Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

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.

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.

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.

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.