Guidelines for Submission of Rank and Tenure Applications by Tenure-Line Faculty

Approved by the Faculty Senate on May 13, 2015 after Consultation with the University Committee on Rank and Tenure

Rank and Tenure are at the heart of a mutually acknowledged and mutually beneficial long-term relationship between the tenure-line faculty and the university. They deserve special attention throughout the faculty member’s career at the university. The Faculty Handbook spells out the larger frame of reference for this relationship.  These Guidelines are intended to clarify the application procedures and requirements for tenure-line faculty members by providing additional information from the University Committee on Rank and Tenure (UCRT) to applicants and their units.

While these Guidelines are by no means exhaustive, they can provide a useful guide for the procedural steps to be taken in the actual application process.  If there are any inconsistencies between these Guidelines and the Faculty Handbook, the Handbook governs.  Italicized passages enclosed in quotation marks below are taken directly from the Faculty Handbook.

General Statement

The procedures for submitting applications for tenure and promotion at Georgetown University vary across the university’s major divisions. Though there are different administrative entities and different decision-making bodies, all procedures aim to achieve a fair and objective evaluation of the applicant’s total record in terms of research[1], teaching, and service.

In general, this evaluation takes place in stages:  at the departmental level, at the school and campus levels, and at the University level.

Main Campus Process: The process for evaluating candidates for tenure and promotion on the Main Campus is set out in “Main Campus Schools Rank and Tenure Dossier Preparation.”

Medical Center Process:  The process for evaluating candidates for tenure and promotion at the Medical Center is set out in “Georgetown University School of Medicine Policy for Appointment and Promotion of Faculty on the Tenure Track.”

Law Center Process:  The process for evaluating candidates for tenure and promotion at the Law Center is set out in “Memorandum of Standards for Tenure and Promotion Approved by the [Law] Faculty, January 29, 2014, effective as of January 1, 2014.”

Secret votes shall be taken on applications for promotion and/or tenure.  In the case of applications for tenure, all tenured members of the unit are entitled to vote. In the case of applications for promotion, all tenure-line members holding at least the rank to which the applicant is applying are entitled to vote. Voting should take place at a meeting at which the application can be discussed by the group as a whole.  The number of absentee votes, if permitted by the unit, should be so noted in the transmission of the file.  All unit votes are to be reported to the UCRT as part of the application.

UCRT expects nearly all faculty members who are eligible to vote to participate in discussion and vote.[2]

If a campus, school or department has an executive faculty or separate committee on rank and tenure, applications will indicate the votes in such bodies as well as votes obtained from the relevant unit(s). In addition, applicants who have shared joint appointments should be assessed by their primary and secondary units, and the results of votes in both units should be included in the application.  See Guidelines on Joint Appointments for Tenure-Line Faculty.

At the University level, the UCRT serves as the President’s advisory body on all matters pertaining to the granting of tenure and promotion for tenure-line faculty.  The UCRT, and therefore each member serving on it, is charged with judging each application according to the best interests of the University in terms of the candidate’s record of research, teaching, and service.  In arriving at its recommendations to the President the UCRT is guided by the Faculty Handbook and considers all information that is relevant to the assessment of candidates in those three categories. The UCRT’s deliberations are confidential.  The President’s decisions on promotion and tenure are final.

All tenure-line faculty should be familiar with the standards set out in the Faculty Handbook.  Department chairs and unit heads should inform faculty members, early on, of the University’s standards for the granting of tenure and promotion.  Executive Vice-Presidents and Deans should inform department chairs and unit heads of the University expectations.

Candidate’s Research, Teaching and Service Statements

As part of the dossier to be considered for tenure and/or promotion at Georgetown, the candidate submits three statements: a research statement, a teaching statement, and a service statement (ordinarily 6-10 pages (total) suffices). The statements should focus on professional accomplishments and should not include personal information. 

All of the internal Georgetown reviewers at the departmental, school, campus and University level review all three statements.  Because many of these reviewers are from outside the candidate’s field and area of expertise, candidates should prepare statements that explain their expertise in their field in a way that is accessible to non-experts in the field.

The external reviewers may receive the candidate’s research statement (without the teaching and service statements), along with the candidate’s CV and publications, consistent with campus policy.

Research Statement:

The candidate should write a research statement that indicates how he or she has made an original contribution to the field.  General guidelines for research statements are provided, below.  A campus may adopt guidelines for research statements suited to the particular scholarly practices prevailing there.

The candidate may highlight and explain how he or she has added to or modified existing knowledge by, for example:

  • Developing a new theory,
  • Developing a new methodology or modified existing methodologies,
  • Developing new and novel applications or tests of existing theories,
  • Developing new creative work that provides an original perspective in the field,
  • Discovering new archival material that contributes to the field
  • Publishing new editions or translations
  • Developing new understandings of traditional material
  • Developing new insights or perspectives on a field based on original research
  • Expanding the understanding of a field and primary resources available to a field

The candidate should identify the most important publications and explain how they fit together. 

While peer reviewed publications are given the most weight in being considered for promotion and tenure, the candidate should describe unpublished (but substantially advanced) work and other projects under way to provide reviewers with a good idea of the future direction and trajectory of his/her research.

Georgetown faculty engaging substantially in collaborative research (scientific or otherwise) should develop a collaborative research portfolio and include it as part of the research statement. The collaborative research portfolio should clarify and document the faculty member’s role and the nature and extent of the faculty member’s contributions with sufficient detail to describe the faculty member’s unique and essential contributions to the collaborative work. The portfolio might include annotated papers and grants, plus letters from collaborators, describing the candidate’s contribution to the joint project.  The annotations and letters are not evaluative, but rather should be factual and clarify the exact role and the nature and extent of the candidate’s contributions.  (Such letters should be submitted in the dossier, see Sec. 11.f.) The faculty member’s research statement should also summarize past and future collaborative work, emphasizing his/her critical and significant role/contribution to the collaborative work.

Teaching Statement:

The candidate’s teaching statement should provide evidence of teaching excellence and other information that will assist the reviewers in evaluating his or her teaching. The information may describe the following:

  • His or her teaching philosophy,
  • the courses the candidate has taught (in terms of diversity of subject matter and level),
  • course or curriculum development (including syllabi or other relevant/original materials),
  • improvement in teaching and efforts to improve teaching,
  • adoption or development of novel methodologies or innovations in the classroom as well as any teaching grants he or she has received, 
  • publications on pedagogy.

If the candidate has published a textbook or other teaching materials, he or she should explain any ways in which it is innovative and contributes to improved teaching.

Service Statement:

The candidate’s service statement should include service contributions inside and outside of the University. In terms of contributions inside the University, the candidate should include service inside his/her academic unit (advising, program administration, admissions, searches, seminar coordination, etc.) as well as service outside of the academic unit (committee service, organization of events with other units, etc.).

In addition to enumerating what committees the candidate has served on and what administrative roles he or she has assumed, the candidate should detail what he or she contributed to the mission of the University through that service.  The candidate should identify any accomplishments that improved the University.

In terms of service outside of the University, the candidate is encouraged to emphasize service to professional organizations in his/her field (elected positions, conference organization, editorial and refereeing work, etc.). In addition, the candidate should include other service to the public as it relates to his/her position as an expert in his/her field.

Procedures at the Departmental or School Level

Whatever procedural variations may exist in different originating bodies, the following points apply to all applications:

Applications for tenure and promotion can be submitted by all full-time members of the tenure-line faculty who are eligible to be considered for promotion and/or tenure in accordance with the Faculty Handbook. Internal support, whether from the department or the school, is not a prerequisite for consideration by the UCRT. However, all applications must be forwarded through the department chair or dean or other official who normally is responsible for applications. This administrative officer will process them expeditiously through the relevant channels and will assure that all materials that were considered by the various deliberating bodies, whatever their conclusions, are included in the file that is transmitted to the UCRT.

Standards for Evaluation

Candidates for appointment, promotion and tenure at the rank of Associate and Full Professor must show excellence in the three categories of research, teaching, and service:

“The basis for the awarding of tenure extends beyond a distinguished scholarly record achieved during the probationary period or prior to appointment. The award is also contingent upon a strongly favorable judgment of the faculty member’s prospects for continued accomplishment in research, teaching, and service throughout his or her University career. Tenure is warranted only if there is a clear expectation that the candidate’s professional record already does or eventually will justify promotion to Full Professor at Georgetown University.” (Section III.D.3)

“Promotion to the rank of Full Professor requires a sustained level of achievement according to the same indicators of scholarly excellence as those required for the rank of Associate Professor. This rank is awarded in the expectation that the faculty member’s entire professional career will live up to this standard. Substantial accomplishments since appointment or promotion to the prior rank should be clearly demonstrated. Promotion to Professor is recognition of scholarly achievement at a level that meets or exceeds what is generally expected for full professors at peer research universities, a commitment to excellence in teaching, and substantial service and leadership with every expectation of continuing contributions to the University.” (Section III.D.7)

A sustained level of achievement does not necessarily entail a constant publication rate.  It allows that faculty may invest years in researching a new book, for example, or in preparing for a new area of research, or in taking on temporary administrative roles.  A sustained level of achievement requires “scholarly achievement at a level that meets or exceeds what is generally expected for full professors at peer research universities.”

Research

Promotion to a rank requires scholarly achievement at a level that meets or exceeds what is generally expected for faculty at that rank at peer research universities.

“A faculty member whose responsibilities include research is expected to have a wide and critical command of the field of his or her study.   The highest indication of scholarship is the ability to make original contributions in one’s field of knowledge. Scholarship is generally evidenced by scholarly publications of high quality, but also may be evidenced in certain areas by creativity and professional contributions demonstrated through the medium of communication customary in that discipline.  Consideration will be given to such subsidiary evidence as direction of or significant participation in research projects, particularly in the scholarly activities of learned societies and professional consultative service.”  (Section III.D.2)

“Excellence in research ... requires a substantial body of scholarship that impartial experts in the candidate’s area of study and the relevant faculty at Georgetown consider to be outstanding. The quality of a candidate’s scholarly work, including contributions to collaborative activities, is crucial. Quality is judged by the contribution that the work makes to a specific body of knowledge and is usually indicated by its scholarly impact or recognition (nationally and often internationally). The candidate’s corpus of scholarly work must demonstrate creativity and originality.”  (Section III.D.7)

Indicators of scholarly standing include:

  • Quality of journals or other venues in which the candidate’s work has been published,
  • Published reviews of the candidate’s work,
  • The use of the candidate’s research in courses taught at other universities,
  • Major invited addresses given at national and international conferences,
  • Research awards and prizes,
  • Election to editorial boards,
  • Service on peer review committees, and
  • Citation of a candidate’s work in the professional literature, or other measures of scholarly impact.

The publication of a textbook can be considered either under the category of teaching or research, depending upon the nature of the textbook and the contributions it makes to the field. A judgment on this matter should be requested from the outside evaluators as part of their written statements. A textbook would be viewed as indicative of research if, for example, extramural evaluators cite evidence that the book exhibits exemplary research, offers original insights and perspectives in the field, and is read and cited by scholars and researchers.

Extramural research funding from organizations using peer review committees is an index of scholarly potential for younger colleagues, and sustained support denotes peer acceptance of the importance of the research activity for senior members of the faculty.

UCRT gives more weight to work that is published or accepted for publication, but work that has not yet been accepted for publication can be important in establishing the trajectory of the candidate’s future research.To be considered, unpublished work must be sent out for review by the external evaluators.

Collaborative research plays an important role in several fields. Consequently, many candidates for tenure and promotion have a significant portion – perhaps most – of their research accomplishments, publications, grants, and national reputation arising from collaborative work with other scholars.

Examples of collaborative research include (and are not limited to) the following:

  1. Significant contributions as a co-author to multi-authored publications
  2. Providing critical expertise to allow for competitive grant applications
  3. Significant contributions as a co-investigator on multidisciplinary research projects
  4. Development and public provision of software/web-sites/databases used by research teams at GU and other institutions
  5. Innovative use of existing methods or development of new methods to address research questions of multidisciplinary research projects
Teaching

“A faculty member who teaches is expected to have a thorough knowledge of the subject(s) being taught, a demonstrated ability to communicate that knowledge to students, and the skill to stimulate students to reach their potential.”  (Section III.D.2)

Excellence in teaching reveals itself in a variety of ways. Course critiques submitted by students and faculty evaluations, although imperfect, still provide a useful measure of the manner in which a professor’s teaching is received and perceived by students. Summary data of the teacher and course evaluation forms, specifically the “Faculty Profile” prepared by the Registrar, should be included in the application file. Obviously, the most useful evaluations are those in which the majority of students enrolled in a course have participated.  The Faculty Profile should include teaching in all departments and sessions (including summer) and all types of courses (including executive courses).

In addition, systematic assessments, prepared by the applicant’s colleagues who have observed selected classes over several years, can provide important additional information regarding teaching.

Since teaching is an important component of a faculty member’s professional life at Georgetown University, it is particularly important to help colleagues at the beginning of their academic careers become successful teachers. Thus any indication of a colleague’s achievement of or progress toward excellence, particularly as it is documented in the annual evaluations prepared by the department on tenure-line faculty prior to the granting of promotion and/or tenure, should receive special note.  Likewise, similar documentation of teaching related advising, independent studies and other teaching outside the classroom should receive special note.  Of particular importance is documentation of any pedagogical innovations.

In some fields, teaching may be conducted in clinical or laboratory settings. When a standard evaluation form is not available, evaluations from students, residents and/or fellows taught in such clinical settings would normally be in the form of letters. Testimonials from selected students or friends should not be expected to carry much weight in the UCRT’s deliberations.

Other sources of evidence of excellence in teaching include teaching awards the candidate has received, and the adoption of the candidate’s innovative teaching methods by other faculty at Georgetown or other universities.

 Service

“Faculty with a responsibility for service are expected to make contributions that enhance the University, the missions of their unit, and their profession.”  (Section III.D.2)

“Service includes a broad range of activities that complement and support teaching and research and contribute to the University, the profession, or the public. Service may be performed in leadership positions (e.g., committee chair, department chair, unit or program director, governance body officer) and in other roles.”  It includes “service at all levels of the University, as well as to the profession or public.”  (Section III.C.5)

“Given that faculty in the probationary period need to establish a record in teaching and scholarship, service is decidedly less important for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor than either scholarship or teaching. An exceptional service record cannot substitute for outstanding scholarship and excellent teaching.”  (Section III.D.7)

Since an applicant’s record of relevant service may not always be known within the department or school, and may thus be overlooked easily, it is important to direct particular attention to this category in the preparation of the file.  Of particular importance is the advising that faculty offer to students in their own or in other departments.

External Evaluations

The process of obtaining fair and objective evaluations from external authorities in the applicant’s field is a critical part of the overall promotion and tenure process.  The following are some specific guidelines to assist in this part of the process:

Selecting External Evaluators

Research must be evaluated by extramural authorities in the field who are in a position to give an objective evaluation.  UCRT expects units to procure letters that represent a broad and unbiased sampling of scholarly opinion regarding the merits of the candidate’s work.

To provide an adequate basis for judgment, the UCRT strongly recommends that units preparing cases procure a minimum of five letters, a majority of which should be unambiguously at arm’s length.

The department should strive to gain input from external evaluators who are leaders of their fields, most often those are full professors at the best universities.  By way of contrast, associate professors at less prominent departments will not necessarily be judged as adequate evaluators.

In cases for which the candidate contributes to multiple disciplines’ research, the department should choose evaluators who can wisely evaluate the interdisciplinary research of the candidate.  The department should explain to both UCRT and the reviewer concerned the basis for the selection.

Likewise, if the candidate engages substantially in collaborative research, at least some of the external reviewers should be individuals who engage in collaborative work themselves.

It is the responsibility of the academic department or other appropriate faculty committee to secure timely and objective evaluations of the candidate’s research. The candidate may suggest appropriate outside reviewers. However, the ultimate decision on the group of reviewers rests with the academic department or the appropriate faculty committee that, in consultation with other appropriate faculty members, selects impartial and competent evaluators.

Please note that applicants for promotion and/or tenure must never be informed of the list of evaluators decided on by the unit, nor should applicants be allowed to veto evaluators selected by the unit. An applicant may, however, inform the unit in advance of reasons why a particular scholar might not be a suitable evaluator.

Arms-Length, Unbiased Evaluations.

A majority of the external evaluations should be from completely objective evaluators who are unambiguously arms-length.

To prevent a biased sample, evaluations whose content might reasonably have been predicted in advance should be avoided.  Relationships between the candidate and the evaluator that might lead units to predict the content of letters include, among others:

  1. Being a co-author, or joint participant on other collaborative activities
  2. Having a close editor/author relationship
  3. Having written a recommendation for the candidate at the time of his/her hiring
  4. Having endorsed the candidate’s book
  5. Having already supplied a letter for an earlier promotion

Because they cannot be considered sufficiently objective or arms-length, none of the external evaluators should be:

  1. A member of Georgetown’s faculty
  2. The candidate’s former teacher
  3. The candidate’s former co-worker
  4. The candidate’s former student
  5. A close, personal friend
  6. A relative

UCRT recognizes that it is not always possible to determine in advance the degree of objectivity an evaluator will bring to his/her task. In the interests of procuring the most objective letters possible, UCRT advises that:

  1. Candidates, when submitting their list of suggested external evaluators, should state in writing the details of their relationship with each of the evaluators they propose. This letter should be included in the file.
  2. Letters to external evaluators should contain an explicit request that the evaluator explain his/her relationship to the candidate. (Main Campus dossier preparers should use the letter provided by the Provost’s office and referenced below; Medical Center dossiers should include the evaluators’ completed and signed questionnaires of their arm’s length nature to the candidate.)
  3. The candidate’s research statement should be sent to evaluators if required by campus policy.  The candidate’s teaching and service statements should never be sent to external evaluators.
  4. The preparer of each dossier should include a letter disclosing any conflict of interest or prior scholarly relationship between the candidate and his/her evaluators.

The UCRT recognizes that there will be rare instances when satisfying the objectivity requirement is not possible. When, for example, a field is so small that it would be impossible to obtain the requisite number of objective evaluations, this should be justified in a letter, to be included in the file, setting out the efforts made to find objective evaluations and why obtaining them was deemed not feasible.

Request to External Evaluators

When the candidate is applying for tenure or promotion to associate professor, all of the candidate’s work accepted for publication should be made available to the external evaluators.  When applying for promotion to full professor, all work accepted for publication since promotion to associate professor should be made available.  Consistent with campus policy, candidates may provide a research statement that among other things indicates their most important work; if the candidate engages substantially in collaborative research (scientific or otherwise), the collaborative research portfolio should also be provided.  The candidate’s teaching and service statements should not be provided to external evaluators.  

External evaluators are asked to assess the candidate’s research in terms of quantity, quality and originality. When research is published work appearing in the relevant refereed journals, books and monographs, evaluators should assess the impact of this work as well as the quality of the journals and presses wherein the work has been published.  Evaluators should assess the candidate’s standing in the field, commenting on the impact of the candidate’s work on the literature or the field; invitations to present work at national and international conferences; research funding from foundations and other organizations utilizing review committees; awards and prizes in the candidate’s field; and memberships in editorial boards or professional review committees.

External evaluators should explain the way in which the candidate has added to or modified existing knowledge in the field, commenting on whether he or she has developed new ideas or added new examples or applications of theories developed by others, and also on the extent to which the candidate has established him/herself as an independent scholar in the field, while still recognizing the candidate’s scholarly work may be occurring within the context of ensemble research. 

External evaluators are also asked to comment on the candidate’s trajectory as a scholar and the likelihood that he/she will continue to make contributions to the field in the years to come.

The University Committee on Rank and Tenure asks that evaluators state explicitly the justifications for their conclusions regarding the quality of the applicant’s research, and that they do so in sufficient detail to permit the Committee to understand the achievement of the applicant relative to the standards of excellence in his/her field. Evaluators are asked to compare the candidate’s research, in terms of both quality and quantity, to others who have recently been awarded tenure and promoted in their department or other distinguished departments.

If External Evaluators have any knowledge of the candidate’s educational or service activities at a national or international level, they are welcome to include comments on those activities.

Assembling the Dossier

The file submitted to the UCRT should include all materials that were available to the voting faculty members of the appropriate unit; any material that became available after the votes in the unit should be included in the file to the UCRT, with an indication that it was not available at the time of the vote. Dossiers should contain all the following materials, preferably in the order listed:

  1. A cover summary sheet that identifies the candidate by name, date of initial appointment, and present position; the action sought; the votes of each voting unit; and the names of the external evaluators (a cover page template is available here)
     
  2. A table of contents, listing all applicable items contained in the file, with the page numbers of each. Sequential page numbering should begin immediately after the table of contents, and should include all documents in the file.
     
  3. Documents reflecting the actions taken by the appropriate units or committees evaluating the candidate’s record of research, teaching, and service, such as minutes of meetings at which the candidacy was discussed or the chair’s summary of discussion. The document should provide a balanced account of all views expressed at the meeting that address the candidate’s research, teaching, and service.  The document should not make any reference to irrelevant or illegal considerations.  The document must be approved by the members of the relevant faculty unit or committee. In cases where a unit’s vote does not reflect the discussion at the meeting, this should be noted in the document.
     
  4. The candidate’s curriculum vitae
     
  5. The candidate’s research, teaching and service statements
     
  6. Annual faculty evaluations of the candidate for tenure, if applicable.
     
  7. Materials demonstrating the applicant’s teaching record.  At a minimum, information should be provided for each course that helps to fulfill a degree requirement, each year, taught by the candidate. Where compiled student evaluation data are available, units should provide the numerical summary. In this case, please do not include individual students’ sheets. However, if it is not possible to compile data, then all of the individual students’ narrative evaluations must be included. If these, too, are not available, the file should contain a letter explaining the absence of student evaluations. The file should also contain, if they exist, written faculty evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, including reports of class visits. At the unit’s discretion, sample syllabi and other relevant material may also be provided.
     
  8. Copies of the following materials pertaining to the selection of and all communication with external evaluators (use of phone calls and other non-recorded communications for this purpose is discouraged):
    1. a list of the evaluators proposed by the candidate, together with the candidate’s description of his/her relationship to each proposed evaluator;
    2. a description of how external evaluators were selected, including a list of the evaluators proposed by the academic unit or appropriate faculty committee, how many declined and why;
    3. a letter by the person preparing the file identifying which of the external evaluators who submitted evaluations are believed to be objective;
    4. if it was impossible to find objective and neutral evaluators, a letter justifying that;
    5. a brief statement describing the qualifications of the external evaluators. [Note: items (b) through (e) can be combined in a single letter]; and
    6. one copy of the letter sent to outside evaluators, inviting them to submit evaluations (For Main Campus cases, units should use the letter provided here).
       
  9.  All letters from external evaluators assessing the quality of the applicant’s research.   (Letters solicited when a faculty member came up for promotion to Associate Professor should not be included in the file when the faculty member comes up for promotion to Full Professor. However, if a candidate comes up a second time for tenure or for promotion to a particular rank, all letters received in connection with the first application should be included in the file, even if the faculty member decided not to complete the application process that year.)
     
  10. External evaluators’ CVs (abbreviated CVs or NIH-style biosketches are sufficient).
     
  11. Any other relevant materials, including:
    1. Any summaries of the results of the deliberations in a unit that were previously submitted to the UCRT if a faculty member has applied for tenure or promotion to a particular rank before. The relevant unit should explain why its decision has changed, if it has, or why the deliberations were tainted, if they were;
    2. All other materials that were in the file distributed to the faculty members who voted on the candidacy at the unit level;
    3. Any relevant material that was not available at the time the file was distributed to the faculty members who voted on the candidacy at the unit level;
    4. Any measures of scholarly impact that are reliable in the candidate’s field;
    5. Letters from major co-authors describing the candidate’s contributions to joint publications;
    6. Brief statement from the department head, area coordinator or appropriate unit leader on conventions of authorship sequence in the field, if applicable, and the prevalence of co-authorship in the field;
    7. Acceptance letters from the journals or publisher for work that has been accepted for publication;
    8. Materials related to the collaborative research portfolio, if not included in the candidate’s research statement; and
    9. For candidates seeking tenure, a statement from the EVP’s office of the candidate’s year in the probationary period and any years of interruption (“clock stops”).
       
  12.   No more than six of the candidate’s major scholarly publications completed since appointment or the last promotion should be included in the dossier.  If the six includes published bound books, two hard copies need to be provided to the appropriate EVP's office.   

Submitting the Dossier and Full Application to UCRT

Departments are to submit the dossier to the office of the appropriate campus EVP according to the schedule set by each campus to ensure that  applications are received by the UCRT deadlines specified below.  Prior to the deadlines, the campus EVP’s office staff will add to the dossiers any required additional materials and forward the applications to the UCRT via the Office of the University Secretary on or before the deadlines.[3]

Submission of the full application to the UCRT electronically, no later than March 1, is required for action during the current academic year. When practical, earlier submission is encouraged. 

Applications dealing solely with promotion of current Georgetown faculty who already hold tenure are to be submitted to the UCRT electronically prior to November 15 for action during the current academic year.

Under extraordinary circumstances, at the request of the campus EVP, applications will be accepted for review in the current year after the deadline date for submission. However, the request for special consideration must be received at the Office of the University Secretary by the deadline date and the completed application must be received electronically no later than May 1.

Questions regarding guidelines specific to the processing of applications by each campus should be submitted to the appropriate campus EVP’s office.

Inquiries regarding the mechanics of the application process that go beyond these Guidelines should be directed to the the Chairperson of the UCRT, c/o the Secretary of the University, Healy Hall, Room 205.


[1] “Research advances knowledge and understanding, and takes different forms in different fields. It includes scholarly inquiry, scientific investigation, and artistic expression that is published or otherwise disseminated.” Faculty Handbook, Sec. C.2.

[2] According to the Faculty Handbook, “Voting members of departments and other governance bodies have a responsibility to attend its meetings.”  Faculty Handbook, III.C.8.2.

[3] The requirement that the Campus EVPs get full applications to the UCRT prior to the deadlines will need to be phased in during the 2016-17 academic year.