VANDERBILT College of Arts and Science

Office of the Dean

PMB 357801

2301 Vanderbilt Place

Nashville, TN 37240

T 615-322-2851

as.vanderbilt.edu

To: Department Chairs and Program Directors, College of Arts and Science

From: Cindy D. Kam, Dean of Faculty Affairs, College of Arts and Science

Subject: Guidelines and Call for Recommendations for Promotions and Reappointments

ate: August 30, 2022

n compliance with the Rules and Procedures for Appointments, Renewals, Promotions, and Tenure of the

College of Arts and Science, this memorandum formally requests your department or program’s 2022-

2023 recommendations for promotions and renewals of appointments. A copy of our Rules and

Procedures (revised May 2018) is enclosed.

hese guidelines are divided into four sections, each addressing a specific category of personnel actions:

(I)

romotions to Associate Professor with tenure and Professor; (II) reappointments of tenure-track

faculty; (III) appointments and reappointments of non-tenure-track teaching faculty; and (IV)

appointments and reappointments of non-tenure-track non-teaching faculty.

While the entire document has been updated, please note the following:

• The deadline for multi-year NTT teach

ing appointments is March 3, 2023.

• The Provost’s Office requires that all documents uploaded into Interfolio must be made

searchable.

• New requirements for teaching assessment and peer evaluation have been added to the Promotion

(Part I, p. 5.), Reappointment (Part II, p. 25.), and NTT teaching (Part III, p. 33.) sections. I urge

you to review these with your colleagues.

• An optional COVID-19 Impact Statement is permitted for tenure-stream promotions (p. 9.) and

tenure-track reappointments (p. 26.).

he Department Chair or Program Director is responsible for ensuring that each promotion,

reappointment, and appointment file submitted to this office contains all of the materials identified and is

assembled in a manner consistent with the guidelines described in the following sections.

hank you for your assistance in these important matters.

cc: O

ffice of the Provost

Dean John Geer

Dean Bonnie Dow

Dean Sarah Igo

Dean David Wright

Department and Program Administrators

VANDERBILT

College

Arts and Science

August 30, 2022 2

Arts and Science Promotion and Reappointment File Deadlines

University guidelines require the timetable for receipt of your recommendations provided

in the chart below. The majority of cases follow the Spring Decision dates (highlighted

below). Fall decision dates apply only to cases in which the initial appointment

commenced at the start of the calendar year or for those who have specific promises of

early consideration. If you have a compelling reason for requesting late delivery of a file,

please inform the dean’s office at least one month prior to the specified receipt deadline or,

in the case of an unexpected delay, as soon as you realize the necessity of turning in the

file after the deadline.

Fall Decisions

(notification expected by

12/31/2022)

Spring Decisions

(notification

expected by

6/1/2023)

Fall Decisions

(notification expected by

12/31/2023)

Promotion to Professor

Monday, Sept. 12, 2022

Monday, September

12, 2022

Monday, Sept. 11, 2023

Promotion to Associate

Professor w/tenure

Monday, Sept. 12, 2022

Monday, October

24, 2022

Monday, Sept. 11, 2023

Renewal of tenure-track

appointments (3

year

review)

Monday, Sept. 19, 2022

Monday, January 16,

2023

Monday, Sept. 18, 2023

Renewal of one-year,

non-tenure-track appoint-

ments

Monday, Sept. 19, 2022

Monday, January 30,

2023

Monday, Sept. 18, 2023

Renewal of multi-year,

non-tenure-track appoint-

ments

Monday, Sept 19, 2022

Friday, March 3,

2023

Monday, Sept 18, 2023

General Contact Information Regarding Faculty Appointments

• Dean Cindy Kam, in consultation with Dean Geer, will oversee all processes for

reappointments and promotions of all tenured and tenure-track faculty actions.

• Dean Bonnie Dow, in consultation with Dean Geer, will oversee all processes for

appointments, reappointments, and promotion of all non-tenure-track faculty actions, with the

exception of research appointments which will be overseen by Dean David Wright, in

consultation with Dean Geer.

• For questions regarding T/TT faculty and anything other than compensation issues, such as

questions about leaves, appointments, recruitment, and promotions, please contact Melissa

Wocher at 615-343-3143 or me[email protected]

• For questions regarding NTT faculty and anything other than compensation issues, such as

leaves, appointments, recruitment, and promotions, please contact Jeffrey Keever at 615-343-

9724 or [email protected] .

-----------

----=

August 30, 2022 3

I. PROMOTIONS TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE AND PROFESSOR

Standards: The College of Arts and Science upholds the standards set forth in the Vanderbilt Faculty

Manual:

In actions relating to promotion to Associate Professor with tenure: “For the award of tenure,

Vanderbilt requires (1) excellence in research, scholarship, or creative expression in one’s

discipline; (2) a high level of effectiveness in teaching; and (3) satisfactory performance in the area

of service” (Faculty Manual, Part II, Ch 3, Section C).

In actions relating to promotion to Professor: “Vanderbilt expects the level and quality of

achievement in (1) research, scholarship, or creative expression; (2) teaching; and (3) service to be

equivalent to that required of Professors in leading departments and schools of other major research

universities. The candidate must have attained national or international recognition among leading

scholars in their/her/his discipline for sustained and excellent research, must have taught the courses

requested by the department or school at a consistently high level of effectiveness, and must have

demonstrated a well-developed and recognized record of service both the University and their

discipline” (Faculty Manual, Part II, Ch 3, Section E).

The College of Arts and Science Rules and Procedures for Appointments, Renewals, Promotions, and

Tenure document contains information about the rules and procedures that govern these faculty actions.

Please consult it closely as you prepare promotion and reappointment files.

Eligible Voters: The College of Arts and Science Rules and Procedures for Appointments, Renewals,

Promotions, and Tenure (Section II, Part D, #1) specifies eligibility for voting on promotion and tenure.

For promotion cases involving faculty in departments/programs that do not contain at least five

eligible voting members, an ad hoc committee will be constituted that will include the eligible voting

members of the unit, plus the appropriate number of faculty from related fields of appropriate rank

such that the ad hoc committee has five members (A&S Rules and Procedures document, Section II,

Part D, # 2). The ad hoc committee will serve as the eligible voting body, and the chair of the ad hoc

committee will complete the tasks designated below for Department Chairs/Program Directors.

For promotion cases involving faculty who hold joint appointments and whose administrative home

unit includes at least five eligible voting members, a single ad hoc committee will be appointed by

the Dean or the Dean’s designee, in consultation with the chairs/directors of the relevant units. The

chair of the ad hoc committee will be appointed from the faculty member’s administrative home. The

remainder of the committee will be constituted by an equal representation of members from each

unit. The committee will write a single report that is reviewed by each of the units, and the eligible

voters in each unit will discuss and vote on the promotion. Each unit’s vote should be conveyed in a

letter from the unit chair/ director, addressed to the Dean, for inclusion in the file. Minutes from each

meeting (in the format and with the content described below) will also be gathered. The chair or

director of the unit that is the faculty member’s administrative home will be responsible for

overseeing completion of the file (through Interfolio).

For promotion cases involving faculty who hold joint appointments but whose administrative home

unit does not contain at least five eligible voting members, a single ad hoc committee will be

appointed by the Dean or the Dean’s designee, in consultation with the chairs/directors of the relevant

units. When possible, the chair of the committee will be appointed from the faculty member’s

administrative home. The ad hoc committee will include all eligible members from the administrative

home unit and be supplemented with eligible members in related fields in order to reach five

members. The ad hoc committee will write a single report and will constitute the voting unit of the

administrative home unit. The eligible voters in the unit that is not the administrative home unit will

August 30, 2022 4

review the ad hoc report and vote on the promotion. Each unit’s vote (i.e., the ad hoc committee

standing for the administrative home unit, and the department/program that is not the administrative

home) should be conveyed in a letter, addressed to the dean, for inclusion in the file. Minutes from

each meeting (in the format and with the content described below) must also be submitted. The chair

of the ad hoc committee, in collaboration with the chair/director of the unit that is not the

administrative home, will complete the tasks designated below for Department Chairs/Program

Directors (through Interfolio). For joint appointments where neither the administrative home unit nor

the second unit has five eligible voting members, a single ad hoc committee will be formed.

Dossier Contents

The University requires all promotion and review files to be submitted via Interfolio.

All promotion files should contain the required documents outlined in the Interfolio template for

the case and must conform to the following guidelines. In addition, all documents must be

searchable, not scanned, PDF files. A sample checklist of documents required is provided on

page 21 of this document.

All documents except for books authored by candidates will be submitted in electronic form via

Interfolio.

1. Chair’s or Program Director’s recommendation to the Dean

• The chair/director must submit a detailed statement commenting on the promotion. This

is an evaluation and recommendation separate from that provided by the department or

program. It is also an opportunity for the chair/director to explain any aspect of the file

that may require interpretation and context. There will be an upload field in Interfolio for

this document.

The statement should address:

o How the candidate’s field of research relates to the discipline as a whole

o The quality of the candidate’s publications, including the quality of journals

where articles were published or the presses where books were published

o The impact of the candidate’s publications/creative works on the research and

work of others in the field

o The candidate’s external funding record

o The candidate’s promise for future productivity

o Detailed comments on strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s record in

research, teaching, and service

o The chair/director’s assessment of the external reviewer letters, including

discussion of any conflicting opinions expressed.

2. Recommendation of the eligible tenured faculty of the Department or Program

• The first sentence of the recommendation should include the enumerated vote of the

eligible faculty: the number favoring, opposing, proxy votes (if applicable) and

abstaining, along with the date of the vote. Recording a vote as “unanimous” is not

adequate; please state the number of faculty members casting votes relative to all faculty

members eligible to vote.

• Minutes: The recommendation should be accompanied by detailed minutes that reflect

the full range of discussion by the eligible tenured faculty at the meeting. Please do not

submit a verbatim transcript of the meeting. Minutes should be taken by a designated

faculty member other than the chair/director or by an appropriate staff person. Do not

send an audio recording of the discussion. There will be an upload field in Interfolio for

this document.

August 30, 2022 5

o The minutes should include the names of those present and absent, and the

number of proxy votes, if any, together with a statement of the department’s or

program’s policy on proxy voting on personnel decisions.

o The minutes should report the faculty’s evaluation of and comments on the

candidate’s accomplishments and prospects in (1) research, scholarship, or

creative expression; (2) teaching; and (3) service.

o If the department or program appoints a committee to review the candidate’s

publications, rather than having all eligible tenured faculty do so, the minutes

should identify those designated members of the faculty who served on this

review committee and have therefore read (1) relevant publications by the

candidate appearing since the last personnel action, and (2) relevant samples of

his/her earlier work. If this committee prepares any written reports or

presentations, these documents must also be included in the dossier.

o If minutes of the meeting do not satisfy all these requirements, a candid

accompanying statement from the Chair/Director must do so.

o Minutes of the meeting must be signed and dated by the person responsible for

their composition.

o In accordance with the Faculty Manual, and Arts and Science Rules and

Procedures document, minutes must be made available for 2 working days to all

eligible faculty before the file is forwarded to the Dean. Within 2 working days

after eligible faculty are notified that the minutes are available, they may make

responses to the minutes that will be included in the file. Such responses must be

available to all eligible faculty members or ad hoc committee members.

• Research: The recommendation should also include any department- or program-specific

definitions of the nature of the research, scholarship, or creative expression expected of

the candidate. Please include any statements of expectations of productivity contained in

any special agreement between the Dean’s Office and the candidate, either at the time of

initial appointment or subsequently.

• Teaching: The eligible tenured faculty’s assessment of the candidate’s teaching at the

undergraduate and graduate levels must include a review of the following evidence:

o student evaluations, including a complete summary of numerical ratings from

course evaluations that must be provided along with the evaluations. See #4

below for further details.

o a list or statement about graduate theses the candidate has supervised

o the candidate’s contributions to the development of new courses, curriculum,

instructional methodology, and other strategies for stimulating learning.

o a formal peer teaching report written by two tenured faculty members. The peer

teaching report is required for candidates being considered for promotion to

Associate Professor with tenure. It is strongly recommended for candidates being

considered for promotion to Professor. The peer report of teaching should be

based on (a) an in-class visit by the two tenured faculty members and (b) a careful

evaluation by the same faculty members of all relevant course materials such as

course syllabi, reading lists, assignments, grading policies, and examinations to

develop and provide a comprehensive view of the course’s goals, design, and

implementation. The peer teaching report is part of the formal dossier and should

be written in a way that makes it accessible to non-specialists.

o If relevant, materials documenting the candidate’s contributions to non-course

activities that the department or program considers as constituting teaching (e.g.,

supervision of internships, work with students in the laboratory).

• Research and Teaching Reports

o If an internal review committee is formed and prepares a report for presentation to

August 30, 2022 6

the department’s tenured faculty, a copy of the report should be included in

Interfolio.

o Reports from review committees formed to evaluate scholarship/creative

expression of candidates with an interdisciplinary field, and/or from ad hoc

review committees constituted for candidates from departments/programs with

fewer than five voting-eligible faculty should be included in Interfolio.

o The peer teaching report should be uploaded into Interfolio if it is not already

included in the above reports.

3. The candidate’s current curriculum vitae

• The c.v. will be uploaded by the candidate in Interfolio in Step 1.

• The current c.v. must be dated and conform as closely as is reasonably and appropriately

possible to the following format. A sample c.v. is attached as an example (pages 36-38).

o Date, name, and contact information

o Degrees earned (include university, date of degree, subject, title of dissertation,

and mentor’s name)

o Employment history (include post-docs and name of mentor(s))

o Honors and awards (include information from undergraduate and thereafter.

Provide details)

o Research/Creative Expression: All of the following categories of research and/or

creative expression must be separated from each other in the CV. For example,

book reviews should not be listed under articles. Similarly, works in progress

must be separate from published works. For all published works, the full citation

(including full list of authors in order as printed; and beginning and ending page

numbers in book chapters, journal articles and proceedings) must be provided.

For works accepted but not yet published, include full list of authors in order as

will be printed and provide the respective number of manuscript pages.

 Books (in print or accepted for publication); list separately (i) authored

and co-authored works; (ii) edited volumes

 Articles (in print or accepted) in refereed journals

 Book chapters

 Articles in conference proceedings

 Book reviews

 Working papers and books. Please avoid the word “forthcoming,” or any

other ambiguous descriptor; instead, describe the work’s publication status

precisely (e.g., when the work was submitted for consideration; the nature

and timing of editorial response, if any; whether the work is under contract

with a specific publisher, whether a publication date has been announced

by the publisher).

 Research grants received (including granting agency, other investigators,

period of grant, amount of grant per year and in total, including direct and

indirect costs).

 Research grant proposals currently under review

 Invited presentations (list title of talk and any support provided by host

institution)

 Published abstracts

 Conference presentations

For Co-authored Works:

 Complete citations listing all co-authors in printed order are required.

 Include explanation of candidate role following each bibliographic entry

of a co-authored work in the c.v.; (percentage of the candidate’s

August 30, 2022 7

contribution is helpful but not sufficient)

 Further elaboration on collaborations can be included in the Statement of

Endeavors.

o Teaching-Related Activities: please list:

 any new courses introduced

 graduate students on whose Masters/Ph.D. dissertation committees the

candidate has served or whose committees the candidate has directed

 training grants received

 undergraduate research/immersion projects supervised

o Service: List service to the:

 Department

 College

 University

 Profession

 Community (professionally related)

• On occasion, the candidate may want to have a c.v. sent to reviewers that is formatted in a

manner more conventional in the discipline. In these cases, the file must contain both

versions of the c.v., with each version clearly labeled, at the time the file is submitted for

evaluation by the department and to the Dean’s Office.

4. Cumulative teaching summary chart

• For those courses evaluated prior to Fall 2016 (using the VOICE system), the

department/program will provide a composite chart using the numerical information from

the candidate’s teaching evaluations. (An Excel spreadsheet is attached to this document

for your convenience.)

o The number of students enrolled in each course as well as the number of students

completing the evaluation forms must be included for each course evaluated.

o Data should be listed from the oldest (on the left) to the most recent.

o For promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, data must include all courses

the candidate has taught since being appointed to the tenure-track.

o For promotion to Professor, data must include all courses the candidate has taught

while holding the rank of Associate Professor with tenure. If the candidate has

been in rank for more than 10 years, please consult with the Dean of Faculty

Affairs or Melissa Wocher about the number of years to be included in the chart.

• For courses evaluated as of Fall 2016 and thereafter (using the BLUE system), please

provide a separate composite chart, using the numerical information from the candidate’s

teaching evaluations and following the stipulations above (An Excel spreadsheet is

attached to this document for your convenience).

• The cumulative teaching summary chart(s) will be uploaded by the department

administrator in Interfolio.

5. Student course evaluations and comments

• The course evaluations will be uploaded by the department administrator in Interfolio.

• For courses evaluated prior to Fall 2016 (i.e. using the VOICE system), simply upload

the results, including student comments, for each course taught by the instructor during

the period being evaluated. There is no need to re-type online student comments.

o The students’ comments should not be selected, excerpted, or edited.

o For promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, comments from all courses

taught since the candidate’s initial appointment to the tenure-track must be

included.

o Files for promotion to Professor must include all courses the candidate has taught

August 30, 2022 8

while holding the rank of Associate Professor with tenure. If the candidate has

been in rank for more than 10 years, please consult with the Dean of Faculty

Affairs or Melissa Wocher about the number of years to be included in the file.

• For courses evaluated as of Fall 2016 and thereafter (i.e. using the BLUE system), please

upload the entire course instructor report, which includes the objective responses, as well

as the bar graphs and the student comments.

6. Candidate’s Statement of Endeavors

• Candidates for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure and for promotion to

Professor should provide a clear, complete, and well-documented report of their activities

and achievements in each of the three areas of performance: research/creative expression,

teaching, and service. This report, typically six to eight pages, should be more than a list

of activities; it should articulate the candidate’s research agenda and trajectory; discuss

the candidate’s teaching philosophy, contributions, and evolution; and summarize the

candidate’s service.

o Candidates in some disciplines may feel the need to have two separate research

portions of their statement of endeavors: one for the “expert” external reviewers

and a second constituting a more accessible version that is used internally at

Vanderbilt and read by individuals outside of the candidate’s immediate field. In

these cases, it is imperative that the file contain both versions of the research

statement, with each statement clearly labeled, when it is submitted for evaluation

by the department and each succeeding level.

o The candidate will upload the research portion of the Statement of Endeavors to

be sent to external reviewers in Step 1 in Interfolio. The candidate will have the

opportunity to upload the more detailed internal Statement of Endeavors covering

research, teaching, and service used for internal review at Vanderbilt in Step 2 in

Interfolio.

o A candidate is permitted to update the internal Statement of Endeavors prior to

the department vote, but all versions of the statement must be dated and included

in the file at the time of the faculty discussion and vote on promotion. (As noted

below, no updates can be made to materials sent to external reviewers)

o Please inform the candidate of the following guidelines for the three required

parts of the Statement of Endeavors.

 Research

− The introduction should be understandable to a non-expert.

− Describe how the research relates to the discipline as a whole and

to other academic programs.

− Describe works in progress, expected dates of completion, book

contracts or expressions of publisher’s interest.

− Discuss roles in any collaborative projects.

− Do not include in the Statement of Endeavors peer-review

comments on research contracts, grant proposals, publications, and

the like. They may be included in Appendix A.

 Teaching

− The statement must be more than a list of activities.

− It should articulate the candidate’s teaching philosophy and

objectives.

− The candidate should also endeavor to provide a detailed

discussion of the evolution of their overall teaching record and

performance. This can include a discussion of how and why their

August 30, 2022 9

courses and teaching approach have evolved and improved over

time based on feedback from students, faculty peers, and their own

intellectual development and growth. Wherever helpful, the

candidate should also explain their engagement with resources

such as the Center for Teaching that enhanced their teaching

efforts.

− Include past and planned course and curriculum development and

any pedagogical initiatives, innovations or experiments and their

results.

− Do not include syllabi, course materials, and the like in the

Statement of Endeavors. These may be included in Appendix B.

 Service

− Briefly describe roles as departmental, college and university

citizen

− Identify those areas of service that have been particularly

rewarding, and those in which continued involvement is desired

− Discuss service to the discipline in this section

− Discuss professionally related service to the community

 Covid-19 Impact Statement (Optional)

− Candidates may choose to discuss the impact of the COVID-19

pandemic on their research and teaching within their Statement of

Endeavors.

− Alternatively, candidates may instead append a COVID-19 Impact

Statement (2 pages maximum) to their internal Statement of

Endeavors (this will be shared internally at Vanderbilt only). The

statement may explain major pandemic-related hindrances in

research or creative expression; grant progress; publication,

production, or exhibition; or teaching. Such hindrances may be

related to travel restrictions, institutional closures, supply chain

disruptions, caregiving burdens, illness, etc.

 Appendix Materials: The candidate must provide in the relevant

Appendix supporting documentation for items listed in the Statement of

Endeavors as “accepted,” “submitted,” “under review,” “in press,” etc.

Copies of editors’ letters and/or referees’ comments on manuscripts that

have been “provisionally accepted” should be included. The candidate

may also include other pertinent information related to research, teaching,

and service. Examples include press reviews, peer-review comments on

research contracts, grant proposals, or journal articles; testimonial letters

from students and peers; and comments on manuscripts or publications.

7. External reviews

• Number of letters: Promotion files must include at least six but preferably eight to ten

external letters of evaluation. These letters are solicited in writing by the Chair or

Director (never by the chair of an internal review committee) from reviewers approved in

advance by the Dean’s Office. These letters are written from two sets of reviewers

(described below):

o The Candidate’s list: At least three letters must be from individuals from a list

compiled by the candidate at the request of the Chair/Director.

o The Department’s/Program’s list: At least three letters must be from a separate

set of reviewers chosen by the Chair/Director. Chairs/Directors may consult

August 30, 2022 10

tenured department or program members in order to identify potential referees

with relevant expertise.

• Confidentiality of reviewers: Please remind your colleagues that the identity of external

reviewers (potential or actual) should not be shared with the candidate at any stage of the

promotion process, even after the process has reached its conclusion.

• Qualifications of reviewers:

o Reviewers should be leading scholars in the field who hold the rank of full

professor at top institutions (i.e. peer institutions of Vanderbilt or better) with

highly ranked doctoral programs in the field of the candidate.

o In extremely rare cases (for example, small fields), and only in cases of untenured

assistant professors who are candidates for promotion to associate professor with

tenure, associate professors may be approved as reviewers.

o Reviewers from high-profile universities outside the United States are

permissible.

o Reviewers should not have any vested interest in the outcome of the case and

should not have interacted with the candidate in ways that could compromise their

objectivity. Typical examples of reviewers who would be ineligible are a recent

coauthor of an article or book, a Ph.D. mentor or advisor, a dissertation committee

member, or a postdoctoral advisor.

o In case of promotion to full professor, it is permissible to include up to three

scholars who have written previously on the candidate’s behalf for the initial

appointment or his/her previous promotion, but such individuals must have

exceptional professional standing and should not be research collaborators of the

candidate.

o All external reviewers must have different institutional affiliations. In case the

candidate and the Department’s lists contain two reviewers from the same

institution, the Dean’s office will ask the Chair/Director to decide whom to ask

for a letter first with the understanding that the second reviewer from the same

institution can be asked only if the first declines to write.

• Compiling the two lists: The Candidate’s list of reviewers should be compiled before the

Department’s list. Chairs/Directors should follow the following steps when compiling the

two lists of reviewers:

o Chairs/Directors should first ask candidates for names of six reviewers.

Candidates should be advised in advance about the characteristics of reviewers

that will make them most credible to those who assess the file. In particular,

candidates should be made aware that reviewers must be full professors at top

institutions and that they should not have a vested interest in the outcome of the

case and must not have interacted with the candidate in ways that might

compromise their objectivity. Failure to choose qualified reviewers with such

characteristics may delay the candidate’s case and require the submission of

additional names by the candidate. The candidate should detail any previous

interaction with the proposed reviewers as appropriate.

o Once the candidate’s list is in hand, the Department should construct its proposed

list comprising of an entirely different set of reviewers (from those named by the

candidate). Any reviewer appearing on both the candidate’s and the Department’s

list is automatically assigned to the candidate’s list (and NOT the Department’s).

o If a candidate for promotion to full professor turned down for promotion in a

previous year is being reconsidered for promotion, it is permissible to include,

alongside letters from new reviewers, some letters (no more than 2) from

reviewers who wrote for the candidate when last considered. In such cases, letters

must be solicited from at least four new reviewers and all reviewers should

August 30, 2022 11

receive the candidate’s updated materials for evaluation.

o Any exceptions to the guidelines other than those described above must have the

explicit approval of the Dean.

o The file must note any personal or professional associations between the

candidate and any contributing referee.

o If fewer than four reviewers from the Candidate’s List agree to provide a letter of

evaluation, additional names of potential reviewers should be solicited from the

candidate, but under no circumstances should the reasons for the additional

request be revealed to the candidate.

o Similarly, if fewer than four reviewers from the Department’s List agree to

provide a letter of evaluation, the Department/Program should submit additional

names of potential reviewers for approval by the Dean.

• Preapproval of reviewers: The two lists should be submitted by the Chair/Director (via

email) to the Dean of Faculty Affairs for approval before any contact is made with

reviewers. When seeking approval from the Dean’s office, it is essential to fully explain

the credentials of the set of recommended reviewers. In particular, the request to approve

external reviewers must include:

o A brief summary of each reviewer’s professional credentials along with a link to

their webpage (do not include the reviewer’s curriculum vitae)

o A statement regarding the reviewer’s professional relationship to the candidate, if

known

o The candidate’s curriculum vitae

o The Dean of Faculty Affairs will send an official memo to the Chair/ Director

confirming the approved reviewers and detailing any special arrangements that

might have been agreed upon.

o Please keep a copy of all correspondence between the Chair/Director and Dean

regarding the reviewer approval process, including the official memo, and include

it in the appropriate section in Interfolio.

• Contacting external reviewers: After the two lists of reviewers have been approved by

the Dean’s Office, the Chair/Director should contact the reviewers to seek their approval

in the following fashion:

o Contact at least five reviewers from each list in the first round.

o Initial contact with reviewers: Potential reviewers should first be contacted

individually by the Chair/Director through regular email to determine their

willingness to serve. A sample email is included in this document, refer to page

18.

o The candidate’s CV may be attached to the email/letter soliciting the external

assessment.

o Once the reviewer accepts the initial invitation, each reviewer should be sent the

candidate’s materials to review via Interfolio. A step by step tutorial with

screenshots can be found here . Within Interfolio, the reviewer will have the

option to click “I Accept” or “I Decline.” If the reviewer accepts, they will then

gain access to the documents the department has selected for reviewers. This

should include a detailed letter (see example on pages 19 & 20, as well as

instructions below) from the Chair/Director along with the:

 Scholarly materials (journal articles, essays, book chapters, monographs,

etc.) to be reviewed

 The current curriculum vitae of the candidate

 The research portion of the Statement of Endeavors (do not include the

Teaching or Service portions of the Statement of Endeavors)

 If the reviewer declines, they will be asked to provide a reason.

August 30, 2022 12

o Any and all correspondence with the reviewers conducted outside of Interfolio

must be kept and uploaded into Interfolio in the appropriate section.

• General directions for Chair/Director’s letter to reviewers The Chair’s or Program

Director’s formal letter/email soliciting assessments from external reviewers should

comply with the following guidelines (a sample letter is included in this document, see p.

19& 20):

o State whether the department or program is considering promotion of the

candidate to the rank of Professor or Associate Professor with tenure. All

correspondence, including telephone conversations and email, as well as written

correspondence, should state simply that the candidate is being considered for

promotion.

o All correspondence (email, mail and voice) must be objective. It may not refer to

preliminary or provisional judgments, hopes, or fears of the Chair/Director or the

tenured faculty about the candidate’s chances for promotion.

o Prejudicial statements about the candidate are strictly prohibited. For example, do

not say: “I very much appreciate your willingness to help with what (I am

absolutely certain) will be an open-and-shut case,” or otherwise indicate your

opinion of the merits of the case.

o The letter should make no reference to the possible outcome of the case.

o The letter should state that the referee is asked to evaluate scholarship or creative

expression (as the case may be), and that the department will assess teaching and

service.

o The letter and other communications with external referees should contain the

following statement: “Under current policies and practices at Vanderbilt

University, peer evaluations such as that being requested from you are, within

limitations imposed by law, regarded as confidential. They are for limited use

within the University. However, governmental agencies may have a legal right of

access to such evaluations. Federal or state law or the courts may afford others,

including the person being evaluated, access to the evaluation.”

o Letters should be submitted via Interfolio to the candidate’s file. If a letter is sent

via email, complete (including header and date) email versions are permissible

during the initial steps in the process such as the department vote. If the letter is

sent via email (i.e. outside of Interfolio), the department administrator will need to

upload it to Interfolio in the proper section. All correspondence related to this

letter will also need to be part of the section in Interfolio for correspondence with

external reviewers.

o Once the candidate’s dossier is sent to the external reviewers, no further status

updates can be provided to those reviewers; that is, it is not possible to send

additional materials to the reviewers, nor is it allowable to send updates on the

status of publications or information about additional publications, grants, etc.

• Letter to reviewers for considerations of promotion to Associate Professor with

Tenure

o The Chair’s/Director’s letter should quote the criteria and standards for tenure

rank as set forth in the first sentence of Part II, Chapter 3, Section C of the Faculty

Manual.

o It should also quote the elaboration of this quoted passage contained in Section II,

Part A, number 2 of the “Rules and Procedures” of the College of Arts and

Science as follows:

 “For appointment or promotion to the rank of Associate Professor,

judgments should be based on performance in research, teaching, and

other kinds of intellectual and academic service. Excellence in all these

August 30, 2022 13

activities is desired. Excellence in research, scholarship, or creative

expression is required. A high level of effectiveness in teaching is

required. Satisfactory performance of service to the University and/or to

professional and learned societies is required.”

o Further, the letter should ask the reviewer to:

 describe his or her professional relationship to the candidate, if any

 indicate which of the candidate’s works he/she has read

 describe and evaluate the quality of the candidate’s scholarship (and/or

creative expression) and its influence on and/or advancement of the

field(s)

 assess the promise and probable impact of the candidate’s future research;

 rank the candidate in relation to his/her cohort at other research

universities

 state whether the candidate would meet the research standard for

promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure typically applied

at leading research universities

o A sample letter addressing these points is appended (see page 20).

• Letter to reviewers for considerations of promotion to the rank of Professor

o The Chair’s/Director’s letter should quote Section II, Part A, number 3 of the

“Rules and Procedures” of the College of Arts and Science, which elaborates on

the criteria and standards prescribed by the Faculty Manual for appointment to

tenure rank as follows:

 “For appointment or promotion to the rank of Professor, the College

expects the level and quality of achievement in research, scholarship, or

creative expression and teaching required of professors in corresponding

departments and schools at other leading major research universities. The

candidate must have attained national or international recognition among

leading scholars in his or her discipline for sustained and excellent

research, must have taught the courses requested by the department or

school at a consistently high level of effectiveness, and must have

demonstrated a well-developed and recognized record of service both to

the University and his or her discipline.”

o The Chair’s/Director’s letter should ask the referee to address the pertinent points

of that quoted passage with sufficient specificity to enable readers to reach a

reasoned and informed judgment about the candidate’s qualifications.

o Further, the letter should ask the referee to:

 describe his/her professional relationship to the candidate, if any

 indicate which of the candidate’s works he/she has read

 describe and evaluate the character and importance of the candidate’s

scholarship (and/or creative expression) and its influence on and/or

advancement of the field(s)

 assess the promise and probable impact of the candidate’s future

research/creative expression

 compare the candidate to his/her scholarly cohort at other leading

universities; and

 state whether the candidate would meet the research standard for

promotion to the rank of Professor typically applied at leading research

universities;

o A sample letter addressing these points is appended (see page 19).

• Additional materials related to the external review process

o These documents should be uploaded into Interfolio into the appropriate section.

August 30, 2022 14

o The candidate’s list of all the names and institutional affiliations of approved

reviewers. A list only of persons who agreed to serve as referees will not suffice.

Beside each name, please make the following notation, as appropriate:

 Letter enclosed OR

 Did not answer our request OR

 Declined to write OR

 Not solicited

o The department/program list compiled in consultation with the relevant tenured

faculty members of all the names of approved reviewers and their institutional

affiliations. A list only of persons who agreed to serve as referees will not

suffice. Beside each name, please make the following notation, as appropriate:

 Letter enclosed OR

 Did not answer our request OR

 Declined to write OR

 Not solicited

o A brief biographical summary of each approved reviewers’ professional

credentials, including those who were approved, but did not send a letter. Do

NOT include each reviewer’s curriculum vitae.

o Copies of all correspondence, postal and electronic, with actual or potential

reviewers not conducted within Interfolio, including summaries of telephone

conversations between tenured faculty members and/or the Chair/Director and

any reviewers.

 If letters are collected outside of Interfolio, the file should contain scanned

PDFs (with signatures) of the letters and email messages sent to the

referees and of reviewers’ responses. A copy of the form letter sent to

each reviewer will not suffice.

 Copies of all correspondence between the department or program and the

Dean on the choice and decanal approval of external reviewers. A list of

proposed reviewers and the dean’s approval is not sufficient. If there is

any back and forth between the chair and the dean on the names of the

reviewers and their qualifications or relationship to the candidate, this

correspondence must be included.

8. Previous curriculum vitae and counseling information

• These documents are required and should be uploaded to Interfolio for evaluation by

faculty prior to the department/program/ad hoc committee’s vote on the file.

o For promotion to Associate Professor with tenure

 dated copies of the candidate’s curriculum vitae that were submitted for

the initial appointment/hire and from any and all pre-tenure reviews

 copies of the counseling letters for pre-tenure reviews and the summaries

prepared by the Chair/Director after completion of those reviews with the

candidate.

o For promotion to Professor

 a dated copy of the candidate’s curriculum vitae submitted with the

recommendation to promote to Associate Professor with tenure, or with

the initial appointment if the candidate was hired into a tenured position.

 Do not include pre-tenure committee reports or counseling memos in files

under consideration for promotion to Professor.

9. Correspondence between the Chair/Director and the candidate

Copies of all correspondence between the Chair/Director and the candidate about the tenure

August 30, 2022 15

review or promotion process(es) not conducted within Interfolio must be provided here.

10. Published reviews of published works

A copy of all available published reviews of published works should be uploaded to Interfolio.

All documents within the Appendices should be uploaded to Interfolio, excluding books.

11. Appendix A

Other relevant materials concerning research/creative expression, such as letters from editors and

readers’ reports. Please include an index of the materials submitted in this appendix within the

Table of Contents, making sure that each item in the Table of Contents corresponds to an easily

identifiable document in the appendix.

12. Appendix B

Other relevant materials (optional) concerning teaching: copies of syllabi, outlines, reading lists,

examinations, and similar materials, may be included here. Please include an index of the

materials submitted in this appendix within the Table of Contents, making sure that each item in

the Table of Contents corresponds to an easily identifiable document in the appendix.

13. Appendix C

Publications: Copies of all publications submitted by the candidate for review by the external

reviewers and the department or program should be included with the file. Do not include any

publications unavailable to the eligible tenured faculty prior to the decision meeting. Please

include an index of all publications sent to this office, including articles, manuscripts, and books

within the Table of Contents, making sure that each item in the Table of Contents corresponds to

an easily identifiable document in the appendix.

14. Role of the voting eligible faculty member

A few clarifications regarding the limited role to be played by some faculty in the deliberations

concerning the candidate:

• Vanderbilt University’s Conflict of Interest Policy prohibits members of the University

community from participating in the hiring process or any employment related decisions

pertaining to their family members. Hence, members of the faculty may not participate in

any aspect of deliberations or votes concerning appointments or renewals of family

members, including spouses and partners.

• If a faculty member has served in any significant fashion as a mentor to the candidate

prior to the candidate’s appointment at Vanderbilt (e.g., as a doctoral or postdoctoral

advisor or as a dissertation committee member), that faculty member should not serve on

any ad hoc committee that a department might create to evaluate an aspect of the

candidate’s qualifications (e.g., a committee providing a report on research, teaching, or

service). Such a faculty member would normally still be eligible to vote on the case;

please check with the dean in each case.

15. Confidentiality of personnel matters

• Please remind your colleagues of their professional responsibility to maintain the strictest

confidentiality concerning personnel decisions.

 They may not reveal or discuss the transactions of the decision meeting, the votes, the

contents of letters, the names of referees or the outcome of the meeting.

 Your colleagues should be advised at each meeting that the Chair/Director alone

speaks for the tenured faculty of the department or program in communicating with

the dean’s office.

August 30, 2022 16

 The faculty meeting should commence with the reading by the Chair/Director of the

following statement:

“It is the role of the Chair (Program Director) to represent the voting faculty in any

communications with the candidate. All matters relating to this case are confidential; in particular,

the tally of votes, the details of the discussion at this meeting, as well as any contents of the

candidate’s file such as the names of the reviewers must not be revealed to the candidate.

I also take this opportunity to remind you that the Provost’s Promotion and Tenure Review

Committee (PTRC) does NOT meet with the Dean or the Chair but rather relies almost exclusively

upon the written documentation included in the candidate’s file. The minutes of this meeting are a

vital part of that file and as such your comments will be considered at the highest levels of the

decision-making process. I therefore urge you to speak out for the record on any issues that you

deem crucial to this case.”

16. Ex Parte Communications

Except as set forth below, the entire contents of the dossier, including all solicited or unsolicited

letters regarding appointment, renewal, promotion or tenure that will be included in the

candidate’s file for transmittal to the Dean must be available for review in Interfolio by the

eligible faculty members prior to their vote. Only members of the faculty who are eligible to

vote shall have the opportunity to review the contents of the dossier. Unsolicited letters from

faculty members outside the department or school should not be included in the dossier either

before or after faculty deliberations.

By the end of the second business day after the vote, any faculty member eligible to vote may

write a letter to the department chair or Dean for inclusion in the dossier expressing his or her

views on the deliberations by the faculty. These letters are to be made available to all faculty

who are eligible to vote.

The department must prepare minutes or a summary of the faculty deliberations, and the

summary will be appended to the dossier, after first being circulated to the voting members of

the faculty. Any faculty member who believes that the minutes or summary does not fairly

reflect the deliberations at the meeting may submit a letter to the chair/director or Dean before

the end of the second working day after distribution of the minutes or summary. All such letters

shall be made available to the faculty eligible to vote and will be included in the dossier in

Interfolio.

Except as stated above, no faculty member other than the chair/director or Dean may add

materials to the dossier at higher levels of review of the faculty decision.

It is inappropriate for faculty members, including those outside the department or school, to

attempt to influence the deliberations on renewal, promotions, or tenure that come after the vote

of the faculty. Persons involved in subsequent levels of review should not accept or consider

additional unsolicited documents and should discourage any communications that seek to

influence their decisions.

Allegations of professional misconduct by faculty members involved in the process should be

reported following procedures outlined in the Faculty Manual. “Professional misconduct” means

any conduct on the part of a faculty member that might reasonably lead to disciplinary action

under Part IV, Chapter 1 (Disciplinary Actions) of the Faculty Manual.

17. Notification of the department’s or program’s decision and disclosure of information

• The Chair/Director must advise a candidate for promotion, in writing (with a copy to

the Dean), within three days of the departmental or program meeting, of the decision

August 30, 2022 17

reached by the tenured faculty (whether or not to recommend promotion).

• The vote tally must not be reported to the candidate. Please also do not report to the

candidate whether the vote was unanimous or divided.

• The letter informing the candidate of the department’s or program’s decision should not

elaborate on the rationale for it.

• When reporting a favorable departmental or program recommendation on promotion, the

Chair/Director should also remind the candidate of the additional stages of the review

process. These include:

o the Dean

o the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

o the Provost

o the Chancellor

o (and for promotions to associate professor with tenure) the Board of Trust

o Concurrence at stages prior to the vote by the Board of Trust is not reported, but

lack of concurrence is.

• If a candidate requests from you a written statement detailing his or her strengths and

weaknesses as reflected in the tenured faculty’s deliberation of the case, please consult

with the Dean before providing it. The statement can be written only after the final

disposition of the file.

• Final decisions in cases of promotion to tenure are normally but not always announced

immediately following the Board of Trust meetings in late April/early May.

Occasionally, cases are announced in June.

• Please bear in mind that if a candidate for promotion asks to see his or her personnel file,

under the provisions of the legislation passed by the faculty, the right of access does not

include evaluations, departmental recommendations, or solicited letters of recom-

mendation. Please contact the Dean’s Office if a candidate makes such a request, and

prior to sharing the information.

August 30, 2022 18

Sample of Initial Email to Potential Reviewers of a Candidate for Promotion

to the Rank of Associate Professor with Tenure or to Professor

to be sent by the Chair/Director outside of Interfolio

Dear Professor X,

I am writing to ask that you perform a very important service for the (Department of/Program in

XXXX) at Vanderbilt University. One of our (Assistant/Associate) Professors, (name of

candidate), will be reviewed for promotion to (Associate Professor with tenure / Professor) in

the fall of XXXX. As you know, decisions on such promotions are among the most important

that a university makes. Your name has been chosen with great care as a person who is eminently

qualified to assess the scholarship of Professor (last name of candidate).

We would be very grateful if you would agree to provide an assessment of Professor (last name

of candidate)’s scholarship. Should you agree to assist us, the appropriate materials will be sent

to you via Interfolio in the near future, and we would expect your report by (date).

To facilitate your decision-making, I am attaching an abbreviated version of Professor (last name

of candidate)’s c.v.

Please let me know by return e-mail within the next week or so if you would consider taking on

this important task. We of course would very much like to count on your expertise and

assistance in this matter.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

August 30, 2022 19

Sample Letter Requesting Recommendation

of a Candidate for Promotion to Professor (to be sent via Interfolio)

Dear Professor X:

The (Department of/Program in XXXX) at Vanderbilt University is considering Firstname

Lastname, Associate Professor of XXXX, for promotion to Professor.

As you know, decisions on such promotions are among the most important a university

makes. Thank you for agreeing to help us evaluate Professor Lastname’s accomplishments and

potential as a scholar. The College of Arts and Science at Vanderbilt stipulates the following

expectations for appointment or promotion to the rank of Professor: “For appointment or

promotion to the rank of Professor, the College expects the level and quality of achievement in

research, scholarship, or creative expression and teaching required of professors in

corresponding departments and schools at other leading major research universities. The

candidate must have attained national or international recognition among leading scholars in his

or her discipline for sustained and excellent research, must have taught the courses requested by

the department or school at a consistently high level of effectiveness, and must have

demonstrated a well-developed and recognized record of service both to the University and his or

her discipline.”

The (Department of/Program in XXXX) will assess Professor Lastname’s record of

teaching and service; we ask you to focus on Professor Lastname’s contributions to research,

scholarship, or creative expression. In your view, has Professor Lastname’s scholarship made an

original and significant contribution to the discipline? If so, to what extent and in what ways has

this contribution advanced scholarly knowledge and otherwise enriched the discipline? What are

the special strengths and weaknesses of Professor Lastname’s scholarly contributions and what is

your estimate of the promise of future research? What is your assessment of where Professor

Lastname ranks in relation to others at similar stages in their careers? In your judgment, does

Professor Lastname satisfy the research standard for promotion to Professor typically applied by

leading research universities? Any other comments you care to make evaluating Professor

Lastname’s scholarship would be most welcome. We would be grateful if you would describe

how long and in what capacity you have known the candidate, and the extent to which you are

familiar with the candidate’s research.

I enclose Professor Lastname’s curriculum vitae, the research portion of the Statement of

Endeavors, relevant publications, and a few selections from works in progress. I would

appreciate receiving your assessment no later than (insert appropriate date).

Thank you for your help with this crucially important matter. Under current policies and

practices at Vanderbilt University, peer evaluations such as that being requested from you are

regarded, within limitations imposed by law, as confidential. They are for carefully limited use

within the University. However, governmental agencies may have a legal right of access to such

evaluations. Federal or state law or the courts may afford others, including the person being

evaluated, access to the evaluation.

Sincerely,

August 30, 2022 20

Sample Letter Requesting Recommendation of a Candidate for

Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure (to be sent via Interfolio)

Dear Professor X:

The (Department of/Program in XXXX) at Vanderbilt University is considering Firstname

Lastname, Assistant Professor of XXXX, for promotion to associate professor with tenure.

As you know, decisions on promotions to tenure are among the most important a university

makes. Thank you for agreeing to help us render a judgment on Professor Lastname’s

accomplishments and potential as a scholar. For the award of tenure, Vanderbilt requires: 1)

excellence in research, scholarship, or creative expression in one’s discipline; 2) a high level of

effectiveness in teaching; and 3) satisfactory performance in the area of service. The College of

Arts and Science at Vanderbilt stipulates the following expectations for appointment or

promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure: “For appointment or promotion to the

rank of Associate Professor, judgments should be based on performance in research, teaching,

and other kinds of intellectual and academic service. Excellence in all these activities is desired.

Excellence in research, scholarship, or creative expression is required. A high level of

effectiveness in teaching is required. Satisfactory performance of service to the University

and/or to professional and learned societies is required.”

The (Department of/Program in XXXX) will assess Professor Lastname’s record of

teaching and service; we ask you to focus on Professor Lastname’s research, scholarship, or

creative expression. In your view, has Professor Lastname made an original and significant

contribution to the discipline? If so, to what extent and in what ways has this contribution

advanced scholarly knowledge and otherwise enriched the discipline? Does Professor

Lastname’s scholarly work demonstrate originality and intellectual independence? What are the

special strengths and weaknesses of Professor Lastname’s contributions and what is your

estimate of the promise of future research? What is your assessment of where Professor

Lastname ranks in relation to others at similar stages in their careers? In your judgment, does

Professor Lastname satisfy the research standard for promotion to Associate Professor with

tenure typically applied by leading research universities? Any other comments you care to make

evaluating Professor Lastname’s scholarship would be most welcome. We would be grateful if

you would describe how long and in what capacity you have known the candidate, and the extent

to which you are familiar with the candidate’s research.

I enclose Professor Lastname’s curriculum vitae, the research portion of the Statement of

Endeavors, relevant publications, and a few selections from works in progress. I would

appreciate receiving your assessment no later than (insert appropriate date).

Thank you for your help with this crucially important matter. Under current policies and

practices at Vanderbilt University, peer evaluations such as that being requested from you are

regarded, within limitations imposed by law, as confidential. They are for limited use within the

University. However, governmental agencies may have a legal right of access to such

evaluations. Federal or state law or the courts may afford others, including the person being

evaluated, access to the evaluation.

Sincerely,

August 30, 2022 21

Checklist of documents for Promotion Files

(either to Associate Professor with Tenure or Professor)

1. Chair’s/Director’s Recommendation

(For Joint appointments – include Chair/Director recommendations from each unit.)

2. Faculty Recommendation – including any subcommittee reports prepared for the faculty

(For Joint appointments – include ad hoc committee report in addition to any reports from

the the relevant departments/programs.)

3. Curriculum Vitae in the format detailed on pp. 6-7 above.

4. Teaching Summary Chart(s)

5. Student Course Evaluations and Comments (from the VOICE and BLUE systems). This

should be the entire instructor report – not just an excerpt.

6. Candidate’s Statement of Endeavors in Research, Teaching and Service. Optional

COVID-19 Impact Statement may be appended to the internal version not sent to external

reviewers.

7. External Letters of Recommendation

a. Candidate’s list of names

b. Letters from candidate’s list

c. Department’s list of names

d. Letters from the department’s list

e. Brief biography of the writers

f. All correspondence with reviewers

g. Rationale and approval of department’s list of reviewers

8. Previous Curriculum Vitae and for promotion to tenure only, also include Counseling

Memoranda

9. Correspondence between the Chair/Director and the Candidate

10. Published reviews of published work

Appendix A: Other relevant material concerning research

a. Title/description of item a

b. Title/description of item b

Appendix B: Other relevant material concerning teaching

a. Title/description of item a

b. Title/description of item b

Appendix C: Copies of publications/creative expression

a. Title/description of item a

b. Title/description of item b

August 30, 2022 22

II. REAPPOINTMENTS OF TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

Standards: The College of Arts and Science upholds the tenure-track reappointment standards set forth

in the Vanderbilt Faculty Manual:

“Tenure-track faculty members should be recommended for reappointment only if their performance

provides a reasonable basis on which to project continued progress that should ultimately enable

them to qualify for tenure. The evidence needed becomes more weighty with continued time in

rank.” (Faculty Manual, Part II, Ch 2, Section E).

The College of Arts and Science Rules and Procedures for Appointments, Renewals, Promotions, and

Tenure document contains information about the rules and procedures that govern these faculty actions.

Please consult it closely as you prepare reappointment files.

Eligible Voters: The College of Arts and Science Rules and Procedures for Appointments, Renewals,

Promotions, and Tenure (Section II, Part D, #1) specifies eligibility for voting on reappointments.

For reappointment cases involving faculty in departments/programs that do not contain at least five

eligible voting members, an ad hoc committee will be constituted that will include the eligible voting

members of the unit, plus the appropriate number of faculty from related fields of appropriate rank

such that the ad hoc committee has five members (A&S Rules and Procedures document, Section II,

Part D, # 2). The ad hoc committee will serve as the eligible voting body, and the chair of the ad hoc

committee will complete the tasks designated below for Department Chairs/Program Directors.

For reappointment cases involving faculty who hold joint appointments and whose administrative

home unit includes at least five eligible voting members, a single ad hoc committee will be appointed

by the Dean or the Dean’s designee, in consultation with the chairs/directors of the relevant units.

The chair of the ad hoc committee will be appointed from the faculty member’s administrative home.

The remainder of the committee will be constituted by an equal representation of members from each

unit. The committee will write a single report that is reviewed by each of the units, and the eligible

voters in each unit will discuss and vote on the reappointment. Each unit’s vote should be conveyed

in a letter from the unit chair/director, addressed to the Dean, for inclusion in the file. Minutes from

each meeting (in the format and with the content described below) will also be gathered. The chair or

director of the unit that is the faculty member’s administrative home will be responsible for

overseeing completion of the file (through Interfolio).

For reappointment cases involving faculty who hold joint appointments but whose administrative

home unit does not contain at least five eligible voting members, a single ad hoc committee will be

appointed by the Dean or the Dean’s designee, in consultation with the chairs/directors of the relevant

units. When possible, the chair of the committee will be appointed from the faculty member’s

administrative home. The ad hoc committee will include all eligible members from the administrative

home unit and be supplemented with eligible members in related fields in order to reach five

members. The ad hoc committee will write a single report and will constitute the voting unit of the

administrative home unit. The eligible voters in the unit that is not the administrative home unit will

review the ad hoc report and vote on the reappointment. Each unit’s vote (i.e., the ad hoc committee

standing for the administrative home unit, and the department/program that is not the administrative

home) should be conveyed in a letter, addressed to the dean, for inclusion in the file. Minutes from

each meeting (in the format and with the content described below) must also be submitted. The chair

of the ad hoc committee, in collaboration with the chair/director of the unit that is not the

administrative home, will complete the tasks designated below for Department Chairs/Program

Directors (through Interfolio). For joint appointments where neither the administrative home unit nor

the second unit has five eligible voting members, a single ad hoc committee will be formed.

August 30, 2022 23

Dossier Contents

The University requires all tenure-track reappointment files to be submitted via Interfolio.

All reappointment files should contain the required documents outlined in the Interfolio template

for the case and must conform to the following guidelines. In addition, all documents must be

searchable, not scanned, PDF files. A sample checklist of documents required is provided on

page 29 of this document.

All documents except for books authored by candidates must be submitted in electronic form via

Interfolio.

1. Chair’s or Program Director’s recommendation to the Dean

• The Chair/Director must submit a detailed statement commenting on the reappointment.

This is an evaluation and recommendation separate from that provided by the department

or program. It is also an opportunity for the chair/director to explain any aspect of the

file that may require interpretation and context. There will be an upload field in Interfolio

for this document.

The statement should address:

o How the candidate’s field of research relates to the discipline as a whole

o The quality of the candidate’s publications, including the quality of the journals

where articles were published or the presses where books were published

o The impact of the candidate’s publications/creative works on the research and

work of others in the field

o The candidate’s external funding record

o The candidate’s promise for future productivity

o Detailed comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s record in

research, teaching, and service

2. Draft Counseling Memorandum

• After a positive vote in the department, the chair/director will submit to the Dean’s Office

via Interfolio a draft counseling memorandum that accompanies the entire dossier. The

draft counseling memorandum should reflect the departmental evaluation of the

candidate’s record of research, teaching, and service, and should convey the department’s

advice for the candidate, moving forward. The Dean’s office will review the draft

counseling memorandum and may recommend revisions. The Dean’s office will inform

the Chair/director of approval of the renewal and the final draft, and then the

Chair/director will send the counseling memorandum to the candidate. Please see page

28 of this document for a counseling memo template.

• The chair/director is required to meet with the faculty member after they have been

formally reappointed to discuss the recent review, assess strengths and weaknesses of the

record to-date and strategize for the tenure review.

• As part of this process, the chair/director should provide the Dean’s Office a written

summary of that meeting, with a copy also provided to the candidate.

o The format of that summary should mirror the format of the counseling

memorandum, discussing research, teaching and service.

3. Recommendation of the tenured faculty of the Department or Program

• The first sentence of the recommendation should include the enumerated vote of the

faculty: the number favoring, opposing, proxy votes (if applicable) and abstaining, along

August 30, 2022 24

with the date of the vote. Recording a vote as “unanimous” is not adequate; please state

the number of faculty members casting votes relative to all faculty members eligible to

vote.

• Minutes: The recommendation should be accompanied by detailed minutes that reflect

the full range of discussion by the tenured faculty at the meeting. Please do not submit a

verbatim transcript of the meeting. Minutes should be taken by a designated faculty

member other than the chair/director or by an appropriate staff person. Do not send an

audio recording of the discussion. There will be an upload field in Interfolio for this

document.

o The minutes should include the names of those present and absent, and the

number of proxy votes, if any, together with a statement of the department’s or

program’s policy on proxy voting on personnel decisions.

o The minutes must also include the faculty’s evaluation of and comments on the

candidate’s accomplishments and prospects in (1) research or creative expression;

(2) teaching; and (3) service.

o If the department or program appoints a committee to review the candidate’s

publications, rather than having all tenured faculty do so, the minutes must

identify those designated members of the faculty who served on this review

committee and have therefore read (1) relevant publications by the candidate

appearing since the last personnel action, and (2) relevant samples of his/her

earlier work. If this committee prepares any written reports or presentations,

these documents must also be included in the dossier.