Regional Campus Faculty

The criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion outlined on pp. 1-9 of this document apply to Kent Campus Faculty.  Below is a summary of how these criteria are modified for faculty at the Regional Campuses (see also Table V.2).

University Policy regarding Faculty tenure states that criteria which are appropriate to a particular unit shall be formulated by that unit in light of college (if applicable) and University standards and guidelines, the mission of the unit, and the demands and academic standards of the discipline.  (See UPR 6-14, B2).  Accordingly, given the different mission of the Regional Campus System, meritorious performance in teaching and service is a major factor in considering Regional Campus Faculty for tenure and promotion.  Supervision of students in research, although laudatory, is not a requirement for Regional Campus Faculty, given the more limited opportunities for this activity.  Nevertheless, student supervision that results in conference presentations can also enhance a Faculty member’s teaching credentials.

As for Kent Campus Faculty, a threshold of research accomplishment must be met for a positive recommendation on tenure and promotion to Associate Professor.  For Regional Campus Faculty, research expectations are less in terms of quantity of scholarly output, but maintain an emphasis on quality.  Quality publications are articles published in nationally (or internationally) recognized journals that have objective metrics of scientific merit (e.g., that are indexed in Psych Info).  Evidence of continued professional growth, (through, for example, research presentations at regional, national or international disciplinary conferences such as MPA, APA, or APS) must be present if a Faculty member is to be recommended for tenure and promotion.  A clear expectation is a program of research that culminates in peer reviewed empirical journal articles.  Unlike Kent Campus Faculty, Regional Campus Faculty are not expected to seek external funding for their research, nor is scholarly reputation a major consideration for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor.  However, grant activity and evidence of scholarly reputation are credentials that can further bolster the case for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, assuming that all other criteria for tenure and promotion have been met (see Table V.2).

As noted in the University Policy, promotion to Professor necessarily requires significant accomplishments in the area of research following promotion to Associate Professor.   In addition, as indicated on p. 3 of this policy, full Professors are expected to meet promotion requirements at a higher level than Associate Professors. In evaluating Regional Campus candidates for promotion to Professor, a substantial record of quality publications in nationally (or internationally) recognized journals, evidence  of continued professional growth since promotion to Associate Professor, and some evidence of scholarly reputation (see p. 5)  are all key considerations. Unlike Kent Campus Faculty, Regional Campus Faculty are not expected to seek external funding for their research.  However, grant activity is a credential that can further bolster the case for promotion to Professor, assuming that all other criteria for promotion have been met.  (see Table V.2). 

TABLE V.2  Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of Regional Campus Faculty




Professional Activity



Meets Expectations

A program of research that  results in quality publications in empirical, peer-reviewed journals

Typical examples include  presenting at meetings  and ad hoc journal reviews 

Solid external letters;

 For promotion to full must also

 have :  some evidence of impact /recognition  (e.g., citations, publication outlets, reviewing)




Too few quality publications or no evidence of a program   of research

No engagement in profession

Lackluster external letters;

For promotion to full:  minimal impact





                         Classroom Instruction

Meets Expectations

Solid evidence of high quality teaching (based on peer reviews from Ad Hoc P&T committee and student evaluations) 


Consistent evidence of mediocre teaching performance





Meets Expectations

Consistent and responsible service on departmental and/or University committees


Minimal and/or low quality service