Arts & Sciences Policies and Procedures on Tenure, Promotion, and Interim Review

This College of Arts & Sciences policy amplifies the policies laid out in the Faculty Handbook, incorporates and supplements the Provost’s Retention, Promotion, and Tenure policy, and supersedes all previous Arts & Sciences (A&S) communications on Retention, Promotion, and Tenure. In this policy, “tenure” refers to tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor, and “promotion” refers to promotion to the rank of full professor. The “RPT Committee” refers to the elected Retention, Promotion, and Tenure Committee of the Faculty of A&S. References to the Dean mean the Dean of the Faculty of A&S and not one of the Vice-Deans unless so specified. References to the Chair refer to the Chair of the Department or Director of the Program, or the chair of a departmental/program personnel committee if the department/program assigns the latter primary responsibility for overseeing tenure, promotion, or interim reviews.

The RPT, in consultation with the Dean, will review and monitor A&S-wide procedures for the retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty. It shall bring proposals involving changes to those procedures before the Faculty, together with its recommendations for action, but shall have authority to approve or disapprove any changes which do not alter existing procedure. Changes to procedures adopted by majority vote of the Faculty are subject to approval by the Dean and the university’s Personnel Policy Committee.

Philosophical Statement

The granting of tenure by an academic institution is among our most serious and solemn responsibilities. The granting of tenure recognizes that this individual is a contributor in their area of scholarship, and that there is every indication that they will continue to be a productive scholar. At the same time, this individual is a talented instructor and understands the responsibility we hold in educating our students. In addition, faculty granted tenure have usually already served their department and/or program and their professional communities in some way, and the expectation is that they will continue to do so. With tenure, we welcome our more junior faculty firmly into A&S shared responsibilities.

When a faculty member is promoted to the rank of full professor, it is both recognition of past performance and contributions, and acknowledgement of the promise and obligations of our most senior faculty. Strong accomplishment and promise as scholars and teachers are required, as is a commitment to serving and guiding the institution as senior faculty members

I. Procedures for Promotion & Tenure

As described in hiring paperwork, faculty joining W&M as assistant professors without tenure are generally granted an initial three-year term and are re-appointed for a second identical term if their interim review is positive. Unless there have been extensions granted during these terms, tenure review occurs in the sixth year of an assistant professor’s appointment. If, following consultation with their Chair, mentors, and A&S administrators, contributions in scholarship, teaching, and service are consistent with elevation to tenured faculty standing, candidates can accelerate consideration of tenure earlier than the sixth year. In all cases, the tenure decision is final. A negative tenure decision cannot be overturned in future years. If a decision is negative, a terminal year may or may not be granted.

Candidates for both tenure and promotion must show ongoing scholarly productivity, conscientious and effective teaching, and responsible participation in governance during the period under review (the previous five years for tenure and the years since tenure for promotion), whether at W&M or elsewhere.

A. Compiling the Dossier

1. The use of Blackboard is required for all electronic dossiers. To create a Blackboard dossier, please:
   1. Log into Blackboard at https://blackboard.wm.edu
   2. Click first on the Blackboard Course Generator tab and then on the “Request a Faculty Dossier” site and fill out the form to create a dossier. The dossier, which includes all necessary directions, will then appear on the creator’s Blackboard course list.
   3. Detailed additional instructions for how to build and manage the dossier, and for subsequent steps in the process, can be found on the A&S Resources for Faculty page: Instructions for Submitting Dossiers.
2. Each dossier submitted to RPT should contain the following items:¹
   1. The complete and current curriculum vitae of the candidate that clearly distinguishes between scholarship that is published, accepted for publication, and currently under review. Dates and page numbers for publication are mandatory. Peer-reviewed and nonpeer reviewed publications and other creative activities should be clearly distinguished. In cases of co-authored, co-edited, or edited work, candidates should indicate their specific contributions to the publication. A list of grant proposals both submitted and/or funded should be included in the CV. Sources of external funding should include the candidate’s role on the project, the total amount of the award, and, in the case of a collaborative project, the amount of funding awarded to the candidate.
   2. Scholarly material as outlined in B.7.
   3. Peer-reviewed publications about teaching should be included in the dossier, either as research or teaching, but not both. The department/program will make this decision in consultation with the candidate. An explanation as to why the publications have been so considered should be included in the department/program report or the Chair’s/Director’s letter. The RPT Committee and the Dean will consider such publications in whichever category they are classified.
   4. A narrative statement, referred to in the Provost’s memo as a “self-evaluation” by the candidate, should consist of an evaluation by the candidate of their own scholarship, teaching, and service. This should include a statement of future plans in all three areas. The narrative should be no more than 8 single-spaced pages (12-point font) or the
      equivalent double-spaced. If the candidate’s research was negatively impacted by the
      pandemic, the candidate should include specific details about how it was impacted.
   5. A minimum of four letters from external reviewers with full or abbreviated CVs along with a sample of the letter sent to the external reviewers from the department/program, solicited as described in Section B.
   6. Evaluation of teaching as described in Section C.
   7. Joint Appointment Memorandum of Understanding [JAMOU] (in the case of jointly appointed faculty), with a note about the division of duties and responsibilities.
   8. A copy of the Dean’s memo from the candidate’s interim review.
   9. Reports of all faculty meetings at which the recommendation of the personnel committee is discussed and voted upon. The vote totals, the number of faculty eligible to vote, and the date of that vote must also be included (see Section E). The main report should be limited to no more than 8 single-spaced pages (12-point font), excluding supplemental tables. The report should articulate the expectations of the department/program for tenure or promotion, including those pertaining to varied types of scholarly work (e.g., sole author monograph, edited book, first-author or peer-reviewed article) and external grants. The report should provide a context for the candidate’s dossier, including – for candidates with previous years of experience in a fulltime faculty position – how much of the candidate’s scholarship was produced during their years at William & Mary. It should not simply summarize the candidate’s narrative statement or the external reviewers’ letters, but should give the committee’s independent assessment of the candidate’s dossier. The report (and the Chair/Program Director’s report) may use quotations from the external reviewers’ letters but they should not attribute those quotations to specific reviewers or name their institutions.
   10. The report of the department Chair/Program Director, if relevant) (see items 18 to 21).
   11. A copy of the standards of the department/program for tenure and promotion.
   12. Candidates may include any additional relevant materials they wish in the dossiers, including letters from W&M faculty, colleagues, and students, and letters from colleagues or students elsewhere. Such materials, however, must be clearly distinguished from external review letters. With the exception of solicited external reviews or other letters required by departmental/program procedures, candidates are not required to submit additional materials.
   13. If a candidate’s date for mandatory review for tenure has been changed since the time of appointment, or if the candidate has been approved for early tenure, this change must be clearly documented and a copy of the Provost’s approval must be included in the dossier. In the case of early tenure, candidates must indicate that they realize that they will have only one opportunity to be considered for tenure.
   14. Candidates should prepare a table of contents for the dossier. (The table of contents does not need to itemize every document but should account for each dossier folder and subfolder as appropriate.) Candidates and their department Chair/Program Director should then review the entire dossier, except for the external reviewers’ original letters, their CVs, and the letter concerning how the reviewers were chosen. After reviewing the dossier, they should sign and date the table of contents of the dossier that the dossier contains all the items and that the candidate has seen them. This attestation is signed by the department Chair/Program Director as the representative of the Dean.

Timelines

1. The candidate can add relevant material to the dossier at any time before it is sent to external reviewers.
2. Once the dossier is out for review to the external reviewers, the candidate cannot add materials to it until all the redacted external letters have been added to the file.
3. The candidate will have five business days to review and respond in writing to redacted external letters before any department/program vote takes place. The candidate may apply to the Dean for an extension of this period. The response should be addressed to the Chair/Program Director and should be no longer than 1 page, single-spaced, 12-point font and should be addressed to the committee that is responsible for writing the departmental/program report. The response will be added to the dossier for consideration at all subsequent stages of review. A response from the candidate is not required.
4. The candidate will have at least five business days to review and respond in writing to both the department’s report and the Chair’s/Program Director’s letter before the file is sent to RPT. The candidate may apply to the Dean for an extension of this period. Each response should be addressed to the Chair/Program Director and should be no longer than 1 page, single-spaced, 12- point font. The responses will be added to the dossier for consideration at all subsequent stages of review. Responses from the candidate are not required.
5. If new materials (other than the candidate’s responses) are added to the dossier, a note of the date on which they were added, and whether or not they were sent to the external reviewers, must be included. The Dean and RPT reserve the right to ask the department (and program, if relevant) to redo its evaluation in light of any new materials.

B. External Review of Scholarship

Selection of External Reviewers

1. The minimum number of external letters to be included in the dossier is four. The candidate should put together a list of possible external reviewers. The department/program should compile a second list. If departmental/program policies allow, all members of the department/program may contribute to this list, regardless of rank. Unless prohibited by departmental/program procedures, the candidate may be allowed to see the department’s/program’s initial list and exclude individuals from that list for reasonable cause.
2. Under normal circumstances, at least one reviewer will be chosen from the list produced by the candidate and at least one will be chosen from the list created by the department/program. If all letters are from the candidate’s list or if all are from the department’s/program’s list, this must be explained in the department’s/program’s letter about how the reviewers were chosen. All letters received must be put in the candidate’s dossier. At no time should candidates see a final list of the external reviewers.
3. External reviewers should come from programs, institutions, or agencies of a quality commensurate with the reputation and standards of W&M. Letters should be solicited whenever possible from individuals at or above the rank to which the candidate aspires to be promoted. A copy of the solicitation letter should be included in the candidate’s dossier (in the Secure Materials folder).
4. The following statement must also be included in the original solicitation letter sent to external reviewers: “The University will, to the extent permitted by law, hold your letter (or statement) in confidence. The Virginia Freedom of Information Act permits the university to withhold confidential letters and statements of recommendation respecting applications for employment or promotion. The letter may be disclosed within the university if necessary in connection with an internal investigation into allegations of discrimination or the like, and will be disclosed as required under subpoena or other legal process. The candidate will be allowed to view redacted versions of the external reviewer letters.”
5. External reviewers must be wholly disinterested, i.e., what has traditionally been known as “arms-length.” According to the Provost’s memo, “individuals with whom a professional or personal relationship exists such as might reduce the objectivity or perceived objectivity of the review” are not at “arms-length.” The test for being wholly disinterested is that potential reviewers should not have even the appearance of a vested interest based on their own careers nor a personal interest in the career advancement of the faculty member under review. For example, external reviewers should not have mentored, financially supported, or taught the faculty member during the faculty member’s graduate education or post-doctoral experience, be a former colleague or supervisor, or have collaborated closely with the faculty member on publications or grants. They may have been in contact with and/or served with the faculty member in editorial roles, on review panels, in conferences and professional organizations. In some fields or cases, this may mean trading a degree of expertise for added distance, and in some cases, especially where there are many authors, exceptions to this standard may be appropriate. If a department/program has a question as to whether or not a proposed reviewer is wholly disinterested, the Chair/Program Director should contact the Dean in advance of soliciting letters. The Dean will then discuss the case with the Chair of the RPT Committee and, if necessary, the Faculty Affairs Committee. The final decision rests with the Dean.
6. If, after letters are received, the department/program finds that an external reviewer is not, in fact, “arms-length,” the letter will remain in the dossier with a statement that the letter was solicited and received but did not contribute to the department’s decision. If the RPT Committee, in the course of its reading of the dossier, finds that an external reviewer is not “arms-length,” the committee will inform the Dean and the department (and program, if relevant), and request permission from the Dean not to consider the letter. If this is approved by the Dean, the Dean will inform the department, and the letter will remain in the dossier with a statement added that the letter did not contribute to the RPT Committee’s decision. If this results in fewer than four letters that are “arms-length,” the department must obtain a replacement letter and reconsider the dossier as soon as possible.
   
   Information Provided to External Reviewers
   
   
7. The goal of external review is to obtain an unbiased assessment of scholarship that has been vetted or approved by peers, and this should be noted in the solicitation letter. Work accepted for publication but not yet published must have an acceptance memo or contract accompanying it. The following items are to be sent to and considered by external reviewers:
   1. A copy of the candidate’s complete and current CV.
   2. The entire narrative statement, including the evaluation of scholarship, teaching, and service.
   3. Articles that are published or accepted for publication in journals. Publications in on-line journals or venues will be considered by departments/programs and reviewers in the same manner as those in print journals consistent with standards in the discipline and department.
   4. Book chapters that are published or accepted for publication in edited volumes.
   5. Published books, book manuscripts that have been accepted for publication, and book manuscripts with an advance contract, with the prospective publisher clearly indicated and the advance contract attached.
   6. Conference proceedings that have been peer-reviewed.
   7. Appropriate examples of creative work such as CDs, photographs, exhibition catalogs, video, musical scores, etc. which document performances, compositions, artwork, and technical artistic work.
   8. Editorial work if considered in the category of scholarship by the candidate in consultation with the department.
   9. Additional scholarly materials, for example, grant proposals, computer software, or websites, may be included.
   10. Articles and book manuscript not yet accepted for publication, provided that the status of each piece is accurately described (in progress, submitted, under review, etc.), and explained and evaluated by the department and/or program personnel report.
8. External reviewers will be asked to provide information on their relationship to the candidate in a manner that will allow this information to be kept confidential from the candidate. They will also be asked to provide a full or abbreviated CV.
   
   Information on the relationship with the candidate can be provided in one of the following ways:
   1. A separate letter attached to the letter evaluating the candidate
   2. An initial paragraph of the letter evaluating the candidate
   3. A final paragraph below the signature line of the letter evaluating the candidate
9. Departments/programs must also instruct the reviewers that only the evaluative text of their letters will be shared with the candidate and that any identifying information about them or their institution in the evaluative letter will be blocked out.

C. Assessment of Teaching

1. A description of the kinds of courses offered by the candidate, such as survey or introductory, upper level, or seminar must be included in the report of the Chair/Program Director, the department/program, or the departmental/program personnel committee. Any gaps in teaching must be clarified (e.g., junior leave, SSRL, FMLA). This may be done in the candidate’s CV, the department/program report, the Chair’s/Program Director’s letter, or in the section listing courses taught.
2. A second means of evaluating the faculty member’s teaching must be included besides student evaluations. A unit’s failure to comply with this W&M policy may delay a candidate’s evaluation. The department/program report must state the nature of the second method of assessment (e.g., review of exams and syllabi, peer observation) and include relevant documents in the dossier (i.e., review of syllabi, peer observation reports).
3. Candidates for tenure will include all evaluations for each course taught since they arrived at W&M or for the previous five consecutive years, whichever is shorter, and those for promotion will include all student evaluations for each course taught since tenure or for the previous eight consecutive years, whichever is shorter.² The department/program is required to provide a single table summarizing the candidate’s scores for all courses on the question “what is this instructor’s overall teaching effectiveness.” The department/program should also include in this table a specified numerical comparison (e.g., the departmental/program mean) to other departmental/program courses. The table should be uploaded as a separate document in the Teaching section of the dossier. Additionally, the department/program must include the comments from the student evaluations in one of the following forms: a PDF of the complete evaluations or a compilation of all student comments, clearly identified by course, semester, and year.

D. Service

1. Service on departmental/program committees and service on committees outside the faculty member’s department/program or in other activities for W&M such as pre-major advising are expected of all candidates considered for tenure. Editorial work and membership on editorial boards shall be considered as either service or scholarship depending on the decision of the candidate, in consultation with the department/program. This categorization should be clearly spelled out in the department’s/program’s report or the Chair’s/Program Director’s letter.

E. Departmental/Program Review

1. Tenured faculty at or above the rank to which the candidate is seeking promotion should participate in the departmental/program review. Untenured faculty members may not participate in decisions on promotion and tenure in any way, except in advising on possible external reviewers (see 1.B.1 above).
2. Whether the Chair/Program Director votes as a member of the department/program will depend on departmental/program personnel policies. In either case, the Chair/Program Director will provide an independent assessment of the candidate in the Chair’s/Program Director’s letter.
3. Departments/Programs with fewer than three faculty members of the appropriate rank (associate and full professors for tenure and only full professors for promotion) will have faculty members of the appropriate rank added to the existing personnel committee from other W&M departments/programs or schools by the decision of the Dean. The Dean will discuss with the Chair/Program Director appropriate faculty members to be added and may also discuss this with the Chair of the RPT Committee and with the Faculty Affairs Committee. The final decision on whom to add rests with the Dean. The added members need not participate in the decision to choose the external reviewers, but if fewer than three members of the department are on the committee, then the committee will seek input from other members of the department/program (see 1.B.1 above). In all respects, members added by the Dean are full members of the personnel committee and shall vote upon the candidate’s file.
4. In departments/programs where there is a strong division of opinion on a candidate, i.e., if there is a minority opinion of at least one third of the members voting, departments/programs must provide minority and majority reports with vote counts for each report.. If a minority report is not submitted because the minority is fewer than one third of voting members, the departmental/program report or the Chair’s/Program Director’s letter must fully explain the division of opinion. Candidates must be given adequate time to respond in writing to these reports (see Timelines), with an extension if it is requested by the candidate and approved by the Dean.
5. Faculty members jointly appointed in programs or other departments must have their dossiers considered according to the provisions of their JAMOU regarding the role of the department and the program. The JAMOU should be included in the dossier. The letter of the interdisciplinary program director or second department chair as well as the tenure report from the program’s or second department’s personnel committee, shall be part of the candidate’s dossier with the same status as that of the tenure department. The tenure department shall take account of this letter and tenure report in its deliberations. If any faculty member is eligible to vote in both the candidate’s tenure department and the department/program to which the candidate is jointly appointed, that faculty member may only cast one vote.
   
   For JAMOUs, there must be two separate and distinct reports unless the department and program intentionally collaborate on a single joint report signed by both the tenure department and the joint Program Director. Reports should be commensurate with the expectations of the candidate within the department or program. For example, if the JAMOU calls only for teaching and service in the program, the report from the program need only address those contributions.
   
   Faculty members who are affiliated with, or have a significant involvement in, an interdisciplinary program or another department outside of their tenure department that is not governed by an existing JAMOU may request from the Dean in writing that the interdisciplinary program or other department be allowed to review the candidate’s dossier and provide a letter summarizing their contributions to the program or second department.
   
   Departmental Chair’s/Program Director’s Report
   
   
6. Department Chairs and Program Directors are expected to provide their assent or disagreement with the departmental/program vote as well as a brief summary of the reasons for their decision. If they do not wish to take a position on the case, they must state their abstention clearly in their letter in the dossier. In the case of joint appointments or significant activity in an interdisciplinary program, Program Directors are expected to do the same. The Chair or Program Director’s report should be 1-2 single-spaced pages (12-point font) maximum. The report should put the department or program discussion into context, validate the vote, and state whether the Chair or Program Director agrees or disagrees with the majority vote and why.
7. Where a teaching faculty member is the Chair or Director, a faculty member who has tenure (for a tenure case) or is a full professor (for promotion cases) will write the Chair/Program Director’s letter in their place. The faculty member will be selected by the Vice-Dean, in consultation with the Chair/Program Director. The Chair or Director will be the administrative lead on the case and will be included in all correspondence.
8. Where an associate professor is the Chair or Director, a full professor will write the Chair/Program Director’s letter in their place for promotion cases only. The full professor will be selected by the Vice-Dean, in consultation with the Chair/Program Director.
9. The departmental/program or Chair’s/Director’s report on a candidate must clearly indicate the extent of the candidate’s record that is based on work done at W&M. Teaching, service, and research—the latter including publications accepted and grants received—from before the candidate came to W&M will be considered in the decision on the candidate, but the case must be made that the candidate has established an ongoing, sustainable research, teaching, and service program since arriving at W&M (see I.B.7 above). Candidates coming in at the rank of Associate Professor whose tenure review occurs at the time of hire are evaluated based on their previous record.
10. When a departmental Chair/Program Director is the candidate for promotion, the departmental/program personnel committee will appoint a proxy Chair/Program Director for all promotion cases that year. The proxy chair/program director will not vote as a member of the department/program but will provide an independent assessment of the candidate in a separate letter, as outlined in E.2 and E.6 above.

F. Review by RPT Committee

1. The weight given by the RPT Committee to material other than the mandatory materials will depend in large part on the department’s or program’s letter that references or uses these materials in the case for or against tenure or promotion. In its review of the scholarship, the RPT Committee will apply the standards adopted by the vote of the candidate’s department/program (and approved by the Personnel Policy Committee), as well as applicable W&M standards as specified in the Faculty Handbook.
2. The RPT Committee’s report is advisory to the Dean. It will be provided to the candidate by the Dean simultaneously with the Dean’s letter to the Provost. The RPT report and the Dean’s letter will both be added to the dossier.

G. Review by the Dean of the Faculty of A&S

1. The Dean bases their decision on the materials in the dossier and the report from the RPT Committee.
2. The Dean’s letter to the Provost on each tenure and promotion case will be copied to the candidate, the Chair of the candidate’s department, and to the Program Director where appropriate. The appropriate Vice-Dean or Deans, and the Chair of the RPT Committee will have access to it on the Blackboard site. The candidate has the right to respond to the RPT report and the Dean’s letter by submitting a letter to the Dean which will be added to the dossier. This response must be submitted within five business days of receipt of the report and the letter.
3. The process of reading dossiers for tenure and promotion in the Dean’s office is as follows:
   1. The RPT Committee reads the dossier and provides a report with a vote to the Dean.
   2. The Dean of the Faculty of A&S, the Vice-Deans and any Associate Deans holding tenured faculty positions (or, in promotion cases, full professor positions), all read and discuss the dossiers. Reading the files and discussing them with the Dean is part of the job description of these Deans.
   3. The Dean of the Faculty makes their recommendation in a letter to the Provost.
   4. The dossiers are made available to the Provost, who will write a letter and copy it to the Dean, the candidate, and the Chair/Program Director of the candidate’s department/program.

II. Procedures for Candidates Hired with Tenure

1. Tenure earned elsewhere is not transferred; tenure is awarded by W&M. Departments/programs hiring external candidates with tenure or with a promotion in rank, from associate to full, must compile a dossier that closely approximates the typical W&M tenure or promotion dossier. The exception is that a sample of student evaluations, rather than all evaluations, may be used. Alternatively, if such evaluations are not available, a report on teaching effectiveness, such as a class taught during the interview, may be used with the Dean’s permission. Course syllabi should be included in any case, and they may be used as part of the required second means of evaluation. Any other changes must be approved in writing by the Dean and Provost.
2. Letters used by the candidate as part of the application process are generally unacceptable as part of the tenure file, although in some instances it may be possible to use the same individuals as tenure references. No more than two external tenure review letters from a recent tenure process at the candidate’s home institution may be used to support a W&M tenure review, unless the Provost determines that compelling cause exists to permit more than two letters to be used.

III. Procedures for Promotion to the rank of Professor

1. A candidate for promotion to full professor must have significantly grown their scholarship and service and have continued to develop as a teacher and mentor, since earning tenure. Candidates for promotion are expected to demonstrate sustained research productivity at least at the level achieved before tenure. Candidates for promotion to full professor will also be expected to have an attested record of significant and effective service to A&S, W&M, and their professional communities, and plans to continue that level of service.
2. Faculty are typically considered for promotion to full professor no earlier than the sixth year after the effective date of tenure. However, earlier consideration is possible if the candidate’s record justifies it. The standards for early promotion are the same as for regular promotion but are achieved over a shorter time period. If a candidate is reviewed for promotion before the sixth year, their file must clearly indicate that it is an early review. Being considered after six years should not be viewed as a weakness and does not imply a higher or different standard.
3. Department/programs may recommend candidates for promotion to full professor who do not meet the research expectations for promotion but who have produced some research since receiving tenure only if the faculty member has a sustained record of exemplary teaching and service over a long period, usually at least 15 years since the award of tenure. The faculty member’s research, even though it may be smaller in quantity than is normally the case and would not normally be judged to meet expectations for promotion, will also be considered as part of the case for promotion. External reviewers will be provided with a copy of this paragraph to clarify that they are being asked to review a candidate for promotion under special circumstances. The evidence that the faculty member’s contributions in service and achievements in teaching are unusually strong will be crucial to obtaining a favorable recommendation by the RPT Committee and the Dean. This option is only available for faculty whose appointments at W&M began before fall 2025.
4. Candidates for promotion are asked to clearly distinguish publications, grant submissions, and other achievements since tenure, for example by bolding or highlighting items in the CV that belong to the post-tenure review period.

IV. Procedures for Interim Reviews

1. Unless hired at advanced standing, the Dean’s letter of intent will schedule an interim, or pretenure review. Under normal circumstances, pre-tenure faculty members must have an interim review in their third year of service in a tenure-eligible line in A&S.
2. Pre-tenure faculty are required to participate in their own interim review. Since the goal of interim review is to assemble as complete a reading as possible of progress towards tenure, the pre-tenure faculty member’s self-evaluation is a critical part of this process. Interim review reports by department chair, program director, and Dean should inform the candidate about those aspects of their record in scholarship, teaching, and service which need strengthening over the period before tenure consideration in order for them to be more confident of a successful outcome. The vote of the department’s/program’s eligible faculty recommending whether or not the candidate should be retained must be recorded and reported in the department/program report or the Chair’s and Director’s letters. If the Provost reaches a negative decision, the candidate will be given notice of termination according to the schedule set out in the Faculty Handbook (section III.B.2).
3. The basic elements of the interim review should closely align with those of the tenure review and be consistent with the contract under which a faculty member is operating. No external letters are required. Interim review is intended to aid candidates in assessing where they need to concentrate their efforts in the years leading up to tenure consideration. Candidates will be evaluated for tenure based on their performance during the entire probationary period.
   
   The department/program will work with the candidate to provide the following for the interim review:
   1. The complete and current curriculum vitae of the candidate that clearly distinguishes between scholarship that is published, accepted for publication, and currently under review. Dates and page numbers for publications are mandatory. Peer-reviewed and nonpeer-reviewed publications and other creative activities should be clearly distinguished. In cases of co-authored, co-edited, or edited work, candidates should indicate their contributions to the publication. A list of grant proposals both submitted and/or funded should be included in the CV. Sources for external funding should include the candidate’s role on the project, the total amount of the award and, in the case of a collaborative project, the amount of funding awarded to the candidate.
   2. Scholarly material, including unpublished work that candidates wish to be considered can be submitted as evidence of a creditable pipeline of their forthcoming scholarship. Candidates who were published researchers before appointment at W&M should include copies of all scholarship produced during those years, and information about service responsibilities and courses taught, in their interim review dossier.
   3. Publications about teaching should be included in the dossier, either as scholarship or teaching, but not both. This decision will be made by the candidate in consultation with the department.
   4. A narrative statement by candidates evaluating their own scholarship, teaching, and service. This should include a statement of future plans in all three areas. The narrative should be no more than 4 single-spaced pages (12 point font) or the equivalent doublespaced. The CV and statement will make clear which publications or research are based on work done since arriving at W&M. 13
   5. Evaluation of teaching as described in Section C.
   6. The report of the faculty meeting at which the recommendation of the faculty committee is discussed and voted upon. The report should be limited to no more than 4 singlespaced pages (12-point font), excluding supplemental tables. The vote totals, the number of faculty eligible to vote, and the date of that vote must also be included (see Section E). The report should provide a context for the candidate’s dossier. It should not simply summarize the candidate’s narrative statement but should give the committee’s independent assessment of the candidate’s dossier.
   7. Candidates with formal joint appointments must be evaluated by both departments or the department and the program. Candidates who have significant involvement in an interdisciplinary program or another department outside their tenure department that is not governed by an existing JAMOU may request from the Dean in writing that the interdisciplinary program or other department be allowed to review their dossier and provide a letter summarizing the contributions of the faculty member to the program or second department.
   8. The report of the department Chair/Program Director, where applicable (see E.6-9 above).
   9. Candidates and their department Chairs/Program Directors should review the entire interim dossier. They should sign and date a list of contents of the dossier attesting that the dossier contains all the items and that the candidate has seen them. This attestation is signed by the department Chair/Program Director as the representative of the Dean.
4. The Dean will summarize their evaluation of the candidate’s interim review file in a letter to the candidate, copied to the department Chair/Program Director as appropriate, and the Provost, which will include the Dean’s recommendation on whether or not the candidate should be retained and proceed towards tenure consideration. In the case of a recommendation not to retain the candidate, the final decision rests with the Provost.

¹ The CV should cover the entire academic career, including years prior to appointment at William & Mary. All publications and related research materials, and evidence pertaining to teaching and service for the period under review, including years prior to appointment at William & Mary where applicable, should be included in the dossier.

² By default, faculty will omit course evaluations for the spring semester of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic disruption to the academic year. Faculty may, however, choose to include those evaluations, and those who do so should clearly indicate this election in their dossier.