Reappointment Review and Promotion Guidelines
Last revision July 2023
C.V., the report on career to date and plans for the future, and copies of (or a link to) relevant
published works. Each evaluator should be asked to provide their own C.V.
A model letter is provided as an Appendix to this document. No letter seeking comment on a
promotion or tenure case should be sent to an external referee without the text having been
approved by the relevant dean. Effective fall 2020, the external letter template contains an
addendum to include possible impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
If an external referee is found to have, or identifies himself or herself as having, a conflict of
interest, the reference letter should be included in the dossier with an explanatory note. If this
results in fewer than six letters being available, additional letter(s) should be sought.
Assessment
The committee should evaluate the effectiveness of the candidate's teaching, the quality of the
contributions in research or creative works, and the significance of service to the department, the
University, and the profession at large.
Scholarship. The case should answer whether, in national (or potentially international)
comparison with individuals at similar points in their careers, the candidate is among the
strongest in their field. The committee should comment on productivity in relation to norms for
the field, but most of all should provide a disinterested analysis of the quality of the candidate's
work and its impact on the field. External letters will provide crucial information on this. Where
work is published in journals or books, the committee should comment on the standing of the
journals or book publishers. Where relevant, the committee should assess the candidate's success
in securing grants in relation to norms for the field. Where the candidate's work involves
substantial collaboration with others, the committee should assess the weight of the candidate's
contribution to the work. The committee should also comment on any broader impacts of the
candidate’s work, including connections to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Teaching. The committee should review and summarize contributions to teaching, analyzing
strengths and weaknesses in undergraduate and (where relevant) graduate courses, and providing
an overall assessment of the candidate's contributions to the department's programs as a whole.
Where weaknesses are identified, the committee should comment on what steps have been taken
to remedy them. The committee should also comment on the candidate's mentoring of
undergraduates in independent study, and on their performance as a graduate advisor as well as
any practices that promote inclusive teaching, learning, and mentoring.
Service. The committee should comment on the candidate's general service to the department,
their willingness to share the departmental workload, and the assumption of any special
responsibility. Where the candidate has provided distinctive service elsewhere in the University
or to the profession outside the University, this should also be discussed. The committee should
also comment on any broader impacts of the candidate’s service, including those that promote
diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The committee's primary task is to assess the case for promotion to tenure. If the committee
establishes that (for an internal candidate) there is not yet a sufficiently strong case for tenure,
but that the trajectory is strong, that a little more time will probably result in a strong case for
promotion to tenure, and that extenuating factors account for unusually slow progress, it may
consider recommending promotion to associate professor without tenure.