For Faculty
Introduction to Promotion and Tenure
Guidelines for the Preparation of Candidate Dossiers
Guidelines for Preparation of Candidate Dossiers for Promotion and/or Tenure Recommendations to the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences
The "original" and four copies of the completed dossier must be delivered to the Office of the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, Room 485 Children’s Rehabilitation Center according to the Calendar. Materials should be assembled in individual report covers (no three-ring binders) with the candidate’s name, department/college, and proposed action clearly marked on the front. Each copy of the dossier should contain the following items of documentation, in the order listed.
NOTE: Materials may be added to the dossier until the March 17 deadline which is established by the Senior Vice President and Provost for Academic Affairs.
Before the Table of Contents
- Letter from the Dean to Senior Vice President for Health Sciences of the Academic Health Center.
- Makes the recommendation for the college.
- Collegiate Promotion and Tenure Committee Report – must note separate votes taken for promotion and tenure.
- 7.12 statement (the approved version the candidate was evaluated on).
1. Table of Contents
- Table of Contents and side tabs identifying the order and location of the items contained in the dossier.
2. Candidate's Statement of Assurance
- Candidate’s Statement of Assurance signed by the candidate, indicating that the candidate has had an opportunity to inspect the contents of the dossier; and has had an opportunity to add to the dossier materials or comments of their choosing, properly identified.
3. Collegiate Unit Recommendations
- Collegiate Unit’s Statement of Assurance signed by the Department Head or Dean, indicating that the final dossier was made available to all who participated in the discussion and vote; and the candidate was given an opportunity to review the contents of the dossier following addition of department and/or collegiate votes; and Department Head's and/or Dean's recommendations.
- Department Head's personal recommendation (include why agreed or disagreed with faculty vote, summary of candidate evaluations, etc.). This recommendation is separate from the Departmental Report.
- Departmental Report prepared by the Department Head or tenured designee and reviewed by tenured faculty. This report is separate from the Department Head's personal recommendation. This states:
- Faculty’s recommendation.
NOTE: Faculty may file a separate report if they believe their views are not adequately represented in the Departmental Report.
- Reference Record of Vote – separate votes for promotion and tenure must be indicated.
- Summary of candidate’s file.
- Summary of majority and minority views where appropriate.
4. Record of Vote
- All Faculty Record of Vote or Department Record of Vote of eligible members. Separate votes must be taken for promotion and tenure.
NOTE: Eligible members refers to faculty of like proposed rank and above voting for promotion; and, faculty with tenure voting for tenure.
5. Annual Appraisals of Probationary Faculty
- Copies of the Appraisals for Probationary Faculty Form 12 or Appraisals for Probationary Faculty Form 12a reported for each of the probationary years. This year’s appraisal recommending promotion and/or tenure or nonreappointment should be attached to the front of the “original” dossier. A copy of this year's appraisal should be placed in this section.
- When applicable, include a President's Form 12 or Form 12a for "stop the clock" or extension years and label them as such.
6. Curriculum Vitae
- Current complete (not abbreviated) curriculum vitae.
7. External Review and Evaluation
- A minimum of eight evaluation letters from reviewers external to the University of Minnesota.
- The following criteria should be taken into consideration when identifying potential reviewers:
- Distinguished faculty or, occasionally, highly regarded non-academics.
- If faculty, at a rank above that of the candidate. Otherwise they should be of a status or position considered to be at least equal to the rank for which the candidate is being considered.
- Ability to provide an impartial and evaluative review of the candidate’s qualifications and accomplishments.
- Contribution to achieving an overall balanced view of the candidate and to providing a range of perspectives.
NOTE: To assure impartiality, it is important to avoid a situation where reviewers have a personal relationship with the candidate. These relationships include: advisor, mentor, co-author, collaborator, or past co-worker. While it may be helpful to include letters from such reviewers in certain cases, those would be in addition to the eight required external reviews and should be kept to a minimum. Letters from persons who do not know the candidate personally, but have a clear sense of the significance of the candidate's scholarly contributions, are of greatest value.
- When circumstances arise that an evaluation is needed from a reviewer with a personal relationship to the candidate (e.g., former trainees, mentors, or students), the Dean must address this in the letter to the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences.
- The dossier must also include a statement about each reviewer’s professional standing and relationship to the candidate (if any).
- A statement about requested external review letters not received, indicating reviewer's professional standing and relationship to the candidate (if any).
- A sample copy of the letter sent to potential reviewers soliciting an evaluation. Request for External Review Template.
8. Internal Review and Evaluation (optional – at the discretion of the college or school)
- Letters received from reviewers internal to the University of Minnesota.
9. Research and Scholarship
- Narrative summary of research, scholarly activity, and accomplishments (one to two pages). This summary should state the focus of independent research inquiry. Include an estimate of the percentage of time spent in research/scholarship efforts.
- List of peer-reviewed publications.
- List of non-peer reviewed publications.
- List of books and book chapters.
- List of scientific/professional presentations and abstracts.
- List of grants and contract support (indicate title, funding source/type/amount, brief statement of purpose, duration, and role of the candidate).
- List of persons trained/mentored/advised in sponsored research activities (e.g., post-doctoral fellows, trainees, etc) could be included in this section or may be included in the Teaching Section. Include current position of these individuals.
- List of other evidence of research and scholarship (include research publications, grant proposals, and book/book chapters in preparation or planned).
10. Teaching
- Narrative summary of teaching/advising/mentoring activity (one to two pages). Include an estimate of the percentage of time spent in the teaching/instructional/educational effort.
- Teaching Experience.
- List of undergraduate/graduate courses taught, including course number, title, brief description, quarter/semester, role, and number of students enrolled.
- List advisees, degree sought, role as advisor, and completion/status of degree.
- List other teaching/instructional/educational activity such as continuing education, outreach, and development of teaching manuals or special instructional formats.
- List of persons trained/mentored/advised in sponsored research activities (e.g., post-doctoral fellows, trainees, etc.) could be included in this section or may be included in the Research Section. Include current position of these individuals.
- Teaching Effectiveness.
- Provide a summary of formal teaching evaluations (student or peer) over time. That is, summarize the teaching evaluations obtained through University of Minnesota Office of Measurement Services forms or other formal measurement tools for evaluation of teaching effectiveness.
NOTE: Do not include any raw teching data.
- Provide any informal teaching evaluations such as peer, student, and advisee letters. Indicate whether letters were solicited or unsolicited or are an established component of the department's process of evaluating teaching effectiveness. Include actual letters.
- List honors/awards received for teaching effectiveness.
11. Service
- Narrative summary of discipline-related, professional, and University service (one to two pages). Include an estimate of the percentage of time spent in the service effort.
- Clinical Service.
- List clinic and patient care responsibilities.
- Discipline-Related, Professional Service.
- List editorships and manuscript reviewer/consultant activities; indicate title of journal or publication, level of review, and duration of service.
- List consultantships.
- List service to professional organizations (offices held, committee memberships, etc.).
- University Service.
- Service at program, division, department, college, and all-university levels.
- List committee membership roles and duration of service.
- Other Service.
- List non-University, community service.
12. Reprints
- Three reprints of scholarly papers of which the candidate is first or senior author.
- The candidate selects the reprints.
- The reprints selected should reflect significant contribution(s) of the candidate.
- In the case of multiple authorships, the contribution of the candidate to the project must be clearly established and reported.
NOTE: Copies of the above (or any material added or used in the review process) must be sent to the candidate’s "academic unit" dossier file. The head of the "academic unit" (Dean or Department Head) is responsible for sending a copy to the candidate and for adding material to the retained "official" file.
NOTE: Materials may be added to the dossier until the March 17 deadline which is established by the Senior Vice President and Provost for Academic Affairs.
