Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of TT faculty at the Regional Campuses | Kent State University

Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of TT faculty at the Regional Campuses

The Regional Campuses of Kent State University focus their mission on teaching and student accessibility. Therefore, the expectations for Regional Campus faculty are focused more on pedagogical performance. An active research agenda, however, is still expected. Attention should also be given to the totality of the faculty record and a balance of teaching and research successes given the higher teaching load of regional campus faculty (typically 12 credit hours per semester). Faculty members must meet expectations in Teaching, Scholarship and Research, and University Citizenship for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor.  These same categories and assessment tools apply for tenure decisions.  The Geography Department considers faculty to meet expectations if they satisfy their Regional Campus requirements.

The text below is 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.

The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion.

  1. Standards for Evaluating Teaching

    Evaluation of teaching is conducted in two categories: Classroom Instruction and Mentorship.  In order to meet expectations for tenure and promotion in this category, the faculty member must demonstrate the following:

     

    Classroom Instruction:

    • Evidence of high quality teaching. Examples include, but are not limited to, peer reviews, contributions to curricular development, innovative instructional practices and course offerings, professional development, scholarship of teaching and learning, examples of assessments and feedback to students, student surveys of instruction (SSI), and evidence of self-reflection and responsiveness to constructive criticism.  Curricular development may include the development of new courses as well as revision of existing courses, which includes any substantial modification to a course such as developing new laboratory exercises, addition of distance learning options, and formal changes of course content/format.

     Mentorship:

    • Evidence of active mentorship, with examples including, but not limited to supervising Individual Investigations, Program Directing, student advising, supporting student research, and student recruiting.

    Alternatively, examples of insufficient activity in these categories include, but are not limited to, consistent evidence of poor teaching performance, lack of professional development or responsiveness to constructive criticism, or consistent lack of mentorship and/or advising.

    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 relevant and constructive student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Copies of representative syllabi, assignments/assessments, and other relevant teaching materials (such as examinations) should also be provided. Documentation related to student supervision should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion.

  2. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship

    Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed. To assist with the promotion process, the candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in his/her field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. Moreover, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her scholarly activity. A faculty member's specific area of specialization may be a factor in the particular journals he/she publishes in and the time required for research and the resulting publications.

    In addition to scholarly publications, other scholarly activities including but not limited to presenting at professional meetings, chairing society committees, and presenting papers before learned societies should be considered. These later activities complement scholarly publications and any funded research (as needed by the scholar). 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.

    All faculty of the department are expected to seek excellence in scholarly activity.  Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of scholarly activity is based are provided as lists at the end of this section. In cases where the candidate is one of multiple participants in a particular scholarly activity (e.g. multiple-authored paper, multiple-investigator grant), he/she is expected to designate his/her role as part of the overall assessment.

    Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s research record include the quality and quantity of published work. All faculty members in the Department are expected to produce records of scholarship that reflect their disciplinary focus and the attributes of an individual faculty member’s scholarly activity will vary across disciplines.

    Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, each regional campus faculty member who will seek tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her scholarly record. This obligation will be met by providing specific information about activities in each of the following four categories: Publications, Grants (if applicable but not required for Regional Campus Faculty Members), Professional Activity, and Reputation. In turn, the members of the Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the Department’s expectations for a successful tenure decision. The totality of a candidate’s scholarship will be evaluated via the expectations in each of the categories listed below.  Examples for each category are provided for additional guidance.

    Publications:

    • Evidence of a sustained and well-defined research agenda resulting in a clear record of publications; these include outlets such as journals of recognized quality and appropriate focus, as well as books and book chapters in reputable (e.g., university) presses. 

    Professional Activity:

    • Evidence of activity includes but is not limited to presenting at meetings including geography and sub-discipline specific meetings, writing book reviews, and participation in programs aimed at professional/pedagogical development and disseminating research results.

    Reputation:

    • Positive and supportive external letters that show evidence of an emerging national reputation.
    • Other examples may include editorship or guest editorship of journals, invitations to review manuscripts and grant proposals, invitations to speak at meetings, citations, awards or other meritorious recognition from scientific societies.

    Grants

    • Regional Campus faculty members are generally not required to receive grants, unless otherwise specified (e.g., in their Letter of Offer).  If they do, that activity should be included in evaluations of research and scholarship.

    Alternatively, examples of insufficient activity in these categories include, but are not limited to, sporadic publications, especially in low-quality journals, minimal engagement in the profession, or weak external letters.

  3. Standards for Evaluating Citizenship

    A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, the Campus, the College, and the University. In order to meet expectations for tenure and promotion, the faculty member should demonstrate consistent, responsible service as outlined below. 

    • Evidence of consistent substantive service focused on the Campus and Department, with College, and/or University service as appropriate. Examples include, but are not limited to, actively serving in committee positions, undertaking specific administrative assignments, and performing meaningful public outreach.
    • Service to the profession and discipline is also valued.  These activities may include but are not limited to elected positions in specialty groups and on boards.

    Alternatively, examples of insufficient activity in this category include, but are not limited to, consistent lack of service or evidence of low quality service to the Department, College, and/or University.

    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 teaching responsibilities and research or other scholarly activity.

  4. Promotion to Full Professor on the Regional Campuses

    Consideration for promotion to Professor differs from consideration for promotion to Associate Professor for faculty with a regional campus appointment, acknowledging the greater focus on teaching performance and student accessibility of the regional campuses. Whereas promotion to Associate Professor should recognize an emerging national reputation among regional campus faculty, promotion to Professor recognizes the highest level of achievement within the regional campus system and requires an established national reputation. The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on promotion. The text below is designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for promotion.

    A candidate for promotion to Professor must show evidence of high quality teaching, including in both classroom instruction and student supervision.  Examples include, but are not limited to, excellent student evaluations and peer reviews from senior department and campus colleagues, contributions to curricular development or revision, successful innovative instructional practices, self-reflection and professional development, student supervision and advising, and supporting student research.

    A candidate for promotion to Professor must show evidence of consistent and responsible service to the Campus, Department, University, and Discipline/Profession.  Examples include, but are not limited to, actively serving in committee positions, undertaking administrative assignments, performing meaningful public outreach, and elected positions in specialty groups and on boards.  Additionally, there should be a clear demonstration of leadership roles that seek to further the mission of the candidate’s Campus, Department, University, or Profession. 

    For promotion to Professor, the candidate must provide documentation of an established research program, with a level of achievement that demonstrates a recognized national reputation.  Promotion to Professor requires a sustained impact on the field above and beyond that expected for promotion to Associate Professor. In addition, for promotion to Professor there should be a clear demonstration of leadership roles that seek to further the mission of the candidate’s Campus, Department, University, or Profession.

    An established research program may be measured in multiple ways.  It should generate a clear record of publications in journals of both recognized quality and appropriate focus as well as books and book chapters in reputable (e.g., university) presses.   A candidate should show evidence of professional activity such as presenting at meetings, writing book reviews, and participation in programs aimed at professional/pedagogical development and disseminating research results.  An established national reputation will be measured through positive and supportive external letters.  It can also be measured through editorship or guest editorship of journals, invitations to review manuscripts and grant proposals, invitations to speak at meetings, citations, awards or other meritorious recognition from scientific societies.  Regional campus faculty are not required to receive grants for promotion to Professor.  If they do, this activity should be included in the evaluation of the research agenda.