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

  1. Reappointment

    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)

  2. Tenure and Promotion

    The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See University Policy Register 3342-6-14)  and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty promotion (See University Policy Register 3342-6-15). Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. 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. The awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the faculty member displays scholarly potential based on demonstrated excellence as well as the potential for continued excellence (as evidenced by works in progress, etc.) that will have an impact on her/his discipline. For the tenure decision, the Department requires documentation of all scholarly and university citizenship activities as defined above. The candidate for tenure should have demonstrated continuing development and growth in all the relevant areas of performance under review.

    1. Criteria for Tenure (Kent Campus)

      The Department requires that the scholarship and relevant professional activity of candidates for tenure be reviewed by scholars knowledgeable in the candidate's field or sub-field who do not hold academic appointments at Kent State University.  The candidate's file must contain a minimum of three letters from outside evaluators. After discussion with the Department Chairperson, the candidate for tenure supplies the Chairperson with a list and short scholarly biography of at least four persons who might serve in this capacity.  These scholars are to be specialists in the candidate's field and must carry at minimum the rank of associate professor; undergraduate and graduate advisors or mentors are excluded from the list of possible reviewers.  The Department Chairperson will select and contact reviewers from that list.  To preserve the professionalism of the process, the candidate will not communicate with the reviewers, but will supply the Chairperson with sufficient copies of his/her C.V., scholarly publications and presentations, and work in progress.  The Chairperson may also seek additional information and material that bears on the candidate's qualifications and performance.

      In terms of scholarship, candidates for tenure in the Department will be expected to provide evidence of ongoing scholarship, usually the receipt of a book publication contract from an appropriate press (after a process of scholarly review) for a historical monograph based on original research.  The scholarly monograph may be, but is not limited to, a revised doctoral dissertation.  The candidate's file must contain a copy of the book manuscript.

      The candidate is also expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality teaching, scholarship and activity relevant to the mission of the candidate's academic unit(s) and to the mission of the University. Tenure considerations can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at Kent State University to examine consistency, as well as grant proposals submitted but not funded, proposals pending, papers “in review” or “in press,” graduate students currently advised, and any other materials that may reflect on the candidate's potential for a long-term successful career. The tenure decision is based on all of the evidence available to determine the candidate's potential to pursue a productive career.

    2. Criteria for Tenure (Regional Campuses)

      In accordance with University Policy as set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement the Department of History recognizes that there can be differences in mission and teaching load at the Regional Campuses.  These variations will be considered when evaluating faculty for reappointment and tenure purposes.

      Candidates for review are not evaluated along single, isolated dimensions of performance, but rather on their whole performance, viewed as a unified, integrated record of a teacher, scholar, and university citizen. Because of the emphasis on teaching at the Regional Campuses the Department of History has determined that much greater weight will be given for excellent teaching with a record of scholarship and service also expected.

      Teaching is the primary goal at the regional campuses and faculty members have a special responsibility to demonstrate excellence in teaching. High quality teaching can be evaluated in a variety of ways, including but not limited to, curriculum development, student evaluations, peer observations, participation in professional development, innovative teaching practices, and engagement of students in research and service learning.  Excellence in teaching may also be demonstrated by pedagogical research related to the discipline and disseminated for peer review publication and presentation. 

      Scholarship with the discipline is necessary to remain current in teaching and a successful candidate for tenure must demonstrate scholarly activity. Scholarship can include, but is not limited to, peer reviewed publications, refereed presentations at professional meetings, research in oral histories, and internal and external grants.

      University Citizenship is also expected of all tenure-track faculty. By the time of the tenure review, the candidate must show a significant role in service at the campus, unit, and university levels. These activities can include, but are not limited to, participation on committees, involvement in community or university events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, community outreach, and contributions to regional, national, or international professional organizations related to pedagogy or history.

    3. Criteria for Promotion to Associate - All Campuses

      The promotion to Associate is recognition based on a candidate's accomplishments completed during the review period and promotion decisions are usually based upon the 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.” If the manuscript is at this point in the “in press” stage, the Department requires the candidate to request a letter from the press expressing its dedication to the final publication of the project. The original scholarly monograph may be, but is not limited to, a revised doctoral dissertation. The Promotion Committee also considers  a candidate's active scholarly performance (articles, book reviews, grant applications/funded, conferences) and excellence in the act of teaching as well as university citizenship as necessary in order to support the case for promotion to the rank of associate professor.

    4. Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor - All Campuses

      For promotion to the rank of Professor, candidates are expected to  have  attained, beyond the achievements used to attain previous promotion, additional achievements in their area of scholarship, which should be demonstrated either in the publication of a second scholarly historical monograph based on original research, or the publication by a peer-reviewed publisher of a combination of previously published articles based upon primary sources augmented by new scholarship. The Department considers letters requested from outside experts who carry the rank of professor as the basis for the assessment of significance in these categories of scholarship.

      Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for tenure and advancement in academic rank. The overall evaluation of a candidate for 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 tenure and promotion in the Department.

  3. 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

        Scholarship

        Definition

        Accomplishments  Corresponding to the Assessment Score

         

         

         

         

        Excellent

         

         

         

        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.

         

         

         

        Good

         

         

         

        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.

         

        Weak

         

        Limited research program

        Internal presentations, local publications and/or meeting presentations.

        Poor

        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

        Scholarship

        Definition

        Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

         

           Excellent

         

         

         

        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

        Good

        Meets obligations well

        Good student and peer perceptions

         Fair

        Substandard teacher

        Below average student and peer perceptions

         Poor

        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. 

  4. Criteria for Renewal of Appointment and Third-Year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time, Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty

    1. Renewal of Appointment

      Appointments for full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually. Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position.