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

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

University policy regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion, including the means of initiating promotion and tenure and the procedures for both, are contained in the UPR and the CBA.  These policies are supplemented each academic year by a document provided by the Provost’s Office.  Procedures for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are detailed in these documents. Each year, the Department Chair will distribute the Provost’s schedule noting the timeline for submission of documents for reappointment, tenure and promotion to each Faculty member in the Department. The Department’s role in matters of reappointment, the granting of indefinite tenure, and promotion in rank is defined by the policies stated in the University Promotion and Tenure Policy.  The following is supplemental and specific to the Department. Judgments based on sex, race, color, age, national origin, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or political activity or other legally-protected categories are expressly forbidden.

  1. Methods for Assessing a Candidate's File for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion

    1.    Methods of Assessing Research

    In evaluating a candidate’s research portfolio, the Department will consider both the quality and quantity of the research.
    In assessing the quality of research, the Department will refer to the Department of Finance Journal Quality Index.  This list begins with the approved CoBA Journal Quality Index assembled by the CoBA Graduate Council. Each faculty member is then allowed to petition the Department FAC for one journal to be moved to one level higher than ranked by the Grad Council. Each petition must be approved by a majority vote of the FAC. No journal can be elevated to the A+ level without a unanimous vote by the FAC and approval by the Department Chair and Dean.  The Department of Finance Journal Quality Index will be revised each time the CoBA Journal Quality Index is revised.

    Considerations in Assessing Research

    The Department acknowledges that sole authorship signals a higher effort than jointly-authored articles, but sole-authorship is not a requirement. The Department acknowledges that the order of authors is not important, as most work in our discipline has names ordered alphabetically. The Department assumes equal contributions by co-authors without knowledge otherwise. The Department prefers publications in Finance journals or in closely-related fields, such as Accounting or Economics. This preference is particularly strong for untenured faculty members and less strong for considering promotion to Full Professor.

    For tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, the emphasis is on research articles, with little allowance for books, chapters in books, grants, etc. For promotion to Full Professor, there is some allowance for books, chapters in books, grants and the demonstrated influence of the research.  External assessments of candidates for tenure and promotion are important to the Department and may influence the rating of a candidate.

    Given the length of time required to establish a research agenda and the long lag time in publication, it is not unusual in Finance to have most of the publications come near the end of the probationary period. The Department will accept both publications and unconditionally-accepted papers.

    For manuscripts published in journals not included in the Graduate Faculty Criteria list, faculty members may request Department recommendation and the approval of the Dean to appropriately classify the journal for tenure and promotion purposes. If possible, this request should be filed before the manuscript is submitted for publication.

    2.    Methods of Assessing Teaching

    Greater emphasis is placed on teaching near the tenure decision than on earlier teaching.

    a.    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, course materials such as syllabi, exams, and assignments, and the faculty narrative about teaching.

         i.    Effective Course Design
    A faculty member will have an effective course design if the course is designed in a manner that provides the student 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.

         ii.    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 applications of the course content, etc. The faculty member must articulate in the narrative on teaching the intentional planning that went into the course design.

    b.    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 (for untenured faculty members) and quantitative and qualitative results in student surveys.

         i.    Effective Course Delivery
    A faculty member will have effective course delivery if they are able to convey course content that provides the students’ 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 demonstrated 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.

         ii.    Exemplar Course Delivery
    Exemplar course delivery exceeds the effective standard with delivery that helps students achieve significant learning. Exemplar course delivery should be demonstrated by peer reviews and student evaluations that demonstrate exceptional communication of course material.

    c.    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. While the criteria focus on quality of course design and delivery, a strong record in these other factors may cause a teaching portfolio to be rated higher.  However, it is not necessary to have any of these other factors in order to meet the criteria.

    3.    Methods for Assessing Service

    In assessing a faculty member’s service, Department, College, campus, University, community, and professional service will be considered. Both the quantity or service and the quality of service are important.
     

    [1] A revised CoBA Journal Quality Index may be forthcoming.  If so, the language in this paragraph may not be needed.

  2. Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion for Tenure-Track Faculty at the Kent Campus

    The overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion in the Department must include consideration of the individual’s personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.   A sound, ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publications, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek reappointment, tenure, and promotion in the Department.

    1.    Reappointment for Tenure-Track Faculty at the Kent Campus

    Reappointment is contingent upon continued and consistent documented progress toward the requirements for tenure.  Performance expectations develop from initial letters of appointment, any additional written expectations, and the Chair’s annual reappointment letters. These expectations may differ significantly, given the faculty member’s experience, background and assignments. In annual reappointment materials, the Faculty member must establish and articulate both short- and long-term goals, then document progress toward meeting these goals. Each academic year, Probationary Faculty will create an updated file documenting their progress toward tenure that is presented to the Chair, who will make these materials available to the RTP Committee.

    Candidates for reappointment are reviewed by the Department’s RTP Committee. The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University Policy Register and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. These guidelines will be given to all Faculty members subject to reappointment and to all RTP Committee members.

    At the RTP Committee meeting, the Chair first discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate’s file, and the meeting is then opened up to all RTP Committee members for discussion. The RTP Committee then votes on a recommendation for reappointment. The Chair informs the candidate of the RTP Committee’s recommendation for reappointment. The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each candidate and forwards the Chair’s recommendation and the Committee’s recommendation to the Dean of the College of Business Administration. The Chair informs the candidate of the RTP Committee’s deliberations, and the Chair’s recommendation is made available to the RTP Committee members.

    For candidates following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years at Kent State University is particularly critical.  For reappointment, these individuals should be at least at the “Good” level for Research and Teaching performance, as defined in Tables 1 and 2.

    In the event that concerns about the candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the RTP Committee and Chair shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback.  If such concerns arise during the review that occurs after completion of three full years, the Chair, with the guidance of the RTP Committee, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the tenure and promotion expectations. Ultimately, the candidate is responsible for success in implementing this plan.  Specific concerns expressed by the RTP Committee members and/or the Chair in annual reappointment review during the probationary period must be addressed by the Faculty member in subsequent reappointment reviews.

    Probationary Faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established by the “Notification of Nonreappointment” in the CBA.

    2.    Tenure for Kent Campus Faculty Members

    Tenure and promotion are separate decisions. 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, has provided high-quality teaching, 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.

    Candidates for tenure are reviewed by the Department’s RTP Committee. The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University Policy Register and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, tenure guidelines for Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  These guidelines will be given to all Faculty members who have applied for tenure and to all RTP Committee members.

    At the RTP Committee meeting, the Chair first discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate for tenure, and the meeting is then opened up to all RTP Committee members for discussion.  The RTP Committee then votes on a recommendation for tenure.  The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each candidate and forwards the Chair’s recommendation and the Committee’s recommendation to the Dean of the College of Business Administration.  The Chair informs the candidate of the RTP Committee’s deliberations, and the Chair’s recommendation is made available to the RTP Committee members.

    Criteria for Tenure for Kent Campus Faculty Members

    A candidate for tenure must meet the criteria in Tables 1 and 2 for an “Excellent” rating in Teaching or Research and at least a “Very Good” rating in the other category.  A candidate for tenure must also meet the criteria in Table 3 for at least a “Very Good” rating in University Citizenship.  In evaluating a candidate for tenure, there is an important judgment component; these criteria are meant to guide the reviewer but not to replace the judgment of those reviewing the file.

    Note: All tables are arranged at the end of this document.

    3.    Promotion for Tenure-Track Faculty Members at the Kent Campus

    Promotion shall be 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.

    Candidates for promotion are reviewed by the Department’s RTP Committee. The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University Policy Register and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, promotion guidelines for Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. These guidelines will be given to all Faculty members subject to reappointment and to all RTP Committee members.

    At the RTP Committee meeting, the Chair first discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate’s file, and the meeting is then opened up to all RTP Committee members for discussion. The RTP Committee then votes on a recommendation for promotion. The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each candidate and forwards the Chair’s recommendation and the Committee’s recommendation to the Dean of the College of Business Administration. The Chair informs the candidate of the RTP Committee’s deliberations, and the Chair’s recommendation is made available to the RTP Committee members.

    1)    Criteria for Promotion to Associate Professor for Tenure-Track Faculty at the Kent Campus

    To be recommended for promotion to Associate Professor, candidates must meet the criteria for tenure.  In evaluating a candidate for promotion to Associate Professor, there is an important judgment component; these criteria are meant to guide the reviewer but not to replace the judgment of those reviewing the file.

    2)    Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor for Tenure-Track Faculty at the Kent Campus

    Promotion to Full Professor is a reward to an individual for bringing their career to national/international prominence. For promotion to the rank of Full Professor, candidates are expected to have attained achievements significantly beyond those used to attain previous promotion. A candidate for promotion to Full Professor must meet the criteria in Tables 4 and 5 for an “Excellent” rating in either Teaching or Research with at least a “Very Good” rating in the other category. A candidate for promotion to Full Professor must also meet the criteria in Table 3 for an “Excellent” rating in University Citizenship. In evaluating a candidate for promotion to Full Professor, there is an important judgment component; these criteria are meant to guide the reviewer but not to replace the judgment of those reviewing the file.
     

  3. Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion for Regional Campus Tenure-Track Faculty

    The overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion in the Department must include consideration of the individual’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 integrity within the Department. Candidates for tenure at a regional campus will be assessed according to the policies stated in section III.A above.

    1.    Reappointment for Regional Campus Tenure-Track Faculty

    Reappointment is contingent upon continued and consistent documented progress toward the requirements for tenure.  Performance expectations develop from initial letters of appointment, any additional written expectations, and the Chair’s annual reappointment letters. These expectations may differ significantly, given the Faculty member’s experience, background and assignments. In annual reappointment materials, the Faculty member must establish and articulate both short- and long-term goals, then document progress toward meeting these goals.  Each academic year, Probationary Faculty will create an updated file documenting their progress toward tenure that is presented to the Chair, who will make these materials available to the RTP Committee.

    Candidates for reappointment are reviewed by the Department’s RTP Committee. The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University Policy Register and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. These guidelines will be given to all Faculty members subject to reappointment and to all RTP Committee members.

    At the RTP Committee meeting, the Chair first discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate’s file, and the meeting is then opened up to all RTP Committee members for discussion. The RTP Committee then votes on a recommendation for reappointment. The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each candidate and forwards the Chair’s recommendation and the Committee’s recommendation to the Dean of the College of Business Administration. The Chair informs the candidate of the RTP Committee’s deliberations, and the Chair’s recommendation is made available to the RTP Committee members.

    For candidates following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years at Kent State University is particularly critical. For reappointment, these individuals should be at least at the “Good” level for Research and Teaching performance, as defined in Tables 6 and 7.

    In the event that concerns about the candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the RTP Committee and Chair shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. If such concerns arise during the review that occurs after completion of three full years, the Chair, with the guidance of the RTP Committee, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the tenure and promotion expectations. Ultimately, the candidate is responsible for success in implementing this plan. Specific concerns expressed by the RTP Committee members and/or the Chair in annual reappointment reviews during the probationary period must be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews.

    Probationary Faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established by the “Notification of Nonreappointment” in the CBA.

    2.    Tenure for Regional Campus Faculty

    Tenure and promotion are separate decisions. 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.

    Candidates for tenure are reviewed by the Department’s RTP Committee.  The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University Policy Register and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, tenure guidelines for Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Those guidelines will be given to all Faculty members who have applied for tenure and to all RTP Committee members.

    At the RTP Committee meeting, the Chair first discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate for tenure, and the meeting is then opened up to all RTP Committee members for discussion. The RTP Committee then votes on a recommendation for tenure. The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each candidate and forwards the Chair’s recommendation and the Committee’s recommendation to the Dean of the College of Business Administration. The Chair informs the candidate of the RTP Committee’s deliberations, and the Chair’s recommendation is made available to the RTP Committee members.

    Criteria for Tenure for Regional Campus Faculty

    A candidate for tenure must meet the criteria in Tables 6 and 7 for an “Excellent” rating in Teaching and at least a “Very Good” rating in Research. A candidate for tenure must also meet the criteria in Table 3 for at least a “Very Good” rating in University Citizenship. In evaluating a candidate for tenure, there is an important judgment component; these criteria are meant to guide the reviewer but not to replace the judgment of those reviewing the file.

    3.    Promotion for Regional Campus Tenure-Track Faculty

    Promotion shall be 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.

    Candidates for promotion are reviewed by the Department’s RTP Committee.  The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University Policy Register and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, promotion guidelines for Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. These guidelines will be given to all Faculty members subject to reappointment and to all RTP Committee members.

    At the RTP Committee meeting, the Chair first discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate’s file, and the meeting is then opened up to all RTP Committee members for discussion. The RTP Committee then votes on a recommendation for promotion. The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each candidate and forwards the Chair’s recommendation and the Committee’s recommendation to the Dean of the College of Business Administration. The Chair informs the candidate of the RTP Committee’s deliberations, and the Chair’s recommendation is made available to the RTP Committee members.

    1)    Criteria for Promotion to Associate Professor for Tenure-Track Faculty at a Regional Campus

    To be recommended for Promotion to Associate Professor, candidates must meet the criteria for tenure. In evaluating a candidate for promotion to Associate Professor, there is an important judgment component; these criteria are meant to guide the reviewer but not to replace the judgment of those reviewing the file.

    2)    Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor for Tenure-Track Faculty at a Regional Campus

    Promotion to Full Professor is a reward to an individual for bringing their career to national/international prominence. For promotion to the rank of Full Professor, candidates are expected to have attained achievements significantly beyond those used to attain previous promotion. A candidate for promotion to Full Professor must meet the criteria in Tables 8 and 9 for an “Excellent” rating in Teaching and at least a “Very Good” rating in Research. A candidate for promotion to Full Professor must also meet the criteria in Table 3 for an “Excellent” rating in University Citizenship. In evaluating a candidate for promotion to Full Professor, there is an important judgment component; these criteria are meant to guide the reviewer but not to replace the judgment of those reviewing the file.
     

  4. Renewal of Appointment for Non-tenure-track Faculty at Any Campus

    The overall evaluation of a candidate for renewal of appointment in the Department must include consideration of the individual’s personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound, ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, university citizenship, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek renewal of appointment.

    University policy and procedures regarding renewals of appointment are contained in the UPR and the CBA. These policies are supplemented each academic year by a document provided by the Provost’s Office. Each year, the Department Chair will distribute the Provost’s schedule noting the timeline for submission of documents for renewal of appointment to each faculty member in the Department. Judgments based on sex, race, color, age, national origin, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or political activity or other legally-protected categories are expressly forbidden.

    The criteria for renewals of appointment can be found in the most recent Non-tenure-track Collective Bargaining Agreement.