6.01.  ANNUAL EVALUATION OF LIMITED APPOINTEES, ACADEMIC STAFF, AND UNIVERSITY STAFF

1. Limited appointees, academic staff, and university staff are reviewed following the processes described in Human Resources policy 8.01. Research and Teaching Professors are reviewed as described in NIPP 6.02. and NIPP 6.06.
2. Supervisors will, at a minimum, conduct a mid-year conversation and end-of-year summary evaluation with their staff members. Probationary staff also receive a 30-day, mid-probation, and final-probationary review.
3. Staff are evaluated on the performance criteria outlined in the Performance Management Development System.
4. At the conclusion of the summary evaluation, employees will receive an overall rating of either “meeting expectations” or “not meeting expectations.”
5. Supervisors may make a recommendation regarding compensation to the Associate Dean for Administration.

6.02.  ANNUAL EVALUATION OF ASSOCIATE AND FULL RESEARCH AND TEACHING PROFESSORS

1. Associate and full Research and Teaching Professors with a funded appointment in the Nelson Institute are required to submit an annual review (self-appraisals and assessments). The annual review should consist of data from the previous three years that highlight activities with respect to the evaluation criteria in NIPP 6.04. or NIPP 6.05.
2. A three or four-person ad hoc committee of the Nelson Institute Executive Committee, following a set rotation schedule, will read and evaluate annual reviews, and provide a rating of each Research and Teaching Professor to the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs. The committee chair will be determined by the committee members. The Dean and Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs do not participate on the ad hoc committee since they review the committee’s ratings. It is expected that the relevant Center Director will be consulted when evaluating a Research Professor’s annual review.
3. The rating system for annual reviews is:
   1. Exceeds expectations
   2. Meets expectations
   3. Does not meet expectations
4. The Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will notify each individual of their rating and place a copy of that rating in the employee’s personnel file.
5. The Dean and Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will use ratings as one component in making recommendations about salary increases to the Executive Committee.
6. Any individual who has submitted an annual review may request to meet with the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs to discuss their report or rating.

6.03.  APPOINTING AND PROMOTING RESEARCH AND TEACHING PROFESSORS

1. All criteria and processes described in the campus guidelines for the placement of academic staff into Research Professor and Teaching Professor Roles apply to the Nelson Institute.
2. Assistant and Associate Research Professors may remain at one rank throughout their career at UW-Madison. There is no “up or out” requirement for promotion. 
3. Appointments and promotions of Research and Teaching Professors are first reviewed by an ad hoc committee which then makes a recommendation to the Executive Committee and the Dean. The Dean has the authority to grant appointments and promotions. To request an initial appointment or promotion within the Research or Teaching Professor title series, current Nelson Institute academic staff should send an application package to the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs who will appoint the ad hoc review committee.
4. The ad hoc review committee should include at least two Executive Committee members, the relevant Center Director, and one academic staff member who may be drawn from outside of the Institute if needed.
5. Documentation required for initial appointments or promotions as a Research Professor includes:
   1. A letter from the Center Director, or other unit head that describes: (a) alignment of the candidate’s credentials with all of the criteria required for the desired rank of appointment; (b) relevance and importance of the candidate’s research program to the research mission of the Center; (c) identification of a funding source for the candidate’s research; (d) identification of research space for the candidate’s research program; (e) commitment of the Center to provide at least 5% of the candidate’s salary to allow research proposal development effort.
   2. A statement that addresses the evaluation criteria in NIPP 6.04.
   3. A current CV.
   4. Letters of recommendation.
   1. For an initial appointment dossier: Three letters of recommendation solicited by the candidate.
   2. For a promotional dossier: The department/unit chair/director should request all letters. A minimum of three letters of evaluation must be obtained from national or international leaders in the candidate’s research specialty area that address the scope and quality of the candidate’s scholarly productivity and impact. At least two of these letters must be “arm’s-length,” in that the letter writer has no significant relationship or prior collaboration with the candidate, and no interest in the outcome of the pending appointment/promotion. Please include a copy of the letter or email used to request letters of evaluation. All solicited evaluation letters received must be included in the candidate’s dossier.
6. Documentation required for initial appointments or promotions as a Teaching Professor includes:
   1. A statement that addresses the evaluation criteria in NIPP 6.05.
   2. A current CV.
   3. Letters of recommendation.
   1. For an initial appointment dossier: Three letters of recommendation solicited by the candidate.
   2. For a promotional dossier: The department/unit chair/director should request all letters. A minimum of three letters of evaluation must be obtained. Please include a copy of the letter or email used to request letters of evaluation. All solicited evaluation letters received must be included in the candidate’s dossier.

6.04.  CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING RESEARCH PROFESSORS

1. All Research Professors at UW-Madison must meet campus criteria for Assistant, Associate, or full Research Professors as outlined in section J.3.B.-C. of “Campus guidelines for the placement of academic staff into Research Professor roles (January, 2020).”
2. The Research Professor title series includes assistant, associate, and full (no-prefix) ranks, and those holding the title of full Research Professor may be nominated for the Distinguished title.
3. Nelson Institute Research Professors also must demonstrate excellence in the following criteria:
   1. Evidence of innovative individual research in an interdisciplinary context.
   2. Evidence of productivity in interdisciplinary endeavors.

6.05.  CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING TEACHING PROFESSORS

1. All Teaching Professors at UW-Madison must meet campus criteria for Assistant, Associate, or Full Teaching Professors as outlined in section H.3. of “Campus guidelines for the placement of instructional academic staff into Teaching Professor roles (April 23, 2020).”
2. Nelson Institute Teaching Professors also must demonstrate excellence in the following criteria:
   1. Evidence of training and mentoring students for interdisciplinary study, research, or practice.
   2. Primary responsibility for teaching one or more interdisciplinary courses and evidence of integrating pedagogy that is well-adapted to interdisciplinary learning.
   3. Evidence of effective teaching based on instructional evaluation.

6.06.  MENTORING, GUIDANCE, AND ANNUAL EVALUATION OF ASSISTANT RESEARCH AND TEACHING PROFESSORS

1. When an Assistant Research or Teaching Professor is appointed in the Nelson Institute, the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will, in consultation with the Executive Committee and the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor, establish a Mentor and Oversight Committee and appoint a committee chair.
2. The Mentor and Oversight Committee comprises three or four people, including at least one member of the Nelson Institute Executive Committee. Other members may include the relevant Center Director, and faculty and academic staff from other departments to provide the breadth of experience to properly mentor the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor. Membership of the committee may change from year to year at the discretion of the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs.
3. The committee will be disbanded after promotion to Associate Research or Teaching Professor or after three years if the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor is not seeking promotion. If the committee is dissolved before promotion, then annual evaluations will be conducted following procedures outlined in NIPP 6.02.
4. The primary responsibility of the Mentor and Oversight Committee is to guide the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor to promotion. It is expected to:
   1. Meet at least once annually with the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor.
   2. Communicate to the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor the expectations for promotion and the administrative steps necessary to achieve it.
   3. Support the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor with respect to professional opportunities.
   4. Arrange for peer evaluations of research or teaching each semester, with written evaluations provided to the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor.
   5. Conduct an annual evaluation and report to the Executive Committee in spring on the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor’s progress to promotion, and provide a written report to the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor.
5. Documentation required for the annual evaluation of Assistant Research Professors includes:
   1. Peer evaluations of research.
   2. Advisee evaluations of mentorship.
   3. Copies of publications and works in progress.
   4. The Mentor and Oversight Committee’s written assessment and guidance regarding the Assistant Research Professor’s progress towards promotion.
6. Documentation required for the annual evaluation of Assistant Teaching Professors includes:
   1. Peer and student evaluations of teaching.
   2. Advisee evaluations of mentorship.
   3. Copies of syllabi.
   4. The Mentor and Oversight Committee’s written assessment and guidance regarding the Assistant Teaching Professor’s progress towards promotion.
7. Following the Executive Committee’s review of the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor, the chair of the Mentor and Oversight Committee will update the written evaluation as necessary, and send it to the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs, who will provide it to the Assistant Research or Teaching Professor. The Assistant Research or Teaching Professor may respond to the evaluation in writing or may, upon request, address the Executive Committee regarding the evaluation.
8. Should an Assistant Research or Teaching Professor have concerns about their Mentor and Oversight Committee, they should discuss this with the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs.

6.07.  CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING TENURED PROFESSORS

1. Unless described elsewhere in NIPP, all Associate and full Professors are evaluated on the following performance criteria for annual reviews, post-tenure reviews, and reviews for promotion to Associate Professor and full Professor.
2. Tenured professors must demonstrate excellence in research, teaching, service, and outreach.
   1. Research
      1. Evidence of innovative individual research in an interdisciplinary context.
      2. Evidence of productivity in interdisciplinary endeavors.
   2. Teaching
      1. Evidence of training and mentoring students for interdisciplinary study, research, or practice.
      2. Primary responsibility for teaching one or more interdisciplinary courses and evidence of integrating pedagogy that is well-adapted to interdisciplinary learning.
      3. Evidence of effective teaching based on instructional evaluation.
   3. Service and Outreach
      1. Evidence of leadership in advancing the “Mission, Vision, and Core Values” of the Nelson Institute (NIPP 1.01.–1.03.).
      2. Evidence of integrating diverse perspectives into all aspects of scholarship.
      3. Evidence of outreach to social or scientific communities outside the Nelson Institute.
      4. Evidence of professional integration into a significant body of knowledge and practice.

6.08.  ANNUAL EVALUATION OF TENURED PROFESSORS

1. Tenured professors with any percentage of their appointment in the Nelson Institute are required to submit an annual review (self-appraisals and assessments).
2. The annual review of tenured professors should consist of data from the previous three years that highlight activities with respect to the criteria in NIPP 6.07.
3. A three or four-person ad hoc committee of Nelson Institute Executive Committee, following a set rotation schedule, will read and evaluate annual reviews, and provide a rating of each faculty to the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs. The committee chair will be determined by the committee members. The Dean and Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs do not participate on the ad hoc committee since they review the committee’s ratings.
4. The rating system for annual reviews is:
   1. Exceeds expectations
   2. Meets expectations
   3. Does not meet expectations
   4. Did not submit
5. The committee will determine a rating for each category of performance (research, teaching, service and outreach) as well as an overall rating.
6. The Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will notify each individual of their rating and place a copy of that rating in the employee’s personnel file.
7. The Dean and Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will use ratings as one component in making recommendations for salary increases to the Executive Committee.
8. Failure to submit an annual review will make the faculty member ineligible for any merit adjustments the following year, and will be a factor in subsequent post-tenure reviews. Two consecutive years of non-submission or three in any five-year period will be deemed unsatisfactory.
9. Any individual who has submitted an annual review may request to meet with the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs to discuss their report or rating.

6.09.  MENTORING, GUIDANCE, AND ANNUAL EVALUATION OF TENURE-TRACK ASSISTANT PROFESSORS

1. When a tenure-track Assistant Professor is appointed in the Nelson Institute, the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will, in consultation with the Executive Committee and the Assistant Professor, establish a Mentor and Oversight Committee and appoint a committee chair. It is the preference of the Nelson Institute to have one committee provide guidance to and oversight of the Assistant Professor, in accordance with FP&P 7.05.C. In the case of joint appointments, the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will confer with the other department(s) on how best to serve the Assistant Professor.
2. The Mentor and Oversight Committee comprises three or four tenured faculty members, including at least one member of the Nelson Institute Executive Committee. Membership of the committee may change from year to year at the discretion of the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs.
3. The primary responsibility of the Mentor and Oversight Committee is to oversee the process of guiding the Assistant Professor to tenure evaluation. It is expected to:
   1. Meet at least once annually with the Assistant Professor.
   2. Communicate to the Assistant Professor the expectations for tenure and the administrative steps necessary to achieve it.
   3. Support the Assistant Professor with respect to professional opportunities.
   4. Arrange for peer evaluation of teaching each semester, with written evaluations provided to the Assistant Professor.
   5. Conduct an annual evaluation and report to the Executive Committee on the Assistant Professor’s progress to tenure in spring, beginning with the second year of the initial appointment.
4. Documentation required for the annual evaluation of Assistant Professors includes:
   1. A dossier prepared following the probationary faculty member’s divisional committee guidelines and that addresses the evaluation criteria in NIPP 6.07.
   2. The Mentor and Oversight Committee’s written assessment and guidance regarding the probationary faculty member’s progress towards tenure.
5. Following the Executive Committee’s review of the Assistant Professor, the chair of the Mentor and Oversight Committee will update the written evaluation as necessary, and send it to the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs, who will provide it to the Assistant Professor. The Assistant Professor may respond to the evaluation in writing or may, upon request, address the Executive Committee regarding the evaluation (FP&P 7.05.D).
6. The Mentor and Oversight Committee is also responsible for, within the first semester of the initial appointment, advising the Assistant Professor and the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs as to which divisional affiliation will be most appropriate for the Assistant Professor. The committee will also review requests from the Assistant Professor to change affiliation prior to tenure review and make a recommendation to the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs. The final choice of divisional affiliation rests with the Assistant Professor (FP&P 4.03.A.).
7. Should an Assistant Professor have concerns about their Mentor and Oversight Committee, they should discuss this with the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs.

 6.10.  REVIEWING TENURE-TRACK ASSISTANT PROFESSOR APPOINTMENTS FOR RENEWAL, PROMOTION OR NON-RENEWAL

1. Unless modified by terms of the appointment, tenure-track, probationary appointments will be for an initial three-year period and renewed for a subsequent three-year probationary period. Modification of the initial appointment for a shorter period may be negotiated at the time of appointment, or by recommendation of the Mentor and Oversight Committee, the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs, or the Executive Committee. Final action on these recommendations will be by the Executive Committee.
2. Probationary appointments may be reviewed at any time for renewal, promotion to tenure, or non-renewal, following the procedures specified in FP&P Chapter 7. In general, it is expected that probationary appointments will be reviewed for renewal in spring of the second year of the appointment. In spring of the fifth year of the appointment, the Executive Committee will decide whether to ask for outside letters to help evaluate the case for promotion with tenure. In spring of the sixth year of the appointment the Executive Committee will review the appointment for promotion to tenure or non-renewal.
3. For this process, the Nelson Institute Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs serves as department chair and will chair any Executive Committee meetings at which an Assistant Professor is being reviewed for renewal or promotion.
4. Assistant Professors whose appointments are to be acted upon will receive a written preliminary notice from the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs inviting the Assistant Professor to submit their dossier for consideration by the Mentor and Oversight Committee and the Executive Committee. This preliminary notice will occur early in the semester before the semester when the review will take place.
5. As soon as the date is set for the Executive Committee meeting when an Assistant Professor’s appointment will be considered, the Assistant Professor will be notified by the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs. The notice will inform the Assistant Professor of their right to require that the meeting be open. Under no circumstances will this notification be given less than twenty days before the meeting, except with the agreement of the Assistant Professor.
6. The Executive Committee may invite other people to participate in its meetings to review an Assistant Professor. This is a closed meeting unless the Assistant Professor under consideration requests an open meeting. In an open meeting, the Assistant Professor under consideration may attend, but does not have the right to participate in the debate unless specifically allowed to do so by a majority vote of the members of the Executive Committee members present at the meeting.
7. The Mentor and Oversight Committee will make a recommendation on the case to the Executive Committee. A two-thirds favorable vote of the Executive Committee is required to advance a recommendation for renewal or promotion to the Dean. For this purpose, the Executive Committee consists of those members not on formal leave. Members must be present at the discussion, in person or by telephone or videoconference, to vote.
8. Additional procedures for notifying the Assistant Professor under consideration of decisions, nonrenewal, and reconsideration follow those outlined in FP&P 7.07.–7.13. and UWS 3.06–3.10.
9. Before approving or denying a recommendation to a tenured position, the Dean shall seek the advice of the Divisional Committee in which the Assistant Professor has membership. Additional procedures for this activity follow those outlined in FP&P 7.15.

 6.11.  CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE 

1. Assistant Professors with 100% of their tenure in the Nelson Institute are evaluated against the criteria in NIPP 6.07. The Assistant Professor must demonstrate excellence in research and a second domain. They must also demonstrate a minimum of satisfactory ability in the remaining domains.
2. Assistant Professors with split appointments will be evaluated against a set of criteria negotiated between the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs and the other unit(s).
3. All Assistant Professors will also be evaluated against their Divisional Committee guidelines.

6.12.  ASSEMBLING THE FINAL DOSSIER FOR PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE

1. The Assistant Professor is responsible for collecting the data needed for their dossier, in collaboration with their Mentor and Oversight Committee and Nelson Institute staff.
2. The Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs, in consultation with the Executive Committee and the Assistant Professor’s Mentor and Oversight Committee, is responsible for preparing the departmental letter, requesting external letters of evaluation, overseeing the assembly of materials for the final dossier, and submission to the relevant divisional committee.
3. A minimum of five and up to eight letters are required from persons outside of UW-Madison who are not closely associated with the Assistant Professor. The selected writers should be nationally recognized and knowledgeable of the Assistant Professor’s area of research. External letter writers are selected by the Executive Committee, in consultation with the Mentor and Oversight Committee. The Assistant Professor may offer a list of potential letter writers as information only. The final list of writers should include people in addition to those suggested by the Assistant Professor.
4. For Assistant Professors with split tenure appointments, the process of assembling the dossier, and selecting and contacting external letter writers will be negotiated between the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs and the other unit(s).

 6.13.  POST-TENURE REVIEW

1. Tenured faculty are reviewed following the purposes, criteria, and procedures outlined in FP&P 7.17.
2. In spring, the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will identify and notify faculty to be reviewed during the following fall semester. The Executive Committee will select two or more tenured faculty members, who may be drawn from outside the Institute, to conduct the review. Upon notification of the reviewers selected by the committee, if the faculty member under review formally objects to a reviewer, the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs, in consultation with the Dean, will identify other reviewers.
3. Documentation required for post-tenure reviews includes:
   1. A statement that highlights the faculty member’s achievements in the last five years with respect to the criteria in NIPP 6.07.
   2. A statement that summarizes the faculty member’s future career plans.
   3. A current CV.
   4. Annual reviews from the last five years.
   5. Instructional evaluations from the last five years.
   6. Outside letters of support are not required but may be requested depending on the circumstances (e.g., to align with other departments’ processes in the case of split appointments).
4. Faculty will be evaluated against the criteria in NIPP 6.07.
5. Faculty members with split appointments will be evaluated against a set of criteria negotiated between the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs and the other unit(s). Ideally, a single package will serve all units. When this is not possible, the faculty member may be asked to provide documentation that addresses requirements or concerns specific to the Nelson Institute. All cases in the Nelson Institute must address interdisciplinarity.
6. The rating system for post-tenure reviews is:
   1. Exceeds expectations
   2. Meets expectations
   3. Does not meet expectations
7. The reviewers will write a summary of their review, and submit it, along with all review materials, to the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs at least 10 days prior to the Executive Committee meeting at which the case will be discussed. The Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will distribute the review to the Executive Committee at least seven days prior to the Executive Committee meeting. The Executive Committee will consider at least two questions:
   1. Is the reviewers’ report acceptable as submitted?
   2. What is the summary rating for the faculty member, as based on the review?
8. After discussion, and suggested revisions, if any, are incorporated into the summary, a vote will be taken to accept the summary report and rating. The motion shall carry by a two-thirds majority.
9. The faculty member being reviewed will have 30 days from the date of the acceptance of the review by the Executive Committee to submit a response to the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs who will forward it to the Executive Committee. It will be filed with all review materials in the faculty member’s personnel file.
10. Additional procedures are outlined in FP&P 7.17.C.
11. Every effort will be made to offer tangible recognition to those faculty whose performance is identified as exceeds expectations, including, but not limited to, nomination for university, national, and international awards, and relevant merit and other benefits. The noteworthy accomplishments of all faculty, whatever their ratings, will be highlighted as appropriate in Nelson Institute communications vehicles.
12. Documentation compiled for a post-tenure review may be submitted in consideration for promotion to full Professor. However, promotion to full Professor is a separate process as described below.

 6.14.  PROMOTION TO FULL PROFESSOR

1. Promotion to full Professor recognizes tenured faculty who have made substantial and sustained contributions in research, teaching, service, and outreach. Promotion is not based on seniority. In general, Associate Professors will be reviewed for promotion to full Professor beginning five years after promotion to Associate Professor, coinciding with their first post-tenure review. However, a review for promotion to full Professor may occur at any time at the request of the candidate, the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs, or the Executive Committee.
2. The Executive Committee reviews all cases for promotion to full Professor, and the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs chairs these meetings.
3. Associate Professors with 100% of their tenure in the Nelson Institute are evaluated against the criteria in NIPP 6.07. The faculty member must demonstrate excellence in research, teaching, service, and outreach.
4. Associate Professors with split appointments will be evaluated against a set of criteria negotiated between the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs and the other unit(s). Ideally, a single package will serve all units. When this is not possible, the faculty member may be asked to provide documentation that addresses requirements or concerns specific to the Nelson Institute. All cases in the Nelson Institute must address interdisciplinarity.
5. Documentation required for promotion to full Professor reviews include:
   1. A statement that highlights the faculty member’s achievements since promotion to Associate Professor with respect to the evaluation criteria in NIPP 6.07.
   2. A statement that summarizes the faculty member’s future career plans.
   3. A current CV.
   4. Annual reviews since promotion to Associate Professor.
   5. Instructional evaluations since promotion to Associate Professor.
   6. Outside letters of support are not required but may be requested depending on the circumstances (e.g., to align with other departments’ processes in the case of split appointments).

6.15.  PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION TO FULL PROFESSOR

1. The Executive Committee will hear cases for promotion to full Professor no later than its March meeting.
2. Upon notification by the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs that the faculty member’s case for promotion will be reviewed by the Executive Committee, the Associate Professor will, at least 10 days prior to the date of the meeting, submit the required material to the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs.
3. The Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will distribute the dossier to the Executive Committee at least seven days prior to the Executive Committee meeting.
4. The Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will notify the faculty member of the Executive Committee’s decision no later than 15 days following the meeting. If the promotion was denied, the Associate Dean for Education and Faculty Affairs will suggest how to make a stronger case during future promotion evaluations.
5. Any promotion will take effect with the start of the following fiscal year for 12-month appointments, or the start of the following academic year for 9-month appointments.