Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty

The information in this sub-section is supplemental to the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register, and is specific to the CAE.

  1. Overview and General Information for Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty RTP

    1. The role of the College in matters of reappointment, the granting of indefinite tenure, and promotion in rank is defined by policies stated in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement (Addendum A: University Policy Regarding Faculty Promotion (3342-6-15); Addendum B: University Policy Regarding Faculty Tenure (3342-6-14); Addendum C: University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Reappointment (3342-6-16)), and in the Procedures and Policies Governing Review of Faculty directive issued annually by the Provost’s Office.
    2. The Dean shall assign a tenured faculty member as a mentor to each probationary tenure-track candidate upon their initial appointment. The mentor shall be responsible for providing guidance and advice to the candidate regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion policies and processes. The mentor will also provide advice to the candidate to assist in his/her teaching and professional development, and in creating research and publication opportunities.
    3. Faculty are strongly encouraged to seek out institutional resources (e.g., workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.) that are periodically made available by the University to obtain further information regarding faculty professional development, file organization and construction, and research and grant opportunities. 
    4. During a candidate's review period, expectations are defined by the version of the College Handbook that was in place at the beginning of that review period. Candidates may alternatively elect to use the currently approved version as their benchmark for evaluation. In any case, candidates should clearly specify in their file which College Handbook version they are adhering to, and perhaps include copies of relevant pages in their documentation.
    5. Evaluation of tenured/tenure-track faculty shall focus on the areas of teaching, scholarship/research, and service/citizenship. All tenured/tenure-track faculty of the college are expected to achieve excellence in scholarly activity for tenure and promotion advancement. 
    6. The decision to grant tenure plays a crucial role in determining the quality of the CAE faculty and in the perceived status of the College at both the national and international level. Tenure will be awarded only when there is convincing evidence that there is a body of scholarship, high quality teaching, and quality service that suggests continual success in these areas. Promotion is awarded only when there is convincing documented evidence that the candidate’s scholarship has had a significant impact on his or her discipline, high quality teaching and service consistent with faculty assignments. 
  2. Policies and Procedures for Reappointment of Tenure-Track Faculty

    1. General Policies and Procedures for Tenure Promotion

      1. The policies and procedures for reappointment are included, in Section 6-16 (University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Reappointment) of the University Policy Register, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement
      2. Reappointment reviews are conducted annually in accordance with the reappointment and tenure document. Each academic year, reappointment guidelines are distributed by the Office of the Provost. 
      3. Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the College's ad hoc RTP Committee and the Dean. (Refer to Section III.1 (Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty) of this Handbook.)  
      4. Reappointment File
        1. The candidate will develop the reappointment file over time as the basis for the tenure and initial promotion review file. Specific guidelines for the preparation of the file are found in the instructions issued each August by the office of the Provost. 
        2. A candidate for reappointment should consult with the Coordinator or Program Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area as he or she prepares the reappointment files. The Coordinator or Program Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area will provide feedback to the candidate regarding the completeness, organization, and accuracy of the file. The completed file should be submitted via FlashFolio to the Dean for certification of completeness.
        3. Late submission: Candidates who wish to submit their files after the deadline must request and obtain permission in writing from the Dean of the CAE.
      5. The RTP Committee is chaired by the CAE Dean. Each probationary faculty member is discussed by the RTP committee which then votes on the faculty member’s reappointment. The Reappointment committee votes on reappointment recommending: 1) reappointment (without reservations); 2) reappointment with reservations about progress toward tenure; or 3) against reappointment. 
      6. Probationary faculty members will be provided with a summary of the reappointment committee’s recommendation, copies of the RTP committee members’ signed evaluation forms (ballots), and the RTP committee's vote tally, as well as the recommendation of the Dean, according to the time schedule established in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register. The results of the committee’s review will be provided in FlashFolio in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register provisions. 
      7. An informal third-year progress-check review will be conducted immediately following a probationary candidate's third-year review and an RTP reappointment recommendation for reappointment to a fourth year. The RTP committee will use the candidate's third-year tenure file to review the candidate's record to identify overall progress and trends, and will provide the candidate with a summary report identifying strengths, weaknesses, and any areas of concern. The report will also provide prescriptive comments and a course of action to the candidate to serve as constructive feedback. The three-year progress check review is an informal review, and the review report may be included as part of the candidate's tenure evaluation file for subsequent reviews only if it is added to the file by the candidate. The review information may not be used for any purpose other than that granted by the candidate. 
      8. 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 referred to as “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.”  The University policy and procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in policy 6-13 and policy 6-15.2 of the University Policy Register. 
    2. Benchmarks and Criteria for Reappointment

      1. Reappointment of probationary faculty is contingent upon demonstration of satisfactory progress toward the requirements of tenure. The candidate must provide evidence of successful and improving teaching effectiveness, evidence of continued and consistent professional growth, and evidence of a sustained and improving record of scholarship, teaching, and service.  Moreover, the individual must have established and articulated short- and long-term plans for achieving these goals. Progress is to be judged relative to the number of years of service of the candidate and will be based upon the specific criteria for earning tenure.
      2. In the event that concerns about the candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the ad hoc committee and its Chairperson shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. Specific concerns expressed by the ad hoc committee and/or Dean at this juncture of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reviews. 
      3. The overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the individual’s 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 reappointment in the College.
      4. The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of evidence of significant progress in making an impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline, a strong record of teaching, and a record of service commensurate with assignments. The performance criteria used in assessing the quality of scholarship, teaching, and service in the review of faculty seeking reappointment shall conform to the tenure guidelines in this document provided in Section III.1.4.2; Section III.1.4.5.1.a; and by Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B of this Handbook.
  3. Policies and Procedures for Tenure and Promotion

    1. General Policies and Procedures for Tenure Promotion

      1. The policies and procedures for tenure are included in Section 6-14 (University Policy Regarding Faculty Tenure) in the University Policy Register, and in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement.
      2. The policies and procedures for promotion are included in Section 6-15 (University Policy Regarding Faculty Promotion) of the University Policy Register, and in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. 
      3. Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Tenure and promotion are separate decisions. 
      4. Probationary faculty being considered for tenure will create an updated tenure file that is uploaded to FlashFolio and made available to the involved reviewers. The Dean’s office will upload letters of outside reviewers and other required documents to FlashFolio for the candidate’s review. 
      5. A candidate for tenure or promotion should consult with the Coordinator/Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area as he or she prepares the files. The Coordinator/Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area will provide feedback to the candidate regarding the completeness, organization, and accuracy of the file. The completed file should be submitted via FlashFolio to the Dean, who will certify its completeness.
      6. The candidate will develop the tenure or promotion file over time as the basis for the tenure or promotion review file. Specific guidelines for the preparation of the file are found in the instructions issued each August by the Office of the Provost. 
      7. Late submission: Candidates who wish to submit their tenure or promotion file after the deadline must request and obtain permission in writing from the Dean of the CAE.
      8. Each faculty member being considered for tenure or promotion is discussed by the RTP committee which then votes in favor of, or against, tenure or promotion. The RTP committee members will forward their individual committee member ballots/evaluation forms to the Dean via FlashFolio. 
      9. Faculty members who are reviewed for tenure or promotion must be notified of the recommendation by the Dean according to the schedule established in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. The results of the committee’s review will be provided in FlashFolio in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register provisions.
      10. In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the tenure process, the ad hoc RTP Committee and the Dean shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. 
      11. 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
      12. Tenure-Track faculty may apply for early tenure consideration in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register.
      13. Tenured/tenure-track faculty may self-nominate for promotion in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register.
      14. A candidate for tenure or promotion should consult with the Coordinator/Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area as he or she prepares the files. The Coordinator/Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area will provide feedback to the candidate regarding the completeness, organization, and accuracy of the file. The completed file should be submitted via FlashFolio to the Dean, who will certify its completeness.
      15. Each faculty member being considered for tenure or promotion is discussed by the RTP committee which then votes in favor of, or against, tenure or promotion. The RTP committee members will forward their individual committee member ballots/evaluation forms to the Dean via FlashFolio. 
      16. Faculty members who are reviewed for tenure or promotion must be notified of the recommendation by the Dean according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The results of the committee’s review will be provided in FlashFolio in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register provisions.
  4. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

    1. General Benchmarks and Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

      1. There are many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, to be considered in recommending an individual for academic advancement. The criteria to be considered are related to the individual’s performance in the areas of Scholarship, Teaching, and University Citizenship. Because of the diverse nature of the disciplinary backgrounds of the CAE faculty, quantitative differences in the records of successful candidates are expected. It is recognized that the nature of scholarship differs among faculty based upon the norms, opportunities, and expectations of a particular discipline or program area. It is expected that faculty will produce records of scholarship that reflect their disciplinary focus and that the body of work that represents an individual’s scholarly activity will vary according to the faculty member’s role and academic area. 
      2.  A tenure or promotion candidate’s application/review materials must be complete, well-organized, and accurate. The candidate’s application materials must provide proof of any significant accomplishment. Each faculty member seeking tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting their assessment of their record. This obligation will be met by providing specific information about article and journal quality and impact, funding history and plans, and description in the supplementary materials of any other evidence of scholarship, teaching, and citizenship they deem appropriate. In turn, the members of the college’s ad hoc reappointment, tenure and promotion committee and the Dean have the responsibility to evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the college’s expectations for a successful decision. Hence, it is incumbent upon the members of the ad hoc reappointment, tenure and promotion committees, and the Dean, to make their evaluation of the candidate’s record clearly reflect college expectations.
      3. Whereas Tenure is based on projected career development, Promotion is a reward based on accomplishments completed during the review period, where the review period is considered to be the time elapsed since the last promotion. If there has been no previous promotion in the candidate's history, then the review period extends back to the candidate's initial appointment. Awarding of tenure has no effect on the commencement of the review period for promotion.
      4. 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 promotion shall include consideration of the faculty member's 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 College.
      5. Promotion considerations are based upon the criteria for evaluation, described in the subsections below. The ad hoc Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion: 1) Scholarship; 2) Teaching; and 3) University Citizenship. 
      6. The Section III Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B, shown below, provide guidelines for the assessment of a tenured/tenure-track faculty member’s performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates. The same categories and assessment tools apply for both tenure and promotion decisions. The Faculty Performance Standards/Criteria for Tenure and Promotion are shown in Table 3-1. 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 tables should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.
    2. Benchmarks and Criteria for Tenure

      1. 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 scholarly excellence through a significant body of scholarship that has had an impact on her/his discipline, has significant success 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 mission of the candidate’s academic unit(s) and to the mission of the University. The tenure decision is based on evaluation all of the evidence available, including accomplishments prior to appointment at Kent State University, to determine the candidate’s potential for a long-term productive career. 
      2. Evidence of a sustained, productive, and improving record of disseminated scholarship; a sustained and improving record of teaching; and a record of professional public and professional service, are the principal criteria considered in arriving at a recommendation concerning tenure. For specific performance criteria and guidelines for tenure, refer to the indices of scholarship, teaching, and service provided in Section III.1.4.5, and by Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B of this Handbook.  All candidates for early tenure must significantly exceed the requirements specified for on-time tenure.
    3. Benchmarks and Criteria for Promotion to Associate Professor

      1. Promotion to Associate Professor is a reward for establishing a career likely to achieve national/international prominence. Promotion to Associate Professor is recognition based on a candidate’s accomplishments completed during the review period and takes into account the candidate’s scholarly record, teaching, and citizenship/service.
      2. Evidence of a sustained, productive, and improving record of disseminated scholarship; a record of successful and/or improving teaching (for faculty with assigned instructional responsibilities); and demonstrated professional public and professional service, are the principal criteria considered in arriving at a recommendation concerning promotion to Associate Professor. For specific performance criteria and guidelines for promotion to Associate Professor, refer to the indices of scholarship, teaching, and service provided in Section III.1.4.5, and by Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B of this Handbook. All candidates for early promotion to Associate Professor must significantly exceed the requirements specified for on-time promotion.
    4. Benchmarks and Criteria for Promotion to Professor

      1. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor recognizes the highest level of university achievement and is a reward to an individual for bringing their career to national/international prominence. 
      2. Evidence of “Outstanding” scholarship accomplishments; a record of successful and/or improving teaching (for faculty with assigned instructional responsibilities); demonstrated professional public and professional service; and evidence of significant contributions to the candidate’s field of study are the principal criteria considered in arriving at a recommendation concerning promotion to Professor. Evidence for this prominence includes a record of sustained and substantial scholarship, along with prominence in and impact on their field of expertise. 
      3. For additional, specific performance criteria and guidelines for promotion to Professor, refer to the indices of scholarship, teaching, and service provided in Section III.1.4.5, and by Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B of this Handbook. Promotion to Professor requires five years teaching at the rank of Associate Professor, unless otherwise specified. All candidates for early promotion to Professor must significantly exceed the requirements specified for on-time promotion.
    5. Performance Assessment

      1. Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B (shown below) provide a rating scale along with assessment criteria and guidelines used for evaluation of a tenured/tenure-track faculty member’s performance in the areas of Scholarship, Teaching, and University Service. 
        1. Candidates for tenure must have a minimal rating of “Excellent” in Scholarship; a minimal rating of “Very Good” in Teaching; and a minimal rating of “Meets Obligations” in University Citizenship. A candidate applying for early tenure must significantly exceed the performance required for on-time tenure.
        2. Candidates for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor must have a minimal rating of “Excellent” in Scholarship; a minimal rating of “Very Good” in Teaching; and a minimal rating of “Meets Obligations” in University Citizenship. Letters from external reviewers must show substantial support for promotion, and ideally, would indicate that the candidate is recognized as an emerging national/international expert in his/her area of expertise. A candidate applying for early promotion to Associate Professor must significantly exceed the performance required for on-time promotion to Associate Professor.
          The following list exemplifies accomplishments that are highly considered for promotion to Associate Professor. 
          The candidate: 

          ⦁    Has demonstrated a history of exceptional publication quality within a substantial body of scholarship. 
          ⦁    Has obtained extensive and substantive grant awards for nationally competitive extramural research grants as a principal investigator. 
          ⦁    Is recognized as an international/national expert in his/her area of expertise.
          ⦁    Has developed and established new, successful academic programs. 
          ⦁    Has developed and established new, successful research areas/programs.
          ⦁    Has significantly enhanced existing academic programs and research programs.
          ⦁    Has advanced knowledge through original research. 
          ⦁    Has a record of sustained scholarship with a measurable impact on the field.
          ⦁    Has a history of continuous and/or extensive submission of proposals for research.
           
        3. Candidates for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor must have a rating of “Outstanding” in Scholarship; a minimal rating of “Very Good” in Teaching; and a rating of “Exceeds Obligations” in University Citizenship. Letters from external reviewers must show strong support for promotion, and ideally, would indicate that the candidate is recognized as an established national/international expert in his/her area of expertise. A candidate applying for early promotion to Professor must significantly exceed the performance required for on-time promotion to Professor.
          The following list exemplifies accomplishments that are highly considered for promotion to Professor. 
          The candidate: 

          ⦁    Has demonstrated a history of exceptional publication quality within a substantial body of scholarship. 
          ⦁    Has obtained extensive and substantive grant awards for nationally competitive extramural research grants as a principal investigator. 
          ⦁    Is recognized as an international/national expert in his/her area of expertise.
          ⦁    Has developed and established new, successful academic programs. 
          ⦁    Has developed and established new, successful research areas/programs.
          ⦁    Has significantly enhanced existing academic programs and research programs.
          ⦁    Has advanced knowledge through original research. 
          ⦁    Has a record of sustained scholarship with a measurable impact on the field.
          ⦁    Has a history of continuous and/or extensive submission of proposals for research.
           
      2. The activities provided on the various “Criteria for Evaluation” tables are not meant to be an exhaustive list or mandatory checklist. It is recognized that some individuals may have valid accomplishments that should be considered that are not listed in the tables. 
      3. Candidates for tenure and promotion should consult most closely with their initial letters of appointment, their letters of reappointment, the CAE Faculty Handbook, their Academic Program Director, and their senior faculty colleagues for guidance on specific requirements and expectations. 
      4. The performance expectations for tenure and promotion do not apply identically across all faculty members in the College. Some faculty have appointments in which the scholarly expectations involve primarily traditional academic publications, while others will receive appointments in which the scholarly expectations involve primarily professional and/or applied accomplishment. Also, grant-writing expectations will vary depending on the availability of extramural funding in the faculty members’ areas of specialization. 
      5. For all candidates for tenure and promotion, the College considers three broad categories of work: scholarship, teaching and service, but definitions, particularly of scholarship, will vary some from discipline to discipline. Initial letters of appointment and letters of reappointment always take precedence over the College Handbook for purposes of tenure and promotion decisions.
      6. The ad hoc review committee and the Dean may provide a positive recommendation for advancement in those cases where a candidate displays an exceptionally high level of accomplishment in some matters that outweighs lesser accomplishments in other areas. 
         

        Table 3-1. Faculty Performance Standards/Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

        Category

        Minimum Required Performance

        Scholarship

        Teaching

        University Citizenship

        Tenure

        Excellent

        Very Good

        Meets Obligations

        Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor

        Excellent

        Very Good

        Meets Obligations

        Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor

        Outstanding

        Very Good

        Exceeds Obligations

    6. Scholarship

      1. Scholarship includes the process of creating and disseminating new research-based knowledge within the candidate’s field or a closely related field. Scholarship also includes the creation and dissemination of new and multi-disciplinary knowledge that extends beyond the traditional boundaries of their discipline. It also involves the rethinking of current knowledge in order to present new understandings or interpretation of theoretical and practical information that exists in their field. 
      2. 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 tenure or promotion candidate shall submit to the Dean the names of at least three experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. Recommended reviewers must be approved and contacted by the Dean and other reviewers may be added by the Dean in accordance with University policy. 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 number and size of grants received and in the scope and time required for research and the resulting publications. 
      3. In addition to funded research and scholarly publications, 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 and grant funded research. Faculty members are encouraged 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. 
      4. Journals and other peer-reviewed publications and presentations are evaluated based on their scope and reputation, and on the refereeing process to which submissions are subjected. Candidates for tenure and promotion must describe how the peer review takes place and the competitiveness of the forum reviewing the work.
      5. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship
        1. The evaluation components for the assessment of scholarship for tenure and promotion are shown in Table 3-2A. All tenured/tenure track faculty of the College are expected to demonstrate excellence in scholarship by achieving at a minimum an “Excellent” rating in the scholarship category. The indicators used to assess the quality of scholarly activity are provided in Table 3-2B. 
        2. Table 3-2B provides a list of the scholarly activities recognized by the CAE that should be used as criteria for evaluating a candidate's performance in scholarship for tenure or promotion.
        3. Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s research record include the quality and quantity of published work as well as the faculty member’s success in obtaining extramural funds. All faculty members in the College 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.
        4. To achieve an “Excellent” or “Outstanding” rating in the category of the scholarship at the time a faculty member stands for tenure and promotion, he/she should have established a record which demonstrates an impact upon his/her discipline. Within this context, each 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 their scholarly activities including such things as: article and journal quality and impact; funding history and plans; and/or a description in the faculty member’s materials of any other evidence of scholarship that the faculty member deems appropriate. In turn, the members of the College's ad hoc RTP Committee and the Dean shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the College's expectations for a successful tenure or promotion decision. 
      1. Table 3-2A Performance Levels for Assessment of Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion


        Table 3-2A. Performance Levels for Assessment of Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion

        Level

         

        Scholarship

        Outstanding

        Definition: Nationally/Internationally acclaimed scholarship. 

         

        Accomplishments: During the candidate’s review period, meets all of the following criteria.

         

        1) At least five peer-reviewed publications in the discipline. At least two instances must be in a peer-reviewed journal.1

         

        2) At least one significant externally-funded grant (funding, equipment, software, in-kind support, etc.) 1

         

        3) At least two poster/oral presentations at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

        4) Completes at least 40 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least 15 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        5) Possesses the terminal degree, as defined in Appendix A (Required/Terminal Degrees) of this Handbook, in the candidate’s primary academic program area or in an appropriately-related field.

        Outstanding

        Definition: Nationally/Internationally acclaimed scholarship. 

         

        Accomplishments: During the candidate’s review period, meets all of the following criteria.

         

        1) At least five peer-reviewed publications in the discipline. At least two instances must be in a peer-reviewed journal.1

         

        2) At least one significant externally-funded grant (funding, equipment, software, in-kind support, etc.) 1

         

        3) At least two poster/oral presentations at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

        4) Completes at least 40 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least 15 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        5) Possesses the terminal degree, as defined in Appendix A (Required/Terminal Degrees) of this Handbook, in the candidate’s primary academic program area or in an appropriately-related field.

        Very Good

        Definition: Emerging nationally recognized scholarship.

         

        Accomplishments: Meets all of the following criteria.

         

        1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: At least three peer-reviewed publications in the discipline. At least one instance must be in a peer-reviewed journal.1

         

        1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: At least one peer-reviewed journal publication in the discipline.1

         

        2) At least one significant externally-funded grant proposal (funding, equipment, software, in-kind support, etc.) 1

         

        3A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: At least one poster/oral presentation at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

         

        3B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: At least one poster/oral presentation at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

         

        4A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        4B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least three instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        5) Possession of the terminal degree, as defined in Appendix A (Required/Terminal Degrees) of this Handbook, in the candidate’s primary academic program area or in an appropriately-related field.

        Good

        Definition: Active scholarship.

        Accomplishments: Meets all of the following criteria.

         

        1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: At least two peer-reviewed publications in the discipline. At least one instance must be in a peer-reviewed journal.1

         

        1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: At least one peer-reviewed publication in the discipline.1

         

        2) At least one significant externally-funded grant proposal (funding, equipment, software, in-kind support, etc.) 1

         

        3A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: At least one poster/oral presentation at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

         

        3B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: At least one poster/oral presentation at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

         

        4A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 15 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least three instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        4B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least eight instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least two instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        5) Possession of the terminal degree, as defined in Appendix A (Required/Terminal Degrees) of this Handbook, in the candidate’s primary academic program area or in an appropriately-related field.

         

        Weak

        Definition: Limited scholarship.

         

        Accomplishments: Meets all of the following criteria.

         

        1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Only one peer-reviewed publication in the discipline. 1

         

        1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Only one peer-reviewed publication in the discipline.1

         

        2) One or less significant externally-funded grant proposal (funding, equipment, software, in-kind support, etc.) 1

         

        3A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Only one poster/oral presentations at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

         

        3B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: One or less poster/oral presentation at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

         

        4A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least two instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        4B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least five instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least one instance of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        5) Possession of the terminal degree, as defined in Appendix A (Required/Terminal Degrees) of this Handbook, in the candidate’s primary academic program area or in an appropriately-related field.

         

        Poor

        Definition:  No scholarship.

        Accomplishments: Does not meet all of the criteria for the “Weak” level of Scholarship


        1Exceptions may be granted to those faculty whose primary responsibilities are in the Air Traffic Control, Aviation Management, Aviation Human Factors, or Aviation Safety academic areas.

      2. Table 3-2B Criteria for Evaluation of Performance in Scholarship

        1. Table 3-2B. Criteria for Evaluation of Performance in Scholarship
           

          CAE Guidelines

          Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

          Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty

           

          Scholarship

           

          Reviewers will base their evaluation upon the documented degree of excellence achieved in Scholarship for those activities that are related to the applicant’s discipline. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics.

           

          It is the responsibility of the candidate to demonstrate the significance of their scholarly efforts and activities. Documentation of those efforts should demonstrate the degree of application to Scholarship such as the impact on the profession or discipline, professional growth, etc.  It is the candidate’s responsibility to identify the nature and importance of an activity, their role in the activity, and their level of participation and contribution to the activity. For publications and presentations, the candidate should describe the importance of the organization/group involved, the publication medium, and/or the meeting forum.  For peer-reviewed items the candidate should describe the peer-review venue/forum and should describe the review process, the review panel composition, the number of articles received, and the number of articles accepted. For research efforts, the candidate should describe the significance and importance of their research.

           

          The activities listed below are not all-inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are relevant.

           

           

          Viewed as Exemplary:
           

          • Membership as a board member, officer, official, or consultant in professional standards, regulatory, or advisory organizations
          • Refereed/peer-reviewed papers published in the highest-tier journals in the discipline
          • Refereed/peer-reviewed papers published in the middle-tier journals in the discipline
          • Refereed/peer-reviewed papers published in the proceedings of highest-tier conferences/symposiums in the discipline
          • Refereed/peer-reviewed papers published in the proceedings of middle-tier conferences/symposiums in discipline
          • Authorship of a professional/scientific/technical book
          • Authorship of chapter(s) in a professional/scientific/technical book
          • Professional experience (e.g. consulting, paid or unpaid) related to the discipline
          • Membership by invitation in professional/scientific honor societies
          • Awarding of a patent within one's discipline
          • Establishment of a nationally/internationally recognized research program
          • Extramural/externally funded research or development grants; research or development seed grants
          • Research-related service to national, international, or regional organizations
          • Awards, recognition from national and international professional or scientific societies
          • Impact of scholarship in the profession as measured through an exceptional level of citations of published work
          • Membership as a board member, officer, official, or consultant in professional standards, regulatory, or advisory organizations
          • Chief editor of a professional or scientific journal or monograph
          • Panel moderator/director at a professional conference or meeting
          • Commercialization of a product or services related to one’s discipline
          • Leader and major contributor in establishing a new academic program
          • Leader and major contributor in establishing a nationally/internationally recognized research area/program
          • Leader and major contributor for the initial accreditation of an academic program
          • Keynote speaker at a professional conference/symposium/meeting
          • Advising/directing students in graduate research
          • Advising or sponsoring student design or engineering efforts in regional, national, or international competitions
          • Integration of new and emerging knowledge, technology, or methods into research or curriculum
          • Invited or refereed/peer-reviewed presentations or posters at professional or scholarly meetings, conferences, symposiums, or other forums
             


          Viewed as Favorable:
           

          • Authorship of non-refereed items publications such as technical reports, contractor reports, white papers, etc.
          • Book review of technical/professional/scientific books
          • Contributions to non-refereed professional newsletters, websites, blogs, and other forums
          • Unfunded grant proposals (including RFPs)
          • Pending grant proposals (including RFPs)
          • Awarding of patents outside one's discipline
          • Textbook reviewer or author of supplemental materials for an existing textbook
          • Papers published in the lower-tier journals in the discipline
          • Papers, articles, professional publications, and other scholarly publications in the discipline (non-refereed)
          • Editing a refereed journal, or reviewer of refereed journal articles or monographs
          • Advising students who present at Kent State University undergraduate or graduate research symposiums
          • Advising students who present at student national or regional conferences
          • Advising/directing students in undergraduate research
          • Advising students who present at Kent State University undergraduate or graduate research symposiums
          • Advising students who present at international, national, or regional conferences/symposiums
          • Advising/directing students in undergraduate research
          • Research or consulting partnerships with business, government, or industry that are discipline related
          • Significant participation in establishing a new academic program
          • Significant participation in establishing a nationally/internationally recognized research area/program
          • Significant participation in the initial accreditation of an academic program
          • Research-related service to state or local organizations
          • Impact of scholarship in the profession as measured through a significant level of citations of published work
          • Submitted papers/publications pending acceptance
          • Advising or sponsoring student design or engineering efforts in state or local competitions
          • Technical presentations at other departments or institutions
          • Non-refereed/non-peer reviewed presentations or posters presented at professional or scholarly meetings, conferences, symposiums, or other forums


          Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:
           

          • Minimal activity with respect to scholarship
          • Poorly explained and/or poorly documented citations of any scholarly activity
          • Articles submitted for review but not accepted or in print
          • Scholarship in areas not related to discipline/assignment

           

          Notes on Scholarly Activities:

          • Publications include: papers in refereed/peer-reviewed journals of recognized quality, peer-reviewed conference proceedings, 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 increased recognition. 

           

          • “Grants” refers to extramural funding where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated and which are of sufficient magnitude to support research at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline. Grant support includes funding, software, equipment, materials, supplies, and personnel (graduate students, research technicians and/or post-doctoral associates).  “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.” Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of research with the recognition that the dollar amount of awards varies among fields.  Faculty should identify their portion of the grant funding/support received for any grants that are awarded to multiple recipients.  

           

          • Recognitions from scientific societies 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.

           

          • Forthcoming and in-press works may be considered as part of the evaluation of a candidate’s work for tenure.
             
          • Integration refers to assimilating the emerging knowledge/technology in a new manner, using it in a new way, thereby contributing to new knowledge and new scholarship which must be demonstrated in the record.
    7. Teaching

      1. Teaching involves activities that promote the development of effective strategies to better communicate information to students. Teaching involves planning and examination of pedagogical techniques, dissemination of such information in peer-reviewed contexts (e.g. publications in refereed journals, juried papers or conference presentations, juried proceedings and/or abstracts), as well as the act of teaching itself.
      2. Candidates for reappointment will be expected to demonstrate strong commitment to and growth in their teaching skill through the duration of their probationary years. Candidates for tenure and promotion will be expected to demonstrate a mature level of competence and effectiveness in teaching. 
      3. Evidence of the commitment to competence and effectiveness in teaching could include such things as development of a broad teaching repertoire, course revisions, new courses developed, innovative use of instructional technology, attending conferences and workshops on teaching, seeking peer mentoring, mentoring students, etc. Peer reviews must be a part of the submitted record of candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the candidate’s Academic Program Area or College, or from University administrators, shall be considered when available. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant material should be available for review.
      4. Standards for the Evaluation of Teaching  
        1. The performance levels for the assessment of teaching for tenure and promotion are shown in Table 3-3A. All tenured/tenure track faculty of the College are expected to achieve a minimum of a “Very Good” rating in the teaching category. The indicators used to assess the quality of teaching activity are provided in Table 3-3B.
        2. Table 3-3B provides a list of the teaching activities recognized by the CAE that should be used as criteria for evaluating a candidate's performance in teaching for tenure or promotion.
      1. Table 3-3A Performance Levels for Assessment of Teaching for Promotion and Tenure

        Level

        Teaching

         

        Outstanding

        Definition:  Outstanding teacher; provides leadership in instructional development.

        Accomplishments:  During the candidate’s review period, meets the following criteria.

         

        1) Completes at least 50 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least 25 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        Excellent

        Definition:  Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development.

        Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

        1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 40 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least 20 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least 10 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

        Very Good

        Definition:  Innovative teacher.

        Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

        1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 30 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least 15 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 15 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least eight instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        Good

        Definition:  Meets teaching obligations well.

        Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

        1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least 10 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

        Weak

        Definition:  Substandard teacher.

         

        Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

        1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least five instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least three instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

        Poor

        Definition:  Substandard, ineffective teacher.

        Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

        1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes less than 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), and/or less than five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes less than five instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), and/or less than three instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

      2. Table 3-3B Criteria for Evaluation of Performance in Teaching

        CAE Guidelines

        Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

        Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty

         

        Teaching

         

        Reviewers will base their evaluation upon the documented degree of excellence achieved in Teaching for those activities that are related to the applicant’s discipline. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics.

         

        It is the responsibility of the candidate to demonstrate the impact of their teaching efforts and activities. Documentation of those efforts should identify the nature and importance of an activity, their role in the activity, and their level of participation and contribution to the activity.

         

        The activities listed below are not all-inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are relevant.

         

        Viewed as Exemplary:

        • Recipient of University or external teaching award
        • Nominee for University or external teaching award
        • Consistently exceptional peer reviews of instruction based on actual classroom observation
        • Achieving significant improvements in teaching based upon peer review of instruction comments and feedback
        • Innovation in pedagogy and/or use of technology for teaching
        • Authorship of a new course or a major revision to an existing course
        • Leadership in creation of a new degree, major, or concentration area
        • Initiation and pursuit of a successful grant application resulting in funding of lab development, equipment, software, or other instructional/research items
        • Teaching an exceptional breadth and/or variety of courses
        • Course preparations and/or new course development requiring a significant learning curve
        • Course preparations and/or new course development requiring substantial creation of new course materials
        • Development of online learning tutorials
        • Developing research projects for students
        • Instructional creativity
        • Leadership in curricular revisions
        • Extensive lab development
        • Authorship in pedagogical research in peer-reviewed publications
        • Adaptation of innovative technologies, instructional tools, or teaching methods in the classroom
        • Extensive upgrade or acquisition of academic or professional credentials (Including advanced degrees, certifications, licensures, etc.)
        • Introduction of emerging subjects/materials into courses and curricula
        • Direction of an undergraduate student research project that leads to student presentation or publication
        • Establishment of regional, national, or international alliances in the field or discipline
        • Training program development
        • Directing a thesis, Honors project, or dissertation
        • Supervision of graduate students assigned as research assistants
        • Supervision of culminating experience or capstone course work

         

        Viewed as Favorable:

        • Thoughtful statement of teaching philosophy and self-assessment
        • Favorable peer reviews of instruction based on actual classroom observation.
        • Evidence of responding to an unfavorable peer review of instruction resulting in course and/or teaching improvement
        • Nomination for, or recipient of, campus teaching award; Nomination for University or external teaching award
        • Effective innovation in pedagogy and/or use of technology
        • Active participant in the redesign or restructuring of a degree, major, or concentration
        • Development of a new certificate program
        • Lab development or management
        • Serving on a thesis, Honors project, or dissertation committee
        • Maintenance of professional credentials (certifications, licensures, etc.) as evidence of maintaining currency
        • Professional development (attending courses, conferences, workshops, webinars, internships; obtaining new certifications or licensures, etc.)
        • Courses taught via distance learning
        • Courses taught for the first time, or that require significant revision, modification, and/or preparation
        • Actively participating in curricular revisions
        • Establishment of state or local alliances in the field or discipline
        • Training program, webinar, workshop, or seminar instruction

         

        Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

        • No statement of teaching philosophy or self-assessment
        • Unimpressive peer reviews of instruction
        • No evidence of responding to an unfavorable peer review of instruction: no evidence of improvement in class management, course content/design, or teaching method.
        • Lack of representative syllabi and other supporting documentation
        • Poorly explained and/or appropriately documented citations in any teaching activities; No evidence (or poorly documented evidence) of curricular activity or leadership
        • Poorly documented activities and/or accomplishments

         

        Notes on Teaching Activities:

        Application of new/emerging technologies refers to mastering emerging technologies and utilizing them in the classroom for pedagogical purposes or for lecture material

         

    8. University/Professional Citizenship

      1. A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the candidate’s Academic Program Area, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Tables 3-4A and 3-4B. The merits of University Citizenship 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 Academic Program Area events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, Academic Program Area meetings and seminars, etc.
      2. Being an active and useful citizen of the Academic Program Area, 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.
      1. Table 3-4A Performance Levels for Assessment of University Citizenship for Tenure and Promotion

        Level

        University Citizenship

        Exceeds Obligation

        Definition:  Significant role in school, college, and/or university service.  Significant role in academic, professional, and scientific communities and associations at international, national, state, and local levels.

        Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

         

        1) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments, promotion to Associate Professor, or promotion to Professor:

        Completes at least 40 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), to include at least 20 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        2) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor:

        Completes at least 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), to include at least 10 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        Note: The “instances” in the University Citizenship area are defined on a semester basis (Fall/Spring/Summer).

        Meets Obligation

        Definition:  Active involvement in school, college, and/or university service.   Active involvement in academic and professional communities and professional associations at international, national, state, and local levels.

        Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria. 

        1) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor, or promotion to Professor:

        Completes at least 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), to include at least 10 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        2) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor:

        Completes at least 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), to include at least five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

        Note: The “instances” in the University Citizenship area are defined on a semester basis (Fall/Spring/Summer).

        Does Not Meet Obligations

        Definition:  Does not actively participate in service activities or minimal record of involvement in service activities. Fails to follow-through on assigned obligations.

        Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria. 

        1) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor, or promotion to Professor:

        Completes less than 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), and/or less than 10 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        2) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor:

        Completes less than 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), and/or less than five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

         

        Note: The “instances” in the University Citizenship area are defined on a semester basis (Fall/Spring/Summer).

         

         

        Note: Other components of citizenship 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 College. Leadership and participation in learned societies and professional organizations are reviewed as part of one's citizenship record. 

      2. Table3-4B Criteria for Evaluation of Performance In University Service

        CAE Guidelines

        Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

        Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty

         

        University Citizenship

         

        Reviewers will base their evaluation upon the documented degree of excellence achieved in University Citizenship for service activities. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics.

         

        It is the responsibility of the candidate to demonstrate the impact of their citizenship/service efforts and activities. Documentation of those efforts should identify the nature and importance of an activity, their role in the activity, and their level of participation and contribution to the activity, along with a description of the forum and/or entities involved. 

         

        The activities listed below are not all-inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are relevant.

         

        Viewed as Exemplary:

        • Committee membership acclaim/citations, accompanied by documentation of candidate's contributions, accomplishments, leadership roles, etc. 
        • Service awards from organizations within the field of discipline
        • Leadership in planning/organizing a campus recruiting event
        • Leadership role in successful internship and/or co-op and/or practicum programs
        • Organization of a professional conference at a regional or state level; serving as a section chair or higher at a regional, national, or international conference
        • Participation in community development activities and grants integrated with one’s discipline
        • Organization of consortia to articulate with and perpetuate one’s program or discipline
        • Office held in an organization related to the discipline at the regional, national, or international level
        • Establishment of professional or scientific alliances
        • Membership as a board member or officer/official in academic, professional, or scientific societies/organizations
        • Membership as a board member, officer, official, or consultant in government regulatory or advisory bodies
        • University-level committee, commission, or board membership
        • College-level committee chair
        • Leadership on university, college, and academic program area committees and boards
        • Leadership to the professional community and professional associations at the international, national, or regional level
        • Holding office as part of the executive board of professional or scientific associations at the international, national, or regional level
        • Leadership in professional committees and working groups at the international, national, or regional level
        • Advising a student organization related to one's discipline (e.g., a student chapter of a professional organization)

         

        Viewed as Favorable:

        • Publication of discipline-related, non-refereed articles in magazines, newspapers, web sites, blogs, etc. that are provided for the general public
        • Presentations for service or professional organizations outside of area of expertise
        • Active and regular participation in successful internship and/or co-op and/or practicum programs
        • Projects integrating and engaging students with businesses, industry, or government
        • Advising a student organization outside of one's discipline
        • Participation on advisory boards
        • Participation in campus/program recruiting events
        • Participation in campus/program marketing initiatives, e.g., creation/design of marketing materials
        • Participation in the integration of community with program activities
        • Office held in an organization related to the discipline at the state or local level
        • Membership in professional or scientific organizations/societies
        • Student retention and recruiting activities
        • College-level and/or Division-level administrative positions held
        • College-level committee membership
        • Academic Division-level ad hoc committee membership
        • Active participation on university, college, and academic program area committees and boards
        • Service awards from organizations outside the field of discipline
        • Significant participation in successful internship and/or co-op and/or practicum programs
        • Discipline-related presentations in public forums
        • Organizing University forums or exhibits
        • Active participation in noteworthy events
        • Participation on university, college, and academic program area committees and boards
        • Participation on professional committees and working groups
        • Holding office as part of the executive board of professional or scientific associations at the state or local level
        • Leadership to the professional community and professional associations at the state or local level
        • Leadership to professional committees and working groups at the state or local level

         

        Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

        • Minimal activity with respect to University Citizenship
        • Poorly documented citations in any University Citizenship activities; citations without evidence of candidate's contributions, accomplishments, leadership roles
        • Publication of non-refereed minor newspaper articles, letters to the editor, blogs, op-eds, etc.
        • No evidence of exemplary performance
  5. Search and Initial Appointment of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty

    1. Procedures for Search and Initial Appointment

      1. The CAE Dean or his/her designee and the Provost are responsible for identifying the faculty positions to be filled. The CAC will be consulted concerning faculty position needs. The CAE Dean, or his/her designee, with concurrence of the Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director of the applicable Academic Program Area and CAE faculty from the applicable programmatic area, determine the specific qualifications and requirements for the position. These are then incorporated in a Position Request Authorization (PRA) for the Provost’s approval.
      2. The Provost and the CAE Dean will authorize appropriate notices, as approved by the Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director of the applicable Academic Program Area and CAE faculty from the programmatic area, to appear in university job postings and appropriate professional publications and job sites. The starting minimum qualifications, position requirements and responsibilities, application deadlines and materials to be submitted will be identified in the notices. Efforts will be made to secure a diverse pool of applicants.
      3. The CAE Dean or his/her designee will appoint a Search Committee and its chair. The committee will be composed of at least four faculty (a majority of who are CAE faculty) and one representative appointed by the Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director of the applicable Academic Program Area.
      4. The CAE Dean or his/her designee will convene the Search Committee and present its charge. At this meeting, the Search Committee will discuss the specific qualifications required of candidates based on the job posting, procedures for reviewing applications, and the University’s commitment to Affirmative Action. The Search Committee may also agree on a checklist of criteria (weighted according to importance) being sought in the candidates.
      5. Once the application deadline has passed, or while a job posting listed as “Open Until Filled” is still active, the Search Committee will review the applications to determine whether each candidate meets the minimum qualifications for the position.
      6. The Search Committee then will review the eligible applications and establish a pool of up to 15 candidates. The applicable Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director will be invited to review the list. The Search Committee will then recommend approximately three candidates for interviews. The Dean's Office will notify those applicants who have not been included in the pool of candidates.
      7. Prior to the visits, the Search Committee will organize and publicize the itineraries, compose a uniform checklist of questions to be asked of each candidate, and prepare evaluation sheets for faculty and students to record impressions during the interviews.
      8. Each candidate’s visit should include the following: a teaching demonstration (if appropriate); a presentation related to his or her research activities; and separate interviews with the Search Committee and the CAE Dean or his/her designee, as appropriate. Meetings with graduate and undergraduate students are recommended, as well as meetings with potential research partners.
      9. Following the on-campus interviews, the Search Committee will submit to the Dean of the CAE a list of the qualified candidates with accompanying summaries of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
      10. The Dean of the CAE will choose and negotiate with the candidate. 
      11. Throughout the process, the activities of the Search Committee and of all administrative officers will be conducted with scrupulous respect for the privacy of all applicants; and, to the extent permitted by Ohio law, rules of strict confidentiality apply to all deliberations and actions involved in the hiring process. 
      12. When a candidate has accepted an offer, the Dean of the CAE will announce to the Faculty Organization the results of the search. 
    2. Criteria for Initial Appointment

      Recommended criteria for Initial Appointments into tenured/tenure-track assignments are provided in Appendix A of this document.