Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of TT faculty at the Regional Campuses

Considerations for Regional Campus Faculty will differ from those on the Kent campus, for two distinct reasons. First, for Regional Campus Faculty members, tenure is held on the Regional Campuses, but rank is held within the University as a whole. Second, the primary mission at the Regional Campuses is the teaching of undergraduate classes, particularly lower division or developmental classes. Thus, a Regional Campus Faculty member’s teaching record assumes particular importance in promotion and tenure decisions.

For tenure or promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor, a Regional Campus Faculty member must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in teaching, with at least a “good” rating in research. In addition, the Faculty member must achieve a “good” rating in citizenship, according to the criteria established in the appropriate Regional Campus handbook For promotion from Associate Professor to Professor, a Regional Campus Faculty member must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in both research and teaching.  In addition, the Faculty member must achieve a “very good” rating in citizenship, according to the criteria established in the appropriate Regional Campus handbook. There is, however, no expectation of full involvement in the graduate program or of success in obtaining extramural funding.

  1. Standards for Evaluating Teaching

    Information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Department, 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, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.  Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student advising 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.  Criteria for the evaluation of teaching are listed in Table 3. 

  2. Standards for the Evaluation of Research

    Research is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed.  The candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTPC with ample descriptive evidence of the nature of his/her scholarly activity. Moreover, to assist the evaluation process, the candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work.  In addition, the Chair may independently identify two (2) further experts who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. The selection of these persons shall be discussed with the FAC and the candidate.

    All Faculty of the department are expected to seek excellence in research.  Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of research is based are provided in Tables 2A and 2B.

    Indicators of the standard of a Faculty member’s research record include the quality and quantity of published work as well as the faculty member’s success in obtaining extramural funds.  In all cases, quality of research is valued more than mere quantity. It is recognized that the attributes of an individual Faculty member’s research activity will vary across sub-disciplines.

    Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, all Faculty members who will seek tenure or promotion are expected to provide evidence supporting their research records.  In particular, it is expected candidates will provide specific information about article and journal quality and impact, funding history and plans.  They should also include materials, in supplementary files when appropriate, of any other evidence of research and scholarly activity they deem relevant.  In turn, the members of the Department’s Ad Hoc RTPC and the Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the Department’s expectations for successful promotion and tenure decisions.    

  3. Standards for Evaluating Citizenship

    A Faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, the Campus, the College, the University, and the discipline as outlined in Table 4. Judgments of merits of University service should weigh the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served. 

    Citizenship contributions include committee membership at departmental, college, campus, and University levels. In judging committee work, extra weighting should be given for committee chairing.

    Other components of citizenship 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 Department. 

    Being an active and useful citizen of the Department, 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.