Last revised November 2024

Preamble: Recognizing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is deeply committed to the welfare and well-being of our faculty members and acknowledges the differential and negative impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic may have on career development. In particular, many women faculty and faculty members of color have faced significant challenges in managing the pandemic. Therefore, in considering decisions about promotion and tenure, the University must evaluate each candidate’s research, teaching, service, and public engagement activities within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Provost’s Communication #9, the overriding criterion in decisions about promotions and tenure is whether the decision is in “the best interest of the University of Illinois” (p. 2). This criterion is, by its very nature, forward-looking. Promotion decisions, therefore, do not center on whether the candidate clears a certain hurdle or meets a minimum threshold; rather, the fundamental question is whether the University expects that the candidate will continue to perform the duties of a faculty member at the highest level, consistent with the University’s expectations of excellence. In the case of promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, the University assesses whether the candidate has demonstrated the potential to become a leader in their field, on the campus, in the unit, and in the community (p. 8). In weighing the promotion to Full Professor, the University evaluates whether the candidate has fulfilled that potential and will continue to be an energetic and recognized contributor to the University’s mission (p. 8). In both situations, the University looks to the candidate’s record to assess future trajectory, making inferences about what the candidate is likely to accomplish in the future based on how the candidate has performed in the past.

As a University community, we recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly changes the amount of information available to make our collective judgment about the faculty member’s trajectory. For many candidates, we must accept that our inferences about a candidate’s future potential will likely be based on a reduced level of output and information than in the past. We cannot simply rely on traditional milestones, benchmarks, and markers. Instead, we must take special care to evaluate the candidate’s record in light of the challenges created by the pandemic.

 While the information available to make these important decisions about promotion and tenure has changed, our forward-looking standards have not changed. The University remains focused on whether promotion of the candidate is in the best interests of the institution. And the University still expects excellence, as demonstrated by visible and meaningful contributions to the research, teaching, service, and engagement missions of our institution.

Toward that end, Communication #9 has been temporarily modified to acknowledge the impact of the pandemic. These modifications will remain in place through Academic Year 2025-2026.

Overview

The promotion of faculty members and awarding tenure are the most important decisions made by the university, for they determine the quality of the faculty for decades to come. Because tenure has consequences of long life and great magnitude, it should be awarded only when the best interest of the University of Illinois is clearly served. This is the overriding criterion. Departments, schools, and colleges, therefore, are expected to adhere to the highest standards in their recommendations, particularly for appointments to indefinite tenure. The expectations of excellence implicit in the procedures laid out in this document apply to all candidates proposed for appointments with tenure at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.  

Illinois uses a multi-stage process for promotion and tenure decisions. Each year, academic units determine which faculty members should be considered for promotion and/or tenure. Entry-level faculty members are normally assigned a tenure code of “1” upon initial employment, which is incremented in each successive year. Faculty members with a tenure code of “6” must be reviewed for promotion and tenure. Those in the penultimate year of a “Q” appointment must be reviewed for indefinite tenure. Faculty members with indefinite tenure are reviewed for promotion at the discretion of the unit, in conversation with the prospective candidate or according to policies determined by individual colleges. 

A promotion dossier, including letters and the completed Votes by Committee online form, is required for all faculty members in the sixth year of the probationary period and for tenured candidates seeking promotion. The Instructions for Preparing Promotion Dossiers section of this Communication provides details on preparing the dossier. Instructions for completing the Promotion and Tenure dossier can be found in Section 4, and in the attachments section of this Communication.  

The promotion and tenure process takes most of the academic year to complete because each recommendation is reviewed at multiple levels, including the home unit and at each successive unit in the reporting chain up through the campus level. Every case is reviewed by at least two levels. The faculty members of the units, through procedures defined in the unit bylaws, develop a recommendation. Having received the recommendation of the faculty, the executive officer chooses whether to advance the dossier and submits documentation to the next level supporting and explaining the decision. Promotion and tenure committees above the level of a candidate’s unit judge how well the case has been made either for the granting of indefinite tenure or promotion. In general, these committees do not evaluate the specific work itself; this is done by the external referees and faculty members of the unit(s) in which the candidate’s appointment lies. 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 ultimate outcome.  

The Provost makes the final decision, with advice from the Campus Committee on Promotion and Tenure.  

Faculty members and units should review Communication No. 10, Guidelines and Procedures for Notice of Non-Reappointment 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 and/or tenure. The university’s Statutes also provide guidance that faculty members may use to present grievances to the Faculty Advisory Committee related to the promotion and tenure process. 

Calendar of Events

*If any of the indicated dates falls on a weekend, the first business day following that date will serve as the deadline. Adherence to these dates is critical for full deliberation and consideration of a case. 

Please note. Deadlines for submission of promotion papers to college offices will pre-date these deadlines and may differ by college. Please check these dates with the relevant college office. 

Assistance

For questions about promotion and tenure criteria, policies, or procedures, please call the Office of the Provost (217-333-6677) or email provost-facultyaffairs@illinois.edu.

Criteria and General Guidelines

The description of the criteria and general considerations in recommending promotion and tenure are presented in the following sections:

Criteria

The promotion of faculty members and awarding tenure are the most important decisions made by the university, for they determine the quality of the faculty for decades to come. Because tenure has consequences of long life and great magnitude, it should be awarded only when the best interest of the University of Illinois is clearly served. This is the overriding criterion. Departments, schools, and colleges, therefore, are expected to adhere to the highest standards in their recommendations, particularly for appointments to indefinite tenure. As disciplines evolve, new emphases and opportunities will develop for research, teaching, and service, as well as public engagement in each of these domains. Thus, evaluation criteria should be applied with sufficient flexibility to acknowledge important emerging forms of excellence.

Definitions and Domains of Evaluation

Research, teaching, and service are the three major domains in which candidates’ performance and potential are evaluated. The term research is interpreted throughout this Communication to include not only research and scholarship as narrowly understood, but also creative artistry. The terms research, scholarship, scholarly achievement, and creative work are used interchangeably here to denote this broader range of activity. Research cutting across traditional disciplinary boundaries is often referred to as convergent, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and/or transdisciplinary. The term interdisciplinary is used in this Communication to describe any research crossing disciplines. Some, but not all, interdisciplinary scholars may have budgeted joint appointments (see Communication No. 23).  

For some candidates, public engagement may be a major facet of one or all three domains (i.e., research, teaching, and service). Public engagement involves faculty members drawing on their expertise to address or respond to societal problems, concerns, issues, or interests to contribute to the public good. Public engagement occurs in collaboration with public or private communities or organizations at the local, state, national, or international level for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity. To the extent that they encapsulate the key concepts outlined above, a variety of other terms, such as civic scholarship, community partnerships, innovation and entrepreneurship engagement, Extension, outreach, public-facing scholarship, public impact research, public service, social innovation, and technology transfer, may be considered public engagement in the context of research, teaching, and/or service.  

Following from the University of Illinois’ guiding principles, candidates are expected to contribute toward a diverse community characterized by equity and inclusion. The university is dedicated to providing access and opportunity for all students, faculty, and staff, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, language, culture, national origin, religious or spiritual commitments, age, and (dis)ability status. 

So that all members of our campus community can thrive, the university pursues equitable practices to acknowledge and address current, as well as historical, structural inequalities that advantage some and disadvantage others. The university seeks to be inclusive through intentional, ongoing efforts to ensure all members of our campus community are respected, enjoy a sense of belonging, and are able to participate and achieve to their full potential. Although the nature and extent of the activities will vary, all faculty are expected to make contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion in at least one of the three domains (i.e., research, teaching, and service). The Guide to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Promotion and Tenure Process in the attachments to this Communication provides examples of such contributions.

Contributions to Excellence

The mission of the University of Illinois is to enhance the lives of the people of Illinois, the nation, and the world through leadership in discovery, learning, and economic development. Faculty contributions in research, teaching, and service are critical to the success of the university’s mission. The university’s mission is also served by faculty activities within each of the domains of research, teaching, and service that involve public engagement and enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion on our campus and in the community, state, nation, and world.  

Promotion and tenure decisions involve a holistic evaluation of not only past performance, but also the likelihood of continued excellence. The university is committed to excellence in research, teaching, and service but recognizes that it is rare for an individual case to achieve equal excellence in all three domains. For most faculty members, the primary basis for promotion and tenure will be the candidate’s record of research and teaching, with consideration also being given to service as well as public engagement and diversity, equity, and inclusion in research, teaching, and service. Promotion and tenure will generally be awarded only if there is evidence of excellent research accomplishments and a strong record of teaching and service. However, it may also be that excellence in teaching and service activities will meet the requirements for promotion and tenure as long as the candidate’s research accomplishments are sufficiently strong.

Promotion to Associate Professor with Indefinite Tenure

Promotion to associate professor with indefinite tenure should be recommended only if a candidate shows concrete evidence of accomplishments. It should be clear that the candidate exhibits real promise of becoming a leader in their field. Recommendation for tenure should be based on an assessment that the candidate has made contributions of an appropriate magnitude and demonstrates a high likelihood of sustaining contributions to the field and university.

Promotion to Full Professor

Recommendation for promotion to full professor should include concrete evidence of national or international stature in the candidate’s field. The recommendation should be based on an assessment that, since the last promotion, the candidate has made contributions of appropriate magnitude, independence, and quality. The candidate should demonstrate the ability to sustain such contributions to their field and the university. In making an assessment, it is the totality of the contribution since the promotion to associate professor, rather than the amount of time that has passed or the consistency in research production, that is relevant. Supervision of graduate or professional students to degree completion (or for faculty in positions with limited engagement in graduate or professional education, corresponding achievements involving undergraduates) is expected for the promotion to full professor.

Department’s Role in Guiding Faculty

Departments should communicate expectations for promotion to their assistant and associate professors. Departments should provide clear, consistent, and timely guidelines regarding what activities and accomplishments are valued by the unit. In doing so, every effort should be made to ensure expectations are consistent with those used in the evaluation process for promotion, including specific items in the dossier. These guidelines should enable faculty members to focus their activities on work that is valued by their department and discipline; they should also help departments to apply expectations without bias and communicate them to higher levels of review (e.g., in the promotion dossier). Although the unit should communicate expectations for promotion, the candidate is ultimately responsible for their own professional activities.  

Departments should establish guidelines and procedures to ensure fair, systematic, and regular consideration of when faculty members are ready for promotion and tenure. For example, the decision to consider an associate professor for promotion should not be based solely on requests from individual faculty members. Rather, departments should have systematic procedures in place to consider all eligible faculty members at particular time points (e.g., the records of all associate professors could be discussed by a committee after their third year in rank and annually thereafter). Consideration should lead to not only a decision about promotion, but also feedback about the path forward to promotion. As assistant professors may be considered for promotion and tenure in any year before the sixth year of the probationary period (see section 3.4.1), similar procedures should be in place to make decisions about promotion from assistant to associate professor.

Summary

In sum, research, teaching, and service, along with public engagement and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts within each of these domains, are all to be considered at the time of promotion. The appropriate evidence of excellence will vary among fields of study and the nature of the appointment. Evaluation criteria should be applied with sufficient flexibility to acknowledge important emerging forms of excellence. Realistically, outstanding performance from all faculty members in all domains cannot be expected. Thus, the university operates on a compensatory system such that, within a demand for overall excellence, the required level of quality may be achieved with somewhat greater strength in one domain than another. If a candidate is actually weak in research or another core domain as defined by the nature of their appointment, awarding promotion or indefinite tenure may not be in the best interest of the University.

Process and Preparation

Process Overview

To achieve tenure and promotion on this campus, it is necessary to receive positive recommendations at each level considering the case, beginning with the department or home unit(s). Each decision typically involves a two-step process encompassing (1) a review by a duly-constituted promotion and tenure committee comprised of tenured and appropriately ranked faculty members and (2) the independent endorsement of the unit’s executive officer (EO). A case endorsed at the department level requires successive levels of review (i.e., school, college, and campus), each of which must also act positively. The final recommendation on promotion and tenure is made by the Provost, acting with the advice and consultation of the Campus Committee on Promotion and Tenure. Promotion and tenure are granted upon action of the Board of Trustees. 

Communication No. 10 provides information on the process that applies to negative recommendations. In brief, a candidate receiving a negative recommendation at any level may request a substantive reconsideration at that level and may request that the next-higher level EO review the procedures used to arrive at the recommendation. 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 procedural notice requirements.

Preparing the Promotion Dossier

Detailed guidance on the development of promotion papers is available in Section 4 Instructions for Preparing Promotion Dossier of this Communication. A promotion recommendation must follow the standard format defined in Section 4.1 Instructions for Completing the Promotion and Tenure Outline section. The Outline calls for facts and descriptive text information concerning teaching, research, and service. It also requires a unit-level, independent evaluation of the work in each domain.

Evaluation of the Candidate’s Performance and Potential

Candidate’s and Executive Officer’s Roles

The EO, their designees, or relevant committees, as determined by the unit’s bylaws, is responsible for preparing the promotion documents, including evaluative materials prepared at the departmental level. Candidates for promotion should never prepare evaluative materials in support of their promotion recommendation.

Candidate’s Role

The candidate is expected to submit descriptive material in the required format and the EO or designee prepare evaluative information in the dossier. The candidate may prepare descriptive material for the dossier, which must be reviewed and checked carefully by the department EO for accuracy and completeness. It is acceptable for faculty candidates to seek advice from EOs or their designees in the preparation of their dossier. The candidate may submit names of external letter writers to the EO for consideration, and the candidate may ask the EO to request a collaborator letter if they are engaged in team research (see C.8.d below).

Executive Officer’s Role

The EO provides oversight of the promotion and tenure process, including who serves on the promotion committee, the choice of external letter writers, and the content of the evaluation. The EO or their designees may advise candidates in the preparation of the candidate’s dossier.  

In managing the case, the EO should consider the role that bias can play in the promotion and tenure cases of faculty members from groups historically underrepresented and/or marginalized in academia due to their race and ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability status, religion, national or geographic origin, language use, socio-economic background, or other factors. The EO is responsible for ensuring that faculty members involved in case decisions seek and access information and resources to enhance their understanding of issues of bias and inequities that commonly occur in promotion and tenure (e.g., EO encourages committee members to participate in University or college-level workshops on diversity and equity in promotion and tenure). 

The department EO, their designee, or relevant committee chair should delegate one or more faculty members to evaluate each of the different aspects of the candidate’s record. Evaluators should be senior and tenured faculty members who hold an equal or higher rank than the rank proposed for the candidate (i.e., only full professors should evaluate candidates for full professor) and should have no conflict of interest in evaluating the candidate (e.g., should not be a close collaborator or friend). It is not advisable that a single evaluator prepares more than one section of the dossier (i.e., teaching evaluation, service evaluation, research evaluation, and future potential). The unit must provide the identity of the evaluators for each section.  

In recommending the case to the next level (i.e., from the department to the school or college; from the school to college; or from the college to campus), the EO is required to make comments in a separate section of the dossier. The EO should indicate succinctly why the unit will be strengthened and how the best interests of the university will be served by promoting the candidate, especially if the promotion includes indefinite tenure. In their comments, the EO should discuss the following topics, including but not limited to: 

• any aspect of the candidate’s record not addressed in the dossier; 
• any aspect of the candidate’s research, teaching, and/or service record that may raise questions about the candidate’s ability to sustain a high level of productivity;  
• recusals and absences in the evaluation process; 
• split votes in the unit(s); 
• the frequency of and reasons for declines by potential external evaluators; 
• potential conflicts of interest in the external letters (e.g., if the external evaluator collaborated with the candidate and/or served in an advisory capacity);  
• negative comments or recommendations by any external evaluator. 

When preparing the EO statement, the EO should consider and, if necessary, address the specific instances of bias and cumulative professional disadvantages (e.g., excessive service, lack of mentoring, and being under-championed), that may have negatively affected the trajectory of the faculty candidate, particularly for candidates from groups historically underrepresented and/or marginalized in the field of study. EOs should refrain from including in their statements the conditions and special programs under which a candidate was initially hired (e.g., Targets of Opportunity Program, Dual Career Program, DRIVE Post-Doctoral, etc.). EOs should include in their comments any new evidence that has led to the submission of promotion recommendation that had been denied previously. 

In recommending the case to the next level, it is incumbent on the EO to explain why the case should go forward and is in the best interest of the university.

Role and Composition of Promotion and Tenure Committees

At each level in the process for consideration of promotion and tenure, the promotion and tenure committee, which is comprised of tenured faculty members, provides advice to the EO concerning the merits of each candidate. The advice includes a formal vote of the committee with the results of the ballot recorded on the Votes by Committee online form before it moves to the next level. 

The specific procedures for selecting the members of departmental-, school-, and college-level promotion and tenure committees are set in each unit’s bylaws. For faculty members with budgeted joint appointments, the guidelines in Communication No. 23 should be followed. For candidates who do not have a joint appointment but are substantially engaged in interdisciplinary research, Communication No. 23 may also be consulted. 

The procedures for selecting members of the department, school, and college promotion and tenure committees should respect four general principles: 

• Principle 1. Membership on promotion and tenure committees is limited to tenured faculty members.  
• Principle 2. Advice concerning candidates for the rank of full professor should be provided by only full professors, whereas both associate and full professors may participate in the advisory process for candidates for the rank of associate professor.  
• Principle 3. Promotion and tenure evaluations should be independent across levels. That is, no faculty member should actively participate (e.g., review, evaluate, advocate, vote) in promotion and tenure reviews at two or more different levels. For example, a faculty member cannot advocate for a candidate or write an internal evaluation or letter at the department or college level and vote at the campus level. It is strongly encouraged that eligible faculty members vote at the lowest level possible and subsequently recuse themselves from voting at higher levels.  
• Principle 4. Any faculty member with a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, should not participate (e.g., review, evaluate, advocate, or vote) in a candidate’s promotion and tenure review. The guiding principle is that faculty members should recuse themselves from involvement in a case when they stand to benefit personally from the outcome of the case or are unable to evaluate the merits of the case objectively. A conflict of interest may exist, for example, if an individual shared a common grant or was a close collaborator on a number of common projects with the candidate. 

Exceptions in practice to these principles require the prior approval of the Provost. 

Once the evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications is complete, eligible faculty members on the unit’s promotion and tenure committee will have the opportunity to vote in favor of or against recommending promotion. Abstention is not as an option on the online ballot form. At each level, the number of votes for and against recommending promotion as well as the number of faculty members who have been recused from the process will be recorded in the dossier. The EO statement must include the reasons for each recusal. These reasons may include a conflict of interest or participation in the evaluation process at another level. The EO should provide an explanation in their statement to account for faculty members who were absent and did not record a vote (e.g., inability to review the dossier due to the faculty member being on leave or sabbatical).

In Cases of Split Votes or Negative Evaluations: Role of the Dean or Director

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, and/or it received a split vote, it is imperative that the Dean or School Director of the submitting unit provide a commentary on the case for successive reviewers. This commentary should explain the merits of the case and address forthrightly its strengths and weaknesses.

Confidentiality

Faculty members involved in reviewing promotion and tenure cases at any level must not share any aspect of the case, including discussions about it, with the candidate or any other person who does not have a legitimate role in the formal review process for the case. 

The Illinois Personnel Record Review Act allows faculty members to inspect internal evaluation documentation used for promotion and tenure review; external and internal letters of reference are not subject to inspection by the candidate and should not be released to the candidate or any other person who does not have a legitimate role in the formal review process for the particular promotion and tenure case at issue. Note the distinction between internal evaluative material and external letters. Written comments by any faculty member who participates in the decision of whether to grant tenure, such as the EO 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.  

A copy of the promotion and tenure dossier shall be made available to the candidates upon their written request to their unit EO. The earliest such request may be made is on the business day immediately following the promotion and tenure vote taken by the candidate’s unit promotion and tenure committee. When such a request is received, the EO should provide all dossier materials to a designee within the Office of the Provost. Note that the dossier may be in draft or incomplete form (i.e., might not contain an EO statement) if a negative decision is made at the departmental level. IHR will review and provide the dossier copy within the time period allowed by the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act (i.e., 7 business days from receipt of said request, with a possibility of an additional 7 days when needed). The promotion and tenure dossier given to the candidate should be the dossier completed to date (including the cover sheet with the 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: 

1. qualifications of external evaluators; 
2. external review letters; 
3. internal review letters; 
4. collaborator letters; and 
5. any/or direct quotes or attributions to either external or internal review letters contained in the dossier or Special Comments by the EOs.

Evaluation of Contributions to Teaching, Learning, and Student Mentoring

Contributions to teaching include course-based teaching, advising, mentoring, and a range of other activities (see the Definition of Teaching Excellence at the University of Illinois in the attachments to this Communication). 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 both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Candidate Teaching Statement

The candidate must provide (in three or fewer pages) a personal statement on their teaching activity. 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 attachments Definition of Teaching Excellence). 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 Dossiers (see Section 4). 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. 

Department Evaluation

All promotion and tenure recommendations must include a thorough evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, including the publicly engaged facet when relevant. This evaluation must be aligned with the Definition of Teaching Excellence and, if appropriate, give attention to candidates’ efforts to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion in the teaching context (see the Guide to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Promotion and Tenure Process in the attachments to this Communication).  

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 Dossiers (see Section 4). This evaluation must draw on student feedback, peer evaluation, the candidate’s teaching statement, and, if appropriate, the candidate’s statement of DEI activities. The evaluation should include multi-year, multi-criteria data on student feedback and peer evaluations as are 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 will 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).

Evaluation of Service

Candidate Statement

The candidate has the option to provide a personal statement (in three pages or less) detailing their service activities along with the importance and impact of these activities. This statement may be particularly useful for candidates who have been significantly involved in service to the university (e.g., departmental committees, Academic Senate, or fundraising efforts), their field (e.g., professional society committees, workshop organization, or grant panels), and/or the broader community at the local, state, national, or international level (e.g., public engagement, Extension, or outreach).  

Publicly engaged research should be covered in the research statement. Publicly engaged teaching should be covered in the teaching statement.

Department Evaluation

A description and evaluation of the faculty member’s service is required. Service to the university and candidate’s field as well as the broader community at the local, state, national, and/or international level should be discussed. Where relevant, efforts toward diversity, equity, and inclusion made by the candidate in terms of service (see the Guide to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Promotion and Tenure Process in the attachment to this Communication) should be discussed. This evaluation should draw on the candidate’s service statement, and, if appropriate, the candidate’s statement of diversity, equity, and inclusion activities. 

The evaluation of service should recognize the disproportionate service burdens of some faculty, particularly those from groups historically underrepresented and/or marginalized in academia. For example: 

• The need for diversity in leadership, committee work, editorships, student advising, and other formal service both inside and outside of the university often creates additional demands for service;  
• The land-grant and public engagement missions of the university can place additional service demands for faculty from groups historically underrepresented and/or marginalized in academia;  
• Faculty from groups historically underrepresented and/or marginalized in academia often find themselves providing disproportionate informal service such as mentoring and advising students, as well as other faculty (see Informal or Implicit Service Examples in the attachment to this Communication).

Evaluation of Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Note. The statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion activities will remain optional for candidates through Academic Year 2025-2026. The proposal is currently under review and information about any updates will be shared to all units. Candidates may continue to choose to include a statement under this section to highlight their contributions and units may consider those activities as part of their evaluations. During this period, 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 diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as access (for examples of activities and guidelines for preparing the statement, see the Guide to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Promotion and Tenure Process in the attachments to this Communication). 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 diversity, equity, and inclusion in another 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 and service (see sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6) as well as research and future potential (see sections 3.3.8 and 3.3.9) must, where appropriate, consider the candidate’s diversity, equity, and inclusion activities and their impact. Units should consult the candidate’s statement of diversity, equity, and inclusion activities.

Internal Evaluation of Research

The portion of the recommendation focusing on research includes the candidate’s statement of research goals and accomplishments, the unit’s evaluation of research accomplishments—emphasizing at least two publications or creative works—and the unit’s evaluation of future potential.

Candidate Statement

The candidate must provide (in three pages or less) a statement of research goals and accomplishments.  

• For promotion to associate professor, the statement should emphasize work since the initial appointment as assistant professor but may include work prior to the appointment. The candidate should also discuss the relation of past work to plans for future research. 
• For promotion to full professor, the statement should focus on accomplishments since the last promotion. The candidate should also discuss the relation of past work to plans for future research. 

When public engagement is an important part of the candidate’s program of research, the statement should include a description of those accomplishments.  

When a substantial proportion of the candidate’s research involves collaborative efforts and the candidate is not the leader of the team (e.g., the PI or first, last, or corresponding author on publications), the candidate should discuss the specific nature of their distinctive contribution, along with the significance and impact of the work as a whole.  

The candidate’s statement can provide important context to external authorities asked for their written opinion of the candidate. It allows reviewers to develop their judgments in light of the candidate’s vision, goals, and assessment of progress. For this reason, the unit is encouraged to ask the candidate to develop the research statement at an early stage in the evaluation, so that a draft can be included with the distribution to external reviewers. Early preparation of the statement also creates an opportunity for the candidate to revise the statement before submission for evaluation by external evaluators. 

Department Evaluation

The department’s evaluation should articulate the expectations and criteria used to judge the candidate’s research and assess how the candidate’s accomplishments meet these expectations and criteria. The department’s evaluation should be an evaluation, not merely a description, of the candidate’s research. In most cases, the emphasis should be placed on at least two publications or creative works. Of particular concern are the quality of execution, the significance of the topics, 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 rely on external letters when preparing the internal evaluation. 

Where appropriate, efforts toward diversity, equity, and inclusion made by the candidate in their research (see the Guide to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Promotion and Tenure Process) should be discussed in the department evaluation. Units should consult the candidate’s statement of diversity, equity, and inclusion activities.  

When public engagement is part of the candidate’s program of research, the evaluation should discuss the candidate’s public engagement related to their research.  

If a substantial proportion of the candidate’s research is collaborative and the candidate is not the leader (e.g., the PI), the evaluation should make clear the candidate’s distinctive contribution, as well as the work as a whole. If relevant, the evaluator(s) should address challenges in conducting or evaluating research that is interdisciplinary and/or publicly engaged.

Public Engagement Research Option (PERO)

It is expected that publicly engaged research conducted by faculty members will generate scholarly and/or creative products (e.g., peer reviewed journal articles, books, and/or grants) whose impact can be captured by traditional metrics. Publicly engaged research may also generate products (e.g., policy reports, museum exhibits, and/or websites) whose impact may not be adequately captured by traditional metrics. Faculty may want to select the Public Engagement Research Option (PERO) when a substantial proportion of their record is comprised of such products. PERO allows traditional metrics to be supplemented by alternative metrics that provide insight into societal impact (see the Public Engagement Research Option Guide in the attachments to this Communication).  

The decision to take PERO should be made by the candidate in collaboration with the EO as early as possible, but no later than two calendar years prior to the candidate’s submission of their materials for promotion. PERO is nonbinding for candidates prior to the deadline for their submission of their list of external evaluators to their committee. Thus, candidates deciding to pursue PERO may later decide in collaboration with their EO that the option is not appropriate for them (e.g., because the large majority of their research can be evaluated with traditional metrics). Such a decision must be made prior to the deadline for the candidate’s submission of their list of external evaluators to their committee. Decisions about PERO must be documented in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU; see the template for the Public Engagement Research Option Memorandum of Understanding in the attachments to this Communication). 

As detailed below (see section C.10) and in the Public Engagement Research Option Guide, to gauge the societal impact of publicly engaged research, two of the required external evaluation letters will come from objective experts outside of academia. Alternative evaluation metrics may also be used as part of the evaluation process; these should be chosen by the candidate and EO together and documented in the PERO MOU.

Letters Documenting Role in Collaborative Research

For each collaborative project on which the candidate works, a letter from the leader of the group or team, or another member of the group or team who can speak to the candidate’s contribution, may be sought, to elucidate the candidate’s role and contribution (see template for Collaborator Letter in the attachments to this Communication). The decision as to whether to request such a letter and who on the team should write it should be made by the candidate in collaboration with the EO or their designee. However, ultimately the decision is up to the candidate as they may have the most insight into whether a letter from a team member will accurately portray their role. It is essential that the confidentiality of the letter be maintained. The letter should be included in the promotion dossier but, as is the case with external evaluator letters, the candidate cannot access the letter.

Letters in Other Circumstances

In other circumstances, it may also be beneficial to supplement the expertise of the departmental evaluation committee(s) by consulting with experts on or off campus. This practice is encouraged where necessary to provide a fair and complete evaluation of the candidate’s contributions. To ensure confidentially, this information should be included in the promotion dossier but is not subject to inspection by the candidate. 

Evaluation of Future Potential

The unit evaluation of future potential has value only if it is put in a realistic context. The discussion should focus on the candidate’s strategy for developing their career as a scholar; it should include an assessment of the probable standing of the candidate within the subfield and larger discipline five to ten years from the present. The evaluation should include an assessment of the candidate’s future teaching and service roles. It can also include an appraisal for making contributions within each of the domains of research, teaching, and service that involve public engagement and enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion on our campus and in the broader community. In preparing this section, it may be useful for the unit evaluators to consult the candidate’s research, teaching, service, and, when provided by the candidate, diversity, equity, and inclusion statements.

External Evaluation of Research and Other Accomplishments

Number and Criteria of External Evaluators

Letters from at least five scholars or professional specialists outside the university are required for each candidate. These letters are critical components of the dossier and play a major role in the decision-making process. All letters received must be included in the promotion papers, with indication of the date they were received. Likewise, a list of all evaluators solicited must be included. Explain in the biographical sketch why each evaluator, as well as their institution or organization, was chosen.  

The letters must be appropriate on several dimensions, including: 

• Sufficient in number. At least five letters are required; it is rare that more than six letters need to be solicited. An explanation must be provided for the selection of each letter writer, as well as their institution or organization.  
• From highly qualified individuals. Letters should come from individuals considered experts in the candidate’s area. Expertise is indicated by accomplishments such as a distinguished publication record or professional awards. Employment at a peer institution (e.g., member of the Association of American Universities, part of the Big Ten Academic Alliance) can also be a reflection of expertise, with the added benefit of familiarity with the university’s standards for promotion and tenure.  
• From objective evaluators. Letter writers should not have a conflict of interest in that they may benefit from the candidate’s promotion or cannot be objective in their evaluation for other reasons. For example, letters for tenure should not be solicited from the individual’s thesis advisor or close current or past collaborators. 
• From individuals of appropriate rank. All evaluators in academia should be of a senior rank (e.g., full professor or equivalent) and never of a rank lower than the proposed rank of the candidate. In rare circumstances in the promotion to associate professor with tenure, it may be acceptable to receive evaluations from someone at the rank of associate professor. The selection of such reviewers would have to be justified by both their expertise and the absence of appropriate experts at the rank of full professor.  
• From a range of evaluators. Because candidates’ scholarship should demonstrate a broad impact, the external evaluations should draw from a range of expertise. Thus, units should avoid asking for letters from scholars at the same institution, especially if they are in the same department or unit. If it is necessary to have more than one evaluator from the same institution, a rationale must be provided. 
• For candidates selecting PERO (as indicated on the candidate information form in the online system and the PERO MOU), two of the five letters must be from experts outside academia who can objectively evaluate the impact of the candidate’s publicly engaged research (e.g., someone in another community who holds a parallel position to a community partner, a leading public figure, or an expert in industry or government). These letters should carry the same weight as the letters from experts in academia (for the full set of guidelines for selecting these letters, see the Public Engagement Research Option Guide). It is also advised that at least one of the five letters be from a publicly engaged scholar in the candidate’s field at an academic institution.  
• Even when candidates do not take the public engagement research option, letters from evaluators outside academia can provide important information (e.g., about the candidate’s impact). Although these letters do not count toward the minimum group of five, they may provide additional context for understanding the candidate’s work.

Department and Candidate Participation in Selection of Evaluators

The department selects the external evaluators. Each candidate must be provided an opportunity to nominate external evaluators. The candidate’s list of suggested external evaluators must include enough names to guarantee some degree of privacy to the evaluators. That is, the names must not be so few, nor the list so structured, that the candidate can, in effect, direct the inquiry toward particular individuals. A majority of the external evaluations must come from the unit’s, rather than the candidate’s, nominations. Taken together, these provisions suggest the unit request four to eight names from the candidate, solicit opinions from no more than two or three of the candidate’s choices, and obtain a larger number of opinions from the unit’s list of nominees. 

Candidates have no privilege of vetoing external reviewers but may indicate individuals whom they consider inappropriately biased. Candidates cannot reasonably request avoidance of more than one or two individuals. It is the unit’s responsibility to consider such requests seriously, but the unit is not bound to honor the requests. If the questioned evaluator’s opinion is deemed particularly relevant to the case, the unit may solicit an opinion.

Objectivity of Evaluators

Letters from close colleagues or collaborators, former professors, and mentors will be discounted by the Campus Committee on Promotion and Tenure. Letters from such individuals are discouraged on grounds of conflict of interest. If a department uses such an individual, the reasons for the extraordinary choice must be explained in the “Qualifications of the External Evaluators” section of the dossier. In considering the use of “colleagues or collaborators” of the candidates, the guiding principle is to avoid recourse if the reviewer stands to benefit from the success of the candidate. In general, one could expect that this would be true if the two shared a common grant, or were close collaborators on common projects, for example. This phrase is not meant to exclude colleagues who have knowledge of the candidate from ordinary professional contact in a community of scholars.

In cases of publication where there are more than five authors, co-authorship does not necessarily create a conflict of interest. If this is the case, and a co-author meets the other criteria for external evaluators (see above), then they may serve as an external evaluator. Selection of a co-author as an external evaluator should occur only when the large number of co-authors severely limits the pool of potential external evaluators with expertise in the candidate’s area. If a co-author serves as an external evaluator, justification of the individual’s objectivity in the biographical sketch is necessary.

It is not appropriate to argue that a person cannot be evaluated except by a very small community, all of whom have a demonstrable conflict of interest of the kind described here. Scholarship of the quality that is to be recognized by promotion and tenure on this campus is expected to have a substantial impact; that is, it must affect a community substantially larger than this sort of argument can admit.

Procedure for Soliciting Letters

This section describes language that must be used in the letters soliciting the evaluation. Departmental procedures should be applied consistently across all candidates. A variety of template letters are available (see Sample PERO Letter to External Evaluators in Academia and Sample PERO Letter to External Evaluators Outside Academia in the attachments to this Communication). To avoid non-response, departments may wish to request letters of evaluation as early as the preceding spring.  

Some departments choose to make prior contact with potential reviewers to ascertain if the referee can provide a review of a candidate. When this type of contact is made, it is essential that neutrality about the candidate be maintained in the manner required in the formal request to provide a review. If the reviewer agrees, the letter of confirmation should include the required language outlined below. In cases where the contacted party declines to serve as a reviewer, the name of the individual contacted must be included with the list of referees (see section 4.1.1.2.6b), and the reason for declining the request should be provided. 

A copy of the letter or letters of solicitation must be in the recommendation package. (If the same letter was sent to several different individuals, only one of the letters of solicitation need be submitted.) It is extremely important that these letters reflect the exacting standards for promotion and tenure at our institution. 

Required and Recommended Elements of a Letter Soliciting an Evaluation

• Neutrality. Although it is not essential that all letters be identical, they should always be written in a neutral fashion: “We are considering recommending Assistant Professor X for promotion,” or “Your comments are requested and will be used to help us decide…” Letters must not include passages such as “We have decided to recommend the promotion of …” or “Will you please help us to make a case for …” or “We are very pleased with X; they are an excellent…” Such phrases are likely to bias the response of the outside referee, for they present the evaluator with the appearance of a fait accompli. 
• In-depth analysis of the totality of contribution. The letters soliciting outside evaluation should request, if possible, an in-depth analysis of the candidate’s accomplishments and national stature rather than an overall impression. Thus, letters of solicitation should include a phrase akin to the following: 
  “Please provide us with your analysis of [the candidate’s] current research activities and the significance of these accomplishments to date; please consider the totality of the contribution to the field with attention to all forms of scholarly production.” 
• Rank. Letters to referees should indicate the rank to which the candidate is being considered for promotion. If the promotion considered is to associate professor, the letter should state that the considered action involves promotion with indefinite tenure. In the case of a “Q” appointee for whom one is soliciting a letter about the granting of tenure without promotion, it is important to specify that the candidate is being considered for “indefinite tenure without change in rank.” Circumstances will vary from one “Q” appointment to another, and in some instances, it may be appropriate to provide some context for the letter writer, such as:  
  “After a career spent primarily in industry, [the candidate] joined our faculty with the rank of professor and the understanding that a tenure review would be conducted in their third year at Illinois.” 
• Candidate’s academic activities. External evaluators will be aided in their evaluation by knowledge of the nature of the candidate’s academic activities and the percentage of time allotted to each area of academic activity. Please include a statement in the letter to external evaluators that describes the nature and percentage time of the candidate’s academic activities, as listed on the cover sheet of the tenure and promotion packet. For example:  
  “The percentage of time allotted to various academic activities for this candidate is 40% research, 40% instruction, and 20% service.”  
  Or in the case of an Extension appointment, the description might be: 
  “The percentage of time allotted to various academic activities for this candidate is 35% research, 30% instruction, 25% Extension, and 10% service.” 
• Candidate’s diversity, equity, and inclusion activities. The statement on diversity, equity, and inclusion activities will be optional for candidates through AY 25-26 (see note in section 3.3.7), after which the Provost will move to make it a requirement. Prior to that time, candidates may choose to prepare the section to highlight their contributions and units may consider those activities as part of their evaluations. If the candidate chooses to prepare a statement, units may include the following language in the instructions to external reviewers:
  “If you are able to do so and believe it would provide a fuller sense of the candidate’s contributions, please comment on [the candidate’s] diversity, equity, and inclusion activities.” 
• Additional authorities. The letter to each external evaluator must include the following required language concerning additional authorities: 
  “The Provost of our campus requests that you provide, in addition to your own comments about this case, the names of two or three other authorities who we might consult about it.” 
• Confidentiality. The letter must also include a statement that the confidentiality of the referee’s remarks will be protected to the extent possible within the law. The following language is required: 
  “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.” 
• Length of service during probationary period. The letter to each academic external evaluator must include the following required language to indicate that the evaluator should not consider the faculty member’s length of service during the probationary period. 
  “Our institution permits one or more extensions (i.e., tenure clock “rollbacks”) during the pre-tenure probationary period. Our policy states that the criteria for promotion and tenure at Illinois are the same for all faculty regardless of length of service during the probationary period.” 
• Materials to include with the letter. Each evaluator should receive the candidate’s dossier exclusive of evaluative materials and a representative sample of the candidate’s scholarly and/or creative work. A single manuscript and/or creative work will rarely suffice as a representative sample. 
• Interdisciplinary and collaborative research. For candidates engaged in interdisciplinary and/or collaborative research, letters should include statements such as:   
  “The University of Illinois values work that crosses disciplines (e.g., convergent, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research) and/or the collaborative engagement that is often needed in cutting-edge scholarship. We thus welcome an evaluation of the candidate’s interdisciplinary work and distinctive role in interdisciplinary teams as well as their contribution to multiple disciplines.”   
• Public engagement research focus. If the candidate has selected into PERO, one of the sample Letters to External Evaluators Outside Academia (see attachments to this Communication) should be used to request the evaluation. The letter to external evaluators in academia should include a statement to the effect of:   
  “The University of Illinois provides a public engagement research option (PERO) to our faculty whose research is largely publicly engaged to capture the societal impact of their work. Faculty taking PERO are expected to have scholarly and/or creative products (e.g., peer reviewed journal articles, books, and/or grants) that can be evaluated with traditional disciplinary metrics. A significant portion of their dossier will also be comprised of products (e.g., policy reports, museum exhibits, and/or websites) whose impact may not be adequately captured by traditional metrics. [Faculty member’s name] has chosen to take PERO. Thus, it is likely their dossier differs from those typical for your field. We ask you take this into account in your evaluation and consider both the scholarly and societal significance of their research activities which may be reflected in non-traditional metrics that may be necessary for evaluating the impact of their research.” 

Procedure for Providing Information on Evaluators

The qualifications, including academic ranks or titles and current affiliation, of all outside evaluators must be provided in the promotion papers. The evaluators should be well known in the field; it is generally not appropriate to ask evaluators to provide a curriculum vitae along with their letter. For each evaluator, explain why they were chosen—that is, what qualifies them to evaluate the candidate—and report any direct relationship (e.g., post-doctoral supervisor, co-investigator, or co-author) between the evaluator and candidate.  

To distinguish those referees suggested by the candidate from those chosen by the unit, please type after the referee’s name in the biographical sketch either “(chosen by the candidate)” or “(chosen by the department)”. If an outside evaluator does not respond, briefly indicate the reason, if known.

Other Notes

“Early” Promotion of an Assistant Professor

An assistant professor may be considered for promotion and tenure in any year before the sixth year of the probationary period. Units should establish guidelines and procedures for considering when faculty members are ready for promotion and tenure. The decision should not be based solely on requests from faculty members. Rather departments should have procedures in place for automatic systematic consideration (e.g., the records of all assistant professors are discussed during the third-year review and every year following). Consent of the candidate must be secured in writing before the early promotion and tenure process is initiated. 

Although promotion before the sixth year may be warranted in some cases, it is not the norm; it requires clear evidence of teaching, research, and service accomplishments commensurate with sixth-year promotion standards. Unsuccessful candidates for early promotion and tenure may be reviewed again at the normal schedule but an entirely new set of external letters from new reviewers must be sought for the second tenure and promotion review. 

Departments should proceed cautiously in considering such cases and should avoid arousing unrealistic expectations. On the one hand, there may be a significant institutional benefit in terms of loyalty, job satisfaction, and retention. On the other hand, an unsuccessful early tenure and promotion bid can lead to disappointment and disaffection on the part of the faculty member. Thus, premature efforts to promote may have exactly the opposite effect from that desired.

Revisions of Documents

The narrative and listings in the promotion and tenure dossiers should not be revised in any substantive manner following the reviews at the department, school, or college levels. Any modifications or additions should be made in addenda to the document along with a brief description from the EO(s) about the nature and timing of the additions.

Assistance

For questions about promotion and tenure criteria, policy or procedures please call the Office of the Provost (217-333-6677) or email provost-facultyaffairs@illinois.edu. 

Instructions for Preparing Promotion Dossiers

General Instructions for Initiating and Completing the Promotion Dossier

Unit Executive Officer or Designee

Initiating a Case

• For each candidate, the EO or designee will create a case in the online system to initiate the promotion and tenure process for a faculty member. Cases will become available to the EO or designee once the faculty candidate completes and submits their candidate information form in the online system. 
• Submit one copy of the EO and Dean statement of the criteria and procedures followed by the unit (e.g., department, school, or college) in reviewing the recommendation for promotion and/or tenure. This statement should be submitted separately and emailed to provost-facultyaffairs@illinois.edu. Only one statement, covering all recommendations from a given unit, is needed, unless different procedures were followed in one or more specific cases. If the criteria and procedures have not changed from the previous year, the unit need not submit an additional statement.

Completing a Case in the Online System

Internal Case Sections: The Unit Executive Officer (EO) or their designee completes the internal case sections via the online system. The EO or designee must provide the following information:

1. Tenure Code Form – Select the appropriate button indicating the candidate’s current tenure code year (years 1-6) or if the faculty candidate currently holds indefinite tenure or is currently on a Q appointment. 
2. Academic Activities, Percentage of Time (Average for past three years) Form – The activity percentage should be determined in consultation with the candidate. Also, indicate whether or not the candidate has a significant public engagement focus.  
3. ICES Scores – Unit EO or designee must request an ICES Longitudinal Profile from CITL and upload it in the online system. (Email: ices@illinois.edu) 
4. Job Description – For a candidate in a position that is atypical of the college and campus, upload a job description in the online system. This description will serve as the basis against which performance will be judged. 
5. Internal Evaluations – The EO or designee can request internal evaluations be completed offline or via the online system. In either case the final version must be uploaded in the online system in the appropriate area. 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.
   1. Contributions to Teaching, Learning, and Student Mentoring
      • The internal evaluation of teaching should draw on the following information:
        • Student feedback surveys for all courses taught (ICES or alternative current instrument for older years, or new Student Feedback Surveys when they are available;  
        • Peer evaluations of both course design and course instruction (preferably once every year for promotion to Associate Professor and once every other year for promotion to Professor); 
        • The candidate’s Summary of Teaching Activity, the candidate’s Teaching Statement, and, where appropriate, the candidate’s Statement of DEI Activities (see above).
      • The evaluation should follow the structure outlined below:
        1. Provide the name of the person(s) who developed the evaluation.
        2. In three or fewer pages, the statement should:
           • Give a longitudinal summary of student feedback data. Note: ICES scores should not be accompanied by low/high indicators and should have reduced weight in the evaluation when updated Student Feedback information becomes available.  
           • Give a longitudinal summary of peer evaluation data when multiple years of evaluations are available.  
           • To the best of the unit’s ability given available evaluative data, answer the following questions about the candidate’s teaching record since their last promotion:
             1. Since the 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)?  
             2. What challenges has the candidate faced, if any?  
             3. What are areas of sustained and/or current excellence?  
             4. What are areas of sustained and/or current potential for improvement?  
             5. Is the candidate meeting or exceeding expectations as appropriate for their 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.  
             6. 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. 
             7. How has the candidate contributed to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the teaching context (see the Guide to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Promotion and Tenure Process)?
      • Note that evaluation of contributions outside the classroom should include an evaluation of progress and outcomes for undergraduate and graduate students mentored by the candidate relative to the expectations and norms of the candidate’s profession. 
      • Evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, advising, and mentoring activities and accomplishments should be discussed within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the transition of courses to new modalities, participation in professional development opportunities to enhance teaching, and mentoring of students. Also, units should be aware that the pandemic may affect in-class peer observation.
   2. Service Evaluation
      • Provide the name of the person(s) who developed the evaluation. 
      • In three or fewer pages, discuss the service to the university and candidate’s field as well as the broader community at the local, state, national, and/or international level (i.e., public engagement). Informal or implicit service should also be included in the evaluation. 
      • If relevant, diversity, equity, and inclusion contributions made by the candidate in terms of service (see the Guide to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Promotion and Tenure Process) should be discussed. 
      • As discussed in Section 3.3.6 of this document, the evaluation of service should, as appropriate, consider the additional service work often performed by faculty from groups that are historically underrepresented and/or marginalized in academia. This additional contribution includes both formal and informal service; both are suitable subjects for the evaluation of service.  
      • Evaluation of the candidate’s service should be discussed within the context of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including substantive changes in the candidate’s scope of service duties.
   3. Research Evaluation
      • Provide the name of the person(s) who developed the evaluation. 
      • In three or fewer pages, the evaluation should articulate the expectations and criteria used to judge the candidate’s research and assess how the candidate’s accomplishments meet the expectations.  
      • The candidate’s research should be evaluated (not merely described) with emphasis on at least two publications or creative works, in most cases.  
      • The evaluation should address the quality of execution, the significance of the topics, the impact on the field, and the sustainability of the research endeavor.  
      • The departmental evaluation should be independent of the evaluations of external reviewers. The individuals preparing the departmental evaluation of research should not rely on external letters while preparing their own evaluation. 
      • If relevant, consideration should be given to the candidate’s diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and their impact in the context of their research.  
      • When public engagement is an important part of the candidate’s program of research, the evaluation should include the candidate’s public engagement related to their research. 
      • If a substantial proportion of the candidate’s research is collaborative and the candidate is not the leader (e.g., the PI or first, last, or corresponding author on publications), the evaluation should make clear the importance of the candidate’s distinctive contribution, as well as the work as a whole.  
      • The evaluator(s) may also want to address challenges in conducting and/or evaluating interdisciplinary and/or publicly engaged research if the candidate is substantially involved in such research, with attention to non-traditional impact metrics if relevant. 
      • Evaluation of the candidate’s research activities and accomplishments should be discussed within the context of the disruptions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.
   4. Future Potential Evaluation
      • Provide the name of the person(s) who developed the evaluation. 
      • Evaluate the candidate’s strategy for developing their research beyond recent accomplishments. 
      • Evaluate the candidate’s potential to excel in teaching and service, with attention to public engagement, if relevant. 
      • Discuss the candidate’s potential for furthering diversity, equity, and inclusion. 
      • Assess, in realistic terms, the probable standing of the candidate in their field five years from now.
6. External Evaluations – Unit EO or designee needs to prepare instructions and notifications to external evaluators. Units are strongly encouraged to use the online system to request and process the evaluations. External evaluation letters may be uploaded by evaluators, the EO, or unit designee in the online system. See instructions to upload external evaluation letters on the Interfolio@Illinois webpage.
   1. Sample Letter(s) to External Evaluators 
      • Include a copy of the letter (or letters if different versions) used to solicit the outside evaluations. See section 3.3.10.5, for requirements and recommendations for letters used to solicit outside evaluations (see also Sample Letter).
      • Add the following required language to direct that the evaluator to consider the impact of COVID-19 on the candidate’s activities and accomplishments.
        “COVID-19 continues to create challenges for our campus and our community. The University of Illinois is deeply committed to the welfare and well-being of our faculty members and acknowledges the differential and negative impacts COVID-19 has had on career development. Thus, in your evaluation we ask that you assess the candidate’s activities and accomplishments within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
   2. 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. Taken together, these provisions suggest the department request four to eight names from the candidate, solicit opinions from no more than two or three of the candidate’s choices, and obtain a larger number of opinions from external evaluators not chosen by the candidate. 
      • 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 external evaluator (i.e., rank, position, and credentials). In addition, provide a rationale for why each evaluator, as well as the institution, was chosen. If it is necessary to have more than one evaluator from the same institution, a rationale must be provided. 
      • The outside evaluators should come from individuals considered experts in the candidate’s area. Expertise is indicated by accomplishments such as a distinguished publication record or professional awards. Employment at a peer institution (e.g., member of the Association of American Universities, part of the Big Ten Academic Alliance) can also be a reflection of expertise, with the added benefit of familiarity with the university’s standards for promotion and tenure.  
      • If a letter of evaluation was not received from someone who was asked to provide one, please explain why there was no response or why the request was declined.
   3. External Evaluations – actual letters from reviewers
7. Letters Documenting Role in Collaborative Research (Sample Letter) 
8. Letters Documenting Role in Collaborative Research (Actual Letters) 
9. Letters in Other Circumstances 
10. Special Comments by the Executive Officer – In the Comments section, the unit executive officer should indicate succinctly why the unit will be strengthened and how the best interests of the university will be served by the promotion of the candidate, especially if the promotion includes indefinite tenure.  
    • The EO(s) should also discuss the following topics, including (but not limited to):
      • any aspect of the candidate’s record that has not been addressed in the dossier; 
      • any aspect of the candidate’s research, teaching, or service record that may raise questions about the candidate’s ability to sustain a high level of productivity;  
      • any impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the candidate’s record;  
      • recusals and absences in the evaluation process; 
      • split votes in the unit(s); 
      • the frequency of and reasons for declines by potential external evaluators; 
      • potential conflicts of interest in the external letters (e.g., if the external evaluator collaborated with the candidate or served in an advisory capacity);  
      • negative comments or recommendations by any external evaluator.
    • It will be important for the EO to consider the impact of bias or cumulative professional disadvantage (e.g., lack of mentoring and excessive service), particularly for faculty from groups historically underrepresented and/or marginalized in academia. It is also for this reason that EOs should refrain from including in their statements the conditions and special programs under which a candidate was initially hired (e.g., TOP, Dual Career Program, DRIVE Post-Doctoral, etc.). EOs should include in their comments any new evidence that has led to the submission of a promotion recommendation that had been denied previously. 
    • In recommending the case to the next level, it is incumbent on the EO to explain why the case should go forward and is in the best interest of the university.  
    • 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 EO’s comments are the last item in the promotion packet unless there is a need for Special Comments by the Dean (see below).
11. 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 campus 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 or school level and/or there is a split vote by the college-level review committee.
12. Votes by Committee – In this section, committee votes at the department, school, college, and campus level are recorded in the online system.
13. Addendum – Additional information may be uploaded in this section by the Unit EO or designee. The narrative and listings in the promotion and tenure dossiers should not be revised in any substantive manner following the reviews at the department, school, or college levels. Any modifications or additions should be made in addenda to the document along with a brief description from the EO(s) about the nature and timing of the additions.

Faculty Candidate

The candidate’s EO or designee will initiate a case in the online system to begin the promotion and tenure process. 

1. Candidate Information Form – The faculty candidate completes and submits the candidate information form in the online system. Cases will become available to the EO or designee once the candidate submits the form in the online system. The candidate must provide the following information: 
   • Candidate name 
   • College or School – Check all colleges, units, and departments in which the candidate holds an appointment. 
   • Primary Department and Percent of Appointment 
   • Secondary Department and Percent of Appointment, as applicable 
   • Current Academic Rank and Rank Sought 
   • Public Engagement Research Option (PERO): If the candidate has significant public engagement focus with their research, the PERO box should be checked and the signed MOU with any addendums uploaded in the appropriate section in the online system. 
   • Highest Degree, Date Awarded, Institution, and Discipline 
   • Date of Initial Appointment (Assistant Professor or above at Illinois) 
   • Date of Last Promotion at Illinois
2. Public Engagement Research Option (PERO) – If the candidate is taking the PERO option, a copy of the signed MOU must be uploaded in this section of the online system.
3. Documents for Internal and External Evaluations – The candidate may upload a CV (or draft version of the MSWord fillable outline form) and other materials for external and internal reviewers in this section of the online system. The candidate should consult with the EO (or designee) about which materials to upload. Candidate should only upload items in this section if their EO is using the online system to request external evaluations. 
4. Dossier in Required Outline Format – The candidate completes the Promotion and Tenure Outline using the MSWord fillable outline form and uploads the document in this section of the online system. Once uploaded, and submitted, the faculty candidate will not be able to make any additional changes.
   • Provide all requested data and where there is no information for a specific item or section, please note “None.”  
   • When a section is not relevant to a particular case, please note “Not applicable” (e.g., patents in certain fields).  
   • The candidate completes the teaching, research and, where appropriate, service and DEI statements as noted within the MSWord fillable outline form. 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. 
   • A sheet with updates (e.g., new publications, grants, etc.) can be uploaded by the unit EO or designee via the Addendum section within the online system.

Recommendation for Promotion and Tenure Dossier Outline Form

Faculty Candidate completes the MSWord fillable outline form and uploads the final version in the online system.

1. 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. For each position held, list inclusive dates, title, and location for each –University of Illinois and elsewhere. 
   • Other Professional Employment. Previous and current. 
   • Honors, Recognitions, and Outstanding Achievements. Fellowships, prizes, etc., that indicate national and international stature in 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. 
     Note with the “at symbol” (@) invited lectures and accepted conference presentations that were cancelled due to COVID-19. Include dates of cancelled event. 
   • Offices Held in Professional Societies 
   • Editorships of Journals or Other Learned Publications 
   • Grants Received since Last Promotion at Illinois. List principal investigator first, co-principal investigators, granting agency, dates of grant, and dollar amount of grant. For grants with multiple investigators, list amount of effort and award for the candidate, as well as the candidate’s role. For candidates for promotion to professor, a full (career) list of grants may be provided or, in the interest of brevity, a list of only those grants received since the last promotion may be provided. 
     Note with the “at symbol” (@) grants that were approved for funding but were placed on temporary hold, rescinded, or significantly repurposed due to disruptions caused by COVID-19. 
   • Review Panels. For governmental agencies, educational institutions, or other organizations. 
     Note with the “at symbol” (@) invitations to serve on review panels that were cancelled due to COVID-19.
2. 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. 
   • For collaborative publications, underline authors who are students, post-doctoral fellows, or other mentees/trainees.  
   • 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 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 any manuscript, bulletin, abstract, or review noted by the candidate. 
   • For promotion to Associate Professor with Indefinite Tenure, list all publications and creative works over the course of the candidate’s career. For candidates for promotion to Full Professor, list only publications and creative works that have occurred since the most recent promotion at Illinois. 
   • Reprint of papers is not required for review at the campus level. 
   • Publications and creative works include:
     • Doctoral Thesis Title 
     • Books Authored or Co-Authored (in print or accepted) 
     • Books Edited or Co-Edited (in print or accepted) 
     • Chapters in Books (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. Includes exhibitions, commissions, competitions, performances, designs, art, and 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. 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. 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. Provide inclusive page numbers for book reviews. 
     • Refereed Conference Papers and Presentations 
     • Other. Specify type. The candidate may use this space to describe other research contributions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Contributions to Teaching and Learning
   • Summary of Teaching Activity
     • Descriptive Data
       • Provide information for courses taught, both on and off campus, since the last promotion. For each semester under review, the faculty candidate will provide a list of courses taught and the number of students enrolled in the course, as in the sample table below. The Division of Management Information (DMI) posts a complete history of faculty teaching by the end of October each year on its web site at: https://secure.dmi.illinois.edu/course/. 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.
       • 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. 
       • Per the Provost’s email to faculty members on March 25, 2020, tenure-stream instructors may choose to exclude Spring 2020 ICES scores from the P&T dossier without penalty. Please notify the EO if doing so.
   • Supervision of Graduate Students – Please list graduate students supervised, with doctoral and master’s students separated. 
     • For each graduate student 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).
     • List participation on examining committees separately from supervision of a thesis.
   • 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 senior honor’s thesis).
   • Other Contributions to Teaching and Learning – Faculty members often make important contributions to teaching and learning beyond formal course-based teaching and student supervision 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.
     Note with the “at symbol” (@) contributions to instructional program initiatives related to COVID-19. This may include significantly modifying course materials; contributing to training programs for online instruction; mentoring faculty members and graduate instructors as they transitioned courses to alternative modalities; etc. 
     • Curriculum research and development 
       • Developed new course 
       • Developed new learning materials 
       • Engaged in research on pedagogy 
       • Increased accessibility and equity in a course or learning materials 
       • Substantially revised existing course 
     • Educational service 
       • Development or delivery of training, certificate, or continuing education programs  
       • Enhanced diversity, equity, and inclusion 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, student/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
     • 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 
     • Other contributions, if any (specify)
4. Service
   • Summary of Service:  All faculty members should include three types of service in Section IV of the dossier: (1) public engagement, outreach, and/or Extension; (2) professional and/or disciplinary; and (3) university and/or campus.
     Note with the “at symbol” (@) contributions to department, college, campus, and community initiatives, public discussions, and community engagement related to COVID-19.
     • Public Engagement, Outreach, and/or Extension. Indicate public engagement and outreach at the local, state, national, and international level. 
     • Service to Professional and/or Disciplinary Societies or Associations. List and describe service activities not included in Section I, Personal History and Professional Experience. 
     • University and/or Campus Service. Indicate service on departmental, college, campus, Academic Senate, and university committees as well as administrative assignments. 
     • Other Service. List and describe service activities not included elsewhere (e.g., Informal or Implicit Service Examples).
5. Candidate Statements – Faculty Candidate completes the teaching, research and, where appropriate, service and DEI statements.
   • Candidate Research Statement  – The candidate must provide (in three or fewer pages) a statement of research goals and accomplishments.
     • For promotion to associate professor, the statement should emphasize work since the initial appointment as assistant professor but may include work prior to the appointment. For promotion to professor, the statement should focus on accomplishments since the last promotion.  
     • The candidate should also discuss the relation of past work to plans for future research. 
     • When public engagement is an important part of the candidate’s program of research, the statement should also include goals and accomplishments in regard to the candidate’s public engagement related to their research.  
     • When a substantial proportion of the candidate’s research involves collaborative efforts and the candidate is not the leader (e.g., the PI or first, last, or corresponding author on publications), the nature of the candidate’s distinctive contribution, along with the significance and impact of the work as a whole.
   • Candidate Teaching Statement – 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 answer 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 (student advising and other activities) contributed to teaching, learning, and student success?
   • Candidate Service Statement (optional)
     • Candidates have the option to provide a personal statement (in three or fewer pages) detailing their service activities along with the importance and impact of these activities.  
     • This statement may be particularly useful for candidates who have been significantly involved in service to the university, their field, and/or the broader community at the local, state, national, or international level (i.e., public engagement).  
     • Publicly engaged research should be covered in the research statement. Publicly engaged teaching should be covered in the teaching statement.
   • Candidate Statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Activities (optional)
     • Candidates may provide (in no more than one page) a personal statement detailing their specific individual and/or collaborative activities aimed at supporting diversity, equity, inclusion, and access. Note. The statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion activities will be optional for candidates through AY 2025-2026. (see note in section 3.3.7).
     • Candidates should discuss the context, importance, and impact of their contributions. They may organize the statement into paragraphs by topic, activity, or domain (e.g., research, teaching, or service).  
     • If contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion have been adequately addressed in other statement(s) in the dossier, this statement may simply reference the relevant statement(s).

Assistance

For questions about promotion and tenure criteria, policy or procedures please call the Office of the Provost (217-333-6677) or email provost-facultyaffairs@illinois.edu.

Attachments

1. Recommendation for Promotion and Tenure Dossier Outline Template
2. Assistant Professor to Associate Professor Sample Letters
   1. Sample Letter to External Evaluator (Assistant Professor to Associate Professor)
   2. Sample Letter – Modifications due to COVID (Assistant Professor to Associate Professor)
   3. PERO Sample Letter to External Evaluator Outside of Academia (Assistant to Associate Professor)
   4. PERO Sample Letter to External Evaluator in Academia (Assistant to Associate Professor)
3. Associate Professor to Full Professor Sample Letters
   1. Sample Letter to External Evaluator (Associate Professor to Full Professor)
   2. Sample Letter – Modifications due to COVID (Associate Professor to Full Professor)
   3. PERO Sample Letter to External Evaluator Outside of Academia (Associate to Full Professor)
   4. PERO Sample Letter to External Evaluator in Academia (Associate to Full Professor)
4. Additional Letter for All Faculty Candidates
   1. Sample Letter to Collaborator Evaluator
5. Resources for Dossier Preparation
   1. Campus-wide Definition of Teaching Excellence
   2. Guide to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Work in the Promotion and Tenure Process
   3. Informal or Implicit Service Examples
   4. Public Engagement Research Option (PERO) Guide
   5. Public Engagement Research Option (PERO) Memorandum of Understanding Template
   6. Sample Public Engagement Research Option (PERO) Memorandum of Understanding

Additional Resources

• Outline of Promotion Dossier for Off-Cycle Cases
• Recommendation for Promotion or Tenure Coversheet for New Hires and Off-Cycle Cases
• Assessing Teaching Effectiveness
• Faculty Development Resources on Communication #9 Revisions
• Frequently Asked Questions on Provost Communication #9
• Instructions for Preparing Promotion Dossiers
• Interfolio@Illinois (Campus electronic dossier processing system)
• Vignettes of Publicly Engaged Researchers at Illinois