Mid-tenure review can feel like someone has asked you to show the finished house while you're still building it. Projects are underway, courses are changing, and some of your most promising work hasn't reached publication yet.
The handbook treats this review as a point to examine progress and plan the remaining work. Your institution's procedures determine the actual requirements and consequences. As you prepare, use five questions to make the account clearer.
1. What was I expected to contribute?
Start with your applicable criteria and assigned responsibilities. Explain the relevant review period and any major changes in duties. Reviewers need that context before they interpret the number of courses, projects, or service roles in the file.
2. What have I completed?
Identify the work that's finished and the evidence supporting it. Be precise about status. An accepted article, a submitted manuscript, and a planned study tell different parts of the story. Keep those differences visible in both the CV and narrative.
3. What shows development over time?
Choose examples that show a change in your practice or contribution. Maybe a course revision addressed a recurring problem, or a research project led to a more focused question. Explain the evidence you have without claiming a result you haven't measured.
A list of annual activities is useful background. The narrative should help readers understand how the work developed across those years.
4. What remains uncertain or unfinished?
Name the questions that need attention. That might involve research access, a stalled collaboration, a gap in teaching evidence, or uncertainty about how a criterion is interpreted. Explain what you've tried and what you need to clarify.
You don't have to describe every ordinary delay as a crisis. But a concern that affects the remaining timeline deserves a realistic plan.
5. What will I do with the feedback?
Prepare to turn the review into next steps. For each substantive recommendation, identify the action, resources or support needed, and a reasonable checkpoint. Ask for clarification when feedback is too broad to guide a decision.
Keep a record of the feedback and your response. Later, you'll be able to explain what changed instead of trying to reconstruct the conversation from memory.
Use a project timeline to make the remaining work concrete
Choose one important project that isn't finished and map the next few steps. Distinguish your tasks from dependencies: completing an analysis is different from waiting for access, and submitting a manuscript is different from receiving a decision. That distinction helps you explain progress without promising an outcome you can't control.
Then check what evidence would let you report the next milestone accurately. A completed draft, an approved plan, or a documented course change can show movement even when the larger project continues. Don't turn every stage into a separate publication or claim the intended impact has already occurred.
Bring a specific uncertainty to the review conversation. If a project is central to your plan but its timing is unclear, ask how the record should be explained and what alternatives deserve attention. A realistic next step is more useful than saying you'll simply work harder during the remaining period.
Make a page with these five questions and answer each in two or three sentences. Where you struggle, decide whether you need stronger evidence, a clearer explanation, or a conversation with the appropriate person. That's a useful starting point for the file and the work ahead.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, pp. 8-10.
