Promotion and Tenure Application Guidelines

2023-2024 version

Promotion Application Guidelines for Fixed Term-Track Faculty

The University of Texas at San Antonio

This set of guidelines provides information for Fixed-Term-Track (FTT) faculty applicants for

promotion as prescribed by the Handbook of Operating Procedures (HOP), chapter 2.50

“Fixed-Term-Track Faculty Recruitment, Evaluation, and Promotion” and for department

review committees (DRCs), Department Chair/School Directors, college review committees

(CRCs) and deans involved in the review process. These guidelines are reviewed annually and

updated as needed by the Provost and Academic Affairs staff.

The process of faculty promotion is one of the most important activities undertaken by the

university each year as it is one means by which the university upholds high standards and

expectations for its faculty. It is the incumbent responsibility of all who are involved in the review

process to read all applicable materials, deliberate the strengths and weaknesses of each case in

good faith, independence, and with objectivity, and to observe confidentiality concerning the

views of others, as revealed during review discussions. A respectful, thorough, and objective

review of faculty depends upon the conscientious efforts of all participants in the review process.

UTSA’s process is intended to be as forthright and transparent as possible, and as such, guidance

on the respective roles and responsibilities, processes, and criteria are provided here. Questions

concerning the university’s procedures for Fixed Term-Track faculty promotion may be directed

to Academic Affairs.

These guidelines are divided into sections:

Overview of Process — a brief description of the timeline for review and the roles and

responsibilities of each party at each stage of the process.

Preparation of the Promotion Packet — a listing of essential and optional elements to include

in the promotion packet prepared by faculty applicants.

Principles Guiding Promotion — information about the criteria to be followed in reviewing

promotion applications.

Review Process — an outline of the roles and responsibilities of the FRACs, Department

Chair/School Directors, and deans in conducting the review.

Overview of Process

The purpose of the promotion process is to perform an objective evaluation of each case at

several levels of review. Therefore, each case goes through five levels of independent review

before a final recommendation is achieved: DRC, chair, CRC, dean, and provost.

The promotion process is summarized in the table below, which outlines the rough timeline

and actions of the procedure.

When

Who

Responsibility

January

Applicant

Upload promotion documents to the official FTT

Promotion Review Workflow form in Digital Measures

Workflow no later than January 12 or the first workday

thereafter (workflow form available in November).

January -

February

DRC

Department

Chair/School Director

Review application submission; Deliberate in closed

meeting and vote on case; Prepare a written summary

of evaluation analysis in Digital Measures Workflow.

Review all application materials, including DRC

recommendation;

Prepare a written recommendation for

forwarding to the dean

in Digital Measures Workflow.

Provide a written notification to applicant of the

department’s

recommendation.

February -

March

CRC

College Dean

Review application submission; Deliberate in closed meeting

and vote on case; Prepare a written summary of evaluation

analysis in Digital Measures Workflow.

Review application

submission, DRC report, chair

recommendation

and CRC report. Prepare a written

recommendation for forwarding to the Provost

in Digital

Measures Workflow

Provide a written notification to applicant of the college’s

recommendation;

Application materials are due in to Academic Affairs by April 1st, or the first work day thereafter.

Preparation of the Application Packet

The application packet contains the materials that form the basis for the review at all levels of

evaluation. It is important that faculty members under consideration for promotion make every

effort to ensure that the material contained in the packet is complete, accurate, and

professionally presented.

The contents of an application packet should include the following elements:

a statement of self-evaluation

a professional vitae

evaluations and recommendations by various levels of review

documentation of teaching effectiveness for applicants in the Lecturer, Professor of Instruction,

Professor of Practice, and Clinical Professor series, OR

documentation of research/scholarly/creative activities for applicants in the Professor of

Research series

summary of service activities and responsibilities

optional supplemental materials

The professional vitae should serve as a simple listing of professional activities, while each of the

other components provides more in-depth information about those activities. The suggested

contents of each of these elements should include, but are not limited, to those suggested below.

The candidate is responsible for preparing items #1 – 2 and #4 – 6 above and the faculty review

advisory committee and chair are responsible for appending materials contained in #3.

Checklist

A checklist of the essential contents of the review package, as well as a checklist of possible

optional supplementary materials that may be submitted can be found on Academic Affairs’

webpage.

Statement of Self-Evaluation

The statement of self-evaluation should be organized in two sections, outlining the applicant’s

activities, experiences, and plans in the areas of teaching (Lecturer, Professor of Instruction,

Professor of Practice, and Clinical Professor series) or research (Research Professor series), and

service. Optional additional sections on research for applicants in the Lecturer, Professor of

Instruction, Professor of Practice, and Clinical Professor series or on teaching for applicants in

the Research Professor series should be included if appropriate.

•

For the teaching section, the applicant may wish to include a teaching statement outlining

her or his philosophy/approach to teaching, and describe any innovative approaches used

in delivering instruction.

•

The service section should provide an overview of service activities and explain the

applicant’s participation in key service roles.

The statement of self-evaluation should be no more than 5 pages.

Covid Impact Checklist*

We also recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic may have caused varying disruptions to faculty in their

teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and service goals. Furthermore, we understand that

these disruptions impact individual faculty in unique ways, based on differing responsibilities and

circumstances, and differing timescales and intensities. The COVID_19 Impact Checklist allows faculty

to provide information on disruptions to their teaching, research / scholarship / creative activity, and/or

service that provide additional, important evaluation context.

*Faculty will submit their Covid Impact Checklist in Digital Measures Workflow after the DRC has

completed their evaluation, before the review packet is forwarded to the Department Chair/School

Director.

Professional Vitae

The sections of the professional vitae may vary based on the faculty member’s appointment.

Name and Contact Information This should include UTSA address, phone number, and

email address, as well as current academic rank.

Educational Background List all institutions from which a degree was earned,

including the degree received and the major field of study.

Professional Employment History List all positions held in sequential order, with applicable

dates, since earning the baccalaureate degree, including the

present position at UTSA.

Awards and Honors List any awards, honors, prizes, competitions, or other

recognition received related to professional activities.

Teaching Activities List all formal courses taught during the past 2 years,

indicating the level of the course (undergraduate or

graduate) and its title. Provide a list of students

mentored in research/scholarly/creative activities and

any theses or dissertations directed.

Summarize any service on graduate committees and

for student advising.

Research/Scholarly/

Creative Activities Summarize all products of research/scholarly/creative

activities, including publications, exhibitions, performances,

architectural projects, or other documentation of scholarly

contributions. All products should include the date and title

of publication/exhibition/performance, the (e.g. impact

factors, citations , Almetrics, etc.) venue, and where

applicable, the inclusive page numbers or size of the

scholarly contribution. List separately the different types of

publications (e.g. journal articles, books, reviews, etc.),

scholarly products, or creative activity outcomes, providing

respective listings of invited contributions, refereed

contributions, and non-refereed contributions.

Scholarly Presentations List all external oral or poster presentations at conferences,

meetings, or other institutions/universities related to

scholarly work, and provide the dates and locations of

presentations. Use separate listings for invited presentations,

refereed contributions, and non-refereed contributions.

Granting Activities Provide a list of grants received, whether for research,

instructional, or public service activities (indicate one of

these for each grant), giving the name of the granting

agency, the project dates, the project title, and the total

amount awarded for each.

Service Activities Provide separate listings of all committee assignments,

assigned administrative activities (for example, adviser of

record, etc.), student-centered service, for example faculty

adviser for student organization, and any professional

service activities. Each activity should include the dates of

participation, the organizational level of the activity (for

example, depart- ment, college, etc.), and any leadership

roles played.

Evaluation and Recommendation Materials

As the application goes through the review process, each level of review should append its

analysis and recommendation to the packet for consideration by the next level of review.

Guidelines for these various levels of review are provided in the “Review Process” section of

these guidelines. The materials should be arranged in the following order, with the responsibility

and timing for appending each set of materials indicated below:

Item

Responsible Individual

When

DRC analysis

DRC Chair

Upon completion

Chair’s recommendation

Department Chair/School

Director

Upon completion

CRC analysis

CRC Chair

Upon completion

Dean’s recommendation Dean Upon completion

4A. Documentation of Teaching Effectiveness

Listing of Courses with Teaching Provide a table of courses taught during the evaluation

Evaluation Summaries period (the probationary period, the period since the last

promotion, or the past two years), using the template provided

below (this template may be downloaded from the website). Do

not include copies of student evaluation surveys or comments

among these materials.

Semester Course No.

Course

Type

New

prep?

Course

Enrollmt.

No. of

Responses

Course

Rating

Instructor

Rating

SP2011 ABC nnn3

LD, UD,

or GR

NEW xxx Yyy X.X Y.Y

Note: LD = lower division,

UD = upper division,

GR = graduate-level

Peer Observer’s Report Please refer to the Peer Observation Guidelines and the

HOP, Chapter 2.20 “Peer Observation of Teaching” for

more information. Provide the reports to the Department

Chair/School Director according to the Peer Observation

Guidelines.

Teaching Portfolios For one or two representative courses taught, provide a portfolio

containing the course syllabus, and examples of exams,

handouts, problem sets, and other written assignments.

Instructional Development List any workshops or other related meetings

attended (or organized) to increase pedagogical

effectiveness. This information should include dates,

formats, locations, and names of organizers.

Instructional Grants List all grants related to instructional activities.

Teaching Awards List any awards received for excellence in university-level

teaching. Indicate the date, award name, awarding unit

(for example, college, university, etc.), and institution.

Students Mentored Provide a list of all students directly mentored in scholarly

activities, indicating those who have completed degree programs

under your mentorship, and employment outcomes for mentored

students who have graduated. For undergraduate course

advisement, a summary of the number of students served is

sufficient.

4B. Documentation of Research/Scholarly/Creative Activities

Scholarly Products Provide an electronic copy of all research/scholarly/creative

works produced during the evaluation period. This includes

full copies of any journal articles, book chapters, papers in

conference proceedings, architectural projects, digital

images of artwork, recordings of musical performances or

compositions, and other short-format works. These may

include manuscripts under review or in preparation. All

relevant products should include the impact (e.g. impact

factors, citations , Almetrics, etc.) of the published work.

Applicants should provide a hard copy of any full books

authored or edited by the faculty member. Portions of books

may also be scanned to create a digital image for use in the

internal review— scanning services are available through the

University Library. In cases where the amount of scholarly

products is extensive, a representative sample of scholarly

products may be submitted, after consultation with the

Department Chair/School Director. Note that citation indices

of published work may be included among the optional

supplementary materials.

Reviews Where appropriate, provide copies of any reviews of

scholarly and creative activity, including reviews of books

published, exhibitions, performances, compositions

architectural projects, and other creative endeavors.

Grant Proposals An electronic copy of all funded grant proposals, as well as

any proposals under review, or in preparation, should be

provided with an indication of the present status of the

proposal. Referee comments from funded proposals may be

submitted along with the proposals themselves. If the

amount of funded proposals is extensive, a representative

sample of proposals may be submitted, after consultation

with the Department Chair/School Director.

Intellectual Property Provide documentation of any intellectual property

produced, including patents, copyrights, licensing

agreements or other commercialization activities. Faculty are

not required to divulge sensitive information concerning the

intellectual property, but may document its development and

potential commercialization through letters and other

communication.

5. Summary of Service Activities and Responsibilities

Committee Assignments Separately list committee assignments at the department,

college, and university levels, indicating dates of service and

the name of the committee chair. Applicants should also

indicate the extent of their contributions to the work of each

committee listed.

Professional Service Activities List any activities, other than leadership positions, in the

service of professional and disciplinary organizations. In all

cases, provide dates of service, organizations served, and

time committed.

Leadership Positions Provide a summary of any leadership positions held at the

university or within a professional/disciplinary organization

or society. List the dates for each applicable position, the

responsibilities of the position, and the time commitment

involved in executing the responsibilities of the position.

Also, indicate any special accomplishments achieved while

in the leadership position.

6. Supplemental materials

Additional material, if pertinent, can be included here.

Special Note to Faculty

These guidelines are intended to help you prepare a well-documented case for promotion. As you

prepare your packet, please consider how readily a reader may access and absorb the material it

contains. Please be as concise and succinct as possible in each section of the form.

Principles Guiding Promotion

For general guidelines to the criteria expected for successful promotion and tenure, please see the

UTSA Handbook of Operating Procedures, chapter 2.50 “Fixed-Term-Track Faculty

Recruitment, Evaluation, and Promotion.” Although specific expectations vary by discipline and

by other guidance put forth by the Academic Colleges and individual Departments, the over-

arching university standards for excellence that comport with the university’s goals are described

below.

We value and recognize the pivotal role of FTT faculty in our interconnected, mutually supportive

institutional goals of student success and excellence through innovation. Accordingly — and

fundamental to our university’s mission — successful applicants for promotion will have the

following attributes in primarily teaching or research, and show evidence of progressive record of

achievement and engagement:

•

Excellence in teaching. Successful applicants in the Professor of Instruction and Practice

series, and in the Clinical Professor series will have a sustained record of excellence in

teaching as evidenced by peer observation reports, student evaluations, curriculum design,

and the demonstration of innovative teaching methods.

•

Significant scholarly contribution. Successful applicants in the Professor of Research

series will be active researchers, scholars, and creative artists. Successful applicants will be

engaged in discovery — exploring the nature of the world and the diverse human condition

in new ways — that advances new knowledge, perspectives, and understanding.

•

Progressive record of achievement. Academic efforts and outcomes should build and

unfold, showing evidence of ongoing and evolutionary development of expertise, skills,

and accomplishments.

•

Engagement. Examples of engagement might include fostering the success and development

of students into transformative leaders of a diverse, inclusive society.

The maximum and minimum time limits for promotion listed in HOP 2.50 apply to full-time faculty.

Eligibility standards for promotion for part-time faculty are determined at the College level and are

required to be included in each College’s Promotion Guidelines. See your College’s Promotion

Guidelines for more information.

For FTT faculty candidates with years in faculty rank (or equivalent; note, NOT including

graduate or post-doctoral work) gained at other institutions, the review process including the

departments, colleges, and the university levels shall include consideration of any scholarly

productivity and impacts, teaching excellence, and service participation completed prior to joining

UTSA as faculty.

Review Process

The review process for promotion involves five levels of review, including the Departmental

Review Committee (DRC), the chair, the College Review Committee (CRC), the dean, and the

provost. This structure promotes a thorough, objective review of each case.

Roles of Review Entities

All reports from the various levels are ultimately advisory to the provost, who makes final decisions

concerning the university’s recommendations for promotion. The role of each entity in this review

hierarchy can be summarized as follows:

DRC— The DRC provides a peer review by those members of the university community best

qualified to judge the quality of the candidate’s activities. Accordingly, the DRC should

provide a detailed written analysis of the candidate’s instructional or

research/scholarly/creative and service activities. The final recommendation of the DRC

should be based upon that analysis and should report the final tally of any votes taken by the

committee, including any abstentions or absences.

The DRC should include at least one FTT faculty member at equal or higher rank than the

rank to which the candidate is requesting promotion. If the department has no FTT faculty

members who would qualify, then an FTT faculty member from another department within

the college can be appointed to the DRC for the purpose of reviewing the candidate.

All votes should be by secret ballot so that the votes of individuals are not divulged. Only

DRC members present for the discussion should participate in the vote of the committee.

Department Chair/School Director— a full and detailed review of the candidate’s performance

since hiring or last promotion, from the perspective of the long-term needs of the

department. The chair should independently evaluate the candidate’s application packet, but

consider the recommendations of the DRC in arriving at a recommendation.

The chair’s report should succinctly amplify points in the DRC report where there is

agreement, and fully explain the reasons for any differences of opinion with the DRC report.

When the case is forwarded to the college, the Chair shall notify the candidate(s) in writing

about the nature of the DRC and Chair’s recommendations.

CRC - The CRC provides a comprehensive review of the candidate’s packet, and DRC and Chair’s

recommendations. The CRC provides a more general peer review from within the context of the

college as a whole, ensuring that each department in the college is upholding equivalent

standards for promotion. The CRC should provide a report outlining the justifications for its

final recommendations, and may cite the DRC report and Chair’s report liberally to highlight

agreement or disagreement with previous recommendations. In cases where the CRC is in full

agreement with the analysis of the DRC and Chair, it may provide a brief evaluation and

analysis justifying the agreement. The CRC should exercise all votes by secret ballot and report

the numerical results of those votes, including abstentions and absences. Only CRC members

present in the meeting for the discussion should participate in the vote of the committee.

Dean— an independent, comprehensive review of the candidate’s packet, taking the DRC, CRC and

Chair’s recommendations into consideration. The Dean should provide a written analysis of

each case. When all cases from the college are transmitted to Academic Affairs, the Dean

shall notify all candidate(s) in writing about the nature of the Dean’s recommendation.

Ideally, the Dean should also provide verbal feedback to the Chair at the end of the college-

level review and discuss areas of concurrence and disagreement.

Academic Affairs— an independent review of the candidate’s packets and general analysis of the

earlier reviews (DRC, Chair, CRC and Dean). Academic Affairs is responsible for

maintaining equivalent, and high, standards across the university. Academic Affairs will

prepare appropriate written notification to all candidates for promotion concerning the

outcome of the review process.

General Guidelines for the DRC and CRC

The DRC and CRC for each department shall be constituted as indicated in the policies and procedures

cited in the Handbook of Operating Procedures (HOP), Section 2.50.

In addition to the policies expressed under HOP 2.50, the DRC and CRC should adhere to the

following guidelines. Careful adherence to these policies and guidelines is necessary to ensure a fair,

objective, and consistent process throughout the review of each case.

• The DRC and CRC functions to conduct internal peer evaluations for the purpose of

making recommendations on faculty promotion from lecturer to senior lecturer and into the

professor of instruction, practice, and clinical and research professor series. The committees

shall limit their recommendations to these actions, as appropriate.

• Faculty members serving on the DRC and CRC are responsible for thoroughly reviewing

the applicant’s performance in each of the performance criteria and attending and

participating in all committee discussions and engage in formulating the committee

recommendations.

• The analysis of the DRC and CRC should indicate the factors that contributed to each

committee’s recommendations and illuminate any factors that were prominently cited during

the deliberations that would have been supportive of a contrary recommendation.

• Recommendations should be based on consistently applied criteria appropriate for the faculty

candidate’s academic discipline.

• Faculty serving on the DRC and CRC should focus on factual information and guard

against inaccuracies caused by either emphasis or omission of information.

• At each stage in the review process, all previous recommendations and analyses in the

current review cycle are to be taken into account by the reviewing entity and noted in the

written analysis.

• Regardless of whether a person is a member of more than one review committee for a case

(e.g., DRC, and CRC), that person may only vote on the case once, and that vote occurs at

the department level. If that person is on the DRC and CRC that person may only vote on

the case at the department level and may not vote on this case at the CRC level. Even if

that person did not serve on the DRC and serves only on the CRC, they may not vote on

their department’s cases at the CRC level.

• In the CRC deliberations, each committee member shall present a balanced description of

the decisions rendered at lower levels for cases originating in his/her department or

college. It is expected that members of CRC will not advocate for a particular decision. In

addition, faculty members on the CRC may not write the committee report for promotion

and tenure cases from their department.

• Committees should be constituted in accordance with the Handbook and College Bylaws,

A minimum of three members are required to serve on the committee.

• The FRC report should be signed by all participating members of the review

committee. On the signature page, the report should include a header that reads: “We,

the undersigned members of the [DRC/CRC] have reviewed this report for completeness

and accuracy, and attest that we have reached our recommendations through a thorough

review and discussion of the available documentary evidence.”

Each dean is responsible for reviewing policies and procedures and these guidelines with

Department Chair/School Directors and for assuring that these policies, procedures, and instructions

are followed.

Guidelines for Department Chair/School Directors

The Chair’s report should contain the following essential elements:

• a summary of the review process followed by DRC, including the recommendations of

the DRC;

• an analysis of the candidate’s contributions in the areas of teaching or

research/scholarly/creative activity and service;

• a succinct statement of the Chair’s recommendation, with explanation of the factors leading

to this recommendation.

The Chair should strive to compose the report as objectively as possible, using factual data to

support conclusions and expressing the evaluation in terms of departmental expectations and

aspirations. In doing so, the Chair understands that the recommendation is most likely to be upheld if

there is a clear rationale for how the candidate’s promotion will recognize outstanding contributions

to the department and help the department improve its overall performance.

Guidelines for Deans

The role of the Dean’s recommendation is to uphold high standards across the college and ensure

that promotion decisions are made to support the long-term quality and productivity of the college.

In all cases, the Dean’s report should an independent, comprehensive review of the candidate’s

packet and provide the following essential information:

• the nature of the department’s recommendations through the DRC, CRC and Chair;

• the Dean’s recommendation for the case.

The Dean should provide a comprehensive review of the candidate.

If earlier recommendations express diverse outcomes, or if the Dean disagrees with their

conclusions, then a more comprehensive recommendation should be provided. That report should

contain an explanation of the reasons supporting the Dean’s recommendation, citing decisive

arguments included in the DRC and Chair reports. The Dean should take care to express

conclusions within the context of the college’s expectations and aspirations for long-term quality

among its faculty.

Appeal of Promotion Decisions

The promotion review process is a comprehensive one requiring several layers of thorough review.

Appeals should be made only in cases where new, compelling information relevant to a promotion

decision has become available since the completion of the college-level review. Such information might

include, for example, receiving a significant award for teaching or scholarly achievements, a new major

publication of research results, or major external competitive funding awarded for research.

Appeal Procedure

1. The faculty candidate shall first consult with the Senior Vice Provost of Academic Affairs to

discuss the promotion application, and the new information that might support a successful

appeal.

2. Within thirty (30) work days of the first work day in April the candidate shall submit the appeal

in writing to Academic Affairs.

3. The written appeal is limited to the following materials:

1. a succinct cover letter explaining the nature of the new material being submitted for

consideration and its significance; and

2. new material in support of the promotion application that was not available prior to the

time the case was sent forward by the Dean to Academic Affairs.

4. Academic Affairs shall review the written appeal, but may consult with reviewers from any or

all of the review levels used in the promotion processes.

5. Academic Affairs shall inform the candidate in writing of the final decision within twenty (20)

work days of receiving the written appeal.

6. Academic Affair’s decision is final for the current application review cycle or a mandatory

review. If the decision is to deny promotion for a non-mandatory review, then the candidate may

reapply in a subsequent academic year.

Retention of Promotion Documents

Promotion documents are retained in accordance with the university’s official retention schedule.

The university’s full records retention schedule can be accessed through the following link:

https://www.utsa.edu/openrecords/retention.html