Contents of the File

The required contents for promotion and continuing appointment request files are as follows (Items 1-15, with additional items added as the file is reviewed at each level). The file should be organized in the order listed below.

The entire file should exist as one original hard copy and an entirely electronic copy. Instructions for preparing an electronic copy are provided in Appendix D.

It is the responsibility of those charged with assembling the dossier to ensure that all relevant data and statements are included and presented in an organized and clear fashion in the following order. A checklist is provided in Appendix C to ensure that all necessary documentation is included. The candidate must be provided with a copy before the file is started.

  1. Cover Sheet (See Appendix E for required template)
  2. Document Register (See Appendix F for required template)
    • The document register provides a record of the assembly of the file. It is started when the preparation of the file begins, and each document should be recorded on the register as it is received and placed in the dossier.
    • Each document in the dossier must be numbered and correspond to the document register.
    • Each subsequent university officer having custody of the file is responsible for keeping the register up-to-date.
    • Confidential letters of evaluation should be listed on the document register only by a number, date, and type of document (for example - Letter of Evaluation #1 dated 7/1/02). Each such confidential document should be numbered in the upper right-hand corner to agree with the document number reported on the document register.
    • The document register must conform to the format that appears in Appendix F, in order to avoid controversy and contradictions concerning the contents of the file.
  3. Summary of Action Form - (Appendix G)
    • At each level of review, the Summary of Action form must be signed and dated.
    • The original Summary of Action Form stays with the original copy of the dossier as it moves along to each level of review.
  4. Curriculum Vitae - (Appendix H)
    • An up-to-date CV is one of the most critical elements of the file, and it is essential that it is prepared carefully and with attention to detail.
    • The completed CV must be dated and signed by the candidate.
    • A recommended format for the CV appears in Appendix H. To facilitate the review of the file, candidates are strongly urged to prepare their CV using this format, as it contains all the required elements that review committees will be looking for.
    • The CV should:
      • include work under review, work in progress, or working papers under a different heading from published work. Work that has been accepted but does not yet appear in print can be included under the heading of published work.
      • list peer-reviewed/refereed publications separately from publications in non-refereed outlets.
      • be accompanied by documentation of papers accepted, invitations to revise and resubmit, and letters from publishers about book contracts or interest from a press.
      • list papers delivered (or abstracts of such papers), doctoral dissertations, and articles in intramural or strictly local publications in a separate category from published work.
      • include complete references for publications, art exhibitions, musical compositions, etc. Full bibliographic information is required, including names of co-authors, page numbers, titles of journals in full, and dates.
      • indicate student and post-doc co-authors.
      • clearly indicate the order of co-authorship, and indicate senior authorship where appropriate.
      • specify the source, dates, and amount of support for external funding.
      • identify the candidate’s doctoral supervisor, thesis title, and where applicable, the postdoctoral mentor.


      4a. Candidate’s description of individual role and contribution for co-authored work (if applicable)

      • In instances where a substantial amount of the published work is co-authored, the candidate may choose to include a document here that explains his/her role and contributions on co-authored works. This description may be supported by solicited letters from the candidate's collaborators.
      • In addition to or instead of this document, the nature of the candidate’s role and contributions may also be detailed in letters solicited from collaborators and co-authors. See here for more details.
  5. Candidate's UAlbany employment history and course assignments
    • The department should request from Human Resources an Employment History for the candidate, which will indicate the candidate’s appointment status, including periods of time on leave or in qualified rank, during his/her UAlbany employment.
    • The department should request from Institutional Research information about what courses were taught each semester, and the enrollment in each.
  6. Candidate's research, teaching, and service statements

    The candidate should prepare separate, concise statements related to research, teaching and service. Specific guidance for each statement appears below, and you may find additional guidance related to preparing the research, teaching, and service statements here.

    In the research statement, the candidate should summarize the major research questions and/or themes with which s/he is concerned, and explain the contributions that his/her work has made in advancing knowledge in those areas. In addition, the candidate should describe the major methodological approaches he/she uses in research. The statement should clearly illustrate the growth and progression of a body of research that contributes to knowledge in an area, and should not merely be a description of projects or publications. The statement should provide the reader with an understanding of how knowledge in the field has changed or been enhanced by the candidate’s work. The research statement should…

    • be no longer than 3-5 pages
    • not primarily be a description of various publications
    • be understandable by colleagues in different disciplines. Therefore the statement should avoid jargon and highly specialized vocabulary, should provide brief definitions or explanations of specific concepts, and should allow non-specialists to understand the candidate’s contribution to scholarship in one or more disciplines.
    • include both past contributions to a discipline, and future directions.
    • explain the contributions that the candidate’s work has made to one or more disciplines.

    In the teaching statement, the candidate should explain his/her teaching philosophy and pedagogical approach (at both the undergraduate and graduate levels of the curriculum, as appropriate to the candidate’s unit). The candidate should describe his/her objectives and strengths related to teaching. In addition the candidate should describe his/her involvement in mentoring and advising activities, as well as any involvement in curriculum development and professional development in the form of faculty development workshops focused on teaching or specific pedagogical techniques or issues. The teaching statement should …

    • be no longer than 1-3 pages.
    • not primarily be a list of courses taught. This information is contained in the CV and candidate’s employment history.
    • describe specific classroom teaching strategies and course design, including why the candidate has made those choices.
    • describe contributions outside the classroom (mentoring, advisement, and curriculum development) and how they enhance student learning.
    • include plans for the future related to teaching and curriculum development.

    In the service statement, the candidate should describe his/her involvement in university (at all levels), professional, and relevant community service. In this statement, the candidate should explain his/her objectives and motivations behind various types of service, and the value of service within the candidate’s professional activities.

    Service to the institution (department, school/college, university) typically involves committee service, and may also include distinctive contributions on behalf of core functional areas (e.g., statistical consulting, mentoring special student groups, contributions to the development of new policies or services to enhance university efficiency, effectiveness or excellence, generation of reports of recommendations upon request by university leadership, etc.). Service to the profession includes activities such as journal article reviews, journal editorships, leadership of conferences, invited presentations, active involvement and leadership in professional societies and organizations, and production of texts, other publications and media products which are widely used tools that contribute to a profession's collective effort aimed at research and education. Service to the community includes activities related to the candidate’s areas of expertise such as consultantships (both paid and pro bono), presentation of testimony, and leadership involvement in community groups whose interests are related to the candidate's field of expertise.

    The service statement should …

    • be no longer than 1-3 pages.
    • not primarily be a listing of service completed as this information is available in the CV.
    • describe the candidate’s specific contributions to department, university, profession and community in the performance of service activities.
    • describe any service to practice settings (e.g., educational institutions, non-profit agencies, government, the private sector), if relevant.
    • include future plans related to service.
  7. Solicited letters from external reviewers (CONFIDENTIAL)

    Solicited letters from external reviewers asked to evaluate the candidate’s scholarly contributions are an essential part of the review process, and an important element in the documentation of attainments in scholarship and creative work. Strict attention must be paid to the following important information regarding the selection of external reviewers:

    • To provide a full and fair basis for judgment, each file must contain a minimum of four letters from qualified objective reviewers. However, it is highly recommended that at least six such letters are included in the file, in case there is any question about the suitability of certain reviewers at any level of review.
    • An individual may not serve as an external reviewer if one can reasonably perceive that he/she has a potential bias (i.e., his/her objectivity may be compromised), or a conflict of interest (i.e., the reviewer has an identifiable interest in whether the candidate is tenured or promoted). Persons who have had a close relationship to the candidate, such as former colleagues, research collaborators, current or former students, mentors, thesis or postdoctoral advisors, or co-authors, should not serve as external evaluators. Additional guidance as to the determination of potential bias and/or conflict of interest is available in Appendix I.
    • The candidate must NOT be involved in selecting external reviewers, and cannot be shown a list of potential reviewers. However, prior to the selection of reviewers, the candidate may identify potential referees who for personal reasons ought not to be consulted. External reviewers may be eliminated from consideration for reasons such as a history of conflict with the candidate; a disciplinary controversy placing the reviewer in an opposing ‘camp;’ a close professional or personal relationship to the candidate; any other circumstance that might result in undue bias for or against the candidate.
    • It is recommended that department Chairs, Deans, or the Chairs of ad hoc departmental review committees make initial contact with potential reviewers by telephone and/or email and secure their consent to serve before an official letter of solicitation is sent. This also provides an opportunity to confirm that the reviewer does not have a prior professional association with the candidate that would compromise his/her ability to provide an independent assessment. Such conversations should not coach or intentionally persuade the external reviewer toward a specific evaluation.
    • Following initial contact with a reviewer, a formal letter of solicitation should be sent, accompanied by the candidate’s CV; research, teaching and service statements; copies of the scholarship or creative work to be evaluated; and departmental criteria for promotion and tenure.
    • Departments have leeway in determining what and how much work the packet will contain (i.e. reviewers might be sent copies of all the candidate’s publication or a subset), and this decision should be made in consultation with the candidate. All reviewers should receive identical sets of materials for review.
    • All potential reviewers should receive an identical solicitation letter.
    • Solicited documents are confidential within the provision of Article 31 (Personnel Files) of the UUP Agreement. Procedures regarding maintaining confidentiality are detailed in sections 7b and 7e below.
    • Solicited letters should be current and should be solicited for the specific action under consideration.
    • A complete set of solicited letters should be available at the time of the initial level of review.
    • All letters solicited and received must be included in the file with clear notation documenting when they were solicited and received.
    • Solicitation from reviewers should be undertaken at the earliest reasonable time to ensure a timely review of the dossier. (See “Deadlines for Promotion and Continuing Appointment Requests.”)
    • All external reviews must be presented in form of a letter written by the external reviewer, with his or her signature.

    The section of the dossier containing solicited letters pertaining to scholarship should contain the following items. Each item is explained in more detail in sections 7a-7e below.

    • A statement of the method used to select reviewers.
    • A copy of the letter used to solicit external reviews.
    • Letters from each external reviewer, accompanied by a statement signed by each reviewer indicating the terms by which the letter may be shared with the candidate.
    • A CV or abbreviated CV for each reviewer.

      7a. A statement of the method used to select reviewers.
      • The file must contain a detailed statement that describes how and why the reviewers were selected. Such a statement must include: who was involved in the process of identifying reviewers; how potential reviewers were identified; how potential reviewers were contacted; how many individuals were initially asked to serve as reviewers; how many declined and their reasons; how many letters were ultimately received. In addition, a brief explanation as to why these particular individuals are qualified to serve as external reviewers must be included.
      • A template for describing the reviewer selection procedures is included in Appendix J.
      • To achieve the desired number of letters, more than six individuals should be asked to serve as reviewers. It is often necessary to ask 12 or more individuals in order to identify at least six who agree to serve in this role.
      • Reviewers should be from peer or better institutions, departments or programs and should hold an academic rank higher than the candidate’s current rank. (For example, only full professors may serve as reviewers for associate professors seeking promotion to full. More senior associate professors may serve as reviewers for assistant professors seeking promotion to associate: however, departments are encouraged to limit this number and clearly document the reason(s) why they have invited associate professors.)
      • In addition, reviewers should be currently active in research, be selected from among the leaders in the candidate's area(s) of specialization, who are familiar with the performance standards and norms for promotion in U.S. academic institutions.
      • If a reviewer is not from a peer or better institution, or is not from an academic institution, care must be taken to justify why this individual is a qualified reviewer. For example, there may be instances where a particular department in a non-peer institution is highly regarded in a particular discipline. Or an appropriate reviewer may be a researcher with very relevant disciplinary expertise who works at a research institution or at a university outside the U.S. Reviewers who fit these, or similar situations, may be used, but their number should be limited and the rationale for their choice should be clear and strong.
      • In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to include letters from some reviewers who are professional practitioners (e.g., government officials) in a position to evaluate the quality and impact of a candidate's contributions in other settings. These reviewers should be carefully selected with a view towards their special knowledge of the context and information needs of non-academic institutions and practitioners. Again, a strong justification for their choice and appropriateness must be provided.
      • Reviewers that have served in prior personnel actions for the candidate are not recommended. If they are included, identify this prior service and provide a rationale for the repeat service.
      • Citation indices should not be used as the sole source of names of prospective reviewers.
      • When a candidate's area of research is very highly specialized, it is incumbent on the Chair or person soliciting external letters to find reviewers who are close enough in their disciplinary expertise to be able to review the candidate’s work intelligently, while remaining “at arm’s length” in their personal ties with the candidate.
      • Prior effort should also be made to personally confirm that a proposed reviewer does not have a prior association with the candidate that would compromise his/her ability to give an objective review. The department (or school) must certify the independence of each reviewer (i.e., the basis for the judgment that s/he is detached from the candidate and in a position to deliver an objective review).
      • The statement should explicitly address any instances in which a reviewer could reasonably be interpreted to have a potential bias.

      7b. A copy of the letter used to solicit external reviews.
      • A formal letter requesting an external evaluation should be sent to each reviewer. This letter should come from the department Chair, the faculty member responsible for compiling the dossier, or the Chair of the ad hoc committee charged with compiling the dossier.
      • Reviewers should be encouraged and directed to comment on the candidate’s record of achievement from the perspective of the quality standards and productivity norms of the candidate’s academic discipline(s).
      • Reviewers should not be asked to indicate whether the candidate would receive tenure at the reviewer’s institution.
      • Reviewers should be asked to comment as specifically as possible concerning the following topics:
        • The quality and quantity of published or submitted work in comparison to individuals at a similar career level in the candidate’s discipline(s).
        • In cases of promotion to full, reviewers should be asked to evaluate the candidate’s entire career with a particular focus on contributions since tenure.
        • The quality or standing of the publisher and/or of the journals in which the work has been published.
        • The candidate’s area or areas of specialization and the significance of her/his contributions to the field.
        • The candidate’s reputation nationally and/or internationally and the impact of specific aspects of the candidate’s work on others.
        • The nature of past personal interactions, if any, that the reviewer has had with the candidate.
      • Under Article 31 of the Agreement Between the United University Professions and the State of New York, when official solicitations for evaluation are made and included in the personnel file, the response may be made available to the employee according to the respondent’s preference. Reviewers must be instructed to indicate one of the following options at the conclusion of their response:
        1. The candidate may read this recommendation as is.
        2. The candidate may read this recommendation if all identification as to its source is deleted.
        3. The candidate may not read the recommendation.
      • If the respondent does not indicate one of the preceding options, or if the respondent chooses option 3, the statement shall not be available to the candidate at any time, whether before or after the tenure and/or promotion decision.
      • The solicitation letter must
        • identify what accompanying materials are being sent to each reviewer.
        • avoid biased or leading statements and must request a letter of evaluation, not a letter of recommendation.
        • inform reviewers exactly of the candidate's situation (i.e., a candidate for continuing appointment and promotion from assistant professor to associate professor, or promotion from associate professor to professor). It should also be made clear that "continuing appointment" is equivalent to what is usually called "tenure."
      • A template for a letter of solicitation is provided in Appendix K.

      7c. Letters from each external reviewer

      7d. A CV or abbreviated CV for each reviewer.

      • For evaluation of the candidate's research, each reviewer's standing in the field should be documented in an abbreviated CV or extended biography. Each CV/biography should appear immediately following that reviewer’s letter in the file.

      7e. A statement signed by each reviewer indicating the terms by which the letter may be shared with the candidate.

  8. Additional solicited letters (if appropriate)

    Additional letters from other individuals who are in a position to evaluate the candidate’s scholarship may be solicited and included.

    • In a case where a substantial amount of the candidate’s work is co-authored, it is recommended to solicit letters from co-authors which explain the candidate’s contributions to their collaborative work. These letters must explicitly identify the author’s association with the candidate, and are not counted toward meeting the minimum requirement of four, independent, external reviews.
    • All solicited letters must be accompanied by a statement signed by each reviewer indicating the terms by which the letter may be shared with the candidate.
  9. Unsolicited letters of evaluation related to scholarship (if appropriate)

    Unsolicited letters and statements, or letters and statements received by persons other than an authorized university official, may be included in the file.

    • Unsolicited letters are not confidential or anonymous and are therefore available to the candidate.
    • Before placing unsolicited letters in the file, a letter should be sent to persons who have submitted unsolicited letters of evaluation advising the writer that the recommendation is not confidential and will be made available to the candidate as well as to colleagues and administrative officials (Appendix L). The sender should then be given the opportunity to withdraw the letter or affirm his/her intention that the letter not be confidential.
    • The file must include a document for each unsolicited letter indicating approval for its use.
    • Anonymous statements or letters cannot be placed in the file.
  10. Documentation of teaching

    Teaching is evaluated based on a variety of types of evidence. This includes the amount and type of teaching as documented on the candidate’s employment history and CV, the candidate’s statement on teaching, student course evaluations, peer evaluations, primary teaching documents, solicited letters from co-teachers or from instructors for whom the candidate has guest lectured, solicited or unsolicited letters from former students, awards, and other evidence that may illustrate teaching contributions and accomplishments.

    Not all files will contain all of these types of evidence, but the file should contain a portfolio of different types of evidence to provide a comprehensive basis for evaluating the quantity, quality and effectiveness of the candidate’s teaching and relationships with students. Some of this evidence is prepared by the candidate, and some is prepared by the department.

    University policy mandates both peer evaluation and student evaluation as components in the assessment of a faculty member's contribution as an instructor. Thus, while this section must include results of student evaluations (Student Instructional Rating Form [SIRF] or other departmental systems that provide opportunity for comparison across courses and instructors), student evaluations alone are not sufficient. This evidence must include results from some form of peer evaluation.

    Comprehensive guidance regarding the documentation of teaching and the performance of peer evaluation in particular can be found among the resources included in the UAlbany Tenure and Promotion Guidelines website. Examples include:

    This section of the file should include the following elements:

    10a. Description of procedures for required peer and student evaluation of teaching.

    An introductory statement describing the procedures the department used to assemble and present documentation of teaching, and to conduct peer evaluations, should be included. This statement should end with a list of the documents that are included in the rest of this section.

    10b. Results of peer evaluation of teaching

    A summary of the methods used to conduct peer evaluation of teaching, along with a detailed statement that presents an overall evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, should be included. This statement, presenting the findings of a peer review committee, should be prepared by a member of the teaching faculty other than the department Chair, and should give a clear indication of the candidate's strengths and weaknesses as a teacher.

    The peer evaluation of teaching should be based on the following:

    • a representative sample of the candidate's course syllabi, reading lists, examinations, and grade distributions.
    • an assessment of the faculty member's role in the departmental teaching mission, including developing new courses, teaching required courses, in serving on doctoral committees, and in mentoring graduate students, if applicable.
    • an assessment of the candidate's involvement in the University's curricular and pedagogical initiatives, such as the formulation and teaching of General Education courses, the teaching of writing-intensive courses, the mentoring of students at risk, the teaching of online courses, and so forth.
    • first-hand peer observations of classroom performance, if used. If first-hand peer observations of the candidate's classroom performance are used in the department’s review, there should be multiple observations, conducted at various time points, and by more than one peer. Departments should avoid conducting peer observations only at the time of the tenure review process.

    A copy of any existing department/school’s policy and procedures for peer evaluation of teaching is required to be included as well.

    10c. Analysis of student evaluations of teaching

    For candidates for promotion to Associate Professor, the department will prepare a comprehensive report and summary analysis of all student evaluations during the candidate's employment at UAlbany. For candidates for promotion to Full Professor, a report and summary analysis of at least the five most recent years of student evaluations will be prepared. Both qualitative and quantitative data are expected. A presentation of raw data alone will not meet this requirement. In preparing the report, all the actual evaluations and questions used are to be tabulated or graphed in a way that reveals individual strengths and weaknesses that may be obscured by averages.

    The report must include:

    • course-by-course information on the number of students in the class, the number of students responding and the percentage of responses.
    • comparative information dating back at least five years, that includes (1) departmental average rating with the candidate removed; (2) average rating of instructors teaching the same or similar course; (3) the average number of students enrolled in the same or similar course.
    • a summary of the evaluation results and some comparison with others teaching the same or similar courses within the department.
    • a summary of student comments, addressing positive and negative themes
    • a sample report can be found here.

    In addition to the report as described above, this section must also include a copy of the student evaluation form that the department uses.

    All of the raw student responses from evaluations conducted during the candidate’s employment at UAlbany (for tenure decisions) or the raw responses from the previous 5 years (for Promotion to full professor) should be included in the Appendix to the dossier.

    10d. Solicited and unsolicited letters (if any)

    • Letters may be solicited from former (not current) students, co-instructors, hosts of guest lectures, and any other individuals in a position to comment knowledgeably on the candidate’s effectiveness as a teacher. Testimony from current students should not be solicited. Any letters solicited from former students should include explicit statements that they are former, not current, students. As solicited statements, these letters may be confidential, at the discretion of the reviewer (see Appendix K).
    • Unsolicited letters that speak to the candidate’s teaching may also be included here provided they have been properly authorized by the author for disclosure to the candidate (see Appendix L).

    10e. Primary teaching documents

    Primary teaching documents such as course syllabi, reading lists, tests, major assignments, etc. should be included here, with an explanatory cover sheet prepared by the candidate that outlines how these documents show evidence of excellence in teaching.

    • A recent syllabus from each course taught should be included (limited to the past five years for promotion to full professor). If a course has undergone significant change over time, then old and new versions of the syllabus may be included to illustrate modifications. A cover sheet should be included to indicate such changes.
  11. Documentation of service

    Institutional, professional and relevant service to the community and the public is documented in the CV, in the candidate’s statement on service, and in a peer presentation of evidence of effective service contained in this section.

    • The documentation of service is primarily composed of letters solicited from the Chairs of significant committees and councils, representatives of professional organizations, journal editors, and/or representatives of community organizations that describe the scope and significance of the candidate's contributions. As solicited statements, these letters may be confidential, at the discretion of the reviewer (see Appendix K). This section should also include statements solicited from individuals in a position to describe and evaluate the particularly distinctive ways in which the individual has changed the institution or the profession or in other ways made a contribution that is uniquely innovative and substantial.
    • This section should present comprehensive evidence documenting the quality and quantity of the candidate's service to the institution (department, school/college, university, SUNY system), profession, and community. Just as statements concerning the candidate's scholarly attainments and teaching effectiveness need to be supported by external evaluations and student and peer assessments, the candidate's service contributions should also be documented with external evaluations.
    • Service to the institution (department, school/college, university) typically involves committee service. Service to the institution may also include distinctive contributions on behalf of core functional areas (e.g., statistical consulting, mentoring special student groups, contributions to the development of new policies or services to enhance university efficiency, effectiveness or excellence, generation of reports of recommendations upon request by university leadership, and other distinctive contributions).
    • Service to the profession includes activities such as manuscript reviews, journal editorships, organization or leadership of conferences, invited presentations, active involvement and leadership in professional societies and organizations, and production of texts, other publications and media products which are widely used tools that contribute to a profession's collective effort aimed at research and education.
    • Service to the community typically includes activities such as consultantships (both paid and pro bono), presentation of testimony, and leadership involvement in community groups whose interests are related to the candidate's field of expertise.
    • Unsolicited letters that speak to the candidate’s service may also be included here provided they have been properly authorized by the author for disclosure to the candidate (see Appendix L).
  12. Information about major scholarly journals or creative venues in the candidate's field

    The department (not the candidate) should prepare a list of the major scholarly journals in the candidate’s field and a comparison with the journals in which the candidate has published. This information should include rankings or other indications of journal quality, as well as an indication of whether each journal is peer-reviewed. Department bibliographers in the University Libraries may be able to assist with information about major journals and impact factors. See Appendix M for a template for reporting this information.

    In disciplines where journals are not common as venues for scholarship and creative activities, the department should prepare a list of the major venues for recognition of scholarly or creative contribution.

  13. Citation analyses

    Detailed citation analyses, when relevant to the candidate’s discipline, should be included in every dossier.

    • The citation analysis should include citation counts for all of a candidate’s publications where available.
    • Self-citations should be counted separately from citations by others.
    • Citation analyses should be prepared by the department, with relevant input from the candidate as requested.
    • Detailed instructions for conducting and presenting citation analyses can be found here. A template for presenting the results of such citation analyses in the dossier is included in Appendix N. Additional ideas for conducting citation analyses and measuring research impact can be found among the Library Tenure and Promotion resources.
    • The Chair’s letter should explain the disciplinary context for the citation analysis or its absence.
  14. Summary of department faculty composition

    Departmental policies and procedures about who votes on tenure and promotion cases vary. A table should be prepared by the Chair that describes the composition of the voting faculty in the department

    • This table should indicate the number of voting faculty at each rank, with and without continuing appointment.
    • In the rare cases where non-tenure-track faculty or students have voting rights for tenure and promotion cases, this should be indicated separately and explained here as well.
  15. Written departmental document outlining norms and expectations for tenure and promotion
  16. Appendices
    • Copies of publications

      Copies of publications and/or scholarly works should be included in an appendix, or in the case of books, artistic works, etc. included with the file in some way. For promotion to Associate Professor, this usually should include all such works. For promotion to Full Professor, this should include the work completed since the last promotion.

    • Raw course evaluation data
      • The actual summary reports from all student course evaluations from the relevant timeframe.
      • Any qualitative comments that students have submitted with their evaluations.
      • If the candidate has conducted any supplemental evaluations on his/her own, such as qualitative evaluations used for course improvement, the results of those open-ended evaluations can be included here.