Reappointment | Kent State University

Reappointment

The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (see 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.

From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to need 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).

  1. Criteria Regarding Scholarship, Teaching, and Service for Annual Reappointment in the Department of Philosophy

    The departmental expectation is that, given the years of service to date and the number of years until mandatory tenure review, the candidate is making satisfactory process toward achieving a significant body of scholarship, excellence as a teacher, and effective service. See Subsection D below for departmental expectations concerning evidence of scholarly achievement.

    For probationary faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration that, given the years of service to date and the number of years until mandatory tenure review, it is reasonable to expect that the probationary faculty member will eventually undergo a successful tenure review. Moreover, the probationary faculty member in his second or later review must have established and articulated short and long term plans for achieving these goals.

    This record can be demonstrated through review of the candidate’s scholarship as specified below in Subsection D.  Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Chair 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 professional behavior as recognized by the University community.

  2. Necessary Conditions for Annual Reappointment

    a.  Documented evidence of suitable progress, given years in service and number of years until mandatory tenure review, in scholarship. What counts as “documented evidence” is addressed in Subsection D below.

    b.   Documented evidence of suitable progress, given years in service and number of years until mandatory tenure review, in the art and practice of teaching.

    c.   Documented evidence of suitable progress, given years in service and number of years until mandatory tenure review, in service. Contributions beyond minimal participation in Department service functions (such as attending departmental meetings and FAC meetings), which make significant positive contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly, governance, and goals and missions of the Department, College, University, Campus, or community, will be included here.

    After initial reappointment to a 2nd year, probationary tenure-track faculty members are expected to provide for each annual reappointment review documented evidence for each of the activities to be considered under Scholarship, Teaching and University Citizenship. Please review Subsection D, below, which provides (a) guidelines and examples of what is acceptable as documented evidence for Scholarship, Teaching and University Citizenship, and (b) the criteria for evaluating or weighting the quantity and quality of documented evidence of Scholarship, Teaching and University Citizenship for probationary tenure-track faculty members.

    In each instance, a judgment as to whether a candidate has attained suitable progress given years in service and number of years until mandatory tenure review (including quality and quantity of achievement or output or performance) in scholarship, teaching, and university citizenship must be rendered by each member of the Department’s Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.