sample research statement for promotion to full professor

• Skip to Content
• Skip to Main Navigation
• Skip to Search

IUPUI IUPUI IUPUI

• Strategic Initiatives
• Faculty Data
• Campus Resources
• Mentoring-for-Leadership Luncheons
• EPIC Mentoring Circles
• EPIC Workshops
• Department Enhancement Grants
• EPIC Taking Action Challenge Grants
• Project Evaluation
• Department Enhancement Grant
• Faculty Affinity Groups
• Dual Career Services
• Annual Reports
• IFC Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee
• Search and Screen Training
• Affinity Groups
• Financial Resources
• The Forum Network
• Faculty Crossing
• LIFT Mentoring Circles
• Coaching/Mentoring Coalition
• NextGen 2.0
• Leadership@IUPUI
• Course in Effective Teaching Practices
• Conference Fund
• Honors & Awards
• Appointments
• DMAI: Digital Measures Activity Insight
• Leaves and Absences
• 2021-2022 Promotion and Tenure Changes
• Documents Regarding DEI cases for Tenure Track Faculty
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Application
• COVID-19 Related Issues for Promotion and Tenure
• Review Timing
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding eDossier at IUPUI
• Dossier Quick Reference
• Sabbaticals
• Policies and Forms
• Graduate Students
• Event Listing & Registration
• Annual Events
• P&T Workshops & Materials
• History of the Dean of the Faculties
• Office Directory
• Statements and Reports
• Communication

Office of Academic Affairs

• Faculty Affairs
• Promotion and Tenure

Dossier Samples

The following samples are model dossiers from previous promotion and tenure cycles. Documents within each group are listed by the candidate's area of excellence, school, and the promotion and tenure cycle year it was reviewed. Because we only use exemplary dossiers as samples, not every category is represented. Also, be cause the samples are from previous cycles, the format may not match the current guidelines; however, how they document excellence and present their case for promotion and/or tenure is still relevant . The files are for reference only, so permissions and functionality have been restricted (no editing). To access a model dossier, email ude[dot]iupui[at]rhdaca .

Candidates, please remember that your dossier must adhere to the current IUPUI Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers and that the samples presented below are only meant to be a reference to help you present your best case for promotion and/or tenure.

Many thanks to the faculty who have agreed to post their dossiers! 

Tenure-Track Faculty

Third year reviews, research/creative activity excellence cases.

• Amber Comer, Research, School of Health and Human Sciences
• Ayoung Yoon, Research, School of Informatics and Computing
• Brady Atwood, Research, IU School of Medicine

Balanced-Binned Excellence Cases

• Tyrone Freeman, Balanced, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy

Promotion & Tenure (Assistant Professor to Associate Professor)

• Aaron Ganci - Research/Creative Activity, Herron School of Art + Design, 2017-18
• Al Baucum - Research/Creative Activity, School of Science, 2018-19
• Tamika Zapolski - Research/Creative Activity, School of Science, 2018-19 
• Nikki Munk - Research/Creative Activity, School of Health and Human Sciences, 2018-19
• Catherine Hudnall - Research/Creative Activity, Herron School of Art + Design, 2018-19
• Heather Hundley - Research/Creative Activity, School of Medicine, 2018-19
• Katharine Head - Research/Creative Activity, School of Liberal Arts, 2019-20
• Carly Schall - Research, School of Liberal Arts, 2019-20
• Amber Comer, Third-Year Review, School of Health and Human Sciences
• Andrea Bonetto - Research, School of Medicine, 2020-21
• Ayoung Yoon, Third-Year Review, School of Informatics and Computing
• David Wilkerson - Research, School of Social Work, 2020-21
• Brady Atwood, Third-Year Review, IU School of Medicine
• Elizabeth Thill - Research, School of Liberal Arts, 2021-22
• Erin Brady - Research, School of Informatics and Computing, 2021-22
• Marlene Walk - Research, O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, 2021-22
• Scott Desmond - Research, IU PU Columbus, 2022-23
• David H K Nguyen - Research, School of Education, 2022-23
• Laura Liu - Research, IU PU Columbus, 2022-23

Teaching Excellence Cases

• Mari Hopper - Teaching, School of Medicine, 2017-18
• James Mendez - Teaching, IUPUC, 2018-19 

Service Excellence Cases

• Burcin Ekser - Service, School of Medicine, 2019-20
• Cullen Merritt - Balanced Case, O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, 2019-20
• Cristina Santamaria Graff - Balanced, School of Education, 2020-21
• Tyrone Freeman, Third Year Review, Balanced, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy

Balanced-Integrative Excellence Cases

• Lasana Kazembe - Balanced-Integrative (DEI), School of Education, 2022-23

Promotion (Associate Professor to Professor)

• David Basile - Research/Creative Activity, School of Medicine, 2018-19
• Leslie Ashburn-Nardo - Research/Creative Activity, School of Science, 2019-20
• Davide Bolchini - Research/Creative Activity, School of Informatics and Computing, 2019-20
• Raymond Konger - Research/Creative Activity, School of Medicine, 2019-20
• Brian Dixon - Research, Fairbanks School of Public Health, 2021-22
• Danielle Riede - Research/Creative Activity, Herron School of Art and Design, 2021-22
• Jennifer Bute - Research, School of Liberal Arts, 2021-22
• Jeremy Carter - Research, O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, 2021-22
• Rachel Wheeler - Research, School of Liberal Arts, 2021-22
• Randall Roper - Research, School of Science, 2021-22
• Wendy Miller - Research, School of Nursing, 2022-23
• Kathleen Thorius King - Research, School of Education, 2022-23 
• Deanna Reising  - Teaching, School of Nursing, 2017-18
• Steve Fox - Teaching, School of Liberal Arts, 2017-18
• Vanchit John - Teaching, School of Dentistry, 2018-19
• Katherine Wills - Teaching, IUPUC, 2018-19
• Susan Hyatt - Teaching, School of Liberal Arts, 2019-20
• Robert Weissbach - Teaching, School of Engineering and Technology, 2021-22
• Raghu Motaganahalli - Service, School of Medicine, 2020-21
• Greg Hull - Balanced Case, Herron School of Art + Design, 2017-18
• Jennifer Thorington-Springer - Balanced Case, School of Liberal Arts, 2019-20
• Carrie Foote - Balanced, School of Liberal Art, 2021-22
• Estela Ene - Balanced, School of Liberal Arts, 2021-22
• Frank Lippert - Balanced, School of Dentistry, 2021-22

Clinical Faculty

Promotion (clinical assistant professor to clinical associate professor).

• Emily McLaughlin - Teaching, School of Engineering and Technology, 2018-19
• Kathleen Kent - Teaching, School of Nursing, 2020-21
• Darrell Nickolson - Teaching, School of Engineering and Technology, 2021-22
• Shotunus Peterson - Teaching, School of Social Work, 2021-22
• Ryan Relich - Service, School of Medicine, 2019-20
• Jennifer Eikenberry - Service, School of Medicine, 2020-21
• Jessica Kanis - Service, School of Medicine, 2020-21
• Sara Johnson - Service, O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, 2020-21
• Yelena Chernyak - Service, School of Medicine, 2020-21
• Lawrence Lee - Service, School of Medicine, 2021-22

Promotion (Clinical Associate Professor to Clinical Professor)

• Benton Hunter - Service, School of Medicine, 2019-20
• Juan Tejada - Service, School of Medicine, 2020-21
• Brad Desnoyer - Teaching, McKinney School of Law, 2021-22
• Lin Zheng - Balanced Integrative (Global Learning), Kelley School of Business, 2022-23

Lecturer Faculty

Promotion (lecturer to senior lecturer).

• Christopher Finch - Teaching, School of Engineering and Technology, 2021-22
• Elizabeth Freije - Teaching, School of Engineering and Technology, 2021-22
• Sarah Johnson - Teaching, Fairbanks School of Public Health, 2022-23

Promotion (Senior Lecturer to Teaching Professor)

• Elizabeth Malatestinic - Teaching, Kelley School of Business, 2020-21
• Rob Elliot - Teaching, School of Engineering and Technology, 2020-21
• Anita Giddings - Teaching, Herron School of Art + Design, 2020-21
• Nancy Goldfarb - Teaching, School of Liberal Arts, 2020-21
• Debora Sasso Herold - Teaching, School of Science, 2020-21
• Lingma Lu Acheson - Teaching, School of Science, 2020-21
• Gina Londino-Smolar - Teaching, School of Science, 2021-22
• Melissa Nemeth - Teaching, Kelley School of Business, 2022-23

Librarian Faculty

Promotion and tenure (assistant librarian to associate librarian), performance excellence cases.

• Jere Odell - Performance, University Library , 2017-18
• Rachel Hinrichs - Performance, University Library, 2021-22

Promotion (Associate Librarian to Librarian

 performance excellence cases.

• Tina Baich - Performance, University Library, 2017-18 
• Kristi Palmer - Performance, University Library, 2017-18
• Eric Snadjr - Performance, University Library, 2021-22
• Willie Miller - Performance, University Library, 2022-23

Research Faculty

Promotion (assistant research professor to associate research professor), research excellence cases.

• Yue Wang  - Research, School of Medicine, 2021-22

Promotion (Associate Research Professor to Research Professor)

• Michele Yip-Schneider - Research/Creative Activity, School of Medicine, 2018-19

Recent Updates

Balanced - integrative examples.

There are  two balanced-integrative dossier examples:

• Lasana Kazembe - Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure, Balanced-Integrative (DEI), School of Education, 2022-2023
• Lin Zheng - Promotion to Clinical Professor, Balanced- Integrative (Theme: Global Learning), Kelley School of Business, 2022-2023

Third-Year Reviews

There are now third-year review candidate statements available. Please see the section for Tenure-Track Faculty (Assistant to Associate) for the third-year reviews and the exemplary candidates' full P&T dossiers.

Contact, Address and Additional Links

• Promotion & Tenure
• IU Policies
• IUPUI Faculty Guide
• IUPUI Faculty Council
• IUPUI Civility Statement
• Code of Academic Ethics
• Open Academic Positions
• IUPUI Campus Map
• email: [email protected] phone: 317-274-4500 301 University Boulevard Suite 4008 Indianapolis, IN 46202-5146

Personal Statement

Feinberg requires personal narrative statements for all promotion or tenure applications. Effective personal statements contextualize the accomplishments listed on the CV or provide supplementary information that may not be apparent from review of the CV. The personal statement is also an opportunity to communicate with reviewers outside your field, helping them to understand the significance of your work in your specialty.

Prepare your personal statement manually using the appropriate template as a guide:

• Personal Statement for Clinician-Educators, Team Scientists, and Investigators : use this template if you are appointed to the clinician-educator, investigator, or team scientist track
• Personal Statement for Health System Clinicians : use this template if you are appointed to the health system clinician career track
• Personal Statement for Research Faculty : use this template if you are appointed to the non-tenure-eligible research track
• Save your file using this file naming convention: LastName Personal Statement  (e.g., Simpson Personal Statement)
• Preferred length is 1-3 pages
• Important!  Focus on explaining accomplishments since your last promotion (or since your initial appointment, if you now hold your first faculty rank), rather than recounting your entire career.
• Do not simply repeat the accomplishments listed in your CV; instead use the personal statement to provide additional context or other information that is not evident from your CV and that would help reviewers evaluate your application for promotion or tenure (for example, explain specific contributions that may not otherwise be appreciated by reviewers such as clinical expertise, describe extenuating circumstances that may have impacted your progress, list accomplishments that do not appear in other parts of the application)
• Use the personal statement to help reviewers who may be unfamiliar with your field to better appreciate the accomplishments on your CV by explaining the significance/impact of your work in your specialty
• The dean's office or department chair may provide your personal statement to referees when soliciting reference letters (candidates do not solicit their own reference letters) 
• For Team Scientists : If specializing in the research domain, use the personal statement to highlight your contributions to team and collaborative research.
• For Clinician-Educators : Use the personal statement to highlight your accomplishments in your chosen domains as recorded in the Feinberg Faculty Portal (navigate to Profile > Current Appointment to confirm). If you have accomplishments in more than these two domains, address your chosen domains first so that reviewers clearly see the connection between your career activity and the criteria they use for evaluation. You are welcome to highlight accomplishments in additional domains as well, but without first establishing achievement in your chosen domains, you can give reviewers the impression that your career is unfocused.
• For Health System Clinicians : Use the personal statement to highlight your clinical impact and recognition as well as your accomplishments in your chosen area of concentration. If you have accomplishments in more than one area of concentration, address your chosen area first so that reviewers clearly see the connection between your career activity and the criteria they use for evaluation. You are welcome to highlight accomplishments in additional areas of concentration as well, but without first establishing achievement in your chosen area, you can give reviewers the impression that your career is unfocused.

Associate Professor in Information Science at Cornell and rotating Program Officer in Cyber-Human Systems at NSF.

July 8, 2013, by dan cosley | july 8, 2013, writing a research statement (for a tenure package).

tl/dr : Research statements should demonstrate that you have made or will make an impact through effective, clear storytelling about what you have done and how it connects to your research community. Careful organization and clear evidence of impact can help you make this case to the many different kinds of people who will read your statement.

One of the main docs you write as part of the tenure process is a research statement, and before revising mine, I wanted to spend some time thinking about what makes for an effective statement. We also write these during the job search and various other times during the career, so hopefully this post will have broad appeal. The thoughts below are based on my own thinking, talking with other professors, and looking at my own and other people’s past research statements for tenure [0].

We’ll start with a few key points up front. First, in line with the typical tenure and promotion criteria at research universities [1], a main goal of the statement is to demonstrate that your work has had, and will continue to have, an impact on your research community. So a glorified annotated bibliography of your work is not going to cut it. You need to talk about how your work fits into the broader conversation, why it’s interesting and exciting and important.

Second, as stated by Mor Naaman in a comment on my original tenure post , not everyone who reads your statement (or your dossier [2]) is going to be an expert in your field. So, a glorified annotated bibliography of your work is not going to cut it. Not only do you need to position your work in your community, you need to do this in a way that letter writers, your dean, and faculty across the university will appreciate.

Third, even for those who are experts, they’re not likely to be experts on you, meaning that your research statement has real impact on how and when people think about you [3]. So, a glorified… well, you get the picture, but the key insight here is that the research statement is telling a story about you just as much as it is about the research [4].

So, how do research statement writers go about accomplishing these goals? For the most part, what I saw was a lot of work around organizing the story and showing current impact in ways that was broadly accessible, but less on the questions of ‘so what’ and ‘what next’.

Organizing the story

Based on the statements I looked at, the general approach was to focus on some small number of broad topical themes that represent research questions or areas that people claim to make key contributors to. The work itself is used to illustrate the contributions, possibly with some sub-themes inside the area to help readers group the individual papers. Then, an overall story ties the areas together with some kind of bigger picture and/or longer-term research goals.

How broad the goals, themes, and sub-sections are depends in part on how long you’ve been in the game and how broad your interests are–which implies that your research statement will continue to evolve over time [5]. For instance, my fall 2007 job hunt statement  and spring 2011 third year review statements  are organized quite differently because I had another 3.5 years of deepening and broadening my work and thinking both on specific projects and on how the different strands tied together [6]. (I wrote a bit about this evolution in “ The Incredible Evolving Research Statement “, which is a reasonable companion to this post.)

Most of the statements were broadly chronological, especially within areas. I think this on balance was used to show the accumulation, evolution, and deepening of one’s own work in an area. Some (including mine), but not all, were also chronological across the areas, which as a reader I saw as illustrating the person’s career arc. None was comprehensive, and some work was left out; instead, the statements focused on telling a more or less coherent story [7].

There are other ways to tell the story of your research besides chronology plus research areas. For instance, I could imagine talking about my own work as a grid where levels of analysis (individual, dyad, group/community) are on one axis and major research area/question (recommendation, user modeling, system-building, reflection) is on the other [8], then positioning work in the grid cells. This would be particularly useful for showing breadth across a couple of intersecting areas, maybe for highlighting interdisciplinarity. If I wanted to emphasize my techy/system-building bits, I could imagine organizing the statement around the systems that I’ve built, supervised, and studies along the way, with research questions emerging as themes that repeatedly occur across the systems [9]. But the overall story plus themes and chronological evolution model feels both fairly common and effective, and I do like the 2011 version a lot — so I’m likely to do an update but not rework of it for the tenure package.

Showing (current) impact

Much of the discourse on this side focused on various forms of evidence that other people, mostly in the academic community, cared about the work.

Most folks worked in some mention of support for their work, notably grant funding. Funding is direct evidence that people think you and your work are interesting enough to spend money on [10]. Yes, this is in your CV, but so are many other things you’ll talk about in the statements, and yes, done to excess or done badly it could feel a little off-putting. But it is honest and valuable to acknowledge support and it is pretty easy to make it part of the story (e.g., “I received an NSF grant to help answer my questions around X”).

Likewise, everyone talked about collaborators and students they’ve worked with. Much as with grants, collaboration says people think you and your work are interesting enough to spend time on [11]. Further, to some extent we’re known by the company that we keep, and collaborating with good people reflects well on you. Again, done as an exercise in name-dropping this could be tedious, but again, it’s easy to work naturally into the conversation–and again, it’s a worthy and honest thing to point out that you had help along the way.

People also mentioned how the work connected to and through groups or workshops they organized, led, and contributed to that are directly related to their research [11a]. To some extent, this overlaps with the service statement , but as with direct collaboration, if people are willing to band together with you it shows that people value the kinds of work that you do and see you as a positive influence.

Some folks talked about citations, h-indices, and other citation metrics. Citations are a proxy for attention, interest, and quality in your work, both the particular work being cited and in your reputation more generally (because well-known and -regarded people are more likely to come to mind). There are some problems with quantitative metrics of scholarly impact: differing practices and sizes across fields affects numbers; not all citations are positive; to do it right you’d probably need to compare to peers’ citation activity; etc. But citations have some value as an indicator of impact [12]. It’s a little harder to weave this in naturally, though you can use the numbers to point out particularly impactful papers, or use the data to give an overview to make the case that your career as a whole has been noticed.

For the most part, those were the high points. I do want to point out that there are lots of other ways one might talk about making impact. I’ll pass the torch to Elizabeth Churchhill’s discussion of impact more generally  that among other things riffs off of Judy Olson’s Athena award talk about the many paths to scholarly impact at CSCW 2012 . A group called altmetrics is pushing on other ways to think about impact, and other folks such as danah boyd [13] and Johnny Lee have carved careers out of making impact beyond research papers. These kinds of impact are worth talking about. However, for all that academia is pretty liberal politically, it’s fairly conservative in how it measures impact, and so a diversified portfolio with a fair percentage invested in traditional impact measures is probably less risky.

The statements didn’t have so much to say about potential future impact and work directly. There was sometimes a discussion of the next questions on a current line of work, and sometimes the overarching research question was used to highlight a general next line or lines. I guess this makes sense, because our next research moves are shaped by resources, people, contexts, and events [14], but it was a little surprising given the ‘future continued potential’ part of the tenure evaluation process.

Likewise, there was not as much “so what” as there probably could be, especially. There were reasonable connections to other work at a high level [15], to help make novelty claims and make the ‘so what’ case within the field. But there is much less of an argument about why the work is important to do in the grand scheme of things. This may be in part an artifact of length restrictions (there’s not a formal limit, but most of the tenure-time ones seem to clock in around 4-5 pages plus references). Our values around academic freedom also probably help us out when folks in other fields look at our tenure cases, even if they don’t see obvious indicators of importance, and our external letter writers are probably close enough to our work to appreciate it for its own sake. But I was still surprised at how little this was addressed in our statements.

So, that’s it for now–I should probably stop writing about writing research statements and get on to the business at hand. It was, however, useful spending some time thinking about what might make for a good research statement and hopefully some of this thinking will help future fellow travelers out.

[0] Web search turns up a variety of other useful resources and perhaps I should have just read them rather than writing my own. However, spending some time writing and analyzing myself felt valuable, and most of those I did find seem to be tuned toward research statements for the graduating PhD seeking a job rather than tenure. Many also seem to have been generated by searching for other articles about writing research statements. That said, this article on research statements from Penn’s career services  looked useful and had pointers to some examples. Oregon Academic Affairs also has some thoughtful slides on writing tenure statements, including the research statement.

[1] Here’s an example of promotion guidelines from Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences .

[2] Also part of Cornell ADVANCE’s  “Successful Tenure Strategies” document .

[3] I haven’t been on a tenure committee yet, because you don’t get to vote on tenure cases until you have it, but for faculty hiring a number of recommendation letters look a lot like the candidate’s research statement or dissertation proposal/outline. I am guessing similar effects will happen for tenure letter writers.

[4] John Riedl often gave me talk advice that a key takeaway, in addition to the main points, should be that you’re awesome (not via self-aggrandizing–not John’s style–but through being interesting and demonstrating competence). It seems apropos here as well.

[5] Dan Frankowski , a research scientist at GroupLens when I was there, once claimed that the main thing we learn in grad school is how to tell bigger and better stories about the work.

[6] I made a followup post about how these statements evolved with some behind-the-scenes thinking, but this is already a pretty long post in its own right.

[7] It is fine to leave side projects out. A piece of career/tenure advice I have received from multiple sources is that it’s good to become known as “the X guy” for some very small number of X’s (often 1). Thus, focusing on the coherent and compelling story of ($1 to Richard Hamming) You and Your Research is probably best. Your side stuff will be in your CV and your online portfolio, and if people care about them and/or they’ve had an impact, you’ll get to talk about them.

[8] Joe Konstan sometimes talks about the grid as a useful way to organize a research story. For instance, for a dissertation you might try different items on the axes (levels of analysis, research questions, time periods, systems, theories, etc.), and think about a research path that cuts across a column, a row, or (to sample the space) a diagonal. If I were to do this for my tenure case, it feels like most of the cells should be filled in, at least some.

[9] Unless you’re in a clearly systems areas, though, focusing on systems runs the risk of pigeonholing you. You probably want to study recommender systems, not GroupLens; crisis informatics, not Katrina; collaboration, not Wikipedia; crowd work, not Mechanical Turk. I know that some people think of me as a “Wikipedia guy”, and that’s part of my story, but only part.

[10] The contrapositive is not true; if work isn’t funded, it still might be important and impactful. There are lots of ways to not get funding.

[11] Again, the contrapositive isn’t true; some disciplines and traditions value solo research more than my home area of HCI, and some people are just more comfy working alone and don’t seek collaborators.

[11a] Folks who are creating or colonizing quite new areas may find it useful to do a bunch of community-building through workshops, special issues, and the like to build and connect to fellow travelers.

[12] Here, unfortunately, the contrapositive is more plausible: you do want your work to be cited.

[13] Who has enough impact that, at least as I was writing this, if you typo her name to “danah body” Google will give you a “Did you mean: danah boyd”.

[14] FYI, although this is a true answer to kind of “Where do you see yourself in N years” question that you might get asked during a job interview, it is not a good answer. This I can attest from personal experience.

[15] Not many citations though, which was a little surprising, because that could both help ground the work and suggest appropriate tenure letter writers.

Write a Comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Very helpful – thank you so much for taking the time to share this.

Welcome and hopefully it’s actually useful down the road. If so, feel free to share with your friends. 🙂

thanks a ton. Nice post, great for centering my mind around this daunting task! Merci! -Chris @whiteliesbook

Yeah, good point on making clear what the request is, and when it’s needed. A post on making effective requests would be pretty useful. slope game

Crafting a compelling research statement for the tenure process involves more than just presenting a glorified annotated bibliography. Your emphasis on demonstrating the impact of your work within the broader research community is crucial. The chronological organization of your research reminds me of the online help I got at https://customwriting.com/buy-research-paper resource where experts supported arguments by thematic areas, effectively illustrates the evolution and depth of your contributions. Incorporating evidence of impact, such as grant funding, collaboration, and workshops, adds a layer of validation that extends beyond the academic sphere. While future potential and the broader significance of your work could receive more attention, your insights into constructing an impactful research narrative are valuable for academics.

Writing a Research Statement is a pivotal task for academics and professionals alike. It encapsulates the essence of one’s scholarly pursuits, outlining objectives, methodologies, and anticipated outcomes. Crafting a compelling statement necessitates clarity, conciseness, and coherence. As scholars delve into their areas of expertise, they must articulate their contributions to the field and highlight their unique perspective. Considering the importance of research impact, a well-articulated statement can pave the path for academic success and recognition. Amidst the process, consulting resources like BrainStation reviews can offer valuable insights, aiding in refining the statement and ensuring its effectiveness in communicating the researcher’s vision and potential.

It’s crucial to be aware of the risks associated with publishing personal information online. From identity theft to invasion of privacy, the internet can be a minefield. Just like being cautious about what you eat to maintain good health, being mindful of what you share online is equally important. Remember like rybelsus reviews some things are best kept private to protect yourself from potential harm.

• Readers who shared this

Making the Rounds

University of iowa department of internal medicine, the personal statement for promotion dossiers.

Hopefully you found some  helpful tips for updating your CV  after the last few posts, whether for promotion or just for general updating. For those faculty currently working on promotion materials, let’s take a look at the personal statement.

Peter Snyder, MD, associate dean for faculty affairs and development, advises that “the personal statement is the most important part of the promotion dossier. It should not just be a re-listing of items on your CV, but it should bring to life the things you are doing. Tell a story that indicates the importance and impact of your work.”

If you struggle to find the right words or need help just getting started, you can find examples of personal statements for promotion in the health care and bioresearch fields online. The Office of Faculty Affairs also provides de-identified statement samples for  research  and clinical faculty (both assistant to associate and  associate to professor ).

If you do gather ideas from examples, be careful to rewrite your statement in your own words and voice. Use phrases and language that are familiar to you and sound like you. Do not copy and paste from another personal statement—it’s easier to recognize this than you might think.

My best advice for getting started is to first create an outline. Jot down the main areas that are required and specifics that you want to cover. You don’t even have to write full sentences at this point.

Once the outline is done and the structure of your statement is set, filling in details should be a little easier. Start with an introduction that discusses the foundation of your career, work, and interests, and how you have built upon that foundation. 

Emphasize your activities and accomplishments in terms of how they have benefited your growth as a clinician and/or researcher, as well as what your work has contributed to your greater area of expertise and our own institutions.

Be sure to include recognitions of your work. Recognitions could include letters from your division or department executive, media coverage, or work that was highlighted at a conference.

Finish your statement with a summary of your accomplishments  and  your goals for the next few years. You’re not only highlighting what you have done, but what you plan to do next.

Finally, don’t forget the small details: spell out abbreviations and acronyms that are common in your field but may not be recognized by others; make sure your statement looks neat and clean, with consistent font, line spacing, and indentations; double-check that any names and titles are correct; and most importantly, have someone else read it over. A fresh pair of eyes may catch areas that need a bit of refining.

As always, if you would like assistance with your personal statement, please feel free to contact me at   [email protected] .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from making the rounds.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

University of Southern California

Usc faculty portal, promotion to full professor.

The promotion to full professor is based on achievement rather than promise. The candidate should have made additional substantial contributions that have had a significant impact in the field, beyond the contribution that earned tenure. The post-tenure body of work should be examined alongside the pre-tenure body of work to discern the candidate’s career trajectory and to evaluate whether he or she will continue to produce research at a rate and of a quality commensurate with leaders in the field.

The candidate for full professor should have achieved recognition as an expert in his or her field at a national and international level. The candidate’s work should be comparable in significance and impact to the work of newly promoted full professors at leading departments where work of the same type is completed.

For appointments and promotion to full professor, evidence of excellence in teaching and mentoring is expected. Teaching quality is assessed based on a number of factors. The best evidence comes from peer assessments, demonstration of students’ learning achievements, utilization of exemplary teaching methods, and inspection of syllabi and class materials. Other evidence may include when appropriate: student ratings from classes taught, teaching awards and honors, and the candidate’s personal statement. As with other assessments, no single factor is determinative, and assessment involves a thoughtful weighing of multiple factors as appropriate to the case.

Candidates for full professor (and tenured faculty members as a group) also have special responsibilities for mentoring junior faculty and for leadership in service and governance on the departmental, school, and university levels. They are expected to have progressed as teachers and mentors of students, which in many fields includes success in mentoring Ph.D. students. In some disciplines, leadership in application of research to societal needs may be an important part of the evidence presented.

Recognizing the University’s support of interdisciplinary and collaborative scholarship, associate professors (and candidates for full professor) are encouraged to take advantage of the freedom afforded by tenure to pursue their scholarly interests whether they fall within or across traditional disciplinary boundaries. An associate professor may also have more opportunities for productive collaboration than a candidate for tenure, though it continues to be expected that the individual’s contribution should be original and significant.

Number of years in rank is not part of the requirements for promotion to full professor. The timing is individual, and expectations vary by discipline. A dossier put forward for promotion earlier than usual does not need to meet any enhanced standard.

Last updated December 18, 2017.

Faculty Development section navigation

Personal statements, overall advice.

• This is where the evaluators get to know your unique story as a coherent narrative – align this to the promotion track you have chosen and your main strengths
• Review examples from previous submissions to get a feeling for structure
• Attend workshops organized by the School of Medicine to help prepare your packet
• Emphasize your strongest attributes based on your promotion track and accomplishments
• Sell yourself without sounding arrogant
• Have your Personal Statement reviewed for feedback by your mentor(s) and then by the chair of the faculty development committee before submitting them for your final packet.
• Reviewers – with relevant expertise
• Non-Neurology faculty (medical faculty outside your specialty, faculty throughout the institution, Board of Trustees)
• Statement cannot be highly technical. It must be pleasant read, understandable by a broad audience, while being sophisticated.

Organization

• 5 pages maximum
• Discuss briefly your background
• Cover each promotion area – scholarship, teaching, service
• Start with greatest area of distinction
• Address work at the departmental, SOM, university, local, national, and international levels
• If a weakness, contextualize it

Opportunity to

• Tell your professional story – coherent narrative
• Highlight most meaningful accomplishments
• Extract from CV what is most important
• Differentiate self from mentor(s)
• Be creative about how you frame information
• Explain where things overlap
• Address future directions in your career

Background (very brief, paragraph)

• Who you are – job description
• Why on particular track (if relevant – e.g., track switch)
• How you got where you are – career trajectory
• Life style changes that might explain a lag

Scholarship

• Summarize research interests
• Set self up in the field you are in
• Focus on a few research topics
• Discuss impact of your work, how it shifted the field, and how it is unique/different
• Convey ways work has reached out
• Address number and quality of publications and mention key papers and journal
• Note funding success for research (federal, private)
• Note media recognition
• See NIH document on Team Science
• Your unique role in team science, as a Co-Investigator
• Link future with present

Teaching (Most important for Clinical and MEST tracks)

• Where are you teaching
• Who learners are
• Philosophy of teaching (covered more in Teaching Portfolio)
• Courses taught institutionally, locally, nationally, internationally
• Courses organized
• Supervision
• Dissertation and thesis committees
• Lectures given locally
• Lectures given at another university
• Lectures given nationally and internationally
• Comments on your evaluations
• Unique service roles and responsibilities
• Leadership roles – department, SOM, institution, locally, nationally, internationally
• Clinical service
• Infrastructure service
• Running a service core
• Committee membership and role
• Manuscript reviewing, editorial boards, special issues, and editing
• Study section responsibilities (ad hoc, member)
• Organization of meetings
• Organization of symposia
• Teaching administration (though could go under service)
• Collaborations
• Consulting (e.g., for nonprofit organization)
• Talks/presentations/panel discussions
• Health fairs and science fairs
• Media – public education
• Serving on boards
• Coordinating community activities

• Academic promotion tips (3) - Evidence your impact in Research & Engagement

Third of a six-part blogpost series on how to write an effective application for promotion in academia

Anne-Wil Harzing - Mon 7 Feb 2022 07:37 (updated Sat 15 Apr 2023 07:31)

Hopefully my first two posts - Understand the process   and Treat your application as a journal submission - have made you think a little differently about promotion applications. In the next three posts, I will demonstrate how to create a well-argued case for three core aspects of an academic job. We'll start with Research & Engagement . Teaching & Learning , and Leadership & Service will follow in the next two posts. But first why is evidencing your impact so important?

Evidence helps to discount the "what ifs"

An effective promotion application is not simply a listing of your publications, the courses you have taught, and the leadership and service roles you have - voluntarily or involuntarily - fulfilled. That's the stuff of your CV. To apply for promotion, you'll need a comprehensive CV. Absolutely! But a CV can only tell your promotion panel so much...

Yes, you may have top journal publications. But what if these articles were methodologically sound, but trivial in terms of their novelty or impact? What if nobody ever read or cited these articles? What if these top publications were achieved once or twice, early in your career with the help of your PhD supervisors, never to be repeated?

A promotion panel can't discount these "what ifs" if they only have access to your CV and a dry summary of your duties and publications. To argue your case, you need to show your positive impact providing concrete evidence . Everyone can claim that they do high-quality research, are inspirational teachers, and transformational as leaders. But how do you evidence this?

In the next three posts, I will give you some concrete examples for Research & Engagement , Teaching & Learning , and Leadership & Service . These examples illustrate what I think is "best practice" in promotion applications. Don't worry if they seem a bit intimidating. You don't have to use them all in your own promotion application. See them as a "menu of choices" to inspire you to reflect on your own contributions. Just use whatever works for your academic record and your institutional requirements.

Evidencing impact in Research & Engagement: the basics

Evidencing impact in this area might seem relatively easy. After all, "money talks" for successful funding applications. Publications in top journals are easily recognised in most disciplines, though it can't hurt to remind readers of the journals' standing in the field. To evidence academic impact, you can point to citations.

All you may need to do is to contextualise your performance for the promotion panel by providing some disciplinary background and benchmarks. Below I have copied a few sections from my own promotion application to full Professor at the University of Melbourne (Australia) that did exactly that. For further support, see: Presenting your case for tenure or promotion? , and How to measure research impact .

Funding: how much is a lot?

Funding levels can differ by an order of magnitude across fields (see also Finding a Unicorn? Research funding in Business & Management research ). As I knew my promotion application would be evaluated by academics with very different expectations, contextualising my performance in this area was crucial. So, in my application I clarified that an AUD185K grant was exceptional in my field, rather than just modest to middling as it might appear from a Life Sciences perspective.

What are top journals anyway?

In many institutions you are expected to show that you have published at least some of your work in journals that are among the best in the field. So, what's the problem? Surely everyone knows what these top journals are? Yes, nearly every professor in your own field will instantly recognise top journals by their titles. However, this is not necessarily the case for outsiders, even if they are in a neighbouring field.

Hence in justifying the quality of journal outlets academics will often refer to journal rankings. For some examples of these rankings, see the Journal Quality List that I have maintained since 2000. Your university may have a list of "preferred journals". If not, use either one of the JQL rankings or a citation-based journal metric such as Clarivate's Journal Impact Factor or Elsevier's CiteScore. Make sure you contextualise these citation metrics by field. Here is how I did this in my 2007 promotion application.

Note that the JIFs in this example might appear very low by today's standards. That is because - with publications expanding at 10%/year - average citation levels have increased dramatically in the last 15 years. In 2021, the Journal Impact Factor of the very top journals in Management is >10. However, the general principle of comparisons is still valid.

Note also that judging publications by the ranking of the journal in which they were published is a practice that is discredited by the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) . More and more universities have signed this declaration. Personally, I am not a fan of journal rankings either. Over the years, I have written a lot about this (see To rank or not to rank ), including some very critical pieces.

However, the reality is that many universities are still using them and, when combined with other indications of the importance/impact of the specific publication - such as normalised citation rates, influential citations and /or academic impact as considered below – the quality of the journal offers additional supporting evidence. This may also help to neutralise academics’ critical natures.

Benchmarks for citation performance

Just like funding levels, citation levels can vary with an order of magnitude between disciplines; they can even show strong variance between sub-disciplines . Moreover, many senior academics such as Deans or Heads of Department may have been promoted at a time when citations weren't really "on the radar". Hence, they might have very little idea of how to evaluate your citation records. (See also: Citation analysis: Tips for Deans and other administrators ). This means you may need to provide some benchmarks in your application.

In my first (unsuccessful) application to full Professor, my citation performance was characterised by my Head of Department as "developing", which didn't exactly work in my favour. Yes, that's meant to be an understatement! My promotion application didn't even get past the first hurdle, the Faculty committee. Always "educate" your HoD before they write your letter of support and ask to see it to correct any factual errors. They might well refuse, but you can always ask.

So, in my second application, I went in "with all guns blazing" to show that my citation performance was so much more than "developing". With the help of a software programme developed with Tarma Software Research - with the firmly tongue-in-cheek name Publish or Perish - I created a bibliometric comparison table. It showed my metrics outranked all professors in my field in Australia, all recently promoted professors in the Faculty, and many of the long-established professors. Ironically, the software programme itself is now my most-cited work (see above image).

Note that the h-indices and citation levels in this table might appear low by today's standards. That is because - with publications expanding at 10%/year - average citation levels have increased dramatically in the last 15 years. However, the general principle of comparison is still valid.

Depending on the level of familiarity that you expect from your promotion panel, you may also need to provide a bit more background about citation analysis, data sources and the various metrics. Here is how I introduced the above table in my application.

Beyond funding, top publications, and citation impact

For some universities, providing - contextualised - metrics of research performance is all that is expected. However, for promotion to senior positions, most universities will also expect you to argue for “leadership in the academic discipline”.

To establish this it is not enough to simply rattle off that you have published "five A* articles and ten A articles". You need to show how your research has made a real difference, ideally both academically and societally. Some academics find that surprisingly difficult to do. So below I will provide some examples of how you can evidence both academic and societal impact.

Academic impact

How has your research changed the way that other academics in the field think about particular phenomena? Has it developed or substantially revised theories? Has it contributed new knowledge about previously under-researched phenomena or settings? Has it led the field to embark on new streams of research? Has it successfully disputed earlier findings?

You can - and obviously should - claim all of this in the description of your research programme(s). Sometimes this is enough. But without evidence "from the field" it may remain a bit of an empty claim. So, if you can draw on testimonials from other academics that will certainly help your case. But where do you get these?

Using emails and journal reviews

This is where your " good stuff file " comes in. If you dump every bit of good news into it, you don't need to waste days combing through your archives. Getting a lovely email from someone complimenting you on your paper. Take a screenshot and save it in your good stuff file. A reviewer saying something nice about your paper for a change. Make sure you record it for posterity in your good stuff file.

Several of my early publications (see: Are referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? , What if fully agree doesn't mean the same thing across cultures? and Should we distance ourselves from the cultural distance concept? ) were highly critical of earlier work in the field of International Business. So it was important to show that academics in my field appreciated them. 

Fortunately, I had kept an email from Michael Bond, a very prominent researcher in Cross Cultural Psychology, who - based on the first two articles - called me “the conscience of cross-cultural psychology that keeps us all honest” . For the cultural distance article, here are two reviews excerpts that I used in my promotion application.

This is an excellent, carefully crafted, provocative and timely paper. I think you intelligently address an issue that should concern us all.

I would like to compliment you on a very well-done paper addressing a very important issue. You have provided sound, logical and well-established arguments as to why the field should abandon the use of a construct that has become very popular and is also used without question.

Awards signal ground-breaking contributions

Obviously, it is even better if some of your publications have won awards. In that case you can use the laudation as independent evidence. Most of my best-paper awards came after my promotion to full professor. However, I was fortunate enough to receive one in 2005 with a very nice laudation.

This is an OS style scientific paper at its best. [...] Harzing and Sorge findings about MNEs could be a lesson for science and for what EGOS aims at [...]; to give the floor to a diversity of expressions so that they can dialogue and cross-fertilize. To avoid normal science syndromes, let us be multinational while keeping our research fertilized by our respective "countries of origin" perspectives and traditions.

Another good way to evidence impact is to show that your articles have been reprinted in article collections. Again, I was not able to do this in my promotion application, but in the two years after my promotion to Full Professor four of my articles were reprinted in the SAGE Library series and the Routledge Critical Perspectives collections.

You can even re-use references

Finally, when you are applying for Full Professor you might be able to draw on a particularly evocative recommendation from your external referees for earlier promotion applications. Here is one from my promotion application for Associate Professor. Note how useful the last sentence is in allaying the fears discussed in the first blogpost under understand why university promote academics .

In choosing her research questions, she challenges taken-for-granted assumptions and this makes her work particularly interesting and insightful. What is also particularly commendable in her work is that she engages in difficult primary data collection, often engaging teams of collaborators, instead of following the much easier, but less insightful path of using standard published datasets and “researching under the streetlight”. Her international reputation as a scholar and her ability to continue to publish intriguing articles that challenge conventional wisdom are not in doubt.

Societal impact

Second, has your research made a difference for society? In many countries, universities are now valuing societal impact as much as academic impact. Although we can't expect every piece of research to have direct societal impact, being able to evidence this will certainly benefit your promotion application.

Societal impact wasn't really "on the agenda" when I applied for promotion for Associate and Full Professor 15-20 years ago. So here is an example from a recent - successful - application to Associate Professor by my colleague Andrea Werner in which she outlines the external impact of her work on the Living Wage in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). See how she neatly combines a past achievement with an evidenced claim for future potential.

The LW in SMEs project forms the basis of a high-quality impact case study for the Business School’s REF2021 submission, evidencing the impact of my research on campaign organisations, businesses and policy makers (CV, p.6). Firm plans are in place to continue with LW research, in particular with a cross-disciplinary project focusing on the LW in Adult Social Care developed under my leadership.

The video above - Academics as Change Makers, a session run by the Business Ethics, CSR and Governance Research Cluster - shows additional evidence of how my Middlesex University Business School colleagues have done this. It features areas as diverse as the Living Wage, labour rights reporting and accountability and social justice in global value chains, sustainability in procurement professionals, and sexual and reproductive health of women migrant workers.

Your research standing

Beyond reporting contextualised funding, publication and citation data, and evidencing both academic and societal impact, there are lots of other ways you can showcase your standing as a researcher, especially when applying for Associate or Full Professor. Think about editorial board memberships or editorships, evaluation of funding proposals for research councils, invitations for keynote speeches or visiting professorships.

If you play a major role in research supervision or research mentoring more generally, you are in luck! There is often some flexibility in where you can report these contributions. Research supervision and your ability to attract research students could be seen as evidence of your research prowess, but it could equally 'beef up' a section on teaching & learning if needed. Depending on its specific focus, research mentoring could credibly be mentioned in any of these three areas: research, teaching, and service/leadership.

At Middlesex University, long after my promotion to full professor, I embarked on a formal role in the area of research mentoring and staff development . However, research mentoring has been a core part of my academic identity even when I was fairly junior. So, I have drawn upon this quite heavily in my various promotion applications. It is an area in which testimonials work particularly well. Here is a lovely one from Thomas Hippler, written in the acknowledgments of his PhD. Rest in peace Thomas ( A tribute to Thomas Hippler (1972-2018) ).

Finally, I want to thank Dr. Anne-Wil Harzing for her encouragement and leading by example. One cannot hope for better guidance in terms of good scholarship, professional assertiveness, and personal humbleness.

Any "extras" with that?

In justifying your impact in research & engagement, you can also bring up unique aspects of your academic record that you are particularly proud of. In my own applications for instance, I drew attention to the fact that my early publications in top-ranked journals were nearly all single-authored.

Another aspect of my research profile that I wanted to bring under the promotion panel's attention was my leadership of large-scale research projects. It was a very useful complement to my single-authored publications.

While these examples might not be applicable for you, the list of things you can use as evidence of research impact is endless. Be creative and highlight those aspects of your research career that make your application come to life. We all have diamonds in the rough in our CVs, make sure you polish them and let them shine. Next, let's turn to the two other core areas of an academic job: Teaching & Learning and Leadership & Service .

PART 4: Academic promotion tips (4) - Evidence your impact in Teaching & Learning >>>

Related videos

Academic promotion series

• Part 1: Internal vs. external promotion
• Part 2: Seven reasons why external promotion is easier
• Part 3: Seven advantages of internal promotion
• Part 4: Tips for promotion applications
• Academic promotion tips (1) - Understand the process
• Academic promotion tips (2) - Treat your application as a journal submission
• Academic promotion tips (4) - Evidence your impact in Teaching & Learning
• Academic promotion tips (5) - Evidence your impact in Leadership & Service
• Academic promotion tips (6) - Craft your career narrative

Related blogposts

• How to ensure your paper achieves the impact it deserves?
• Open Syllabus Explorer: evidencing research-based teaching?
• Presenting your case for tenure or promotion?
• Be proactive, resilient & realistic!
• Finding a Unicorn? Research funding in Business & Management research
• How to measure research impact: YouTube series
• How to improve your research impact: YouTube series

Find the resources on my website useful?

I cover all the expenses of operating my website privately. If you enjoyed this post and want to support me in maintaining my website, consider buying a copy of one of my books (see below) or  supporting the Publish or Perish software .

Copyright © 2023 Anne-Wil Harzing . All rights reserved. Page last modified on Sat 15 Apr 2023 07:31

Anne-Wil Harzing's profile and contact details >>

5 Simple Tips for Writing a Good Research Statement for a Faculty Position

Completed your Ph.D.? What next?

Traditionally, most sought-after jobs after completing Ph.D. are university professors and industry R&D labs professionals. While industrial jobs have seen a surge in applicants to various positions, academia has prominently been the most considered field by Ph.Ds. As a part of the job application for faculty positions in academia, applicants are required to present a research statement that outlines the research they have already completed.

Table of Contents

What is a Research Statement?

A research statement is a document that summarizes your research interests, accomplishments, current research, and future research conduction plans. Furthermore, it outlines how your work contributes to the field. It allows applicants to present the importance and impact of their past, current, and future research to their potential future colleagues. However, throughout your academic career, you may be asked to prepare similar documents for annual reviews, tenure packages, or promotion.

What is the Purpose of a Research Statement?

The purpose of a research statement isn’t just about exhibiting your research interests, achievement, or other academic feats. In fact, its purpose is to make a persuasive case about the importance of your completed work and the potential impact of your future trajectory in research. In other words, researchers must coherently write about their past and current research efforts and articulately present their future research plans.

Furthermore, a research statement’s purpose is to allow the search committee to envision the applicant’s research evolution, productivity, and potential contributions over the coming years. Your research statement must promisingly convey the benefits you bring to the position. In other words, these benefits could be in terms of grant money, faculty collaborations, student involvement in research, or development of new courses.

Three key purposes of a research statement are:

• Clear presentation of your academic feats.
• Description of your research in a broader context, both scientifically and societally.
• Laying out a clear road map for future endeavors concerning the newly applied position.

How is a Research Statement Different from a CV?

While your CV gives an overview of your past research projects, it does not address the details of conducted research or future research interests. Furthermore, a CV fails to answer some questions that can be easily answered through a research statement.

• Why are you interested in a particular research topic?
• Why is your research important?
• What techniques do you use?
• How have you contributed to your field?
• How can your research be applied commercially or academically?
• Does your research have an impact on allied fields?
• Is your research directing you to newer questions?
• How do you plan to develop new skills and knowledge?

What Should You Include in a Research Statement for Faculty Position?

With over hundreds of applications being received at various departments, your research statement must stand out from the crowd and address all points concerning the target position. Expectations for research statements may vary across disciplines. However, certain key elements must be included in a research statement, irrespective of the field.

• Academic specialty and interests.
• Dedication for research.
• Compatibility with departmental or university research efforts.
• Ideas about potential funding sources, collaborative partners, etc.
• Ability to work as a professional scholar.
• Capability to work as an independent researcher.
• Writing proficiency.
• Relevance of your research and its contribution to the field.
• Significant recognition received by your research such as publications, presentations, grants, awards, etc.
• Appropriate acknowledgment of other scholars’ work in your field by giving them credits where due.
• Degree of specificity for future research.
• Long-term and short-term research goals

How to Write a Research statement for Faculty Position?

An effective research statement must present a clear narrative of the relation between your past and current research. Additionally, it should clearly state how your research aligns with the goals, resources, and needs of the institution to which you are applying.

Here we discuss 5 simple tips for writing a good research statement:

As stated earlier, a faculty position may easily receive over a couple of hundred applications. Consequently, the search committee may just glance through some applications. Therefore, you must make your research statement reader-friendly.

Following tips will allow readers to quickly determine why should they select you over other applicants:

• Organize your ideas by using headings and sub-headings.
• Space out different sections properly.
• Additionally, include figures and diagrams to illustrate key findings or concepts.
• Avoid writing long paragraphs in your research statement. Moreover, a concise yet thoughtfully laid out research statement demonstrates your ability to organize ideas in a coherent and easy-to-understand manner.

2. Ensure to Present Your Focus on Research

• Discuss feasible research ideas that interest you.
• Explain how your goals are related to your recent work.
• Additionally, mention your short-term (2-5 years) and long-term (5+ years) research goals.
• Discuss your ideas about potential funding sources, collaborative partners, facilities, etc.
• Specifically mention how your research goals align with your department’s goals.

3. Tailor Your Research Statement

• It is imperative to mention how you will contribute to the research at the institution you are applying to.
• Mention how will you use core facilities or resources at the institution.
• Furthermore, you should mention particular research infrastructure present at the target institution that you may need to do your work.

4. Write for Each Audience

• Even at top-most institutions, not all members of the search committee may be aware of the intricacies of your research work. Therefore, you should avoid jargon and describe your research work in a detailed yet lucid manner.
• Your motive must be to instill a sense of belief in the reader that you are a dedicated researcher and not overwhelm them with finer details.
• Moreover, focus on conveying the importance of your work and its contribution to the field.

5. Be Yourself

In an attempt to impress the search committee, applicants are often seen to go overboard and come out as boastful.

• Emphasize your major academic achievements.
• Be realistic and do not present research goals that are too ambitious.
• Finally, avoid comparing your research statement with other applicants.

Did you decide on the faculty position you want to apply for? How do you plan to go ahead with your research statement? Follow these tips while writing your research statement to acquire your most desired faculty position .

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• AI in Academia
• Trending Now

Simplifying the Literature Review Journey — A comparative analysis of 6 AI summarization tools

Imagine having to skim through and read mountains of research papers and books, only to…

• Publishing Research
• Reporting Research

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

For researchers across disciplines, the path to uncovering novel findings and insights is often filled…

• Promoting Research

Plain Language Summary — Communicating your research to bridge the academic-lay gap

Science can be complex, but does that mean it should not be accessible to the…

8 Effective Strategies to Write Argumentative Essays

In a bustling university town, there lived a student named Alex. Popular for creativity and…

• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• PhDs & Postdocs

Mentoring for Change: Creating an inclusive academic landscape through support programs

Imagine stepping into a world where everyone’s unique talents and backgrounds are not only recognized…

Mentoring for Change: Creating an inclusive academic landscape through support…

Reviving Your Research Career: Overcoming the roadblocks of resuming research after a…

Aiming for Academic Tenure? – 5 Things You Should Know Before Applying!

Statement of Purpose Vs. Personal Statement – A Guide for Early Career…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

Sample Letter to External Evaluators (Promotion to Full Professor)

Dear Dr. XXXXXX:

Dr. XXXX XXX is due to be reviewed for promotion to Professor in academic year YYYY-YYYY.  I am writing to request your confidential evaluation of the qualifications of Dr. XXX for promotion to the rank of Professor of XXXX.

In accordance with Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Policy and Guidelines adopted by the University of Maryland, College of XXXX and Department of XXXX at College Park, I am required to indicate the criteria for promotion and request your evaluation of the following:

• The quality and impact of the candidate’s research and creative activity, including the quality of the candidate’s publications, exhibitions, or performances; the quality of the journals, presses, or outlets in which the candidate has published, exhibited, or performed; and the candidate’s potential for future contributions;
• The impact and significant accomplishments of the candidate’s research and creative activity;
• The standing of the candidate in their field;
• The candidate’s teaching and mentoring to the extent you are able to do so; and
• The candidate’s service activities (e.g., public service, service to the profession).

In assessing the candidate’s qualifications for promotion and tenure, please:

• Base your analysis on the criteria and materials provided;
• Indicate whether you would or would not recommend this candidate for promotion at the University of Maryland; and
• Comment on the nature of your professional interaction with the candidate and also on the candidate’s collaboration with other scholars in his/her field, if applicable.

The University of Maryland acknowledges that faculty across the academy may have experienced significant disruptions to teaching and mentoring; research, scholarship, and creative activities; service; and extension activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In conjunction with the disruptions experienced on-campus (please refer to the included timeline of University of Maryland actions from the onset of the pandemic in March 2020 through June 2021), many faculty members had to navigate additional challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic and remote work. We ask that you take the unprecedented events of the COVID-19 pandemic into consideration when evaluating the candidate’s activities since spring 2020.

To assist in your evaluation, I am enclosing the following information: Dr. XXX’s latest curriculum vitae and personal statement, copies of the [X number of] sample works listed below selected by Dr. XXX, a copy of the promotion criteria, and a copy of the University COVID-19 Actions Timeline.

I realize that this information is rather extensive and will require considerable effort on your part to review.  However, your assistance in helping evaluate Dr. XXX’s credentials will be greatly appreciated and will constitute an important element in the overall evaluation.  I would be very grateful if you could respond to us in writing no later than……..  Please send your signed letter on your organization’s letterhead by e-mail to........umd.edu as an attachment.

XXXX X. XXXXXX

Chair, APT Review Committee

Department of XXX

enclosures: CV, personal statement, publications (please list), Department promotion criteria, University COVID-19 Actions Timeline