TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose

To provide College of Liberal Arts-specific guidelines, templates, and resources to our departments (faculty candidates, faculty committee members, chairs/directors, and especially, department staff responsible to help assemble our faculty promotion files).

Definitions

GG, or Guidelines: UT General Guidelines for Promotion; there are separate documents for TTT and PTF promotions. (see also EVPP site)

TTT: Tenured or Tenure-Track Faculty

PTF: Professional-Track Faculty

Staff: department staff working on file                                        

Cand: promotion candidate                                      

Chair: department chair(s)                                                    

BC/EC: department faculty governing body members (see also Governance)

COLA: COLA HR Team

Dean: Ann Huff Stevens

EVPP: Provost’s Office staff and/or one or more Provosts


Guidelines and Templates

The COLA Promotion and Tenure Dossier Guidelines and sample documents assist faculty and staff to compile and catalog all documents related to the promotion file.  They are based on the Provost Guidelines, and the Provost Office's General Guidelines should be considered the overall source for promotion process and policy.  Some practices described in our checklist apply to our college only.  If you have any questions or seek clarification, please do ask us!

Note: These documents are provided as a guideline for Liberal Arts faculty and departmental administrative staff only.

All items are COLA-specific docs/versions, unless otherwise noted in parentheses:

COLA Professional-Track Faculty Promotion Guidance

  • This document outlines current expectations and best practices related to professional track faculty seeking promotion in rank within the College of Liberal Arts.

NEW (4/18/24): The Provost's Office has published their TTT Promotion Guidelines for 24-25, along with several of their templates. We will be updating our guidance documents, templates, and links as quickly as we are able and as they become available from EVPP. Items that have been updated for 24-25 will be noted.

23-24 Promotion File Names and Content

***IMPORTANT: Please do not use the EVPP "Dossier Prep" guides, as they will not include COLA-specific requirements.

23-24 COLA Promotion Guides

Note: These college-specific process guides are companions to the Provost's General Guidelines (x 2) and will continue to be updated as errors are discovered (or if/when visual aids, FAQs, or similar information seems helpful to add); the cover page of each Guide includes the version date. 

Please let Ann K know when you find any mistakes, or if/when you find specific procedures confusing. Thanks!

Templates 

Process Guide

Electing to Combine Years of Service in Rank 

When: Before April 15 (preceding Fall of desired promotion review)

  • Note: The procedure outlined below does not replace a BC/EC vote as to whether or not a candidate ought to pursue promotion in rank. This procedure only covers how to elect to combine service in rank.
  1. Faculty member is hired at UT at the same rank they held at a previous institution; e.g., an Assistant Professor at the University of Washington is hired as an Assistant Professor at UT Austin. The faculty member (hereafter "Cand ", for simplicity,) desires to go up for promotion, and so checks to see if they are eligible to combine service to seek an on-time promotion (see also GG TTT B.2.b. (Assistant Professors), TTT C.2.b. (Associate Professors), and PTF B.2.b. (Professional-Track first or second ranks):
    1. Do they have the minimum years of qualifying service in rank at UT? (See GG (TTT) A.8. or GG (PTF) A.10)
    2. Do they have sufficient years in the same (or equivalent) rank from immediately prior to their UT hire to reach at least a combined total of 5 completed years of service in rank prior to the semester seeking promotion? 
      1. In other words, do the qualifying years in rank at UT plus the prior years of service (max of 3) = 6, if you count the desired year of promotion?
      2. Example:   

        2019-20 (1, at prior institution)

        2020-21 (2, at prior institution)

        2021-22 (3, at UT)

        2022-23 (4, at UT)

        2023-24 (5, at UT)

        2024-25 (6 - going up)

    3. Do they have at at least three peer teaching observations across at least two different academic years at UT Austin?
  2. Once Cand confirms eligibility, they should express their desire to combine service in rank to seek an on-time promotion review, in writing, to the Chair, before April 15 preceding the Fall of the desired promotion review.
    1. It would be helpful for Cand to send a current CV along with request, to save time later.
  3. Chair consults with Staff (and COLA, if desired) to confirm Cand's eligibility. Chair writes an email (or statement) indicating whether or not they support Cand's request to combine service in rank to seek promotion in the upcoming Fall. 
  4. Staff sends Cand's request, Chair's comments, and Cand's current CV to COLA (c/o COLA HR). Staff should confirm that they have verified the reported years in rank and that the required peer observation reports are on file within the department.
  5. COLA will share materials with Dean for Dean's review and comments.
  6. Once Dean has sent comments to COLA, COLA will send the materials (including Dean's comments) to EVPP for review and approval.
    1. If EVPP has follow-up questions, COLA may need to seek additional information from the department.
    2. If EVPP approves the request, they will send a memo to Cand confirming this, for Cand to sign and return.
      1. Important: Please note that Assistant Professors electing to combine probationary service in rank to go up "on-time" are choosing to pursue an "up-or-out" (mandatory) promotion review that will result in either promotion to Associate Professor with tenure or a terminal appointment (i.e., separation from UT.)

Return to Table of Contents

Who's Involved?

  • Cand                   

  • Chair

  • Staff

  • COLA

  • Dean

  • EVPP

See Definitions

Parts of the File Involved
  • List of Peer Teaching Observations
    • GG TTT.G.6.d.; GG PTF.F.7.d.
  • Peer Teaching Observations
    • GG TTT.G.13.c.; GG PTF.F.13.c.
  • Teaching Evaluations from Other Institutions
    • GG TTT.G.13.d.; GG PTF.F.13.d

Department Ad Hoc Promotion Committee Formation 

When: Spring

  1. Determine whether there is a need for an ad hoc review committee. For each upcoming promotion case: does/will the BC/EC have at least five eligible voters?
    1. Eligibility requirements: TTT cases, (sec. A.3. through A.5.) and PTF cases, (sec. A.4 through A.6.).
    2. If enough eligible voters, then you don’t need an ad hoc. If not enough, proceed to step 2.
  2. Chair and Cand come up with individual lists of potential committee members of appropriate rank (including more than the minimum number of names needed to make up the count).
  3. Chair and Cand review lists together to discuss. 
  4. Once full list of possibilities is assembled and approved by both parties, this list is sent by Chair (or Staff, cc:ing the other one,) to Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Steve Hoelscher, (cc: COLA (Ann Kelble)).
    1. List should include proposed faculty member names, faculty rank (if other than "Professor"), department (if outside of COLA), and make clear the number of eligible voters the department will already have.
    2. e.g., "Department will have 3 eligible Fulls: Abercrombie, Hand, Fitch; seeking 2 additional members.”
  5. Associate Dean reviews the list with Dean; communicates approvals/comments to COLA (AK), who will relay information to the Chair and Staff.
  6. Chair solicits ad hoc committee member(s) until reaches the required minimum of 5 voters.
  7. Staff notifies COLA (AK) of final ad hoc committee member names.
  8. Department proceeds with promotion review process, using ad hoc committee in place of BC/EC.

Return to Table of Contents

Who's Involved?

  • Cand                   

  • BC/EC

  • Chair

  • Staff

  • COLA

  • Dean

See Definitions

Parts of the File Involved
  • Change of Rank Form
    • GG TTT.G.1.; GG PTF.F.1

Related:

  • Chair Statement
  • BC/EC Statements


Selecting Reviewers

When: Spring

  1. BC/EC and Cand independently assemble lists of potential reviewers, following the criteria laid out in GG (TTT) D.9.a. or GG (PTF) C.9; give lists to Chair.
    1. Tip: BC/EC or Cand should include justifications for any suggested names that do not meet the criteria from the Guidelines.
  2. Chair combines names into a single, shorter list; shares with Cand for review.
    1. Cand review should include:
      1. checking for conflicts of interest,
      2. checking for arm's length (if Cand is TTT, or PTF w/significant research/creative component of review), and/or
      3. any other potential concerns.
    2. Cand shall inform Chair of any conflicts of interest, potential arm's length issues, or if they simply do not want a reviewer to be asked for a letter.
    3. Once Cand has reviewed list, Staff should have them complete Section 1 of the COLA Promotion Candidate File Check, and keep the form on file.
  3. Once Cand review is complete, Chair compiles "final" list of potential reviewers for Dean's review; gives info to Staff.
    1. Reminder: Reviewers must not be solicited prior to approval from dean/dean's delegate.
    2. Tip: Chair should keep in mind that Guidelines require majority of letters received be from reviewers recommended only by department. (i.e., if reviewer is recommended by both Cand and BC/EC, it does not count for "department" in this tally.)
  4. Staff uses the information to complete the Promotion Reviewer Template. Some Reminders:
    1. If external reviewer is NOT a Full Professor, i.e., they are an Associate Professor, Emeritus, or other title, you must provide a justification.
      1. Anyone at the same or lower rank than the candidate is automatically ineligible.
    2. If external reviewer is not at an AAU or R1 institution that is considered "peer" or "aspirational peer", a justification should be provided:
      1. If R1 but not as highly ranked (subjective, but...): err on side of providing brief description of person's expertise and/or context, such as, if the specific program or department is considered among the best within the discipline.
      2. If not AAU, R1, or U.S. institution, the justification should include assurance that the individual is "knowledgeable about the scholarly expectations for promotion at an R1 doctoral university." (GG) In other words, it's less about justifying the prowess of the institution and more about whether the person would be able to provide useful answers to the solicitation letter's prompts.  
        1. That said, the institution ought to be a research university that awards doctoral degrees, or similar.
    3. If an external reviewer has had a minor collaboration with Cand, please provide brief explanation of collaboration and why the reviewer has been selected.
      1. If the external reviewer is a close collaborator and department still wants to ask for a letter, please explain that, keeping in mind it will not count toward the minimum required letters.
    4. If internal reviewer, must be of a higher rank, regardless of track, and be able to evaluate Cand's performance and trajectory according to the expectations for promotion.
      1. If internal reviewer has also provided peer teaching observation for Cand in rank, please note that reviewer must provide holistic review and not repeat the contents of the peer eval. (see GG PTF.C.9.e.)
  5. Staff prepares a sample solicitation letter, using the appropriate template. (see Note 5.a. for exceptions)
    1. Note: Only one sample letter per Cand is required, except in the following circumstances:
      1. PTF-Instructional+Res/Creat: please send both an external letter sample and the internal letter sample.
      2. PTF-Instructional+directed focus: basically, if you'd like certain reviewers to speak mostly to Cand's primary area and other reviewers to speak mostly to additional contributions, please send a sample of each sort of internal solicitation letter. 
        1. Put another way: if you plan on sending a set of teaching-focused materials to some reviewers and a set of additional contributions-focused materials to other reviewers, you ought to have 2 letters.
      3. PTF-Practice: If including internal as well as external reviewers, please send both an external-(practice) sample and the internal letter sample.
  6. Staff sends reviewer template and sample solicitation letter(s) via email to COLA (cola_hr@austin.utexas.edu), attn: Ann Kelble with a subject line: "Promotion Referees for 'Cand's Name.'" 
    1. If reviewer information is incomplete or if there are missing justifications, dean's review will be paused until Staff provides the missing information.
    2. COLA will screen the reviewer lists per GG requirements; except in cases where every suggested reviewer meets/exceeds the GG criteria (i.e., no justifications, caveats, or context required), COLA will forward to Dean for review and final-approval.
  7. Once approved, COLA will send Staff the list of approved reviewer names, will note any unapproved names, and will include, if applicable, an edited version of the solicitation letter.
    1. Letter edits generally consist of correcting typographical errors and/or aligning the letter more closely to the Provost's Office template, to safeguard compliance/reduce risk.
  8. The Chair may solicit letters using the approved letter text* as soon as the dean's level approval has been received; as responses come in, Chair shall forward to Staff also, to keep on file for process.  
    1. *If the sample solicitation letter is not used as the initial contact, the Chair must at least inform the potential reviewer that, under Texas law, they cannot ensure the confidentiality of the reviewer's letter. (see GG TTT.G.13.j.; GG PTF.F.13.i.) The standard solicitation letter should be sent to the reviewer either way, as it contains important information, review context, and questions for them to answer. 
    2. Recommended: Staff should use the list of reviewers and responses from solicited individuals to begin completion of the Chart of Reviewers.
    3. Note: If additional reviewer names are needed, Chair must have Cand review and Dean approve before soliciting, as above. 

Return to Table of Contents

Who's Involved?

  • Cand                   

  • BC/EC

  • Chair

  • Staff

  • COLA

  • Dean

See Definitions

Parts of the File Involved
  • Promotion Candidate File Check Form (COLA)
    • GG TTT.E.5. (and E.4); GG PTF.D.5. (and D.4.)
  • Sample Solicitation Letter(s)
    • GG TTT.G.13.j.; GG PTF.F.13.i.
  • Chart of Reviewers
    • GG TTT.G.11.a.; GG PTF.F.11.a.
  • Correspondence from External Reviewers Who Did Not Provide an Evaluation (if applicable)
    • GG TTT.G.13.k; GG PTF.F.13.j.

Related:

  • Reviewer Letters Received
    • GG TTT.G.11.b.; GG PTF.F.11.b.
  • List of Materials Sent to Reviewers
    • GG TTT.G.13.i.; GG PTF.F.13.h.
  • Five Most Significant Works Completed in Rank
    • GG TTT.G.7.c.; GG PTF.F.8.c. (Research Titles)
  • Letters from Collaborators, if applicable
    • GG TTT.G.13.l.; GG PTF.F.13.k.
TIP

The minimum number of required letters varies according to type of case (see GG (TTT)D.9 and GG (PTF)C.9 for full details):

  • TTT: 5 external
  • PTF - Research series: 3 external
  • PTF - Practice series: 3; at least 1 external
  • PTF - Instructional/Teaching-primary (but not in Practice series):
    • if research/creative work is significant component of additional contributions: 3, at least 1 external
    • (Most Common) res/creative work Not significant component of additional contributions: 3, all may be internal

Sending Candidate Materials to Reviewers

When: Spring - Early Summer

  1. Cand is responsible for selecting and providing materials to share with promotion reviewers, though they are advised to consult their Chair and/or faculty mentor(s) or peer(s) for feedback on their choices. Typical candidate materials sent to reviewers:
    1. To External Reviewers of Research and/or Creative Work (e.g., for TTT, Research-primary PTF, or Teaching-primary PTF w/ significant research/creative work as part of their additional contributions):
      1. Updated "normal" CV; (not the Promotion version)
      2. Brief research statement, written for audience of experts in their field(s) or related discipline(s);
      3. Five most significant works completed in rank (the works themselves) (see GG TTT.G.7.c. and TTT.G.13.f. or GG PTF.F.8.c. and PTF.F.13.f.).
      4. (optional) COVID-19 Professional Impact statement (see GG TTT.G.13.a. or GG PTF.F.13.a.)
    2. To Internal Reviewers (e.g., for Teaching-primary PTF):
      1. Updated "normal" CV; (not the Promotion version)
      2. Teaching statement; 
      3. Additional contributions statement; 
      4. Teaching Portfolio; 
      5. CIS Scores; and/or

      6. (optional) COVID-19 Professional Impact statement (see GG PTF.F.13.a.)

      7. Note: Materials for internal reviewers have not been standardized in COLA during prior cycles, beyond the CV and one or more statements. Departments and Cands are encouraged to consider which materials would best highlight excellence and impact in the candidate's record of teaching and/or additional contributions without simply duplicating large portions of the promotion file (especially if the internal reviewers are within the same department).

    3. Departures from the above-listed standard options are allowable, but not usually recommended. Please check with COLA if you have any questions or concerns.
  2. Once materials are assembled, Cand provides them to Staff and Chair. Once Cand has provided materials to department, they should have no more involvement in this part of the process. At no point should Cand communicate with reviewers. 
    1. If PTF Cand has reasons to interact with an internal reviewer unrelated to the promotion process, that is, of course, fine, but they shall not discuss the promotion process, the materials, or anything related.
  3. Chair decides how they want communication to work with external reviewers. Caveat: Departments manage the process of communicating with reviewers, so the information that follows is not meant to preempt that responsibility; rather, it is an attempt to sketch out the "normal" flow of things for individuals new to the process, along with providing some recommended best practices. Each Chair is responsible for setting the tone and for managing this process for their department's cases.  
    1. Chair typically attaches Cand's CV to the solicitation email sent to potential reviewers (using the vetted text). (Please see also "Selecting Reviewers", step 8.)
    2. Once a potential reviewer agrees to write a letter, the two options tend to be:
      1. Chair sends a thank you/acknowledgement of reviewer's positive response and lets them know to expect a follow-up communication from Staff, who will ensure delivery of materials to reviewer.
      2. Chair sends a thank you/acknowledgement of reviewer's positive response and shares a link to the candidate's materials (via UT Box).
      3. The first option is generally preferable, as it allows for Staff to manage the administrative details, especially in instances where a reviewer might request hard copies of materials or if there are follow-up communications needed. (E.g., Cand's book had been shared as manuscript but then corrected page proofs were received and able to be shared with the reviewers.)
    3. Note: Staff communication with external promotion reviewers should be polite, professional, effective, clear, and brief (include no more than what is necessary).
      1. Keep in mind you will be viewed not simply as an individual, but as a representative of your department and university.
      2. Also keep in mind that your email may become part of the final promotion file.
      3. Warmth, kindness, etc. are not incompatible with professionalism. Just sayin'.
  4. Staff (or Chair) sends materials to reviewers. In recent years, this is usually done via a link to a UT Box folder, containing electronic copies of the materials. Note: If Chair did not already send the formal Solicitation Letter (see template) to the reviewers, the formal letter should be sent along with the other materials.
    1. Staff needs to ensure that they have an accurate record of Cand's materials sent/shared with reviewers.
      1. In PTF cases where different sets of materials are shared with different reviewers, Staff must track which set was shared with which reviewer. (This is less common, but can occur when some reviewers are looking at publications plus related materials and others are looking at teaching plus related materials.)
    2. To be clear: the Cand's materials, once determined, should not be added to (or subtracted from) unless there is an exceptional reason that has been confirmed compliant with promotion guidelines.
    3. Tip: If Cand's materials include (a) published book(s), the Chair should decide in advance whether or not the department will offer to send hard copies of the book(s) to reviewers (or whether they will be willing to do so if requested). It can be a nice gesture, if funds are available, but is not mandatory. Also involves some additional logistics (purchasing, shipping, etc.).
    4. Tip: Make your files self-explanatory and well-organized.
    5. Tip: Keep file names short and don't use promotion publication numbers.

Return to Table of Contents


Who's Involved?
  • Staff               
  • Chair

  • Cand (indirectly)

See Definitions                  

Parts of the File Involved
  • Sample Solicitation Letter(s)
    • GG TTT.G.13.j.; GG PTF.F.13.i.
  • List of Materials Sent to Reviewers
    • GG TTT.G.13.i.; GG PTF.F.13.h.
  • Five Most Significant Works Completed in Rank
    • GG TTT.G.7.c.; GG PTF.F.8.c. (Research Titles)

Related:

  • Chart of Reviewers
    • GG TTT.G.11.a.; GG PTF.F.11.a.
  • Reviewer Letters Received
    • GG TTT.G.11.b.; GG PTF.F.11.b.


Policies

Provost's Office 24-25 Promotion and Tenure site

Timeline 2023-2024

  • Spring: Departments notify COLA who will be going up for promotion and tenure in the Fall.
  • Apr-Jun: COLA meets with Cands and Staff to go over guidelines and answer questions.
  • ~September 15, 2023: Department promotion materials due to COLA. [via Box folders]
  • October 2023: COLA Promotion and Tenure Committee and Dean begin to review promotion materials.
  • Tentative: October 20-21, 2023: COLA Promotion and Tenure Committee meets to deliberate and vote on promotion candidates.
  • October 20, 2023: Professional-track promotion files are due to the Provost Office. Dean letters for these cases due Oct. 27, 2023.
  • Late October 2023: EVPP review and request edits to COLA PTF files.
  • November 6, 2023: Tenured and tenure-track promotion files are due to the Provost's Office. Dean letters for these cases due Nov. 15, 2023.
  • Mid-Late November 2023: EVPP review and request edits to COLA TTT files.
  • Early December 2023: Dean will meet with President's Committee to discuss PTF promotion candidate cases.
  • January 2024: Dean will meet with President's Committee to discuss TTT promotion candidates.
  • February 19, 2024: President will notify the Dean of all promotion and tenure decisions.
  • February 23, 2024: Dean will notify Chair who will notify Cand, Staff, and BC/EC of President's decisions. COLA follows up with official notification letters.
  • March 29, 2024: Deadline to submit final arguments and CCAFR requests to the Provost Office.
  • April 22, 2024: President will notify Dean of final decisions regarding Assistant Professors with terminal appointments-pending.
  • May 8, 2024: CCAFR deadline to send President/candidate their reports (for requested investigations).
  • September 1, 2024: Effective date of new rank for successfully promoted faculty.

Please direct questions about the College of Liberal Arts Promotion and Tenure Review process to cola_HR@austin.utexas.edu 

  • No labels

Confluence Documentation | Web Privacy Policy | Web Accessibility