Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion. The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. During the probationary period, these tools should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.

Tables 2 (A and B), 3, and 4 provide guidelines for the assessment of a faculty member's performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates. For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor the faculty member must meet the criteria for an "excellent" rating in scholarship and teaching with at least a "very good" rating in the other category. University citizenship must at least meet the minimum Department criteria as outlined in Table 3.

A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for an "excellent" rating in scholarship and teaching. University citizenship must exceed the minimum Department criteria. A candidate for promotion to Professor may not have equal activity in scholarship, teaching and service as he/she becomes more specialized.

  1. Scholarship

    Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed. To assist this process, the candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. Moreover, the candidate  must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her scholarly activity.

    In addition to scholarly publications listed above in Section V, B, other scholarly activities including articles, chapters in books, presenting at refereed professional meetings, chairing society committees, and presenting papers before learned societies should be considered. These later activities complement scholarly publications and grant funded research. Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies, attend and participate in institutes and seminars, organize institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency.

  2. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship and Research

    All faculty of the department are expected to seek excellence in scholarly activity. The Department insists, to the extent possible, on documented evidence of the peer evaluation of all scholarships. It is the duty of the candidate for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion to provide that documentation. Scholarly monographs, edited collections, and synthetic works must be published by appropriate presses that conduct anonymous scholarly reviews (vanity presses are not considered appropriate). The same criterion holds true for chapters or portions of books. The Department is sensitive to the fact that budgetary difficulties are having a serious impact on university presses and commercial presses with scholarly lists and reducing the number of scholarly publications in hard copy. Therefore, other outlets for publication of works in the various scholarships, such as online publication, public history related presentation, or documentary film production, are acceptable if subjected to the same scholarly peer review described above. To achieve "excellent" in the category of the scholarship at the time a faculty member stands for tenure and promotion, she/he should have established a research program which demonstrates an impact upon his/her discipline, which can be evinced by citations, reviews, and invited presentations. Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, each faculty member who will seek tenure or promotion is obligated to provide some evidence supporting his/her scholarly record.  In turn, the members of the Department's Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall evaluate a candidate's record in light of the Department's expectations for a successful tenure decision.

    1. Table 2A

      Kent Campus: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Reappointment review, Tenure (see Regional above), and promotion to the  Associate rank.
      Scholarship Definition  Accomplishments  Corresponding to the Assessment Score



      Accomplishments  Corresponding to the Assessment Score









      Nationally/Internationally recognized research program

      Publication of a historical monograph from an appropriate press after completion of a process of scholarly review.  Publication is defined as either "in press" -- meaning that the manuscript had been peer reviewed, revised, and is at least at the copy- editing stage -- or "in hand."




      Very Good



      Emerging nationally recognized research program

      Demonstrated record of publications in the form of articles, chapters in books, Public History related presentations, translations, digital documentary presentations, and submitted grant (internal and external) applications.








      Active research program

      Emerging record of publication in the form of book reviews, encyclopedia articles, non peer-reviewed publications, submitted grant (internal or external) applications, conference presentations at meetings I seminars.




      Limited research program

      Internal presentations, local publications and/or meeting presentations.


      No research program

      No publications, presentations, or grants.


  3. Teaching

    Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 3. Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification to a course such as developing several new laboratories, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content/format, etc.

    Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Department, College or University administrators shall be considered when available. Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including all student comments) must 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 related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students (particularly at the doctoral level) and/or postdoctoral students. Evaluation of teaching will account for differences  in missions and expectations across campuses.

    1. Table 3

      Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure



      Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score






      Innovative teacher ; provides leadership in instructional Development

      Develop/revise courses, develop research projects for students (undergraduate and/or graduate), excellent student and peer perceptions , instructional creativity , actively participate in curricular revisions



       Very Good


      Innovative teacher and

      part.icipant  in curricular revisions

      Develop/revise courses, good student and peer perceptions , work with graduate and/or

      undergraduate students in research


      Meets obligations well

      Good student and peer perceptions


      Substandard teacher

      Below average student and peer perceptions


      Substandard, ineffective teacher

      Below average student and peer perceptions , pattern of complaints

  4. 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 4. The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee listed 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, seminars, 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.

    1. Table 4

      Assessment of University Citizenship for promotion and tenure

      Citizenship Assessment

      Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

      Exceeds 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, meaningful public outreach, directorship of programs, chairs etc.

      Meets obligations

      Meets the minimal Department/Campus obligations by participating within department/college/university

      Does not meet obligations

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

      departmental/campus events

      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.