Retention, Promotion, and Tenure Review Policies and Procedures
Effective Date and Application to Existing Faculty | Informal and Formal Reviews | RPT Criteria and Standards | RPT Procedures |
Appendix A | Appendix B
Approved by Department Tenure-line Faculty: 31 March 2022
Approved by Dean, College of Humanities February 3, 2022
The Department of History embraces a mission of increasing historical understanding and knowledge by conducting and disseminating original research and teaching history as well as transferable skills leading to diverse careers for both undergraduate and graduate students.
This document is the Department’s Statement of RPT criteria, standards, evidence, and procedures, as required by University Regulations. All committees or individuals making any recommendation or decision in an RPT proceeding shall do so consistent with the governing University Regulations and the substantive criteria, standards, and evidence set forth in this Statement. The primary relevant University Regulations are Policies 6-303 and 6-311.
The Department of History Retention, Promotion, and Tenure Review Policies and Procedures are intended to provide candidates for retention, promotion and tenure with the standards that will be applied in reviews of their performance, as well as the procedures to be followed in these reviews.
The Department of History affirms the importance of a tripartite professional commitment to research, teaching and service. It assumes that its faculty will strive for excellence in each category, while recognizing that only rarely will an individual attain equal distinction in all three. Rather, each member, possessing special commitments and talents, has unique and equally valuable contributions to make to the composite departmental achievement. Concerning retention, promotion and tenure, each member shall be judged on overall performance.
The department considers the adoption of a detailed set of inflexible standards concerning retention, promotion and tenure to be both unnecessary and unwise. Professional advancement is a highly individualized process in which many factors (some of which are subjective and intangible) are operative. Yet it is important for each member of the department to be apprised of the basic criteria by which his/her performance shall be judged and his/her progress determined.
Candidates for retention, promotion and tenure in the Department of History must meet the minimum standards of service, teaching, and publication set forth in this policy statement. However, minimal performance will not result in automatic promotion or tenure. Personal behavior will not be considered unless it becomes detrimental to effective departmental or university performance (in keeping with the expectations of responsible faculty conduct per University Policy 6-303-III-A-2-b).
1. Effective Date and Application to Existing Faculty
These RPT criteria, standards, evidence, and procedures are applicable as of theeffective date shown on page 1. Any candidate appointed to a tenure-line faculty position on or after this date will be considered under this Statement.
With the exception of candidates seeking promotion to the rank of Professor (see below), a candidate whose appointment began prior to the effective date has the option of being reviewed under either (1) the RPT Statement in place at the time of their appointment or (2) this Statement. The Department Chair must notify the candidate that this Statement will apply automatically unless a candidate communicates a preference to be reviewed under the prior RPT Statement by signed letter submitted to their Department Chair and Dean. For a formal review during which external evaluations are solicited, the candidate must communicate their preference by signed letter prior to materials being sent to external evaluators. For all other reviews, the candidate must communicate their preference by signed letter by the deadline for the candidate to provide materials for the review.
A candidate who will be reviewed for promotion to the rank of Professor after the effective date of this Statement will be reviewed according to the RPT Statement in effect at the time review materials are sent to external evaluators.
2. Informal and Formal Reviews Schedule
2.1 Length of Pobationary Period and Schedule of Reviews
a. Normal probationary period
The normal probationary period for a candidate appointed at the rank of Assistant Professor is seven years. Per University Policy, the normal probationary period for a candidate appointed without tenure at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor is five years.
b. Reviews schedule
The Department shall conduct either a formal or an informal review of a candidate in each year of their probationary period (as indicated in Table 1 below). Additionally, the Department shall conduct a formal review of each candidate for tenure (and typically also for promotion) in the final year of the probationary period.
A candidate with a seven-year probationary period undergoes one formal mid-probationary retention review in the fourth year.
A candidate with a five-year probationary period undergoes one formal mid-probationary retention review, in the third year.
Table 1: Normal Review Schedule
Rank at Appointment
Year of Informal Review
Year of Formal Review
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th
1st, 2nd, 4th
As more fully explained in 4.2.d below, if a candidate does not demonstrate clearly adequate progress in an informal review, a formal review may be triggered.
c. Shortening or extending the probationary period
A candidate may request an early tenure review (i.e., shortening the otherwise applicable probationary period) by following the procedures provided for in University Regulations. Because early reviews require a candidate either to have qualifying prior service or to have made truly extraordinary progress toward tenure, few requests are made, and few are granted. Candidates should consult with the Department Chair, Dean, and senior colleagues before requesting an early tenure review.
If the candidate has had an authorized extension of the probationary period, the years of the mid-probationary formal retention review
and the final review for tenure shall be adjusted accordingly. Regardless of an extension
of a candidate’s probationary period, the Department shall conduct an informal review
in any year in which a formal review is not held.
2.2 Candidates Appointed at the Rank of Associate Professor or Professor, without tenure
The Department typically does not appoint new tenure-line faculty members at, or promote current tenure-line faculty to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor without the concurrent granting of tenure. Under appropriate exceptional circumstances, however, a new tenure-track faculty member may be appointed at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor, or a current tenure-track faculty member may be promoted to Associate Professor, without the concurrent granting of tenure.
2.3 Request for Promotion to Rank of Professor
The Department does not require any minimum number of years subsequent to the granting of tenure or promotion to Associate Professor before a candidate may request a review for promotion. Ordinarily, however, such reviews are not held before the academic year in which a candidate is scheduled for the first Tenured Faculty Review (TFR), which is five years after tenure is achieved (see Policy 6-321). In considering promotion to the rank of Professor, reviewers shall consider all of the candidate’s faculty activities since the candidate was granted tenure.
The University and this Department determine a faculty member’s tenure status and rank based on assessment of achievements in the three functions of tenure-line faculty members, referred to as criteria in University Regulations: (1) research/creative activity, (2) teaching, and (3) service.
Summary ratings of performance in each of these three areas serve as the standards set for retention, promotion, and tenure. As permitted by University Regulations, this Department uses a four-level scale of standards for evaluating performance: excellent, very good, effective, and not satisfactory.
The criteria and standards for retention during the probationary period, for tenure, and for promotion to each rank are listed below. Implicit in the criteria and standards for each stage of advancement is the concept that accomplishments in one area do not compensate for substandard performance in another area. The same criteria and standards apply for both formal and informal reviews. Evaluations of a candidate’s performance are based on the evidence provided in the RPT file, as described in subsequent sections.
Per Policy 6-303, in carrying out their duties in research/creative activity, teaching, and service, faculty members are expected to demonstrate the ability and willingness to perform as responsible members of the faculty, as defined in the Faculty Code (Policy 6-316). Therefore, assessments of research/creative activity, teaching, and service may consider the candidate’s conduct as a responsible member of the faculty, based on the evidence in the file.
Diversity is a core value of the University as expressed in the University’s Mission Statement. In addition, as articulated in the 2025 Strategy Refresh, the University defines equity, diversity, and inclusion as key elements of research/creative activity, teaching, and service. This Department shares this mission and these values.
3.1 Summary of RPT Standards
Retention: A candidate for retention must demonstrate reasonable potential for meeting the standards established for tenure. Candidates for retention are expected to be making adequate progress toward tenure and promotion. In scholarship, candidates for retention should demonstrate good progress toward the publication of a monograph. The department also expects that candidates for retention will begin to develop a larger scholarly profile, as demonstrated, for example, by presenting scholarly papers, especially at national and international conferences and symposia; publishing book reviews and essays; and being awarded grants for support of their scholarship. In teaching, the department expects candidates for retention to demonstrate emerging effectiveness in the classroom. In service, candidates for retention should be starting to make a contribution both to the department and in some larger context—either in the university, in the profession, or in the community.
Tenure: A candidate for tenure must achieve ratings of excellent in research/creative activity, at least sustainedeffectiveness in teaching, and at least sustainedeffectiveness in service.
Associate Professor: A candidate for promotion to this rank must have developed a broad reputation of at least very good in research/creative activity; demonstrated at least very good in teaching; and performed at least effective service in some combination of University, public, and professional settings. The evidence presented must also demonstrate that the candidate has the ability to achieve the requirements for the rank of Professor in due course.
Professor: A candidate for promotion to this rank must achieve ratings of sustained excellence in research/creative activity resulting in a national and international reputation in their field, at least very good in teaching, and at least very good in service.
The evidence must demonstrate continuing professional growth at a level appropriate to the rank of Professor.
3.2 Evaluation of Research/Creative Activity
Judgments about a candidate’s research/creative activity are based on both the quality and quantity of research/creative products and their relevance to the academic community. The characteristics of productive research/creative activity, however, differ depending on the candidate’s area(s) of specialization and professional goals. Assessments of faculty research/creative activity reflect professional judgments that consider the quality and quantity of contributions and the professional context of the candidate.
a. Description of research/creative activity and evidence to be evaluated
The department expects candidates to contribute significantly and distinctly to the development and dissemination of new knowledge. In order to do so, we expect candidates to produce high quality scholarly work at an appropriate rate for the discipline. Quantity of research/creative activity is not judged by simple publication counts or impact factors. A series of publications over time that represents sustained research in one or more topic areas is expected. We also expect the candidate to demonstrate that his or her research program is on a positive and productive trajectory over time and is sustainable.
Research/creative activity is expected of every member of the academic community. It is closely connected to decisions regarding retention, promotion and tenure. Candidates for these attainments are expected to produce research/creative material, most often but not limited to scholarly monographs. Quality is more important than quantity at all levels. Candidates are expected to give evidence of a profile of scholarship that will indicate an active, ongoing, and substantive commitment to research/creative activity. While no numerical statement regarding quantity can ever replace the emphasis on quality, the department affirms normally a base level of one book as a minimum effort to warrant consideration for the award of tenure. For purposes of evaluating publications, a book shall be defined as a monograph (anthologies which consist of edited collections of articles, reprints of documents or essays, and textbooks shall be considered as supplemental publications); an article shall be defined as an essay that appears in either an edited collection of original writing or a publication whose contributions are scrutinized by an independent board of editors and/or a single editor using external peer reviewers. Evidence of final acceptance of a manuscript by a press or journal shall be deemed the equivalent of publication. Publications must represent significant contributions to historical knowledge and demonstrate professional skills of a high order.
It is understood that faculty members engaged in public history and community engaged scholarship (CES) may produce forms of scholarship that differ from published monographs and articles, and that work should also be evaluated as research/creative activity. In this regard, public history and CES projects that represent significant contributions to historical knowledge and demonstrate professional skills of a high order may be considered in place of, or in addition to, publications. Such scholarship might include: historic preservation and cultural resource management projects; oral history and community history projects; museum exhibition and curatorial projects; documentary films, television, radio programs, and podcasts; contract research reports and expert testimony or consulting reports; digital history projects such as online exhibitions, digital documentary editions, online collection databases, and other forms of content development for history-based websites. Faculty members submitting such scholarship should provide evidence of peer review, with the understanding that just as the products of public history and CES might differ from academic publications, so might the appropriate form of peer review.
The History Department recognizes that, in some cases, candidates for retention, promotion, and tenure may make significant scholarly contributions through electronic publication. The Department will accept electronic books and articles as part of a candidate's retention, promotion, and tenure file when the candidate can demonstrate that those publications have been subjected to peer review.
In describing their work faculty will follow lexicon recommended by the American Historical Association as follows:
““In Press”: the manuscript is fully copyedited and out of the author’s hands. It is in the final stages of the production process. “Forthcoming”: a completed manuscript has been accepted by a press or journal. “Under contract to . . .”: a press and an author have signed a contract for a book in progress, but the final manuscript has not yet been submitted. “Submitted” or “under consideration”: the book or article has been submitted to a press or journal, but there is as yet no contract or agreement to publish.” (Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct (Updated 2019) (https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-standards-and-guidelines-of-the-discipline/statement-on-standards-of-professional-conduct#Reputation)
Quality of Research/Creative Activity
Research is evaluated with respect to three facets of quality: purpose, significance of outlet, and impact.
1) Nature and Purpose of the Contribution
The mission of the University, in part, is to create new knowledge. Consistent with this, quality is in part evaluated by the degree to which the research/creative activity contributes to new understanding. Five categories of purpose are listed below, reflecting a general ordering from greater to lesser significance.
Creation of New Knowledge. This category includes research/creative products that present new theory, methodology, or empirical data.
Novel Synthesis of Existing Knowledge. This category includes research/creative activity that presents a new synthesis of existing knowledge with new implications for future research/creative activity and theory.
New Descriptive Data. This category includes research/creative products that report new empirical data, but with little or no development of new conceptual understanding.
Summary and/or Application of Existing Knowledge. This category includes research/creative products that summarize existing knowledge (previously generated theory, concepts, methodology, and/or empirical findings), often with recommended applications for professional areas.
Commentary on Existing Knowledge. This category includes research/creative products of limited scope such as a published comment, editorial, or book review.
2) Significance of the Research/Creative Activity Outlet
The quality of contributions is judged in part by the type of outlets in which they appear. Four levels of significance are listed below with common examples. The examples are meant to serve only as general guidelines for assessing the significance of outlets. Each product is considered for its own unique merits relative to this facet of quality.
Level A. Examples of this category include authored scholarly books by respected publishers, articles in widely recognized and peer-reviewed journals that are general to the relevant field, and articles in highly regarded peer-reviewed journals in a specialty area.
Level B. Examples of this category include articles in respected peer-reviewed journals, book chapters in a high-quality edited book, and edited books.
Level C. Examples of this category include authored books on professional topics for the general public.
Level D. Examples of this category include articles in non-peer reviewed journals, unpublished research reports, and conference presentations.
3) Potential Impact of the Work
Judgments of impact (or predicted impact) range from minimal to exceptionally high. These judgments are based on individual assessments of the work, conclusions from qualified external evaluators, citation rates if the publications or creative works have existed for a sufficient period of time and the citations rates are available, and other forms of recognition such as awards and honors. Both the breadth—the degree to which contributions broadly affect different areas within the field—and the depth—the degree to which contributions have changed the way other scholars think about a topic area—of impact are considered.
4) Statement on Community-Engaged Scholarship
Community Engaged Scholarship (CES) involves the investigation, analysis, and the transformation and dissemination of knowledge based on community-informed, reciprocal partnerships involving the university and community members. CES contributes to both the public good and the university mission, is rooted in disciplinary or field-based expertise, uses appropriate methodologies, and involves public dissemination of products that can be peer reviewed. Such activities should demonstrate respect for the contributions made by community partners, as well as respect for the principle of “do no harm.”
Research / creative activity in this area must be disseminated widely and publicly, and have an impact beyond those who participated in the research. Evidence of impact may include: (i) publication of books, chapters, articles in peer-reviewed journals, and articles in highly-regarded non-peer-reviewed journals, (ii) substantial written work in well-regarded, edited electronic outlets with large audiences, (iii) presentation of research at professional meetings and/or invited lectures, and (iv) when CES is creative activity rather than research, the creation itself may be evidence of its influence if it has a sustained impact in the community and bears other hallmarks of influence (e.g., a juried museum installation).
b. Research/creative activity funding
Acquiring funding to support research/creative activity is valued by the University and this Department and is necessary to sustain the mission of the University. All successful as well as unsuccessful efforts to obtain such funding contribute positively to a candidate’s performance in research/creative activity.
c. Summary rating scale for research/creative activity
Ratings on the four-point scale below reflect the joint consideration of quantity and quality of research/creative activity as described above.
Excellent: The candidate has made substantial, sustained contributions in one or more topic areas of research. The quality and quantity of research reflect a coherent agenda in at least one topic area.
Very Good: The candidate has made significant, sustained contributions in one or more topic areas of research. The quality and quantity of research reflect a coherent agenda in at least one topic area.
Effective: The candidate has made acceptable, sustained contributions in one or more topic areas of research. The quality and quantity of research reflect a coherent agenda of work and suggest that significant contributions will be made over time.
Not Satisfactory: The candidate has made insufficient contributions in research/creative activity.
3.3 Evaluation of Teaching
Within the University system, the term teaching refers to regularly scheduled instruction; curriculum and program development; and counseling and advising of students, which includes directing undergraduate and/or graduate student work. There are therefore three components of teaching: (1) course instruction, (2) curriculum and program development, and (3) student advising and mentoring.
Specific sources of information to evaluate the candidate’s teaching shall include: (a) the candidate’s description of teaching philosophy, as included in a personal statement; (b) peer review of the candidate’s syllabi, assignments, and other teaching materials; (c) peer observation of the candidate’s course instruction, seminars, workshops, and other public presentations; (d) information from Course Feedback Reports; and (e) Student RPT Advisory Committee (RPT-SAC) report(s). The candidate may choose to submit other information about teaching, including, for example, a teaching portfolio, teaching awards, or any evaluation of the candidate’s teaching done by personnel from the University’s Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (CTLE). When evaluating teaching, reviewers must consider all sources of teaching information included in the file.
Contributions in teaching are evaluated with respect to both quantity and quality. In addition, this Department values teaching activities that explicitly incorporate and address equity, diversity, and inclusion.
a. Course instruction
Course instruction encompasses (a) classroom instruction; (b) online and distance education teaching; (c) the organization and facilitation of seminars and workshops that are related to curriculum needs; and (d) independent instruction involving one or more students on special topics.
b. Curriculum and program development
Academic programs require significant investments of faculty time in ongoing curriculum/program development and maintenance. Examples of these kinds of contributions include development and teaching of new courses, development of new curricula or programs for the Department, and publication of textbooks or other teaching materials. The contributions of a candidate to such efforts, beyond regular teaching assignments, may therefore be considered as part of contributions in the area of teaching.
c. Student advising and mentoring
Undergraduate and graduate student advising and mentoring generally takes place outside of the classroom. Activities in this area include (1) general student advising and mentoring, (2) chairing and serving on graduate student committees, (3) directing undergraduate research or thesis projects, and (4) including students in research and as co-authors in scholarly work. Contributions in this area are evaluated with respect to both quantity and quality.
e. Summary rating scale for teaching
Ratings on the four-point scale below reflect the joint consideration of the three components of teaching described above.
Excellent: The candidate has made substantial, sustained contributions in areas of course instruction, curriculum/program development, and/or student advising and mentoring.
Very Good: The candidate has made significant, sustained contributions in areas of course instruction, curriculum/program development, and/or student advising and mentoring.
Effective: The candidate has made acceptable, sustained contributions in teaching. The candidate shows sufficient progress in the areas of course instruction, curriculum/program development, and/or student advising and mentoring to suggest that the eventual contributions in these areas will be significant.
Not Satisfactory: The candidate has made insufficient contributions in teaching.
3.4 Evaluation of Service
Evaluations are made with respect to three areas of service: (1) professional service, (2) University service, and (3) public service. It is not necessary for a candidate to participate equally in all three service areas. Differing participation in the three service areas typically reflects the strengths and interests of individual faculty members. In addition, this Department values service activities that explicitly incorporate and address equity, diversity, and inclusion.
a. Professional Service
Professional service primarily takes place at a national or international level. This service may be oriented toward professional organizations, and it includes such activities as holding office; participating in the organization or operation of conferences; attending professional meetings; serving as chair, discussant, or reviewer for presentations at professional meetings; serving on various professional committees, panels, or boards (e.g., accreditation boards); and presenting professional workshops. Professional service contributions may also include serving as editor, associate editor, editorial review board member, or regular reviewer for scholarly or professional journals.
b. University Service
This category includes service to the Department, College, and overall institution. A candidate’s shared-governance activities at any of these levels (e.g., chairing and/or serving on standing and ad hoc committees, councils, and task forces or serving in administrative positions) are examples of University service contributions.
c. Public Service
This category includes service related to the candidate’s area of expertise in various local, regional, national, and international public settings and may take many forms, e.g., serving on boards and committees for governmental and/or non-profit organizations, or consulting with and/or providing direct service to community agencies as appropriate within University guidelines.
d. Summary rating scale for service
Ratings on the four-point scale below reflect the joint consideration of service contributions in the three areas described above.
Excellent: The candidate has made substantial, sustained contributions to the profession, the University, and/or the public.
Very Good: The candidate has made significant, sustained contributions to the profession, the University, and/or the public.
Effective: The candidate has made acceptable, sustained contributions in service. The candidate shows sufficient commitment to service in at least one area, suggesting that the eventual contributions of the candidate will be significant.
Not Satisfactory: The candidate has made insufficient contributions in service.
The following are the normal participants in RPT reviews:
a. Candidate. The faculty member under review for retention, promotion, tenure, or tenure and promotion.
b. Department Chair. The administrative head of the Department.
c. Undergraduate Student RPT Advisory Committee (RPT-USAC) and Graduate Student RPT Advisory Committee (RPT-GSAC). The RPT-USAC is a committee made up of representatives of undergraduate students from the History Student Association in the Department. The RPT-GSAC is a committee made up of representatives of graduate students from the History Graduate Student Association in the Department. Each Committee shall have at least three (3) members, elected by their peers. The RPT-SACs shall elect their own Chairs.
d. Peer Teaching Reviewers. Peer Teaching Reviewers are tenured faculty members who write peer teaching review reports based on review of teaching materials and observation of teaching. They are selected by the RPT Advisory Committee Chairperson.
e. Shared-appointment unit. This is another academic unit of the University, in which an RPT candidate under review currently has substantial responsibilities, but in which they do not hold a tenure-line position. (See University Policies 6-001 and 6-300)
f. External Evaluators. These experts from outside the University of Utah evaluate the candidate’s research/creative activity and are selected by the Department RPT Advisory Committee Chairperson, Department Chairperson, and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee members in consultation with the candidate. Each external evaluator must have a demonstrated record of excellence in the candidate’s field, and must hold the same or higher faculty rank as that for which the candidate is being considered in this review or the next promotion review. An external evaluator shall not be a family member, the advisor or mentor of the candidate, or a close collaborator. A candidate will have the opportunity before evaluations are solicited to identify these relationships and any conflicts with any other potential evaluators, all of whom shall be excluded from the list of external evaluators.
g. Department RPT Advisory Committee. Voting membership of the Department RPT Advisory Committee is determined by University Regulations for each specific RPT action. Per University Policy, tenured faculty members vote on a recommendation for retention or tenure, and tenure-line faculty members at the same or higher rank vote on a recommendation for promotion-in-rank. (Policy 6-303 provides full details, including rules governing absentee voting). Qualified members of the Committee attend and participate in its meetings and vote on its recommendations. The Committee may agree to invite others to attend and participate in the meeting as provided by University Regulations; however, other invited participants do not vote on the Committee's RPT recommendations.
h. RPT Advisory Committee Chair. The Chair of the Department RPT Advisory Committee is a tenured member of the Department faculty, elected annually during the Spring Semester, by majority vote of all tenure-line faculty. By April 30, the elected RPT Advisory Committee Chairperson will, in consultation with the candidate, assign an individual of the RPT Advisory Committee to oversee the candidate’s file in the RPT process.
i. Secretary. The Committee Chair designates a Committee member as Secretary to prepare a report of the Committee meeting.
j. Ad Hoc Review Subcommittee. This Subcommittee prepares a report about an RPT candidate (except first-year informal candidate reviews: see 4.2b) for consideration by the RPT Advisory Committee. The Chair of the RPT Advisory Committee, in consultation with the candidate appoints the Subcommittee chair and its other members total of three (3) for an informal review and three (3) for a formal review). The members are tenured and qualified by rank to vote on the RPT Advisory Committee’s recommendations regarding the candidate
4.2 Informal Review Procedures
a. Purpose of informal reviews
An informal review of each tenure-track faculty member shall take place in every year of the probationary period in which a formal review is not conducted.
An informal review provides a candidate with guidance and constructive feedback on their progress toward meeting RPT expectations.Aprimary function isto provide advice on developing the file for the formal review process, focusing particular attention on the materials appropriate to each of the three areas of evaluation: (1) research/creative activity, (2) teaching, and (3) service.
b. First-Year informal review
The first-year informal review will be conducted during the Spring Semester to identify and address any problems that have arisen, and to provide mentorship to the candidate. The RPT Advisory Committee shall review the candidate’s research/creative activity, Course Feedback Reports, and service. If deemed necessary by the RPT Advisory Committee, the RPT Advisory Committee Chair and Department Chair shall meet with the candidate to discuss the review and any problems with research/creative activity, teaching, or service. The RPT Advisory Committee Chair shall then prepare a brief written report copied to the candidate and placed in the RPT file. Within five (5) business days, the candidate may submit a written response to the report to the Department Chair, who shall add it to the RPT file.
c. Informal reviews after the first year
Normally by August 30, the candidate shall submit the following materials to the Department Chair, who will add them to the file: (1) an up-to-date curriculum vitae; (2) a personal statement that includes the candidate’s current activities and progress and accomplishments to date, research agenda, teaching philosophy, and future plans in research/creative activity, teaching, and service; (3) copies of publications/creative works; and (4) course syllabi. The candidate may choose to submit (5) relevant supplementary material. The file may be updated until the file closing date. (See Appendix A)
In the case of a candidate who has a shared appointment, the Department Chair shall notify the appropriate administrator of the other unit in writing of the informal review by April 15 and invite the unit to submit a report with that unit’s perspective on the candidate’s progress toward tenure, which should be submitted to the Department Chair by October 5. Any such report will be added to the RPT file and a copy provided to the candidate.
The Department Chair will add to the file Course Feedback Reports from University of Utah courses. If the candidate so chooses, they may provide course evaluations from other institutions, which the Department Chair will then add to the file.
The Department Chair will also add to the file any appropriate materials regarding evidence of faculty responsibility. (See Appendix A)
RPT-SACs are not asked to submit a report for, and external evaluators are not involved in an informal review.
The RPT Advisory Committee shall meet to discuss the file, agree on feedback to be provided to the candidate, and write a summary report, which the RPT Advisory Committee Chair shall place in the candidate’s file. After studying the candidate’s file, the Department Chair shall add a report to the file. The candidate may provide a written response to the reports within five (5) business days, which the Department Chair shall place in the file. After the informal review, the Department Chair and the RPT Advisory Committee Chair shall meet with the candidate to discuss the reports, as well as the candidate’s progress toward tenure. The informal review normally concludes at this point.
d. Triggering formal retention reviews
In the context of an informal review, if the tenure-track candidate does not demonstrate clearly adequate progress toward tenure, under University Regulations the Department Chair or a voting majority of the RPT Advisory Committee members may trigger a formal retention review. The triggered formal review shall occur the following fall unless a majority of the RPT Advisory Committee votes to proceed with the review in the current academic year. Regardless of when the review occurs, the Department Chair must provide written notice of the triggered formal review to the candidate no less than 30 calendar days prior to conducting the review.
4.3 Formal Review Procedures
A mid-probationary formal retention review, a triggered formal retention review, a formal tenure review, and a formal promotion (either to Associate Professor or to Professor) review follow the same format, except regarding whether and how many external evaluators are included (see section 4.3.e below).
a. Department Chair Responsibilities.
By April 1, the Department Chair will determine the obligatory RPT reviews for the upcoming academic year and will notify, in writing, the faculty members required to be reviewed. The Department Chair will also invite any other tenured and tenure-track faculty members wishing to be formally reviewed for promotion or tenure to submit a letter requesting review to the Department Chair by April 15. For each candidate being reviewed, if required, the Department Chair will request nominations from the candidate for external evaluators, and request that the candidate submit the signed waiver/non-waiver form governing the confidentiality of external evaluations.
At least three weeks prior to the convening of the RPT Advisory Committee, and at least two weeks prior to the file closing date, the Department Chair shall invite any interested faculty and staff members in the Department to submit, by the file closing date, signed written recommendations for the file of any candidate they so choose, with specific reasons for each recommendation.
In the case of a candidate who has a shared appointment, the Department Chair shall notify the administrator of the other unit in writing of the formal review by April 15 and invite the unit to submit a report, which shall include that unit’s perspective and recommendation on the RPT action(s) under consideration. The shared-appointment unit will submit the report to the Department Chair by October 5.
The Department Chair will add the shared-appointment unit report to the RPT file and copy to the candidate. Within five (5) business days, the candidate may submit a response to the report.
At least three weeks prior to the closing of the file, the Department Chair shall notify the college's ASUU Student Senator and the Department RPT-SAC(s) of the upcoming review, inform them that their report(s) shall be due by the file closing date, and ensure training for all RPT-SAC members. Training shall cover, but need not be limited to, the process for and importance of student input into the RPT process, teaching expectations under the departmental RPT Statement, and recognition of unconscious bias. The Department Chair shall also provide the RPT-SAC(s) with a copy of the University’s form for RPT-SAC reports. Following training, the Department Chair shall provide the RPT-SAC members with the candidate’s relevant teaching-related materials (including at least two different forms of evidence).
b. Meeting and Report of Student RPT Advisory Committee (RPT-SAC)
The RPT-USAC and RPT-GSAC each shall meet to discuss the candidate's teaching file. Using the University's approved RPT-SAC Report form, the RPT-USAC and RPT-GSAC each write and submit a report evaluating the candidate's teaching achievements in accord with University Regulations and using the same standards for teaching as are listed above: excellent, very good, effective, not satisfactory. The report must draw on at least two types of evidence (Course Feedback Forms alone are not sufficient) to support and illustrate the evaluation, articulating as specifically as possible the reasons for the evaluation. All Committee members who attend the meeting will sign the report.
c. Assignment by RPT Advisory Committee Chair
The elected RPT Advisory Committee Chair will assign a Secretary for the Committee. And, in consultation with the candidate, appoint members to and select a chair for the Ad Hoc Review Subcommittee.
d. Peer Teaching Reviewers
By February 1, the Ad Hoc Review Committee Chair shall select at least two Peer Teaching Reviewers, and then ensure that each Reviewer submits a Peer Teaching Review report to the Ad Hoc Review Committee Chair, who shall add the Peer Teaching Review reports to the candidate’s file prior to the file closing date.
e. External Evaluators
The candidate must provide a list of seven (7) potential external evaluators and provide any information about potential conflicts by June 1. The RPT Advisory Committee Chair, after consulting with the Department Chair and the ad hoc Review Subcommittee Chair, and considering the list of potential evaluators submitted by the candidate as well as any information about any conflicts, will obtain no fewer than three (3) external evaluations for each formal retention review, tenure review and each formal promotion (either to Associate Professor or Professor) review. Three (3) external evaluators are required for a triggered formal retention review if research/creative activity is at issue.
For all reviews requiring external evaluators, at least one (1) external evaluator will be from the candidate’s list, and at least one (1) external evaluator will not be on the candidate’s list.
The Department Chair will send potential external evaluators a standard solicitation letter, including notification of whether the candidate has waived the right to see the evaluations, and will provide them with a copy of this approved RPT Statement. External evaluators shall be asked to submit their evaluations no later than the file closing date. External Evaluators may not be used for more than one formal RPT review.
f. RPT file contents and file closing date
(1) File Closing. The candidate’s file will close September 15, except for materials specified as being added subsequent to the closing date.
(2) Candidate Responsibilities for File Contents. By June 1, the candidate shall submit the following items for inclusion in the file: (1) a current curriculum vitae; (2) copies of publications and/or other forms of scholarly/creative work; (3) a personal statement that includes the candidate’s current activities and progress and accomplishments to date, research agenda, teaching philosophy, and future plans in research/creative activity, teaching, and service; and (4) course syllabi. The candidate may choose to submit (5) other relevant materials, including Course Feedback Reports from outside the University, and updates of materials up to the file closing date. (See Appendix A)
(3) Department Responsibilities for File Contents. Prior to the file closing date, the Department Chair shall ensure that the file includes: (1) current University of Utah Course Feedback Reports, (2) available RPT-SAC report(s), (3) any written recommendations from Department faculty and/or staff members or other interested individuals, (4) external evaluations (treated as confidential as appropriate), (5) peer teaching review reports, (6) the reports and recommendations from all past reviews since the last formal RPT review, as well as the candidate's CV at the time of each past review and (7) any other required materials, such as evidence of faculty responsibility. (8) Any report received from a shared-appointment unit, must be submitted and included in the file by October 5; and, any candidate response must be submitted within five (5) business days following receipt of the report. (See Appendix A)
g. Candidate's right to comment on file
No later than five (5) business days after the file closing date, the candidate may submit a written response to any of the file contents to the RPT Advisory Committee Chair, who shall add the response to the file. If a shared-appointment unit submits a report, the candidate must have the opportunity to submit a response no later than five (5) business days following receipt of the report and no fewer than two (2) business days prior to the RPT Committee meeting.
h. Department RPT Advisory Committee meeting and subsequent steps
(1) Department RPT Advisory Committee Action. The full RPT Advisory Committee will meet after the file closing date and after receiving any report from a shared-appointment unit (and any response from the candidate), but generally no later than October 15. Unless the majority moves to an executive session to exclude non-voting participants per University Regulations, the Department Chair or others may attend the meeting, and upon invitation by the majority of members, may participate in the discussion and submit evidence, judgments, and opinions, but shall not vote on the Committee’s recommendations. Each Committee member shall review the full file prior to the meeting. The Committee will discuss the record as it pertains to each of the relevant criteria (research/creative activity, teaching, and service). Committee members shall vote by secret ballot separately on a recommendation as to each RPT action for each candidate (e.g., a vote on recommendation for tenure is taken and recorded separately from a vote on recommendation for promotion of that candidate). (See voting eligibility for each action in Section 4.1.g above).
(2) Absent RPT Advisory Committee Members. Whenever practicable, the Department Chair shall advise all RPT Advisory Committee members on leave or otherwise absent of the proposed action and shall request their written opinions and votes in advance of the meeting. Absent members’ written opinions shall be disclosed at the meeting and their votes will be counted and recorded without distinction between the votes of present members and absent members.
(3) Quorum. Quorum of the RPT Advisory Committee consists of two-thirds of its members, except that any member unable to attend the meeting because of formal leave of absence or other unavoidable reasons (e.g., illness), and not submitting their written opinion and vote, shall not be counted in the number required for quorum.
(4) RPT Advisory Committee Report. The report of the meeting should reflect the nature of the discussion with major points on both sides revealed. It should explain both affirmative and negative votes, and should present relevant and specific evidence from the file. The report should be comprehensive enough to allow others to get a sense of the discussion and not just a summary or the conclusions. Additionally, it should include consideration of the RPT-USAC and RPT-GSAC reports and the shared-appointment unit report (if present). The report, including vote counts for each recommendation, should be signed by the Secretary, approved by the Committee Chair, and made available for inspection by the Committee members. After allowing an inspection period of not less than two (2) business days nor more than five (5) business days, and after such modifications as the Committee approves, the Secretary shall forward the summary report to the Department Chair and the candidate, along with a list of all faculty members present at the meeting.
(5) Confidentiality. The RPT Advisory Committee Chair shall inform the candidate of the Committee recommendation(s) as soon as possible. All Committee votes and deliberations are personnel actions and must be treated with confidentiality in accordance with University Regulations and state and federal law. Members of the Committee are enjoined not to convey the substance or outcomes of Committee deliberations to the candidate or others. The candidate should not ask questions about the Committee’s deliberations outside of the conversation the Committee Chair has with the candidate about the Committee’s meeting and recommendation.
(6) Department Chair Action. After studying the entire file relating to a candidate, the Department Chair shall prepare a written evaluation and recommendation as to each RPT action, including specific reasons for the recommendation with specific evidence presented, and then place a copy in the RPT file and provide a copy to the candidate. No later than seven (7) business days after receiving the evaluation and recommendation, the candidate may provide a written statement in response to the report of the RPT Advisory Committee and/or the evaluation and recommendation of the Department Chair. The Department Chair shall place any written response submitted by a candidate in the candidate’s file, without comment.
(7) Actions and Appeals Procedures Beyond the Department Level. Subsequent procedures are described in University Regulations and any relevant College Council Charter.
Appendix A: RPT File Contents.
It is the candidate’s responsibility to provide the following documentation to the Department Chair for inclusion in the RPT file, prior to the file closing date. The candidate should provide all teaching materials early enough for Peer Teaching Reviewers and RPT-SAC(s) to use this material for their reports.
1. Curriculum Vitae. This should include at least the following:
a. All publications/creative works since the beginning of the candidate’s professional
career. Must list inclusive page numbers and state if acceptance was based on anonymous
review or other selection method.
b. Conference papers presented and presentations given.
c. Grants and fellowships applied for and received.
d. Honors received for research/creative work.
e. All graduate student committees served on or chaired.
f. Individual student research supervised.
g. Teaching awards or teaching recognition received.
h. Service activities for the University, profession, and public.
CVs should be dated. If the candidate updates their CV after it is sent to external evaluators, both versions of the CV should be included in the file and clearly identified.
2. Personal Statement. This document includes the candidate’s current activities and progress and accomplishments to date, research agenda, teaching philosophy, and future plans in research/creative activity, teaching, and service.
3. Copies of recent publications/creative works, including title page of authored or edited books.
4. Course syllabifor all courses taught in the past year for informal reviews, or since appointment or the previous formal retention review for formal retention reviews. Or, the most recent syllabus for all courses taught since appointment for tenure and promotion review or for the past five years for promotion to professor review. The candidate may also choose to include additional materials, such as assignments, exams, and handouts.
5. Other relevant materials, such as a teaching portfolio, course evaluations from other institutions, or letters the candidate has received from faculty, staff, students, or other interested individuals. If the candidate has had personnel from the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence observe teaching or review teaching materials, the candidate may wish to include a resulting evaluation in the file. Where the candidate’s role in particular research is unclear, the candidate should include letters from collaborators describing the candidate’s contribution to the work.
6. Candidate response(s) to any file contents, if desired.
Department of History’s Responsibility
- Peer Teaching Review reports based on review of teaching materials and observation of teaching.
- All Course Feedback Reports from University of Utah courses taught since the last formal review (with a maximum of five years required for post-tenure promotion to Professor). For formal reviews for tenure, all evaluations since appointment.
- Any report received from a shared-appointment unit, and any candidate's response.
- All previous reports submitted by all voting levels from all formal and informal reviews since appointment or the last formal RPT review (whichever is more recent). Previous RPT-SAC reports need not be included; but, the CV at the time of the last formal RPT review (or appointment, if no previous formal RPT review exists) must be included.
- Other relevant materials, such as signed recommendations from faculty, staff, or other interested individuals, consistent with University Regulations.
- Evidence offaculty responsibility. This may include letters from the Department Chair describing the candidate’s service to the Department and commenting on professional conduct. If an administrative reprimand has been issued, that reprimand as well as the latest findings, decisions, or recommendations from University committees or officials arising from the concerns about the faculty member that led to the reprimand will be included in the candidate’s file.
- External Evaluator Materials (when required), kept confidential if the candidate has
waived the right to read
a. Signed form evidencing candidates waiver or retention of right to read.
b. External evaluations
c. Qualifications of evaluators, normally a brief curriculum vitae
d. Indication of who nominated each evaluator (candidate, Department Chair, or RPT Advisory Committee Chair)
- Committee report(s).
a. RPT Advisory Committee report
b. Report of RPT Ad Hoc Subcommittee
c. Any candidate's response to RPT Ad Hoc Subcommittee report
- Department Chair's written evaluation and recommendation.
- Any candidate response to the Department Chair's report and/or the RPT Advisory Committee report.
Appendix B: Notices of Final Approval of RPT Statement
(Senate Faculty Review Standards Committee and Senior Vice President)