Criteria for Tenure and Promotion | Tuscarawas Faculty Handbook | Kent State University

Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

As per University policy, “the unit handbook may recommend that candidates for tenure should be expected to meet the minimum criteria for promotion to Associate Professor and, in such cases, the higher standards that a candidate for early promotion is expected to meet may be applied to the candidate's application for early tenure as well. These criteria only apply to regional campus Faculty if a similar standard has been set in the regional campus handbooks.” Kent State University at Tuscarawas expressly does not require that a candidate meet the minimum criteria for promotion to Associate Professor to earn tenure but does expect that candidates for tenure exhibit potential for promotion at some future date.

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

Because of the differences among disciplines and publication, presentation, performance, and/or exhibition venues it is inappropriate to quantify absolutely the criteria for assessment of an individual candidate’s portfolio of accomplishment. Each member of the RTP committee must necessarily apply his or her own professional judgment to make a final ballot recommendation based upon the standards of the relevant discipline, the testimony provided by the candidate’s file and peer reviewers, and the discussions during the RTP committee meetings. When all the evaluations are summarized, a recommendation will be made regarding a candidate’s whole performance, viewed as a unified, integrated record of a teacher-scholar and university citizen emerges consistent with the standards described within this section.

Candidates standing for reappointment and tenure are strongly encouraged to acknowledge these facts as they prepare their files and should endeavor to fully explain the level and context of accomplishment given their discipline, their year in the review process, and how they addressed issues raised in the previous year’s review.

Tables 1, 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 in three areas; Scholarship, Teaching and Service. For tenure decisions a rating of “excellent” in either teaching or scholarship, at least “very good” in the other category, and at least “good” in service are needed for a positive recommendation.  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 remaining two (2) categories.  A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in scholarship or teaching and at least “very good” in the remaining two (2) categories.  A candidate for promotion to Professor need not have equal activity in scholarship, teaching and service as he/she becomes more specialized.

  1. Scholarship

    Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity.  The originality, quality and value of the work must be assessed.  To assist this process, the candidate shall submit the requisite number of potential external reviewers who are qualified to evaluate their achievements objectively as dictated by the academic unit.  Moreover, the candidate must provide the RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her scholarly activity.  A Faculty member's specific area of specialization may be a factor in the number and size of grants received and in the scope and time required for research and the resulting publications.

    In addition to creative activity, funded research and scholarly publications, other scholarly activities including but not limited to serving on national grant review bodies, presenting at refereed professional meetings, chairing academic society committees, and presenting papers before learned societies should be considered. These latter activities complement creative activity, scholarly publications and grant-funded research.  Other scholarly activities in which Faculty members may engage include holding membership in professional societies, attending and participating in institutes and seminars, organizing institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency.

    All Faculty of the campus are expected to seek excellence in scholarly activity.  Indicators on which the assessment of scholarly activity is based are provided in Table 1.

    Indicators for the assessment of a Faculty member’s research and creative activity record include the quality and quantity of performances, exhibitions, installations and published work as well as the Faculty member’s success in obtaining extramural funds.  All Faculty members on the Campus 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 significant research and or creative activity program.

    Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, each Faculty member who will seek tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her scholarly record.  This obligation will be met by providing specific information about the significance of performances, exhibitions and installations, article and journal quality, funding history and plans, and description in the Faculty member’s supplementary materials of any other evidence of scholarship that the Faculty member deems appropriate.  In turn, the RTP Committee and the Campus Dean shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the Campuses expectations for a successful tenure or promotion decision.

    Table 1. Tuscarawas Campus Faculty: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion.

     

     

    Scholarship

    Definition

    Accomplishments* Corresponding to the

    Assessment Score

    Excellent

    Established research program, and/or body of creative activity.

    Demonstrated record of publications1 and/or grants2, and/or performances, exhibitions and installations, invited presentations, research-related service to federal/state organizations, awards, recognition from artistic, professional and/or scientific societies3

    Very Good

    Active research program, and/or body of creative activity.

    Demonstrated record of publications1 and/or “seed” grants, and/or performances, exhibitions, installations and presentations at well-recognized meetings or venues with rigorous review criteria.

    Good

    Emerging research program and/or body of creative activity.

    Some publications1 or “seed” grants, some performances, exhibitions, installations or presentations at meetings/seminars.

    Fair

    Limited research program and/or body of creative activity.

    Occasional publications1, performances, exhibitions, installations or meeting presentations.

    Poor

    No research program and/or body of creative activity.

    No publications1, performances, exhibitions, installations, presentations, or grants.

    Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications1,” “grants2,” and “recognition3” throughout Table 1. *These accomplishments are intended to be neither all-inclusive nor exclusionary.

    Publications include papers in peer-reviewed journals, books, and book chapters of recognized quality. Evaluation of a candidate’s publication record will include an assessment of quality, originality and quantity. Papers of exceptional length and quality are given particular consideration.

    “Grants” refers to extramural funding where the role of the Faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated and which are of sufficient magnitude to completely support research or creative activity at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline, including, as appropriate funds for supplies, materials and personnel. “Seed Grants” are extramural grants that are not of sufficient magnitude to fully support a full program of research or creative activity or are intramural grants. “Seed Grants” should be designed to lead to successful applications for “Grants.”  Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of research or creative activity with the recognition that the dollar amount of awards varies among fields, but is a significant indicator of the accomplishment.

    Recognitions from scientific, artistic and scholarly societies include, for example, election to office, editorial board membership, editorship, etc. Service to federal/state institutions includes service on federal proposal panels, site visits, and other research related activities.

     

  2. Teaching

    Criteria for the evaluation of teaching are listed in Table 2.  Course revision is defined as making substantial modifications to a course such as developing new laboratories, adding distance-learning options, or formally proposing to change course content/format.

    Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Campus or from University administrators shall be considered when available.  Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.  Documentation related to student training should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Differences in missions and expectations across campuses will determine evaluation of teaching.

    Table 2. Tuscarawas Campus Faculty:  Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for Tenure and Promotion

     

     

    Teaching Assessment

    Definition

    Accomplishments* Corresponding to the Assessment Score

    Excellent

    Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development.

    Excellent student and peer perceptions across a breadth of courses that are consistent over time, highly recognized and documented student/mentor accomplishments, innovative teaching methods, develops and engages in significant involvement in research/honors/community engagement or other creative activity projects with students, instructional creativity, regularly develops/revises courses, actively participates in curricular revisions. Other documented recognition of excellence in teaching. Award of pedagogical or other instruction related grants1.

    Very Good

    Innovative teacher

    Very good student and peer perceptions, develops/revises courses to improve instructional delivery, works with students in research/honors/community engagement or other creative activity projects, participates in curricular revisions. Other documented recognition of very good teaching.

    Good

    Competent teacher

    Good student and peer perceptions. Occasionally works with students on research/honors/community engagement or other creative activity projects, develops/revises a course.

    Fair

    Substandard teacher

    Below average student and peer perceptions. Never works with students on research projects, occasionally develops/revises a course.

    Poor

    Ineffective teacher

    Well below average student and peer perceptions, pattern of complaints.

    * These accomplishments are intended to be neither all-inclusive nor exclusionary. 1As noted above “Grants” refers to extramural funding where the role of the Faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated and which are of sufficient magnitude to completely support the instructional activity at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline, including, as appropriate funds for supplies, materials and personnel. “Seed Grants” are extramural grants that are not of sufficient magnitude to fully support a full program of instructional activity or are intramural grants. “Seed Grants” should be designed to lead to successful applications for “Grants.”  Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of activity with the recognition that the dollar amount of awards varies among fields, but is a significant indicator of the accomplishment.

     

  3. University Service

    A Faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Campus, academic unit (department/school/independent college), academic College, University, discipline and community as outlined in Table 3.  The quality of the candidate’s service should be evaluated by the extent of the individual’s contribution and the importance of the service to the mission of the academic unit served.  Being an active and useful citizen of the Campus, academic unit 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.

    Table 3. Tuscarawas Campus Faculty: Assessment of University Service for Tenure and Promotion.

     

     

    Citizenship Assessment

    Definition

    Accomplishments* Corresponding to the Assessment Score

    Excellent

    Well-recognized record of professional service.

    Well-recognized participation at the Campus, academic unit, academic College, University and/or professional disciplinary levels as evidenced by productive service on committees and taskforces, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, completing specific administrative assignments and/or meaningful public engagement.

    Very Good

    Significant record of professional service.

    Significant participation at the Campus, academic unit, academic College, University and/or professional disciplinary levels as evidenced by productive service on committees and taskforces, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, completing specific administrative assignments and/or meaningful public engagement.

    Good

    Acceptable record of professional service.

    Dutifully participates in professional service at the Campus, academic unit, academic college, University and/or professional disciplinary levels. Actively participates on local committees, participates in specific administrative assignments and/or local public engagement activities.

    Fair

    Limited level of professional service.

    Modestly participates in professional service at the Campus, academic unit, academic college, University and/or professional disciplinary levels on an intermittent basis.  Occasionally attends local committee meetings, participates in specific administrative assignments and/or local public engagement activities.

    Poor

    Insufficient record of professional service.

    Does not meet service obligations at the Campus, academic unit, academic College, University and/or professional disciplinary levels in a timely manner or does not actively participate in significant Campus, academic unit, academic college and/or University level events and/or public engagement activities.


    *These accomplishments are intended to be neither all-inclusive nor exclusionary