The Appropriate Use of Support Materials in RTP Files

The Problem
The increasing frequency of peer review at the University and a shrinking tenured professoriate have combined to create an overload of work for faculty involved in the RTP review process.  This is especially true in departments with a large number of recent tenure track additions.  The problem has been exacerbated by college and department cultures that encourage candidates to compile exhaustive documentation of all accomplishments made during a period of review.  Fearing a process that holds such importance, many RTP candidates respond by producing large files that include exhaustive support materials —many more than needed.  The result is a crisis of documentation bulk.  We have reached the point where the analysis and compilation of support documentation is seriously impacting the ability of all faculty members involved in RTP review to perform their other academic duties.

Recognizing the importance of quality peer review to the health of the institution, the Faculty Personnel Policies Council has carefully studied the University RTP Policy (96-12) as it relates to documentation of a candidate's accomplishments during the period of review.  The Council has developed the following suggested guidelines for compiling appropriate documentation based on this interpretation of policy.

FPPC Interpretation

1. The candidate's vita (or Professional Data Sheet) is the appropriate place to include a complete listing of accomplishments made during the period of review.
2. The candidate's narrative is the place to discuss the significance of work.  Any activity that appears in the vita may be discussed in the narrative.  However, an activity may be listed in the vita without being discussed in the narrative.
3. Support materials should accompany the vita and narrative.  These materials are used to provide representative samples of faculty work.  They are not required as a proof of all work completed.
4. The candidate's support materials should include samples of best scholarly and creative activities, most recent and best course materials and documentation of significant service.  While candidates should not be discouraged from presenting the materials they deem necessary for a fair review, they should be encouraged to edit for quality.
5. The candidate's narrative must establish the significance of every item appearing in support materials.  However, an activity does not need to appear in support materials in order to be included in the narrative or vita.

In summary, the Council recommends that candidates provide a complete vita listing all accomplishments made during the period of review, a narrative that ties their significant accomplishments together into a cohesive professional self-assessment, and an edited collection of high quality support materials that provide representative samples of their work.

Colleges and department having documentation practices that vary significantly from the interpretation given above should seriously reconsider their procedures.