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

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

  1. Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion of Tenure Track (TT) Faculty

    Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for reappointment, tenure, and promotion including differentials in assignments. 

    For the purposes of this policy, "scholarship" is broadly defined to include research, scholarly and creative work.  “Teaching” is broadly defined to include classroom instruction, curriculum development, course design and revision, research supervision, and mentoring among other related activities.  "Service" is broadly defined to include administrative service to the university, professional service to the faculty member's discipline, and the provision of professional expertise to public and private entities beyond the university (University Policy Register, section 06-15, section A).  In addition, consideration of the candidate’s personal integrity and professional behavior will be a factor, with the expectation that the Fashion School faculty observe ethical standards in all aspects of the academic profession.

    1. Reappointment

      In general, successful annual reappointment reviews for non-tenured TT faculty will show evidence of progress toward the requirements for tenure on three measurable criteria: research and/or creative scholarship, teaching, and service to the institution and the profession. In addition to these, consideration is given to personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community and as demonstrated in all aspects of scholarship, teaching, and service. Specific concerns expressed by the RT&P review committee and/or the director during annual reviews must be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reviews.

      1. Research and/or Creative scholarship (See Table 1. Evaluation Components for Research/Creative scholarship)

        To attain a rating of “very good”, candidates should be professionally active as researchers or creative scholars, indicated by publications and/or exhibitions each year, with a clear research focus emerging over time. As an external indicator of this activity, candidates will have begun to establish a strong positive professional reputation, with publications, presentations, and exhibitions at the regional, and increasingly, national and international levels which shows promise for making a significant impact on the field (or discipline) during the pre-tenure years. Ratings of “excellent” are awarded only exceptionally at this stage, since reputation is still being built.

      2. Teaching (See Table 2. Evaluation Components for Teaching)

        In order to be reappointed, candidates should attain a minimum rating of “good” in teaching by the end of the third year, recognizing that strong teaching takes time to develop. Candidates should demonstrate aspiration to “very good” ratings, even as differentials of assignment across The School mean that some assignments typically involve formats in which it is more difficult to achieve strongly positive results. Teaching quality will be evidenced in official teaching evaluation forms (SSIs), reports by peer reviewers based on observed classroom instruction, and/or other activity related to pedagogy, such as supervision of student research, advising, and curricular/course development.

      3. Service (See Table 3. Components of Evaluting Service)

        In order to be reappointed, candidates will have demonstrated active and cooperative service at one or more of the following levels: the program, division, school, college, university, and profession. This service and collegiality will increase as experience grows.

      4. Special Note for Reappointment

        The third-year review is particularly important: during this review, evidence for all three categories must rate minimally as “good,” with the understanding that a “very good” will be required for tenure. If at any time any criterion is assessed below the level of “good”, the candidate will, in consultation with the school director, devise plans for improvement and/or development, in order to attain levels of at least “very good.”

    2. Tenure

      Because tenure review is required in the next-to-last year of the probationary period, while promotional review is not mandated, tenure and promotion reviews require 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 has achieved a body of scholarship that has had an impact on his/her discipline, demonstrated proficiency as a teacher, and has provided effective service.  The candidate is 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.  Since this decision could result in life-long employment at this institution, it involves more than a mere survey of the candidate’s minimum quantifiable activities (University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Tenure, section D, 28 November, 2001).

      Tenure considerations are based on documented achievements while a faculty member at this institution, yet can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to appointment at Kent State University to examine consistency, as well as grant proposals submitted but not funded, proposals pending, creative works and papers “in review” or papers “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.

      Indicators of a faculty member’s research and creative scholarship record include the quality and quantity of exhibitions and/or published work.  All faculty members in the School are expected to produce records that reflect their scholarly focus and the attributes of a candidate faculty member’s scholarly activity may vary across sub-disciplines within the fashion field.

      For Kent Campus TT faculty members to receive a positive recommendation for tenure, candidates must attain at least the level of “very good” in scholarship and/or creative scholarship on the indicators noted in the section titled “Criteria and Evaluation for Promotion and Tenure”. Teaching must also, at the minimum, be rated “very good” and service as “meets expectations.” 

    3. Promotion

      Promotion in rank shall be viewed as recognition of a faculty member's sustained and distinguished scholarship, teaching, and service. Promotion considerations are based on documented achievements while a faculty member at this institution, yet can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to appointment at Kent State University to examine consistency, as well as grant proposals submitted but not funded, proposals pending, creative works and papers “in review” or papers “in press,” graduate students currently advised, and any other materials that may reflect on the candidate’s potential for a long-term successful career. 

      1. Promotion to Associate Professor

        On the Kent campus, promotion to Associate Professor is recognition of a candidate for having established a career which has a research focus promising sustained development and which has begun to achieve national and/or international distinction deserving of an “excellent” or “very good” rating.  We recognize that not all TT faculty members will engage in every research activity, but distinction in scholarship will be evidenced by publications in refereed journals or with recognized presses; by exhibitions in prominent institutions, in distinguished company, or by selection of noteworthy individuals; by theses and projects directed; grants received; and/or by election to office in the relevant disciplinary/professional organization(s), and/or by appointment to boards or jury panels at the regional, national or international level as well as teaching evaluations and service to the University.

        Promotion is recognition based on a candidate’s accomplishments completed during the review period. For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor, the faculty member must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in either “teaching” or “scholarship” with at least a “very good” rating in the other category. “Service” must at least meet the School expectation.

      2. Promotion to Professor

        On the Kent campus, promotion to Professor is recognition of a candidate for having brought his/her career to national or international prominence, with a demonstrated record of sustained scholarship and increased distinction in the discipline/field based on recognition by peers.  Promotion to Professor recognizes the highest level of university achievement and national/international prominence.  Evidence for this prominence includes a record of sustained scholarship and increased impact on the field.

        To achieve recognition for promotion to Full Professor, the candidate’s research/creative scholarship impact will be rated by peers as “excellent.” In addition to an “excellent” rating in research/creative scholarship, to achieve recognition for promotion to Full Professor, the candidate should also attain either an “excellent” rating in teaching or a rating of “exceeds expectations” in service.  The candidate will have made effective use of their professional and academic competence in service to the program, division, school, college, university, community, and/or profession.

    4. Components of Evaluation

      Scholarship, teaching, and service are essential and critical components 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 his/her field who are considered capable of rating the candidate’s work based on the Evaluation Components in Tables 1, 2, and 3..  Moreover, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her scholarship, teaching, and service.  A faculty member's specific area of specialization as well as differentials in assignments may be a factor in the scope and time required for scholarship and the resulting publications/outcomes. 

      1. Research/Creative Scholarship

        All faculty members in the School are expected to produce records of scholarship that reflect their disciplinary foci and the attributes of an individual faculty member’s scholarly activity may vary across sub-disciplines.  Indicators of a faculty member’s scholarship record include both quality and quantity of exhibitions and/or published work.   In addition to scholarly publications, creative scholarship, and funded research, other scholarly activities including but not limited to presenting at refereed professional meetings, presenting papers before learned societies, etc. should be considered.

        To achieve “excellent” in the category of scholarship at the time a faculty member stands for promotion, she/he should have established a scholarship program which demonstrates an impact upon his/her discipline.  Component of evaluation for scholarship are categorized and outlined below.

        a.  Recognition.  A TT faculty member’s scholarly reputation is a reflection of the quality, extent, and creativity of his/her research output and is, therefore, an issue that is carefully evaluated for advancement.  To be recommended for advancement, a candidate must provide evidence that his/her work has had an impact on the discipline.  Recognition by professional peers includes, for example, receipts of awards, citations or research, inclusion of images of work in publications, reviews of work in publications, invited lectures, and special honors on any type, including editorship of journals, invitation to service on boards and juries at an international or national level, curating of significant exhibitions, inclusion of work in significant public or private collections, and commissioned work.

        b.  Publications.  Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field, as well as of quantity.  Publication in journals having stringent reviewing policies is more valued than publication in journals that are less rigorous in their editorial control.  The contribution made by publishing a book-scholarly/professional/textbook is judged, in general, on the amount of new content.  Research on teaching, pedagogy, student performance, and classroom instruction as well as external funding are included in this area.

        c.  Exhibitions.  Evaluation of the record of exhibitions will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field.  Exhibition in venues having stringent jury process is more valued than exhibition in venues that are less rigorous in their jury process. Consideration is given to documented showing of original work in solo, invited group/mixed or juried exhibitions and competitions.  Significance of the exhibition may be considered in relation to prestige of the sponsoring organization, venue, curator, juror, and/or inclusiveness/scope e.g., international, national, regional, or local.

        d. Grants.  Evaluation of the record of grants will include an assessment of quality and amount of grants received. Potential for external funding is limited in the fashion field, therefore, grant proposals submitted but not funded, and/or proposals pending may be considered for positive assessment.  However, while valuable, grants do not replace the importance of research dissemination.

        e.  Presentations.  Presentation of papers of original research/creative work will be evaluated according to significance of the venue and sponsoring organization with greater weight given to refereed presentations or peer-invited presentations to scholarly audiences. 

        f.  Related Activities.  TT faculty members are expected to be active participants in the field.  Some evidence of outside professional activity is necessary for advancement.  Examples of such activity would be curating an exhibition, non-refereed publications based on scholarly work, etc.

        Expectations in scholarship for promotion to Full Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

        1. Table 1. Evaluation Components for Research/Creative Scholarship

          Scholarship Rating

          Research or Creative Scholarship is defined by:

          Typical Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment

          Excellent

          Associate Professor: Promising record

          with emerging national/international recognition

           

          Full Professor:

          Sustained record

          with national/international recognition

          Demonstrated significant record of peer-reviewed publications and/or exhibitions.  Presentations at professional meetings with rigorous peer review criteria.  Invitations to give presentations/lectures/exhibitions.  Review of works featured in national/international journals.  Recognition by professional organizations at regional/national/international level.  Recognition of scholarly impact by peers in the profession.

          Very Good

          Defined emphasis and emerging national recognition

          Demonstrated consistent record of peer-reviewed publications and/or exhibitions.  Presentations at professional meetings with peer review criteria. 

          Good

          Developing focus and active engagement

          Some Publications and/or exhibitions.  Some Presentations at professional meetings/seminars. 

          Fair

          Unfocused direction and limited engagement

          Occasional publications/exhibitions or meeting presentations.

          Poor

          Undefined research program or creative practice

          Few or no publications, presentations, exhibitions, or professional recognition.

      2. Teaching

        The mission of the Fashion School is “To inspire students to become creative and resourceful fashion leader.” Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching can include development and revision of courses, peer evaluations of teaching performance, student feedback, and other relevant documentation. 

        Other documentation information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the School, 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.  For tenure-track faculty, the FAC, in consultation with the Director, assigns two (2) faculty members to visit the classes of each probationary faculty member and/or candidate for promotion and generally evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance.

        Copies of representative syllabi, tests/examinations, and other relevant teaching materials (such as project descriptions and rubrics, lesson plans) should also be available for review. Faculty members are expected to mentor students when appropriate.  Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations.

        a. Classroom Instruction.  Performance of the TT faculty member in the classroom is an important part of teaching evaluation and includes such characteristics as preparedness, coherence, innovation, interest-level, organization, interpersonal communication, etc.  The quality of course content and student learning experience is also critically important.

        b. Curriculum Development, and Course Design and Revision.  Indicators of active engagement in curriculum development, design, and revision including development of a brand new course, revision of existing course, updating the overall curriculum to maintain currency in appropriate new  concepts, and methods.  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. Teaching related grants also indicate innovation and engagement in curriculum development.  Course or curriculum revision is defined as making a substantial modification in a course or curriculum.

        c. Research Supervision.  The supervision of undergraduate and graduate student research is an integral part of the responsibility of TT faculty members and properly serves as an important area in consideration for advancement.  Graduate TT faculty members are responsible for the educational and professional development of graduate students and are expected to be actively engaged in this endeavor.  The level and quality of supervision and service on committees are also important factors in evaluation of this aspect of teaching. 

        d. Other Indicators.  These could include supervision of teaching assistants, assuring professional and creative learning environment in the studio or classroom, but activity is not limited to the aforementioned.

        Expectations in teaching for promotion to Full Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

        1. Table 2. Evaluation Components for Teaching

          Scholarship Rating

          Definition

          Typical Activities Corresponding to the Assessment

          Excellent

          Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development and maintains high achievement on course evaluation and peer reviews

          Actively participates in curricular development/revisions.

          Demonstrates evidences excellent student evaluations and peer review. Demonstrates instructional creativity and effort. Establishes excellent record of graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative scholarship.  Receives recognition of educational impact by peers in the institution and profession.

          Very Good

          Innovative teacher; maintains very good course evaluations and peer reviews

          Develops/revises curriculum, establishes good student evaluations and peer review. Demonstrate good record of fostering graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative scholarship.

          Good

          Effective teacher; maintains good course evaluations and peer reviews

          Develops/revises curriculum, establishes mixed (moderate to good) student evaluations and peer review.

          Develops moderate level of fostering graduate and undergraduate research projects and/or creative activity.

          Fair

          Substandard teacher; meets minimal expectations; below average course evaluations and peer reviews

          Establishes below-average student evaluations and peer review; has limited supervision of student research, limited participation in curriculum development and/or revision.

          Poor

          Substandard, ineffective teacher; unacceptable course evaluations and peer reviews

          Establishes below-average student and peer perceptions, Receives as a pattern of complaints Have not engaged in curriculum development or research supervision

      3. Service

        A probationary faculty member's and/or candidate’s promotion’s contributions as a University citizen may include service to the School, the Campus, the College, the University, and the Profession as appropriate to his/her status.  The merits of University and Professional 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 service include active participation in School events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, meetings and seminars, etc.

        As a component of service, faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies, attend and participate in conferences and seminars, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency.  Organizing conferences, seminars, and workshops; reviewing for journals; holding office in a professional organization; serving on professional committees; serving on exhibition juries or as juror; editing or writing for a popular publication or newsletter, etc. will be recognized as impactful service.

        Other components of service are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the School.  Service activities – to the program, division, school, college, university, community, and/or profession – will have increased in significance and visibility over the review period and will have been carried out with recognized effectiveness and cooperation.

        Being an active and useful citizen of the School, Campus, College, University, and Profession is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate’s Research/Creative Scholarship and instructional responsibilities.

        Expectations in service for promotion to Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

        1. Table 3. Components of Evaluating Service

          Service

          Typical Activities Corresponding to the Assessment

           

          Exceeds Expectations

          Plays significant role (including some leadership) in the division, school, college, university and national/international professional organizations, as evidenced by collegial engagement with committee work and related functions including public outreach.

          Meets Expectations

          Has some participation in the division, school, college, university, and national/international professional organizations, as evidenced by collegial engagement with committee work and related functions including minimal public outreach.

          Does Not Meet Expectations

          Does not engage in division, school, college, university committee work or functions, or does not participate in a collegial manner

  2. Renewal of Appointment, Third-Year Full Performance Review, and Promotion 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.

    2. Third-Year Full Performance Review

      The third-year full performance review of (NTT) faculty is governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Each academic year, guidelines for the third-year full performance review for NTT faculty at the Kent and Regional Campus are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  The third-year full performance review concludes with the College or, if applicable, the division of the Regional Campuses’ level of review and determination.  The period of performance to be reviewed is the three (3) full academic years of appointments including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review.

      For the third-year full performance review, NTT faculty members are reviewed by the School’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee (See, Section I of this Handbook).

      1. Renewal Evaluation Criteria

        The School’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of NTT faculty performance when conducting the third-year full performance review and making recommendations on renewal of appointment.

        a. Teaching

        For NTT faculty during the third-year full performance review, the FAC, in consultation with the Director, assigns two (2) faculty members to visit the classes of each NTT faculty member who are subject to review and generally evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance.  One of the faculty members assigned to visit the classes must be a member of the Ad Hoc RTP Committee.  Peer evaluations are strongly encouraged during the first two years of the third-year full performance review cycle.

        Criteria for the evaluation of teaching can include development and revision of courses, peer evaluations of teaching performance, student feedback, and other relevant documentation. 

        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 School, 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 third-year full performance review.  Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.  Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses.

        b.   Service

        A NTT faculty member's contributions as a University citizen may include service to the School, the Campus, the College, and the University as appropriate to his/her NTT status.  The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the individual Chaired the committee listed and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served.  Less tangible components of Service include active participation in School events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, School meetings, and seminars, etc.  Being an active and useful citizen of the School, Campus, College and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a NTT’s instructional responsibilities.

        Other components of service are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in third-year full performance review decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the School.

      2. Overall Evaluation and Third-Year Full Performance Review Renewal Decision

        The overall third-year full performance review evaluation of a NTT faculty member and individual for renewal of appointment must include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior in accordance with the Faculty Code of Ethics and the University Policy Register.

        The NTT renewal decision made at the School level will be in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Provisions for appeal of a negative renewal decision at the School level are covered within the aforementioned Collective Bargaining Agreement.

    3. Promotion

      Promotions for full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually. NTT faculty members can only apply for promotion during the Full Performance Review period, once they have completed two three-year terms, as documented in the CBA.

      1. Promotion Evaluation Criteria

        Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for advancement in academic rank.  The School’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on promotion.

        a. Teaching

        For NTT faculty, the FAC, in consultation with the Director, assigns two (2) faculty members to visit the classes of each probationary faculty member and/or candidate for promotion and generally evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance.

        Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching can include development and revision of courses, peer evaluations of teaching performance, student feedback, developing creative teaching activities, and other relevant documentation. 

        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 School, 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 individual’s file for promotion. 

        Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.

        b. Professional Development

        Professional development can be an important component of evaluating promotion of NTT faculty’s University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed. 

        A NTT faculty member’s professional development may include industry participation (including professional workshop, shadowing, and consulting), Invited presentations/performance, professional practice (including freelance, consulting, and writing), and juried/peer reviewed creative activity.

        c. Service

        A NTT faculty member's contributions as a University citizen may include service to the School, the Campus, the College, and the University as appropriate to his/her NTT status.  The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the individual Chaired the committee listed and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served.  Less tangible components of Service include active participation in School events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, School meetings, and seminars, etc. Other components of Service that can be evaluated for NTT promotion include service to professional organization, University committee roles, presentations in or out of the University, and Student organization advising.

        Being an active and useful citizen of the School, Campus, College and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a NTT’s instructional responsibilities.

        Other components of service are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in promotion review decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the School.

        Expectation in Service for promotion Associate Professor or Professor are higher than for promotions to Associate Lecturer or Senior Lecturer.