Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions | Kent State University

Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions

  1. Appointment and Employment Procedures and Regulations

    1. Faculty Appointments

      1. Visiting Faculty Appointments

        Visiting faculty appointments at an appropriate faculty rank may be made when leaves of absence occur or special needs arise and funds are available. A visiting faculty member is typically a faculty member from another institution who is employed by the Department for a period not to exceed one (1) year. In the event that a Visiting faculty member is employed in that capacity for a second consecutive year, the visiting faculty member will then become a full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty member.

      2. Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTT) Appointments

        Full-time non-tenure track faculty (NTT) appointments are made on an annual basis (see Subsection A under Renewal of Appointment and Third-Year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty, below). NTT appointments are not included under the umbrella of the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and NTT faculty members are not entitled to any rights with regard to tenure. The renewal process will be covered below in Subsection B under Renewal of Appointment and Third-Year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty.

      3. Part-Time Faculty Appointments

        When the Department cannot meet its teaching needs from the ranks of its full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty and its full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty, part-time faculty appointments will be made from an established pool of qualified applicants not currently on regular appointment at the University. Normally a part-time faculty member will teach only lower level courses, unless otherwise approved by the FAC and the Chair.

        For the initial appointment to the rank of part-time faculty appointment, a candidate must hold at least a M.A. or an equivalent degree in philosophy to apply to the Chair for consideration. Further, for initial appointment, a candidate must have potential for excellence in teaching.

        For the initial appointment to the rank of part-time faculty to teach only courses in religion, a candidate must hold at least an M.A. academic degree in religion studies. Further, for initial appointment, a candidate must have potential for excellence in teaching.

    2. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Ranks

      The basic definitions of faculty ranks are as follows:

      1. Assistant Professor

        This rank is normally the entry level rank for tenure-track faculty holding the doctorate in philosophy.

        For the initial appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor, a candidate must hold a Ph.D. or an equivalent degree in philosophy.

        Further, for initial appointment, a candidate must have potential for excellence in teaching. Evidence for such potential is:

        a.  Letters of recommendation, and where possible, student evaluations.

        b.  The candidate's submission of class plans, syllabi, requirements, readings upon request of the Chairperson.

        c.  The candidate's performance in reading and defending a paper before the Department.

        d.  The candidate's performance in presenting to the Department faculty a class session on some topic set by the Department; or giving a session of some undergraduate class or graduate colloquium, with the faculty in attendance.

        Finally, the candidate must have potential for writing publishable material. Evidence for such potential is:

        a.   One or more publications.

        b.   The quality of the candidate's dissertation.

        c.   The quality of any manuscript the candidate may submit.

        d.   Letters of recommendation from publishing scholars.

         

      2. Associate Professor

        Criteria for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor are covered below in Subsection C under Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion. A candidate whose initial appointment at Kent State University is to the rank of Associate Professor must possess the Ph.D. or its equivalent in philosophy. Initial appointment at this rank presumes prior service as an Assistant Professor.

        Further, the candidate must have demonstrated excellence in teaching. Evidence for such potential is:

        a.   The candidate's performance in reading and defending a paper before the Department.

        b.   The candidate's performance in presenting to the Department faculty a class session on some topic set by the Department; or giving a session of an undergraduate class or graduate colloquium, with the faculty in attendance.

        c.   The candidate's submission of class plans, syllabi, requirements, readings upon request of the Chairperson.

        d.   Letters of recommendation, and where possible, student evaluations.

        In addition, the candidate for initial appointment at this rank must have a substantial and quality publication record consistent with departmental criteria and evidence for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor (see below, Subsections C and D under Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion). Reviews and letters, solicited by the Chairperson from experts in the candidate's field, are also to be used in assessing the candidate's scholarly record.

         

      3. Professor

        Criteria for promotion to the rank of Full Professor are covered below in Subsection C under Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion.

        A candidate whose initial appointment at Kent State University is to Full Professor must have a Ph.D. or its equivalent in philosophy, should have at least a decade of experience teaching in the field, must have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and must have an excellent sustained publication record. Section V of this handbook should be consulted for the criteria and evidence for excellence in teaching.

        The candidate for initial appointment at the rank of Full Professor must have a substantial and quality publication record consistent with departmental criteria and evidence for promotion to the rank of Full Professor (see below, Subsections C and D under Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion). Reviews and letters, solicited by the Chairperson from experts in the candidate's field, are also to be used in assessing the candidate's scholarly record.

        Reviews and letters, solicited by the Chairperson from experts in the candidate's field, are to be used in assessing the candidate's scholarly record.

    3. Graduate Faculty Status

      As a graduate degree granting Department, the Department normally requires that all faculty hired for tenure-track positions be eligible for appointment to the graduate faculty as associate or full members. The Administrative policy regarding graduate faculty is included in the University Policy Register (University Policy Register 3342-6-15.1). Graduate Faculty Status is a meritorious position in the Department.

    4. Recruiting Tenure Track Faculty

      The Department supports the goals of equal opportunity and affirmative action in recruiting and in making appointments to the faculty. The FAC will review the applications for any tenure-track position and prepare a ranked list of the top ten to twenty candidates. A search committee will be appointed by the Chair after consultation with the FAC to interview candidates at the APA. Based on these initial interviews, the search committee will make a recommendation to the FAC that two (2) or three (3) candidates be invited to campus for an interview. After the campus interviews, the FAC will recommend its choice of candidates to the Chair. The FAC’s recommendation is advisory to the Chair, who then makes a recommendation to the Dean. If the Dean concurs with the Chair, a recommendation is forwarded to the Office of the Provost. If the Chair's recommendation is different than that of the FAC, the Chair shall inform the Dean of all recommendations and the reasons for the disagreement.

    5. Roles and Responsibilities of the Faculty

      1. Research and Teaching

        Each Faculty member is expected to contribute to the Department, Campus, College and University according to the terms and condition of his/her letter of appointment. Scholarly activity is expected of all Faculty members, although the extent and/or type of activity may vary with the terms of each Faculty member’s assignment, campus location and Graduate Faculty Status. A Faculty member whose primary or sole responsibilities are undergraduate teaching and undergraduate programs may teach and serve in a greater number and diversity of courses with a larger number of students per semester than a Faculty member who is also a member of the Graduate Faculty. Supervision and direction of undergraduate research projects and theses is part of the teaching function of all Faculty members.

        Faculty members with Graduate Faculty Status are involved in the research and graduate teaching program and are expected to present evidence of their research endeavors as witnessed by publication, proposals submitted for extramural funding, and dissemination of research in various venues as appropriate to the discipline. Activity in professional organizations and the training of graduate students is also expected. Most of the Department faculty members will be either a full or associate member of the Graduate Faculty. All Graduate Faculty members are expected to serve on graduate student committees, participate in extracurricular graduate studies programs, and direct graduate student research.

      2. Graduate Faculty

        All Graduate Faculty members receive workload equivalence each academic year.

        a.  Membership in the philosophy Graduate Faculty includes duties beyond the teaching of graduate-level courses and requires participation in Advisory Committees, Thesis Committees, Thesis Advising, graduate colloquia, the Annual Graduate Student Conference, and other programs equivalent to a 3-hour course reduction per academic year.

          b.   Graduate Faculty are expected to keep active as scholars engaged throughout the academic year in scholarly activity that deepens their awareness of philosophy,  keeps them abreast of developments within the field, and allows constant update of their courses. They are also expected to engage in research to advance and create new knowledge in philosophy, resulting in a sustained record of publications and conference presentations.   Graduate Faculty members are given a 3-hour-course reduction each academic year.

      3. Service to the University

        Service to the University is a responsibility of each faculty member. Department, Campus, College, and University committee or task force membership is expected as a normal part of a faculty member’s contributions. Special or outstanding service above and beyond that which is typical may be considered during the review of a faculty member, but service alone will not reduce the expectations of quantity and quality teaching and scholarly activity. Public service is encouraged and recognized as a part of the professional responsibilities of each faculty member, although contributions in this area can be expected to vary widely due to the nature of the various disciplines within the Department.

    6. Faculty Code of Ethics

      All members of the Department faculty are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards as teachers, scholars, university citizens and colleagues. The University policy regarding faculty code of professional ethics can be found in the University Policy Register (University Policy Register 3342-6-17).

    7. Sanctions

      A sanction is a documented corrective action in response to a faculty member's unsatisfactory performance of his/her duties and responsibilities as a member of the faculty (see CBA, Article VIII).

    8. Faculty Leaves

      All leaves, sponsored or unsupported, personal or professional, are subject to the approval of the Chair, the Dean and the Provost.

      University leaves include but are not limited to:

                  1.      Research leaves (see University Policy Register 3342-6-11.8).

                  2.      Leaves of absence without pay (see University Policy Register 3342-6-11.9).

                  3.      Faculty professional improvement leaves (see University Policy Register 3342-6-12 ).

                  4.      Research/Creative Activity appointments (see University Policy Register 3342-6-15.3).

      Leaves of absence on a one-year (or less) basis without pay may be arranged through the Department Chairperson and, with his or her approval, the approval of the Dean of the College, and the approval of the Provost and Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Such requests for a leave of absence should be filed not later than the first of March for the next academic year. However, the University can and does recognize "court leave" (see University Policy Register 3342-6-11.5) and does have a defined policy concerning military leave of absence (see University Policy Register 3342-6-11.6).

    9. Faculty Absence and Travel Policy

      Faculty members who will be absent from campus for professional or personal reasons must submit a Request for Absence Form to the Chair. The request should be made at least one (1) month prior to the planned absence and is subject to the approval of the Chair and the Dean. Arrangements for any classes to be missed during the absence must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Chair before approval will be granted.

      Attendance at professional meetings is encouraged and approved travel expenses incurred in attending such meetings may be reimbursed when approved prior to travel according to the University's travel policies and are subject to the availability of Department funds. It is assumed that Faculty members who are applying for travel funding from University Research Council will submit a completed form at least one (1) month prior to the professional travel date for review by the Chair. Requests for Absence Forms and Requests for University Research Council Travel Support which are inaccurate or incomplete will be declined by the Chair. The Faculty member is responsible for submitting all pertinent supporting materials with the application.

    10. Faculty Sick Leave

      The Chair is responsible for keeping complete records of faculty sick leave; however, faculty members are also required to submit the appropriate sick leave forms to the Chair. Sick leave forms should be completed and submitted to the Chair within forty-eight (48) hours after an absence (see University Policy Register 3342-6-11.1).

    11. Outside Employment and Other Outside Activities

      Faculty members may engage in professional activities outside the university provided the activities do not interfere with the faculty member's teaching, research, or service responsibilities to the Department, Campus, College or University (see University Policy Register 3342-6-24). These activities must not compete with University activity or the faculty member’s employment with the University. Continuing employment while under contract for remuneration must be approved in advance by the Chair and the Dean. Each academic year, each faculty member must disclose and seek approval for all continuing outside employment on the form provided by the University. Any outside employment or other outside activities are subject to the Faculty Code of Ethics and the University’s conflict of interest policies. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-17 and 3342-6-23)

    12. Copyright Restrictions

      All faculty members should be aware of current copyright laws which restrict the copying of published materials. For further information, contact the University’s Office of Legal Affairs.

    13. Academic Misconduct

      The University policy regarding misconduct in research and scholarship and the Administrative policy and procedures regarding allegations and instances of misconduct in research and scholarship are included in the University Policy Register (see University Policy Register 3342-10-07 and 3342-10-07.1, respectively).

    14. Minimum Salaries and Salary Review

      Minimum faculty salaries in each academic rank are specified in Article XII, Section 7 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Faculty members wishing to request a salary review (i) to match a bona fide offer of employment, (ii) to address a salary discrepancy, or (iii) in other unusual circumstances may do so in accordance with Article XII, Section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

  2. Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion

    1. 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.

    2. Tenure

      The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy regarding faculty tenure (See University Policy Register 3342-6-14).

      1. Necessary Conditions for Tenure

        a.  Documented evidence of suitable promise of a sustained and distinguished record of scholarship.

        b.  Documented evidence of suitable promise of a sustained and distinguished record of teaching.

        c.  Documented evidence of suitable promise of a sustained and distinguished record of service. Contributions beyond minimal participation in Department service functions, such as attending routine departmental meetings and FAC meetings, which make significant positive contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly, governance, and college goals and missions of the unit, College, University, Campus, or community will be included here.

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

        In each instance, a judgment as to whether a candidate for tenure has attained a suitable promise of a sustained and distinguished record (including quality and quantity of achievement) in the areas of scholarship, teaching, and service must be rendered by each member of the Ad Hoc Tenure and Promotion Committee.

    3. Promotion

      According to the University policy regarding faculty promotion,  (see University Policy Register 3342-6-15), "Promotion shall be viewed as a recognition of a faculty member having contributed sustained and distinguished service to the University, the academic unit and campus to which the faculty member belongs."

      1. Departmental Criteria Regarding Academic Credentials and Experience

        a.   Assistant Professor: Normally an Assistant Professor must have the Ph.D. (or equivalent) in philosophy and will have served five years as Assistant Professor before becoming eligible for consideration for advancement.

        b.   Associate Professor: Normally an Associate Professor must have the Ph.D. (or equivalent) in philosophy and will have served five years as Associate Professor before becoming eligible for consideration for advancement.

        c.    Full Professor: Normally a Full Professor must hold a Ph.D. (or equivalent) in philosophy.

        d.   In extraordinary cases a faculty member may be considered for promotion to the next highest rank after completion of fewer years at current rank. Exceptions to these usual or standard circumstances will be reviewed in accordance with University Policy.

        e.   A non-tenured faculty member applying for promotion in rank to either Associate or Full Professor must undergo a successful tenure review.

      2. Departmental Criteria Regarding Scholarship, Teaching and Service

        The Department observes the following as necessary conditions for promotion:

        a.  Assistant Professor
             i.    Documented evidence of scholarly activity such as the completed and accepted Ph.D. dissertation is necessary for appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor.

             ii.   Documented evidence in teaching at the time of appointment, such as a candidate's submission of class plans, syllabi, requirements, readings, letters of recommendation speaking to teaching experience and effectiveness, and where possible peer review and/or student evaluations of teaching.

        b.  Associate Professor

             i.    Documented evidence of sustained and distinguished achievement and performance of scholarship beyond that achieved for the rank of Assistant Professor, is a necessary condition for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor.

             ii.   Documented evidence of sustained and distinguished achievement and performance of teaching is necessary for promotion in rank to the level of Associate Professor.

             iii.  Documented evidence of sustained and distinguished service is necessary for promotion to Associate Professor. 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 collegial goals and missions of the Department, College, University, Campus, or community will be included here.

        Candidates for promotion to Associate Professor are expected to provide documented evidence for each of the activities to be considered under Scholarship, Teaching and service. Please review Subsection D, below, which provides (a) guidelines and examples of what is acceptable as documented evidence for scholarship, teaching and service, and (b) the criteria for evaluating or weighting the quantity and quality of documented evidence of scholarship, teaching and service for promotion to Associate Professor.  

        In each instance, a judgment as to whether a candidate has attained a “sustained and distinguished record” of scholarly achievement and performance (including quality and quantity of achievement or performance), teaching, and service suitable for promotion to Associate Professor must be rendered by each member of the Ad Hoc Promotion Committee.

        c.  Full Professor

             i.   Documented evidence of sustained and distinguished scholarly achievement and performance beyond that achieved for the rank of Associate Professor is a necessary condition for promotion to the rank of Full Professor.

             ii.  Documented evidence of sustained and distinguished achievement and performance in teaching beyond that required to achieve the rank of Associate Professor is a necessary condition for promotion to the rank of Full Professor.

             iii.  Documented evidence of sustained and distinguished service beyond that required to achieve the rank of Associate Professor is a necessary condition for promotion to Full Professor. Contributions beyond minimal participation in Department service functions, such as attending routine departmental meetings and FAC meetings, which make significant positive contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly, governance, and collegial goals and missions of the Department, College, University, Campus, or community will be included here.

        Candidates for Promotion in rank to Full Professor are expected to provide documented evidence for each of the activities to be considered under scholarship, teaching and service. Please review Subsection D, below, which provides (a) guidelines and examples of what is acceptable as documented evidence for scholarship, teaching and service, and (b) the criteria for evaluating or weighting the quantity and quality of scholarship, teaching and service for promotion to full professor.  

        Promotion to the rank of Full Professor in philosophy should be considered only when there is sufficient evidence that the candidate’s work has made not simply a positive contribution to scholarship, but must be assessed as to whether or not the work of the candidate significantly influences others in the area of study.

        In each instance, a judgment as to whether a candidate has attained “sustained and distinguished achievement beyond that required to achieve the rank of Associate Professor” and suitable for the highest faculty rank in the Department (including quality and quantity) in scholarship, teaching and service must be rendered by each member of the Ad Hoc Promotion Committee.

    4. Evidence

      Evidence of scholarship, teaching, and service, may be demonstrated in general by the following: self-evaluation, peer evaluation, student evaluation, client evaluation, external colleague evaluation, and/or any other appropriate document evidence. The quality and merit of scholarly activity, the quality and merit of teaching activity, and the quality and merit of service activities will be judged on the basis of evidence as explicated in the following section.

      1. Scholarship

        a.  Evidence of Scholarship

        The Department recognizes the following six points when evaluating scholarship activities<>:Breadth and depth of knowledge and scholarship in the field

             ii.Clarity of extended research project

             iii.Use of appropriate methods and procedures

             iv.Effective use of resources

             v.Conveying scholarly contribution clearly

             vi.Significance of the activities and contributions

        The Department recognizes that when evaluating scholarship activities:

             i.The activities mentioned will vary considerably across individuals.

             ii.The quality and merit of these activities should be assessed within the context of each faculty member’s area of scholarship.

             iii.The letter of offer will often provide clarity as to the specializations and concentrations of a particular faculty member’s scholarship.

        b.     Scholarly Publications

        Scholarly publications within the discipline of Philosophy differ as to the mode of publishing. Some Faculty publish single authored books and journal articles/book chapters; others publish exclusively in journals. These criteria apply to both traditional and purely electronic journals. The mode of publication is often determined or influenced by such factors as sub-fields, philosophical methods, and philosophical school or tradition.

        It is understood that there is no generally accepted ranking of philosophical journals across the discipline. Rather, journals are often associated with a sub-field, or philosophical method, school or tradition. Nevertheless, not all journals are equal. The quality of a journal can be judged by a range of criteria including but not limited to: the number of submissions received annually, the percentage of submissions accepted, the extent to which a submission is reviewed by established senior scholars in the field, and the membership of the editorial board. In many sub-fields of philosophy, the journals which are a publishing arm of a national or international academic society which has standing as a Learned Society, and which undergo extensive blind review by established senior scholars exhibit one important means of determining scholarly excellence. In other sub-fields few if any top journals are associated with academic societies.

        While journals that engage in blind review of submissions are generally to be preferred, it is understood that some top journals in some sub-fields publish only invited articles. It is also understood that some journals that engage in the more standard blind review of submissions may also publish special editions for which submissions are exclusively invited. Being invited to submit an article to a journal or to contribute a chapter for a book, or to serve as the journal’s special editions editor or as the book editor for a publisher is frequently an indicator that a scholar has achieved a substantial reputation in the specific field.

        It is understood that the standard length of journal articles varies quite significantly by philosophical subfield. In some philosophical subfields, articles can be quite long and in other subfields strict word limit maximums are imposed. As such, it is never appropriate to simply count pages as a measure of a scholar’s output.

        The time it takes from an article’s acceptance to its appearance in print (either in ink or electronic) may take up to two or three years depending on the journal. High quality journals like high quality book publishing houses rarely accept a work without some revisions for publication in response to the comments issued by the editor or external referees. Thus, quality scholarly publishers (of articles and books) normally tend to take longer than less competitive publishers.

        It is a mark of the quality of a previously published article that it is selected for inclusion as a book chapter or anthology. In the long term, evidence regarding the quality of a scholarly publication may have more to do with the long term influence of the work upon the field or sub-field. A work which garners significant numbers of citation which employ or engage the work in the projects of subsequent scholars is a clear indication of the influence of the work in the field. It is understood that in many cases it can take as much as a decade for a scholar’s work to receive such influence. Further, the indexing of a work in research databases is an indication of the quality of a work. While many philosophical articles are included in the Philosopher’s Index, works in various philosophical sub-fields or that have inter-disciplinary appeal may be included in other disciplinary indexes.

        The criteria for assessing the quality of published books must be assessed employing differentiated criteria. Single authored books published by an established university press is the gold standard by which humanities academic book publishing is assessed. Not all book publications are equal. And not all publishers are equal even within the ranks of University Presses. External blind review of the work by several established senior scholars at research universities in the field is a mark of excellence.

        In terms of single authored academic published books in the humanities, the following stratification of quality of book publication serves as a guide for assessment:

             i.Tier One: established university academic presses are the highest standard. Often included within the first tier are academic presses which serve as the publishing arm of an established academic society. A few long established non-university academic publishing houses are tier one. The refereeing of the manuscript at a tier one academic press is conducted by established scholars in the specialization who are senior faculty at research universities. Further, if the manuscript is also considered for a series, a second level of review is often conducted by the top specialists who are senior established scholars at research universities in the sub-field or interdisciplinary area. Each of the levels of review can be intense and time consuming. It is usually the case that at tier one academic presses the review period for a manuscript may be considerably longer than the review period at tier two or tier three academic presses. A specialized “series” at a tier one academic publishing house adds additional value given the added levels of blind refereeing and review of the manuscript for publication in a series. 

             ii.Tier Two: In the second tier are less established university academic presses and non-university publishing houses (free standing or the publishing arm of an academic society) which publish academic works. A quality tier two publisher depends upon scholars external to the press who perform manuscript refereeing and blind review. The reviewers are often senior faculty at research universities, and four-year colleges and universities. Here as well, a specialized “series” adds value depending on the levels of additional blind refereeing and review of the manuscript for publication, and the reputation of the series. The review period for a manuscript at a tier two publishing houses is often times shorter than is customary at a tier one press.

             iii.Tier Three: A third tier publisher would be a commercial house which does all or at least most of its reviewing of a manuscript in-house. Often the review period for a manuscript is considerably less time than the reviews performed in tier one presses or in the better tier two presses. While tier three publishing institutions may present themselves as academic, their contribution to the field of study may be uneven and even at times questionable. Works published by the author, or which the author pays a press to publish are not considered as evidence of scholarship.

        In terms of ranking presses, tier one presses are excellent. Tier two presses may rank from good to very good. Tier three presses may range from fair to good at best. A book in the first tier may have an immediate influence upon the field or may be a work which given the quality of review comes to be recognized in the years to follow or even a decade later as a major contribution to the field. In the humanities, a book is not equal to so many articles. Nor should one equate the total pages of a book to the same number of pages published in a collection of articles.

        The significance of a scholarly book is often measured by who reviews the work positively and in which journal the review is published. Clearly the more prominent the venue the better, but all reviews are worth something. In the long term, citation of the work and significant discussion of the scholarship in subsequent academic publications by others count as evidence of influence and contribution. Other evidence that a work has made an important contribution may include the author receiving invitations to serve on national or international academic programs, serve as a reviewer of submissions for academic journals and presses, being elected or appointed to a position of leadership in an academic society, being invited to give a named lectureship, or serve in the review and assessment of ongoing work in one’s specialization if such application is appropriate to one’s work. The scheduling of a book for a second printing, reissuing, or second edition is a further testament to its significance and influence.

        In countries other than the US, a higher percentage of tier one and tier two presses are not affiliated with universities, but are often independent, for-profit corporations which publish monographs, book series, and journals. This fact should be taken into consideration when evaluating the quality of articles, book chapters, and books published outside the US.

        Scholarly translations are vitally important as a means for making important research available to a wider audience, both within and outside of the academic world. They require a deep understanding of the piece being translated, and of the broader field of inquiry of which that piece is a part. In the vast majority of cases, book translations which are published by tier one and tier two presses undergo the same blind review process as the book manuscript itself. Where scholars are invited to translate articles and book chapters, they are generally called on to do so not only because they are recognized as excellent translators but also as prominent scholars by senior academics in their area of specialization. In light of this, translations of previously published philosophical essays and book chapters should be accorded roughly equal weight as a publication in a journal of that quality would be given. A translation of a book, while not as significant an achievement as publishing a singly-authored book, is still a significant act of scholarship and should be weighted heavily when considering a faculty member's publication record.

        A faculty member’s publication in a language other than English should, in all cases, be given at least equal weight to one appearing in a comparable journal, or with a comparable press, in English. Further, a candidate's demonstrated ability to compose and publish works in a language of which he or she is not a native speaker provides additional evidence of the candidate's competence as a scholar. A third party translation of a scholar’s work into another language is evidence of the significance and influence of the work.

        c.   Scholarly Presentations

        Scholarly recognition is evident when a faculty member is invited to give research presentations at national and international meetings of academic societies, at academic conferences and symposiums (often in relation to an academic institutional host such as a university), at universities and colleges as a special guest, as a guest of a professional organization, and by invitation to give a named lectureship at universities and academic societies.

        Scholarly recognition is evident when a faculty member has a demonstrated record of refereed presentations at local, regional, national or international meetings of recognized academic societies.

        d.   Other Scholarly Accomplishments

        Scholarly recognitions from academic societies are often an indication that a faculty member’s scholarly work has achieved national if not international recognition. The documented evidence for such recognition may include, for example, election to office, editorial board membership, editorship, committee leadership or membership, section program chair, section steering committee membership, etc. Scholarly recognition may also come in the form of being recognized as a specialist by federal/state institutions where documented evidence would include, for example, invitation to serve on the membership or in a leadership position on federal/state proposal panels, site visits, research-related service to federal/state organizations, and other research related activities.

        Success in being awarded grants (external to the university) in support of research is a rare occurrence in the discipline of philosophy. Thus, a scholar whose work generates external grant support from an academic agency is an important indication of scholarly achievement.

        Academic awards (other than grants) by academic societies for scholarly work or works may also be evidence of scholarly achievement.

         

      2. Teaching

        Evidence of teaching involves all levels of the undergraduate and graduate curriculum in philosophy, as well as teaching understood more broadly to include all other viable forms of instruction. The following are examples of documented evidence of teaching and are not an exhaustive list.

        1. Peer review and evaluation of teaching, including visitation of the instructor’s classes during the time he or she is a candidate for tenure.
        2. First-Day Class Hand-Out Sheets/Syllabi, indicating scope of class, class requirements, exam and paper schedule, grading procedure, reading assignments.
        3. Copies of examinations given in each course; requirements for papers, and any course handouts.
        4. Student evaluations from each class the candidate has taught.
        5. Course descriptions.
        6. Participation in undergraduate (advising students) and graduate programs (Advisory Groups, Thesis Committees, Dissertation Committees, Colloquia).
        7. Organizing, and conducting workshops and/or seminars on pedagogy.
        8. Successful composition and copyright of instructional software or other computer-based instructional materials
        9. Publication of instructor’s manual for software use or for textbook use.
        10. Manuscript reviewing/refereeing for pedagogy journals and/or publishers.
        11. Grant proposal reviewing/refereeing for external granting agencies and foundations focusing on pedagogy.
        12. Thesis advising (senior Honors Theses and M.A. Theses); with special attention to successful theses advised to completion.
        13. Participation on M.A. theses committees within the Department, Philosophy or other Senior Honors theses; and M.A. thesis and doctoral dissertation committees outside the Department.
        14. Honors course contact-hours added to non-honors courses.
        15. Demonstrated significant involvement in curricular development and/or review.
        16. Measures of student achievement such as student performance on nationally standardized examination(s), (where the student’s exam scores and publications are directly related to a candidate’s teaching efforts), etc.
        17. Evidence of students’ publications which were influenced by the faculty member’s direction, teaching, advising, etc.
        18. Evidence of outstanding achievement, such as teaching awards.  The value or weight of any one award will depend upon the review process, and the level of competition (college, university, state, region, or national award).
        19. Seeking and securing professionally reviewed pedagogy research and/or instructional grants, especially extramural grant awards.
        20. Faculty development programs for teaching.
        21. Other significant student advising.

        All candidates for reappointment, tenure and promotion are required to provide items b, c, and d to the Ad Hoc Tenure and Promotion Committee for each class taught.

      3. Service

        Service includes activities not necessarily tied to one’s special field of knowledge or profession which make significant contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly, governance, and collegial goals and missions of the University, College, Campus, Department, or community.  The following are examples of service and are not an exhaustive list.

         a.   Outstanding service to the University, College, Campus, or Department, including but not limited to committee membership or committee Chair position, membership on advisory councils, academic discovery days, majors fair participation.

        b.   Outstanding service to the community beyond the university which is representative of the University, College, or Department, such as service learning organizations.

        c.   Significant public service to a faculty member’s profession.

        d.   Outstanding service to the University, College, Campus, Department, or community (beyond the normal pattern expected for all faculty members).

         

    5. External Letters of Evaluation

      Beyond the perusal of the candidate’s published works and other documented evidence of scholarship activities by the members of the Ad Hoc Promotion and Tenure Committee, further evaluation of the candidate’s publications and scholarly activities will be solicited in the form of external (outside the university) letters of evaluation. All candidates for tenure and promotion must submit names of at least five persons outside the university who are qualified to evaluate his/her achievements. The chairperson must solicit letters of evaluation from at least five of these individuals. In any case, at least one letter from outside the university is to be solicited by the Chairperson. Any external letters of evaluation solicited by the chairperson will be in addition to the three letters solicited from persons whose names are submitted by the candidate. Candidates are expected to identify and submit to the Chairperson publications and other scholarly material that will be sent to external reviewers. In cases involving Regional Campus faculty, copies of these letters must be placed in both Regional and Kent campus files.

    6. Regional Campus Application

      These criteria for promotion, tenure, and reappointment obtain for both Kent Campus Philosophy faculty and Regional Campus Philosophy faculty; the Department’s Ad Hoc Promotion and Tenure Committee/Ad Hoc Advisory Committee makes recommendations for promotion, tenure, or reappointment of all members of the Department – the Regional Campuses faculty as well as the Kent Campus faculty. The Department of Philosophy recognizes that, in evaluating Regional Campus faculty for tenure and promotion, greater consideration may be given to teaching and service as indicated in the appropriate campus handbook.

    7. Statement of Self-Evaluation

      Each candidate for reappointment, tenure or promotion should submit a statement of self-evaluation, along with the other materials required by university policy and the departmental handbook to constitute a reappointment, tenure or promotion file. The statement of self-evaluation should describe and delineate the candidate’s achievements and contributions, strengths and weaknesses, in the respective areas of scholarship, teaching and service. A basic purpose of the self-evaluation statement is to allow a candidate the opportunity to present a composite assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments in the diverse areas of scholarship, teaching and service under consideration.

  3. 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. Annual Reappointment Review and Third-Year Review of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Appointees

      The following remarks pertaining to the annual reappointment review and the third-year review of full-time non-tenure track appointees are made within the context of the procedures specified in “The Procedures and Policies Governing Review of Faculty: Promotion, Tenure, Reappointment and Non-reappointment” distributed by the Provost’s Office and in the Collective Bargaining Agreement for full-time non-tenure track faculty, Article IX, “Appointments: Terms, Conditions and Renewals.”

      1.   Annual reappointment review and third-year review of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty shall observe the criteria and normal expectations for full-time, tenure track probationary faculty as delineated above in Subsection A.

      2.   Each annual reappointment review and third-year review shall be based on the criteria and expectations for the appointee’s respective role within the unit, which are spelled out in the letter of offer for the appointment.

      3.   The Department recognizes that a full-time, non-tenure-track appointment is primarily a teaching appointment. Annual reappointment review and third-year reappointment reviews will de-emphasize the research/scholarly activity/professional development and service components that are usual expectations for reappointment of full-time tenure-track probationary faculty. However, the departmental expectation is that a full-time, non-tenure-track appointee will supply some evidence of remaining current in the discipline during the time of appointment.

       The following counts as such evidence:

      a.   Participation in departmental Colloquia, conferences, and other academic programs.

      b.   Colloquia and Conference presentations within the Department or outside departmental activities (refereed or not).

      c.    Refereed or invited publications.

       

      4.   Mindful of the evaluations from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, the Chairperson forms an evaluation and makes a recommendation which is then forwarded to the Dean, along with the evaluations from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.

  4. Philosophy Department Criteria for Graduate Faculty Membership

    Graduate Faculty Status in the Department of Philosophy is a privilege which may be earned by faculty members. An application for Graduate Faculty status will be submitted to the Chair who will present the application to the Graduate Faculty Committee. The Graduate Faculty Committee will consider the application, and make a recommendation to the Chair as to the evaluation of the application for Graduate Faculty Status and rank.

    1. Criteria for Full Membership

      To qualify as a Full member of the Graduate Faculty a faculty member must have fulfilled the following:

      1.   Achieved tenure and promotion in rank to at least an Associate Professor as a Philosophy faculty member at any campus in the Kent State University system.

      2.   Published either:

      a. six (6) articles (refereed or invited), or

      b. one (1) book

      3.   Given four (4) presentations before professional bodies.

      4.   Exhibited good graduate teaching, and performed the duties and responsibilities of a Graduate Faculty member serving on graduate committees (Graduate Studies, Program Advisory, Thesis Advisory and Thesis Defense Committees) and when applicable, as a Thesis advisor.

      A Full Member may:

      1.   At level F-1: Teach graduate course work and serve on master's committees.

      2.   At level F-2: Direct master's theses, as well as Level 1.

      3.   At level F-3: Serve on doctoral committees, and (with departmental approval) co-direct doctoral dissertations, as well as Levels 1 and 2.

      4.   At level F-4: Direct doctoral dissertations, as well as Levels 1, 2, and 3. (Since the Department of Philosophy does not have a doctoral program, full membership at level 4 does not apply unless one has directed or co-directed a doctoral dissertation in another Department.)

      The Graduate Faculty Committee will assess whether the faculty member has fulfilled the expectations stipulated in the list of qualification for Full Membership as a Graduate Faculty and make a recommendation to the Department Chair regarding the application, who will forward the Graduate Faculty recommendation as well as the Chair’s evaluation to the Dean.

    2. Criteria for Associate Membership

      To qualify as an Associate member of the Graduate Faculty, a faculty member must hold a tenure-track position in the Department of Philosophy. The Graduate Faculty Committee will assess the rank of an Associate Member according to the following categories:

      1.  A-1: This status will be recommended for those faculty members with the Ph.D. degree (or its equivalent) who have demonstrated the potential for scholarly research and publication and who have demonstrated the potential for effective graduate teaching.

      2.  A-2: For this status, a faculty member must have, in addition to the above:

      a.   An ongoing research program in areas of expertise, AND

      b.   Published one (1) article in a journal, edited book, or proceedings (refereed or invited), AND

      c.   Made 3 scholarly presentations, refereed or invited.

      3.  A-3: For this status, a faculty member must have, in addition to the above:

                a.   Published either:

          i.    six (6) articles (refereed or invited), or

                ii.   one (1) book.

      b.   At least one program presentation before a professional body.

      c.   Exhibited potential for good graduate teaching and thesis advising as both director and a committee member.

      An Associate Member may:

      1.   At level A-1: Teach graduate course work and serve on master's committees.

      2.   At level A-2: Direct master's theses only under exceptional circumstances (as determined by the Graduate Faculty Committee and the Chair), as well as Level 1.

      3.   At level A-3: Serve on doctoral committees, and (with departmental approval) co-direct doctoral dissertations, as well as Levels 1 and 2.

    3. Temporary Associate Graduate Faculty Membership

      The rank of Temporary Associate Member is granted by the Department for a qualified scholar whose participation in the graduate program is desired by the graduate faculty committee for a limited period and for a limited objective. Normally, this status should be assigned for someone to instruct a graduate course for one semester or academic year or for service on a master’s thesis committee, and may include in exceptional cases service as a thesis advisor. Temporary status is granted only on an Academic Year basis. Therefore the rank of “Temporary Graduate Faculty Member” terminates at the end of each Academic Year, but can be reinstated by action of the Graduate Faculty Committee and the Department Chair.

    4. Criteria for Reappointment to the Graduate Faculty Subsequent to an Initial Appointment as Either Associate or Full Member

      Retention of an appointment after an initial five-year appointment requires the that the Graduate Faculty member do the following:

      1.  Exhibit good teaching at the graduate level within the evaluation period, AND

      2.  Serve on thesis committees and, when applicable, as thesis advisor within the evaluation period, AND

      3.  Demonstrate evidence of continued research and persistent scholarly activity within the evaluation period by any one of the following:

      a.  Presentation (refereed or invited) at conferences and meetings of scholarly bodies.

      b.  Publication in a journal, proceedings or edited book (invited or refereed).

      c.  Applying for extra-mural funding.

       

    5. Consequences for Failure to Meet Reappointment Criteria

      1.  If a Full Member of the graduate faculty fails within the evaluation period to meet these criteria, the faculty member will be reduced to a Full Member at the level of F-2.

      2.  If an Associate Member of the graduate faculty at level A-3, A-2, or A-1 fails within the evaluation period to meet these criteria, the faculty will be reduced to a Temporary Associate Member.

       However, as stipulated in Policy Registry 3342-6-15.1 Administrative policy regarding graduate faculty, (see University Policy Registry 3342-6-15.1, Section B.2.a, “In rare instances, and with great caution, the publication requirement may be waived for senior faculty members who have a distinguished record of thesis direction.”