Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Policies | Kent State University

Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Policies

  1. Full-Time Tenure-Track Faculty

    Introduction. A variety of disciplines under the umbrella of the information sciences are represented in SLIS. There are multiple discourses that take place in parallel among these disciplines over which a faculty member might exert impact. The discourses include scholarship, teaching, and professional service.

     

    The expectation is that faculty will make significant contributions through scholarship, teaching, and service. It is the responsibility of individual faculty members to demonstrate and provide evidence of the impact of their efforts. The degree to which any of these or other efforts might be considered rigorous or substantial should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the faculty who review efforts to assess whether the impact measures developed by individual faculty are rigorous, substantial and legitimate, as determined in this Handbook.

    1. Procedures

      General statements regarding tenure, reappointment and promotion, including means of initiating promotion procedure and dates of notice of tenure decisions and reappointments are contained in the University Policy Register (UR), 6-14 (tenure), 6-15 (promotion), and 36-16 (reappointment) and in the FT-TT Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article XI; Addendum A, Addendum B, and Addendum C, effective, August 19, 2012.

       

      In addition to the indices listed for each area below, evidence may be documented in the candidate’s narrative (see Appendix C for guidelines) through self-evaluation, peer evaluation, client evaluation, external colleague evaluation (which should be detached and dispassionate), and adjudication). Statements concerning the composition of the ad hoc Promotion Committee and the ad hoc Tenure Committee of the School of Library and Information Science are contained in Section III, Subsection D, 3 and 4, of this document.

    2. Scholarship

      Definition of Scholarship

      Scholarship includes the process of creating and disseminating new research-based knowledge within the field information sciences, and in extensions beyond the traditional boundaries of the field. It also involves rethinking current knowledge in order to present new understandings or interpretations of theoretical and practical information.

       

      In accordance with definitions of scholarship adopted by the College of Communication and Information, the evaluation of the quality of any individual’s body of scholarly work is guided by the following points:

      1. Across the wide range of scholarship in SLIS, quality scholarship advances the frontiers of research, professional, and creative activity. Individual faculty members should consult their initial letters of appointment, the feedback received through the reappointment process, the School Handbook, the School Director, and senior faculty colleagues, to determine specific scholarly requirements for themselves.
      2. Quality scholarship has permanence. Successful scholars contribute lasting work - a published article, a book, a book chapter, full papers in refereed conference proceedings, etc.
      3. Quality Scholarship has a demonstrable impact on the discourse among peers in the discipline. Impact means peers in the field are taking note of one’s scholarship. Indicators of the value or contribution of scholarship include traditional measures such as the number of times the research output was cited by other scholars, the acceptance rate of a publication or conference, the impact factor of a publication, the use of the output by others for assigned readings or other teaching purposes, or for application in the field. It may also involve activities that stimulate discussion such as conference papers, and panel presentations, and keynote presentations. Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion need to substantiate all measures of impact.
      4. Quality Scholarship is peer-reviewed. Peer review is the process by which a scholar’s research output is reviewed by other scholars with expertise in that research area, and may be double-blind, single-blind, or open, when both identities are disclosed. Peer review occurs in traditional refereed journals, but it also occurs with submissions to book publishers, professional publications, funding agencies, etc. Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion need to clarify how peer review takes place and how competitive a given venue is.
      5. Quality Scholarship is rigorous. It builds demonstrably upon existing scholarship in systematic and reflective ways. It adheres to the standards associated with the methods employed.
      6. Quality Scholarship is programmatic. It evidences a clear research agenda that unfolds over the course of a career. A research agenda is a description of line of inquiry that includes: a statement of the problem area; the significance of the inquiry; the questions to be researched; the methods to be used; anticipated outputs resulting from the research; and a rough timeline to carry out the research. It need not be confined to a single narrow area, but it should coherently contribute to the building of a corpus of knowledge for which the scholar becomes known. See Appendix A “What is a Research Agenda.”
      7. Quality Scholarship is ethical. It respects human participants and conforms to the highest standards as put forth by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).  Further, it follows best practice with regard to proper attribution and respects intellectual property (see University policy 3-05 on misconduct in research and scholarship.)
      8. Quality Scholarship informs a faculty member’s teaching.

       

      Evidence of Scholarship

      Evidence of research-based activities include but are not restricted to:

      • Peer reviewed publications, both published and in-press, such as articles, monographs, chapters, or papers in conference proceedings;
      • Solicited and invited articles, such as journal articles and encyclopedia articles;
      • Invited participation in programs, presentations (including posters), keynote addresses, or invited publication of scholarly papers at professional and scholarly meetings at international, national, state and local levels;
      • Submitted research proposals for external funding (e.g., grants) opportunities;
      • Secured professionally reviewed research grants, especially external awards;
      • Development and curation of juried exhibitions;
      • Innovative fora for scholarly contributions, such as blogs, wikis, or other participatory media that impact the discipline;
      • Research partnerships with other academic units and information institutions;
      • Evidence of outstanding achievement, such as awards and honors;
      • Patents;
      • Development of software, electronic tools and other resources as a result of research-based projects; and
      • Significant editorial work and serving in an editorial capacity as a recognized high-standing scholar.

       

      Assessment of Evidence

      The principles for the evaluation and reward of scholarship relate to the individual within the context of the department, school, college, and university governance structure. An individual faculty member's scholarly work is considered first within the context of the School’s mission, and subsequently within the context of the college and university mission.

       

      In the SLIS disciplines, researchers employ methodologies from diverse academic disciplines. SLIS does not assume any value hierarchy among research methods. The School considers the quality of the research and resulting products and outputs on the attributes defined above. It is the candidate’s responsibility to provide evidence of quality and impact based on these attributes and taken into consideration the following SLIS values:

       

      • Publications of original research in peer-reviewed journals are central to one’s scholarship legacy,
      • Journal articles and other peer-reviewed publications are evaluated based on the scope and reputation of the publication, and on the review process by which submissions are accepted.
      • For books and book chapters, the reputation and selectivity of the publisher, and the degree to which the chapter is subjected to peer-review, are considered.
      • In judging the value and importance of conference presentations as scholarly works, the following are taken into consideration:
        • the prestige of the meeting,
        • the selectivity of the conference,
        • the scope of the meeting (e.g., local, national, international), and
        • the characteristics of the audience.
      • Single and lead authorship are encouraged. The School also values co-authorship, however, the role and the degree of contribution by each co-author must be communicated by the faculty and this will be taken into consideration.

       

      In evaluating research performance, the overall sustainability and impact of the research record is assessed at each stage of career development.

      • A sustained record of research is a steady annual flow of scholarly output that reflects continued programmatic development of rigorous scholarship.
      • Effective scholarship requires development and extension of a coherent research agenda, productivity in the form of peer-reviewed scholarly communication, and resulting influence and impact of value to SLIS, the College, the University, and the field.

       

      Three tables are provided to describe key milestones during the faculty member’s probationary and tenured period at Kent State University, as they relate to the areas of scholarship (Table 1), teaching (Table 2), and service (Table 3).  

       

      These milestones occur at the end of the:

      • 1st year (submitted at the beginning of the 2nd year) for reappointment;
      • 3rd year (submitted at the beginning of the 4th year) for reappointment;
      • 5th year (submitted at the beginning of the 6th year) for tenure and promotion to associate professor; and
      • 5th year after the promotion to associate professor, submitted for promotion to full professor.

       

      Table 1, below, provides guidelines for the assessment of scholarship for reappointment, tenure, and promotion during the faculty member’s probationary and tenured period at Kent State University, as evidenced in the candidate’s curriculum vitae and narrative statement and addressing the expectations set in the initial letter of offer.

       

       

      Table 1: Expectations for Progress and Excellence in Scholarship

       

      At the completion of Year 1, for 2nd Year reappointment:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Failed to articulate a sustainable research agenda for years 1-3 or has not made any demonstrable progress, i.e. no submitted, accepted or published scholarly outputs

      Has articulated a sustainable research agenda for years 1-3; has made some progress toward demonstrating the impact of the research (e.g., submission acceptance or publication of peer reviewed scholarly works).

      Meets expectations and in addition has evidence of acceptance of multiple works through peer review process. Demonstrates evidence of permanence and impact.

      At the completion of Year 3, for 4th Year reappointment:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Has not demonstrated sustained evidence of peer reviewed products and outputs of peer-reviewed scholarly communication. Little or no evidence of impact. Expectations set forth in the proposal and agreement in the Start-up funds, if applicable, are not being met.

      Demonstrated sustained progress, nearing completion of or completed research goals for years 1-3, resulting in multiple products and outputs of peer-reviewed scholarly communication. Extended the research agenda with new research questions. Has submitted grant proposal. Demonstrates some evidence of impact. Expectations set forth in the proposal and agreement in the Start-up funds, if applicable, are being met.

      Meets expectations and in addition provides evidence such as authorship of multiple publications, submission of grant proposals, or securing external funding. Demonstrates strong evidence of impact.
      Demonstrates that candidate has built upon start-up fund and exceeded expectations set in the agreement, if applicable.

      At the completion of Year 5, for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      No extension of initial research agenda; failed to demonstrate a sustained record of products and outputs of peer-reviewed scholarly communication. No strong evidence of impact

      Sustained record of products and outputs of peer-reviewed scholarly communication; Continued and extended initial research agenda resulting in products and outputs of peer-reviewed scholarly communication demonstrating progress and promise for continuing scholarly activities, influence, and impact beyond probationary period. Established reputation of promise (external letters)

      Meets expectations and in addition demonstrates strong evidence of impact, such as influence in the field such as plenary keynote at national or international events; invited publications in special editions of journals; awards; or secured  grants. Demonstrated substantial work on extending research agenda.
       

      For Promotion to Professor:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      No progression or extension of research agenda following promotion to Associate; failed to demonstrate a continued record of products and outputs of peer-reviewed scholarly communication; little or no strong evidence of impact.

      Extended research agenda following promotion to Associate, resulting in products and outputs of peer-reviewed scholarly communication demonstrating influence and impact in the field, nationally and internationally. Established reputation (external letters); recipient of awards and grants.

      Meets expectations and in addition demonstrates strong evidence of influence in the field, such as plenary keynote at national or international events; continuous track record of awards; or secured grants.

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

    3. Teaching

      Teaching involves activities that promote the development of effective strategies to impart knowledge or skills and effectively communicate information to students. Teaching involves the investigation, planning, and examination of pedagogical techniques, dissemination of such information in peer-reviewed contexts (e.g., publications in refereed journals, juried papers or conference presentations, juried proceedings and/or abstracts), as well as the act and practice of teaching.  In accordance with the definitions of teaching adopted by the College of Communication and Information, the School of Library and Information Science is guided by the following points:

       

      1. Quality teaching is engaging. The Quality teacher is deeply engaged is his or her subject matter and uses a variety of teaching techniques and technologies to engage students in learning.
      2. Quality teaching is current. The Quality teacher makes a demonstrable effort to remain current in his or her discipline by remaining abreast of the literature in his or her discipline, attending appropriate professional conferences.
      3. Quality teaching is ethical.  The Quality teacher respects his or her students. This respect extends to learning the students already have achieved, to students’ continued ability to learn and to where students are now in the learning process. It also extends to a mindfulness of challenges students face, whether these are physical, mental or economic. The Quality teacher is fair and impartial in his or her evaluation of all students, is cognizant of the fact that he or she is a learner, and shows empathy for his or her students.
      4. Quality teaching is experiential. The Quality teacher recognizes the value of and incorporates experiential learning opportunities that permit students to observe, examine and apply the knowledge gained in the classroom.
      5. Quality teaching goes beyond the classroom. The quality teacher assumes mentoring of students at all levels and provides sound academic advice, as well as expert guidance for Theses; Culminating Experience Research Projects, Research Papers, and Internships; and Practica. The Quality teacher, as appropriate, develops research projects for students and facilitates publication opportunities for students. Chairing Thesis and Dissertation Committees are also indicators of a quality teacher.

       

      Indices of Teaching include but are not limited to:

      • Design and development of new courses or workshops for any mode of delivery;
      • Design, revision or reviewing of areas of study (programs, specializations, concentrations);
      • Peer evaluation based on observation of instruction by multiple peers and for different courses;
      • Peer evaluation of syllabi and instructional materials, including but not limited to course outlines and up-to-date readings and resources;
      • Student evaluation of instruction (being mindful of response rates)
      • Strive to be a reflective teacher, including revising courses based on feedback from students, peers, and instructional designers.
      • Significant contribution in a course or area of study development team.
      • Measures of student achievement, such as publications by students, etc.;
      • Teaching awards;
      • Publication of textbooks*;
      • Invited participation in programs or presentations of papers on teaching at professional meetings at international, national, state, and local levels;
      • Publication of research findings that enhance curricular content and teaching*;
      • Significant creative or innovative activity related to teaching, such as development or innovative use of technology, effective active learning activities, etc.;
      • Evidence of effective advising;
      • Supervision of culminating experience (research paper/projects and internships), thesis and dissertation work;
      • Serving on thesis and dissertation committees;
      • Chairing thesis and dissertation committees;
      • Submitted curricular or program development proposals for external funding; and,
      • Securing professionally reviewed grants to support education, especially external awards; and to support student research projects.

      *May also be classified as Scholarship

       

      Table 2, provides a guideline for assessing teaching for candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion in the school.

       

       

      Table 2: Expectations for Progress and Excellence in Teaching

       

      At the completion of Year 1, for 2nd Year reappointment:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Candidate receives significant concerns regarding teaching style, and/or knowledge of material or is not engaged in teaching and or demonstrates no reflection on their teaching. The candidate makes no demonstrable effort to communicate with advisees and students.

      Candidate receives teaching evaluations from students with scores around the School’s or course norm, and faculty peer evaluations are scored as "meets expectations". Candidate demonstrates reflection on teaching and student learning and articulates a teaching plan that addresses areas for growth or improvement. Candidate has instituted systematic communication or strategies for advising students.

      Candidate receives consistent teaching evaluations from students at or above the mean, and faculty peer evaluations are scored " meets expectations." Candidate is deeply engaged in the teaching and learning process. Candidate designs and implements innovative strategies for academic advising.

      At the completion of Year 3, for 4th Year reappointment:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Candidate continues to receive below average (e.g., regularly below the mean) from student evaluations and below expectations from faculty evaluations, and does not articulate ideas for improving his/her teaching. Candidate does not regularly communicate with advisees. The candidate makes no demonstrable effort to supervise culminating experience, internships, or research projects relevant to their area of expertise. Candidate does not demonstrate qualities of teaching.

      The majority of the evaluations a candidate receives are positive, that is, scores from student evaluations are around the School’s or course norms in the majority of courses, and the majority of multiple faculty evaluations are scored as "meets expectations". Candidate demonstrates and maintains currency in subject content. Candidate demonstrates reflection on the teaching and learning process and is able to articulate refinement and revision of teaching methodologies to engage students in the learning process. Candidate provides opportunities for continued student learning outside the classroom, i.e., research, writing, publishing, applied/practice opportunities. Candidate regularly communicates with advisees. Candidate regularly supervises culminating experiences, internships, practica and research projects. Candidate has moved from an advising to a mentoring role.

      Consistent student evaluations of teaching with ratings at or above the School’s or course norms, and faculty evaluations are scored as meets expectations. Has developed courses beyond initial expectations; is deeply engaged in the learning process or assumes leadership responsibilities at the course or curricular level. Candidate demonstrates outstanding academic advising. Candidate demonstrates outstanding supervision of culminating experiences, internships, and research projects. Candidate serves on Thesis or Dissertation Committees.

      At the completion of Year 5, for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor:

      Does NOT meet Expectation

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Candidate continues to receive below average (e.g., regularly below the mean) from student evaluations and below expectations from faculty evaluations. Candidate has made no contributions to curriculum development or revision. Candidate does not regularly communicate with advisees. Candidate makes no demonstrable effort to supervise culminating experience, internships, or research projects relevant to their area of expertise.

      The majority of the evaluations a candidate receives are positive, that is, scores from student evaluations are around the School’s or course norms in the majority of courses, and the majority of faculty evaluations are scored as "meets expectations". Candidate has created a new course or workshop, or helped create or revise an existing course or workshop. Candidate demonstrates evidence of reflection and growth in teaching. Candidate regularly communicates with advisees and has implemented effective mentoring strategies. Candidate regularly supervises culminating experiences, internships, and research projects.

      The majority of the evaluations from students are well above the School’s or course norms, and faculty evaluations are scored as meets expectations.
      Candidate offers evidence substantial curriculum development or leadership beyond contract expectations. Candidate has received teaching award(s), has demonstrated leadership in teaching training. Candidate demonstrates outstanding advising & mentoring. Candidate demonstrates outstanding supervision of culminating experiences, internships, practica and research projects. Candidate is a member of thesis or dissertation committees. Candidate has mentored master’s and doctoral students

      For Promotion to Professor:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Candidate received below average (e.g., regularly below the mean) from student evaluations and below expectations from faculty evaluations. Candidate has made no major contributions to curriculum development or revision. Candidate does not regularly communicate with advisees. Candidate makes no demonstrable effort to supervise culminating experience internships, or research projects relevant to their area of expertise. Candidate makes no demonstrable effort to chair thesis or dissertation committees.

      Candidate receives positive scores from student evaluations around the School’s or course norms in the majority of courses. Candidate has developed new course(s) or workshop(s). Candidate demonstrates evidence of reflection and growth in teaching. Candidate regularly communicates with advisees. Candidate regularly supervises culminating experiences, internships, and research projects, and is a member of or has chaired thesis or dissertation committees. Candidate has mentored master’s and doctoral students effectively.

      Candidate has received teaching award(s), has demonstrated leadership in teaching training. Candidate demonstrates outstanding advising & mentoring. Candidate demonstrates outstanding supervision of culminating experiences, internships, practica and research projects. Candidate has chaired thesis or dissertation committees. Candidate has developed a new program of study or revised a major portion of an existing program of study. Candidate has secured grant(s) to develop or revise an area of study.

       

       

       

       

       

       

    4. University and Professional Service

      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, serving on national and international organizations. 

       

      In accordance with the definition of service adopted by the College of Communication and Information, the School of Library and Information Science is guided by the following points:

      1. Quality service involves a commitment to the shared obligation of administering the school, the college, the university and the discipline.
      2. Quality service involves meaningful engagement with both internal and external constituencies.
      3. Quality service is performed with integrity. It involves more than nominal membership on committees but a duty-conscious performance of activities that improve and advance the university, the discipline or the larger community.
      4. Quality service is ideally connected in meaningful ways to a faculty member’s research and/or teaching.

       

      Indices in this area include but are not limited to:

      • Service to the university, college, and school;
      • Participation, leadership and/or election on university, college, and school committees and boards;
      • Presenting or organizing university fora and exhibits;
      • Serving as an advisor to student groups;
      • Service to the professional community and professional associations at international, national, state, and local levels;
      • Active participation or leadership in professional committees and working groups at international, national, state, and local levels;
      • Secured professionally reviewed grants, especially external awards, related to one’s service as defined above;
      • Peer review activities for journals, conferences, publication proposals, and funding agencies;
      • Journal or monograph editorial activities;
      • Presentations related to one’s service as defined above

       

      Table 3 provides a guideline for assessing service for candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion in the school.

       

      Table 3: Expectations for Progress and Excellence in Service

       

      At the completion of Year 1, for 2nd Year reappointment:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

       

      Candidate failed to contribute regularly in assigned committee work; presents no evidence of engagement with professional organizations.

      Candidate contributed regularly in assigned committee work at the school, college, or university level; helped set and reach committee goals; as requested, accepted work on ad hoc committees. Candidate is actively engaged with local, state, or national professional organizations. Candidate is engaged in events in SLIS academic specialization areas and the school in general.

      Candidate met expectations and also helped lead efforts in setting and reaching committee goals; has established an active presence in the professional community; has assumed office in a professional organization at the state or national level. 

       

      At the completion of Year 3, for 4th Year reappointment:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Candidate failed to regularly contribute in assigned committee work; did not accept requests to chair committees, to join ad hoc committees, or to join committees at the college and university level; is not engaged with professional organizations at local, state or national level.

      Candidate contributed regularly in assigned and ad hoc committee work at the school, college, or university level: worked to help set and reach committee goals; as requested accepted work on ad-hoc committees; demonstrated relevant community service; serves on at least one professional committee at local, state or national level. Represented SLIS and/or CCI on college or university committees.

      Candidate met expectations and also contributed in a leadership role. Evidence of exceptional contribution to the School, College, University, profession and community beyond normal expectations.

      At the completion of Year 5, for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Candidate failed to regularly contribute in assigned committee work; did not accept requests to chair committees, to join ad hoc committees, or to join committees at the college and university level; is not engaged with professional organizations at local, state or national level; presents no evidence of attempt to assume leadership role; generally lacks professional engagement.

      Candidate contributed regularly in assigned and ad hoc committee work at the school, college, or university level: worked to help set and reach committee goals; represented SLIS and/or CCI on college or university committees; demonstrated relevant community service. Candidate has begun to establish a presence in professional community through active engagement and has evidenced interest in professional leadership by chairing a committee at local, state or national level.

      Candidate met expectations and also has assumed a committee chair role for School, College, or University; exhibited a leadership role such as chairing committees or creating special interest groups in the professional community. Candidate has established a presence at the national or international level and has shaped the direction of the profession through their efforts.

      For Promotion to Professor:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Candidate failed to regularly contribute in assigned committee work; did not accept requests to chair committees, to join ad hoc committees, or to join committees at the college and university level; is not engaged with professional organizations at local, state or national level; presents no evidence of attempt to assume leadership role; generally lacks professional engagement.

      Candidate contributed regularly in assigned and ad hoc committee work and assumed the committee chair role at the school, college, or university level: worked to help set and reach committee goals; represented SLIS and/or CCI on college or university committees; demonstrated relevant community service. Candidate has demonstrated a record of working to advance the school’s mission, and lead student and alumni involvement, recruitment, and other school-wide efforts. Candidate has established a presence in professional community through active engagement and has evidenced professional leadership by chairing a committee at local, state or national level.

      Candidate has assumed a committee chair role for School, College, or University; exhibited a leadership role such as chairing committees, creating special interest groups, or chairing/leading organizations in the professional community; has organized or helped organize events such as conferences, workshops, and seminars. Candidate has served as editor of a scholarly publication (journal, monographic series, etc.). Candidate has established a presence at the national or international level and has shaped the direction of the profession through their efforts. Candidate has helped with development efforts.

       

       

       

       

  2. Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

    Introduction. A variety of disciplines under the umbrella of the information sciences are represented in SLIS. There are multiple discourses that take place in parallel among these disciplines over which a non-tenure-track faculty member might exert impact. The discourses include teaching, university citizenship, and professional development.

     

    At SLIS, the expectation is that NTT faculty will make contributions primarily through teaching and other curricular activities. When appropriate, an NTT faculty member may be assigned non-instructional duties as part of an annual workload.  Such non-instructional duties may include but are not limited to advising responsibilities; committee responsibilities of the school, college, or at the university level; outreach responsibilities, or other administrative duties to meet programmatic needs.

     

    It is the responsibility of individual faculty members to demonstrate and provide evidence of the impact of their efforts. The degree to which any of these or other efforts might be considered rigorous or substantial should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the faculty who review efforts to assess whether the efforts are rigorous, substantial and legitimate, as determined in this Handbook.

     

    1. Procedures

      General statements regarding review, renewal of appointment, and promotion, including means of initiating review procedures and appointment terms, conditions, and renewals are contained in the FT-NTT Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article X; Addendum B and Addendum C, effective, August 16, 2013.  The School determines criteria and procedures for reappointment; the College determines promotion criteria and procedures.

       

      While it is recognized that appointments for FT-NTT Faculty members covered by their CBA are made annually and that the term of each appointment is limited to a single academic year, a FT-NTT Faculty member may be offered an appointment for a subsequent academic year if programmatic need, satisfaction with performance of previous responsibilities, and budgeted resources supporting the position continue.

       

      Per FT-NTT CBA, Section 4, “FT-NTT Faculty members in year one (1), two (2) or three (3) of employment with the University may expect to be notified by the responsible academic administrative officer as early as possible, but no later than May 1, of opportunities for additional appointment for the subsequent academic year or that an opportunity for additional appointment is not anticipated. Absent written notification prior to May 1 of an academic year that the appointment is not to be renewed for the next academic year, the appointment for the next academic year shall be regarded as renewed.” It is the Director’s discretion to perform a review in the first and/or second year of employment.

       

      After the initial continuous three years, renewals of appointment reviews occur every three years, unless otherwise specified in the appointment agreement.  Full reviews occur in years three and six, before the next annual appointment is anticipated or authorized. After nine (9) years of consecutive appointments, and every three (3) years thereafter, FT-NTT Faculty members shall undergo a simplified review. Per FT-NTT CBA “FTNTT Faculty members in years four (4) and five (5) of employment with the University may expect to be notified by the responsible academic administrative officer as early as possible, but no later than March 1, of opportunities for additional appointment for the subsequent academic year or that an opportunity for additional appointment is not anticipated. Absent written notification prior to March 1 of a given year that the appointment is not to be renewed, the appointment for the next academic year within the three-year term shall be regarded as renewed.”

       

      At SLIS, the FAC Ad Hoc RTP Committee members provide written evaluation of a NTT candidate for full review to the Director via individual ballots. In addition, NTT faculty members who have successfully completed two full performance reviews also provide written evaluation of a NTT candidate for full review to the Director.  The Director will discuss reappointment decisions with all faculty members who are eligible to evaluate the particular NTT candidate, similarly to the TT reappointment reviews. Annual reviews by the RTP committee and regular meetings with the Director are recommended.

       

      In addition to the indices listed for each area below, evidence may be documented by self-evaluation, peer evaluation, client evaluation, external colleague evaluation (which should be detached and dispassionate) and adjudication.

    2. Teaching

      Teaching involves activities that promote the development of effective strategies to impart knowledge or skills and effectively communicate information to students. Teaching involves the investigation, planning, and examination of pedagogical techniques, dissemination of such information in peer-reviewed contexts (e.g., publications in refereed journals, juried papers or conference presentations, juried proceedings and/or abstracts), as well as the act and practice of teaching.  In accordance with the definitions of teaching adopted by the College of Communication and Information, the School of Library and Information Science is guided by the following points:

       

      1. Quality teaching is engaging. The Quality teacher is deeply engaged is his or her subject matter and uses a variety of teaching techniques and technologies to engage students in learning.
      2. Quality teaching is current. The Quality teacher makes a demonstrable effort to remain current in his or her discipline by remaining abreast of the literature in his or her discipline, attending appropriate professional conferences.
      3. Quality teaching is ethical.  The Quality teacher respects his or her students. This respect extends to learning the students already have achieved, to students’ continued ability to learn and to where students are now in the learning process. It also extends to a mindfulness of challenges students face, whether these are physical, mental or economic. The Quality teacher is fair and impartial in his or her evaluation of all students, is cognizant of the fact that he or she is a learner, and shows empathy for his or her students.
      4. Quality teaching is experiential. The Quality teacher recognizes the value of and incorporates experiential learning opportunities that permit students to observe, examine and apply the knowledge gained in the classroom.
      5. Quality teaching goes beyond the classroom. The quality teacher assumes mentoring of students at all levels and provides sound academic advice, as well as expert guidance for Thesis, Culminating Experiences, Research Papers/Projects, Internships and Practica. The Quality teacher, as appropriate, develops research projects for students and facilitates publication opportunities for students.

       

      Indices of Teaching include but are not limited to:

      • Design and development of new courses or workshops for any mode of delivery;
      • Design, revision or reviewing of areas of study (programs, specializations, concentrations);
      • Peer evaluation based on observation of instruction by multiple faculty;
      • Peer evaluation of syllabi and instructional materials, including but not limited to course outlines and up-to-date readings and resources;
      • Measures of student achievement, such as publications by students, etc.;
      • Teaching awards;
      • Publication of textbooks;
      • Invited participation in programs or presentations of papers on teaching at professional meetings at international, national, state, and local levels;
      • Publication of research findings that enhance curricular content and teaching;
      • Significant creative or innovative activity related to teaching, such as development or innovative use of technology, effective active learning activities, etc.;
      • Evidence of effective advising and mentoring;
      • Supervision of culminating experience (research paper/project and internship) and thesis;
      • Serving on thesis committees;
      • Submitted curricular or program development proposals for external funding; and
      • Secured professionally reviewed grants to support education, especially external awards.

       

      Table 4, provides a guideline for assessing teaching for candidates for review in the school.

       

      Table 4: Expectations for Progress and Excellence in Teaching

      At the completion of Year 2, for the 3rd Year First Full Performance Review:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations
       

      EXCEEDS Expectations
       

      Candidate receives below average student and peer evaluations with significant concerns regarding teaching style, and/or knowledge of material or is not engaged in teaching and or demonstrates little or no reflection on their teaching. The candidate makes no demonstrable effort to communicate with advisees.

      Candidate receives teaching evaluations from students with scores around the School’s or course norm, and faculty evaluations are scored as "meets expectations". Candidate demonstrates reflection on teaching and student learning and articulates a teaching plan that addresses areas for growth or improvement. Candidate has instituted systematic communication or strategies for engaging advising with students.

      Candidate receives teaching evaluations from students well above the mean, and faculty evaluations are scored, " meets expectations." Candidate is deeply engaged in the teaching and learning process. Candidate designs and implements engaging & innovative strategies for academic advising.

      At the completion of Year 5, for 6th Year, Second Full Performance Review:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations
       

      EXCEEDS Expectations
       

      Candidate continues to receive below average (e.g., regularly below the mean) from student evaluations and below expectations from faculty evaluations, and does not articulate ideas for improving his/her teaching. Candidate does not regularly communicate with advisees. The candidate makes no demonstrable effort to supervise culminating experience, internships, or research projects relevant to their area of expertise.

      The majority of the evaluations a candidate receives are positive; that is, scores from student evaluations are around the School’s or course norms in the majority of courses, and the majority of faculty evaluations are scored as "meets expectations". Candidate demonstrates and maintains currency in subject content. Candidate demonstrates reflection on the teaching and learning process and is able to articulate refinement and revision of teaching methodologies to engage students in the learning process. Candidate provides opportunities for continued student learning outside the classroom; i.e., research, writing, publishing, applied/practice opportunities, moving from an advising to a mentoring role. Candidate regularly communicates with advisees. Candidate regularly supervises culminating experiences, internships, practica and research projects.

      Consistent student evaluations of teaching with ratings well above the School’s or course norms, and faculty evaluations are scored as meets expectations". Has developed courses beyond initial expectations; is deeply engaged in the learning process or assumes leadership responsibilities at the course or curricular level. Candidate demonstrates outstanding academic advising & mentoring. Candidate demonstrates outstanding supervision of culminating experiences, internships, research projects, and Thesis.

      At the completion of Year 8, for a 9th Year Simplified Performance Review and Every 3 Years after, 12th, 15th, etc.:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations
       

      EXCEEDS Expectations
       

      Candidate continues to receive below average (e.g., regularly below the mean) from student evaluations and below expectations from faculty evaluations.
      Candidate has made no contributions to curriculum development or revision. Candidate does not regularly communicate with advisees. Candidate makes no demonstrable effort to supervise culminating experience, internships, or research projects relevant to their area of expertise.

      The majority of the evaluations a candidate receives are positive, that is, scores from student evaluations are around the School’s or course norms in the majority of courses, and the majority of faculty evaluations are scored as "meets expectations".
      Candidate has created a new course or workshop, or helped create or revise an existing course or workshop. Candidate demonstrates evidence of reflection and growth in teaching. Candidate regularly communicates with advisees. Candidate regularly supervises culminating experiences, internships, and research projects. Candidate is a member of thesis committees. Candidate serves as a mentor to new information professionals.

      The majority of the evaluations from students are well above the School’s or course norms, and faculty evaluations are scored as meets expectations."
      Candidate offers evidence of substantial curriculum development or leadership beyond contract expectations. Candidate has received teaching award(s), has demonstrated leadership in teaching training. Candidate demonstrates outstanding advising & advising. Candidate demonstrates outstanding supervision of culminating experiences, internships, practica and research projects.

       

       

       

       

       

       

    3. University Citizenship and Professional Development

      University Citizenship and Professional Development are 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, at regional, national, and international levels.  FT-NTT may be assigned administrative and other non-instructional duties in addition to a teaching load. If this is the case, any performance review will be based on the effective and efficient completion of the assigned duties as established in the annual appointment letter and statement of workload.

       

      In accordance with the definition of service adopted by the College of Communication and Information, the School of Library and Information Science is guided by the following points:

      1. Quality service involves a commitment to the shared obligation of administering the school, the college, the university and the discipline.
      2. Quality service involves meaningful engagement with both internal and external constituencies.
      3. Quality service is performed with integrity. It involves more than nominal membership on committees but a duty-conscious performance of activities that improve and advance the university, the discipline or the larger community.
      4. Quality service is ideally connected in meaningful ways to a faculty member’s teaching.

       

      Indices of University Citizenship and Professional Development include but are not limited to:

      • Service to the university, college, and school;
      • Participation, leadership, and/or election on university, college, and school committees and boards;
      • Serving as an advisor to student groups;
      • Service to the professional community and professional associations at international, national, state, and local levels;
      • Active participation or leadership in professional committees and working groups at international, national, state, and local levels;
      • Secured professionally reviewed grants, especially external awards, related to one’s service as defined above;
      • Peer review activities for journals, conferences, publication, proposals, and funding agencies;
      • Journal or monograph editorial activities;
      • Presentations related to one’s service as defined above.

       

      Table 5, provides a guideline for assessing service for candidates for review in the school.

       

      Table 5: Expectations for Progress and Excellence in Service

      SERVICE

      At the completion of Year 2, for the 3rd Year First Full Performance Review:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Candidate failed to contribute regularly in assigned committee work; presented no evidence of engagement with professional organizations.

      Candidate contributed regularly in assigned committee work and/or administrative duties at the school, college, or university level; helped set and reach committee goals; as requested, accepted work on ad hoc committees. Candidate is actively engaged with local, state, or national professional organizations. Candidate is engaged in events in SLIS academic specialization areas and the school in general.

      Candidate met expectations and also helped lead efforts in setting and reaching committee goals; has established an active presence in the professional community; has assumed office in a professional organization at the state or national level.

      At the completion of Year 5, for 6th Year, Second Full Performance Review:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Candidate failed to regularly contribute in assigned committee work; did not accept requests to chair committees, to join ad hoc committees, or to join committees at the college and university level; Is not engaged with professional organizations at local, state, or national level.

      Candidate contributed regularly in assigned committee work and/or administrative duties at the school, college, or university level; worked to help set and reach committee goals; as requested, accepted work on ad-hoc committees; demonstrated relevant community service; served on at least one professional committee at local, state, or national level. Represented SLIS and/or CCI on college or university committees.

      Candidate met expectations and also contributed in leadership role. Evidence of exceptional contributions to the School, College, University, profession, and community beyond normal expectations.

      At the completion of Year 8, for a 9th Year Simplified Performance Review and Every 3 Years after, 12th, 15th, etc.:

      Does NOT meet Expectations

      MEETS Expectations

      EXCEEDS Expectations

      Candidate failed to regularly contribute in assigned committee work; did not accept requests to chair committees, to join ad hoc committees, or to join committees at the college and university level; Is not engaged with professional organizations at local, state, or national level.

      Candidate contributed regularly in assigned committee work and/or administrative duties at the school, college, or university level; worked to help set and reach committee goals; represented SLIS and/or CCI on college or university committees; demonstrated relevant community service. Candidate has established a presence in the professional community through active engagement and has evidenced interest in professional leadership by chairing a committee at local, state, or national level.

      Candidate met expectations and also assumed a committee chair role for School. College, or University; exhibited a leadership role such as chairing committees or creating special interest groups in the professional community. Candidate has established a presence at the national or international level and has shaped the direction of the profession through their efforts.

       

       

       

       

       

    4. Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Promotion

      Statements regarding promotion are contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Addendum C, Sections 1 and 2, effective, August 16, 2013. Promotion of Full-time Non-Tenure-track Faculty is determined by a College-level Non-tenure-track Promotion Advisory Board (NPAB). This board is convened by the Dean of the College and consists of FTNTT Faculty members and the Dean who shall act as chair and a non-voting member.

       

       

      Addendum C of the CBA, effective, August 16, 2013, clearly states:

      Evidence of significant accomplishments in both Performance and Professional Development is required for promotion. Accomplishments and/or contributions in the area of University Citizenship are neither required nor expected, except as to the extent such accomplishments and/or contributions are appropriate to the FTNTT Faculty member’s track and/or workload assignments, but will, when they exist, contribute to the bargaining unit member’s overall record of accomplishments.