Criteria for Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion | School Health Sciences Handbook | Kent State University

Criteria for Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion

The School has undergraduate programs in the following areas: Athletic Training, Exercise Science, Health Education and Promotion, Integrated Health Studies, Nutrition and Dietetics, and Speech Pathology and Audiology. At the graduate level, the School offers Master's degrees in the following program areas: Athletic Training, Exercise Physiology, Health Education and Promotion, and Speech Pathology, Health Education and Promotion, Nutrition and Dietetics and doctoral programs in Health Education and Promotion, Exercise Physiology, and Speech Pathology, and Audiology. Because of the diverse nature of the Faculty in this School, evaluation of faculty members for reappointment, tenure and promotion must reflect the program area with which they are associated with and the assignments stated in their appointment letters and workload statements.

Principles of Evaluation

When a Faculty member has met the academic credential of possessing the terminal degree in his/her discipline (i.e., Ph.D., Ed.D.) and met the University experience criteria, the individual will be evaluated on the basis of his/her research/scholarship, teaching and service. In general, expectations include establishing one or more lines of research/inquiry, demonstrating effective teaching and student mentoring, and becoming contributing citizens of their professions (i.e., community engagement and service to professional organizations) and of the University (i.e., service to the program, School, College, and University).

Contextual Statement/Vitae

Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are expected to include a contextual statement and current vitae in their file.  The contextual statement should clearly articulate the candidate’s lines of inquiry, describe the candidate’s roles in producing each scholarly contribution and explain how his/her work impacts the field and/or builds his/her line(s)of inquiry.

Research

1.    Basic Expectations
 
Faculty members are expected to conduct empirical research (basic or applied) using any combination of accepted research methodologies and analyses (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, etc.). Non-empirical scholarship (e.g., conceptual pieces, extensive reviews of the literature, and descriptions of professional practice or teaching strategies) is valued, but should not be the exclusive focus of a candidate’s research agenda.

2.  Standards

Reappointment:  The candidate must provide evidence that he/she has an active research program, and that the candidate’s scholarly work is deemed of high quality by peers in his/her profession.

Tenure: The candidate must provide evidence that his/her scholarly work is deemed of high quality by external peers. Evidence of a pattern of scholarship and demonstrated potential for continued meaningful clearly defined lines of inquiry with an emerging nationally recognized research program is required.

Promotion to Associate Professor: The candidate must provide evidence that his/her scholarly work is deemed of high quality by external peers. Evidence of sustained, significant involvement in systematic lines of scholarship and demonstrated potential for continued meaningful inquiry with an emerging nationally recognized research program is required.

Promotion to Professor: The candidate must demonstrate an extended, record of scholarship that demonstrates sustained achievement and leadership in the systematic line(s) of inquiry within his/her profession. The candidate also must provide documentation of nationally and/or internationally recognized, outstanding scholarly productivity with a clear impact in one or more of his/her area of expertise.

3.    Evaluation of Research. In evaluating the research of a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion, the Committee should consider the following factors:

a.    Reputation.  A Faculty member's 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 tenure and promotion. For tenure and promotion, a candidate must provide evidence that his/her work has provided an impact on his/her discipline.  Reputation is typically evaluated by letters from outside reviewers in the candidate's area of expertise, invited colloquia, book chapters, invited presentations, monographs, and editorships of journals and special honors as pertains to the Faculty member’s research.

b.    Dissemination of Research.  The quality and quantity of peer- reviewed journal articles, including empirical articles, theoretical and review articles, are important considerations in arriving at a decision to recommend reappointment, tenure and/or promotion.  The expectation in the School is that the candidate’s record will include a significant body of empirical research. Candidates should describe their roles in producing each contribution and explain how their work impacts the field and/or builds their lines of inquiry.
   i.    Only publications or “in press” material are counted
   ii.    Items that are under review or in preparation may be considered but given very little weight.
   iii.    Quality of the publication is evaluated by a variety of factors:
          1.    Candidates are advised to publish in journals associated with national or international professional organizations, journals known for disseminating high quality scholarship related to the candidate’s specific area of focus, or journals having a high impact on research or practice within the candidate’s field and should be justified in the candidate’s contextual statement. When candidates choose journals outside these parameters, it is imperative they provide further justification for doing so in the candidate’s contextual statement.
          2.    In addition to providing features such as the journal’s rate of acceptance and/or rankings, candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are advised to describe the journal’s audience and why that audience is an appropriate fit for the article’s content, explain whether or not the article was peer reviewed, including an explanation, if the journal is not refereed, and identify the journal’s association with the candidate’s specific area of research or professional practice.
          3.    Candidates must demonstrate capacity to lead a project through either sole or first authorship publication (e.g. co- authorship with a student) or last authorship if appropriate to the field.
          4.    Within all programs in the School, co-authored publications with colleagues and students are common, and collaboration is viewed as a strength.
   iv.    Presentations. Refereed presentations at the national or international level are a contributing factor to the body of work in the candidate’s line of inquiry.

c. Funding

Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are encouraged to seek internal and external funding to support their lines of inquiry by submitting applications to foundations or grant-funding sources.  Funding norms of specific fields should be discussed in the candidate’s contextual statement. External funding may be difficult to secure by junior Faculty, and applications for funding should not be the primary focus of a candidate’s research agenda prior to tenure, but unsuccessful applications at this stage of a Faculty member’s career have value and are viewed as a
foundation for subsequent submissions. External funding is valued more highly than internal funding. External funding supporting the candidate’s scholarly activities is expected for promotion to Professor.