For all promotion considerations of assistant professor (including WOT and research), associate professor (including WOT and research), lecturer, artist in residence, please send the original and one copy of all documentation to Academic Human Resources.
Affiliate and clinical faculty promotions require less documentation for a promotion recommendation. Only one external letter of evaluation is required. The chair’s letter should state specifically what role the candidate plays in the department, and appropriate documentation should be provided.
Summarized Required Elements of a Promotion Packet for Provost Review
- Dean’s letter including:
- School/College committee/council review and vote
- Chair’s letter including (for departmentalized schools/colleges):
- Departmental vote – please state:
- number eligible voters
- number affirmative votes
- number negative votes
- number abstaining voters
- number absent voters
- Chair’s evaluation and recommendation
- Departmental vote – please state:
- Department review committee report
- Summary of department, committee review
- Candidate’s response to department review
- Candidate’s self assessment statement (Faculty Code, Chapter 24, Section 54)
- Curriculum Vitae & Bibliography
- External evaluations – outside letters
- No more than 5
- No less than 3
- Teaching Evaluations – both peer & student
- If candidate holds a joint appointment:
- Joint chair’s letter and joint department faculty vote
- If candidate holds an adjunct appointment:
- Letter of concurrence from adjunct department chair
Description of Required Documentation
Checklist for Promotion/Tenure Recommendation. The checklist summarizes the information required in a recommendation.
Curriculum Vitae. 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 — institutions, degrees granted, dates
- Ph.D. dissertation title
- Employment — institutions (including UW), positions, dates
- UW committees and other duties
- Research projects, grants, contracts — funding agencies, dates, amounts of funding, individual’s role (PI, co-PI, other)
- Professional offices and awards, with dates
- Talks, papers, or presentations — dates, type of presentation (invited, contributed, and/or refereed)
Bibliography. The candidate’s complete bibliography should be submitted, with entries listed in full bibliographic format (including range of page numbers or number of pages).
Candidate’s Most Significant Contributions and Personal Statement. The candidate should provide a promotion statement listing and describing his/her scholarly or creative contributions in the record that are likely to be of the most lasting significance. The majority of selected contributions should have been completed after appointment as Assistant Professor when recommending promotion to Associate Professor, or after appointment to Associate Professor when recommending promotion to Professor. The candidate should explain briefly why these contributions are most significant, describing the relationship between these pieces and his/her overall research agenda.
The candidate is also expected to describe briefly his/her significant teaching and service contributions.
Letter of Recommendation from Chair. The letter should report the results of the departmental faculty vote, stating:
- number of faculty eligible to vote (including the chair if eligible)
- number of affirmative votes
- number of negative votes
- number of abstentions
- 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:
- significance and availability of outlets for publication
- significance of specific journals, presses, edited books, etc.
- significance and availability of specific galleries, exhibition venues, theatres, concert halls, etc.
- significance of invited and contributed oral presentations
- 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 needs to be included.
Departmental Review Committee Report. A report from a departmental review committee, separate from the chair’s evaluation, is desirable as part of the documentation.
Summaries of Departmental Deliberations and Candidate’s Responses. Include the following items in the documentation (note that one item is required):
- 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.
Joint Appointment Letter. When a candidate holds a joint appointment in another unit (whether in another college or school of the University or within the same school/college), the vote of the faculty of the secondary department and a 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.
Documentation of Teaching Effectiveness. 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 assessment of teaching (all student teaching evaluations since date of last promotion should be included
- collegial assessment of teaching
- an analysis of the complete teaching record by the chair and, if possible, a departmental committee
Teaching documentation is not required for promotion within the research ranks.
External Evaluation. Some form of evaluation by external experts in the field must be included in the documentation.
A statement from the chair should describe the qualifications of the external reviewers, their relationship (if any) with the candidate, the manner in which they were chosen, and the reasons for the choices. This may be included in the chair’s letter or on a separate page. Do not submit the reviewers’ curriculum vitas.
Copies of Candidate’s Publications or Evidence of Achievement. One copy each of the candidate’s publications or comparable evidence of professional growth and achievement should be submitted to the Dean’s office. All publications and similar creative work shall be returned to the department when the School/College meetings are finished.
Additional Supporting Data. 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 as consultants or editors; 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.