The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding Faculty reappointment (See, University Policy Register). Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion must provide evidence of significant accomplishments in both performance and professional development. Additionally, we expect Faculty to be engaged, responsive to one another, students, and the university community.
Probationary Faculty members are reviewed by the School's Ad Hoc RTP Committee (See, Section III of this Handbook). Probationary Faculty are expected to work with the School Director to identify at least one Faculty member each year to visit their class and evaluate their teaching performance. A written report of the evaluation is submitted to the Director for placement in the Faculty member's reappointment file. Probationary Faculty will also create an updated file that is presented to the Director who will make these materials available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. Each probationary Faculty member is discussed by the committee, which then votes on the Faculty member's reappointment. The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary Faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean. The Director informs probationary Faculty of the committee's recommendation and provides a copy of her/his recommendation to the Dean. Probationary Faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For Faculty members whose appointment is in the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment from the Director are forwarded to the Dean and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.
For probationary Faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure. Moreover, the Faculty member must have established and articulated short and long-term plans for achieving these goals. For Faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at Kent State University is particularly critical. Upon completion of the third year of the probationary period, Faculty reviewing a candidate for reappointment should consider the record of the candidate's achievements to date. This record should be considered a predictor of future success. The hallmark of a successful candidate is compelling evidence of the potential to have an impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline. This record can be demonstrated through peer reviewed work and other significant scholarly contributions in one or more established lines of inquiry, as well as a clear and focused plan for building on this work. Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Director during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, a sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the School. An overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the Faculty member's professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified according to the official University policy timeline that she/he will not be reappointed.
In the event this concerns about a candidate's performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Director shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. If such concerns arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period, the Director, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the School's tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan.
From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured Faculty member to need to request that her/his probationary period be extended. Upon request, a Faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period, which has been traditionally called "tolling" or "stopping the tenure clock." The University policy and procedures governing modification of the Faculty probationary period is included in the University Policy Register.
The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding Faculty tenure and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding Faculty promotion (See, University Policy Register). Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Tenure and promotion are separate decisions. The granting of tenure is a decision that plays a crucial role in determining the quality of university Faculty and the national and international status of the University. The awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the Faculty member has achieved a significant body of scholarship that has had an impact on her/his discipline, excellence as a teacher, and has provided effective service. The candidate is also expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality teaching, scholarship, and service relevant to the mission of the candidate's academic unit(s) and to the mission of the University. Tenure considerations can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at Kent State University to examine consistency in research and publication productivity, grant proposals submitted but not funded, proposals submitted, papers in press, students advised, along with any other materials that may reflect on the candidate's potential for a long-term successful career. The tenure decision is based on all of the evidence available to determine the candidate's potential to pursue a productive career, while promotion is recognition based on a candidate's accomplishments completed during the review period and promotion decisions are based on papers published and in-press, grants received and students served through committee work and/or graduated during the review period, as well as teaching evaluations and service to the University and the profession.
Consideration for promotion to Professor differs from consideration for promotion to Associate Professor. Promotion to Associate Professor is recognition for establishing a career likely to achieve national/international prominence as evidenced by a record of scholarly work (refereed articles, books, grants, etc.) appropriate to the Faculty member's respective field. Promotion to Professor recognizes the highest level of university achievement and national/international prominence, which must include record of scholarly work (refereed articles, books, grants, etc.) of sufficient quality and quantity necessary to demonstrate increased prominence in and impact in the Faculty member's respective field. Finally, a sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek tenure and promotion in the School. The overall evaluation of a candidate for tenure and promotion shall include consideration of the Faculty member's professional behavior as recognized by the University community.
The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of Faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion. The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. During the probationary period, these tools should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.
Tables 1 (A and B), 2, and 3 provide guidelines for the assessment of a Faculty member's performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates. For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor, the Faculty member must meet the criteria for a "Level 2" rating in scholarship and a "Level 2" rating in teaching. University citizenship must at least meet the minimum School criteria as outlined in Table 3. These same categories and assessment tools apply for tenure decisions. A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for a "Level 4" rating in scholarship and a "Level 3" rating in teaching. University citizenship must exceed the minimum School criteria. A candidate for promotion to Professor may not have equal activity in scholarship, teaching, and service as he/she becomes more specialized.
In the School of Foundations, Leadership and Administration "scholarship" is broadly defined to include research, scholarly and creative work. For the purposes of this School, "service" is broadly defined to include administrative service to the university, professional service to the Faculty member's discipline(s) or field(s) of study, and the provision of professional expertise to public and private entities beyond the university.
Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed. To assist this process, the candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. The School Director will then choose at least three (3) individuals from this list and request they review the candidate's materials.
In addition, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with suitable and informative descriptive evidence of his/her scholarly activity. This must include refereed scholarly publications and candidates should strive to have a sustained record of publication with emphasis on lead and/or sole authorship. In addition to scholarly publications and grant funded research appropriate to the discipline and the rank for which the candidate is being considered, other scholarly activities including but not limited to serving on national grant review bodies, presenting at refereed professional meetings, chairing society committees, and presenting papers before learned societies should be considered. These later activities complement scholarly publications. Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies, attend and participate in institutes and seminars, organize institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency (See, Table lA for expectations regarding tenure and promotion).
Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship and Research
All Faculty of the School are expected to demonstrate the impact of their scholarly activity. The contextual statement is the vehicle for narrating the evolution of one's line of inquiry, discussing the impact of one's scholarship, and providing a rationale for decisions about the dissemination of one's work (e.g., audience). A Faculty member seeking tenure and/or promotion must also provide evidence of the impact of his/her scholarship in one or more of the ways listed in Table 1B. Some forms of evidence listed may be more appropriate than others at different stages of the tenure and/or promotion process. In turn, the members of the School's Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Director shall evaluate a candidate's record in light of the School's expectations for a successful tenure decision.
Table 1A. Scholarship and Research Expectations for Faculty Standing for Promotion and Tenure
Quality and Impact of Scholarly Work
Level 4 (Promotion to
Nationally or internationally recognized research program
The candidate has a nationally and/or internationally recognized research program, demonstrated by a sustained record of scholarly work that has had an impact on the candidate's field.
Examples of scholarly work include a sustained record of refereed publications with emphasis on lead and/or sole authorship, invited publications in leading or key publishing venues, grant writing activity appropriate for the discipline, (invited) presentations at national and/or international conferences, and awards/recognition from scholarly organizations.
Level 3 (Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor):
Emerging nationally or internationally recognized research program
The candidate has established an emerging nationally and/or internationally recognized research program, demonstrated by a record of scholarly work that is beginning to have an impact in the candidate's field.
Examples of scholarly work include a sustained record of refereed publications with emphasis on lead and/or sole authorship and grant2 writing activity appropriate for the discipline, presentations at national and/or international conferences.
Level 2 (Pre- Tenure/Promotion to Associate Professor):
Developed research program with some evidence of an emerging nationally-recognized research program
The candidate is developing an emerging nationally recognized research program, demonstrated by a record of scholarly work that has an emerging impact in the candidate's field.
Examples of scholarly work include publications 1 grant2 writing appropriate for the discipline, and presentations at professional meetings. The candidate's body of scholarly work includes several refereed publications and is developing a sustained record of publication with an emphasis on lead and/or sole authorship.
Level 1 (Pre-Tenure/ Promotion to Associate): Emerging research program.
The candidate is developing a research program, demonstrated by a record of scholarly work that is related to the candidate's field.
The candidate's body of scholarly work includes some refereed publications or meeting presentations.
Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of "publications" and "grants” throughout Table 1A.
1Includes: published and in-press papers in peer-reviewed journals of recognized quality (See, Table lB), books, and book chapters. Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field as well as quantity. Papers of exceptional length, impact, and quality are given particular consideration.
2Refers to internal or external extramural funding where the role of the Faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated and which are of sufficient magnitude to fully support research at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline. Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of research with the recognition that the dollar amount of awards varies among fields.
Table 1B: Approaches to Providing Evidence of Impact of Scholarly Work
Number of times your work was cited.
Acceptance rate of the journals in which you have published.
Impact factors of the journals in which you have published.
Circulation rates of the journals in which you have published.
Indicate the ranking of each of the journals in which you have published as a first tier, middle tier, or lower tier journal. This ranking must be accompanied by a program area produced list of journal rankings that is updated yearly.
Rooted in the teaching mission of the University, Kent State University has a Faculty that is well prepared and committed to providing high quality lifelong learning. Candidates for tenure and/or promotion must develop and sustain creative and innovative approaches to teaching and facilitating student learning in a variety of contexts. The following items are required components of tenure and promotion files:
- A contextual narrative
- An up-to-date-Curricular Vitae
- The Evaluation Summary Sheets of Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) for all courses taught during the period under review
- Students’ comments from the Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI)
- Analysis and reflection on the student evaluation data
- Peer reviews of teaching
- Statement of teaching philosophy
- Representative course syllabi
In addition to providing supporting narrative in one's contextual statement, candidates must also demonstrate their reflection on teaching practice through various means. These may include, but are not limited to evidence presented in Table 2 (page 33).
Standards for the Evaluation of Teaching
Consideration for promotion to Professor differs from consideration for promotion to Associate Professor.
Candidates standing for promotion to Associate Professor and Tenure must provide evidence of good to excellent student and peer evaluations of teaching and several examples of engagement in activities listed in Table 2, Level 2 that extends beyond the activities expected at Level 1.
Candidates standing for promotion to Professor must provide evidence of excellent peer evaluations of teaching, a pattern of consistently strong student evaluations and several examples of engagement in activities listed in Table 2 below, Level 3 that extends beyond the activities expected at Level 2.
Table 2. Scholarship of Teaching Expectations and Evidence for Faculty Standing for Promotion and Tenure
Teacher Scholar Leader
• In addition to several examples of evidence from the
previous two levels candidates should have several examples of documented evidence in these areas:
• Excellent peer evaluations
• A pattern of consistently strong student evaluations
• Developing community partnerships for learning
contexts that is appropriate to their discipline(s) or
field(s) of study.
(Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor): Teacher Scholar Innovator
• In addition to several examples of evidence from the previous level candidates should have several examples
of documented evidence in these areas:
• Developing curricula
• Developing teaching-related publications and
• Involving students in research
• Advising and mentoring students, including on
capstone projects (e.g., dissertations, master's theses,
Emerging Teacher Scholar
• Co-advising students on capstone projects (e.g., dissertations, master's theses, honors theses)
• Engaging in effective teaching practices
• Participating in Faculty professional development
• Developing sample assignments, assessments, and other
• Good peer evaluations
• Good student evaluations
3. Service and Citizenship to the University and Professional Organizations
For the purposes of this policy, "service" is broadly defined to include administrative service to the university, professional service to the Faculty member's discipline, and the provision of professional expertise to public and private entities beyond the university.
A Faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the School, the Campus, the College, and the University. Being an active citizen of the School, Campus, College, and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's research and other scholarly activity and instructional responsibilities.
At the School level, important components of citizenship include active committee participation, participation in Faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, School meetings and seminars, etc. Committee participation and engagement are expected at the University and College level although the extent of this service will vary depending on the rank of the candidate. These expectations increase during the Faculty member's career and, therefore, candidates for promotion to Professor will be held to a higher standard in relation to these activities.
The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) the nature of the initiatives of the committee, (2) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee listed, and (3) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served.
Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies; attend and participate in institutes, seminars, and academic conferences; and organize institutes, seminars, workshops, and academic conferences insofar as these activities enhance their professional competency. Examples of this kind of service and citizenship include reviewing manuscripts and conference proposals, obtaining leadership roles in professional organizations, serving on national grant review bodies, chairing society committees, and so forth.
In the School of Foundations, Leadership, and Administration, Faculty members are sometimes expected to be involved in public outreach and other forms of professional service. These expectations increase during the Faculty member's career and, therefore, candidates for promotion to Professor will be held to a higher standard in relation to these activities. Recognitions from learned societies are expected for candidates for promotion to Professor. These could include, for example, election to office, editorial board membership, editorship, as well as service to federal/state institutions, service on federal proposal panels, site visits, and other research related activities
Candidates should delineate service on their CV and provide any explanatory narrative in their contextual statement. Candidates can provide supporting documents as evidence of service as necessary.
Table 3. Assessment of University Citizenship for Promotion and Tenure.
Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the
Significant role in School/Campus, College and/or University as evidenced by productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach and/or other professional service.
Meets the minimal School/Campus, College and/or University obligations, minimal involvement in public outreach and other professional service.
Does not meet obligations
Does not actively participate in significant School/Campus events, very little or no involvement in public outreach and professional service.
Regional campus candidates for promotion and tenure will be reviewed both at the unit and regional campus level according to the University Policy and Procedures outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The School of Foundations, Leadership and Administration recognizes that there may be differences in both mission and teaching load at the Regional Campuses. The University Policy regarding Faculty tenure and promotion outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement recognizes that different Faculty roles and rank may foster differential weighting of criteria. These differences will be recognized and considered during deliberations and evaluation of Regional Campus Faculty.
Regional campus Faculty must therefore include an explanatory narrative in their contextual statement regarding the mission of the regional campus to which they are appointed and explaining their specific responsibilities and activities in light of that mission. As is the case for Kent campus Faculty appointments, University Citizenship expectations for Regional Campus Faculty increase during a Faculty member’s career and, therefore, candidates for promotion to Professor will be held to a higher standard in relation to these activities.
The following criteria are considered when evaluating Regional Campus Faculty:
· Quality of scholarship (See, Tables 1A and 1B, page 30-31)
· Quality of teaching (See, Table 2, page 33)
· Quality of service and citizenship (See, Table 3, page 35)
The documentation of these criteria must be consistent with the guidelines on pages 25-36 of this Handbook.