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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.