Reappointment, tenure and promotion criteria and the criteria and processes relating to other faculty personnel actions | Kent State University

Reappointment, tenure and promotion criteria and the criteria and processes relating to other faculty personnel actions

  1. Reappointment of TT faculty

    The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-16).  Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee (See, Section III of this Handbook).  The FAC, in consultation with the Chair, assigns two (2) faculty members to visit the classes of each probationary faculty member, interview students in the classes, and generally evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance.   Written reports of these evaluations are submitted to the Chair for placement in the faculty member’s reappointment file.  Probationary faculty will also create an updated file that is presented to the Chair 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 Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean.  The Chair 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 Chair 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 a record of compelling evidence of impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline. This record can be demonstrated through review of the candidate’s grants, pink sheet reviews, peer reviewed work including assessment of the impact (as measured by the quality of the journal publishing the paper/journal impact factor) or citation indexes preferably those provided by ISI (Institute for Scientific Information). Where appropriate, other sources of citation can be provided but are the responsibility of the candidate. Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Chair during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the Department.  A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified promptly that she/he will not be reappointed.

    In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair 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 Chair, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the Department’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 her/his probationary period be extended.  Upon her/his 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. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-13).

  2. Tenure and Promotion of TT Faculty

    The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty promotion (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-15).  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 and scholarship relevant to the missions of the candidate’s academic unit(s)and University.  Tenure considerations can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at Kent State University in order to judge long-term consistency, as well as research grant proposals whether funded or not funded, pending proposals, papers “in review” or “in press,” graduate students currently being advised, and any other materials that may serve to indicate the candidate’s probability of professional success  in his or her discipline .  In contrast to the tenure decision, promotion is dependent on a candidate’s accomplishments that have been completed during the review period. These include articles published, grants applied for and received, and graduate students mentored during the review period, as well as teaching evaluations and service to the University.

    Promotion to Associate Professor is dependent upon the candidate’s likelihood to establish national/international prominence in his or her field.  Relevant evidence includes extramural grants received and formal extramural reviews thereof, articles published in the formally refereed journals of significant standing, other forms of scientific literature (books, chapters in books, books edited), students mentored, etc.  Promotion to Professor represents the highest level of regular university achievement and requires a record of sustained national/international prominence.  Evidence is largely the same as that required for promotion to Associate Professor, but of sufficient quantity and quality to demonstrate national and preferably, that international prominence has been achieved.  

    Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for tenure and advancement in academic rank. The overall evaluation of a candidate for tenure and/or promotion shall include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  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 Anthropology Department.

  3. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of TT faculty on the Kent Campus

    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 projection of the candidate’s likelihood of future success to achieve tenure and promotion.

    Tables 2 (A and B), 3, and 4 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 an “excellent” rating in scholarship and at least a “very good” rating in teaching. University citizenship must meet the minimum Department criteria as outlined in Table 3.  These same categories and assessments apply for tenure decisions.        

    A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in scholarship and teaching. University citizenship must meet the minimum Department criteria.  A candidate for promotion to Professor is not required to have equal activity in scholarship, teaching and service.

    1. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship

      Scholarship is an essential component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact, and value of the candidate’s academic work must be assessed.  To assist this process, the candidate may submit the names of experts in her/his field who he or she considers capable of judging the candidate's work.  Moreover, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample evidence of his/her scholarly activity. Such evidence shall include copies or reprints of all papers, grant applications, reviews of grant applications, books, book chapters, and other similar academic materials. A faculty member's specific area of specialization is an important factor in determining the appropriate number and size of grants received and the scope and time required for research and the resulting publications. Major theoretical and/or original analytical/descriptive reports in internationally recognized journals will be given precedence in most decisions.

      Additional scholarly activities that may be considered in tenure and promotion decisions include but are not limited to service on national grant reviewing bodies, presentations at regional, national, and international professional meetings, and paper presentations before learned societies.  These latter activities should be viewed as complementing primary scholarly publications and grant funded research. Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies, to attend and participate in and/or organize institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency. However, such activities are again to be considered secondary to those listed above in the previous paragraph. 

      All faculty are expected to demonstrate excellence in scholarly activities and the criteria for their assessment are provided in Tables 2A & 2B. During annual reappointment reviews prior to the granting of tenure or completion of the tenure review period, each faculty member seeking  tenure or promotion must provide a formal summary of his/her scholarly record to the RTP Committee and Chair. The candidate should also provide relevant information about journal quality and impact and funding success levels in his/her discipline. The candidate may also provide supplementary materials of any other evidence of scholarship that he/she deems appropriate.  The Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee and Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s achievements in light of the Department’s expectations for a successful tenure decision. Reappointment will be dependent upon successful and appropriate progress toward that decision.    

      Table 2A. Kent Campus: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure

      Scholarship 

      Definition

      Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

         Excellent

      Nationally/Internationally recognized research program

      Publications1and grants2, presentations, research-related service to federal/state organizations, awards, recognition from scientific societies3

       Very Good

      Emerging nationally

      recognized research program

      Publications and ”seed” grants, presentations at meetings of well-recognized societies

           Fair

      Active research program

      Some peer-reviewed publications or ”seed” grants, some presentations at meetings / seminars

           Weak

      Limited research program

      Occasional publications or meeting presentations

      Unacceptable

      No research program

      No publications, presentations, or grants

      Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications,” “grants,” and “recognition” throughout Table 2A.

      1Publications include: articles in peer-reviewed journals of demonstrable quality (usually “A or B” quality journals (See, Table  2B), books, book chapters, and books edited. International Presses of long standing and academic presses shall be the principal acceptable venues for books of all types (e.g., chapter contributed or book edited). Evidence of book quality shall be provided, whenever possible, by reviews of the volume in appropriate venues (journals, national newspapers, etc.). Evaluation of publications will consider quality and impact as well as quantity.  Papers of exceptional quality and impact will be given particular consideration. 

      2“Grants” refers to extramural funding where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated (normally PI or co-PI) and which are of sufficient magnitude to fully support research at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline, including funds for supplies, materials and personnel (graduate students, research technicians and/or post-doctoral associates).  For NIH grants, this includes R01s, AREA grants, and others of sufficient magnitude as described herein.  “Seed Grants” are extramural grants that are not of sufficient magnitude to fully support doctoral students or are intramural grants.  "Seed Grants" should be designed to lead to successful applications for “Grants.” Grant monies provided by the university (i.e., “in house”) shall be considered as encouragement to the candidate and not as an accomplishment for reward.  Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of research with stipulation that the dollar amounts of awards vary among fields. 

      3Recognition from scientific societies may include, for example, election to office, editorial board membership, editorship, etc.  Service to federal/state institutions includes service on federal proposal panels, site visits, and other research related activities.

      Table 2B. Journal Ranking for Guidance in RTP Decisions

      .

      A Journals

      Cell; Science; Nature; PNAS; Genome Res.; Mol. Biol. & Evol.;American Anthropologist; American Antiquity, Social Science and Medicine, Neuroscience, J. Comparative Neurology, Cerebral Cortex, Current Biology, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, J. Roy. Anthropological Inst., American Ethnologist, J. Polynesian Soc., Oceania

      B Journals

      Genetics; Molec. Phylo. & Evol.; Am. J. Phys. Anthro.; J. Hum. Evol.; Latin Am. Antiqu.; Am. J. Prim.; Int. J. Prim.; Panamerican J. of  Epidemiology, J. Social Medicine, Brain, Behavior, and Evolution, Animal Cognition, J. Anthrop. Research, Anthro. Quarterly, Evolution, Ethnology, Anthro. Forum, Ethos, Cultural Anthro., Contemporary Pacific, Anthro and Humanism, People Culture Oceania,

      C Journals

      Human Evolution, J. Cognition & Culture, Dialectical Anthro, Intern. REv. Asian and Pacific ; Pacific Studies“on line journals” which are associated with a substantial, recognized, publisher and/or national or international society

      D Journals

      Micronesia; Bikmaus; Anthroglove Journal; “on line journals” of limited age and which are not associated with a substantial, recognized, publisher and/or national or international society

       

       

       

       

    2. Standards for Evaluating Teaching

      Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 3.  Course revision is defined as a substantial modification to a course such as developing several new laboratories, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content/format, etc.

      Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Department, College or University administrators shall be considered when available.  Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including all student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.  Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students and/or postdoctoral students.  Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses. 

      Table 3. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure

      Teaching

      Definition

      Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

      Excellent

      Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional

      Development

      Develop/revise courses where appropriate, develop research projects for students (undergraduate and/or graduate), work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research, excellent student and peer perceptions, instructional creativity, actively taking the lead in curricular revisions where appropriate.

      Very Good

      Innovative teacher

      Develop/revise courses where appropriate, good student and peer perceptions, work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research

      Good

      Meets obligations well

      Good student and peer perceptions; participation in curricular revisions where appropriate.

      Fair

      Substandard teacher

      Below average student and peer perceptions

      Poor

      Substandard, ineffective teacher

      Below average student and peer perceptions, consistent pattern of complaints



       

       

       

       

    3. Standards for Evaluating Citizenship

      A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, Campus, College, and University as outlined in Table 4.  The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee listed and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served.  Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in department events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, department meetings and seminars, etc.

      Being an active and useful citizen of the Department, 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.  Expectations in service for promotion to Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

      Table 4. Assessment of University Citizenship for promotion and tenure

      Citizenship Assessment

      Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

      Exceeds obligations

      Significant role in Department, 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

      Meets obligations

      Meets the minimal Department/Campus obligations such  as membership in assigned committees, active participation in significant departmental events and activities, occasional public and campus outreach.

      Does not meet obligations

      Does not meet Department/Campus obligations in a timely manner or does not actively participate in significant departmental/campus events

      Other components of service are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the Department.