Version 30 April 2004
This document outlines both required and optional documentation for each candidate at the Assistant and Associate Professor levels from the CSS program at UWT seeking promotion. At UW, promotion from the Assistant to the Associate level is always awarded with tenure. This document is meant to be consistent with requirements in both the UWT Handbook and the UW Handbook. There are no specific documentation requirements stated within the UW Handbooks; these are determined within individual colleges. The UWT Handbook specifies that the following items are required documentation for promotion and tenure: curriculum vitae, narrative letter providing integrated discussion of research, teaching, and service, documentation of teaching effectiveness, documentation of scholarship. Appendix B.III of the UWT Handbook provides additional details for each of these items in the candidate's file. The discussion below elaborates these items as appropriate for the CSS program, and adds additional required and optional items. Many of the section headings as well as wording in the explanation sections are verbatim or adaptations from that in the the Documentation Requirements in the College of Engineering at UW Seattle (which we indicate by CE), the Report on Program-Specific Tenure and Promotion Guidelines at UWT by the Faculty Affairs Committee, 28 May 2003 (indicated by FA), and the UWT Handbook (indicated by UWT-H).
The candidate's documentation for promotion and tenure should include the following items, collated in the order listed. A description of each piece of documention follows the listing. Unless otherwise indicated, all items are to be provided by the candidate. For each section of the documentation, required items are distinguished from optional items. The candidate is always free to add any additional items that will support the candidate's case. In doing so, the narrative should help the evaluator of the file understand how the documentation reflects the faculty member's contributions. In the final analysis, each candidate is responsible for presenting his or her own case for promotion and tenure and should ensure that the included documentation reflects the character and scope of the candidate's activities to date as a faculty member, not just at UW Tacoma but at all insitutions of higher learning.
Include a Table of Contents at the front of the file that indicates the included sections of the tenure file.(CE)
As required by the UWT Handbook, "The program director will write a letter to the dean summarizing the content of the decision leading up to the vote, the number and names of faculty participating in the discussion and vote, the number of eligible faculty, and the number of positive and negative votes and abstentions. The program director, who does not vote with the faculty, will write an independent letter of recommendation."
"The candidate's vitae should contain a cumulative record of scholarship, teaching, and service. Precise contents will differ according to discipline. The following items should be included:
"The narrative letter is an integrated discussion of an individual's scholarship, service, and teaching. The purpose of the narrative is to illuminate the contents of the cumulative record and the documentation of teaching effectiveness and scholarship. The letter is addressed to the committee. It is the primary item included in an individual's file." (UWT-H)
(Provided by candidate, but Chair of Review Committee and Director should make sure that it is included) This document provides discipline-specific information on criteria that faculty within CSS use to evaluate and interpret candidate files.
(Provided by Chair of Review Committee) "All of the information below should be collected into this one section and should include:
(Provided by Chair of Review Committee) "Evaluation by external reviewers who are experts in the candidate's field(s) must be included in the file. Acceptable forms are reviews and/or letters from external reviewers who have evaluated the candidate's demonstrations of scholarship (as defined in the University of Washington, Tacoma Handbook, Part II, Chapter 1, Sections II. A., II. B. and II. C.). "The chair of the review committee will solicit from the candidate a list of names of scholars qualified to review the candidate's demonstration of scholarship. The review committee will select up to five names from this list and may substitute up to two others not named by the candidate. The review committee must solicit reviews from a minimum of three external reviewers. No more than one external reviewer may be from the candidate's doctoral committee, and no more than two may be from the candidate's degree-granting institution during the candidate's tenure. The external reviewers will be provided with relevant demonstrations of scholarship and a summary of the candidate's teaching and service record. All letters received from external reviewers will become part of the candidate's file but will not be made available to the candidate. "The committee chair will compose the solicitation letter in consultation with the program director. The letter should be signed by the committee chair and should request reply to the committee chair. The external reviewer should not be asked to assess whether the candidate should be promoted here or would be elsewhere. The external review is based on scholarship or artistic creativity; tenure and promotion depend on more than these factors. The letter should indicate that the unit is considering the candidate for possible promotion and/or tenure and request the following information: (a) how and for how long the external reviewer has known the candidate; (b) significance, independence, influence, and promise of the candidate's scholarship or creative work; degree of national/international recognition; and (c) comparison of the quality of the candidate's accomplishments with successful scholars or artists at a similar career stage in the same or related fields, or in similar programs." (UWT-H)
Sample request letters for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor and from tenured Associate Professor to Full Professor should be maintained by the CSS faculty. These letters should be followed as closely as possible by the review committee chairs.
(Provided by Chair of Review Committee) A copy of the cover letter sent to the external reviewers should be included here.
The candidate can include any additional information that he or she believes strenghtens the tenure case. These might include annual activity reports, annual evaluations by faculty senior in rank, and letters documenting annual meetings with the program Director.
This narrative should discuss the candidate's growth and development as an educator, including a critical analysis of student and peer evaluations. The candidate should provide commentary on his or her effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses. If optional material is included, the candidate can use the narrative to discuss how this material provides evidence of teaching effectiveness.
These should be listed in chronological order, with separate sections for different universities. Courses taught in a non-academic environment should be clearly identified as such.
For each course, indicate course number, title, year and term taught, number of credit hours, student enrollment at the end of the term, whether required for major. Also indicate which evaluation form was used for which course in the case that you used different evaluation forms for different courses. This is particularly important if you are reporting student evaluation results from another institutioin.
Provide a copy of each of the evaluation forms that you administered to students, labeled so that they can be referenced as appropriate in other sections.
This should be divided into two sections, one for graduate and the other for undergraduate mentoring. Each mentored student should be listed, with an indication of the candidate's mentoring role (e.g. internship advisor, undergraduate directed research, Master's thesis advisor, etc.). Indicate the term(s) during which the mentoring occurred, the title of the student's project, and any resulting student publications, presentations, or awards. One to two sentences can additionally be added to describe the nature of the student project undertaken.
(Provided by candidate, but Chair of Review Committee and Director should make sure that it is included) The current CSS guidelines for peer evaluation of teaching should be included.
Peer evaluations should be included, arranged in chronological order. These should indicate reviewers and date of review.
Additional material may be included that the candidate believes strengthens the tenure case. If teaching awards have been received, selectivity of the award and the selection process should be described. Any teaching-related grants should be documented as described for research. If expert professional evaluations are provided, these should indicate the date of evaluation, the evaluator's professional role, and how the evaluation was solicited. In general, any documentation added should provide additional information so that reviewers are able to understand how the document sheds light on the candidate's past activities.
The research narrative should indicate the research questions that the candidate is and has been exploring, how these questions are situated within a larger context, the methods used to explore them, and the results obtained. The narrative should also identify the research communities (and if relevant the non-research communities) who will find this work relevant, and the impact that this research has had on these communities. Finally, the candidate should describe future research plans.
The candidate should include a list of all refereed publications, subdivided into sections for journals, conference proceedings and other non-journal articles, and section for books, book chapters, and editing. Each section should be given in reverse chronological order (most recent first).
Each item in this list should be annotated with the acceptance rate of the publication source, inclusive page numbers, and a short paragraph summarizing the research. If the publication is multi-authored work, the candidate should also indicate their role in the work. Publications that are in press but not yet published should be so indicated. Publications submitted but not accepted for publication should not be listed in this section. The three most signficant publications should be noted.
The CSS program at UWT is adopting the same requirements as the College of Engineering in Seattle with regard to number of papers to include in the tenure file. Preprints or copies of these works should be included in a supplemental section of the file. The candidate can include copies of additional papers as well, though this is not required.
The candidate can include any additional documentation that strengthens the candidate's case. For grants, the candidate should include the title of the grant, the funding agency, the duration, the dollar amount, the candidate's role (PI, co-PI, consultant, etc.), and a brief description of the research funded.
A general guideline that the candidate can use in determining what documentation to include, and how this should be annotated is as follows: for any documentation that the candidate provides, sufficient information should be provided so that a reviewer can determine the candidate's original contribution, and the significance and impact of this contribution within the candidate's discipline.
This should be divided into subsections, for Program, campus, University, professional society, community service, national, international or governmental service, as applicable. In each subsection, service activities should be indicated in chronological order. Each activity should include date, duration, and the candidate's role.
Include any additional service in this section, with a brief summary of the candidate's role.