Promotion and/or Tenure Report Guidelines
The Spring 2024 faculty senate legislation “Expanding Candidates’ Rights in the Promotion Process” amended section 24-54 of the Faculty Code to increase the number of documents that are shared with the candidate during the promotion and tenure review process, add additional opportunities for candidates to provide input during the process, and provide additional guidance on the content of shared documents. In addition, the Office of Academic Personnel would like to promote equity across units and to streamline the review of dossiers at the Provost level by providing guidance and/or templates for these documents. These guidelines both detail the code-mandated changes and provide content guidance.
There are up to six documents that are to be shared with the candidate under consideration for promotion and/or tenure. These documents are redacted versions of:
A) Subcommittee Report (optional for departments with ≥3 voting faculty);
B) Faculty Discussion and Vote Summary;
C) Unit Leader (chair/director/campus dean) Independent Analysis and Recommendation (required for departmentalized schools and colleges);
D) School/College/Campus (SCC) Advisory Committee Summary;
E) SCC Leader (dean/chancellor) Independent Analysis and Recommendation; and
F) Provost initial negative consideration.
Changes Resulting from the Spring 2024 Legislation
A) The Subcommittee Report process was not altered by the Spring 2024 legislation. Subcommittees continue to be required when there are fewer than 3 eligible voting faculty in the appointing unit and optional in larger units. A written summary of the Subcommittee Report must be shared with the candidate at least 7 days prior to its being shared with the voting faculty, and any response from the candidate must also be included in the dossier. Note that “eligible voting faculty” does not include anyone tasked with making an independent review later in the process (unit leader, SCC leader, or their designee).
B) The Faculty Discussion and Vote (FD&V) Summary was previously required to be shared with the candidate, but its content was not specified; the new legislation now specifies that the FD&V Summary must be “substantive” and “summarize the discussion, concerns raised, counterarguments to those concerns, and recommendation” of the appointing unit faculty. The FD&V Summary is shared with the candidate simultaneously with the Unit Leader Independent Analysis and Recommendation.
C) The Unit Leader Independent Analysis and Recommendation (for departmentalized schools and colleges) was previously only shared with those involved in subsequent review stages. The new legislation requires that this report (or a redacted version thereof) also be shared with the candidate, simultaneously with the FD&V Summary. Should the unit leader update their report after receiving a response from the candidate, this new report is shared with the candidate, but there is no avenue for further response unless there is a negative initial decision at a later stage in the process.
D) The Elected Faculty Advisory Committee or Council at the School/College/Campus level was previously only required to share their recommendation and reasons therefor with the candidate in cases where their recommendation was negative. A summary of the advisory board “recommendation with reasons therefor” is now required to be shared with the candidate in all cases, simultaneously with the SCC Leader report.
E) The SCC Leader Independent Analysis and Recommendation was previously only shared with the candidate in cases where the recommendation was negative. The new legislation requires that this report (or a redacted version thereof) be shared with the candidate in all cases, simultaneously with the advisory board summary. In cases where the recommendation is positive, the dossier is forwarded directly to the Office of the Provost for review and there is no provision for the candidate to respond. In cases where the recommendation is not positive, the requirement that the SCC leader or their designee meet with the candidate to discuss the case is unchanged; new with this legislation is a requirement that a written negative recommendation report also be shared with the Unit Leader, who has a 5-calendar-day window to respond in writing, with a copy to the candidate, while the candidate has a 7-day response window.
F) Review at the level of the provost was not specified in Faculty Code 24-54 prior to the Spring 2024 legislation. New in the legislation is a requirement that, should the initial decision of the provost be negative, the candidate, unit leader, and SCC leader will be provided with a summary of that recommendation and the reasons therefor. The Unit leader and SCC leader have 5 days to respond, with a copy to the candidate, and the candidate has a 7-day response window.
Guidelines to Promote Equity and Streamline Review
The guidelines below were developed by the Office of Academic Personnel to guide units as they prepare the above reports associated with the promotion and/or tenure process. While these guidelines do not carry the weight of the Faculty Code, they are best practices that will help promote equity across the diversity of appointing units in the tri-campus system as well as streamline the provost-level review.
A) Subcommittee Report and Summary
A subcommittee is required if there are fewer than 3 eligible voting faculty in a unit. For larger departments, in any case where one or more individuals is tasked with summarizing a promotion case in advance of (or during) the faculty discussion and vote, then the subcommittee process should be followed: a minimum of 3 people on the committee and a written report shared in advance with the candidate. The only time a subcommittee report is not needed is if an appointing unit chooses to have every faculty member read the file themselves and there is only a moderator (and not a presenter of the case) at the faculty discussion. In some units, a single committee serves as the subcommittee for all promotion and tenure cases in the unit, while in others an ad hoc committee is appointed for each case. Either way, no one who is later tasked with submitting an independent analysis of the case (unit leader, SCC leader, or their designee) should be on the subcommittee or be present for their deliberations.
The Subcommittee Report is generally the most detailed of all the reports generated in the promotion process – subsequent reports should refer to this Report rather than repeat its contents. If there is no subcommittee, the unit leader’s report should contain this material (or the SCC leader report in an undepartmentalized school or college). The Subcommittee Report should summarize the candidate’s career and accomplishments to date, with emphasis on the time in their current rank (which may include time at a different institution), highlighting the impact and trajectory of the work. It should detail strengths and weaknesses in research/scholarship, in teaching/mentoring, in service/leadership, and, if relevant for the particular appointment, in patient care and other activities. The report should evaluate these accomplishments with reference to the published criteria for promotion in the unit. Note that promotion and tenure guidelines should be written and widely circulated by the college/school and/or department (which reviews and updates them regularly) and should have been shared with both the candidate and the external evaluators.
The Subcommittee Report should also address evidence of the candidate’s recognition outside of UW and summarize the views of the external evaluators. The report should comment on the appropriateness of the evaluators and, if present, any weaknesses in the case pointed out by these evaluators. Note that the letters are in the file, so extensive quotes are not needed.
The Subcommittee should, in general, make a recommendation on promotion and/or tenure; in the case where there are <3 eligible voting faculty in the unit, the subcommittee vote doubles as the department vote, as all eligible voting faculty in the unit serve on the subcommittee. The subcommittee recommendation should be consistent with evidence of performance as documented in the rest of the dossier.
Subcommittee Summary
The Subcommittee Summary is a redacted version of the Subcommittee Report, taking care to ensure any external reviewer identities and/or quotes are anonymized. The names of the Subcommittee members must be on the Subcommittee Summary provided to the candidate. The candidate should receive this Summary at least 7 calendar days prior to the provision of the Subcommittee Report to the unit eligible voting faculty, and any response by the candidate should be included when the Report is distributed to faculty.
B) Faculty Discussion & Vote Summary
The main purpose of the Faculty Discussion & Vote Summary (FD&V Summary), which is shared with the candidate, is to convey the essence of the unit discussion and vote regarding the candidate’s performance and impact of their work as it relates to their suitability for promotion and/or tenure. Faculty code 24-54 requires that this Summary be “substantive” and that it “summarize the discussion, concerns raised, counterarguments to those concerns, and recommendation.” A positive recommendation results when >50% of eligible voting faculty vote in favor of promotion. In the case of a negative recommendation for the first consideration of a mandatory promotion, a unit may separately vote on a recommendation of a one-year postponement. Note that anyone tasked with making an independent analysis and recommendation (unit leader, SCC leader, or their designee) should neither vote nor be included in the count of eligible voting faculty.
Unit leaders should act as moderators and should refrain from expressing strong opinions during the faculty discussion. Unit leaders may, if they wish, designate a senior faculty member to take notes and prepare the meeting summary and/or to moderate the discussion. Both are recommended if the unit leader has been an active collaborator or mentor of the candidate or may otherwise have a (perceived) conflict of interest; this is also recommended in undepartmentalized schools and colleges so that the dean-level review may be more independent of the faculty discussion and vote.
If there is a Subcommittee Report, the FD&V Summary should not repeat all the details, but just state which parts of the report were read, discussed, or summarized at the meeting. If there is not a Subcommittee Report, then the FD&V Report should summarize the specific information that was discussed at the meeting and the Unit Leader Report (below) should contain a detailed description of the case (including relevant information not discussed).
The FD&V Summary should make it clear that adequate consideration was given to teaching and mentoring, to research and/or other scholarly or creative activities, to service and leadership activities, and, if relevant to the particular appointment, to patient care and other activities. It should also address how the discussion and recommendation was based on established, published unit guidelines and criteria.
The Summary should reflect the essence of the evaluative concerns and support raised in the faculty discussion regarding the candidate’s case, and the faculty’s recommended action. Views expressed by faculty dissenting from the unit recommendation should be reflected. For example, “the majority thought the quantity of publications was good, but questioned the quality,” or “a minority was concerned about the rate of productivity,” or “the research and scholarly publications were excellent, but a few faculty members expressed concerns about the quality of the teaching.” Avoid direct quotes, minutes, or transcripts of the proceedings, but note that a record of votes alone does not document the important issues in the deliberations.
If a departmental vote is mixed or negative, any concerns raised at the meeting must be noted; if none were raised, this should be noted.
Please include information on the timing of the vote (e.g., during the meeting or in a specified period following) and on whether the vote was open to those who were not present at the meeting (either in person or virtually). If the recommendation is not to promote or award tenure and this is the first mandatory consideration of a candidate, then the Summary should indicate whether the possibility of postponement was discussed and, if voted on, the faculty recommendation on postponement.
C) Unit Leader Independent Analysis & Recommendation (Chair/ Director/ Campus Dean)
The appointing unit leader (chair/director/campus dean) is tasked with making an independent analysis and recommendation on each case. Their report gives the leader an opportunity, after reviewing the candidate’s dossier, reports and recommendations generated by the subcommittee, any internal promotion and tenure committee (if it exists), comments raised during the faculty discussion, and external reviewers’ letters, to make an independent recommendation for/against tenure and/or promotion.
If there is no Subcommittee Report, the unit leader’s report should provide the equivalent information (see above), addressing teaching/mentoring; research and/or other scholarly or creative activities; service/leadership; and other activities, as applicable to the candidate. If there is a Subcommittee Report, the details need not be repeated here.
An essential aspect of this report is to place the candidate’s scope (quality, productivity over time) and the IMPACT (or lack thereof) of the candidate’s performance in all areas of responsibility in the context of the specific departmental mission, goals, expectations, and criteria. The report should avoid summarizing information that can be found in other documents but rather provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the case and the most important accomplishments of the candidate.
If concerns were raised during the process, either internally or by external reviewers, these, their counterarguments, and the prevalence of these concerns should be explicitly addressed by the unit leader. An explanation of contrary statements in the departmental reports, external letters, or members’ votes should be provided and given a sense of their weighting in the overall decision.
The unit leader should address any aspects of the Subcommittee and FD&V reports that need clarification, e.g., a candidate response to the Subcommittee Report, reasons behind a low rate of participation (absences, abstentions, and recusals), or discrepancies between votes and assessment. Note that neither lack of knowledge about the candidate’s research area nor lack of time to become familiar with the file are valid reasons for abstention.
The unit leader should also explain any special considerations for the case. For example, if the case is non-mandatory, note why this is the right year for consideration; if the case is a postponed mandatory consideration, explicitly address the candidate’s progress in the last year. If there were special hiring circumstances or clock-waivers, note these, as well. If the recommendation includes a change in track (e.g., research to WOT), that should be explained.
Finally, this report should clearly articulate the unit leader’s recommendation on promotion and/or tenure. If the recommendation is not to promote and the case is mandatory, it should address the issue of possible postponement.
If the faculty member is a member of an interdisciplinary program at the University of Washington or has an adjunct appointment in another department or school, a letter of concurrence should be requested from the chair or director of the program and included in the dossier after the appointing unit leader letter. If a faculty member has a joint appointment in the same school, college, or campus as their primary unit, then the primary unit leader is responsible for merging the two unit-level cases for the next level of review.
D) Elected Faculty Council or Promotions Advisory Committee Summary
Faculty code requires that an elected faculty body review each promotion and/or tenure case at the school/college/campus (SCC) level and provide a recommendation to the SCC leader (dean/chancellor) on its merits. Depending on the school, college, or campus (SCC), this advisory body may be the same elected faculty council that advises the SCC Leader on budgets and other matters, or it may be a separate appointments and promotions committee. The Secretary of the Faculty has interpreted the code to say that members of this promotion and tenure advisory body should only vote on cases for which they are superior in rank. It is highly recommended that anyone who participated in evaluation of a candidate at the appointing unit level should recuse themselves from the advisory body discussion and recommendation (undepartmentalized schools and colleges will have their own bylaws regarding this).
The SCC Advisory Body Summary should contain the salient essentials of the case. It should reflect the committee discussion, highlight the primary issues that convinced members to vote one way or the other, and include the final committee recommendation. The report does not need to be in complete sentences – brief bullet points are preferred. It should summarize the entire case in 1-2 pages, addressing impact, external reviews, research/scholarship, teaching/mentoring, service/leadership, and, if relevant, patient care and other activities. A template for this summary is provided as an appendix to this content. A redacted summary of this report must be shared with the candidate simultaneously with the SCC Leader Independent Analysis and Recommendation.
E. SCC Leader Independent Analysis & Recommendation (Dean/Chancellor)
The SCC leader is tasked with making an independent analysis and recommendation on the case. The purpose of the SCC leader’s report is to summarize this independent assessment. There is no need to repeat detailed information that is elsewhere in the file. However, if there is no other document that does so (e.g., a subcommittee was not used in an undepartmentalized school or college), this report should include the information described above for any incomplete or missing documents.
In a case where the SCC leader is in full agreement with uniformly positive recommendations of the subcommittee, faculty, unit leader, and advisory council, where no significant concerns are documented, and where review documents generated earlier in the process clearly place the candidate’s impact in all the areas or responsibility in the context of the specific SCC mission, goals, expectations, and criteria, this report may be quite brief and refer to those documents.
However, if the candidate’s impact, most important accomplishments, and their context are not clearly stated in other review documents, if there are mixed or negative votes not clearly explained in other review documents, if there were strong differences in recommendation generated during the evaluation process, or if the SCC leader recommendation is contrary to any recommendations at earlier stages of review, the SCC leader report should clearly and specifically address these issues and provide explicit reasoning that led to the SCC leader recommendation, noting their adherence to the SCC promotion guidelines as well as any appropriate unit-level criteria.
A (redacted) copy of the SCC leader report and the advisory board summary must be shared with the candidate. If the recommendation is positive, then the case should be immediately forwarded to the provost level. If the recommendation is negative (which includes postponement), the reports must be shared with both the candidate and unit leader, and the SCC leader or their designee must meet with the candidate and document any additional requests for information. The unit leader has 5 calendar-days to respond, with a copy to the candidate, and the candidate has a 7-calendar-day window for response. These responses, as well as any resultant updates to the SCC leader report, must be included with the file as it is forwarded to the Office of the Provost.