Promotion to Full Professor

Overview

Promotion to Full Professor is the last academic promotion at Lehigh that is part of the normal faculty review process. Unlike annual, reappointment, tenure, and triennial reviews, which take place on a fixed schedule (with occasional adjustments), the promotion review happens on a timeline that is largely determined by the faculty member. 

Like the tenure review, the promotion review involves input from external evaluators from the candidate’s field(s) of study. These evaluators are asked to provide an expert assessment of the faculty member’s dossier, especially regarding their research and scholarship. 

The promotion review also involves input from the other Full Professors in the candidate’s department/program, the Department Chair, the college Dean, and the Provost. The Lehigh University Board of Trustees makes the final decision on whether to promote a faculty member.

Department Chairs and other colleagues should foster a supportive environment for the faculty member during the promotion review and the triennial reviews that lead up to it. The promotion review is a consequential process that must be undertaken with rigor, but colleagues should also be mindful that the process is a stressful one for the candidate. (See Guidance for Department Chairs and Guidance for Internal Faculty Evaluators.)

The Process

Who Undergoes a Promotion Review, and When?

Per R&P 2.2.8.2, an Associate Professor can be considered for promotion whenever they request it. By default, this happens in the ninth year as an Associate Professor. An Associate Professor may request to delay a scheduled promotion review by one to three years.

Is There a Deadline for Coming Up for Full?

There is no deadline for an Associate Professor to be considered for promotion to Full Professor. There is no limit to the number of triennial reviews that an Associate Professor may undergo. 

Note: R&P is somewhat vague on this question. Discussions are currently underway to clarify this issue in R&P.

How Does the Promotion Review Process Work?

Before the Review Begins

The promotion review process typically begins in the Fall semester. Before the promotion process begins (usually in the preceding semester) the candidate informs the department whether they would like to be considered for promotion to Full or instead would like to request a postponement from the Dean. The Dean’s office submits the candidate's request (and required approvals/denials) to the Provost’s office prior to the beginning of the promotion review.

During the semester before the review process begins, the Department Chair and the candidate will each nominate a list of external reviewers. The final lists of external reviewers are approved by the Dean and Provost, in consultation with the Department Chair. The final list must contain at least five external reviewers, one to two of whom must be from the list of reviewers nominated by the candidate. (Some colleges require more than five external reviewers.) The candidate knows who is on the two lists of nominees, but is not permitted to know which nominees were asked and/or agreed to serve as reviewers. (See Faculty External Evaluation page.)

By late spring/early summer, the candidate uploads their CV, statements, and scholarly materials to Interfolio. (These materials vary by department and college.) The Department Chair requests letters from the selected external reviewers and sends the candidate’s materials to the reviewers who have agreed to write letters. The Chair can manage this process in Interfolio—both the sending of materials by the Chair and the submission of letters by the reviewers—or can handle it by email and upload the letters to Interfolio manually.

The candidate uploads the rest of their promotion dossier materials to Interfolio. The deadline for doing so is typically around September 15. (See Promotion Review Schedule below for the schedule for the current academic year.)

Department Review

The Department Chair then forwards, via Interfolio, the complete dossier (including the external letters, which should have been received by this point) to the department faculty involved in the promotion review process. This is typically the Full Professors in the department, but may differ, e.g., for small departments or for faculty with joint appointments. The Department Chair meets with the faculty involved in the review to discuss the faculty member’s dossier.

Each faculty member involved in the review process votes on the candidate’s promotion and writes a letter, addressed to the Department Chair, expressing their opinion about whether the candidate merits promotion: 

These letters of evaluation must be substantive letters that appraise the candidate’s record in teaching, research and scholarship, and service and that address the questions of whether or not the candidate merits promotion and the reasons for the recommendation. (R&P 2.2.9.4)

Faculty members record their votes in Interfolio and email their letters to the Department Chair.

The Chair then summarizes the faculty’s vote and evaluation in a letter addressed to the Dean, addressing in detail the criteria as they apply to the candidate. The Chair provides their summary letter to the candidate and meets with the candidate to discuss it. The Chair advises the candidate of the strength of the department's recommendation (e.g., unanimous, strong majority, narrow majority). The candidate may request the substance of this discussion in writing. The Chair may not disclose the statements or opinions of individual evaluators. The candidate either responds in writing to this letter or submits a declination to respond. 

College Promotion and Tenure Committee Review

The Chair then forwards the dossier to the Dean, including both the internal and external letters. The deadline for doing so is typically around November 1. Once the promotion dossier leaves the department, no other substantive information may be added to it, except as described in the next steps.

The Dean then forwards the dossier to the college Promotion and Tenure Committee. (Some colleges have a single committee that handles both promotion and tenure, while some have separate committees for promotion and for tenure. This page will use “Promotion and Tenure Committee,” or “P&T committee,” to refer to either case.)

The P&T committee reviews the promotion dossier. The committee may request any additional materials that it deems relevant from the candidate, the department, the Dean, or the Provost. The committee makes a recommendation to the Dean regarding whether the candidate should be promoted. Their recommendation should be “substantive and independent” (R&P 2.2.9.9), based solely on whether the dossier meets the criteria of excellence in research and scholarship, teaching, and service. In other words, the P&T committee should not be influenced by the department recommendation or any other factors outside of the dossier.

At least five members of the P&T committee must vote. No faculty member may vote both at the department level and at the college committee level; typically this means that a representative on the P&T committee who is from the candidate’s own department will vote at the department level but abstain from voting in the P&T committee. 

The P&T committee members record their votes (including abstentions) in Interfolio and upload a summary letter. If the committee vote is not unanimous, a member of the committee writes a letter expressing reasons for the minority opinion. The deadline for the committee to submit its recommendation is typically around December 1.

Dean Review

The Dean then makes their own recommendation about the promotion case. The Dean meets with the candidate and informs them verbally of both the P&T committee’s recommendation and the Dean’s own recommendation. (R&P does not explicitly say that the Dean writes a letter indicating their recommendation, but in practice the Dean usually does.) The Dean advises the candidate of the strength of the P&T committee’s recommendation (e.g., unanimous, strong majority, narrow majority). The candidate may request the substance of this discussion in writing. The Dean may not disclose the identities of individual evaluators. The candidate either responds in writing to the P&T committee’s and Dean’s recommendations or submits a declination to respond. 

If the department and P&T committee have different recommendations, or if they agree but the Dean is considering the opposite recommendation, the Dean, before making their recommendation, meets with both the committee and the department to discuss the case; see R&P 2.2.9.10.

Provost Review

The Dean then forwards the dossier, including all recommendations so far, to the Provost. The deadline for doing so is typically around January 15. The Provost reviews the dossier and makes their own recommendation regarding promotion. The Provost shares their recommendation with the candidate, usually about one week before the Board of Trustees meeting (typically in May).

If the department and P&T committee have different recommendations, or if they agree but the Provost is considering the opposite recommendation, the Provost, before making their recommendation, meets with the Dean and both the committee and the department to discuss the case; see R&P 2.2.9.13.

The Board of Trustees makes the final decision regarding promotion. The candidate is notified of their decision within one week of the Board of Trustees meeting.

Candidates Who are Denied Promotion

If a candidate is denied promotion by the Board of Trustees, or if they withdraw from the review process, they can request to be considered for promotion in a subsequent year. The process begins anew. The earlier evaluation letters (both internal and external) may not be reused for a subsequent review. The candidate and department may request letters from external evaluators who participated in an earlier review, but at least three new reviewers must be asked to write letters.

Faculty with Joint Appointments

If a faculty member’s MOU specifies a special committee, the special committee participates in all of the meetings of the home department in which the candidate’s portfolio (including the list of potential external letter writers) is discussed. 

The procedure is slightly different for faculty with type-1 and type-2 joint appointments, the primary difference being that for type-1, the special committee acts more like an autonomous unit, with voting and a summary letter, whereas for type-2, the special committee acts more like an advisory body to the home department.

In particular, for faculty with type-1 joint appointments:

• The special committee participates in the process of developing the list of potential external evaluators.
• The members of the special committee write individual letters, addressed to the special committee chair, expressing their opinion about whether the candidate merits promotion, specifically addressing research and scholarship, teaching, and service. Special committee members record their votes in Interfolio and email their letters to the special committee chair. The special committee chair also votes, and writes an individual letter.
• The special committee chair summarizes the special committee’s evaluation in a separate letter, addressed to the Dean. The special committee chair forwards the summary letter and the individual letters to the Chair of the home department.
• The Chair of the home department shares the special committee summary letter with the candidate at the same time as they share the department summary letter. The candidate writes a response to both letters, or a declination to do so.
• Individual letters from the home department are not shared with the special committee members, and vice versa. (However, the Chair of the home department has access to all of the individual letters.)
• If the department and the special committee differ in their recommendations, the case is considered not to have a faculty recommendation.

For faculty with type-2 joint appointments:

• If there is a special committee, it participates in the process of developing the list of potential external evaluators.
• The members of the special committee write individual letters, addressed to the Department Chair, expressing their opinion about whether the candidate merits promotion, specifically addressing research and scholarship, teaching, and service. The special committee chair also writes such a letter. There is no vote by the special committee. If the MOU specifies that no special committee is to be used, the Chair/Director of the secondary unit provides a letter to the Chair of the home department. 
• The members of the home department who are participating in the review receive copies of the special committee individual letters and/or Chair/Director’s letter, and take into account the evaluations in these letters when writing their own individual letters.

• The summary letter written by the Chair of the home department includes views by both the department members and the special committee or Chair/Director. Members of both the department and the special committee provide feedback on the Chair’s summary letter before it is finalized. 

Materials to Be Submitted

The Office of the Provost requires certain elements to be included in the faculty dossier for promotion review. Individual colleges may require additional materials; candidates and Department Chairs should consult with their Dean’s office regarding any additional requirements.

Faculty Candidate Materials

CV and Statements

• Curriculum vitae (CV), using the Lehigh CV template.
• Statements on teaching, research, and service, including the significance and impact of the candidate’s own contributions in each of these areas. See the Dossier Materials page for further guidance. Statements may be uploaded as one document or three. Maximum 10 pages for the three statements combined.

Research and Scholarship

• Stature of scholarly venues. Information about the stature of venues in which the candidate published or disseminated their research, scholarship, and/or creative works. See Additional Materials section. 
• Citation information, if appropriate to the field. See Additional Materials section for caveats about the use of citation information. 

Teaching

• Chronological course listing. A chronological list of undergraduate and graduate courses taught, with the number of credits for each course, and the number of grades assigned in each course.
• Student course evaluation tabular listing. This is provided upon request by the Office of Institutional Data. The listing should include summary reports for all courses the candidate has taught at Lehigh. 
• Student course evaluations. These are available for download at https://go.lehigh.edu/evalkit. Include evaluations from all courses taught at Lehigh.
• Peer teaching observation reports. Optional.
• Sample course materials (syllabi, tests, assignments, etc.) and any other supporting materials (commendations, student letters, etc.). Maximum 30 pages.

Advising

• Student advising report. Indicate number of students advised, the dates of service, and the advisory format (frequency of contact, individual or group meetings). Include non-majors.

Joint Appointment Information

(Only for faculty with joint appointments.)

• Memorandum of understanding (MOU). 

COVID Impact Statement

• COVID impact statement. Optional. Maximum 2 pages.

Department Chair Materials

External Evaluation

• Finalized list of external evaluators. Use the template on the Provost’s website. See External Evaluation for Tenure and Promotion.
• Sample letter to external evaluators. 
• Internal–external evaluation letter. Optional.

Department Summary

• Department summary letter. Department Chair’s summary of department review, addressed to candidate.
• Candidate’s response to department summary letter, or declination to respond.

Joint Appointment Information

(Only for faculty with joint appointments.)

• Program director letter or special committee summary letter.

Promotion and Tenure Committee Materials

• Promotion and tenure committee summary letter.
• Candidate’s response to program or special committee summary letter, or declination to respond.

College Dean Materials

• Dean’s recommendation letter. Addressed to the Provost, shared with the candidate.
• Candidate’s response to Dean’s letter, or declination to respond.

Promotion Review Schedule 

The Provost’s office publishes the schedules below each year for each step in the promotion review process, in order to accommodate the deadline to submit the dossier to the Provost’s Office (January 15 for Fall-cycle reviews, April 1 for Spring-cycle reviews). The Department Chair and/or Dean’s office should inform the candidate and the Provost’s Office about any concerns in meeting the deadline.

The schedules listed below are for the current academic year. Schedules may change from year to year, but the dates are likely to be similar to the current year. 

The Review Process

The Provost expects quality checks at each level to ensure that all documents are included in Interfolio to avoid having to send the dossier back for corrections. College-Level Administrators (CLADs) are responsible for completing a full review of the online dossier to ensure that all letters and other materials are uploaded to Interfolio before submitting the dossier to the Dean.

Relevant Sections of R&P

• 2.2.2.2 Voting Members
• 2.2.8 Promotion – General Provisions
• 2.2.9 Promotion Review Process
• 2.2.3.1.7 Tenure and Promotion [for faculty with joint appointments]

Additional Documents

• Interfolio login page
• Interfolio at Lehigh
• Lehigh CV template
• Template List of External Evaluators [LINK to Word doc]
• Template Letter to Solicit External Review [LINK to Word doc]
• Template Letter with Instructions for External Review [LINK to Word doc]

Notes

• This overview is intended to supplement the information contained in Lehigh’s Rules and Procedures of the Faculty (R&P). If there is a discrepancy between the guidance on this page and R&P, the provisions of R&P govern.
• Feel free to contact your Department Chair, Associate Dean for Faculty, the Deputy Provost for Faculty Affairs, or the Director of Faculty Affairs with any questions or concerns.