Suggestions for Assembling Materials for Reappointment, Tenure and
Promotion (including Professor Salary Adjustment)
Revised 6/4/2012
These guidelines have been prepared to assist college faculty in the preparation of material to be
submitted for personnel decisions including reappointments, tenure, promotions, and professor
salary adjustments. The material presented here are only suggestions as the college and the
university recognize that Article 14, paragraphs 37 and 38 of the 2011-2014 Agreement
takes precedence over the materials included in this document.
Agreement, article 14, paragraph 37: “It is the responsibility of each bargaining unit member
to document the quantity and quality of her/his activities and achievements... [and] the
bargaining unit member has final responsibility for bringing forth all evidence that the
bargaining unit member wishes to be advanced in conjunction with recommendations and
decisions.”
Agreement, article 14, paragraph 38: “Supporting documentation for reappointment, tenure,
or promotion shall include a narrative statement for each evaluation criterion, explaining how
and to what extent each of the activities claimed has met the standards set forth in the
departmental procedures, criteria, standards and bylaws and the terms of this Agreement.”
Suggestions for Organization of Materials:
Keep your reader in mind. Organize your materials so that they are easy to follow and mirror the
categories outlined in the Agreement. In addition to the Agreement categories, it is necessary to
present a well-organized argument in support of your achievements. Using the following
sections can be quite helpful:
1. Personnel form; department level comments
The department chair or appropriate department member should complete the form.
Depending upon the department bylaws, required statement(s) by the department chair and/or
personnel committee should be included here as well.
It is important for the department and the chair to cite appropriate evidence when making a
recommendation. For example, if the department and chair conclude the faculty member is
“an excellent teacher”, what evidence was considered and how was it interpreted? If a
faculty member is judged to have “high promise”, what evidence has been considered to
justify this conclusion? If a faculty member is publishing in top quality journals or cutting
edge journals, what evidence supports these claims? Also include evidence for the quality of
creative endeavors.
2
2. Table of Contents
This is an index (list) of the main components of the narrative and the major sections of the
backup materials. It is not necessary to number all pages.
3. Professional vita
A current complete vita is expected. Highlight or indicate in some fashion those activities
that have occurred since the last reappointment or promotion.
4. Narrative documenting the quality and quantity of work
The quantity and quality of your work and the extent to which the department standards for
each criterion have been met must be clearly stated and supported in the narrative. Most
applicants organize the narrative by sections that correspond to the department and university
criteria and standards. Each section begins by stating or summarizing the department and
university criteria and standards, followed by the applicant’s response and supporting
materials. Each personnel action should have a different narrative in which the personnel
action being requested is identified.
Reviewers are expected to know department standards and base their personnel decisions on
how well candidates meet those standards. They will read the narrative carefully and
appropriately check your supporting materials to satisfy themselves that you have provided
the depth of evidence to justify your case. Therefore, your narrative is critical to a
successful case — it must show how you meet each department and university criterion
and standard. It should be straight to the point, with the details and “the actual evidence”
left to the supporting materials.
Remember: Demonstrate quality and quantity. There are a variety of ways to
demonstrate the quality and quantity in each category. Explain how you have met the
departmental standard for each criterion of evaluation.
Include the date you came to CMU and the date of your last reappointment, or tenure and/or
promotion. Clearly distinguish activities that have been done at CMU versus work prior to
CMU. If work was done both before and after coming to CMU, give the reader some
indication of what and how much was done in each venue. If your scholarly and/or creative
activity includes a co-author or is the result of other collaboration, be careful to describe
precisely what is your contribution versus that of your co-author/collaborator. Also, for
promotion, the narrative should not include references to items that were considered in an
earlier promotion decision as evidence for this personnel decision. Be careful of double
dipping --- readers tend to spot this immediately.
Remember that people who are not familiar with your teaching, scholarly and creative work
and service activities will read the narrative. Avoid abbreviations when discussing committee
names, professional organizations, etc.
3
5. Supporting materials
Organize the material in such a way so that it is easy to locate specific items to which the
narrative makes reference. Tab sheets often separate major sections. Successful application
portfolios more often than not are organized by sections according to the categories set forth
in the CMU-CMUFA Agreement and subcategories identified in departmental bylaws
(Teaching Competence, Scholarly & Creative Activity and University Service). Only include
materials that are from the allowable time frame for the requested personnel action.
A good rule of thumb is to keep everything --- syllabi, grade distributions, unsolicited e-mail
messages from students that support your effectiveness as a teacher, e-mails/letters from
former student about your effectiveness, correspondence that demonstrates the quality of
your scholarship and leadership, awards, etc.
It is up to you to decide what supporting materials to submit; however, the most common
ones include the following (NOTE: These are just suggestions and should be considered in
conjunction with departmental bylaws). Please remember that you must include
supporting documentation as evidence for your achievements in each category.
Inventory of possible achievements and documentation: Teaching
SOS scores
REMINDER: Low SOS scores need to be discussed in the narrative and the
range of scores must be reported rather than only the “overall instructor
effectiveness” question score. “Overall instructor effectiveness” is a stand-alone
question and no longer represents an average teaching score. Conversely, high
SOS scores should be the subjects of attention, as well. Evidence of your grade
distribution is often helpful so that the reader can evaluate the meaning of both
high and low SOS scores.
Peer evaluations
Teaching awards, nominations and recognitions
Student comments
Unsolicited student and alumni letters
Advising performance
Instructional materials/websites
Relevant assessment data as evidence of learning
SRCEE participation of students (direct supervision)
Student awards, nominations and recognitions (activities you supervised)
Placement of students
Development of innovative teaching methods and/or new courses
Preparation and/or implementation of grant activities related to the teaching profile
Inventory of possible achievements and documentation: Scholarly & Creative
Evidence of presentation/publication/performance/exhibit
Conference papers
Programs
Photos
Invitation/acceptance letter
4
Reprints
Electronic media (audio/videotapes/CDs)
External reviews
Letters from colleagues at other universities
Departmental bylaws may specify other evidence as acceptable such as:
Editorship
Professional reviews
External grants submitted/awarded
Awards won
When discussing scholarly and creative work, quality and quantity must be
documented. Include the following:
Type of publication
Journal
Article
Book
Chapter
Proceedings
White paper
Abstract
Review
Citation
Authorship/contribution
Single author
Multiple authors (describe what you did; e.g., % of work you contributed)
Subsequent editions (% of work that is new material)
Review process
Refereed
Reviewed by editor
Blind reviewed by editor
Blind reviewed by multiple reviewers
Invited by an editor
Outside evaluators/adjudicators
Dissemination of publication or level of performance/exhibit
International
National
Regional
State
Local
Including circulation and prestige of publication or performance venue can further
strengthen quality of work.
5
Inventory of possible achievements and documentation: Service
Type of service
Departmental
College
University
Community – service related to academic expertise
Professional – service to the profession
Student/faculty recruiting
Specific contribution(s) to activity/committee
Leadership roles and accomplishments
A Note on External Review:
An external review of your portfolio can add significantly to the credibility of your case. This
often takes the form of a written assessment of your achievements from a reputable and
knowledgeable faculty member at another institution. NOTE: This assessment is less effective,
if not ineffective, when the external reviewer is a co-author of yours.