Criteria for Tenure & Promotion or Appointment

Checklist for File Submission Format for Candidate’s Vita Suggested Letter to External Reviewers

Pursuant to The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Policies and Procedures Chapter 3 and in accord with any Senate Actions, the Executive Committee of the Division of Professions has been assigned the responsibility of reviewing the applications for:

promotion and appointment to associate professor with tenure
promotion and appointment to full professor with tenure, and
promotion to associate professor where tenure has been granted at a lower rank

The primary purpose of the Committee’s review is to evaluate the performance of those individuals requesting consideration in order to determine whether they meet the stated criteria.

The Executive Committee of the Division of Professions has developed and presents in this document the criteria and procedures used when considering candidates seeking promotion, tenure, or appointment with tenure. Information requested in accordance with these criteria and procedures must be provided by the individual candidate and/or the executive committee of the department or school.

Before an individual’s request for promotion will be considered by the Executive Committee of the Division of Professions, the individual’s department/college/school executive committee and dean must have specific and explicit written criteria and personnel procedures for promotion, appointment, and tenure decisions currently in use by the department and school of those persons requesting consideration. This information must be disseminated to members of the department, college/school, as well as to the Executive Committee of the Division of Professions. Both the department/college/ school and the Dean’s criteria and procedures should be attached to their letter of transmittal.

I. Evaluative Criteria

A candidate for promotion to associate professor and/or appointment to tenure must demonstrate strengths in (a) research, scholarship, and contributions to the candidate’s professional field, (b) teaching, and (c) service, and give evidence of continued commitment in each of the three areas.

The candidate for promotion or appointment to full professor must provide evidence that during tenure as associate professor, there was (a) national and/or international recognition for significant research, scholarly and professional contributions in the candidate’s professional field, (b) high quality of and significant contribution to teaching, and (c) significant service contributions.

The following provides a brief overview for each of the three criteria used to evaluate a candidate for tenure and promotion. A more detailed listing of specific items considered in the assessment of a candidate is provided in Section III, Materials to be Submitted for Review and Appendix A, Checklist for Promotion/Appointment Files Submitted for Review to the Division of Professions Executive Committee.

A. Research, Scholarship, and Professional Activities

The candidate’s research, scholarship, and professional activities will be evaluated as to whether they are well-conceived and developed, and relevant and critical to the profession. These activities and products will also be evaluated with respect to their impact on and acceptance in the profession, as measured by dissemination in scholarly and professional journals and other appropriate media. The candidate’s research, scholarly, and professional activities will also be assessed for evidence of continuing contribution.

B. Teaching

Instruction.
This category of teaching is designed for any candidate who engages in any type of direct instruction, including professional development and outreach activities.

The candidate will be evaluated on the basis of demonstrated competency and excellence in (a) course design, (b) instructional skill and (c) innovative approaches. The candidate must demonstrate mastery of knowledge in the areas taught, competency in organization and presentation of course materials, conscientiousness, and fairness in relationships with students, skill and instruction, and commitment to developing better approaches to teaching.
Program Development and Management.
This category of teaching is designed for any candidate responsible for program development and management, including but not limited to outreach activities, professional development, curriculum coordination and review.

The candidate’s contributions to program development and management will be evaluated with respect to accurate and timely identification of potential student groups and programs desired by them. In addition, the efficiency of management and delivery will be considered. The program development will be assessed for evidence of depth of understanding of subject area and student needs. Creativity and innovation in program development and delivery will also be evaluated.

C. Service

The candidate’s service to (a) the University and its various units, (b) student organizations, (c) the academic/professional community, and (d) the lay community will be assessed. Contributions will be evaluated with respect to the degree of participation, level of responsibility, demonstrated leadership, and the significance of the products or results of the activity.

II. Procedures

A. Initiating Divisional Review Procedure

Advisory recommendations for (a) promotion and appointment to associate professor with tenure, (b) promotion and appointment to full professor, and (c) promotion to associate professor where tenure has already been granted, are made by executive committees of departments to their respective deans.
If a department or school’s executive committee forwards a positive recommendation for promotion, the dean shall forward the recommendation to the Divisional Executive Committee with a request for advice, together with all materials received in support of the recommendation. The department’s/school’s executive committee is responsible for the organization, accuracy, and completeness of all materials submitted.

B. Review Meetings of the Division of Professions

The candidate (including external candidates) is strongly encouraged to attend the meeting of the Division of Professions Executive Committee to provide clarification of the materials submitted. Additionally, the initiating department may identify candidate representative(s) and/or an observer to attend the Division meeting. A representative may actively participate in the case presentations, clarifying and promoting the candidate’s case but may not participate in or observe the Division Committee’s voting deliberations. An observer may not participate in any part of the meeting but may observe both the presentation and voting deliberations; (s)he must sign a confidentiality statement.
In accordance with Wis. Stats. Sec. 19.85, the “Open Meetings” law an individual who is being considered for tenure by the Divisional Executive Committee may request an open meeting. In accordance with Section 3.14(3), The University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee Policies and Procedures, candidates for promotion to the rank of professor may also request an open meeting. For information about Open Meetings, go to https://www.wisconsin.edu/general-counsel/legal-topics/open-meetings-law/

C. Notification of Action

Recommendation of positive action by the Executive Committee of the Division of Professions is made to the dean with copies to the candidate and to the chairperson of the department/college/school executive committee.
Recommendation of negative action by the Executive Committee of the Division of Professions is sent first to the chair of the department/college/school executive committee with a copy to the candidate. This makes it possible for the executive committee of the department/college/school/college to request reconsideration by the Executive Committee of the Division of Professions before the advice is forwarded to the dean.
A written statement of reasons will accompany each negative recommendation made to the department/college/school executive committee and will accompany each uncontested or reconsidered negative recommendation made to the dean.

D. Reconsideration

The department/college/school executive committee has the right to request a reconsideration of the decision within ten (10) working days of the Divisional Executive Committee’s vote. The candidate’s executive committee chair must call for an official meeting of the unit’s Executive Committee to determine if there is adequate support for reconsideration. The vote in support of the reconsideration is to be sent to the Professions Divisional Executive Committee office as part of the statement requesting a reconsideration meeting. The Professions Divisional Executive Committee must meet within ten (10) working days of the receipt of the request. If no request for reconsideration is received, the negative advice with a written statement of reasons shall be forwarded to the dean at the end of the initial ten (10) working day period. (Procedures of negative advice and appeal are further specified in Chapter 5.17, of The University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee Policies and Procedures.) While it has not been the practice of the Committee to include a statement to the dean about the reasons for the action, the Committee may do so.

III. Materials to be submitted for review

The chair of the department/college/school executive committee is responsible for ensuring that materials submitted are complete and in the proper form and order, and delivered to and retrieved from the Divisional Committee Administrator. Review of the candidate’s materials will not be scheduled until all materials are received in proper form, as verified by the Chair of the Divisional Executive Committee. Questions concerning materials to be submitted should be directed to the Chair of the Divisional Executive Committee. All materials must be organized and submitted in electronic form.

A file with all supporting materials (including letters of support, publications, teaching evaluations, documentation of major service contributions, etc.) must be submitted in digital format (as is practical) for the Divisional Committee’s review and consideration. These materials will provide the basis for the Divisional Committee’s consideration. The electronic version must be transmitted uploaded to OneDrive/SharePoint link. (Please note that the entire path, including the file name and folder names, must contain fewer than 200 characters.) The committee strongly recommends that the electronic documents be organized into folders that are named and numbered in a manner that corresponds to the listing below.

Because the Division of Professions Executive Committee’s recommendations for promotion, appointment, and tenure decisions are principally based on materials presented by the candidate’s department, the executive committee of the department or school is responsible for verifying the authenticity and completeness of the materials submitted.

The following is a list of materials that must be included in the file.

1. Checklist

Include the Division of Professions file checklist (Appendix A). Note that all items on the checklist should be included in the file. In those cases, where an item on the checklist is NOT included in the file, a brief explanation for the omission(s) must be provided.

2. Internal Letters and Supporting Documents

a. Candidate Preference Letter

A letter from candidate stating preference for open or closed meeting

b. Dean’s Transmittal Letter

Transmittal letter from the dean requesting the advice of the Divisional Executive Committee with a copy of the college/school criteria and procedures attached.

c. Departmental Transmittal Letter

Transmittal letter from the executive committeeof the department/college/school to the dean, indicating that committee’s recommendation, the recorded vote (specify the number of Ayes, Nays, abstentions, and those not voting), and the number of executive committee members eligible to vote.

Suggested items for discussion in these letters include:

General description of how the candidate’s scholarly contributions meet EC’s criteria.
Candidate’s teaching and service contributions to the department.
Candidate’s future potential in the department and the University.
Other justification for the candidate’s promotion.
EC’s interpretation of any discrepancies in support of receiving tenure/promotion in the external review letters

d. Departmental Criteria

A copy of the departmental criteria and procedures for promotions, appointments, and tenure.

3. External Review Letters and Supporting Documentation

a. External Review Letters

Submit at least three (3) external review letters assessing the candidate’s materials. The Committee recommends submitting four (4) letters. The Committee prefers confidential letters and expects the department to have a clear process for maintaining the confidentiality of such letters.

The external reviewers should meet the following criteria:

The reviewers must hold academic rank at least as high as the rank that the candidate is being considered for. For candidates for associate professor with tenure, the committee very much wants at least one reviewer to hold full professor rank.
The reviewers’ credentials and professional standing should be equivalent or exceed the department’s criteria for promotion to associate or full professor, as appropriate. In general, there should be evidence that the reviewers’ scholarship has received national or international recognition.
The reviewers must be impartial and come from outside the University. This excludes former and current co-workers; co-authors; co-PIs; major academic professors and advisors; individuals who had financial or contractual obligations with the candidate; or other persons with whom the candidate has established an extensive working relationship, currently or in the past, unless the relationship is far enough in the past and of such modest extent that a conflict of interest no longer exists.
Candidates may provide a list of potential reviewers, but the Executive committee is responsible for generating a final list of reviewers independent of the candidate’s personal preferences. The solicitation of confidential letters must take place without consultation of the candidate, and individuals who submit letters will be identified only to members of the Executive Committee, the Dean, the Division of Professions Executive Committee and Campus Administration.

The letter requesting the review should explicitly request the reviewer’s comments on certain topics. Appendix C shows a sample letter that represents a good starting point for departments. The relevant topics are:

Whether the letter is confidential or open.
The nature of the reviewer’s present and past relationship to the candidate
The reviewer’s credentials and professional standing
The reviewer’s assessment of the candidate’s achievements in the areas of research, teaching, and service. Generally, review letters for promotion to associate professor will focus on research and scholarship. Review letters for promotion to full professor are more likely to be able to also address teaching innovation and service outside the university, where those are relevant topics. The Committee generally does not expect reviewers to assess classroom teaching or service at UWM.
The reviewer’s comments on the strength of the journals and conference proceedings in which the candidate has published and/or the grants received by the candidate.
The reviewer’s assessment of the candidate’s standing in the field, which might include:
- comparison to other scholars in the field, possibly using terms like “top half” or “top quarter”, or how the candidate compares to colleagues at similar stages of their careers;
- statements about the candidate’s suitability for promotion under UWM’s promotion criteria or at peer institutions to UWM; or
- statements of the impact of the candidate’s work both inside and outside academia.
Note: The use of superlatives without analysis of work is not helpful.

The committee may choose to reject letters that suggest a substantial conflict of interest or where the recommender lacks sufficient stature in the field. The committee may also choose to reject letters that fail to address important aspects of the evaluation of the candidate.

b. A statement describing the extent to which the candidate was involved in identifying potential reviewers.

c. A list identifying all letters solicited and all letters received by the department/college/school executive committee.

This list should contain for each letter solicited:

Name, rank and institution of potential reviewer
Relevance to the field of the candidate
Whether the reviewer was specifically suggested by the candidate
Whether the potential reviewer agreed to write a letter
Whether a letter was received from the potential reviewer

d. A copy of the letter from the department executive committee to the reviewer requesting the evaluation.

The letter must make clear whether the reviewers’ letters are or are not confidential. Appendix C shows a suggested letter from department executive committees to reviewers.

e. A list of the materials that were forwarded to each reviewer for review, unless the request letter makes that clear.

4. Candidate’s cover narrative

Candidates must include a cover narrative statement justifying their tenure/promotion. This narrative should address the expectations of the candidate’s department and highlight significant accomplishments with regard to research and scholarship, teaching, and service. We also encourage a statement defining what the candidate will do in the future and how this will have an impact on UWM and the community. The committee suggests that narrative statements be no more than 4-5 pages in length, and minimum of 11.5 font.

5. Endorsement/Recommendation Letters (Optional)

Internal and external letters of recommendation or endorsement (as contrasted with the letters of assessment from internal and external reviewers described above) providing support based on the candidate’s material or personal knowledge of the candidate’s abilities may be included. These letters are not confidential.

B. Candidate’s Vita

The Vita should follow the Division of Professions established numbering format provided in Appendix B. Items within the individual categories may be placed in chronological or reverse chronological order. Documentation (described in Section III) should not be included in the Vita itself (see Appendix B for sample vita). For direct hires, the committee encourages the candidate to follow the university’s established numbering format. The Committee will accept a CV in the format that was used to apply for the position at UWM provided all the requested information is available. If the candidate does not have an item listed – write in “none.”

Note that a candidate for promotion to full professor should provide:

A full Vita of the candidate’s professional career.
Full documentation of contributions since receiving tenure (see Section III for documentation).

C. Documentation of Research, Scholarship, and Professional Contributions

Listed below are support materials that should be included in the file. Each item should be listed and numerically referenced in the vita.

Copies of publications, grant proposals, proprietary and non-proprietary technical reports, textbooks, training manuals, instructional aids, competitive and non-competitively selected professional papers, computer software, psychometric and evaluative instruments, professional exhibits, professional oral presentations, video and audio productions, models, projects, drawings, and other appropriate media.

Unless there is a reason that it is not possible, all of these items should be included in the electronic version of the candidate’s file. There may be rare cases where a satisfactory electronic version of an item cannot be feasibly produced. In such cases, a physical artifact may be submitted. Recent experience suggests that such cases are vanishingly rare.
Letters of acceptance for materials accepted for future publication or other dissemination.
Documentation to describe and identify the quality of dissemination media should include:
1. a description of the media (i.e., “Contains reports of original research, demonstrations, evaluations, and other articles covering current aspects of harmonic systems. Published monthly.”)
2. method of selection, refereed – non-refereed
3. audience and orientation (e.g., professional, academic, general public)
4. evidence of quality, such as rejection rates, impact factors, the number of citations for candidate’s papers
Description of candidate’s contribution to collaborative research. (e.g., data analysis, conceptualization, writing)
Impartial reviews of candidate’s work, list of citations, copies of awards, and any other supporting documentation not listed above that may be available.

D. Documentation of Teaching

Summary chart of overall scores from quantitative evaluations of teaching by all students for each credit course taught in the last five years. This summary should also include:
1. explanatory information to aid in interpretation of the evaluations,
2. a description of the conditions under which the data were collected (e.g., degree of anonymity), and
3. comparative evaluations scores for the department/college/school faculty. If overall scores for teaching are weak, candidates are encouraged to include scores on individual items in the student evaluation instruments.
Copies of the written comments from students’ evaluation forms are optional. The candidate’s department/college/school may choose to submit a representative sample of written comments. For example, one course each semester so that the package (a) includes a representative balance of graduate and undergraduate courses and (b) provides a basis for historical comparisons (e.g., for a course taught throughout the candidate’s career).
A statement by the department/college/school executive committee, or members of it, describing the candidate’s teaching ability. This statement should be based on the results of regular and systematic peer reviews of the candidate’s teaching. These reviews should include an assessment of the candidate’s course syllabi, instructional methods, and observations of actual teaching performance. This statement should reference the dates of these reviews.
A representative sample of course outlines, syllabi, and other instructional materials. A statement highlighting course innovations, if applicable, should be attached.
Written descriptions of any program development activities, including reviews and evaluations by professional peers.
Written descriptions of any development, implementation and/or management of Outreach/Continuing Education courses and/or professional training workshops.
Copies of awards or other recognition for outstanding teaching.

E. Documentation of Service

The candidate should provide a detailed listing of all service to
1. the University and its various units,
2. student organizations,
3. the academic/professional community, and
4. the lay community in concert with the University’s vision statement.
For the last five years, the candidate should provide a description of
1. duties, roles and responsibilities for each major service activity,
2. accomplishments or products produced by the service activity,
3. the candidate’s relative contribution to these accomplishments or products, and
4. assessments of the candidate’s performance and contributions.
Letters or other documents that clarify, verify, and depict the candidate’s performance in major service roles and the importance of that service should be included.

Revision History

October 1974
Revised October 1976
Revised December 1976
Revised October 1977
Reaffirmed Sept. 1978
Revised July 1979
Reaffirmed Sept. 1980
Revised October 1981
Revised May 1982
Revised May 1983
Revised September 1983
Revised September 1984
Revised September 1985
Revised September 1986
Revised May 1987
Reaffirmed September 1987
Revised April 1988
Revised May 1989
Editorially Revised Sept. 1989
Editorially Revised Sept. 1990
Reaffirmed May 1991
Revised August 1992
Editorially Revised Aug. 1994
Editorially Revised May 1995
Revised May 1996
Revised May 1997
Revised May 1998
Revised Sept. 1999
Reaffirmed October 2000
Editorially Revised Oct. 2001
Revised August 2002
Revised August 2003
Revised October 2004
Revised April 2005
Revised June 2006
Revised June 2007
Revised June 2008
Reaffirmed June 2009
Reaffirmed April 2010
Revised May 2011
Reaffirmed April 2012
Editorially revised May 2013
Editorially revised May 2014
Editorially revised May 2015
Editorially revised May 2016
Editorially revised May 2017
Editorially revised May 2018
Editorially revised May 2019
Reaffirmed May 2020
Editorial revision May 2021
Editorial revision May 2022
Editorial revision April 2023