RTP Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions | Kent State University

RTP Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions

  1. Reappointment

    The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Reappointment (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, and probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the School's RTP Committee (See, Section III.B.6. of this Handbook). Documentation appropriate to conduct a thorough review include:

    1. Peer evaluations of teaching (See Appendix III for information regarding the Summative Peer Evaluation of Teaching)
    2. Current Curriculum Vitae including information regarding Scholarship, Teaching (course assignments, curriculum development), and Citizenship (School, College, University, community and professional);
    3. Letter of Reappointment to the Director;
    4. Supplemental information: student teaching evaluations, syllabi of courses for which the faculty member was responsible; documentation of student work; etc,

    Upon receipt of the above materials, the dossier and performance of each probationary faculty member is discussed by the RTP Committee. The committee then votes on the faculty member's reappointment, and that vote is recorded and sent to the Director. The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean. The Director informs probationary faculty of the committee's recommendation and provides a copy of her/his recommendation to the Dean. Probationary faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For faculty members whose appointment is in the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment from the Director are forwarded to the Dean and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.

    For probationary faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure. Moreover, the faculty member must have established and articulated short- and long-term plans for achieving these goals. For faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at Kent State University is particularly critical. Upon completion of the third year of the probationary period, faculty reviewing a candidate for reappointment should consider the record of the candidate's achievements to date. This record should be considered a predictor of future success.

    The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of compelling evidence of impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline. This record can be demonstrated through careful review of the candidate's body of work from the date of hire and qualifications for success as defined by the School (see Criteria for Tenure and Promotion). Specific concerns expressed by the RTP Committee and/or the Director during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, creative activity, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the School. A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified promptly that she/ he will not be reappointed.

    In the event that concerns about a candidate's performance are raised during the reappointment process, the RTP Committee and the Director shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. If such concerns arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period, the Director, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the School's tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan. Failure to make progress in meeting School and University requirements for tenure, or failure to satisfactorily address concerns expressed by the RTP Committee or the Director may result in a recommendation to deny reappointment.

    From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to request that her/his probationary period be extended. Upon request, a faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period, which has been traditionally called "tolling" or "stopping the tenure clock." 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)

  2. Tenure and Promotion

    The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure University Policy Register (See, 3342-6-14) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty promotion (See, 3342-6-15). Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Tenure and promotion are separate decisions.

    The granting of tenure is a decision that plays a crucial role in determining the quality of university faculty and the national and international status of the University. The awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the faculty member has achieved a significant body of scholarship that has had an impact on her/his discipline, excellence as a teacher, and has provided effective service. The candidate is also expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality teaching, scholarship and service relevant to the mission of the candidate's academic unit and to the mission of the University.

    The tenure decision is based on all of the evidence available to determine the candidate's potential to pursue a productive career. This decision is based on the candidate's accomplishments completed during the review period.

    Consideration for promotion to Associate Professor is based on recognition for establishing a career likely to achieve national/international prominence as evidenced by the individual faculty members performance as it relates to the School's criteria for Tenure and Promotion. Promotion to Professor recognizes the highest level of university achievement and national/international prominence. Promotion to Professor is evidenced by a record of sustained and highly significant activity as it relates to the School's criteria for Tenure and Promotion.

    Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for tenure and advancement in academic rank. The overall evaluation of a candidate for tenure and promotion shall include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, creative endeavor and research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek tenure and promotion in the School.

  3. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

    The RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion. The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. During the probationary period, these tools should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.

    Tables 1 (A and B), 2, and 3 provide guidelines for the assessment of a faculty member's performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates. For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor the faculty member must meet the criteria for an "excellent" rating in either scholarship or teaching with at least a "very good" rating in the other category. University citizenship must at least meet the minimum School criteria as outlined in Table 3. These same categories and assessment tools apply for tenure decisions.

    A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for an "excellent" rating in scholarship and teaching. University citizenship must exceed the minimum School criteria. A candidate for promotion to Professor need not have equal activity in scholarship, teaching and service as he/she becomes more specialized. Documentation of a faculty member's achievements will be demonstrated in a dossier presented to the School prior to a faculty member's application for tenure or promotion.

    For Assistant Professors, this dossier will typically be presented during the faculty member's third full year in this rank. For promotion to Associate Professor and Professor, the seminar should be the year prior to an anticipated promotion application.

    To assist in the process of assessing the originality, quality, impact and value of faculty work, the candidate shall submit the names, contact information, and credentials of at least six (6) experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's dossier from like institutions in a manner that is detached and dispassionate. In some cases, one external reviewer from industry may be included if appropriate. Faculty submitting their dossier for review should have limited personal relations with the members of their external review panel.

    A faculty member's specific area of specialization may be a factor in the number and scope of accomplishments and time required for research and the resulting dissemination and review.

  4. Creative Activity and Scholarship

    Creative Activity and Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity. It is expected that the work of the faculty is to make a significant and sustained contribution to the School and it's mission. Regardless of form, creative activity and/or scholarship should have a direct correlation with each faculty member's area of expertise, interest, and teaching assignments. Faculty members are expected to document their work and it's resulting impact. The School of Visual Communication Design defines a broad range of creative activity and/or scholarship appropriate for faculty:

    1. Professional Practice

      Faculty must be able to document the impact of the work beyond engagement in commercial enterprise. The merit of Scholarship in this area will be determined by a number of factors including:

      A: Commission of work

      • Weighted according to the stature of the client (local/regional/national/international)
      • The process by which the designer/illustrator/photographer was retained (competitive nature of the request for proposal process)
      • The role the designer/illustrator/photographer played in the creation of work (project management, consultation, creative direction, art direction, design, production management, etc.)
      • The size, scope, and distribution of the project (local/regional/national/international)
      • The impact of the work (client testimony, evidence using other success metrics)
      • Independent peer evaluation of the work
      • Other key indicators that define the merit of the work.

      B: Acceptance of work in professional competitions/exhibitions

      • Weighted according to the stature of the sponsoring organization (local/regional/national/international)
      • The scope and stature of participants (local/regional/national/international)
      • Peer reviewed vs. non-peer reviewed
      • Professional reputation of the juror(s) and/or curator
      • Acceptance rates
      • Critical reviews
      • Other key indicators to the merit of the work

      C: Reproduction and distribution of work by an outside body

      • Weighted according to the stature of the organization, publication, publisher, and/or author (local/regional/national/international)
      • The distribution of content (local/regional/national/international)
      • Peer reviewed vs. non-peer reviewed
      • Acceptance rates
      • Context of reproduction
      • Critical reviews
    2. Publications

      Faculty must be able to document the impact of the work beyond scholarly writing. The merit of Scholarship in this area will be determined by a number of factors including:

      • Weighted according to the stature of the publication or publishing organization (local/regional/national/international)
      • The distribution of content (local/regional/national/international)
      • Citations
      • The nature of the work (editor of a book, sole authored book, coauthored book, book chapter, feature article, critical review, book review, etc.)
      • Peer reviewed work will be weighted according to:
        • Acceptance rates
        • Author retention process
        • Critical review
        • Other key indicators that define the merit and impact of the work.
      • Non-peer reviewed work will be weighted according to:
        • Impact of the contribution to recognized creative and professional readership
        • Other key indicators that define the merit and impact of the work.
    3. Creative Work

      Faculty must be able to document the impact of the work beyond engagement in personal artistic endeavors. The merit of Scholarship in this area will be determined by a number of factors including:

      A: Acceptance of work in competitions/exhibitions

      • Weighted according to the stature of the sponsoring organization (local/regional/national/international)
      • The scope and stature of participants (local/regional/national/international)
      • Peer reviewed vs. non-peer reviewed
      • Professional reputation of the juror(s) and/or curator
      • Acceptance rates
      • Critical reviews
      • Other key indicators to the merit of the work.

      B: Reproduction and distribution of work by an outside body

      • Weighted according to the stature of the organization, publication, publisher, and/or author (local/regional/national/international)
      • The distribution of content (local/regional/national/international)
      • Peer reviewed vs. non-peer reviewed
      • Acceptance rates
      • Context of reproduction
      • Critical reviews
      • Other key indicators that define the merit of the work.

      C: Commissions

      • Weighted according to the stature of the patron or organization
      • The scope of project (public vs. private)
      • Other key indicators that define the merit of the work.

      D: Collections and Archives

      • Weighted according to the stature of the collection or archive (regional, national, international)
      • The scope of project (public vs. private)
    4. Research

      Faculty must document original contribution to a body of knowledge areas of research. These include but are not limited to design, illustration, photographic illustration, new media, motion graphics and related areas of education. The merit of Scholarship in this area will be determined by a number of factors including:

      • Weighted according to the securing of funding through grants or sponsorship (local/regional/national/international)
      • Publishing of research (see sections 1.B, 1.C and 2)
      • Demonstrated engagement and success of students beyond the classroom (undergraduate and graduate research, funding, and publication)
      • Project execution
      • Peer review
      • Invitation to present research (see section 5)
      • Citations
      • Critical evaluation
      • Other key indicators to the merit of the work
    5. Scholarly Activities

      Scholarly actives are defined by activities that are appropriate for faculty engagement other than stated above. Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies, and engage in activities that enhance their professional competency.  Merit of Scholarship in this area will be determined by a number of factors including:

      A: Lectures and/or invitations to present

      • Weighted according to the stature of the event and sponsor (international/national/regional/local)
      • Audience (academic or professional)
      • Nature of participation (Keynote speaker, breakout, delivering a paper or presentation, workshop, guest speaker, panel discussion, portfolio presentation, etc.)
      • Fellow participants, reputations
      • Other key indicators that define the merit of the presentation.

      B: Curation, juries, editorial, and/or advisory boards

      • Weighted according to the stature of the organization, event and/or sponsor (international/national/regional/local)
      • Audience (academic or professional)
      • Nature of participation
      • Nature of the work being adjudicated or collected (undergraduate, graduate, academic, or professional)
      • Fellow participants, reputations
      • Other key indicators that define the merit of participation.
      • Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship and Research:

      All faculty of the School are expected to seek excellence in scholarly activity. Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of scholarly activity is based are provided in Table I.

      Indicators of the quality of a faculty member's creative activity and research record include the quality and quantity of commissioned work, adjudicated exhibitions, and published work as well as the faculty member's success in obtaining extramural funds. All faculty members in the School are expected to produce records of scholarship and creative activity that reflect their disciplinary focus and the attributes of an individual faculty member's scholarly activity will vary across disciplines.

      To achieve "excellent" in the category of the scholarship at the time a faculty member stands for tenure and promotion, she/he should have established a creative activity and research program that demonstrates an impact upon his/her discipline.

      Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, each faculty member who will seek tenure and promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her scholarly record. This obligation will be met by providing specific information about the significance of the individual faculty members’ endeavors and contributions, and their resulting impact. IN turn, the members of the School's Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Director shall evaluate a candidate's record in

      light of the School's expectation for a successful tenure decision.

      Table 1. Kent campus faculty: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Creative Endeavor, and Scholarship for promotion and tenure.

      Scholarship

      Definition

      Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Scores

      Excellent

      Nationally/Internationally recognized body of creative activity and/or research program                            

      Demonstrated record of commissions, publications, grants, adjudicated exhibitions, installations, presentations, research-related service to federal/state organizations, awards, recognition from artistic and/or professional societies

      Very Good

      Emerging nationally recognized body of creative activity and/or research program

       

       

       

       

      Demonstrated record of commissions, publications, grants, adjudicated exhibitions, installations, and presentations at well-recognized meetings or venues

      Good

      Active body of creative activity and/or research program

       

       

      Some commissions, publications, grants, adjudicated exhibitions, installations or presentations at meetings/seminars

      Fair

      Limited body of creative activity and/or research program

       

      Occasional commissions, publications, exhibitions, installations or meeting presentations

      Poor

      No body of creative activity and/or research program

      No commissions, publications, exhibitions, installations or meeting presentations

       

  5. Teaching

    Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 2. Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification to a course such as developing distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content/format, etc. Course development is defined as creating new course offerings, content and delivery methods. Curriculum development is defined as making a substantial modification to a degree program, and area of concentration or minor.

    Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the School, College or University administrators shall be considered when available. Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including all student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate's file for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, summative peer review of teaching and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.

    Graduate Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students. Documentation related to graduate student and undergraduate student should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses.

    Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure

    Scholarship

    Definition

    Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

    Excellent

    Innovative Teacher; provides leadership in instructional development

    Actively participate in curricular revisions such as develop/revise courses and curricula, develop research projects for students (undergraduate and/or graduate), excellent student and peer perceptions, instructional creativity

    Very Good

    Innovative teacher

    Develop/revise courses, good student and peer perceptions, work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative activity

    Good

    Meets obligations well

    Good student and peer perceptions

    Fair

    Substandard teacher

    Below average student and peer perceptions

    Poor

    Substandard, ineffective teacher

    Below average student and peer perceptions, pattern of complaints

     

  6. University Citizenship

    A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the School, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Table 3. The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee listed (2) the nature and extent of the committee accomplishments, and (3) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served. Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in school events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, school meetings and seminars, etc.

    Being an active and useful citizen of the School, Campus, College and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's research and other scholarly activity and instructional responsibilities. Expectations in service for promotion to Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

    Table 3. Assessment of University Citizenship for promotion and tenure.

    Citizenship Assessment

    Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the

    Assessment Score

    Exceeds obligations

    Significant role in School, College, and/or University as evidenced by leadership and productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach

    Meets obligations

    Meets the minimal School/Campus Obligations

    Does not meet obligation

    Does not meet School/Campus Obligations in a timely manner or does not actively participate in significant school/campus events


    Other components of service are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member's duties and responsibilities within the School.

  7. Renewal of Appointment and Third-year Full Performance Reviews of Full-time Non-tenure Track (NTT) Faculty

    1. 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.

    2. Third-Year Full Performance Review

      The third-year full performance reviews of (NTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, guidelines for the third-year full performance reviews for NTT faculty at the Kent and Regional Campuses are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The third-year full performance review concludes with the College or, if applicable, the division of the Regional Campuses' level of review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three (3) full academic years of appointments including that portion of the third appointment that is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review.

      Third year performance reviews are based primarily on established instructional effectiveness criteria applicable to the reappointment of tenure-track faculty within the academic unit or regional campus. NTT faculty members are reviewed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. The Director, in consultation with the FAC, assigns two (2) faculty members to conduct a Summative Peer Evaluation of Teaching (See Appendix III) for the NTT faculty member, interview students in the classes, and generally evaluate teaching performance. One of the faculty members assigned to conduct the evaluation must be a member of the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. A written report is submitted to the Director for placement in the faculty member's review file.

      NTT faculty will also submit an updated file that is presented to the Director who will make these materials available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. Each NTT faculty member is discussed by the committee that votes on a recommendation for renewal of the faculty member's appointment. The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each NTT faculty member and forwards to the Dean her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation. The Director informs the NTT faculty member of the Ad Hoc RTP Committee's deliberations and provides the faculty member a copy of the recommendation that the Director sends to the Dean. NTT faculty members whose appointments will not be renewed must be notified by the timelines established in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement whether lack of adequate satisfaction with performance or the absence of anticipated continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason.

      The overall evaluation during the third-year full performance review shall include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community and his/her contribution to the mission of the School. A sound ethical approach is expected of all NTT faculty members who seek renewal of appointment in the School.