Dean's Office contact: Margie Ramsdell
- Curriculum vitae
- Candidate's personal statement
- Letter of recommendation from chair
- Third year review documentation
- Departmental review committee report
- Summaries of departmental deliberations and candidate's responses
- Joint appointment letter
- Documentation of teaching effectiveness
- External evaluations for promotion and/or tenure for Research and Tenure-Track Faculty
- External evaluations for promotion of Teaching Faculty and Artists-in-Residence
- Copies of candidate's publications or evidence of achievement
- Additional supporting data
The chair should be sure that all of the documentation is clearly written and understandable to a broad academic community, not only to those in the discipline. The chair should provide explanations if any part of the documentation is unclear.
This checklist is required for all promotions, regardless of title. It summarizes the information required in a promotion recommendation and must be included as the first page of the documentation. Mark with a each item being submitted. The Promotion and Tenure Checklist is found on the AHR website.
The curriculum vitae should contain all of the following items. Additional pages may be added to the curriculum vitae to supply any missing data.
- Education including institutions, degrees granted, dates
- Ph.D. dissertation title and advisor
- Employment including institutions (including UW), positions, dates
- UW committees and other duties
- Research projects, grants, contracts including funding agencies, dates, amounts of funding, individual's role (PI, co-PI, other)
- Professional offices and awards, including dates
- Talks, papers, or presentations including dates, type of presentation (invited, contributed, and/or refereed)
- The amount or percentage of shared grants that went to the faculty member under review (or unit)
The candidate's complete bibliography should be submitted, with entries listed in full bibliographic format, including range of page numbers or number of pages. In addition, the following items should be clearly indicated or distinguished:
- The type of each publication (article, book, review, monograph, technical report, etc.)
- The principal author(s) on multi-authored publications
- Those publications which have had outside peer review before acceptance for publication
- A labeling of nonpublished material as "in press" or "accepted for publication," "submitted," or "work in progress" (note that "forthcoming" is ambiguous and should not be used)
- Details about degree of contributions to co-authored papers or co-edited books
The performing and visual arts represent a special category with respect to a bibliography, where performance, recording, and exhibition largely take the place of publications and oral presentations. In these fields, files should clearly separate solo from group efforts and efforts with national or international impact from those with regional impact.
The personal statement provides the candidate with an opportunity to describe his or her scholarly or creative work, teaching experience, and service contributions, including an overview of what has been done, as well as a look ahead. The intended audience is the Dean and the College Council, who find the statement very helpful in their review of a promotion/tenure file.
Normally, a candidate for promotion to Associate Professor would emphasize work done since appointment as Assistant Professor, and a candidate for promotion to Professor would emphasize work done since appointment to Associate Professor. The statement should not be longer than three to five pages.
In the discussion of research or scholarship, a short essay is more effective than an annotated list of works. The candidate's research contributions might be described in the broader context of the discipline as a whole, explaining how his or her research agenda fits into the discipline and then how particular scholarly or creative contributions fit into this agenda. The essay should also include the candidate's statement of future directions and how these connect to previous and current work, in order to give a sense of the trajectory of the work.
The personal statement should also contain a discussion of the candidate's teaching experience including an overview of the candidate's goals, a review of successes and failures, reflections on these experiences, and thoughts of what lies ahead. Lastly, the candidate should describe any significant service contributions.
The letter should report the results of the departmental faculty vote, stating:
- the number of faculty eligible to vote (including the chair if eligible)
- the number of affirmative votes
- the number of negative votes
- the number of abstentions
- the number of faculty absent or not participating
- whether the chair's vote is included in the count of votes
The chair should summarize, insofar as possible, the basis or reasoning for the affirmative and the negative faculty votes.
The letter should contain a statement in which the chair makes his/her own independent recommendation.
A description and critical evaluation should be given of the candidate's teaching, research, and service. This statement should address not only the significance and quality of the candidate's scholarship and teaching but also the importance of the role which he/she is expected to play in the department and the College in the future. If published work is derived from the candidate's dissertation, the chair should explain clearly how it differs from the dissertation.
The chair should explain specific items in the record that might be unfamiliar to persons outside the field. Examples include: (1) significance and availability of outlets for publication; (2) significance of specific journals, presses, edited books, etc.; (3) significance and availability of specific galleries, exhibition venues, theatres, concert halls, etc.; (4) significance of invited and contributed oral presentations; (5) significance of the order of authors listed on multi-authored publications.
If a previous recommendation for promotion to the same rank has been postponed or denied, a summary of the changes in the candidate's qualifications since that time should be made.
A copy of the committee report and/or chair letter for Assistant Professors that was produced at the time of their reappointment for a second three year term.
A report from a departmental review committee, separate from the chair's evaluation, is desirable as part of the documentation.
If a departmental committee is established to review a candidate's qualifications for promotion and/or tenure, the committee must produce a written report. The department chair must provide the candidate with a written summary or redacted version of the committee's report and recommendation, omitting vote counts, the names of the external evaluators, and any identifying information about the external evaluators. The candidate must acknowledge receipt of this summary or redacted report in writing, and may respond in writing to the report within seven days of receiving it. The candidate's response, if any, and the unredacted committee report are then provided to the voting faculty, who meet to discuss and vote on the recommendation. The chair must provide the candidate with a written summary of the voting faculty's deliberations, omitting the vote count. The candidate must acknowledge receipt of this summary in writing, and may respond in writing to the summary within seven days. If the candidate does not wish to provide a written response to the first or second summary, they must at minimum provide an acknowledgment that both summaries were received.
Include the following items in the documentation sent to the Dean’s Office:
- The committee report summary that was provided to the candidate (if a review committee report was produced)
- The candidate's response to the report summary (an acknowledgment is required even if no response is made)
- The summary of departmental deliberations that was provided to the candidate (required)
- The candidate's response to the deliberations summary (an acknowledgment is required even if no response is made).
The summaries and responses are not required for promotions in the affiliate and clinical ranks
When a candidate holds a joint appointment in another unit (either within the College or in another college or school of the University), the vote of that faculty and the chair's recommendation must be reported in a separate letter by the chair of the secondary unit. The primary department initiating the recommendation for promotion/tenure is responsible for assuring that this letter is included. If other pertinent materials are available from the secondary unit (such as a departmental review committee report, teaching evaluations, etc.), they should also be included.
When a candidate holds an adjunct appointment in another academic unit, a statement should be solicited from the chair which comments on the candidate's role in that unit. No faculty vote is required from an adjunct department.
For all promotions except for Research Faculty (who do not ordinarily teach), the Provost’s Office requires student and peer evaluations from the year leading up to the promotion. Please use the Course Evaluation Matrix template when submitting the promotion file for Dean's Office review. Both student and collegial evaluations of teaching effectiveness are required in a promotion/tenure recommendation (except for research faculty). This documentation should include five items:
- A list of all courses taught at the UW, with dates
- A list of graduate students supervised, with student name, thesis topic, degree, dates, and the faculty member's committee role (chair or member)
- Student assessments of teaching (use Course Evaluation Matrix)
- Collegial assessments of teaching
- An analysis of the complete teaching record by the chair and, if possible, a departmental committee
The Course Evaluation Matrix should list courses taught, median student ratings for those that were evaluated, and a notation for any courses that were collegially evaluated. A chair's or committee's statement of departmental standards for teaching performance is helpful in evaluating the data for an individual, as is a comparison with other instructors of the same rank in the department.
Student assessment of teaching should be based on student opinion surveys from both undergraduate and graduate courses, using Educational Assessment Center survey forms or departmental student opinion forms. (Copies of the student assessment forms are acceptable, so that originals may be retained in the departmental files.) The title of the course should be written on each evaluation form. All available assessment forms—but not individual student comments—should be included in the documentation. Several satisfactory student evaluations since the last promotion are expected as a minimum qualification for further promotion. (Letters or comments from individual students are not considered reliable as an index of teaching effectiveness and should not be included in the documentation. Similarly, written comments from mid-term evaluations by CIDR should not be included, since their purpose is assistance rather than evaluation.)
Collegial assessment may be based on classroom teaching (following attendance at classes by other faculty members), teaching materials prepared by the candidate, supervision of independent study or thesis research, curriculum planning, or accomplishments and placements of students. See the guidelines on Collegial evaluation of teaching.
The candidate's entire teaching record should be appraised in a thoughtful report from the chair and, if possible, from a faculty committee. It is not sufficient simply to note that the faculty member is a "good" teacher or to provide materials or data without analysis.
If the candidate has been teaching at the UW for only one or two years but has evidence of teaching effectiveness from another institution, the unit should provide those assessments as well as the UW teaching assessments.
Teaching documentation is not required for promotion within the research rank.
A recommendation for promotion and/or tenure for Tenure-Track Faculty, and for promotion for Research Faculty, must include evaluations of the candidate's scholarly or creative work by external experts in the candidate’s field of expertise. These external evaluators should be chosen by the departmental chair in consultation with faculty members eligible to vote on the proposed promotion. Evaluators should be recognized contributors to their scholarly field as demonstrated, for example, by tenure at a major research university, frequent citation of their work, or major awards. At least three of these letters must be from persons who have no substantial personal connection or professional collaboration with the candidate: that is to say, they must be at “arms-length” to the candidate. A minimum of three such “arms-length” letters is required for a promotion recommendation to proceed. It is strongly recommended, therefore, that more than three such letters should be solicited. All letters solicited and received must be included in the promotion packet. For promotions to Full Professor, at least three of the letters should be from reviewers who did not write for the same candidate when the candidate was promoted from Assistant to Associate Professor.
The solicitation letter should be signed by and should request return to the unit chair. It should state that the unit is considering the candidate for possible promotion and request the following information: (1) how and for how long the referee has known the candidate; (2) the significance, independence, influence, and promise of the candidate's scholarship or creative work (particularly that done since coming to the University of Washington) and the degree of national/international recognition; and (3) a comparison of the candidate's accomplishments with leading scholars or artists at a similar career stage in the same or related fields. Each evaluator should be provided with the same representative set of the candidate's scholarly or artistic materials.
The solicitation letter should not request support for a recommendation of promotion; nor should the evaluator be asked to assess whether the candidate should be promoted at the University of Washington. An evaluator may, of course, volunteer such an opinion, but should not be asked for it. The outside evaluation usually focuses on scholarly or artistic achievements, and promotion depends on more than these factors.
If the unit has its own promotion guidelines which have been approved by the Divisional Dean and the College Council, these should be provided along with the solicitation letter.
When the promotion recommendation is submitted to the Dean's Office, the packet should include one sample of the solicitation letter and a statement from the Chair describing the qualifications of the evaluators, their relationship (if any) with the candidate, the manner in which they were chosen, and the reasons for the choices. The “arms-length” issue (see above) must be addressed in the Chair’s letter.
The external evaluations must be available at the faculty meetings when the candidate's record is discussed and the final vote on the promotion/tenure recommendation is taken. It is not necessary to obtain external evaluations for preliminary stages (such as the annual consideration for possible promotion of faculty members below the rank of Professor).
If a tenure recommendation has been postponed for one year, new external letters of evaluation from different evaluators should be obtained for the following year's consideration. If desired, the previous review letters (labeled as such) may also be included in the documentation materials.
Published reviews of the candidate's work may be submitted as additional evidence of external evaluation, but external letters, as described above, are still required. Reviews carrying the greatest weight are those published in leading scholarly journals or critical organs by scholars, artists, or critics of recognized authority in the field. Such reviews can provide additional evidence about the significance, independence, influence, and promise of the candidate's scholarship or artistic work; the candidate's degree of national or international recognition; and the candidate's accomplishments compared to leading scholars or artists in the field who are at a similar stage of their careers.
A recommendation for promotion for Teaching Faculty and Artists-in-Residence must include evaluations of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion by external experts who can speak with authority on the candidate’s qualifications. A minimum of three letters from external experts is required, but we strongly recommend that more than three letters be obtained. All letters received by the unit must be included as part of the promotion materials.
For promotions from Assistant to Associate Teaching Professor, at least three letters from outside the department are required. For promotions from Associate Teaching Professor to Teaching Professor, and for Artists-in-Residence, at least three letters from outside the University of Washington’s three campuses are required. Evaluators should be chosen by the department chair in consultation with faculty members eligible to vote on the proposed promotion, and should be solicited by the department chair. Each evaluator should be provided with the same representative set of the candidate's pedagogic, scholarly or artistic materials. If the unit has its own promotion guidelines which have been approved by the Divisional Dean and the College Council, these should be provided along with the solicitation letter
For Teaching Faculty and Artists-in-Residence, letter writers should be asked to focus their evaluations on the quality and importance of the candidate’s contributions to pedagogy at the local, regional, and/or national level. If scholarly or creative work is part of the promotion portfolio, then external letter writers should also be invited to comment on the quality and importance of the candidate’s scholarly or creative work, if the external evaluator is qualified to do so. The primary focus of the external letters should, however, be on the candidate’s contributions to pedagogical excellence.
These external letters of evaluation should be available at the faculty meetings when the candidate’s record is discussed and the final vote on the promotion recommendation is taken. It is not necessary to obtain external evaluations for preliminary stages, such as the annual consideration for possible promotion of faculty members below the rank of Professor.
When the promotion recommendation is submitted to the Dean's Office, the packet should include one sample of the solicitation letter and a statement from the Chair describing the qualifications of the evaluators, their relationship (if any) with the candidate, the manner in which they were chosen, and the reasons for the choices. External letter writers for Teaching Faculty and Artists-in-Residence should be well-placed to evaluate knowledgeably the quality and importance of the candidate’s contributions to pedagogy and, where applicable, to scholarship or creative production, but are not held to the same “arms-length” standard as applies to promotions of Tenure-Stream and Research Faculty.
Candidates should provide a document with links to publications. If links are unavailable, please provide a statement that publications are available upon request.
Supporting data may be submitted if they are substantive materials which will be helpful in evaluating a candidate's record. Especially helpful are materials providing clear evidence of national or international reputation. Examples of additional data are election to office or committee status in national or international scholarly or professional organizations; appointments to consultantships or editorships; invitations to review or evaluate the work of others; selection for grants, fellowships, or awards; achievements of former students; and significant service to the state or to the nation.
Research faculty must submit evidence of the sustainability and likely continuation of their research funding.