Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions
Appointment and Employment Procedures and Regulations
Appointment to a Tenure-Track Position
Normally, an earned doctoral degree in philosophy is required for all faculty appointments to a tenure-track position in the Department.
Visiting Faculty Appointments
Visiting faculty appointments at an appropriate faculty rank may be made when leaves of absence occur or special needs arise and funds are available. A visiting faculty member is typically a faculty member from another institution who is employed by the Department for a period not to exceed one (1) year. In the event that a Visiting faculty member is employed in that capacity for a second consecutive year, the visiting faculty member will then become a full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty member.
Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTT) Appointments
Full-time non-tenure track faculty (NTT) appointments are made on an annual basis (see Subsection A under Renewal of Appointment and Third-Year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty, below). NTT appointments are not included under the umbrella of the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and NTT faculty members are not entitled to any rights with regard to tenure. The renewal process will be covered below in Subsection B under Renewal of Appointment and Third-Year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty.
Part-Time Faculty Appointments
When the Department cannot meet its teaching needs from the ranks of its full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty and its full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty, part-time faculty appointments will be made from an established pool of qualified applicants not currently on regular appointment at the University. Normally a part-time faculty member will teach only lower level courses, unless otherwise approved by the FAC and the Chair.
For the initial appointment to the rank of part-time faculty appointment, a candidate must hold at least a M.A. or an equivalent degree in philosophy to apply to the Chair for consideration. Further, for initial appointment, a candidate must have potential for excellence in teaching.
For the initial appointment to the rank of part-time faculty to teach only courses in religion, a candidate must hold at least an M.A. academic degree in religion studies. Further, for initial appointment, a candidate must have potential for excellence in teaching.
Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Ranks
The basic definitions of faculty ranks are as follows:
This rank is normally the entry level rank for tenure-track faculty holding the doctorate in philosophy.
For the initial appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor, a candidate must hold a Ph.D. or an equivalent degree in philosophy.
Further, for initial appointment, a candidate must have potential for excellence in teaching. Evidence for such potential is:
a. Letters of recommendation, and where possible, student evaluations.
b. The candidate's submission of class plans, syllabi, requirements, readings upon request of the Chairperson.
c. The candidate's performance in reading and defending a paper before the Department.
d. The candidate's performance in presenting to the Department faculty a class session on some topic set by the Department; or giving a session of some undergraduate class or graduate colloquium, with the faculty in attendance.
Finally, the candidate must have potential for writing publishable material. Evidence for such potential is:
a. One or more publications.
b. The quality of the candidate's dissertation.
c. The quality of any manuscript the candidate may submit.
d. Letters of recommendation from publishing scholars.
Criteria for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor are covered below in Subsection C under Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion. A candidate whose initial appointment at Kent State University is to the rank of Associate Professor must possess the Ph.D. or its equivalent in philosophy. Initial appointment at this rank presumes prior service as an Assistant Professor.
Further, the candidate must have demonstrated excellence in teaching. Evidence for such potential is:
a. The candidate's performance in reading and defending a paper before the Department.
b. The candidate's performance in presenting to the Department faculty a class session on some topic set by the Department; or giving a session of an undergraduate class or graduate colloquium, with the faculty in attendance.
c. The candidate's submission of class plans, syllabi, requirements, readings upon request of the Chairperson.
d. Letters of recommendation, and where possible, student evaluations.
In addition, the candidate for initial appointment at this rank must have a substantial and quality publication record consistent with departmental criteria and evidence for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor (see below, Subsections C and D under Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion). Reviews and letters, solicited by the Chairperson from experts in the candidate's field, are also to be used in assessing the candidate's scholarly record.
Criteria for promotion to the rank of Full Professor are covered below in Subsection C under Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion.
A candidate whose initial appointment at Kent State University is to Full Professor must have a Ph.D. or its equivalent in philosophy, should have at least a decade of experience teaching in the field, must have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and must have an excellent sustained publication record. Section V of this handbook should be consulted for the criteria and evidence for excellence in teaching.
The candidate for initial appointment at the rank of Full Professor must have a substantial and quality publication record consistent with departmental criteria and evidence for promotion to the rank of Full Professor (see below, Subsections C and D under Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion). Reviews and letters, solicited by the Chairperson from experts in the candidate's field, are also to be used in assessing the candidate's scholarly record.
Reviews and letters, solicited by the Chairperson from experts in the candidate's field, are to be used in assessing the candidate's scholarly record.
Graduate Faculty Status
As a graduate degree granting Department, the Department normally requires that all faculty hired for tenure-track positions be eligible for appointment to the graduate faculty as associate or full members. The Administrative policy regarding graduate faculty is included in the University Policy Register (University Policy Register 3342-6-15.1). Graduate Faculty Status is a meritorious position in the Department.
Recruiting Tenure Track Faculty
The Department supports the goals of equal opportunity and affirmative action in recruiting and in making appointments to the faculty. The FAC will review the applications for any tenure-track position and prepare a ranked list of the top ten to twenty candidates. A search committee will be appointed by the Chair after consultation with the FAC to interview candidates at the APA. Based on these initial interviews, the search committee will make a recommendation to the FAC that two (2) or three (3) candidates be invited to campus for an interview. After the campus interviews, the FAC will recommend its choice of candidates to the Chair. The FAC’s recommendation is advisory to the Chair, who then makes a recommendation to the Dean. If the Dean concurs with the Chair, a recommendation is forwarded to the Office of the Provost. If the Chair's recommendation is different than that of the FAC, the Chair shall inform the Dean of all recommendations and the reasons for the disagreement.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Faculty
Research and Teaching
Each Faculty member is expected to contribute to the Department, Campus, College and University according to the terms and condition of his/her letter of appointment. Scholarly activity is expected of all Faculty members, although the extent and/or type of activity may vary with the terms of each Faculty member’s assignment, campus location and Graduate Faculty Status. A Faculty member whose primary or sole responsibilities are undergraduate teaching and undergraduate programs may teach and serve in a greater number and diversity of courses with a larger number of students per semester than a Faculty member who is also a member of the Graduate Faculty. Supervision and direction of undergraduate research projects and theses is part of the teaching function of all Faculty members.
Faculty members with Graduate Faculty Status are involved in the research and graduate teaching program and are expected to present evidence of their research endeavors as witnessed by publication, proposals submitted for extramural funding, and dissemination of research in various venues as appropriate to the discipline. Activity in professional organizations and the training of graduate students is also expected. Most of the Department faculty members will be either a full or associate member of the Graduate Faculty. All Graduate Faculty members are expected to serve on graduate student committees, participate in extracurricular graduate studies programs, and direct graduate student research.
All Graduate Faculty members receive workload equivalence each academic year.
a. Membership in the philosophy Graduate Faculty includes duties beyond the teaching of graduate-level courses and requires participation in Advisory Committees, Thesis Committees, Thesis Advising, graduate colloquia, the Annual Graduate Student Conference, and other programs equivalent to a 3-hour course reduction per academic year.
b. Graduate Faculty are expected to keep active as scholars engaged throughout the academic year in scholarly activity that deepens their awareness of philosophy, keeps them abreast of developments within the field, and allows constant update of their courses. They are also expected to engage in research to advance and create new knowledge in philosophy, resulting in a sustained record of publications and conference presentations. Graduate Faculty members are given a 3-hour-course reduction each academic year.
Service to the University
Service to the University is a responsibility of each faculty member. Department, Campus, College, and University committee or task force membership is expected as a normal part of a faculty member’s contributions. Special or outstanding service above and beyond that which is typical may be considered during the review of a faculty member, but service alone will not reduce the expectations of quantity and quality teaching and scholarly activity. Public service is encouraged and recognized as a part of the professional responsibilities of each faculty member, although contributions in this area can be expected to vary widely due to the nature of the various disciplines within the Department.
Faculty Code of Ethics
All members of the Department faculty are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards as teachers, scholars, university citizens and colleagues. The University policy regarding faculty code of professional ethics can be found in the University Policy Register (University Policy Register 3342-6-17).
A sanction is a documented corrective action in response to a faculty member's unsatisfactory performance of his/her duties and responsibilities as a member of the faculty (see CBA, Article VIII).
All leaves, sponsored or unsupported, personal or professional, are subject to the approval of the Chair, the Dean and the Provost.
University leaves include but are not limited to:
1. Research leaves (see University Policy Register 3342-6-11.8).
2. Leaves of absence without pay (see University Policy Register 3342-6-11.9).
3. Faculty professional improvement leaves (see University Policy Register 3342-6-12 ).
4. Research/Creative Activity appointments (see University Policy Register 3342-6-15.3).
Leaves of absence on a one-year (or less) basis without pay may be arranged through the Department Chairperson and, with his or her approval, the approval of the Dean of the College, and the approval of the Provost and Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Such requests for a leave of absence should be filed not later than the first of March for the next academic year. However, the University can and does recognize "court leave" (see University Policy Register 3342-6-11.5) and does have a defined policy concerning military leave of absence (see University Policy Register 3342-6-11.6).
Faculty Absence and Travel Policy
Faculty members who will be absent from campus for professional or personal reasons must submit a Request for Absence Form to the Chair. The request should be made at least one (1) month prior to the planned absence and is subject to the approval of the Chair and the Dean. Arrangements for any classes to be missed during the absence must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Chair before approval will be granted.
Attendance at professional meetings is encouraged and approved travel expenses incurred in attending such meetings may be reimbursed when approved prior to travel according to the University's travel policies and are subject to the availability of Department funds. It is assumed that Faculty members who are applying for travel funding from University Research Council will submit a completed form at least one (1) month prior to the professional travel date for review by the Chair. Requests for Absence Forms and Requests for University Research Council Travel Support which are inaccurate or incomplete will be declined by the Chair. The Faculty member is responsible for submitting all pertinent supporting materials with the application.
Faculty Sick Leave
The Chair is responsible for keeping complete records of faculty sick leave; however, faculty members are also required to submit the appropriate sick leave forms to the Chair. Sick leave forms should be completed and submitted to the Chair within forty-eight (48) hours after an absence (see University Policy Register 3342-6-11.1).
Outside Employment and Other Outside Activities
Faculty members may engage in professional activities outside the university provided the activities do not interfere with the faculty member's teaching, research, or service responsibilities to the Department, Campus, College or University (see University Policy Register 3342-6-24). These activities must not compete with University activity or the faculty member’s employment with the University. Continuing employment while under contract for remuneration must be approved in advance by the Chair and the Dean. Each academic year, each faculty member must disclose and seek approval for all continuing outside employment on the form provided by the University. Any outside employment or other outside activities are subject to the Faculty Code of Ethics and the University’s conflict of interest policies. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-17 and 3342-6-23)
All faculty members should be aware of current copyright laws which restrict the copying of published materials. For further information, contact the University’s Office of Legal Affairs.
The University policy regarding misconduct in research and scholarship and the Administrative policy and procedures regarding allegations and instances of misconduct in research and scholarship are included in the University Policy Register (see University Policy Register 3342-10-07 and 3342-10-07.1, respectively).
Minimum Salaries and Salary Review
Minimum faculty salaries in each academic rank are specified in Article XII, Section 7 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Faculty members wishing to request a salary review (i) to match a bona fide offer of employment, (ii) to address a salary discrepancy, or (iii) in other unusual circumstances may do so in accordance with Article XII, Section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion
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.
Circumstances may arise that require extension of the probationary period. 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).
In making a reappointment decision, each member of the Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee will render a judgment as to whether, “[g]iven the years of service to date and the number of years until mandatory tenure review, it is reasonable to expect that the probationary faculty member will eventually undergo a successful tenure review” (University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment, Section D).
Necessary Conditions for Annual Reappointment
- Documented evidence of suitable progress in scholarship, considering the accumulated years of service.
- Documented evidence of suitable progress in teaching, considering the accumulated years of service.
- Documented evidence of suitable progress in service, considering the accumulated years of service.
In addition to providing documented evidence for each annual reappointment review of suitable progress in scholarship, teaching and service, no later than the second annual review probationary faculty members must also articulate a plan for achieving tenure. For each annual review, candidates should also address any concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Chair in previous reviews. Subsection D (below) offers guidelines and examples of acceptable documentation of scholarship, teaching and service, as well as criteria for evaluating achievements in each of the three areas.
The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy regarding faculty tenure (See University Policy Register 3342-6-14). Each academic year, tenure guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.
Necessary Conditions for Tenure
- Documented evidence that the candidate has achieved a significant body of scholarship and will continue and sustain a program of high-quality scholarship.
- Documented evidence that the candidate has achieved excellence as a teacher and will continue and sustain a program of high-quality teaching.
- Documented evidence that the candidate has provided effective service and will continue and sustain a program of high-quality service.
Subsection D (below) offers guidelines and examples of acceptable documentation of scholarship, teaching and service, as well as criteria for evaluating achievements in each of the three areas.
The policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy regarding faculty tenure (See University Policy Register 3342-6-15). Each academic year, promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.
Departmental Criteria Regarding Academic Credentials and Experience
a. Assistant Professor: Normally an Assistant Professor must have the Ph.D. (or equivalent) in philosophy and will have served five years as Assistant Professor before becoming eligible for consideration for advancement.
b. Associate Professor: Normally an Associate Professor must have the Ph.D. (or equivalent) in philosophy and will have served five years as Associate Professor before becoming eligible for consideration for advancement.
c. Full Professor: Normally a Full Professor must hold a Ph.D. (or equivalent) in philosophy.
d. In extraordinary cases a faculty member may be considered for promotion to the next highest rank with fewer years at current rank. Exceptions to these usual or standard circumstances will be reviewed in accordance with University Policy.
e. A non-tenured faculty member applying for promotion in rank to either Associate or Full Professor must undergo a successful tenure review.
Departmental Criteria Regarding Academic Performance and Service
The Department observes the following as necessary conditions for promotion:
- Assistant Professor
- Documented evidence of scholarly activity such as an accepted Ph.D. dissertation.
- Documented evidence of teaching, such as a statement of teaching aims and goals, technology utilized, comprehensive syllabi or class plans, peer review and/or student teaching evaluations (if available), and letters of recommendation attesting to teaching experience and effectiveness.
- Associate Professor
- Documented evidence of achievement in scholarship beyond that achieved for the rank of Assistant Professor.
- Documented evidence of achievement in teaching beyond that achieved for the rank of Assistant Professor.
- Documented evidence of achievement in service beyond that achieved for the rank of Assistant Professor.
- Full Professor
- Documented evidence of achievement in scholarship beyond that achieved for the rank of Associate Professor.
- Documented evidence of achievement in teaching beyond that achieved for the rank of Associate Professor.
- Documented evidence of achievement in service beyond that achieved for the rank of Associate Professor.
For consideration of promotion to the rank of Full Professor, evidence must be provided that the candidate’s work has not merely made a positive contribution to scholarship in the area, but has had significant impact.
Subsection D (below) offers guidelines and examples of acceptable documentation of scholarship, teaching and service, as well as criteria for evaluating achievements in each of the three areas.
- Assistant Professor
The quality and merit of scholarship, teaching, and service is assessed in terms of the following criteria. In all cases, it is the responsibility of candidates for reappointment, tenure, or promotion to demonstrate, using the guidelines detailed below, that they have fulfilled the necessary conditions for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion detailed above, as applicable. Candidates are required to present a thorough and reflective self-evaluation narrative without unduly inflating accomplishments or seeming to duplicate achievement within or across categories. (See section G below.)
In evaluating scholarship activities, the Department takes into account factors such as the breadth and depth of the candidate’s knowledge and scholarship in the field; evidence of high-quality research activity; the significance of the candidate’s research to extending knowledge in the field; and the clarity of the candidate’s research project.
The Department recognizes that activities will vary considerably among individuals and that the quality and merit of these activities should thus be assessed within each candidate’s unique scholarly context, including area(s) of specialization, methodologies employed, and the extent to which the candidate’s work interfaces with other disciplines and with fields outside academe. In particular, the Department recognizes that some faculty publish in a variety of modes, including single and multiple author books, edited books, book chapters, journal articles, and reviews; others focus upon a single mode, such as journal articles. A publication in a language other than English will be regarded as comparable to a similar English language publication. Furthermore, the ability to publish works in a language which is not native to the speaker provides additional evidence of the candidate's scholarship.
Members of the Ad Hoc RTP committee also take into account the specializations and concentrations specified in each faculty member’s letter of offer, if applicable.
In philosophy, a book is not equal to a fixed number of articles, and a book of a certain number of pages should not be equated to the same number of pages published in a series of articles.
There are no fixed criteria for assessing the quality of a book or a publisher in the discipline of philosophy. However, not all publishers are equal. The characteristics of a quality press for the publications of books in philosophy include, but are not limited to, the following:
- established university academic press, established non-university academic press, or press which serves as the publishing arm of an established academic society
- external, blind review of the work by established senior scholars in the appropriate specialization, including the possibility of a second level of review by scholars of a similar stature if the book is being considered for inclusion in a series
- a lengthy and rigorous review period in which the author responds to requests for revision from the reviewers
Conversely, the following are some indicators that a press is not a quality venue for publishing in the field of philosophy:
- the publisher conducts most of its reviewing in-house
- the review process is brief and/or cursory, and/or the author is not required to address requests for revision from the reviewers
- the press’ contributions to academic scholarship are uneven or questionable
Works self-published by the author, or which the author pays a press to publish, are not considered evidence of scholarship.
The following criteria apply to both traditional and purely electronic journals.
It is understood that there is no generally accepted ranking of philosophical journals across the discipline. In subfields where official rankings of journals do exist, however, those rankings should be considered authoritative for journals within that subfield. Even in subfields where no formal rankings exist, however, not all journals are equal. The characteristics of a quality philosophical journal, regardless of subfield, include, but are not limited to, the following:
- a high number of annual submissions
- a low acceptance rate
- a high impact factor, in subfields where such measures exist (it is understood that, particularly in smaller subfields, even the most influential journals will not have a significant impact factor)
- an editorial board composed of established senior scholars in the relevant specialization(s)
- reviewers with expertise in the relevant specialization(s)
- a rigorous and lengthy review process
- affiliation with a learned academic society
While journals that engage in blind review of submissions are generally preferred, it is understood that some top journals in some subfields publish only invited articles. In addition, journals committed to blind review may also publish special editions featuring invited submissions, or a combination of invited and blind-reviewed submissions.
Given that the typical length of journal articles varies significantly by philosophical subfield, it is inappropriate to simply count pages as a measure of a scholar’s output.
Publishing chapters in edited anthologies is a common form of scholarly activity in some subfields of the discipline of philosophy. In the case of scholarly book chapters, the quality of the publisher of the anthology will be evaluated based on the criteria in (a) above. The language regarding the relative value of invited versus blind-reviewed journal articles in (b) above applies to book chapters as well. That a previously published essay is selected for inclusion as a book chapter or anthology is often an indication of its overall quality and lasting significance.
Scholarly translations are crucial to making important research available to a wider audience, both within and outside the academic world. They require a deep understanding of the work in its disciplinary and cultural context. Book translations published by quality academic presses typically undergo the same blind review process as the original manuscript. Because of their importance, translations of previously published philosophical essays and book chapters should be accorded roughly equal weight as a publication in a journal of that quality would be given. A book translation, while generally not equivalent to a single-authored book, should still be regarded as a major accomplishment.
For many, but not all, faculty members in philosophy, a record of invited and/or refereed presentations at academic conferences, symposia, and workshops, and/or lectures at academic institutions, is an important component of their scholarly record. However, such presentations should be supplemented by an ongoing program of scholarly publication.
The characteristics of a quality academic conference, workshop, or symposium include, but are not limited to, the following:
- a high number of submissions
- a low acceptance rate
- a blind review process
- prominent invited and/or keynote speakers, if applicable
- affiliation with an established academic society
The geographical location of a conference should not be taken into account when determining the quality of the conference, or whether the conference is local, regional, national, or international in scope. For example, a conference held in NE Ohio in which scholars from several countries are participating is an international conference, not a local one.
In the case of presentations which are not subject to blind review, it is important to distinguish between invited presentations which are based on a scholar’s record and scholarly reputation, and which are thus indicators of the scholar’s impact, and venues at which all submissions are simply accepted without review.
Other Scholarly Accomplishments
In addition to the categories discussed above, scholarship in the discipline of philosophy can take on the following forms. While valuable as evidence of scholarly achievement, none of the below are necessary for a successful reappointment, tenure, or promotion application.
- election to office in scholarly organizations and societies
- editorial board membership on journals
- editorship of journals or of special editions of journals
- requests to serve as an external reviewer for tenure or promotion files
- request to serve as an external reader for theses and dissertations, either at KSU or elsewhere
- invitations to serve as an organizer, steering committee member, or reviewer for academic conferences
- acknowledgment as a specialist by federal, state, or private institutions outside academe in fields related to the faculty member’s research, by, for example, invitations to serve as a leader or member of a panel, to conduct site visits, or to serve as a consultant for the institution
- grants (while external grants generally represent a more significant scholarly achievement, even internal grants can be competitive; given the difficult and time-consuming nature of grant applications, some credit should be given even for grant applications which are not funded)
- fellowships (the language above concerning grants is also applicable to fellowships
- academic awards (other than grants and fellowships)
Evidence of Impact
Once a scholarly work has been published, indicators of its influence may include, but are not limited to, the following. It is understood that, in many cases, it can take time for a scholar’s work to achieve such influence.
- citations and discussions by other scholars
- indexing in research databases, including those focusing on disciplines other than philosophy, if applicable
- reviews in scholarly journals (while reviews in more prominent venues carry more weight, all reviews should be considered signs of a work’s influence)
- translations into foreign languages
- reprints and subsequent editions
- invitations the author receives to give lectures and presentations at universities and scholarly gatherings
- invitations the author receives to contribute to, or to serve on the editorial board of, scholarly journals
- requests the author receives to review submissions for academic presses, journals, and conferences
Teaching includes instruction at all levels of the undergraduate and graduate curriculum in philosophy, and all other viable forms of instruction. The following are some examples of evidence of successful teaching, not an exhaustive list. All candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are required to provide the items marked with an asterisk in their file for each class taught.
Instruction and Delivery
- Representative syllabi from each course (e.g. PHIL 11001), indicating scope of class, class requirements, exam and paper schedule, grading procedure, reading assignments. *
- Copies of examinations given in each course, requirements for papers, and any course handouts. *
- Student evaluations, including all numeric data and student comments contained in the SSI Report to the department, from each class the candidate has taught. *
- Peer review and evaluation of teaching, including visitation of the instructor’s classes during the time he or she is a candidate for tenure.
- Evidence of outstanding achievement, such as teaching awards. The value or weight of any one award will depend upon the review process, and the level of competition (college, university, state, region, or national award).
- Honors course contact-hours and additional requirements added to non-honors courses.
- Experiential Learning Requirement (ELR) contact-hours and additional requirements added to non-ELR courses.
Teaching Excellence Committee Reports will be included in each candidate’s file by the Chair.
Curriculum Design and Review
- Demonstrated significant involvement in curricular development and/or review beyond participation in routine Curriculum Committee or other Departmental service activities.
Advising, Mentoring and Supervision
- Participation on Honors and M.A. thesis committees within the Department, as well as Honors, MA, and Doctoral theses outside the Department.
- Other significant student research and career advising.
- Publication of instructional software, computer-based instructional materials, or instructor's manuals for software or textbooks.
- Organizing and conducting workshops and/or seminars on pedagogy.
- Participation in faculty development programs for teaching.
- Manuscript reviewing/refereeing for pedagogy journals and/or publishers.
- Grant proposal reviewing/refereeing for external granting agencies and foundations focusing on pedagogy.
- Seeking professionally reviewed pedagogy research and/or instructional grants. Extra weight is placed on successfully receipt of grants.
Service activities make significant contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly, governance, and collegial goals and missions of the University, College, Campus, Department, or community. These activities may or may not be tied to a faculty member’s specialization within philosophy. The following are examples of service and are not an exhaustive list.
- Outstanding service to the Department, College, Campus, or University. The activities may include:
- Committee membership or committee Chair positions beyond routine participation in Departmental committees of the whole such as FAC, Grad FAC, Curriculum Committee, search committees, and graduate conference attendance. These additional activities may include MA advising and thesis reading, participation in ad hoc committee assignments or student advising beyond routine assignments.
- Participation in undergraduate or graduate student recruitment activities.
- Service to the Department, such as Graduate and Undergraduate Coordinator, or CAC Representative.
- Guest lecturing, thesis and dissertation reading outside the Department, or serving as an ad hoc RTP reviewer for other departments.
- Serving on university-wide committees or organizations, including (but not limited to) advising for student organizations beyond the Department, Faculty Senate, Regional Campus Faculty Council, IRB, IACUC, Provost’s Advisory Boards, AAUP leadership, and ad hoc University-wide hiring or review committees.
- Outstanding service to the community beyond the university which is not representative of the Department, College, Campus, and University including but not limited to:
- Service, including membership or leadership in service learning organizations.
- Service, including membership or leadership in community organizations such as museums, hospitals, and other organizations.
- Service, including organization of regional, national, or international conferences.
- Service, including membership or leadership in national and international professional bodies such as learned societies and federal review panels.
- Service, including program review boards, panels, professional mentoring and assessment or student advising activities that take place at other institutions.
It is incumbent upon each faculty member to explain the scope, effort, contributory value, and (when necessary) professional contribution of each service activity.
- Outstanding service to the Department, College, Campus, or University. The activities may include:
External Letters of Evaluation
Beyond the perusal of the candidate’s published works and other documented evidence of scholarship activities by the members of the Ad Hoc Promotion and Tenure Committee, further evaluation of the candidate’s publications and scholarly activities will be solicited by the Chairperson in the form of external (outside the university) letters of evaluation. The Chair will solicit letters according to University policies and procedures.
Regional Campus Application
These criteria for promotion, tenure, and reappointment obtain for both Kent Campus Philosophy faculty and Regional Campus Philosophy faculty; the Department’s Ad Hoc Promotion and Tenure Committee/Ad Hoc Advisory Committee makes recommendations for promotion, tenure, or reappointment of all members of the Department – the Regional Campuses faculty as well as the Kent Campus faculty. The Department of Philosophy recognizes that in evaluating Regional Campus faculty for tenure and promotion greater consideration may be given to teaching and service as indicated in the appropriate campus handbook.
Each candidate for reappointment, tenure or promotion should submit a self-evaluation narrative, along with the other materials required by university policy and the departmental handbook to constitute a reappointment, tenure or promotion file. A basic purpose of the self-evaluation narrative is to allow a candidate the opportunity to present a composite assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments in scholarship, teaching and service under consideration. This narrative should describe and delineate the candidate’s achievements and contributions, strengths and weaknesses, in the respective areas of scholarship, teaching and service. In this narrative, the candidate is expected to make the case concerning the quality of his/her accomplishments in scholarship, teaching, and service using the criteria in section D above. Candidates are required to present a thorough and reflective narrative without unduly inflating accomplishments or seeming to duplicate achievement within or across categories.
Renewal of Appointment and Third-Year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty
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.
Annual Reappointment Review and Third-Year Review of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Appointees
The following remarks pertaining to the annual reappointment review and the third-year review of full-time non-tenure track appointees are made within the context of the procedures specified in “The Procedures and Policies Governing Review of Faculty: Promotion, Tenure, Reappointment and Non-reappointment” distributed by the Provost’s Office and in the Collective Bargaining Agreement for full-time non-tenure track faculty, Article IX, “Appointments: Terms, Conditions and Renewals.”
1. Annual reappointment review and third-year review of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty shall observe the criteria and normal expectations for full-time, tenure track probationary faculty as delineated above in Subsection A.
2. Each annual reappointment review and third-year review shall be based on the criteria and expectations for the appointee’s respective role within the unit, which are spelled out in the letter of offer for the appointment.
3. The Department recognizes that a full-time, non-tenure-track appointment is primarily a teaching appointment. Annual reappointment review and third-year reappointment reviews will de-emphasize the research/scholarly activity/professional development and service components that are usual expectations for reappointment of full-time tenure-track probationary faculty. However, the departmental expectation is that a full-time, non-tenure-track appointee will supply some evidence of remaining current in the discipline during the time of appointment.
The following counts as such evidence:
a. Participation in departmental Colloquia, conferences, and other academic programs.
b. Colloquia and Conference presentations within the Department or outside departmental activities (refereed or not).
c. Refereed or invited publications.
4. Mindful of the evaluations from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, the Chairperson forms an evaluation and makes a recommendation which is then forwarded to the Dean, along with the evaluations from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.
Third-Year Full Performance Review
Philosophy Department Criteria for Graduate Faculty Membership
Graduate Faculty Status in the Department of Philosophy is a privilege which may be earned by faculty members. An application for Graduate Faculty status will be submitted to the Chair who will present the application to the Graduate Faculty Committee. The Graduate Faculty Committee will consider the application, and make a recommendation to the Chair as to the evaluation of the application for Graduate Faculty Status and rank.
Criteria for Full Membership
To qualify as a Full member of the Graduate Faculty a faculty member must have fulfilled the following:
1. Achieved tenure and promotion in rank to at least an Associate Professor as a Philosophy faculty member at any campus in the Kent State University system.
2. Published either:
a. six (6) articles (refereed or invited), or
b. one (1) book
3. Given four (4) presentations before professional bodies.
4. Exhibited good graduate teaching, and performed the duties and responsibilities of a Graduate Faculty member serving on graduate committees (Graduate Studies, Program Advisory, Thesis Advisory and Thesis Defense Committees) and when applicable, as a Thesis advisor.
A Full Member may:
1. At level F-1: Teach graduate course work and serve on master's committees.
2. At level F-2: Direct master's theses, as well as Level 1.
3. At level F-3: Serve on doctoral committees, and (with departmental approval) co-direct doctoral dissertations, as well as Levels 1 and 2.
4. At level F-4: Direct doctoral dissertations, as well as Levels 1, 2, and 3. (Since the Department of Philosophy does not have a doctoral program, full membership at level 4 does not apply unless one has directed or co-directed a doctoral dissertation in another Department.)
The Graduate Faculty Committee will assess whether the faculty member has fulfilled the expectations stipulated in the list of qualification for Full Membership as a Graduate Faculty and make a recommendation to the Department Chair regarding the application, who will forward the Graduate Faculty recommendation as well as the Chair’s evaluation to the Dean.
Criteria for Associate Membership
To qualify as an Associate member of the Graduate Faculty, a faculty member must hold a tenure-track position in the Department of Philosophy. The Graduate Faculty Committee will assess the rank of an Associate Member according to the following categories:
1. A-1: This status will be recommended for those faculty members with the Ph.D. degree (or its equivalent) who have demonstrated the potential for scholarly research and publication and who have demonstrated the potential for effective graduate teaching.
2. A-2: For this status, a faculty member must have, in addition to the above:
a. An ongoing research program in areas of expertise, AND
b. Published one (1) article in a journal, edited book, or proceedings (refereed or invited), AND
c. Made 3 scholarly presentations, refereed or invited.
3. A-3: For this status, a faculty member must have, in addition to the above:
a. Published either:
i. six (6) articles (refereed or invited), or
ii. one (1) book.
b. At least one program presentation before a professional body.
c. Exhibited potential for good graduate teaching and thesis advising as both director and a committee member.
An Associate Member may:
1. At level A-1: Teach graduate course work and serve on master's committees.
2. At level A-2: Direct master's theses only under exceptional circumstances (as determined by the Graduate Faculty Committee and the Chair), as well as Level 1.
3. At level A-3: Serve on doctoral committees, and (with departmental approval) co-direct doctoral dissertations, as well as Levels 1 and 2.
Temporary Associate Graduate Faculty Membership
The rank of Temporary Associate Member is granted by the Department for a qualified scholar whose participation in the graduate program is desired by the graduate faculty committee for a limited period and for a limited objective. Normally, this status should be assigned for someone to instruct a graduate course for one semester or academic year or for service on a master’s thesis committee, and may include in exceptional cases service as a thesis advisor. Temporary status is granted only on an Academic Year basis. Therefore the rank of “Temporary Graduate Faculty Member” terminates at the end of each Academic Year, but can be reinstated by action of the Graduate Faculty Committee and the Department Chair.
Criteria for Reappointment to the Graduate Faculty Subsequent to an Initial Appointment as Either Associate or Full Member
Retention of an appointment after an initial five-year appointment requires the that the Graduate Faculty member do the following:
1. Exhibit good teaching at the graduate level within the evaluation period, AND
2. Serve on thesis committees and, when applicable, as thesis advisor within the evaluation period, AND
3. Demonstrate evidence of continued research and persistent scholarly activity within the evaluation period by any one of the following:
a. Presentation (refereed or invited) at conferences and meetings of scholarly bodies.
b. Publication in a journal, proceedings or edited book (invited or refereed).
c. Applying for extra-mural funding.
Consequences for Failure to Meet Reappointment Criteria
1. If a Full Member of the graduate faculty fails within the evaluation period to meet these criteria, the faculty member will be reduced to a Full Member at the level of F-2.
2. If an Associate Member of the graduate faculty at level A-3, A-2, or A-1 fails within the evaluation period to meet these criteria, the faculty will be reduced to a Temporary Associate Member.
However, as stipulated in Policy Registry 3342-6-15.1 Administrative policy regarding graduate faculty, (see University Policy Registry 3342-6-15.1, Section B.2.a, “In rare instances, and with great caution, the publication requirement may be waived for senior faculty members who have a distinguished record of thesis direction.”