G.3 Department Chair’s Statement (if applicable)

The department chair in a departmentalized college/school must address the items listed below (in no particular order). In a non-departmentalized college/school, the dean must also address the items listed below, unless the college/school guidelines assign that responsibility to the chair of the BC/EC.

A summary of the discussion within the BC/EC, including an explanation of the rationale for the committee’s vote and an explanation of negative votes. The department chair should solicit feedback from the committee regarding the reasons for negative votes (if any) and to characterize the overall strength of the BC/EC’s recommendations and any areas of concern.
Explain the timing of the promotion review (e.g., mandatory review, accelerated review, or candidate invoked right of consideration) and provide justification for an accelerated review [Section B.4(b) or C.4(b)] or promotion after an extended time in rank (Section C.6).
Information about the significance of the candidate’s field to the strategic priorities of the department/college.
Reflection on the mid-probationary review for tenure-track assistant professors, and the progress that the candidate has made in addressing any concerns raised during the mid-probationary review.
If applicable, reflection on any comprehensive periodic reviews for tenured associate professors and the progress that the candidate has made in addressing any concerns raised during the review.
Reflect on the statements prepared by the BC/EC in each of the four areas of review (Section A.7):
- Teaching courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels
- Research, creative activities, and other scholarly endeavors
- Mentoring, including formal and informal supervision of students and other mentees
- Service, including administrative and committee service to the department, college, and University, and professional public service to the nation, state, and society

Evidence of internal or external recognition, such as awards, fellowships, and grants, is considered part of the candidate’s contributions to each area of review.

Contextualize the candidate’s contributions compared with the norms in the department.

- - If not thoroughly addressed in the BC/EC statement, assess the candidate’s teaching performance and trajectory, contributions to the department’s teaching mission, course load compared with departmental norms with a brief explanation of course buyouts, and candidate’s success in addressing frequent concerns raised by students on the end of semester surveys.
  - If not thoroughly addressed in the BC/EC statement, describe the candidate’s scholarly contributions in rank relative to the standards of excellence in the discipline. Explicit contextualization and assessment of the candidate’s scholarly trajectory and sustainability based on the candidate’s demonstrated productivity, current and future funding (where relevant), and in-progress and in-preparation works. Evaluation of citations should be included as part of the evaluation of scholarly trajectory, if appropriate for the discipline.
  - Explain the circumstances under which a BC/EC statement was written by a faculty member who is not eligible to vote on the promotion dossier.
  - For tenure-track candidates:
    - Assess the level of independent research activity in rank.
    - Explain any continuing collaboration with former advisor(s) and/or mentor(s) and extensive collaborations with peer or senior faculty members.
  - For tenured candidates:
    - Assess the level of independent research activity and research leadership roles in rank.
    - If the candidate’s effective time in rank is longer than the normative period for their discipline, the evaluation must focus on the candidate’s record during the most recent normative time in rank.
Summarize the prestige/quality of the scholarly and creative outlets (e.g., journal, academic press, venue, or gallery).
Reflect on the letters from external reviewers. Do not quote extensively from the reviewers’ letters, but address any concerns raised by the external reviewers. If external reviewers identify peers for comparison, provide a high-level comparison of the key metrics for the candidate with those of the peers.
Describe the relative strength of the overall recommendation (e.g., strongly recommend or recommend).