Methods for Assessing a Candidate’s File for Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion | Department of Accounting Handbook – College of Business Administration | Kent State University

Methods for Assessing a Candidate’s File for Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion

This section outlines the methods for assessing a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure, and promotion.  This includes how to evaluate the quantity and the quality of research, how to evaluate teaching as defined by course design and course delivery, and how to evaluate service.  This section only discusses the methods for assessment; the criteria for tenure, promotion, and reappointment are contained in sections B, C, and D.

III.1.A.i        Methods for Assessing Research

In evaluating a candidate’s research portfolio, both the quantity and quality of research is considered. 

  1. Assessing the Quality of Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles

The Department of Accounting uses a list of externally validated journals for evaluation of research in reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions.This list is found in the current version of the Graduate Faculty Procedures and Criteria document for the College of Business Administration.The list is formally re-evaluated every five years, although changes can be made at interim dates.If a Faculty member publishes outside of this list or if he/she believes that a different journal ranking is appropriate, it is the responsibility of the Faculty member to provide external validation to support the revised ranking.Although it is acceptable to publish in disciplines other than accounting, the majority of the publications must be in accounting journals.

In evaluating research, the Department considers the four levels of academic journals outlined below.These four levels are meant as guides, with the recognition that journal quality is a continuous measure and there will be variation within levels.In addition, the external reviewer’s evaluation of the quality of the research and other indications of quality (such as particularly high citations for an article, best paper awards, etc.) are important factors in assessing the quality of published articles independently of the specific journal in which the article is published.

  A+ (Highest Influence) Journals

Research published in A+ journals has the highest level of influence on the discipline.This category includes a very small number of the highest impact general interest journals and requires an extensive amount of time for review and publication.Our current list includes six A+ accounting journals.We use consensus journal rankings of peer and comparable institutions (e.g., AACSB peer and aspirant schools) as the primary validation method to determine inclusion into the A+ accounting journal list.

  1. A (High Influence) Journals 

Research published in A journals has a high level of influence on the discipline.This category includes a very small number of journals.Our current list includes eight A-level accounting journals.Some of these journals focus on specific aspects of accounting research including auditing, behavioral research, managerial accounting and taxation and represent the top journals in their sub-discipline.We use consensus journal rankings of peer and comparable institutions (e.g., AACSB peer and aspirant schools) as the primary validation method to determine inclusion into the A-level accounting journal list.

  1. B Journals (Journals with Influence)

Research published in B level journals has an influence on the discipline but the journal may be more limited in readership or focus on a more specific sub-discipline.This category includes a small number of selected journals from various accounting sub-disciplines.Our current list includes 36 B-level journals.Inclusion in the B level journal list is subject to a lower standard than that for the A+ and A levels.We use journal rankings of peer and comparable institutions and other validation methods, such as external or published journal rankings.

  1. C Journals (Peer Reviewed Journals With Limited External Validation of Influence)

Research published in other peer reviewed journals not in the current list are considered C level publications.

  1. Publications in Other Disciplines

Publications in journals included in the Graduate Faculty Procedures and Criteria journal list from other departments will be included using the ranking assigned by that department.

  1. Assessing the Quantity of Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles

The Department generally expects a publication record that averages about one publication per year during the probationary period.However, the Department recognizes there may be a tradeoff between the quantity of publications and the quality of publications.Given the length of time required to establish a research agenda and the long lag time in publication, it is not unusual in Accounting to have most of the publications come near the end of the probationary period.

The Department values jointly authored scholarship as well as individually authored scholarship; there is no requirement for sole-authored scholarship.However, a successful candidate must be able to show his/her ability to conduct independent research.Thus, the candidate’s file should include a description of his/her relative contribution to each co-authored paper.

  1. Other Factors Assessed in Evaluating the Research Portfolio

While A+, A, and B level peer reviewed journal articles are emphasized, published books, published book chapters, refereed presentations at academic conferences, invited research presentations, successful external grant activity, and other research activities are also valued as part of the research portfolio of a candidate.Finally, the external reviewers’ evaluations of the importance and quality of the research are also used in evaluating the totality of the research portfolio.

III.1.A.ii       Methods for Assessing Teaching

In evaluating a candidate’s teaching portfolio, both course design and course delivery is considered.  Greater emphasis is placed on teaching near the tenure decision than on earlier teaching.

  1. Assessing the Quality of Course Design

Course design focuses on the structure of the course, assessments, and content.The quality of the course design will be assessed based on the peer teaching reviews, quantitative and qualitative results in student surveys, grade distributions, course materials such as syllabi, exams, and assignments, and the Faculty narrative about teaching.

  1. Effective Course Design

A Faculty member will have an effective course design if the course is designed in a manner that provides the student with the knowledge and skills required for basic application of the course content.Examples of this include a course that is organized, covers the appropriate content, maintains currency, and has appropriate assessments.It is expected that all courses will meet the standard of effective course design.Major design issues raised in earlier evaluations are expected to be addressed and improved upon.

  1. Exemplar Course Design

Exemplar course design exceeds the effective standard with courses that have intentional planning designed to help students achieve significant learning.While the nature of an exemplar course design may vary depending on the class enrollment, subject content, and program, examples of this may include a variety of assessment tools specifically suited for the course, the integration of material from a variety of sources, design features that facilitate advanced application of the course content, etc.In the narrative on teaching, the Faculty member must articulate the intentional planning that went into the course design.

  1. Assessing the Quality of Course Delivery

Course delivery focuses on the act of teaching, including what happens in front of the classroom and other student interactions.For fully on-line courses, it includes the communication of material in any multimedia materials included in the course and interactions with students throughout the course.The quality of course delivery will be assessed based on peer teaching reviews and quantitative and qualitative results in student surveys.

  1. Effective Course Delivery

A Faculty member will demonstrate effective course delivery if he/she is able to convey course content that provides the students with knowledge and skills required for basic application of the course content.For example, this includes being understandable, clear, organized, and respectful.Effective course delivery should be evidenced by peer reviews and student evaluations that demonstrate effective communication of course material.Major delivery issues raised in earlier evaluations are expected to be addressed and improved upon.

  1. Exemplar Course Delivery

Exemplar course delivery exceeds the effective standard with delivery that helps students achieve significant learning.Exemplar course delivery is evidenced by peer reviews and student evaluations that demonstrate exceptional communication of course material.

  1. Other Factors Assessed in Evaluating the Teaching Portfolio

Although emphasis is put on the quality of course design and course delivery, published research on teaching, participation in teaching conferences, and professional development in teaching are also valued as part of the teaching portfolio of a candidate. Documented assessment of learning objectives for the Assurance of Learning process and service on doctoral major paper and dissertation committees are also valued activities that support the candidate’s teaching record.

III.1.A.ii       Methods for Assessing Service

In assessing a Faculty member’s service record, service to the Department, College, Campus, University, community, and profession will be considered.  Both the quantity of service and the quality of service are important.