Administration & Governance - Procedures for the Guidance and Evaluation of Probationary Faculty Members

Section 7.05 of FP&P describes the requirements for the guidance and annual evaluation of probationary faculty members, including two functions: guidance/mentoring and oversight/evaluation. The policy articulated in FP&P 7.05.C allows either for separate guidance and oversight committees or for a single committee that does both. The SoHE combines the mentoring/guidance and oversight/evaluation functions in one committee, hereafter referred to as the Mentoring and Oversight Committee.

The Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will make certain that each new faculty member receives an orientation to the policies and procedures of the School. This includes receipt of or referral to this document and the “Tenure Guidelines'' document from the Divisional Committee selected by the faculty member as best suited to judge the tenurability of their professional work.

During the first semester of the probationary faculty appointment and upon the recommendation of the department chair, the Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs will appoint a Mentoring and Oversight Committee for the probationary faculty member. The Associate Dean will inform the probationary faculty member in writing of the membership of this committee. This committee will consist of at least three tenured faculty members, including two members from the probationary faculty’s departmental faculty and one additional member of the UW-Madison Graduate Faculty (when possible, of another SoHE academic unit). The committee members will be selected based on their ability to judge the tenurability of the probationary faculty member’s professional work and provide appropriate review of the faculty member’s achievements. While there is often continuity in some or all members of the Mentoring and Oversight Committee, committee membership may change during the probationary period for reasons including (but not limited to) faculty availability and workload, the probationary faculty member’s request, or recommendation of the Dean, Department Chair, or Department Executive Committee.

Every fall semester, following the Executive Faculty organizational meeting where committees are confirmed, the Dean’s Office shall forward a letter to each probationary faculty member and the committee the composition of the probationary faculty member’s Mentoring and Oversight Committee membership.

Except as noted below, the School and Department will follow the same procedures in monitoring, assessing, and encouraging the progress of probationary faculty whose tenure home is in SoHE, but whose budgetary appointment is shared across one or more other departments, including Cooperative Extension, as it does for probationary faculty whose budgetary appointment is entirely within a single department.

The Mentoring and Oversight Committee is responsible for providing guidance to the probationary faculty member, including answering questions and to offer advice on teaching, research, service and outreach, and other topics related to professional development and achieving tenure. This committee also will have responsibility for developing all evaluative reviews of the probationary faculty member including progress toward tenure.

The Mentoring and Oversight Committee will provide guidance and oversight as defined above and in FP&P 7.05. The committee has the following responsibilities:

1. Provide guidance to the probationary faculty member on effective performance consistent with the objectives of the appointment and progress towards tenure.
2. Meet with the probationary faculty member to discuss criteria for and progress toward tenure. Minimally, a meeting will take place in conjunction with the written annual review prepared by the committee and reviewed by the Department and SoHE Executive Committees. A copy of that review is to be provided to the probationary faculty member.
3. Establish a procedure for peer review of the teaching activities of the probationary faculty member. The objective of the review is to provide the Department with feedback on the probationary faculty member’s teaching beyond student evaluations. Plans should be made for classroom visits (including visits to synchronous online classes) and a written assessment by a member of the Mentoring and Oversight Committee or other senior faculty designated by that committee. When feasible and appropriate, visits to outreach teaching sessions can be conducted. The Mentoring and Oversight Committee will also evaluate teaching materials including course websites, syllabi, and materials from online and in-person classes.
4. Prepare and provide all written reports for the probationary faculty member’s department executive committee and the SoHE Executive Faculty Committee evaluating the probationary faculty member’s progress toward tenure using the criteria of the appropriate Divisional Committee and specified in FP&P 7.0.5.
5. Recommend the timing and scheduling of the contract renewal and the tenure review by the SoHE Executive Faculty Committee.
6. Prepare the tenure dossier for the SoHE Executive Faculty Committee review and recommendation to the Divisional Committee

There are three required reviews of probationary faculty, the annual review, the contract renewal and the recommendation for tenure.

1. The Annual Tenure Progress Review

The Mentoring and Oversight Committee Chair, in consultation with the probationary faculty member is responsible for providing the Mentoring and Oversight Committee with the probationary faculty member’s P-FAR report, updated CV, and teaching evaluations. The Mentoring and Oversight Committee Chair is responsible for coordinating teaching observations in accordance with FP&P and filing the written observation report in the Dean’s office.

The annual tenure progress report shall be shared with the SoHE Executive Faculty Committee for review and feedback during the Spring semester every year. The role of the SoHE Executive Faculty Committee is to discuss the Mentoring and Oversight Committee report and to provide additional input and feedback to the mentoring committee.  Following discussion, the SoHE Executive Faculty Committee will act upon a motion to accept the report and its recommendations (pending any revisions).

Upon final revisions of the annual progress report, the Mentoring and Oversight Committee will file a final report with the Dean’s Office. The report will be transmitted to the probationary faculty member by the Dean’s Office. The probationary faculty member shall be offered an opportunity to comment in writing (FP&P 7.05 D), the comments being attached to the report and included in the faculty member’s permanent file.

SoHE annual review

All employees of the University are required to participate in an annual review.  As part of the School’s faculty annual review (P-FAR) process, the Department Chair will meet with each assistant professor. In this meeting, the Chair will discuss with the assistant professor the results of the annual review, as well as their own observations of the assistant professor’s work. The Chair will give particular attention to any real or perceived inconsistency between the advice of the Mentoring and Oversight Committee and the results of the annual review. If the Chair perceives such an inconsistency, they should attempt to resolve it in consultation with the Mentoring and Oversight Committee and the assistant professor. As described below, the Mentoring and Oversight Committee has primary responsibility for advising and evaluating the work of the assistant professor based on the cumulative record, whereas each annual review focuses on a single year’s work. 

The Mentoring and Oversight Committee will have access to the P-FAR review documents of the faculty member. However, the evaluation standards of those one-year reviews are distinct from those of the Mentoring and Oversight Committee’s cumulative reviews, which are aligned with Divisional Committee guidelines. When the latter reviews appear to differ from the former, the conclusions of the Mentoring and Oversight Committee with respect to promotion are determinative.

2. Contract Renewal

Assistant professors in the School of Human Ecology are normally appointed for an initial three-year term. Tenure clock extensions will extend the contract renewal year unless specified by the secretary of the faculty. At the contract renewal year, recommendation for reappointment of the assistant professor may be at increments compatible with the mandatory tenure review year. As with the annual review, the Mentoring and Oversight Committee will prepare a report that specifically recommends the length of the renewal. 

Probationary faculty in the contract renewal year require a more thorough annual review to support recommendations for appointment renewal and in preparation for a tenure recommendation, respectively.

Probationary faculty and their Mentoring and Oversight Committee chair will be notified of the tentative month for their contract renewal in fall semester following the Executive Faculty Committee’s organizational meeting. The month prior to the contract renewal meeting, the Dean’s Office will notify the probationary faculty of their right to an open meeting. The probationary faculty member is required to reply in writing whether they request an open meeting or waive this right.

3. Recommendation for Tenure 

Appointments and recommendations for tenure are made by the SoHE Executive Faculty Committee, which acts upon an advisory recommendation from the department’s executive committee and a tenure dossier prepared by the Mentoring and Oversight Committee. 

As with the contract renewal, probationary faculty and their Mentoring and Oversight Committee chair will be notified of the tentative month for their tenure review in fall semester following the Executive Faculty Committee’s organizational meeting. The month prior to the tenure review meeting, the Dean’s Office will notify the probationary faculty of their right to an open meeting. The probationary faculty member is required to reply in writing The probationary faculty member is required to reply in writing whether they request an open meeting or waive this right.

Motions regarding the granting of tenure require affirmative votes from two-thirds of the SoHE Executive Faculty Committee members present to pass. 

VI. Guidelines for Promotion

The Mentoring and Oversight Committee may make a recommendation for tenure or termination at any time during the probationary period, and must do so no later than during the sixth year of probationary service. The Committee is responsible for recommending the timing and scheduling of the tenure review by the SoHE Executive Committee. The primary criteria for promotion are those specified by the faculty member’s Divisional Committee. In this section, we present some considerations of particular relevance within the School of Human Ecology.

A probationary faculty member is expected to demonstrate substantial scholarly progress, excellence, and promise in research, teaching, and service (as specified in the appropriate Divisional Committee Tenure Guidelines for the Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Biological Sciences divisions). The School of Human Ecology, with its cross-disciplinary and applied mission, values (but does not mandate) activities that are in the spirit of the Wisconsin Idea, including outreach research, outreach teaching, and outreach service. A hallmark of research conducted in the School of Human Ecology (SoHE) is placing human experience at the center of knowledge creation and fostering scholarship that bridges disciplines and integrates diverse methods and modes of inquiry. Faculty in SoHE often pursue research and creative work that may not fit neatly within a single discipline or tradition. Instead, their scholarship is distinguished by its interdisciplinary scope, societal relevance, and—frequently—its community-engaged orientation. In this context, excellence in scholarship is not defined solely by disciplinary conventions or traditional academic metrics. Rather, it is demonstrated through a coherent scholarly arc, a clear and compelling intellectual contribution, and recognition of influence or leadership in one or more intersecting fields.

Consistent with longstanding traditions and values expressed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Executive Committee acknowledges that faculty contributions to community-engaged scholarship and scholarly activities to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion may include time-intensive activities and should be recognized and valued. While these types of scholarly contributions are not mandatory components of tenure materials, they may reflect significant efforts and contributions made by an assistant professor. When a probationary faculty member engages in these activities, they should be documented and recognized in accordance with the guidance provided by their Divisional tenure case. See Arts & Humanities Appendix 2 (Considerations for Community-Engaged Scholarship and Activities Enhancing the Wisconsin Idea) and Social Sciences Section XII (Scholarly Activity that Enhances the Wisconsin Idea) for additional information.

Criteria for Tenure

Research: By the time of review for tenure, the probationary faculty member should have established a national reputation for excellence in a particular area of expertise. There is no predetermined arena in which the probationary faculty member’s scholarly endeavor must proceed, but he or she must have established an identifiable, programmatic area of scholarly endeavor or creative work that he or she can articulate and that is consistent with his or her appointment. In turn, the Mentoring and Oversight Committee must be able to articulate and demonstrate this to the Executive Committees and the broader scholarly community. It is this arena that will be evaluated by external reviewers in the tenure process, as required by Divisional Committee guidelines.

The School and its departments are diverse and value a range of scholarly activities. Faculty work in a variety of fields and media, producing various forms of scholarship. This could include, but is not limited to, books, journal articles, conference proceedings, exhibitions of creative work, outreach publications, or a recognized record of professional projects. Whereas the Executive Committee believes that no specific number of outputs can be specified as fulfilling the needs of a positive tenure vote, it nonetheless realizes that specific criteria appropriate to the probationary faculty member’s work can be defined. To this end, each exhibition, presentation, or article (and the like) will be evaluated concerning its merits, weighted accordingly within the entire picture of the probationary faculty member’s developing career, and evaluated according to the criteria understood mutually by the faculty member and his or her Mentoring and Oversight Committee. The Executive Committee seeks excellence in quality journals, publishers, exhibition venues, or equivalent outlets.

To demonstrate excellence in research, probationary candidates will establish or maintain a national reputation through scholarship and/or creative research contributions of demonstrable impact. To do so, the School expects probationary faculty members to create or produce one or more of the following:

1. Demonstration of Research Excellence through Journal Publications or Conference Proceedings

The candidate’s record of peer-reviewed journal publications or conference proceedings should reflect a trajectory of research excellence, innovation, and impact in their field. Probationary faculty are expected to publish articles in highly respected outlets, indicating rigorous peer review and recognition by scholars. These publications are expected to demonstrate:

• Originality and Significance: The candidate’s work addresses critical questions and introduces innovative frameworks or methodologies that advance the field. Several articles have been cited widely, underscoring their influence and relevance.
  
  
• Scholarly Independence: The progression of publications shows increasing intellectual leadership, with first- or senior-author roles on key papers. The candidate has established a distinct research agenda that is both coherent and evolving.
  
  
• Collaborative Engagement: Publications may also reflect interdisciplinary collaboration, enhancing the reach and applicability of the candidate’s research. Co-authorship with national and international scholars further signals the candidate’s integration into broader academic networks. The candidate’s unique contributions should be evident.
  
  
• Impact and Recognition: The candidate’s work has been recognized through invited talks, awards, or inclusion in special issues or editorials. Metrics such as citation counts and journal impact factors can support the visibility of the research, but in some emerging or specialized fields may not be as relevant or indicative of quality. Broader impact can be demonstrated through research cited in a Supreme Court case, government reports, or other initiatives or policy reports.
• Support and Development: The research program may be supported by competitive grants, fellowships, or awards from intramural or extramural sources, all of which reflect external validation of the project’s promise and scholarly merit in their own right.

2. Demonstration of Research Excellence through Book Publication

The candidate’s book (i.e., book-length manuscript in production or published form) should represent a major scholarly contribution and a clear marker of research excellence. Published by a high-impact university press or a prestigious publisher recognized for its specialization in the topic area, the book reflects the depth and originality of the candidate’s research agenda. There is variability in the development and dissemination of book-length publications, and the positive impacts of such scholarship are not expected to be fully evident at the time of dossier submission. The Mentoring and Oversight Committee should make the case for the particular project’s research excellence and document the following, as applicable:

• Scholarly Significance and Scope: Typically solo-authored, the book should build upon the candidate’s dissertation or core research program, offering a sustained and coherent argument that advances the field. In some cases, the candidate may serve as editor of a collected volume, curating contributions that shape scholarly discourse on a focused topic.
  
  
• Prestige of the Press: The choice of publisher—whether a university press or a specialty press known for excellence in the relevant discipline—signals the book’s quality and scholarly impact. The editorial and peer-review standards involved should be described.
  
  
• Support and Development: The book’s development may be supported by competitive grants, fellowships, or invitations to participate in developmental workshops, all of which reflect external validation of the project’s promise and scholarly merit in their own right.
• Recognition and Engagement: Evidence of the book’s impact may include reviews or citations in academic journals and documented scholarly conversations with high public or policy impacts. However, the School recognizes that measurable impact of published books takes time; scholars using books as the focal point of a tenure dossier at the time of promotion to associate professor may not have accrued these before their tenure evaluaion. Invitations to speak about the book, inclusion in symposia, and visible excitement within the field may be used to underscore its reception.

3. Demonstration of Research Excellence through Creative Scholarship

Exhibitions or related creative scholarship include performances, artists’ books, and events in nationally respected institutions and venues. Artists and designers distinguish between international, national, and regional venues. A venue is evaluated on its prominence, not simply its location, and is measured by its stature within the cultural landscape and its mention in major art journals or the popular press (e.g., Art in America, New York Times). Reviews and mentions in such publications are one measure of impact. The Mentoring and Oversight Committee is responsible for providing evidence about the merits and impact of these activities both on the candidate’s career trajectory and on the field.

The following is a rank order of fine art venues by type of exhibition and location, and typically is at the invitation of a curator or a similar position:

International

• Solo show
• 2-3 person show
• Group show –  this would depend on the quality of the institution, the best being of the caliber of an internationally-known art center, internationally-known art or design museum, international biennial, commercial gallery, or university gallery or museum

National

• Solo show
• 2-3 person show – invited by curator
• Group show –  this would depend on the quality of the institution, the best being of the caliber of a nationally-regognized museum, national biennial, commercial gallery, or university gallery or museum

Regional

• Solo show
• 2-3 person show
• Group show
• Given proper evidence, other examples of excellence may include juried exhibitions, art fairs, and representation by a noted commercial gallery.

Collections

The acquisition of a creative work, including the artist’s book, artwork, or other product of creative endeavor by an institution or prestigious collection with an international or national reputation (e.g., Museum) is a strong indicator of excellence and standing in the field. Work acquired by private individuals can also be of note.

    D. Guidance tailored to Design Research and Scholarship:

Design Faculty members contribute to the School’s research mission through scholarly inquiry, creative work, or professional/community design activities that advance knowledge in the design of the built environment. As with all faculty in the School, candidates are expected to demonstrate a coherent scholarly arc, a clear intellectual contribution, and national recognition in their area of expertise. The forms through which this work is produced and disseminated reflect the norms of an accredited professional design discipline.

Design research and scholarship may take written, visual, material, or practice-based forms. Regardless of mode, research should show originality, rigor, and a clear contribution to advancing an academic field and, when applicable, a professional practice.  In particular, given that Interior Architecture is a professional, accredited field, research may also emerge from design practice when such work produces transferable knowledge, is documented with clarity, and is disseminated to audiences capable of evaluating its contribution. Candidates should articulate how their research methods, outputs, and dissemination venues align with the expectations of their disciplinary area.

The evaluation of research for design faculty follows the same standard used throughout School: evidence of excellence, evidence of impact, and evidence of a national reputation. The specific forms of evidence may differ from those in other fields, but the expectations for quality, clarity of contribution, and intellectual leadership remain the same.

Evidence of research excellence for design faculty may include, but is not limited to:

• Peer-reviewed journal articles, book project, book chapters, monographs, or conference papers.
• Creative or critical design work—such as installations, prototypes, speculative or applied projects, or spatial investigations—that demonstrates innovation, conceptual clarity, and dissemination beyond the University.
• Participation in juried, curated, or otherwise critically evaluated venues of design communication.
• Curatorial research realized in exhibitions, digital humanities projects, collection policies, or other forms.
• Competitive recognitions, honors, or awards that indicate the influence or distinction of the candidate’s scholarly or creative contributions.
• Design work, built or unbuilt, that advances knowledge, methods, or professional standards in the discipline.
• Sponsored research, grants, or formal collaborations that support a sustained program of inquiry.
• Community-engaged or public-interest design research that produces measurable contributions to understanding or improving the built environment, sustainability, and individual or community well-being.

Summary/Impact of Research Criteria: The candidate’s record may demonstrate research excellence by combining aspects of the categories above in a coherent, intentional, and systematic way. The relevant indicators of excellence should be documented.

To the extent that a trajectory of increasing accomplishment, professional recognition, and intellectual growth can be demonstrated, the tenure case will be that much stronger. Indicators of increasing excellence and impact may include the following:

• H-index or other metrics to document productivity and citation impact
• robust research pipeline
• invited exhibitions and presentations
• early career awards and recognition

Teaching: By the time of review for tenure, the probationary faculty member should demonstrate significant contributions to teaching undergraduate students, graduate

students, Extension educators and other professionals, and community members, as appropriate. Indicators of excellence and impact may include peer teaching reviews, learner evaluations, course materials, outreach materials, and other evidence of teaching performance such as student accomplishments (including awards, theses, and dissertations). There is also an expectation of active mentoring in the form of chairing or being a member on graduate student committees, while recognizing that opportunities for this are influenced by the size of departmental graduate programs and the substantive focus of students.

Student evaluations of teaching are a mandatory component of tenure dossiers at UW-Madison. Nevertheless, the School of Human Ecology recognizes the inherent limitations of teaching evaluations as a metric of instructional quality, both in terms of their validity in assessing student learning and due to their demonstrated bias against women and faculty of color. Therefore, while we include student evaluations in tenure packets, as required, they are not the tools we use in assessing teaching quality for any faculty members (not just women and faculty of color). Peer evaluations of teaching, syllabi, and other course materials (e.g., creative assignments), evidence of faculty investment in developing teaching skills (e.g., attending teaching workshops), evidence of student accomplishments, high-investment teaching tasks (e.g., developing new courses, supervising independent studies or student research experiences), and testimonials from learners and mentees can all be used to demonstrate teaching excellence.

Service: By the time of review for tenure, the probationary faculty member should have contributed in meaningful ways to the department and school and have demonstrated a trajectory indicating potential leadership in community, university (including school and department), and professional service.