Communication #26: Promotion to Teaching, Research, or Clinical Associate or Full Professor Titles (AY2025-26)

Last revised December 2025

Overview

Promotional paths for specialized faculty on professorial tracks provide opportunities for the development of long-term careers at Illinois and ensure that these valuable employees can contribute to the exceptional quality of teaching and research that is required on campus.¹ Although these promotions do not include tenure, units (e.g., departments, schools, and colleges) are encouraged to provide multi-year contracts with appointments to the ranks of associate and full teaching, research, and clinical professors.²

Given that these appointments carry with them the title of professor, the University uses a rigorous multi-stage process of review that involves external evaluation for promotion of specialized faculty in these tracks. Following the Principle of Multi-level Review, every case is reviewed by at least two levels.

Each year, academic units determine which specialized faculty members holding professorial titles should be considered for promotion. Units and colleges should be selective in their recommendations to promote faculty. Annual review meetings are an appropriate time to discuss whether and/or when a promotional review should occur.

A promotion dossier, including external review letters and the cover sheet with votes, is required for specialized faculty members to be promoted to associate or full rank. Each unit must develop written criteria and procedures for specialized faculty promotions. In developing promotion policies and procedures, departments should consult with their colleges to ensure coordination and conformance to college-level policies. As dictated by department and college procedures, units shall develop a recommendation regarding the candidate’s promotion. For the recommendation to advance, the executive officer must endorse the recommendation and submit documentation supporting and explaining the recommendation.

Each recommendation for promotion is reviewed at multiple levels, including the home unit and at each successive unit in the reporting chain up through the campus level. Faculty committees should review and make recommendations regarding promotions at each level, but how these faculty committees are constituted is left to the discretion of the unit and should be outlined in the unit bylaws, policies, or procedural documents. These unit-level documents should be made available to the unit’s specialized faculty. Those governing documents should set the unit’s schedule for preparation and review of promotions.

Units are encouraged to involve specialized faculty who already hold the rank of associate or full professor in the review process but, as noted in Provost Communication No. 25, it is important to ensure that significant tenure-system faculty involvement occurs in promotion reviews of specialized faculty. Where possible, involvement of tenure-system faculty should occur at the level of the specialized faculty member’s home unit. If that is not possible (due to, for example, the absence of any tenure-system faculty in the candidate’s home department), college-level, tenure-system faculty should be involved. Specialized faculty promotion cases are administratively reviewed by the Provost’s Office to ensure that the criteria and standards for promotions of the unit and campus have been met.

The expectations of excellence implicit in the procedures laid out in this document also apply to initial appointments to the senior ranks of associate and full teaching, research, and clinical professors at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Units can develop an expedited process to review an individual’s credentials and qualifications for an initial appointment in a professorial title at the associate or full level. More information about expedited reviews is provided below in the section entitled Initial Appointments at the Associate or Full Level.

Promotion committees at an administrative level above the candidate’s unit judge how well the case has been made for granting the promotion. In general, these committees do not need to undertake an evaluation of the overall quality of the candidate’s body of work; this is done primarily by the external referees and by the faculty of the appointing unit. It is the overall quality of the candidate’s record and the accompanying documentation, rather than the length of the dossier or the claims made for the significance of any single piece of work, that determines the final outcome.

General Guidelines for Promotion

Each of the three specialized faculty professorial tracks has criteria and expectations that are specific to the specialized focus of those appointments. Promotion from the assistant to the associate rank within all three of these appointment tracks, however, requires that the individual has accomplishments that show real promise of making an impact both within the unit and beyond.

A recommendation for promotion, either to the associate or full level, should be based upon an assessment that the candidate has made contributions of an appropriate magnitude and quality in the specialized area(s) of teaching, research, or clinical instruction that are required of the specific appointment and consistent with the rank, as specified by unit-level policies. This assessment must be supported by tangible, demonstrable evidence. The recommendation package should include a statement by the unit executive officer indicating succinctly why the unit and campus will be strengthened and why the best interests of the university will be served by the promotion.

A recommendation for promotion to the rank of full teaching, research, or clinical professor should be based upon an assessment that, since the last promotion, the candidate has made contributions of appropriate magnitude, independence, and quality in teaching and/or research and/or clinical practice and has demonstrated the ability to sustain contributions to the field and to the unit, so that granting the promotion is in the best interest of the University of Illinois.

The primary missions of the University are teaching, research, service, and public engagement. In the promotion review of specialized faculty, particular consideration should be given to the performance of the individual in the main area of the candidate’s job duties as set forth in the appointment paperwork and job description. Because of the specialized nature of each appointment, it is essential that a statement of the candidate’s job duties and expectations, including percentage of effort expected for teaching, research, and service, at the time of appointment (and at any subsequent time if changed during the period under review), be provided to the internal committees reviewing the promotion request and to external reviewers. It is expected that the appointments in the teaching professor track and clinical professor track will have at least 50% of effort assigned to teaching. Similarly, appointments in research professor track are expected to have at least 50% of effort assigned to research. Nevertheless, appropriate consideration also should be given to contributions made across the other university missions, as dictated by the structure of the candidate’s appointment and job duties. Explicit criteria for judging the quality of performance must be developed by the candidate’s unit at the time of appointment, and there should be ample evidence that these criteria are being met in an exemplary fashion.

The word “research” is interpreted throughout this document to include not only research and scholarship as narrowly understood, but also creative artistry, as well as research that is interdisciplinary and/or translational. The terms “research,” “scholarship,” “scholarly achievement,” and “creative work” are used essentially interchangeably here to denote this broader range of activity.

It should be noted that the research expectations for specialized faculty may differ from those of tenure-system faculty and must be evaluated according to their own standard, as defined by the individual units. These standards may well be broader than those for tenure-system faculty, particularly for teaching and clinical faculty who have a research component as part of their workload. Units may choose to include this component in a hire’s FTE for a wide variety of reasons, such as (but not limited to) keeping abreast of current pedagogical techniques and course content, participating in conferences, or producing performances, exhibitions, lectures or publications. Should a unit wish to include a research percentage in a new hire’s FTE, the expectations for that percentage should be made clear at the time of hire and should be made available to those conducting annual evaluations.

Criteria

The promotion of specialized faculty members to teaching, research, and clinical associate or full professors is a selective process that involves significant rigor, including the creation of a dossier that includes reviews external to the unit (the dossier and its components are discussed later in this document). The promotion criteria will differ based on the specialized focus of the appointment (i.e., teaching, research, or clinical tracks). Decisions about whether to promote a specialized faculty member ultimately rest in the guidelines established in their home units. When criteria are established at the department level, such criteria must accord with any guidelines established by their college.

Typically, it will require a number of years, roughly five or six, for individuals to build a record that establishes that the criteria for promotion have been met. It is expected that, in the normal course, the time interval from the initial time of appointment to the first promotion and from the first promotion to the next would entail an equal amount of time and effort. Although the expectation is that specialized faculty members will be given a number of years to build a record towards promotion, units should annually evaluate job performance and can make a decision to not reappoint a specialized faculty member for either performance or budgetary reasons at any time. Units must be careful not to make promises or guarantees of continued employment that are inconsistent with the non-tenured status of specialized faculty members.

Teaching Associate Professors and Teaching Professors

Teaching professors at the ranks of assistant, associate, and full are required to have either a terminal degree or equivalent expertise and experience in the relevant discipline. Promotion in the teaching professor ranks (assistant to associate or associate to full) requires demonstration that the individual is making a commensurate instructional and curricular impact both within the unit and beyond.

Units have latitude on developing expectations about the degree to which discipline-based research and/or pedagogical research are expected for specialized faculty with teaching professorial titles. They also have latitude on what service activities and activities that contribute to the University’s mission and values are expected for specialized faculty with teaching professorial titles. Thus, there is no baseline research or service expectation for promotion that is set at the campus level; what constitutes promotion-eligible research and service must instead be defined by individual units, in a manner that recognizes the differences between specialized and tenure-stream faculty workloads and resource access.

Most importantly, specific expectations for discipline-specific research and service should be clearly articulated by the candidate’s unit at the time of initial appointment, and the evaluation of the candidate’s activities should be governed by those express expectations. At a minimum, a candidate for a teaching associate professor position should be able to demonstrate scholarly instructional contributions to the department, college, campus, or broader discipline, or, if this is to be the person’s first appointment on campus, have a proven record of making such contributions.

Promotion to the rank of teaching professor should be based on fulfilled expectations in terms of the quality of disciplinary work, teaching, and pedagogy, including making advancements in teaching and learning in the discipline that led to innovative strategies and marked course improvement. At this level, a teaching professor should be making broader contributions to their discipline or field as well, such as by sharing creative, pedagogical, or scholarly work at conferences; publishing articles, monographs, edited collections, or textbooks with reputable presses; or securing competitive internal and external grants to develop curricula or research pedagogy. Units should develop appropriate discipline-specific criteria of success and have latitude to reward interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary scholarship that overlaps with their own field or discipline.

Research Associate Professors and Research Professors

Research professors at the ranks of assistant, associate, and full are required to have both a terminal degree and expertise in the relevant discipline. The impact and maturity of the candidate’s record of scholarship during their years of employment at the university are the predominant considerations in promotion to research associate professor and research professor.

Units have latitude to develop expectations for specialized faculty in the research ranks regarding instructional/pedagogical activities, as well as for service activities and activities that contribute to the University’s mission and values. These expectations should be clearly articulated by the candidate’s unit at the time of the initial appointment, and the evaluation of the candidate’s activities should be governed by those express expectations.

Research assistant professor appointments initially may be funded either entirely or partially from existing grants for which principal investigators need assistance in conducting and/or managing the research. Over time, these individuals are expected to develop independent research agendas and, typically, secure some external funding for their work. Appointment to a research associate professor title requires, at a minimum, that the individual has demonstrated the ability to make a substantial impact in a research area, as shown by publications, invited talks, external funding, and other related activities.

Promotion to the rank of research professor should be based on a fulfilled promise of quality research, including making discoveries that lead to grant funding and publications in books or leading peer-reviewed journals.

Research specialized faculty may also be expected to contribute to the teaching and mentoring students or to department, college, or university service, but these are not campus-level requirements of the position. The expectations for teaching and service should be clearly articulated by the unit at the time of the appointment and the evaluation of the candidate’s activities governed by those expressed expectations.

Clinical Associate Professors and Clinical Professors

Clinical faculty are employed throughout the university, with the greatest numbers concentrated in the medical colleges and schools (i.e., the Carle Illinois College of Medicine, the College of Veterinary Medicine, the College of Applied Health Sciences, and the School of Social Work), the College of Law, Gies College of Business, the College of Fine and Applied Arts, the College of Media, and Grainger College of Engineering. They are primarily engaged in providing instruction but do so from the perspective of an experienced and knowledgeable practitioner, either within a traditional classroom setting or a lab or other applied learning environment.

Clinical professorial appointments are the specialized faculty appointments that are most heavily determined by the academic unit’s discipline and related professional field. Because clinical professorial appointments are so closely aligned with specific disciplines, each unit must evaluate and determine the appropriate role for such appointments and have latitude to develop expectations about the degree to which such faculty are involved in instructional, research, and/or service activities, as well as activities that contribute to the University’s mission and values. Such expectations should be clearly articulated by the unit at the time of the initial appointment, and the evaluation of the faculty member’s activities should be governed by those expressed expectations, particularly when they become a candidate for promotion. Each unit must also determine minimum criteria that are appropriate to warrant a clinical professorial appointment at each rank of assistant, associate and full (e.g., degrees, certificates, professional experience). Units may also, in consultation with their college and the Office of the Provost, assign working titles to their clinical appointments (e.g., Assistant/Associate/[Full] Professor of Practice) if such titles better align with the discipline.

A recommendation for promotion to clinical associate professor or clinical professor should have supporting evidence that the candidate has met the criteria laid out in the unit promotional policy. At a minimum, promotion to a clinical associate professor must be based upon an assessment that the candidate has made contributions of an appropriate magnitude and quality in the discipline, and in the teaching and learning in the unit and on campus, and must demonstrate a high likelihood of sustaining contributions to both.

Promotion to the rank of clinical professor should be based on fulfilled expectations of appropriate accomplishments in the relevant field and with respect to teaching in the department, college and campus, as identified in the unit promotional policy.

Evaluation of the Candidate’s Performance and Potential Candidate’s and Department Head’s Roles

Although a candidate will prepare, as applicable, descriptive materials as well as personal statements of teaching, research, service and about their contributions to the University’s mission and values, the candidate should never prepare a unit’s evaluative materials in support of their promotion recommendation. The preparation of evaluative materials is the responsibility of the unit head or chair, or his or her designee. The unit should identify the evaluator for each section. Unit policy and procedures should address whether evaluators can include specialized faculty members. In all cases, evaluators must be at or above the rank of the promotion being sought. Any candidate-prepared descriptive material in the dossier must be reviewed and checked carefully by the unit head/chair or his or her designee (as determined by unit policy). Normally, it is best to have the candidate submit descriptive material and the unit head/chair or designee prepare the evaluative information in the required format.

When a case has raised significant questions, it is imperative that the unit head or chair provide commentary when forwarding that case for subsequent review at higher levels. For instance, commentary should be provided when questions are raised in the unit review of the case, when concerns are raised by the external evaluators and/or when a case receives a split advisory vote. This commentary should explain the merits of the case and address forthrightly its strengths and weaknesses.

Role and Composition of Promotion Committees

A faculty committee approves promotion materials and moves the candidates for promotion forward at each administrative level. The specific procedures for selecting the members of unit and college specialized faculty promotion committees must be set in unit bylaws. The procedures must ensure that tenure-system faculty have a significant role in the promotion process, that promotion evaluations are independent across levels (e.g., someone who votes on a case at the department level cannot also review a case at the college level), and that conflicts of interest are eliminated. Where possible, tenure-system faculty should have a significant role at the specialized faculty member’s unit level. If there are no department-level, tenure-system faculty, tenure-system faculty from the same college of the department or from a closely related unit on campus should have involvement.

Confidentiality

The Illinois Personnel Record Review Act allows specialized faculty to inspect internal evaluation documentation used for promotion review; external and internal letters of reference are not subject to inspection by the candidate and must not be released to the candidate or to any other person without a legitimate role in the formal review process for the particular promotion case at issue. (Please note the distinction between internal evaluative material and letters of reference. Written comments by any individual who participates in the decision whether to grant tenure, such as the unit head or a member of a committee voting on the recommendation, generally fall into the category of internal evaluative materials and are thus subject to release in accordance with the guidelines laid out in Provost Communication No. 9, Section 3.3.4, “Confidentiality.”)

A copy of the promotion dossier shall be made available to the candidate upon the candidate’s written request to his/her Unit Executive Officer. The earliest such request may be made is on the business day immediately following the promotion vote taken by the candidate’s unit committee. When such a request is received, the Unit Executive Officer should immediately provide all dossier materials to the Office of the Provost. The Office of the Provost will provide a redacted dossier to the faculty member; units and colleges should not provide the dossier directly to the faculty member. Note that the dossier may be in draft or incomplete form (e.g., might not contain written unit evaluations or a UEO statement) if a negative decision is made at the unit level. The Office of the Provost shall review and provide the dossier copy within the time period allowed by the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act (7 business days from receipt of said request, with a possibility of an additional 7 days when needed). The promotion dossier given to the candidate should be the dossier completed to date (including cover sheet with recorded votes but without information of the identity of the voters). Based on advice from University Legal Counsel, the following items should be removed or redacted:

Qualifications of External Evaluators
External Review Letters
Internal Letters of Reference (solicited according to the guidelines in the following paragraph):

In the context of a promotion review, a unit head/chair may solicit a letter of reference concerning the teaching or research abilities of the candidate from a colleague within the University of Illinois who is not in a supervisory position over the candidate (that is from a colleague other than people such as a division head, unit head or dean). Such a document should be excluded from disclosure as a “letter of reference.” It is important to solicit such a “letter of reference” specifically and to make sure the person being asked to provide the letter is outside of the candidate’s normal reporting chain. Other evaluations performed by a unit head are disclosable to the faculty member. Guidelines on employee access to personnel records are contained in the Campus Administrative Manual (CAM) HR – 59 Illinois Personnel Records Review Act.
Any direct quotes or attributions to either external or internal review letters contained in the Unit Evaluations (research, teaching and service) or in the Special Comments by the Unit Executive Officer.

Evaluation of Teaching

When instruction is part of an individual’s title and/or appointment, promotion recommendations must include a thorough evaluation of the candidate’s teaching. Contributions to teaching include course-based teaching, advising, mentoring, and a range of other activities. Excellent course-based teaching is: (1) well-designed, (2) well-delivered, (3) inclusive and ethical, and (4) reflective and evolving. Course-based teaching is evaluated according to whether these criteria for excellence are met. Candidates are also evaluated on the scope and quality of their other contributions to teaching at the university, including advising and mentoring at either the undergraduate and graduate levels (see Provost’s website for Teaching Feedback and Evaluation).

Teaching Statement. The candidate must provide (in three or fewer pages) a personal statement on their teaching activities. This statement describes the entire arc of the candidate’s course instruction and other contributions to teaching and learning since either starting their position at the university or their last promotion. In general, candidates should reflect on their accomplishment of the four criteria for excellence in course-based teaching (see Provost’s website for Teaching Feedback and Evaluation). If relevant, candidates may include discussion of any interdisciplinary or public engagement work prominent in their instruction. The teaching statement should use the structure specified in the Instructions for Preparing Promotion Papers (see Section 4.3.3.2.a). Units are encouraged to ask candidates to prepare this statement early in the process of review, so it can be made available to faculty members who are involved in the evaluation of the candidate’s teaching.

Unit Evaluation. The unit must complete a holistic evaluation of the candidate’s teaching. This evaluation must be aligned with the campus Definition of Teaching Excellence and, if appropriate, give attention to candidates’ efforts to serve students from diverse backgrounds and experiences. Resources for conducting these evaluations can be found on the Provost’s website for Teaching Feedback and Evaluation.

The unit will complete an evaluation of teaching for the relevant period of time (i.e., since the most recent promotion), as described in the Instructions for Preparing Promotion Papers (see Section 4.3.3.2.b). This evaluation should draw on and comment on a candidate’s teaching portfolio. The teaching portfolio must include data from student feedback, peer feedback, the candidate’s teaching statement, and, if appropriate, the candidate’s statement on their contributions to the University’s mission and values (see Provost’s website for Teaching Feedback and Evaluation for more information). The evaluation should include multi-year, multi-criteria data on student feedback, peer feedback, and instruction documentation as available. The evaluation will summarize the extent to which the candidate meets the four criteria for excellence in course-based teaching (i.e., well-designed, well-delivered, inclusive and ethical, and reflective and evolving) and whether the candidate’s other contributions to teaching at the university meet expectations for their position and rank. Structured qualitative comments should answer questions to evaluate the arc of the candidate’s teaching accomplishments over time, including a review of the candidate’s record as a mentor of graduate and undergraduate students relative to the expectations and norms of the profession. The evaluation should use the structure specified in the Instructions for Preparing Promotion Dossier (see Section 4.3.3.2.b).

Evaluation of Research

When research is a significant part of a candidate’s title and appointment, a candidate’s statement of research as well as a unit evaluation of the candidate’s scholarly portfolio and performance is necessary.

A review of a candidate’s research must include the candidate’s research statement, the unit evaluation of research accomplishments — emphasizing a representative sample of the candidate’s most important publications or creative works — and the unit evaluation of future potential.

Research Statement. The candidate’s research statement must be no longer than three pages and should summarize their research goals and accomplishments. If the candidate is seeking promotion to research associate professor, the statement should focus on research carried out since initial appointment as assistant professor. (The statement may also include work as a research assistant professor, or the equivalent, at another institution.) For candidates seeking promotion to the rank of research professor, the statement should focus on research accomplishments since the last promotion. The candidate should also discuss the relationship of past work to future research plans. This statement can be very beneficial to evaluators who are asked for written opinions about the candidate, because such a statement provides important context. It allows the reviewer to develop his or her judgments in light of the candidate’s vision, goals, and self-assessment of progress. For this reason, the candidate’s unit is encouraged to ask the candidate to complete their research statement early in the evaluation process, so that it can be shared with peer evaluators and external letter writers before their assessments take place.

Unit Evaluation. The unit evaluation consists of two distinct parts: research accomplishments during the period under review and future research potential. The unit evaluation of research accomplishments should indeed be an evaluation, not merely a description of research. In most cases, the emphasis should be placed on a representative sample of the candidate’s publications or creative works. Of particular concern are the quality of execution, the significance of the topics, and the impact on the field and, where relevant, on society and the sustainability of the research endeavor. The unit evaluation should be independent of the evaluations of external reviewers. Faculty members preparing the unit evaluation should not consult external letters when preparing their document.

The unit evaluation of future research potential has value only if it is developed in realistic terms. The discussion should focus on the candidate’s strategy for developing his or her career as a scholar and should include an assessment of the probable standing of the candidate within the subfield and larger discipline five years from the present.

Evaluation of Service

All candidates for promotion have the option of including a service statement in their promotional documentation. However, when service is a significant part of a candidate’s appointment, a candidate statement of service as well as a unit evaluation of the candidate’s service portfolio and performance is required.

Service Statement. The candidate’s service statement should be no longer than three pages and detail their service activities, along with the importance and impact of these activities. The candidate should also explain, as applicable, how these activities have met service expectations that were stated clearly at the time of the candidate’s appointment and that presently govern the candidate’s promotion review.

Unit Evaluation. As applicable, the unit should evaluate the quality and significance of the candidate’s service to the department, college, and campus as well as to the broader community. The unit evaluation also should be governed by the service expectations outlined at the candidate’s appointment and should recognize any disproportionate service burdens that have emerged. That is, a comprehensive evaluation of implicit service should also be included. For example:

The need for diverse perspectives and experiences in committee work, to create a welcoming environment for students or faculty with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints in their unit, to advise students academically, to mentor students, to provide career advice, and to provide other forms of service both inside and outside of the University of Illinois campus often creates additional implicit demands.
The land-grant and public engagement missions of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign often place additional service demands on specialized faculty.

Evaluation of Contributions to the University’s Mission and Values

Drawing on its history as a land-grant institution, the University of Illinois’ mission charges us with enhancing the lives of people in the state, nation, and world. The University serves the dynamic and evolving population of the state and nation by providing an outstanding education to students from all walks of life, addressing pressing social, economic, and moral issues with applicable and timely research, and engaging with communities both near and far. As a university, we value collaboration to solve problems and promote understanding; authentic inclusion to build community and empowerment to enable individuals to be successful. Under this section, candidates may choose to include a statement to highlight their contributions to the University’s mission and values in ways that are not evident in the research, teaching, and service statements. Units may consider those activities as part of their evaluations. A candidate who chooses not to prepare the statement faces no penalty or negative inference from this decision.

Candidate Statement. The candidate may provide (in one page or less) a personal statement detailing their specific individual and/or collaborative activities aimed at supporting the University’s mission and values. The candidate should include a discussion of the context, importance, and impact of their contributions along with their future plans for contributions. The candidate may choose to organize the statement by topic, activity, domain (e.g., research, teaching, and service), or in another manner. If the candidate has adequately discussed their contributions to the University’s mission and values in other statement(s) in the dossier (e.g., the research statement), this statement may simply reference the relevant statement(s).

Department Evaluation. The department’s evaluations of teaching, service, research and future potential (see sections 3.3.8 and 3.3.9) should, where appropriate, consider the candidate’s activities in support of the University’s mission and values and their impact.

Outside Evaluation of Research, Scholarship, Teaching, Service, Public Engagement and Creative Activity, as applicable

Letters from at least three scholars or professional specialists are required for each nominee. The number of letters solicited from within the University of Illinois (but external to the unit) and the number solicited from outside the university is at the discretion of the unit, with the approval of its college. The balance of internal to external letters should be based on the type of appointment (teaching, research, or clinical) and the work produced, and must be consistent within the unit (e.g., all research faculty with similar responsibilities within the unit will be required to have the same number of internal and external letter writers) and not redefined on a case-by-case basis. Those specialized faculty categories whose work can be well appraised by their university colleagues outside the unit may rely more heavily (if not entirely) on internal letters, while those involving highly specialized work might be better served by external evaluators. These letters are critical components of the dossier and play a major role in the decision-making process.

The letters must be appropriate in several dimensions. They must be:

sufficient in number (i.e., at least three);

from individuals chosen in the majority by the unit rather than by the candidate (i.e., if three letters are used, at most one can be from an evaluator nominated by the candidate);

from appropriately credentialed individuals at the University of Illinois or comparable institutions. An explanation must be provided for the selection of each letter writer, as well as their institution or organization;

from individuals of appropriate rank (e.g., tenured professors and specialized faculty of a more senior rank) and from outside the candidate’s unit;

from objective evaluators without conflicts of interest (for example, letters for promotion should not be solicited from the individual’s thesis advisor or current or past collaborators);

date-stamped upon receipt.

(Note that letters may also be included from individuals who are not affiliated with a university but who are knowledgeable about those standards and indicators of excellence in the candidate’s field that are meaningful to an institution of our level. However, such letters may only supplement the three letters from evaluators at academic institutions, not replace them.)

Each evaluator should receive the candidate’s dossier excluding any internal evaluative materials (peer evaluations, unit evaluation, etc.) and a representative sample of the candidate’s scholarly or creative work. A single manuscript or creative work will rarely suffice as a representative sample. The inclusion of video recordings of teaching and/or performance is also strongly encouraged, when appropriate.

In soliciting reviewers external to the university, one needs to bear in mind that they will likely not be familiar with the nature of specialized faculty appointments at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. It is extremely important that letters soliciting external reviews of specialized faculty explain the standards for promotion at our institution and define the role of specialized faculty as an appointment that is focused on a particular area: teaching, research, or clinical.(In recent years, many universities have created promotion-eligible non-tenure-track [NTT] faculty positions that are analogous to our specialized faculty; it might be useful to note this similarity as part of this explanation.)

The evaluators should be asked to review the dossier in light of the campus and unit expectations for the respective titles and the specific job duties of the candidate. To assist with this, the percentage of time allotted to each area of academic activity should also be included. The letters should also clearly state that the candidate’s promotion does not include “indefinite tenure,” and that the candidate does not need to have established a national reputation to earn promotion.

Appeal of Promotion Denials

In the event of a negative decision for promotion, candidates for promotion should be afforded an opportunity to appeal the decision at the level it was made and an opportunity for a second-level review of procedures. Thus, while a case receiving a positive recommendation is forwarded to the next level for further consideration, a case receiving a negative recommendation will be reviewed at the next level only for conformity with the department, college, and campus promotion procedures. Precise steps should be followed as outlined in those procedural documents, if possible, but they should not be treated as if the process is completely rigid. Specialized faculty members or their representatives often discover slight variations in procedures and thereupon claim that the entire process must be invalidated. Administrators who must certify the validity of the procedures used should approach the task with the understanding that minor deviations in the process can and must be tolerated. This is also the standard that any unit or campus appeal body should adhere to in an appeal of a promotion denial.

Faculty members and units should review Communication No. 10, Guidelines and Procedures for Notice of NonReappointment for Non-Tenured Faculty Members and For Denials of Tenure and/or Promotion of Faculty in the event of a negative decision for faculty members’ promotion. The university’s Statutes also provide guidance that faculty members may use to present grievances to the Faculty Advisory Committee related to the promotion process.

Initial Appointments at the Associate or Full Level

If a unit wishes to offer an initial appointment in a modified professorial title at an associate or full level, an expedited process can be followed to review the individual’s credentials and qualifications for the position. Specialized faculty expedited review processes for initial appointments should be developed by individual colleges, schools, and units and should be set forth in unit promotion policies and procedures. As with the regular promotion process for specialized faculty, expedited reviews for initial appointments to a modified professorial title at an associate or full level must be reviewed by the Provost’s Office to ensure that the criteria and standards for promotions of the department, college and campus have been met.

Assistance

For questions about promotion and tenure criteria, policy or procedures please call the Office of the Provost (333-6677).

Instructions for Preparing Promotion Papers

General Instructions

Each recommendation for promotion is presented as follows:
1. Cover Sheet (found in the attachments to this Communication)
2. Outline of Promotion Dossier
  1. Personal History and Professional Experience
  2. Publications and Creative Works
  3. Contributions to Teaching and Learning (to the extent applicable)
  4. Service (Public Engagement, Professional/Disciplinary, and University) (if applicable)
  5. Contribution to the University’s Mission and Values (optional, see Section 3.10)
  6. Research (to the extent applicable)
  7. Department Evaluation of Future Potential
  8. External Evaluations
  9. Special Comments by the Executive Officer
  10. Special Comments by the Dean (only when needed)
For each nominee, complete the appropriate cover sheet, and attach it to the recommendation package. Provide all requested data and follow the lettered and numbered headings in the outline. Where there is no information for a specific section, please note “None.” When a section is not relevant to a particular case, please note “Not applicable” (e.g., research for a teaching professor appointment in which no research is required or done).
All pages should be numbered consecutively from the cover sheet through the letters of recommendation and should end with executive officer’s comments. (Please note that, due to scanning requirements, the outside evaluation section must start on a new page, and the executive officer’s comments, which follow the outside evaluation section, also must start on a new page.) The main outline of papers should be kept to a maximum of 30 pages, exclusive of the letters of reference. Page numbers should also be provided for any manuscript, bulletin, abstract or review noted by the candidate in the section on Publications and Creative Works. Please note that most promotion recommendations are too long. A promotion that is truly warranted is readily justified in a few pages. Very long justifications suggest weakness and become counterproductive. Microscopic fonts – i.e., those smaller than 10 point – earn special disfavor.
Submit one final copy with original signatures, one sided and no staples, of each recommendation to the campus level. It may be necessary for units to provide additional copies for the school or college levels.
Submit one copy of the executive officer and dean statement of the criteria used and procedures followed by the unit (department/college/school) in reviewing the recommendation for promotion. This statement should be submitted separately (not attached to the papers). Only one statement, covering all recommendations from a given unit, is needed, unless different procedures were followed in one or more specific cases.
Because specialized faculty professorial appointments can be highly individualistic, a job description or summary of the individual’s job duties and offer letter (with redactions as appropriate) must be provided for each promotion request.
For recommendations denied at the college level, please submit two copies of the papers. These should be clearly identified and kept separate from those forwarded with recommendations for approval. These papers should not show the dean’s or director’s signature.

Cover Sheet

Please complete all blanks on the cover sheet with particular attention to the following:

List all colleges, units, and departments in which the candidate holds an appointment.
Provide a breakdown of the effort assigned to teaching, research, and service. Please note that it is expected that appointments in the teaching and clinical professor tracks will have at least 50% effort assigned to teaching and that research professor track appointments will have at least 50% effort assigned to research.
The votes of all committees reviewing the recommendation should be included. If multiple committees vote or the candidate holds a joint appointment in another unit, or if the entire unit faculty receives and votes on a recommendation from a unit committee, add a line to report the vote of each group.
The signatures of all appropriate department heads/chairs and deans or directors should be affixed.
Be sure the dates of “initial appointment” and “last promotion” at Illinois are listed on the cover sheet.

Instructions for the Outline

The following sections describe the Outline of Promotion Dossier. A copy of the outline follows as an attachment to this section.

Personal History and Professional Experience

Educational Background
Beginning with the baccalaureate degree, provide the name of the institution; degree, field of study; date of degree.
List of Academic Positions since Final Degree
In chronological order from past to present. For each position held, list inclusive dates, title, and location for each –University of Illinois and elsewhere.
Other Professional Employment
Previous and current, in chronological order as above.
Honors, Recognitions, and Outstanding Achievements
Fellowships, prizes, etc., in chronological order as above, that indicate stature in pedagogy, scholarship and engagement appropriate to the rank sought.
Invited Lectures and Invited Conference Presentations Since Last Promotion
For candidates for promotion to Professor, a full (career) list of events may be provided or, in the interest of brevity, a list of only those events since the last promotion may be provided. Events should be listed in chronological order as above.
Offices Held in Professional Societies
Editorships/Guest Editorships of Journals or Other Learned Publications
List in chronological order from past to present
Grants Received
List principal investigator first, co-principal investigators, granting agency, dates of grant, and dollar amount of grant. For candidates for promotion to Professor, a full (career) list of grants may be provided or, in the interests of brevity, a list of only those grants received since the last promotion may be provided.
Review Panels
For governmental agencies, educational institutions, or other organizations.

Publications and Creative Works

Primarily for the research professor tracks but should be included for any specialized faculty member who has publications and creative works.

When preparing information for the outline given below, please give attention to the following standards:

Within each category, place items in chronological order from past to most recent, and number each publication.
List all authors in the same order as in the original publication (i.e., do not show multiple authorship as simply “with Professors x, y, and z”).
Place a single pound sign (#) before any publication derived from the candidate’s thesis.
Place a single asterisk (*) before any publication that has undergone stringent editorial review by peers.
Place a plus sign (+) before any publication that was invited and carries special prestige and recognition.
The phrase “accepted for publication” should be used only where a written commitment to publish has been received from a publisher, subject only to final technical editing. The term should not be used to describe works still in initial development, even if a contract or invitation to publish has been offered. Works in the latter category should be described with the phrase “Incomplete work under contract to…” or comparable wording.
Provide inclusive page numbers for publications in journals.
List all publications and creative works over the course of the candidate’s career (this also applies to a candidate for promotion to Full Professor).
Reprint of papers are not required for review at the campus level.

Doctoral thesis title
Books Authored or Co-Authored, including textbooks (in print or accepted)
Books Edited or Co-Edited, including textbooks (in print or accepted)
Chapters in Books, including textbooks (in print or accepted)
Monographs (in print or accepted)
Items longer than an article, but shorter than a book. Provide inclusive page numbers for monographs.
Articles in Journals (in print or accepted)
Provide inclusive page numbers for publications in journals.
Creative Works (Exhibitions, Commissions, Competitions, Performances, Designs, Art or Architecture Executed)
Patents
Bulletins, Reports, or Conference Proceedings (in print or accepted)
Include only if these items are normally considered an important part of the publication record of a scholar or artist in this field. List in chronological order from past to present. Provide inclusive page numbers for bulletins, reports or conference proceedings.
Abstracts (in print or accepted)
Include only if these items are normally considered an important part of the publication record of a scholar or artist in this field. List in chronological order from past to present. Provide inclusive page numbers for abstracts.
Book Reviews (in print or accepted)
Include only if these items are normally considered an important part of the publication record of a scholar or artist in this field. List in chronological order from past to present. Provide inclusive page numbers for book reviews.
Referred Conference Papers and Presentations
Other Specify type.

Contributions to Teaching and Learning

Primarily for teaching professor track and clinical professor track appointments but should be included for any appointment with teaching responsibilities.

Teaching and Mentoring Record
1. Descriptive Data
  Provide information for courses, both on and off campus, since the last promotion. For each semester under review, provide a list of courses taught and the number of students enrolled in the course, as in the following sample table (The Division of Management Information posts a complete history of faculty teaching by the end of October each year on the DMI website. You may use the data from that site for this section). There is no need to change the format of the DMI report; it can be inserted as it appears on the web and in the example immediately following this page.
  
  For each course, provide a representative sample of syllabi and course materials (exams, assignments, quizzes, etc.).
  
  Following the table, include a paragraph briefly describing each course so an evaluator outside the unit has a qualitative understanding of what each course is. For each course, provide the (1) title, (2) modality of teaching, (3) number of instructors involved, and (4) role the course fills in the curriculum.
2. Where Appropriate, Supervision of Graduate Students
  To be included when part of a professor’s appointment. Supervision of graduate students may include mentorship or supervision of graduate teaching assistants, graduate research assistants, or graduate assistants in informal or formal functions.
  - List numbers of graduate students mentored or supervised with description of duties.
  - List graduate students’ achievements or recognitions tied to mentorship or supervision (e.g., teaching awards, fellowships).
  - When appropriate for each dissertation or thesis supervised, provide the student’s name and level, dates work was supervised by the candidate, current status (including whether they transferred to a different supervisor), thesis title if completed, and the student’s placement (example: Jones, Tabitha, Ph.D., 1985, “Analysis of Correlation between CEO Compensation and Return on Investment at Ten Fortune 500 Companies,” now at Arthur Andersen). Please separately list doctoral and master’s students.
3. Supervision of Undergraduate Students
  - Please list all undergraduates that have been supervised in research, honors activities, service learning, or public engagement activities.
  - For each student, provide the student’s name, term during which the activity was supervised, and nature of the activity (e.g., Brown, Keisha, Fall 2012, supervised her senior honor’s thesis).
4. Other Contributions to Instructional Programs
  Specialized faculty members may make significant contributions to teaching and learning beyond formal course-based teaching and student supervision. For consideration to the level of full, candidates should include evidence of broader contributions to teaching and learning. Unit level policies should be consulted to identify the specific indicators of success that are appropriate for the candidate’s discipline and unit. Please describe noteworthy contributions made by the candidate.
  
  Few people will have done all of the activities below, but many will have done some. For each activity in the list below, describe the extent of your work in that area by year, and explain in a sentence or two the overall quality and impact of your work. If you have not done an activity, leave it blank. Explain how training and innovation activities performed fit into the unit’s mission.
  Describe ways of remaining current in the field and improving teaching through innovations using technology or new pedagogical techniques.
  - Curriculum Development
    
    Developed new course or degree/certificate programs
    
    Developed new learning materials
    
    Engaged in documenting/publishing innovative pedagogy/programs
    
    Increased accessibility and equity in a course or learning materials
    
    Substantially revised existing course
    
    Created training materials for others to teach a course
  - Educational Service
    
    Development or delivery of training, certificates, or continuing education programs
    
    Enhanced inclusion and empowerment of students from diverse backgrounds and experiences in an educational unit
    
    Led discussion or gave presentation about teaching
    
    Mentored a colleague or graduate student in teaching
    
    Observed/peer reviewed other instructors’ teaching
    
    Taught audiences outside traditional Illinois students (e.g., high school club, community groups)
    
    Participated in or led a committee related to teaching
  - Personal development
    
    Earned instructional certification (e.g., from CITL)
    
    Participated in instructional development training or workshop
    
    Remained current in the field
    
    Innovated personal teaching practices
  - Informal student mentoring and support (formal advising is listed in sections 2 and 3 above)
    
    Contributed to student learning outside courses (e.g., clubs, study abroad)
    
    Engaged in informal graduate mentoring
    
    Engaged in informal undergraduate mentoring
Evaluation of Instruction
1. Candidate’s Teaching Statement and Self-Review
  The candidate must provide (in three or fewer pages) a personal statement on their teaching activity. This guided, structured statement should describe the arc of the candidate’s course instruction and other contributions to teaching and learning since either starting their position at the university or their last promotion. The statement should consider the following questions and relate the answers to the detailed criteria in the Definition of Teaching Excellence. All questions except the last one refer to course-based teaching.
  - What were your primary goals in teaching, and why were those goals important to you?
  - What methods have you used to accomplish your teaching goals, and why?
  - What challenges have you faced in your teaching, and how did you work to overcome those challenges? What have been your areas of most improvement?
  - What have been your areas of greatest success in teaching?
  - What are your goals for teaching in the future? Where do you see your greatest potential for further improvement?
  - How have your activities outside of course-based teaching (e.g., student advising and other activities) contributed to teaching, learning, and student success?
2. Unit Evaluation of Teaching and Course Documentation
  - Please see below for specific instructions on preparing the evaluations. Unless otherwise specified, these evaluations should be three (3) or fewer pages. Microscopic fonts (i.e., those smaller than 10 point) earn special disfavor.
  - Additional guidance for internal evaluations is provided on the Provost Website for Teaching Feedback and Evaluation. The internal evaluation of teaching should draw on a teaching portfolio that includes multi-year, multi-criteria data from the following sources:
    
    Student feedback;
    
    Peer feedback on both course design and course instruction (when possible, once every year for promotion to Associate Professor level and once every other year for promotion to Professor level);
    
    The candidate’s Summary of Teaching Activity
    
    The candidate’s Teaching Statement
    
    Other supporting documents from the candidate
    
    And, where appropriate, the candidate’s Statement of Activities in Support of the University’s Mission and Values.
  - The evaluation should follow the structure outlined below:
    
    Provide the name of the person(s) who developed the evaluation.
    
    In three or fewer pages, the statement should:
    
    Give a holistic summary of student feedback data
    
    Give a holistic summary of peer feedback data.
    
    To the best of the unit’s ability given available data, answer the following questions about the candidate’s teaching record since their initial appointment or last promotion:
    
    Since the initial appointment or last promotion, has the candidate improved in some aspect of the criteria for excellence in course-based teaching (well-designed; well-delivered; inclusive and ethical; reflective and evolving)?
    
    What challenges has the candidate faced, if any?
    
    What are areas of sustained and/or current excellence?
    
    What are areas of sustained and/or current potential for improvement?
    
    Is the candidate meeting or exceeding expectations as appropriate for their proposed position and rank in the criteria for excellence in course-based teaching? Please provide a short discussion of each criterion: well-designed; well-delivered; inclusive and ethical; reflective and evolving
    
    Is the candidate meeting or exceeding expectations in contributions to teaching and mentoring outside the classroom as appropriate for their position and rank? Please provide a short description of the candidate’s activities.
    
    How has the candidate contributed to collaboration, inclusion, and empowerment in the teaching context?

Service (Public Engagement, Professional/ Disciplinary, and University)

Specialized faculty members may have three types of service included in Section V of the dossier: public engagement, professional/disciplinary, and University/campus. Explicit expectations for service shall be stated at the time of the candidate’s appointment and shall govern the candidate’s promotion review.

Summary of Service
1. Public Engagement
  Definition: Public engagement is the application for the public good of the knowledge and expertise of a faculty or staff member to issues of societal importance. Typically, this activity is done in collaboration with others both within and outside of the university. The activity may enrich research and teaching as well as lead to new directions within the university. Public engagement falls under the service mission of the university.
  
  Summary: Indicate public engagement and outreach activities performed in assisting agencies, schools, businesses, governmental agencies or other groups and individuals who benefit from the knowledge, information and services resident within the University community. To be recognized as public engagement, activities should:
  - Contribute to the public welfare or the common good.
  - Call upon the specialized faculty member’s academic, professional, or creative expertise.
  - Directly address or respond to societal problems, issues, interests or concerns.
2. Service to Disciplinary and Professional Societies or Associations
  List and describe service activities that are not included in Section I, Personal History and Professional Experience.
3. University/ Campus Service
  Indicate service on departmental, college, campus and university committees as well as administrative assignments.
Evaluation of Service
Please provide the name of the person who developed the evaluation.
1. Public Engagement
  Provide evidence of quality and impact; describe dissemination of the public service work through publications and adoption by others; if appropriate, illustrate how the public service activities are integrated with research and/or teaching.
2. Service to Disciplinary and Professional Societies or Associations
  Provide evidence of major contributions which affected the societies/ associations beyond routine committee and officer service; include recognition and honors.
3. University/ Campus Service
  Provide evidence of impact of contributions to the department, college, campus or University.

Research

Primarily for research professor track but should be included for any specialized faculty member engaged in research.

Candidate’s Statement of Research Goals and Accomplishments
- The candidate must provide (in three pages or less) a statement of research goals and accomplishments, in terms of how that research supports their teaching, their pedagogical approaches, and serves the department.
- If teaching is the primary basis for the recommended promotion, the statement must reflect accomplishments and future plans in teaching and how they relate to the research activity.
Departmental Evaluation of Research Accomplishments
- Please provide the name of the individual who developed the evaluation.
- Research should be evaluated (not merely described) with emphasis on at least two publications or creative works.
- The evaluation should address the dimensions of quality of execution, significance of topic, and impact on the field.
Departmental Evaluation of Future Potential
- Please provide the name of the individual who developed the evaluation.
- Evaluate the candidate’s strategy for developing his or her research beyond recent accomplishments.
- Assess, in realistic terms, the probable standing of the candidate in his or her field five years from now.

External Evaluations

Sample Letter(s) to External Evaluators
Include a copy of the letter (or letters, if different versions) used to solicit these outside evaluations. As the letter is composed, please attend to the following points:
- Be sure the letter is neutral in tone.
- Indicate the rank to which the candidate is being promoted and clearly state that the promotion will not include the awarding of indefinite tenure.
- Include the following required statement that explains specialized faculty appointments:
  “At the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, non-tenure system faculty position (referred to as “specialized faculty” at Illinois) included Teaching, Clinical and Research Professors (Assistant, Associate and Full). Specialized faculty members make substantial contributions to our research, teaching and service missions, but their scope of work is more specific than their tenure-system peers and the performance expectations are different. Performance expectations and promotion criteria are set forth in the individual’s job description (attached) [alternatively: “in the statement of the individual’s job duties (attached)”] and departmental and college promotion criteria [attached].”
- Include a job description and department and college promotion criteria, including percentage of effort for teaching, research and service
- Use the following required language to indicate that the referee’s response will be protected as confidential:
  “The policy of the University of Illinois is to hold in confidence all letters of evaluation from persons outside the institution. Only the committees and administrative officers directly responsible for the decision of concern here will have access to your letter. It will not be provided to the person on whom you comment unless we are compelled by law to do so.”
- Use the following required language to indicate that the evaluator should not consider the faculty member’s length of service.
  “Our policy states that the criteria for promotion of specialized faculty at Illinois are the same regardless of length of service.”
Qualifications of the External Evaluators
- On one page, list the names, addresses, and affiliations of all scholars or professional specialists outside the University of Illinois from whom you have solicited letters of evaluation.
- A majority of the external evaluations must come from the department’s, rather than the candidate’s, nominations. These provisions suggest, in combination, that the unit request four to eight names from the candidate, that it solicit opinions from no more than two or three of the candidate’s choices, and that it obtain a slightly larger number of opinions from others.
- In order to distinguish those referees chosen by the candidate from those chosen by the department, please add after the referee’s name either “(chosen by the candidate)” or “(chosen by the department).”
- Provide a brief description of the qualifications of each outside referee (i.e., rank, position, and credentials.)
- The outside evaluators should be chosen consistent with the explicit requirements regarding evaluators set forth in the department’s promotional policy and procedures for specialized faculty.
- If the referee is familiar with the candidate’s works, include a statement of how the referee knows the candidate and his/her work if this is not obvious from the evaluator’s letter.
- If a letter of evaluation was not received from someone who was asked to provide one, please explain why there was no response.
External Letters
- Letters from each outside reviewer should be numbered inclusively within the recommendation packet.
- All letters received in response to the unit’s request for external evaluation must be included.
- Date-stamped upon receipt.

Special Comments by the Unit Executive Officer

Please discuss any outstanding characteristics of the staff member not covered in the preceding sections. The unit executive officer’s comments should always be the last item in the dossier (with the exception of addenda included at subsequent steps in the process).

The unit executive officer is strongly encouraged to address any negative aspects of the candidate’s record or the outside letters and explain why these aspects should not be decisive in the case in question.

The unit executive officer should include in his/her comments any new evidence that has led to the submission of a promotion recommendation that had been denied from the previous year.

As the “Special Comments by the Unit Executive Officer” addresses and clarifies information within the promotion dossier, as well as information in the letters of reference, it is important that this section be placed at the end of the packet. Please be sure the executive officer’s comments are the last item in the promotion packet, unless there is a need for Special Comments by the Dean (see below).

Special Comments by the Dean (only when needed)

When a case is forwarded for campus review after significant questions were raised during its review at the college or school level, or by external evaluators, or it received a split vote, it is imperative that the Dean of the submitting unit provide commentary on the case for successive reviewers. This commentary should explain the merits of the case and address forthrightly its strengths and weaknesses. To formulate this commentary, the dean may need to be present during the committee’s discussion of the merits of the case. Special Comments from the Dean are needed only when there are significant questions raised at the college/school level and/or there is a split vote by the college-level review committee.

Assistance

For questions about promotion criteria, policy or procedures please call the Office of the Provost (333-6677).

Attachments

Footnotes

Please see Provost Communication No. 25 for guidelines regarding promotions for instructors and lecturers. ↩︎
In accordance with University Statute Article VIII.1.a, this Communication uses “unit” as a collective term to refer to departments, schools and colleges and employs the specific terms “department,” “school,” and “college” where appropriate and necessary for clarity. ↩︎