of the letter of submission.

    5. Copies of other manuscripts.

    6. Copies of proposals to, and letters from, agencies regarding review and granting of funding requests.

    7. Copies of any other evidence of scholarly activity.

    8. A list of citations and copies of review articles.

  1. Supporting Materials for Service: To support service contributions, letters and any other documentation of service activity should be included.

  1. Advisory Committee Procedures

    1. The Advisory Committee shall advise the candidate on preparation of the dossier and shall review it to ensure completeness, accuracy and conformity with the prescribed format. It shall seek more information if it deems necessary, but shall also be responsible for obtaining the additional information indicated in the following paragraphs. In soliciting information the Advisory Committee shall advise references that the candidate has access to all material that becomes part of the dossier.

  1. Teaching Review - The Teaching Subgroup shall assemble and place in the dossier, the following information to permit evaluation of the candidate's contribution to the teaching mission of the university.

  1. Reports of classroom visits as prepared by members of the Advisory Committee.

  2. A comparison of the candidate with other colleagues based on evaluation data, including comparisons with teachers whose classes are as similar in size and level as possible, and with teachers of equal rank. The process should be applied uniformly in all reviews.

  3. Letters from a random sampling of students and alumni who have successfully completed at least one course taught by the candidate. The standard letter for soliciting teaching evaluations maintained by the dean's office shall be used. The number of letters sent by the teaching subgroup should be at least:







Full professor


  1. Scholarly Review -To permit an in-depth study of the candidate's scholarly potential and accomplishments, the Scholarly Subgroup shall assemble and place in the dossier:

    1. Written evaluations of the candidate's research and scholarly activities provided by impartial experts from outside Oakland University. The standard letter for soliciting evaluations of scholarly activity maintained by the dean's office shall be used. The minimum number of external letters received are: none for a C1 review, 2 for a C2 or C3 reviews and 5 for C4 and D1 reviews.  For C4 and D1 reviews, at least 10 letters shall be sent to external reviewers.  The candidate may supply up to 5 names of potential external evaluators, along with descriptions of any relationships the candidate has to those potential evaluators.  The remainder of the names shall be supplied by the members of the Advisory Committee, along with descriptions of any relationships the committee members have to those potential evaluators.  The candidate shall have the opportunity to review and comment on all external evaluators before reviews are solicited.  The final selection of the external evaluators shall rest with the Scholarly Subgroup.  All letters received must be included in the dossier.  Each external reference shall be sent a list of the candidate's publications and copies of selected reprints. The credentials of the external references and any affiliation with the candidate shall be present in the dossier.

  1. Written evaluations of the candidate's scholarly activities provided by tenured members of Oakland University, if appropriate.

  1. Service Review - The Service Subgroup shall obtain the following information and place it in the dossier.

    1. Written evaluations of the candidate's service, as provided by chair of committees on which the candidate has served. Such evaluations shall be requested for committees within the department as well as for extra-departmental committees. The standard letter for soliciting service evaluations maintained by the dean's office shall be used.

    2. Evaluations furnished by individuals qualified to assess the candidate's service contributions in the professional community. The candidate shall be asked to provide the names of individuals so qualified and they shall be asked in writing to respond.

  1. The Advisory Committee reviews all of the material and shall ensure that the dossier includes:

    1. A table of contents

    2. All materials submitted by the candidate

    3. All responses to requests for internal and external reference letters.

    4. Review Statement (University Standards and Departmental Criteria and Procedures)

    5. Student evaluation procedures

  1. The Advisory Committee shall submit the dossier and covering statement to the department chair at least fifteen days prior to the deadline for the departmental submissions to the CAP and the dean. A copy shall be provided to the candidate at this time. Appendix C summaries the submission deadlines.


  1. Evaluation Committee Procedures

    1. The department chair shall review the dossier with the candidate to determine accuracy and thoroughness.

  1. The department chair shall call a meeting of the Evaluation Committee. At least three full working days shall be allowed for Evaluation Committee members to examine the candidate's dossier in the departmental office prior to the meeting. At this meeting the candidate's qualifications will be discussed, and a recommendation made, as determined by secret ballot, and by a majority of the Evaluation Committee. The department chair shall not vote.

  1. The department chair shall write a letter which incorporates the opinions expressed by the Evaluation Committee, appraise the candidate within the total departmental program and goals, and make the departmental recommendation. If the chairman disagrees with the committee, a member of the Evaluation Committee will be appointed by the committee to write the letter expressing the opinions and recommendation of the committee and the chairman will include his/her dissenting letter; however such a letter is independent from the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee. The chair should ensure at this time that the proper review procedures have been followed. The complete dossier shall then be paginated continuously and reproduced in sufficient quantities to provide for the distribution as shown in Appendix D. Copies of the dossier shall be sent to the CAP and to the dean, and a copy of the letter(s) of recommendation and dissent, if applicable, shall be given to the candidate.

  1. In the case of a negative departmental recommendation the candidate shall have three days within which to request a meeting with the department chair to respond to the concerns that led to the recommendation. If the vote of the Evaluation Committee was negative the department chair shall present the candidate's response and call for a re-vote. The department chair shall then prepare the final recommendation based upon the re-vote and his/her assessment of the new evidence.

  1. Within three days of making the recommendation of paragraph 3, above, the department chair shall notify the Association of the name of any candidate not recommended for re-employment, promotion, or tenure.

  1. Procedures for Evaluating Visiting and Part-Time Faculty
    Before a visitor or part-time faculty member is reemployed under a new contract, the chairperson should insure that the candidate has satisfied the applicable criteria as stated in this document. This process, by necessity, will not involve a dossier or formal committee recommendations, and will be done in the final month(s) of the candidate's current contract or prior to a reemployment decision. If a decision is made not to reemploy a visitor or part-time faculty member on the basis of performance, the Evaluation Committee of the department may be consulted in arriving at the decision.

  1. Procedures for Review of Research Faculty

The candidate shall submit to CAP by September 15 in the final year of the appointment an updated vitae and a detailed list of scholarly accomplishments since either initial hire or last review under these procedures. This list shall contain, but shall not be limited to, journal papers, conference proceedings, proposals submitted (both funded and not funded), books and book chapters, etc. and conference presentations, invited talks, seminars, etc. Copies of the publications and evidence of presentations shall be supplied as back-up materials. Particular emphasis shall be on the expectations of continued external funding for the candidate’s research program. CAP shall review these materials during the Fall semester and make a recommendation by November 15 to the Dean as to re-employment as a research faculty, and optionally may recommend the rank at which the candidate be re-employed (“Research Professor”, “Research Associate Professor” or “Research Assistant Professor”).

I.  Appeal
At any step in the review process the candidate may appeal on the basis of invalid procedures. However, no appeal may act to modify the contractual dates for subsequent review steps to take place. The appeal shall be submitted to the department chair, who shall direct it to the appropriate body for consideration.

Organization of the Core Dossier

For the sake of consistency and uniformity, candidates are strongly encouraged to adhere to the organization and contents specified below:


  • Table of Contents of the core dossier

  • Table of Contents of the back-up file


SECTION A: Appointments, Reviews, and Recommendations

Please list documentation of all reviews, appointments, and reappointments in reverse chronological order starting with the current review. For each prior review, include

  1. Review letter from Department

  2. Review letter from CAP

  3. Review letter from Dean

  4. Review letter from FRPC (if applicable)


SECTION B: Review procedure and criteria

  1. Letter initiating the Review

  2. Copy of the latest version of the School of Engineering and Computer Science Criteria and Procedures for Employment, Reemployment, Tenure and Promotion



  1. Curriculum Vita


SECTION D: Teaching Review

  1. Letter from the teaching evaluation committee specifying among other things

  1. Student evaluation procedures

  2. Reports generated from the online evaluation system

  • Comparing the candidate's evaluations in classes with other of the same size.

  • Comparing the candidate's evaluations with other classes at the same level.

  • Comparing the candidate's evaluations with other those of other faculty at the same rank.

  • Comparing the candidate's evaluations to all SECS faculty.

  1. Samples of letters to students

  2. Students' evaluation letters with all identifying information removed.

  3. Summary of students comments on the student evaluation forms.


SECTION E:  Scholarly Review

  1. Letter from the scholarly evaluation committee specifying among other things

  1. The list of external evaluators selected

  2. The procedure used to select them (which ones were proposed by the candidate, and which ones were suggested by the department or the review committee).

  1. Letter from the candidate stating their relationship to the reviewers (whether they suggested their names or not). In particular, the candidate is to specify whether any of the reviewers are co-authors, mentors, protégés, etc.

  2. A sample of letter soliciting the external evaluation

  3. Letters from external reviewers.


SECTION F:  Service Review

  1. Letter from the service evaluation committee

  2. A sample of letters soliciting service evaluation, both internal and external

  3. Letters of service evaluation


SECTION G:  Other material Agreed Upon by the Candidate and the Review Committee.


What not to include in the dossier:

The following information should not be included in the core dossier. It belongs in the back-up file.

  • Full text of teaching evaluation forms (they should go in the back up file instead).

  • Unsolicited letters.

Additional requirements:

All pages of the core dossier need to be numbered sequentially.


Curriculum Vitae (and standard letters)


Deadlines for Submission of Review Dossiers*

Type of

*Date of Initiation
of Review

Deadline to
Department Office

Deadline to

Deadline to

Deadline to


December 1

January 15


February 1



December 1

January 15

February 1

March 15



September 1

September 15

October 1

November 1


with Tenure
and Promotion

December 1

January 15

February 1


March 15

with Tenure

December 1

January 15

February 1


March 15



December 1

January 15

February 1


March 15


to Full Professor

September 1

October 1

October 15


November 1

*The dates given are those mandated by the Faculty Agreement. However, because of constraints imposed by subsequent deadlines, department chairpersons are urged to initiate reviews at least one month prior to the initiation dates given.


Distribution of Dossiers






41d Reemployment
with Tenure

41h Early Promotion
with Tenure

41i Promotion to
Full Professor









Department Chair
























































*The dossier must also be submitted electronically to the CAP Chair.