Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions | Department of Accounting Handbook – College of Business Administration | Kent State University

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

  1. Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Consideration for Tenure-Track Faculty

    University policies regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion, including means of initiating promotion and tenure and the procedures for both, are contained in the University Policy Register and in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Annually the Provost's Office issues procedures on reappointment, tenure, and promotion with deadlines for submission of evidence by Faculty and recommendations by the appropriate Faculty committees, the Chair, and the Dean. The composition of the reappointment, tenure, and promotion committees are described in these procedures. Faculty who wish to request the probationary period be extended (also referred to as “tolling” a year or “stopping the tenure clock”) should refer to the University Policy Register. Judgments based on sex, race, color, age, national origin, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or political activity or other legally protected categories are expressly forbidden.

    Evaluations for reappointment, tenure, and promotion will consider expectations for research, teaching, and service. These expectations are expressed in original appointment offer letters and reappointment, tenure, and promotion reviews.

    Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a Faculty member for reappointment, tenure, and advancement in academic rank.  The overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion shall include consideration of the Faculty member’s personal integrity and professional behavior, as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication and the academic profession are expected of all who seek reappointment, tenure and promotion in the Department.

    1. 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. 

    2. Criteria for Granting 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.  Essentially, those faculty members involved in making a tenure decision are asking the question: "Is this candidate likely to continue and sustain, in the long term, a program of high quality scholarship, teaching, and service relevant to the mission of the academic unit and the mission of the university?"  The awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the Faculty member has achieved a significant body of scholarship, excellence as a teacher, and has provided effective service. The candidate must also be expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality scholarship, teaching, and service relevant to the mission of the candidate's academic unit(s) and to the mission of the university.  The minimum requirement for tenure is a terminal degree in the discipline as defined by the AACSB.

      The mutually supportive, complementary, and often overlapping areas that need to be considered include research that advances knowledge in accounting and/or related disciplines; the act of teaching as well as the planning and examination of pedagogical procedures; and service activities not necessarily tied to one’s special field of knowledge which make significant positive contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly and governance goals and missions of the University, College, Campus, Department, and profession.  For purposes of tenure the Department places importance on both research and teaching.  Although service receives substantially less weight than research and teaching, it is expected that all Faculty contribute positively in this area.  The service component includes the general value of the Faculty member to the Department; all Faculty are expected to positively contribute to the functioning of the Department.

      To be eligible for tenure, the Department requires that a candidate shows a balanced portfolio of excellence across the three areas of research, teaching, and service.  In evaluating a candidate for tenure, there is an important judgment component; these criteria are meant to guide the reviewer but not replace the judgment of those reviewing the file.

      A candidate will successfully meet the criteria for tenure if he/she has an excellent record in all three categories:  research, teaching, and service.  Refer to section III.1.A.i, Methods for Assessing Research, for explanations of the journal tiers and descriptions of effective/exemplar course delivery and design.

      An excellent record in research would typically be an average of about one publication per year of peer-reviewed academic journal articles that includes at least one A+ or multiple A level journals with the remainder in B level journals.  Although it is acceptable to publish in disciplines other than accounting, the majority of the publications must be in accounting journals.  The successful candidate must display a strong pipeline of research in progress as well as a strong publication record.

      The candidate must present a summary of his/her research agenda and how the publications and in-progress research fit into a defined research area.  Conference papers and presentations do not carry equal weight with published manuscripts.  However, these activities are encouraged as they improve the quality of the manuscript and add to the national reputation of the candidate.

      Excellence in teaching is evidenced by either i) effective course design and exemplar course delivery or ii) exemplar course design and effective course delivery. 

      An excellent record in service includes a demonstrated record of significant service to the Department, College, or University and significant value to the functioning of the Department.  Service to the profession and community can strengthen the service record but is not a substitute for service at the Department, College, and University level.

    3. Promotion

      Promotion is viewed as recognition of a Faculty member having contributed sustained and distinguished service to the University, College, Campus and the Department.

      Recommendations for promotion shall be based upon two major classes of criteria.  The first, “academic credentials and university experience,” describes the normal minimums of credentials and time-in-rank necessary for promotion consideration.  The Department follows the academic credentials and university experience requirements that are in the Policy Register.  The second, “academic performance and service,” refers to the record of actual performance and the accomplishments by the Faculty member in academic and service areas.  The mutually supportive, complementary, and often overlapping areas that need to be considered include research that advances knowledge in accounting and/or related disciplines; the act of teaching as well as the planning and examination of pedagogical procedures; and service activities not necessarily tied to one’s special field of knowledge which make significant positive contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly and governance goals and missions of the University, College, Campus, Department, and profession. 

      For purposes of promotion the Department places importance on both research and teaching.  In addition, the quality, as well as the quantity, of one’s scholarship is an important consideration for promotion.  While service receives substantially less weight than research and teaching, it is expected that all Faculty contribute positively in this area.  The service component includes the general value of the Faculty member to the Department; all Faculty are expected to positively contribute to the functioning of the Department.  These criteria are explained in greater detail in sections i and ii below.

      1. Criteria for Promotion to Associate Professor

        The Department follows the Promotion procedures as outlined in the University Policy Register and the Collective Bargaining Agreement.  To be recommended for Promotion to Associate Professor, candidates must meet the criteria for tenure outlined in section III.1.B.

      2. Criteria for Promotion to Professor

        To be recommended for Promotion to Professor, the Department requires that a candidate shows a balanced portfolio of excellence across the three areas of research, teaching, and service.Only performance since the Faculty member’s promotion to Associate Professor will be considered when evaluating promotion to Professor.

        For promotion to Professor, an excellent record in research would typically be a portfolio consisting of a minimum of five peer-reviewed journal articles that are generally ranked as A.  A portfolio that includes a higher quantity of peer-reviewed articles generally ranked as A or B journals or a lower quantity of articles generally ranked as A+ or A journals may also meet the criteria for excellence in research.

    4. Reappointment

      Reappointment of probationary Faculty is contingent upon documented, continued and consistent evidence of professional growth and proficiency in research, teaching, and service. Annual evaluations in these areas are similar to those for Promotion and Tenure, accompanied each year at the appropriate time by a letter of evaluation and assessment from the Department Chair to the reappointment candidate.  To be recommended for reappointment, candidates must demonstrate that they are making progress towards meeting the criteria for Tenure and promotion to Associate Professor.

  2. Renewal of Appointment and Third-Year Full Performance Reviews of Full-time Non-tenure Track (NTT) Faculty and Part-Time Faculty

    Performance review and reappointment for full-time non-tenure track faculty are covered by Article IX of the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty's Collective Bargaining Agreement. Department criteria are described in this section for reappointment of both full-time non-tenure-track and part-time faculty.

    1. Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

      Instruction is the primary assignment for full-time non-tenure-track faculty in the Department of Accounting. It is the expectation that these full-time, non-tenure-track faculty will be among the most effective instructors in the Department. Any other assignments will be described in the periodic offers of appointment and annual workload statements. Satisfactory instructional performance is required for reappointment to a teaching assignment. A variety of instructional effectiveness measures may be used to evaluate instructional performance. One measure which must be used is the University teaching effectiveness evaluation instrument which is administered to students each semester. Numerical scores for the evaluation instrument questions and the open-ended questions completed by students will be used in the performance review. In addition, course syllabi and tests prepared by the faculty member will be reviewed (Note: for some courses tenure-track faculty prepare the syllabi and/or tests). Other evidence of instructional effectiveness may be submitted by the faculty member, e.g., voluntary peer review results and feedback from former students and employers of students.

      When service activities are included as part of the faculty member's assignment, performance will be evaluated by looking at input and/or output measures of satisfactory and successful service. These measures may include reports from parties with whom the service activity was performed, feedback from students for whom the services were provided, successful completion of the service activity, etc. The faculty member may submit whatever evidence he/she believes will be useful in the performance review of his/her service activity.

      Note that the performance review requirements above apply to the Full Performance Reviews required in Years 3 and Years 6 of a non-tenure track faculty member’s employment within the Department as delineated in Article IX, Section 6, of the Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.  See the performance review process in Article IX, Section 7, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the parameters of the three-year reviews for non-tenure track faculty members after completion of six (6) years of consecutive employment and two (2) Full Performance Reviews.

    2. Part-time Faculty

      The Department Chairperson will review the teaching performance of a part-time faculty before offering an appointment for another semester. The FAC will review the teaching performance of all part-time faculty members every three years. It is the expectation that these part-time faculty will be effective instructors. Satisfactory instructional performance is required for reappointment. A variety of instructional effectiveness measures, as described in Section III.2.A, may be used to determine satisfactory instructional performance.

  3. Recruiting Faculty

    This section covers recruitment and appointment of full-time tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track faculty. These Department policies and procedures also apply to any external search for an Assistant Chairperson or Administrative Assistant.

    When a full-time faculty position becomes available, the Department Chairperson will obtain University authorization, if not already provided, to recruit to fill the position. The FAC will be consulted in advance regarding the rank and salary range for the position as well as qualifications and area of emphasis unless these have already been established by the University.

    A recruiting committee consisting of at least three tenured or tenure-track faculty will be appointed by the Department Chairperson after consultation with the FAC. The recruiting committee, along with the Department Chairperson, will conduct the search. The committee normally will recommend two or more individuals for each position to the FAC. The FAC will recommend one or more individuals to the Department Chairperson.

    The Department Chairperson will consult with the FAC on the individual to be recommended to the Dean to be hired for a position. The FAC shall be consulted if either the salary and/or rank differs from the original authorization before recommending an individual to the Dean. Also, the tenured full professors must be consulted in any hiring situation where an offer is to be made to someone at the rank of professor with tenure.

    In unusual circumstances when a full-time position becomes available and must be filled before the FAC can be consulted, the Department Chairperson may offer a non-tenure-track appointment for one semester (Fall or Spring) or for two semesters (Fall and Spring). Reappointment after this initial one or two semester appointment can be made only after consultation with the FAC.

  4. Faculty Grievance and Appeal Procedures

    1. Faculty Concerns and Appeals

      Concerns about matters other than those of a contractual nature (grievances) should be resolved, if at all possible, within the Department. Faculty members who feel that they are being treated unfairly or otherwise have concerns are encouraged first to consult with the Department Chairperson. If the matter cannot be resolved level through this consultation, faculty are encouraged to pursue resolution in order through the following channels:

      1. Department FAC
      2. Dean of the CBA and GSM
      3. Office of the Provost
      4. Office of the President
    2. Faculty Grievances and Appeals

      Operational procedures and regulations regarding faculty grievances and appeals are described in full detail in the University Register. The Collective Bargaining Agreement provides the details for grievances and appeals regarding contractual matters.