Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions | Computer Science Handbook | Kent State University

Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions

  1. Reappointment

    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 one or more tenured faculty members to visit the classes of each probationary faculty member and generally evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance. A written peer review is 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 the Departmental ballots and 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. This progress can be evaluated through review of the candidate’s published (or “accepted for publication”) peer reviewed papers and articles, including an assessment of the quality of the publication and / or the impact of the article using citation indexes appropriate to the field; grant activity (proposals submitted, grants received); graduate students advised; teaching evaluations and peer reviews; university and professional service; and other professional activity. Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and / or the Chair 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 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.

    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, 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 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. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-13)

  2. Tenure and Promotion

    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.

    Both the tenure decision and the promotion decision can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at Kent State University. These evaluations can include review of the candidate’s published (or “accepted for publication”) peer reviewed papers and articles, including an assessment of the quality of the publication and / or the impact of the article using citation indexes appropriate to the field; grant activity (proposals submitted, grants received); graduate students advised; teaching evaluations and peer reviews; university and professional service; and other professional activity.

    Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for tenure and promotion. 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 Department.

    Tenure and promotion are separate decisions. The tenure decision is based on all of the evidence available to determine the candidate’s potential to pursue a productive career that will likely result in eventual promotion to full Professor in the Department and will contribute to the development of the Department. The promotion decision, in contrast, is recognition based only on a candidate’s accomplishments to date.

    1. Tenure

      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 tenure decision is based on all of the evidence available to determine the candidate’s potential to pursue a productive career that will likely result in eventual promotion to full Professor in the Department and will contribute to the development of the Department.

      As such, the awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the faculty member has achieved a significant body of scholarship that is likely to have an impact on her / his discipline and that will ultimately result in the establishment of a nationally and internationally recognized research program (Level I in Table 5), demonstrated effectiveness as a teacher and mentor (Level II in Table 6), and meeting the normal obligations for university service (Level II in Table 7). The candidate should also be likely 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.

    2. Promotion

      Separate from the tenure decision, promotion is recognition based on a candidate’s accomplishments to date. Promotion to Associate Professor recognizes an emerging nationally or internationally recognized research program (Level II in Table 5), as evidenced by a demonstrated record of publications, grant activity, and professional service. For promotion to Associate Professor, the faculty member must also have demonstrated effectiveness as a teacher and mentor (Level II in Table 6), and must have met the normal obligations for university citizenship (Level II in Table 7).

      Promotion to Professor recognizes the establishment of a nationally and internationally recognized research program that has had an impact on the field (Level I in Table 5). A candidate for promotion to Professor must also have demonstrated effectiveness as a teacher and mentor (Level II in Table 6), and must have met the normal obligations for university citizenship (Level II in Table 7).

  3. Evaluation Criteria for Scholarship, Teaching, and University Citizenship

    1. Scholarship

      Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity, and the originality, quality, impact and value of the candidate’s scholarship must be assessed. To facilitate this assessment, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his / her scholarly activity. The candidate must also submit the names of at least five (5) experts in her / his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. The Chair must then solicit, from the candidate’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee, a ranked list of at least three (3) experts in the candidate’s field who are considered capable of judging his / her work. The candidate must be given the opportunity to review the list from the Ad Hoc RTP Committee, and express any concerns he / she may have over particular people on this list. The Chair will then solicit reviews from at least three (3) experts on the candidate’s list and at least two (2) experts from the top three on the Ad Hoc RTP Committee’s list.

      Evaluation 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. Since the attributes of scholarly activity may vary across disciplines, the candidate’s specific area of specialization may be a factor in the venues in which papers or articles are published; in the scope and time required for research and the resulting publications; and in the number and size of grants received. The external reviews are crucial for evaluating the appropriate scholarly activity for the candidate’s specific area.

      In addition to scholarly publications and funded research, other scholarly activities should be considered. These may include, but are not limited to: serving on grant review panels, journal editorial boards, or conference program committees; chairing or serving on conference organizing or steering committees; and chairing or serving on committees or councils of professional societies or government agencies. These activities complement scholarly publications and funded research and are in addition to the normal faculty expectations such as holding membership in professional societies, staying current in the field, and other activities to enhance professional competency.

      Different levels of scholarly activity are summarized in Table 5. The last column in this table summarizes the amount and type of activity typically required to reach each level, and may be useful to the candidate as a guide. However, candidates are cautioned that promotion decisions are based on the outcomes specified in the first column, not on the amount of activity expended.

      Table 5. Kent Campus: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure

      Level

      Scholarship

      Typical Activities

      I

      Nationally and internationally recognized research program

      Sustained record of publications1, grant activity2, and professional service3

      II

      Emerging nationally or internationally recognized research program

      Demonstrated record of publications1, grant activity2, and professional service3

      III

      Active research program

      Regular publications or grant activity

      IV

      Limited research program

      Occasional publications or grant activity

      V

      No research program

      No publications or grant activity

      1Publications include journal articles, conference / symposium / workshop papers, books, book chapters, monographs, technical reports, posters, etc. Evaluation of a candidate’s publication record should consider (1) the type of publications common to the candidate’s discipline; (2) the quality of the publications (including the method of review, venue, sponsoring society, acceptance rate, or ranking if available); and / or (3) the recognition received for the specific publication (e.g., best paper awards, citation indexes appropriate to the field, for example Google Scholar or the ACM Digital Library).

      2Grant activity refers to submitting grant proposals or receiving grants. Grants refer to extramural funding where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated. Grants may include funding from Federal, State, or local government agencies, foundations, or industry. Grants may support students, postdocs, faculty salary, equipment, travel, or other items. Grants may support the candidate’s research or teaching, or may fund scholarships or infrastructure improvements. Grants may or may not include full Indirect Costs (“overhead”). Evaluation of a candidate’s funding record should consider (1) the availability and type of funding common to the candidate’s discipline; (2) the size and type of grants received and the candidate’s role in securing the funding; and (3) any unsuccessful attempts by the candidate to secure funding.

      3Professional service includes serving on formal grant review panels, journal editorial boards, or conference program committees; reviewing grant proposals, articles, papers, or other publications; chairing or serving on conference organizing / steering committees; and chairing or serving on committees / boards / councils of professional societies or government agencies. Activities such as holding membership in professional societies, reading scholarly publications in the field, attending conferences, or other activities to enhance professional competency are considered part of a faculty member’s normal professional activity and are not considered as professional service.

       

    2. Teaching

      Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 6. Evaluation is based on three main activities: 1) classroom teaching and instruction, 2) course and curriculum development, and 3) student mentoring.

      Classroom teaching and instruction is mainly evaluated using peer reviews, student evaluations, and developed teaching materials. Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction are to 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 of innovative teaching methods can be included for review.

      Activities that involve making substantial modification to a course or part of the curriculum are to be considered. Examples include, but are not limited to developing a new course, developing new lab materials, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content / format, etc. Documentation of taking a leadership role on curricular changes and implementing such changes can be included for review.

      Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training should be included in materials provided by the candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. A list of graduated and current students along with supervised individual studies, honors thesis, thesis, and dissertations should be included for review.

      Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Department, College or University administrators shall be considered when available.

      Table 6. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure

      Level

      Teaching

      Typical Activities

      I

      Effective teacher, effective mentor, and provides leadership in educational activities

      Very good4 student and peer perceptions; regularly supervising graduate student research projects, theses, dissertations; demonstrated leadership in teaching innovations, course development, or curriculum development

      II

      Effective teacher and mentor

      Good4 student and peer perceptions; supervising graduate or undergraduate student research projects, theses, or dissertations

      III

      Meets obligations well

      Good4 student and peer perceptions

      IV

      Substandard teacher

      Fair4 student and peer perceptions

      V

      Substandard, ineffective teacher

      Poor4 student and peer perceptions; pattern of complaints for ineffective teaching


      4When measured by a Student Survey of Instruction (SSI) with a Likert scale of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor.

       

    3. University Citizenship

      A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Table 7. The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) the role of the candidate in that service 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, 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.

      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.

      Table 7. Assessment of University Citizenship for promotion and tenure

      Level

      University Citizenship

      Typical Activities

      I

      Exceeds normal 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, or meaningful public outreach

      II

      Meets normal obligations

      Meets the normal Department / Campus obligations

      III

      Does not meet obligations

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


       

       

  4. Renewal of Appointment and Third-year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty

    1. Renewal of Appointment

      Appointments for full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually. Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position.

    2. Third-Year Full Performance Review

      The NTT CBA provides that bargaining unit members who have received appointments for three consecutive academic years shall be subject to a full performance review during the third year of appointment before a fourth annual appointment can be anticipated or authorized. These materials should be submitted by the deadline specified in the procedures and timelines established by the University, as annually distributed through the Office of Faculty Affairs. This deadline is normally in the latter half of January.

      In accordance with recommendations in the CBA, the following guidelines are provided to assist NTT faculty in the Department of Computer Science in the preparation of the documentation to be submitted for the Three-Year Review.

      Normally, the Three-Year Review file will include the following suggested items:

      • A self-evaluation providing an assessment of the candidate's teaching during the period under review, as well as the candidate's performance of other responsibilities, if any;
      • An up-to-date curriculum vita;
      • The syllabi for courses taught during the period under review;
      • The Evaluation Summaries of Student Evaluations of Instruction (SE1) - Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) for all courses taught during the period under review.
      • Peer reviews of instruction during the review period by at least three faculty, one of which should be a tenured or tenure-track faculty

      At his / her discretion, the NTT faculty may include other materials, such as peer reviews, which document his / her contributions during the period under review.

      The Department Chair or academic unit's review committee may modify documentation requirements as established by the academic unit. Therefore, NTT faculty are encouraged to contact the Department chair in advance of submission of materials in order to ascertain any modifications or clarifications of the guidelines above.

    3. Intermediate Performance Reviews

      The Department will conduct intermediate performance reviews of all full-time NTT faculty in those years in which a full performance review is not required by the NTT CBA. The review period will be the calendar year prior to the review date, or the time since the initial appointment if that is shorter.

      The NTT faculty member should submit the following materials by the first day of the Spring semester for this review:

      • A self-evaluation providing an assessment of the candidate's teaching during the period under review, as well as the candidate's performance of other responsibilities, if any;
      • An up-to-date curriculum vita;
      • The Evaluation Summaries of Student Evaluations of Instruction (SE1) - Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) for all courses taught during the period under review.

      At his / her discretion, the NTT faculty may include other materials, such as peer reviews, which document his / her contributions, during the period under review.

    4. Criteria for Assessment

      The criteria for reappointment shall be based primarily on instructional effectiveness as documented by SEI / SSI and peer reviews, and by examination of course syllabi and materials. Effectiveness in administrative appointments, coordinatorships, or other duties will also be considered, where these have been assigned as part of the faculty member’s load during the three-year period.

      The period of performance to be reviewed is the three years of appointments, including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review. For bargaining unit members who are hired at the beginning of the spring semester, the first full academic year will be considered the bargaining unit member's first year for the purposes of the Third-Year Review as described in this Section 4 of the NTT CBA.