Guidelines for Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor

Beginning with the 2024-25 academic year, promotion documents elevated from the Departments, having already been positively reviewed for promotion by the Council of Full Professors or Executive Committees, will be reviewed by the Committee for Promotion to Full Professors, which is composed of a faculty member with the rank of professor and in good standing from each department and led by the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and a committee chair. This committee will provide promotion recommendations to the Dean. After the inaugural cycle, this committee made recommendations on how to improve the consistency of promotion documents and how to ensure that each faculty member’s accomplishments during the evaluation period could be equitably evaluated. Effective with the 2025-26 academic year, the documentation guidelines for promotion to professor have been updated to reflect the current College review standards. Please reference the “Summary of Documentation” section on pages 3-4 for these updates.

Promotion to professor recognizes a faculty member for continued post-tenure development as a participant in the university’s missions of research, teaching, extension, public service and outreach. A recommendation for promotion by the department to the Dean’s Office shall be based on documented evidence of continued professional growth and creativity which have resulted in significant contributions in the area of the faculty member’s appointment, an international reputation as a leader within the faculty member’s discipline, continued excellence in research, teaching and/or extension, plus their contributions to service and outreach. International reputation as a research leader may be demonstrated through international research presentations, organization of international conferences, journal editorial board positions, leadership of large international research collaborations, and other activities. The candidate and department chair should highlight the evidence for international reputation within the dossier. In cases of Extension Funded Faculty or other specific cases, evidence for career stage appropriate leadership within the discipline at the state, regional, national, or international scale should be highlighted by the candidate and the chair. Additionally, consideration should be given to evidence of dedication to the promotion of an atmosphere of creativity and learning among students and colleagues and to special accomplishments in research, teaching, extension, outreach, and service that provide noteworthy contributions to the profession, department, university and/or state.

In evaluating a candidate for promotion to professor, the goal should be to seek an accurate picture of the excellence of the individual’s accomplishments in a range of activities, as well as prospects for continued performance that demonstrate that the candidate is exceptionally well qualified and has met or exceeded the expectations set by faculty colleagues across the college.

Instruction

Ample evidence that the candidate’s instructional skills meet the standards described earlier should be provided. Undergraduate students, graduate students and postdoctoral associates should benefit from exceptional teaching by our senior faculty both inside and outside the classroom. Effective teaching requires not only a mastery of the subject, but also the ability and willingness to communicate a knowledge base to students while stimulating and facilitating creativity and learning.

Evidence of outstanding teaching may take many forms outside the formal classroom environment. Each faculty member should build a portfolio that demonstrates how they are moving instruction forward. These include the sound advising of students, supervision of student activities, the timely and thorough guidance of thesis research, new course development, publication of textbooks, and national recognition as an educator as evidenced by the performance of former graduates. Documentation will include student evaluation of classroom and other instructional work and written peer reviews of the candidate’s performance in the classroom by colleague peer evaluation of other instructional activities, and may also include alumni evaluations, self-evaluations and statement of teaching philosophy, syllabi, awards, and other pertinent information.

Research

Documentation of substantial and innovative post-tenure research accomplishments as well as the promise of continued significant contribution to one’s field of expertise are major considerations in the promotion process. Among the issues to be considered are the rate of successfully training masters’ and doctoral students, training of post-doctoral fellows, the quality of publications and the rate of publication in peer reviewed journals, publication of scholarly reviews in journals and books, and the national and international significance of the candidate’s research as judged by peers in the field. Consideration also should be given to collaborative and interdisciplinary research, as well as to success in developing a high quality extramurally-funded research program.

Extension

Promotion to professor requires documented evidence of excellence in Extension program planning and delivery. Planning and development of Extension programs should be a cooperative effort with other specialists, outreach specialists and user groups and must focus on priority needs of the state. Programs should have clear objectives and direction, establish policy, organize and coordinate activities, acquire funds, and include on-going evaluation (and related adjustment) by client groups. Program delivery should involve meaningful interaction with colleagues and clientele, and instructional skills should be equivalent to those generally viewed as exceptional in a classroom setting. Candidates must clearly demonstrate the ability to successfully translate and integrate research findings into practical applications.

Evidence of outstanding Extension programming may take many forms: publications (listed by type), computer software, videotapes, satellite programs, ETN presentations, agent in-service training, and other identifiable accomplishments. Activities must be shown to be part of a cohesive, directed programming package involving appropriate delivery methods.

Documentation of excellence should be provided through outreach specialist and peer evaluations, programming awards, regional and national programming activities, grants and contracts received, Extension leadership and professional development activities, and indicators of the impact of programming on the state’s economy. Refer to the “Excellence in Extension for College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Faculty Funded by the Division of Extension” document for additional details.

Service and Outreach

Service and outreach activities cover a wide range of contributions that may be related to the instructional, research, and extension appointment of faculty and are key pieces of evidence that a faculty member is a contributing citizen to our academic community. Instruction outreach and research outreach activities should be included in the instruction and research sections. Public service should be considered an element in evaluation for promotion, but should not be the sole area of achievement. There should be demonstrated evidence that a candidate has sought to be involved professionally in organizations that promote and influence

the field. Evidence of leadership roles in the professional community is of particular significance. In addition, contributions to State and National initiatives through participation in panels, commissions, review committees, university outreach, consulting activity, reviewing proposals, and community activities all contribute to the total profile of a candidate’s effectiveness as a

professional. Effectiveness should be measured by documented peer review, public comment or other appropriate means.

Faculty participation in the governance of the university, the college, and in the department through committee work, volunteer service to colleagues or in other ways is required, if the university is to fulfill its mission. Thus, demonstrated excellence in such activities is an essential component of the promotion consideration.

Process

Each department/unit must establish the guidelines and processes it will follow when considering an individual for promotion from associate professor to professor. The department/unit should follow:

FP&P 7.16: Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor
When a faculty member has an appointment in more than one department, follow FP&P

7.16.C.3 guidance.

Promotions and Post-Tenure Reviews in the same academic year

When a faculty member is being considered for a promotion and is scheduled for a posttenure review in the same academic year, separate and complete documentation should be submitted for both the promotion and post-tenure review. The documentation should be submitted to CALS Human Resources per current college guidelines and policies.

Beginning with the 2024-25 academic year, combined documentation supporting a faculty member’s promotion and post-tenure review will no longer be accepted by the CALS Dean’s office.

Promotion review for faculty hired at the rank of Professor

1. In cases where a faculty member is to be hired at the rank of Professor, the committee for Full Professor Promotions will meet off-cycle. In these cases, the department chair should submit the tenure dossier provided to the respective divisional committee, accompanied by a cover letter indicating anything in 1.a.i. below which may not be clear in the tenure dossier (e.g. candidate performance consistent with other full professors in department, international reputation for excellence within discipline, etc.). No additional materials or reformatting to the tenure dossier are required.

For additional information regarding faculty appointments, please view the faculty appointment web page.

Summary of Documentation to be Submitted to the Office of the Dean

Please send an electronic copy of the following, regarding the individual being recommended for promotion, to CALS Human Resources by February 1 of each year:

Cover letter which includes the following:
1. Vote of the department, per FP&P 7.16.B.1*
  1. A statement from the Chair (three-page maximum) of the individual’s achievements during the evaluation period, which led to the recommendation. Please provide a statement of why the time is “now” for promotion and provide context for the candidate’s national and international reputation for excellence in their field. Disciplinaryspecific context for the relative number of publications, grants, and journals is helpful for cross-college review. Notable or key contributions to grants, teaching/curricular efforts, extension programs, or service and leadership should also be addressed. The contribution of teaching efforts and courses taught to major curricula, certificates, or programs should be highlighted. For letters of reference, explain the process the department used to select letter writers. Ensure that letter writers explicitly include a definition of their relationship to the candidate in their letter or provide supplemental context (e.g. email followup).
Promotion Document assembled by the faculty candidate with the objective to clearly demonstrate the candidate’s achievements since tenure and their future trajectory. Statement of contribution, philosophy, and future trajectory can either be provided separately for research, teaching, extension, and service as applicable, and embedded within those sections or as one unified statement at the beginning of the document. The document should include a full, unabbreviated C.V. The following elements must be present and can either be provided as a preface to the C.V. or embedded within the C.V. Within the sections below (if relevant) and throughout the C.V., denote which accomplishments have occurred during the evaluation period.
1. Research
  1. Grants. A table should be included that identifies the following information.
    1. Name and type of grant
    2. Total amount and percentage of grant awarded to the candidate
    3. Extramural vs. intramural status
    4. Description of the candidate’s contribution (for example, there could be a critical contribution but small percentage of funding)
    5. Grant proposals in progress
    6. In some cases, a Gantt chart of timing of grants relative to career stage may be helpful and included
  2. Publications
    1. Citation list: also provide total number and total citations posttenure
    2. For collaborative publications, include a brief description of the candidate’s contribution. If students are involved in publications, include a brief description of the candidate’s contribution.
    3. Publications under review or submitted iii. Other indicators of research productivity (e.g. patents, technologies, etc)
2. Teaching and Research mentoring
  1. Explain the candidate’s contributions and overall impact on the department’s overall teaching mission
  2. Quantitative summary table of teaching efforts: students, credits, number of instructors. Explain the candidate’s contributions and overall impact on the department’s overall teaching mission. Care should be taken to distinguish guest lectures from primary instructional responsibility.
  3. Student evaluations should be summarized for all courses taught during the evaluation period. Average scores can be provided in the table noted in 2.c.i. above, or in a separate table. The last two years of written comments should be pasted directly (inclusively and without edits) into the document. Complete student evaluation reports for the period of review should be included as an appendix.
  4. Evidence of teaching quality, which may include: Delta Program participation, teaching awards, peer evaluations, etc.
  5. Peer teaching evaluations. A minimum of one peer teaching evaluation is required (within the last two years). For documents submitted in the academic year 2025-26, the committee strongly encourages peer teaching evaluations to be included if possible but understands that the timing of this new requirement may not align with the faculty candidate’s teaching schedule. For documents submitted in the academic year 2026-27 and beyond, a minimum of one peer teaching evaluation will be required.
  6. Indicators of undergraduate and graduate research mentor training including: undergraduate research trainees, graduate students and role (primary advisor or committee member)
3. Extension (or Outreach)
  1. Summary of extension activities and impact
  2. Scope of extension program and relative state, regional, national, or international recognition, as relevant to the respective extension program
  3. Reviews and evaluations of extension programming
4. Service
  1. Description of meaningful service contributions and evidence of departmental, college, or university citizenship. Professional service to journals, professional societies, or grant funding agencies should also be highlighted.
Brief summary of future career plans from the faculty member.
Letters of support:
1. Suggestions for letter writers may come from the candidate, department chair, and the council of full professors. It is important that the suggestion of some letter writers (at least two) come uniquely from departmental recommendations. The request for a letter of support should include instructions to indicate relationship with the candidate and if not included, the department chair should include a clarifier.
2. Sources of letters:
  1. Three to four letters of support should be provided from colleagues outside the UW System. Strong preference is for at least two letters to be “armslength letters”; however, given the highly collaborative nature of some candidate’s research, this may be challenging. In these cases, at least two should be from letter writers who have not co-authored a manuscript or collaborated on a grant during the evaluation period and have not had a prior mentoring relationship (advisor or advisee).
  2. One or two letters of support can come from UW-Madison or UW System colleagues.
  3. Provide a brief table that states (1) who suggested each letter- writer (i.e. candidate, department chair, department) and (2) whether each letter writer is considered arms-length.
3. Letter writers should be prompted to address the following:
  1. Relationship with the Candidate
    Please describe your professional relationship with the candidate. How long and in what capacity have you known the candidate. Include any past or current collaborations or other professional interactions.
  2. Scholarly Contributions and Impact
    It is not necessary to restate or summarize the breadth or depth of the candidate’s accomplishments. Instead, please assess the degree to which the candidate demonstrates significant contributions to the scientific community through research and/or extension. Please provide specific examples, comment on impact, and focus on work since tenure.
  3. Professional Trajectory, Scientific Reputation, and Future Potential
    How do you evaluate the candidate’s trajectory and potential for continued growth and sustained impact in the field? Does the candidate have national and/or international reputation and standing relative to outstanding individuals in the same field at approximately the same career stage
  4. Overall Assessment
    In your judgment, does the candidate meet the standards for promotion to full professor at a major research university? Please explain your assessment.

*A departmental recommendation to promote to the rank of professor is forwarded to the Dean’s office following an affirmative recommendation of a subset of the departmental executive committee, consisting of the full professors on the executive committee (hereafter referred to as the “Council of Full Professors”), to that effect. In lieu of a Council of Full Professors, departments may instead create a standing committee consisting of a subset of full professors to vote on promotion cases.

Dark Mode On