The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (See University Policy Register 3342-6- 16). Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the Department's Ad Hoc RTP Committee (See Section III of this Handbook). The Department insists, to the extent possible, on documented evidence of the peer evaluation of all scholarship. 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 presentations as defined by Public History Association as meeting their criteria, or documentary film production, are acceptable if subjected to the same scholarly peer review described above. With regard to the documentation of performance in the act of teaching, however, it is the duty of the Department Chairperson to provide evidence of the evaluations of teaching. Research and publication on pedagogy are considered equivalent to more traditional historical research and publication.
It is the duty of the Department Chairperson to maintain systematic procedures for assessing the quality of teaching displayed by all candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. In each case, the Department Chairperson designates two members of the Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Committee to constitute an Ad Hoc Visitation Committee in order to conduct a peer review of the candidate's undergraduate, or, in extraordinary cases, graduate level instruction. In the case of reappointment, the Chairperson is responsible for designating at least two visits by tenured members of the University Faculty to the candidate's classroom per academic year. These reviewers will come from the Departmental Faculty, unless the candidate requests peer review(s) from outside the Department. A candidate for reappointment may request that additional visits be made by members of the tenured Faculty of the University outside the History Department, designated by the Chairperson from a list provided by the candidate. All reviewers will submit a written report on the candidate's teaching to the Department Chairperson and to the candidate. In all cases, the candidate has the opportunity to prepare a written comment on/response to the peer review report (s).
Probationary faculty will also create an updated file that is presented to the Chair who will make these materials available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. Each probationary faculty member is discussed by the committee, which then votes on the faculty member's reappointment.
The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean. The Chair informs probationary faculty of the committee's recommendation and provides a copy of her/his recommendation to the Dean. Probationary faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For faculty members whose appointment is in the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment from the Chair are forwarded to the Dean and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.
For probationary faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure. Moreover, the faculty member must have established and articulated short and long term plans for achieving these goals. For faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at Kent State University is particularly critical. Upon completion of the third year of the probationary period, faculty reviewing a candidate for reappointment should consider the record of the candidate's achievements to date. This record should be considered a predictor of future success. The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of compelling evidence of impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline, including the publication of original research in the discipline of History and related interdisciplinary fields of study based on manuscript and printed sources, material culture, oral history interviews, or other source materials and published in the form of a monograph by an appropriate press (excluding vanity presses), or refereed journal article, or book chapter, or in a collection of essays; dissemination of original disciplinary research through a paper or lecture given at a meeting or conference or through a museum exhibition or other project or program; or presented in a contract research report, policy paper, or other commissioned study; the writing, direction and or production of video documentary; documentary edition; critical edition; translation; grant applications and extramural funding; publication of synthetic research in History and related interdisciplinary fields of study, including book-length (such as a textbook) or shorter syntheses, methodological studies, integrative essays, review essays, encyclopedia entries; dissemination of synthetic or integrative research through a paper or lecture given at a meeting or conference or through a museum exhibition, film, or other public program; or presented in a contract research report, policy paper, or other commissioned study; publication of anthologies, journals, or collections (such as an edited collection or monograph series) comprised of the work of other scholars; publication of book reviews; and, commentary on original or synthetic research at conferences.
Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Chair during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must 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 is expected of all who seek reappointment in the Department. A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified promptly that she/he will not be reappointed.
In the event that concerns about a candidate's performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. If such concerns arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period , the Chair, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the Department's tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan.
From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to need to request that her/his probationary period be extended. Upon request, a faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period which has been traditionally called “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.” The University policy and procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in the University Policy Register. (See University Policy Register 3342-6-13)