IANR Documentation Request for Promotion and/or Tenure

This document lists the required and supplementary materials requested for tenure and/or promotion files for faculty¹  whose dossiers will be submitted to the Office of the IANR Vice Chancellor. This page describes:

1. how the IANR Documentation Request differs from that distributed by the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor,
2. how this applies to IANR faculty appointments in the College of Education and Human Sciences (CEHS) and Biological Systems Engineering (BSE), and
3. the use of the term “unit administrator”.

This page contains submission instructions and a list of materials required for the Administrative and Candidate sections of the candidate’s tenure and/or promotion file and a list of supplementary materials that a candidate may wish to include to support information presented in their candidate statement.

Additional materials requested by IANR. This Documentation Request differs from that distributed by the EVC Office by adding a request to the Administrative Section for the following documents:

• Faculty Promotion and Tenure Recommendation Form (this is the appropriate IANR transmittal form).
• Letter from leader of unit in which a candidate has a minority appointment (included only if the candidate has an appointment < 50% in another academic unit).
• Letter from Research, Extension, and Education Center Director (included only if the candidate’s primary workstation is at an REEC).
• Position description.
• Annual Progress Forms.
• Copy of the unit’s current standards for promotion and/or tenure.

The following request has been added to the descriptions of what to include in the Candidate Section:

• Description of the candidate's contributions to teams, working across apportionment categories, and nurturing a work, educational, and scholarly environment in which every person and every interaction matters.

Special instructions for CEHS faculty members with IANR appointments. Faculty members in IANR units within CEHS (CYAF, NHS, and TMFD) should order the documents according to CEHS guidelines, selecting an appropriate location to insert the documents mentioned above. All other IANR units (including extension educators) should include the requested documents in the order listed on the following pages.

Meaning of the term “unit administrator”. This term refers to the individual who is the immediate supervisor of the candidate and who will be providing a recommendation for tenure and/or promotion. This term is inclusive of department head; school director; department chair; engagement zone coordinator, extension program leader, associate dean, and dean.

Submission Instructions. All materials must be compiled into a single PDF file and submitted electronically. The entire dossier, including appendices, are to be submitted electronically as a single PDF file to the IANR Vice Chancellor’s office by uploading the file to the sharepoint site at “UNL – IANR P&T” after unit reviews have been completed by no later than November 15. Original electronic documents must be used whenever possible, and scans of hard copy documents should be used only when necessary. The file must include “bookmarks” to mark the beginning of sections and major headings within sections (e.g., A, B, C, etc. below), with each bookmark representing the appropriate page, rather than a section cover sheet. Given construction of the dossier is shared between the candidate and the unit administrator, candidates are encouraged to work with the unit administrator (or designee) to ensure appropriateness and consistency. It is the responsibility of the unit administrator to ensure that all required elements are included in the dossier.

1. Administrative Section (material provided by appropriate administrative unit)² 
   1. Faculty Promotion Tenure Recommendation Form
   2. Promotion and tenure internal evaluations³, as applicable, in this order: 
      1. Letter from unit tenure and/or promotion committee
      2. Letter from unit administrator⁴
      3. Letter from college committee (if applicable)
      4. Letter from dean(s)
   3. Internal reviews⁵ as applicable, in this order 
      1. Letter from leader of unit in which a candidate has a minority appointment (only if the candidate has an appointment of < 50% in another academic unit)
      2. Letter from Research, Extension, Education Center (REEC) Director (only if the candidate is a tenure-line faculty member whose primary work station is at an REEC)
   4. External reviews⁶ as applicable⁷, in this order 
      1. Peer review letters
      2. Candidate’s waiver form
      3. Brief statement of how external reviewers were chosen, why they are well positioned to perform the review, their qualifications and their relationship to the candidate
      4. Example of a letter or email soliciting the external review
   5. Position description⁸
   6. Letter of offer and, if one exists, accompanying Memorandum of Understanding(s).
   7. Letters of reappointment (if applicable)
   8. Annual evaluations and Annual Progress Forms (organize by year since last promotion starting with the oldest first)
   9. Teaching information (if applicable) 
      1. Peer evaluation of teaching¹⁰
      2. Completed Course Listing and Evaluation Forms
   10. Copy of unit’s current promotion and/or tenure standards
2. Candidate Section (to be prepared by candidate) 
   1. Candidate’s Letter of Intent—letter from candidate to unit administrator and/or P&T/P committee chair informing them of the intent to apply for promotion and/or tenure.
   2. Curriculum Vitae (clearly note refereed or juried works and extent of contributions if collaborative works) or Resume (for Extension Educators, Foresters, and others for whom a CV is not appropriate.)
   3. Candidate Statement identifying that portion of the candidate’s work that in the candidate’s judgment represents their most significant accomplishments, explains why they think these accomplishments are significant, and points out what the impact has been and will be. This statement should be written and evaluated in light of the candidate’s unique apportionment, work responsibilities, and expectations. This statement should reference supporting materials in the Appendices, should be at most 15 pages, and should address all areas of the candidate’s apportionment and responsibilities as identified in their position description. A candidate may also present relevant meaningful contributions that may not be reflected by their apportionment or position description. However, the candidate must give sufficient attention to each portion of their apportionment. As a guideline, the proportion of the narrative should approximately match the proportion of the apportionment. For example, a faculty member with an apportionment of 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% Extension would devote approximately 40% of the narrative about teaching accomplishments, 40% about research accomplishments, and 20% about accomplishments in Extension. Faculty members should adjust this guideline based on their own apportionment. 
      1. Teaching and Learning: Goals, programming, and evidence of impact on student success (must be included if candidate’s apportionment includes teaching). 
         1. Some faculty (e.g., Professor of Practice) may be expected to make unique contributions to units’ teaching efforts. This may include variable course assignments. In their candidate statement, these individuals may include an explanation of the uniqueness of their position and how their contributions address the past, present, and future needs of the unit. All candidates should describe how their contributions align with their position description. For the description of IANR expectations for Professor of Practice positions see Faculty Promotion and Tenure.
      2. Research/Creative Activity goals, achievements, significance and impact (must be included if candidate’s apportionment includes research/creative activity). 
         1. Research faculty members (non-tenure line) may have responsibilities and expectations that often differ from that of tenure-line faculty members with apportionments in research. The candidate statement should clearly reflect the unique expectations of the position, how the person is demonstrating research excellence in light of those expectations, and the relevance and significance of their unique contributions. All candidates should describe how their contributions align with their position description. For the description of IANR expectations for Research Faculty see Faculty Promotion and Tenure.
      3. Extension goals, achievements, significance and impact (must be included if candidate’s apportionment includes extension).
         1. Extension Professor and Extension Educator faculty members are expected to make unique contributions to extension efforts. In their candidate statement, these individuals may include an explanation of the uniqueness of their position and how their contributions address the past, present, and future needs of Extension. All candidates should describe how their contributions align with their position description. Accomplishments include the outcomes, products and impacts. Documentation of accomplishments should be in the following focus areas:
            1. Issue based team(s).
            2. Interest group.
            3. Any other significant team and/or focus area(s). Candidates should document their specific role and contributions to team accomplishments and programming.For the description of IANR expectations for Extension Professor faculty see https://ianr.unl.edu/documents/Expectations-for-Extension-Faculty.pdf; for Extension Educator faculty see Criteria for Promotion in Rank.
      4. Service goals, achievements, significance, impact at the department, college, university, professional and community levels (must be included if candidate’s apportionment includes service).
      5. Administration goals, achievements, significance, and impact (must be included if candidate’s apportionment includes administration)

For many IANR faculty members, a clear distinction between research, extension, and teaching often does not exist (e.g., a candidate’s research informing and contributing to their extension programming and visa versa). If this is the case, candidates do not need to compartmentalize their contributions in each of these areas. Some candidates may find that discussing their contributions across multiple areas of work responsibility is a more accurate representation of how they approach their work, fulfill their apportionment responsibilities, and describe the impact of their accomplishments and contributions. However, it should be clear to the reader that they have accomplishments and impacts in all areas of their work responsibility commensurate with the proportion of apportionment in each of these areas.

Team Contributions
IANR values both individual contributions/accomplishments and contributions to teams (see https://ianr.unl.edu/documents/Expectations-for-Team-Science.pdf. If candidates contribute to teams, they should be clear in their description of these contributions, the expertise they bring to bear, and how that expertise has contributed to team-based accomplishments. These contributions should be documented within appropriate sections of their candidate statement and appendices.

Contributions to Inclusive Excellence
IANR places a high priority on creating and nurturing environments (e.g., educational, extension, research, scholarship, disciplinary) in which each person and every interaction matters (see https://ianr.unl.edu/belonging-in-IANR). We recognize that when we strive for equity and engage in inclusive practices all are elevated through creativity, innovation, and a sense of belonging. Achieving a welcoming and inclusive environment is everyone’s responsibility. We expect all our faculty members, regardless of job responsibility and apportionment, to contribute to a welcoming atmosphere and inclusive environment. Faculty members who have made significant contributions in this regard are invited to document those contributions through their candidate statements and appendices. Documenting these contributions does not take the place of, nor should it distract from documenting expected achievements in other areas of job responsibility. However, they are accomplishments that can and should be acknowledged. That said, not documenting contributions in these areas will not negatively impact the recommendation for tenure and/or promotion. For those who chose to document their contributions to a welcoming and inclusive environment, they may do so by integrating these descriptions within the discussion of accomplishments related to teaching, research/creative activity, extension, and service, and/or under a separate heading. If the latter is chosen, it should be kept to a brief statement of no more than a paragraph or two occupying a page or less of the overall candidate statement. This could include a description of the candidate’s philosophy/approach, efforts, contributions, and/or accomplishments related to diversity and inclusive excellence.

Appendices (to be prepared by candidate)
The appendices provide material and documentation that supports information included in the Candidate Section. New or unique information should not be introduced and included in the appendices.

Candidates should only include:

• Significant and relevant information
• Information referred to in the Candidate Section
• Information required by the administrative unit and/or Institute/college.

The following are lists of examples of supporting materials that may be included in the appendices. There is no expectation that these lists are inclusive of everything that may be relevant to the candidate’s file, nor that every item listed as an example be included in an appendix. Candidates should make judgments about the relevance and significance of the material to include in the appendices in light of the supporting documentation they feel they need to present to support, provide evidence for, and documentation of the information they have presented in the Candidate Section.

Caution: Overwhelming reviewers with irrelevant materials or materials that are only loosely connected to that which is presented in the Candidate Section makes it more difficult to determine the quality of the outcomes, the significance of the contributions, and the importance of the impacts.

1. Possible examples of supporting evidence for the quality and effectiveness of teaching: Continuous Improvement of Teaching plan
   1. Student evaluations
   2. Course portfolio
   3. Number of undergraduate advisees
   4. Curriculum/course development
   5. Student achievement/outcomes
   6. Number of graduate student advisees
   7. Number of graduate student committees
   8. Evidence of innovative practices in your teaching
   9. Listing and description of teaching awards and recognitions
   10. Evidence of contributions to inclusive excellence in your teaching
   11. International educational activity
   12. SOTL activities (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning)
2. Possible examples of supporting evidence of the quality of research, scholarly, professional, and creative activity: 
   1. Publications (including electronic)
   2. Performances/exhibitions
   3. Reviews
   4. Citations
   5. International activity
   6. Listing and description of awards and recognitions
   7. Evidence of contributions to inclusive excellence in your research
   8. Funded grant proposals

1 This does not apply to Foresters. A unique Document Request exists for Foresters.

2 Although material to be contained in the Administrative Section are provided by the appropriate administrative unit, it is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that this material is organized appropriately. This may include place holders where confidential or sensitive information can be inserted. 

3 Each group or individual making a recommendation on the file must document reasons for the recommendation. In particular, it is not sufficient for documentation of the faculty vote and reasons for that vote to appear only in the administrator’s letter. 

4 For tenure-line faculty members the unit administrator is always the head or director of the tenure initiating unit. For extension educators, the unit administrator may be a department head/school director, engagement zone coordinator, or program leader. In rare instances, a dean or director may be the unit administrator for practice and research faculty. 

5 These reviews should identify the contribution the candidate is making to the unit or REEC but should stop short of recommending promotion and/or tenure. 

6 External evaluations should be requested from faculty members at comparable R1 universities. Due to the unique nature of the expertise and work expectations of some IANR faculty members, especially many who have non-tenure line positions, unit leaders and P&T chairs may need to solicit letters from individuals who are not associated with R1 universities in order to receive valid assessments of the quality of the candidate’s outcomes and impacts. These exceptions should be discussed with and approved by the cognizant IANR dean or IANR AVC before letters are requested. Every effort should be made to secure at least one external evaluation from a faculty member at a comparable R1 university. External evaluators must hold the rank at or above that being sought. External evaluators should be asked to review the candidate’s file to provide an assessment of the candidate’s work and potential for future scholarship. They should not be asked to determine whether the person should be promoted and/or tenured. 

7 Promotion materials for extension educators and foresters do not require external letters of review. 

8 Include a copy of the current position description. If the position has changed since the last promotion or if the appointment has changed, also include the previous position description(s) and/or apportionment following your current position description and/or apportionment. 

10 For faculty members with CASNR teaching appointments, the CASNR guidelines for continuous improvement of teaching should be followed and documented. See casnr.unl.edu/teaching-improvement-reflection. The Peer Evaluation of Teaching document inserted into the Administrative Section may be an evaluative summary of an observation of teaching by a peer or a peer’s summary of teaching improvement in response to the continuous improvement of teaching plan. If the latter, the peer should make appropriate reference to the continuous improvement of teaching plan.