Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor | Kent State University

Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

               Contents of this section (A) and all of its subsections apply to decisions for both Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor. 

 

            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 excellence in scholarship, teaching, and service. The candidate must also be 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.

 

              Promotion to Associate Professor shall be viewed as recognition of a faculty member having delivered sustained and distinguished contributions to the University, the College and the Department. Recommendation for promotion shall be based upon two major classes of criteria. The first, “academic credentials and university experience,” describes the normal minimums of credentials and recommended time-in-rank at Kent State University necessary for tenure and/or promotion consideration. Consistent with the Policy Register, the department itself recognizes there are circumstances in which the recommended time-in-rank prior to consideration for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor can and should be shorter than the recommended five years. The second, “academic performance and service,” refers to the record of actual performance and the accomplishments of the faculty member in academic and service areas. The quality as well as quantity of one’s scholarship is an important consideration for promotion.

 

            The mutually supportive, complementary, and often overlapping areas that need to be considered include research that advances knowledge in marketing, entrepreneurship, and/or related disciplines; the act of teaching as well as the planning and examination of course delivery; and service activities not necessarily tied to one’s special field of knowledge which make significant positive contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly and governance goals and missions of the university, college, campus, department, and profession. For purposes of tenure and promotion to Associate Professor at the Kent campus, the Department places more importance on research than it does on teaching. At the regional campuses, teaching receives more weight than research. At all campuses, although service receives substantially less weight than research and teaching, it is expected that all faculty contribute positively in this area as Department, College, and University needs require. All members of the faculty are expected to contribute positively to the functioning of the department.

 

1.         Methods for Assessing a Candidate’s File

 

a. Assessing Research

 

In evaluating a candidate’s research portfolio, the quantity and quality of research is considered.

 

i. Assessing the Quality of Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles

 

In order to apply a consistent standard in evaluating the quality of journals, the department adopts the College of Business Graduate Faculty Journal List, which has been constructed based on factors such as external international rankings of journals, journal influence scores, and peer institutions. Peer-reviewed journals unranked on this list shall be deemed a “C” ranking. Additionally, while grants count toward Graduate Faculty Status within the College of Business, grants do not replace publication requirements for the purpose of tenure.

 

In evaluating research, the department considers the four broad rankings of research outlined below. These four rankings are meant as guides, with the recognition that journal quality is a continuous measure and there will be variation within rankings. In addition, the external reviewers’ evaluations of the quality of the research and other indications of quality (such as a particularly high number of citations for an article, best paper awards, etc.) are important factors in assessing the quality of published articles independently of the specific journal in which the article is published.

 

All candidates for promotion and tenure are required to submit a table listing each journal article being included in the case for tenure or promotion, the candidate's relative contribution to each article, and each article's ranking according to the College of Business Graduate Faculty Journal list.

 

“A+” Ranking: Primary General Interest and Top Broad Field Journals

“A+” level research is indicated by publication in journals that have the highest level of influence on the discipline. These journals are denoted as “A+” on the College of Business Graduate Faculty Journal List.

 

“A” Ranking: High Influence Field Journals, Secondary General Interest Journals, and Top Subfield Journals

“A” level research is indicated by publication in journals that have a high level of influence on the discipline. These journals are denoted as “A” on the College of Business Graduate Faculty Journal List.

 

“B” Ranking: Externally Validated Journals with Limited Influence

“B” level research is indicated by publication in journals that have an influence on the discipline but are more limited in readership. These journals are denoted as “B” on the College of Business Graduate Faculty Journal List.

 

“C” Ranking: Peer Reviewed Journals With Limited External Validation

“C” level research is indicated by publication in peer-reviewed journals that have a limited external validation of their influence on the field. While these journals are not included on the College of Business Graduate Faculty Journal List, for the purpose of tenure and promotion, they are deemed a rank of “C”.

 

For all candidates, journal publication levels are assigned the following point values:

A+ = 2.5

A = 1

B = .5

C= .25

 

ii. Assessing the Quantity of Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles

 

The department generally expects a publication record at the Kent campus that averages about one publication per year at the “A” level during the probationary period and an average at the regional campuses of about two publications every two to three years at a “B” level. However, given the length of time required to establish a research agenda and the long lag time in publication, it is not unusual in Marketing and Entrepreneurship to have most of the publications come near the end of the probationary period.

 

The Department values jointly authored scholarship as well as individually authored scholarship; there is no requirement for sole-authored scholarship. While in some disciplines the order authors are listed is important, in Marketing and Entrepreneurship not being the first author does not necessarily imply a lesser role in the authorship of the paper unless explicitly stated. The candidate’s file should include an indication of his/her relative contribution to each co-authored paper.

 

Documented in-press and forthcoming scholarly or creative works can be considered as part of the record of accomplishments. However, such publication can only be considered once. If an “in-press” or “forthcoming” scholarly work is considered for tenure and/or promotion to Associate Professor, it cannot be considered again as part of a file for promotion to Professor. 

 

iii. Other Factors Assessed in Evaluating the Research Portfolio

 

External reviewers’ evaluations of the importance and quality of the research are used in evaluating the totality of the research portfolio, particularly those elements which are not easily quantified. While the criteria in subsections a.i. and a.ii. above focus on peer-reviewed journal articles, exceptionally strong external letters may cause a research portfolio to be evaluated more highly; similarly, external letters that indicate the record is not as strong may cause a research portfolio to be evaluated less favorably.

 

b. Assessing Teaching

 

In evaluating a candidate’s teaching portfolio, both course delivery and course design are considered. Given that classroom performance may improve over time, greater emphasis may be placed on teaching near the tenure decision than on earlier teaching.

 

i. Assessing the Quality of Course Design

 

Course design focuses on the structure of the course, assessments, and content. The quality of the course design may be assessed based on peer teaching reviews, quantitative and qualitative results in student surveys, course materials such as syllabi, exams, and assignments, teaching awards, and a faculty member’s narrative about teaching.

 

Effective Course Design

 

A faculty member will have an effective course design if the courses are designed in a manner that provides the student with the knowledge and skills required for basic application of the course content. Examples of this include a course that is organized, covers the appropriate content, maintains currency/relevancy, and has basic assessments. It is expected that all courses will meet the standard of effective course design. If any major design issues are raised in earlier evaluations, they are expected to be addressed and improved upon.

 

Extraordinary Course Design

 

Extraordinary course design exceeds the effective standard with courses that have intentional planning designed to help students achieve significant learning. While the nature of an extraordinary course design may vary depending on the class enrollment, subject content, and program, examples of this may include a variety of assessment tools specifically suited for the course, the integration of material from a variety of sources, and design features that facilitate advanced application of the course content. For an online course, Quality Matters Certification, or evaluation of a course by an on-line education expert that indicates a design that would meet Quality Matters Certification standards, may also be used as an indication of an extraordinary course design. The faculty member must articulate in the narrative on teaching the intentional planning that went into the course design.

 

ii. Assessing the Quality of Course Delivery

 

Course delivery focuses on the act of teaching, including what happens in front of the classroom and other student interactions. For fully on-line courses, course delivery includes any multimedia materials included in the course and interactions with students throughout the course. The quality of course delivery will be assessed based on teaching awards, peer teaching reviews and quantitative and qualitative results in student surveys.

 

Effective Course Delivery

 

A faculty member will have effective course delivery if they are able to convey course content that provides students with knowledge and skills required for basic application of the course content. For example, this includes being understandable, clear, organized, and respectful. Effective course delivery would be demonstrated by peer reviews and student evaluations that indicate effective communication of course material. If any major delivery issues are raised in earlier evaluations, they are expected to be addressed and improved upon.

 

Extraordinary Course Delivery

 

Extraordinary course delivery exceeds the effective standard with delivery that helps students achieve significant learning. Extraordinary course delivery may be demonstrated by teaching awards, peer reviews and student evaluations that demonstrate an extraordinary communication of course material.

 

iii. Other Factors Assessed in Evaluating the Teaching Portfolio

 

While emphasis is placed on the quality of course design and course delivery, published research on teaching, participation in teaching conferences, and professional development in teaching are also valued as part of the teaching portfolio of a candidate. Similarly, demonstrated willingness and ability to design and develop courses and course materials also is valued. While the criteria explicated in this document focus on quality of course design and delivery, a strong record in these other factors may cause a teaching portfolio to be evaluated more highly. However, it is not necessary to have any of these other factors in order to meet the criteria for effective or extraordinary course design or delivery.

 

c. Assessing Service

 

In assessing a faculty member’s service record, service to the department, college, campus, university, community, and profession will be considered. As service needs often vary, explicit service at each possible level - the department, college, campus, university, community, and profession - is not a requirement. Both the quantity of service and the quality of service are important. Service quantity requirements for untenured faculty are lower than for tenured faculty. Expected service requirements for untenured faculty are reflected by the faculty taking on only those assignments requested by the department. In assessing the service of a candidate for tenure, assessments by the department chair as well as committee ballots should be used. Service expectations are greater for those who have achieved tenure and promotion to Associate Professor or Professor, and may include assignments specifically requested by the department as well as additional assignments that may be sought out by the tenured faculty member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.         Criteria for Tenure or Promotion to Associate Professor

 

 

To be eligible for tenure or promotion to Associate Professor, the Department requires that a candidate either a) shows a balanced portfolio of excellence across the three areas of research, teaching, and service or b) demonstrate an extraordinary achievement in research (Kent campus) or teaching (regional campus), excellent service, and very good performance in teaching (Kent campus) or research (regional campus). These two routes to tenure are summarized in Section VII A Table A below and are described in the following subsection. In evaluating a candidate for tenure or promotion to Associate Professor, there is an important judgment component; these criteria are meant to guide the reviewer but not replace the judgment of those reviewing the file. 

 

 

Section VII A. Table A. Summary of Tenure and Promotion Requirements

 

 

 

Teaching

Research

Service

Tenure, Promotion to Associate

Professor

Route A - Balanced Portfolio

Excellence

Excellence

Excellence

Route B Compensatory

Kent Campus

Very Good

Extraordinary

Excellence

Route B

Compensatory

Regional Campus

Extraordinary

Very Good

Excellence

Early Tenure or Promotion to Associate Professor

Kent Campus

Excellence

Extraordinary

Excellence

Regional Campus

Extraordinary

Excellence

Excellence

 

 

  1. Balanced Portfolio of Excellence

 

A candidate will successfully meet the criteria for tenure if he or she has an excellent record in all three categories: research, teaching, and service.

 

 

i. All Campus Candidates - Teaching and Service

 

Section III A. Table B. Summary of Possible Teaching Performance Designations

 

Designation of Teaching Performance

Required Performance on

Course Design

Required Performance on

Course Delivery

Extraordinary

Extraordinary

Extraordinary

Excellence (Effective in one, Extraordinary in the other)

Effective/Extraordinary

Extraordinary/Effective

 

For candidates at all campuses, excellence in teaching is defined as either i) effective course design and extraordinary course delivery or ii) extraordinary course design and effective course delivery.

 

An excellent record in service includes a demonstrated record of significant service to the department, college, campus, or university and significant positive value to the functioning of the department. Service to the profession and community can strengthen the service record but is not a substitute for service at the department, college, and university level. In assessing a faculty member’s service record, service to the department, college, campus, university, community, and profession will be considered. As service needs often vary, explicit service at each possible level - the department, college, campus, university, community, and profession - is not a requirement. Both the quantity of service and the quality of service are important. Service quantity requirements for untenured faculty are lower than for tenured faculty. Expected service requirements for untenured faculty are reflected by the faculty taking on only those assignments requested by the department. In assessing the service of a candidate for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, assessments by the department chair as well as committee ballots should be used.

 

ii. Kent Campus Candidates - Research

 

For candidates for tenure or promotion to Associate Professor at the Kent campus, an excellent record in research would typically be an average of about one publication per year of peer-reviewed journal articles that are generally in the “A” level range. A portfolio that includes a lower quantity of peer-reviewed journal articles but with a higher quality (e.g., a portfolio of “A+” and “A” publications) may also be consistent with an excellent record. C level publications are not explicitly considered in evaluation of a Kent campus research portfolio, though they may demonstrate participation in important teaching and service activities performed in conjunction with doctoral students. The typical point value threshold for an excellent research portfolio for a Kent campus faculty member is 4.5. Although a candidate’s research record can include a mix of publications, it must include a minimum number of “A” or "A+" publications. The possible portfolios that exceed the threshold and satisfy this requirement are identified in Table C below.

 

 

Section III A. Table C. Excellence in Research at the Kent Campus for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

 

Number of “A+” Articles (2.5)

Number of “A” Articles (1)

Number of “B” Articles (0.5)

Number of C Articles (0.25)

Total

2

0

0

NC

5.0

1

2

0

NC

4.5

1

1

2

NC

4.5

0

4

1

NC

4.5

0

3

3

NC

4.5

 

NC - Not Considered

iii. Regional Campus Candidates - Research

 

For candidates at the regional campuses, an excellent record in research would typically be an average of two peer-reviewed journal publications every two to three years generally in the “B” level. A portfolio that includes a lower quantity of peer-reviewed journal articles but with a higher quality (a portfolio of “A” and “B” publications) may also be consistent with an excellent record. The minimum point value threshold for an excellent research portfolio for a regional campus faculty member is 2. While a regional campus candidate’s research record can include a mix of publications, it must include at least 2 “B” (or higher-ranked equivalent) publications. The possible portfolios that exceed the threshold and satisfy this requirement are identified in Table D below.

 

Section III A. Table D. Excellence in Research at the Regional Campus for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

 

Number of “A+” Articles (2.5)

Number of “A” Articles (1)

Number of “B” Articles (0.5)

Number of C Articles (0.25)

Total

1

0

0

0

2.5

0

2

0

0

2

0

1

2

0

2

0

0

3

2

2

0

0

2

4

2

 

 

b. Extraordinary Record in One Area and Very Good Record in One Other

 

A candidate who does not meet the criteria of a balanced portfolio of excellence may still successfully stand for tenure if they are truly extraordinary in one area. A candidate at the Kent campus will successfully meet the criteria for tenure with an extraordinary record in research, a very good record in teaching, and an excellent rating for service. A candidate at the regional campuses will successfully meet the criteria for tenure with an extraordinary record in teaching, a very good record in research, and an excellent rating for service.

 

 

i. All Campus Candidates - Service

 

In assessing a faculty member’s service record, service to the department, college, campus, university, community, and profession will be considered. As service needs often vary, explicit service at each possible level - the department, college, campus, university, community, and profession - is not a requirement. Both the quantity of service and the quality of service are important. Service quantity requirements for untenured faculty are lower than for tenured faculty. Expected service requirements for untenured faculty are reflected by the faculty taking on only those assignments requested by the department. In assessing the service of a candidate for tenure, assessments by the department chair as well as committee ballots should be used. Service expectations are greater for those who have achieved tenure and promotion to Associate Professor or Professor, and may include assignments specifically requested by the department as well as additional assignments that may be sought out by the tenured faculty member.

 

ii. Kent Campus Candidates – Extraordinary Research and Very Good Teaching

 

For candidates for Tenure and promotion to Associate Professor at the Kent campus, an extraordinary record in research would typically be an average of about one to one and a half publications per year with a portfolio of peer-reviewed journal articles that are predominantly in the “A+” and “A” categories. The point value threshold for an extraordinary research portfolio for a Kent campus faculty member is 7.5. In order to be judged extraordinary, a greater number of A+ and A journal articles is expected. Possible portfolios that exceed the threshold and satisfy this requirement for extraordinary research are listed in Table E below.

 

Section III A. Table E. Criteria for Extraordinary Research at the Kent Campus

 

Number of “A+” Articles (2.5)

Number of “A” Articles (1)

Number of “B” Articles (0.5)

Number of C Articles (0.25)

Total

3

0

0

NC

7.5

2

3

0

NC

8.0

1

5

0

NC

7.5

1

4

2

NC

7.5

 

 

For faculty at the Kent campus, a very good record in teaching means the faculty member is evaluated as at least “effective” in both course design and course delivery. Only Kent campus faculty can be tenured and promoted with only “effective” evaluations in course design and course delivery. Regional campus faculty must be evaluated as at least extraordinary on either design or delivery and effective on the other dimension. If they are lacking in research, it is possible for them to compensate by being extraordinary in teaching.

 

iii. Regional Campus Candidates – Very Good Research and Extraordinary Teaching

 

For candidates at a regional campus, an extraordinary record in teaching would be a teaching portfolio evaluated as extraordinary in both course design and course delivery.

 

For candidates at the regional campuses, a very good record in research includes a lower quantity or quality level of publications. A point value of 1.25 with no requirement for a B level journal would constitute a very good research record for regional campus faculty seeking tenure and/or promotion to Associate Professor based on an extraordinary record in one area, excellent service, and a very good record in the other.

 

3.         Early Tenure and Promotion

 

Under extraordinary circumstances, the department may wish to nominate a candidate for tenure and/or promotion before the traditional time-in-rank of 5 years has passed. If the candidate can document extraordinary performance in at least one area and excellence in the other two, he or she is qualified to stand for and receive early tenure and promotion to Associate Professor. For the Kent campus, extraordinary performance must be in the area of research and is defined in Section III A Table E. For the regional campus, extraordinary performance must be in the area of teaching and is defined in Section IIIA Table B.