College of Business Tenure and Promotion Policies … · Web viewCOLLEGE OF BUSINESS Tenure and Promotion Policies and Procedures I. Introduction The College of Business will recommend

Approved: 3/4/2005 – CoB FacultyRevised 5/2011, 10/2012 and 4/2013 – CoB Faculty

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

Tenure and Promotion Policies and Procedures

I. Introduction

The College of Business will recommend for tenure and promotion those individuals whose career records and performance indicate that they are likely to make significant contributions to the life of the College and the University as determined by the Department/School recommending those individuals for tenure and/or promotion. The College will recommend for tenure and/or promotion those individuals who satisfy the qualifications of their Department/School and of the College. Elements for the evaluation of an application for tenure and/or promotion are enumerated below.

Promotion and tenure committees customarily cast a single combined vote on both tenure and promotion for probationary assistant professors, on the grounds that promotion signals the reasons for the institution’s investment in a candidate. It is unlikely that tenure will be awarded to a probationary assistant professor who has not also been recommended for promotion. This does not apply to candidates for tenure who are already Associate or Full Professors.

Only faculty members falling within the Scholarly Academic (SA) standard for Faculty Qualification are eligible for tenure and promotion under this policy.

II. Department/School Guidelines

The departments/schools currently use the common college guidelines outlined in this document and do not maintain separate tenure and promotion guidelines.

The Group I members of each School/Department in the College may chose to promulgate a set of tenure and promotion guidelines which is in conformity with, but no less stringent than, the College guidelines.

Procedures for selection and evaluation of candidates, methods for determining departmental members of evaluation committees, frequency and methodology for review of, or changes in school/departmental guidelines, or other administrative procedures of the evaluation process would need to be a part of the school/departmental guidelines if they are established. These topics, and all others covered by this policy, will be in conformity with the relevant sections of the Faculty Handbook.

III. Committee Composition and Role

Each School/Department in the College will establish a Tenure and Promotion Committee of at least five voting members, and develop the procedures by which that Committee will function. If the School/Departmental Director/Chair is to be a voting member of the Committee and the Committee recommends promotion or tenure, he/she

Page 1


may not then write a negative recommendation to accompany the committee’s recommendation when it goes to the Dean. Only tenured faculty who are academically qualified for the current year will serve as voting members on School/Departmental Tenure and Promotion Committees. In the case of promotion, only faculty with rank equal to or higher than the rank for which a candidate is being considered will vote.

Whenever the appropriate number cannot be met due to the size and/or composition of the School/Department, additional Committee members will be selected from tenured members of the College of Business faculty who: 1) hold the same or higher rank than the rank for which the candidate(s) is/are being considered; 2) will be in Athens during committee deliberations; 3) are academically qualified for the current year and 4) are available to serve on the Committee. All tenured faculty members in the School/Department who are at, or above, the current rank of the candidate(s) under consideration will be eligible to vote for the additional committee members and they should consider individuals whose research or training appears to be most relevant to the School/Department. Even if the Director/Chair is not permitted to serve as a member of the committee, he/she will be permitted to vote on the composition of the committee if he/she has the required academic rank. The results of the vote for additional members will be reviewed and finalized by the Executive team.

Membership on the School/Departmental Tenure and Promotion Committees should have continuity. At least half of the members should continue from one year to the next when possible. (Faculty Handbook)

The criteria for tenure and promotion are intended to serve as general guidelines but are not designed to substitute for the need for committee members to exercise professional judgment. Many criteria require committee members to judge the significance of activities and make judgments about when a collection of activities rise to a certain level of achievement. The criteria are intentionally designed to provide the committee with some latitude for judgment while providing some concrete parameters on which to base those judgments. Since performance can never be reduced to a completely objective formula that will fit all circumstances, the committee is expected to provide its best professional judgment while using the criteria as the foundation for its recommendation.

Letters documenting the results of the committee deliberation are expected to be provided, with specific detailed assessments of the candidate’s performance in each area relative to the criteria. Letters should be created at each level of the process and be incorporated into the deliberations at higher levels. Letters from any previous applications for promotion by the candidate shall be reviewed by successive committees and incorporated into the assessment to create consistency across committees.

IV. Hiring with Tenure and/or Non-Assistant Rank

Individuals may be hired with tenure and/or ranks higher than Assistant Professor. This decision requires that the Department/School convene the Tenure and Promotion Committee, which will use the appropriate criteria to assess the candidates record and

Page 2


make a recommendation for tenure and rank to the Dean who will consult with the Provost.

In special cases, deviations from the academic or professional standards specified in this document may be made, but only if the Department/School Tenure and Promotion Committee, or other appropriate group chosen by the Dean, agrees by vote to accept any such deviation. Persons hired subject to such deviations must satisfy all other requirements for tenure and/or promotion.

V. College Tenure and Promotion Committee

It is recommended that a Committee that is representative of the faculty of the College be chosen to advise the Dean regarding tenure and promotion decisions, policies, and procedures.

VI. Components of Faculty Performance

Faculty performance for purposes of tenure and promotion will be evaluated in three categories: Teaching, Intellectual Contributions, and Professional Activity/Service. Departmental/School standards for tenure and promotion may include such additional categories as are appropriate in their disciplines.

All candidates are expected to possess a terminal degree in his or her discipline or have professional qualifications acceptable under AACSB accreditation standards

Each candidate for tenure and/or promotion will submit a portfolio of materials demonstrating performance in these areas. Portfolios will include annual evaluations of Departmental Chairs, and annual letters of progress towards tenure from Departmental/School Tenure and Promotion Committees. All portfolios will be prepared according to provost’s dossier format. See the Format for P&T Dossiers under the policy web page for Tenure and Promotion: http://aspnet.cob.ohio.edu/isms/cobContent.aspx?cid=1299

VII. External Reviewers

Provost requirements for external reviewers are listed in a separate document on the web page containing this policy. Departments/Schools are encouraged to select reviewers as early as possible to meet the deadlines below. They are also encouraged to contact reviewers in advance to ensure that they are willing to serve and can provide a review by the targeted deadline below.

The Department Chair/School Director will work with the candidate to create a portfolio to send to the reviewers. This portfolio should include a narrative from the candidate outlining their self-assessment and justification for their rankings in the three areas of performance: Teaching, Intellectual Contributions and Service. This narrative should become part of the candidate’s dossier as well. The portfolio should also include a copy

Page 3

http://aspnet.cob.ohio.edu/isms/cobContent.aspx?cid=1299

http://aspnet.cob.ohio.edu/isms/cobContent.aspx?cid=1299


of the candidate’s vita and a copy of the tenure and promotion standards that will be used for the case. The candidate may also include some research samples or links to online versions of their work and brief statement of teaching philosophy and/or research agenda if desired.

The portfolio will be distributed to the reviewers by the Department Chair/School Director and the letters should be sent directly back to them. Electronic distribution is permitted.

VII. Deadlines and Decision Time Frames

DeadlinesFirst Day of Fall Semester

Packets should be sent to external reviewers on or before this date

September 15 Candidate submits dossier and appendices to Department/School

October 15 Target date for all external letters to be receivedEnd of November Department/School committee decision sent to Department

Chair/School DirectorEnd of Fall Semester Department Chair/School Director informs candidate in

writing of the department decisionFebruary 15 College Committee makes recommendation to DeanMarch 1 Dean notifies Candidate and Department Chair/School

Director of college decisionApril 1 Provost notifies Dean, Department Chair/School Director and

Candidate of rejection of Department recommendation

Tenure is normally granted after a faculty member has served a minimum of six years in the department/school unless a shorter tenure clock was established in the candidate’s job offer letter. Consideration prior to the minimum years is possible but requires sufficient evidence to satisfy the expectation of continued performance at the levels achieved and potential leadership ability. Early consideration should be relatively rare.

Promotion to Professor normally requires a faculty to have served a minimum of six at the rank of associate at the time of promotion to professor (that is, an individual may be considered for promotion which will be awarded at the time the individual meets the minimum-year requirement). Consideration prior to the minimum years at the rank of Associate professor is possible but requires sufficient evidence to satisfy the expectation of continued performance at the levels achieved and leadership ability or potential at the rank of professor. Early consideration should be relatively rare. Minimum years as an associate professor can be at Ohio University or a previous university. If hired as an associate professor without tenure with a tenure clock prior to meeting the minimum years, then tenure can occur at the end of the tenure clock, but promotion can only occur when the candidate meets the minimum years as an associate professor.

Page 4


VIII. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion From Assistant to Associate (if applicable)

Tenure and Promotion from Assistant to Associate is awarded to those candidates whose portfolios indicate that they are likely to continue to make significant positive contributions to the academic life of the University. In addition, promotion to the rank of Associate professor inherently has an expectation of continued performance at the levels achieved and development of leadership ability potential for promotion the rank of Professor. In evaluating the materials contained in the portfolio, the Committee will consider quality of performance, and the overall contribution of the candidate to the teaching mission of the college.

The portfolio should establish that the candidate’s teaching and intellectual contributions combine to make a significant contribution to the creation of a learning environment that enables students to develop the knowledge, skills and capabilities needed for success. To some extent, the candidate's professional activities and service should also further that objective. The specific criteria for tenure are contained in Appendix A: Criteria for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor.

For Tenure and Promotion from Assistant to Associate, the portfolio submitted by the candidate will be supplemented with the written, independent assessments of the candidate's teaching and intellectual contributions materials by three reviewers external to the University. The reviewers will be jointly selected by the candidate and his/her Departmental Chair/School Director. The same individual(s) may perform both assessment of Tenure and promotion to Associate Professor if applicable.

IX. Criteria for Promotion To Professor

In order to be recommended for promotion to the rank of Professor, a candidate must provide evidence of extraordinary achievement through an extended record of superior performance in the requisite elements of the candidate's faculty evaluations. In evaluating the materials contained in the portfolio, the Committee will consider quality of performance, and the overall contribution of the candidate to the teaching mission of the college

The portfolio should establish that the candidate’s teaching, intellectual contributions, professional activities and service to the University, the College and the candidate's Department combine to make an extraordinary contribution to the creation of a learning environment that enables students to develop the knowledge, skills and capabilities needed for success and to the academic life of the University community. The specifics for promotion to the rank of Professor are contained in Appendix B: Criteria for Promotion to Professor.

The portfolio submitted by the candidate applying for the rank of Professor will be supplemented with the written, independent assessments of the candidate's teaching and intellectual contribution materials by five reviewers external to the University. The

Page 5


reviewers will be jointly selected by the candidate and his/her Departmental Chair. The same individual(s) may perform both assessment for Tenure as well as promotion to Professor if applicable.

X. Annual Review of Progress Towards Tenure

Annually, probationary faculty (assistant professors and untenured associate professors and professors) will be evaluated based on performance in making progress towards being tenured (and promoted to associate professor if applicable). The Department Tenure and Promotion Committee will provide recommendations to the Chair/Director who will write a letter evaluating the performance and progress towards tenure.

Probationary faculty will submit a memorandum along with their annual evaluation materials by October 1st indicating the criterion (teaching excellence, intellectual contribution excellence, breadth excellence) and supporting documentation for which the candidate is requesting evaluation of progress. Each year this submission should include all cumulative performance from the date of hire.

The Chair/Director will provide a review of progress towards tenure (and promotion to the rank of associate professor if applicable) indicating their expectation about a candidate meeting the indicated criterion at the time of candidacy, the items needed to attain that criterion, specific deficiencies noted, and an overall recommendation about progress as part of the annual evaluation. This evaluation will be reviewed with the Dean prior to submission to the faculty member, which should be done by February 1st.

XI. Annual Review of Progress Towards Promotion to Professor

Annually, each associate professor has the option of being evaluated based on performance as an associate professor in making progress towards being promoted to the rank of professor. The evaluation will be made by a committee composed of all full-time tenured individuals holding the rank of professor in the College of Business.

Associate professors may submit the items listed below in a portfolio for the review during the College of Business Annual Review process by January 15 of each year organized as shown below:

A. Memorandum indicating the criterion (teaching excellence, intellectual contribution excellence, breadth excellence) for which the candidate is requesting evaluation for progress and the evidence of leadership.

B. College of Business Annual Activity Report/Vita for the prior year. College of Business Annual Plans for Academic Activities and Development for the last two years.

C. Teaching PortfolioD. Summary of teaching evaluations since promoted to associate professor.E. Copy of all scholarship published since promotion to associate professor.F. Completed working papers, submitted manuscripts, and work-in-progress

Page 6


G. Copy of all chair or director evaluations since promotion to associate professor (The latest year will be added by the chair or director of the unit as soon as completed.)

H. Copies of all reviews of progress towards promotion to Professor for previous years.

The Associate Professor Review Committee will provide a review of progress toward the rank of professor indicating their expectation about a candidate meeting the indicated criterion at the time of candidacy, the items needed to attain that criterion, specific deficiencies noted, and an overall recommendation about progress not later than May 15 of each year.

XII. Amendments

All amendments to the Tenure and Promotion Policies and Procedures must be approved by Dean after a positive vote of the faculty of the College of Business. The effective date of all changes will be the beginning of Fall semester of the next academic year. Changes in the criteria for tenure will be applied to those faculty members who are already in the tenure track only if the individual agrees in writing to be considered under the new criteria. For changes in the criteria for promotion, a grace period of three academic years from the start of the academic year in which the changes are implemented will be allowed. During the grace period, faculty members who are already on Group I contracts in the department may opt in writing to be considered under the old or new criteria. Newly hired faculty members and those who are promoted during the grace period will immediately come under the new promotion criteria. Procedural changes in departmental tenure and promotion policy may generally be implemented without delay, if so decided by the department/school.

Page 7


Appendix ACriteria for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

Tenure (and promotion to the rank of associate professor if applicable) will be based on teaching, scholarship (intellectual contributions, research), and service (College, University, academic and professional organizations) while at the rank of assistant professor (or all previous and current ranks for tenure decisions involving associate professors or professors). In addition, tenure and/or promotion to the rank of associate professor inherently has an expectation of continued performance at the levels achieved and development of leadership ability potential for promotion the rank of professor.

Evaluation criteria for the evaluating a candidate’s performance in teaching, research and service at the time tenure and/or promotion in rank to associate professor are shown in Tables A, B, and C respectively.

The minimum for tenure (and promotion to the rank of associate professor if applicable) is meeting or exceeding one of the three criteria below:

Tenure/PromotionCriterion

TeachingIntellectual

Contributions

ServiceMinimumTime as

Assistant Professor

1Teaching

Excellence

Excellent Satisfactory Satisfactory with the ability for good

6 years

2Intellectual

Contribution Excellence

Satisfactory Excellent Satisfactory with the ability for good

6 years

3Breadth Excellence

Good Good Good with the ability for excellent

6 years

Page 8


Table AEvaluation Criteria for Tenure and Promotion to Rank of Associate Professor in Teaching

Evaluation Criteria for evaluationExcellent - - Teaching portfolio following the college guidelines for

teach portfolios which demonstrates the following:o Strong record of effectively measuring student

performance and providing feedback to studentso Strong record of integrating recent theories and

practices into courseso Strong record of implementing innovative

instructional methodologies and approaches appropriate to the discipline

o Continuous participation in professional development activities directly related to pedagogy or teaching preparation

- Excellent in meeting curriculum content requirements established by the academic unit

- Significant course material development and/or new preparations

- High levels of student satisfaction in the classroom relative to other similar courses while maintaining course rigor and academic standards and/or strong positive feedback from peer reviews of classes.

Good - - Teaching portfolio following the college guidelines for teach portfolios which demonstrates the following:

o Demonstrated record of effectively measuring student performance and providing feedback to students

o Demonstrated record of integrating recent theories and practices into courses

o Demonstrated record of implementing innovative instructional methodologies and approaches appropriate to the discipline


- Demonstrated record of meeting curriculum content requirements established by the academic unit

- Demonstrated course material development and/or new preparations

- Good levels of student satisfaction in the classroom relative to other similar courses while maintaining course rigor and academic standards and/or strong positive feedback from peer reviews of classes.

Page 9


Satisfactory - - Teaching portfolio following the college guidelines for teach portfolios which demonstrates the following:

o Acceptable record of measuring student performance and providing feedback to students

o Acceptable record of following department/school design and expectations for courses taught


- Ability to satisfy curriculum content requirements established by the academic unit- Acceptable student satisfaction in the classroom relative to other similar courses while maintaining course rigor and academic standards and/or acceptable feedback from peer reviews of classes..

Unsatisfactory Inability to meet the requirements for being satisfactory

Page 10


Table BEvaluation Criteria for Tenure and Promotion to Rank of Associate Professor in

Intellectual Contributions

Evaluation Criteria for evaluationExcellent 1. Beyond the criterion for good in quantity with higher quality

2. Quality at this level would generally be linked to some activity at the top or elite level of the journal lists.3. Several activities must be in the areas of discipline based scholarship (basic scholarship) or contributions to practice (applied scholarship).

Good 1. Beyond the criterion for satisfactory in either quantity or quality.2. Quality can be indicated by publication in journals in the high quality level of the journal list or above or by other indicators such as citations, impact measures, awards or other indicators of quality.3. Additional quantity should be distributed across multiple journal outlets.4. At least some intellectual contributions must be in the areas of discipline based scholarship (basic scholarship) or contributions to practice (applied scholarship).5. At least one journal article must be in a journal deemed as high-quality or above.

Satisfactory 1) At least five articles in journals deemed acceptable in quality by peers1 (articles published in Elite journals receive a weight of 2 articles, articles published in Top journals receive a weight of 1.5 articles, all other journal articles receive a weight of 12)2) The articles may be in any of the three areas: discipline based scholarship (basic scholarship), contributions to practice scholarship (applied scholarship), and learning and pedagogical research (the scholarship of teaching and learning).3) Externally peer reviewed books, monographs, substantive chapters, cases, or research reports from sponsored research may be substituted for up to one journal article.


1 Each department/school will have an externally validated journal list of journals deemed acceptable in quality in the discipline for this criterion.2 Each department/school will specify subsets of the list of journals deemed sufficient in quality for a discipline that will be defined as elite, top and high-quality journals.

Page 11


Table CEvaluation Criteria for Tenure and/or Promotion to Rank of Associate Professor in

Service(Includes Interaction with Practice for School of Accountancy):

Evaluation Criteria for evaluationExcellent Meets requirements for Good plus:

- Significant service on department, college or university committees- Significant service for the academic and/or professional organizations.(Professional organization service might be categorized as interaction with practice for the School of Accountancy).

Good Meets the requirements for satisfactory plus some higher level activities such as:- Full participation in service roles at the College (CIT or other committee), University committees or professional organizations.(Professional organization service might be categorized as interaction with practice for the School of Accountancy).

Satisfactory Performs accepted services roles including but not limited to- Attendance at departmental and College faculty meetings- Properly advising students if applicable- Participation in departmental committees and activities(Includes for School of Accountancy meeting interaction with practice requirements.)


Page 12


Appendix BCriteria for Promotion to Professor

Promotion to the rank of professor will be based on teaching, scholarship (intellectual contributions, research), and service (College, University, academic and professional organizations) while at the rank of associate professor. In addition, promotion to the rank of professor inherently has an expectation of continued performance at the levels achieved and leadership ability or potential at the rank of professor.

Evaluation criteria for the evaluating a candidate’s performance in teaching, research and service at the time promotion in rank to professor are shown tables D, E and F respectively.

The minimum for promotion to the rank of professor is meeting or exceeding one of the three criteria below:

PromotionCriterion Teaching

Intellectual Contributions Service

MinimumTime as

Associate Professor

1Teaching

Excellence

Excellent Good Good 6 years

2Intellectual

Contribution Excellence

Good Excellent Good 6 years

3Breadth

Excellence

Good Good Good 10 years

Page 13


Table DEvaluation Criteria for Promotion to Rank of Professor in Teaching

Same as Table A

Table EEvaluation Criteria for Promotion to Rank of Professor in Intellectual Contributions

Evaluation Criteria for evaluationExcellent 1. Beyond the criterion for good in quantity with higher quality –

although some quality tradeoff might be made – and2. Quality at this level would generally be linked to some activity at the top or elite level of the journal lists outside acceptance of intellectual contribution ability through editorial boards, reviewing of the work of others, etc.3. Several activities must be in the areas of discipline based scholarship (basic scholarship) or contributions to practice (applied scholarship).

Good 1. Beyond the criterion for satisfactory in either quantity or quality.2. Quality can be indicated by publication in journals in the high quality level of the journal list or above or by other indicators such as citations, impact measures, awards or other indicators of quality.3. Additional quantity should be distributed across multiple journal outlets.4. At least some intellectual contributions must be in the areas of discipline based scholarship (basic scholarship) or contributions to practice (applied scholarship).2) Multiple journal articles must be in a journal deemed as high quality or above, cumulative over the career.

Satisfactory 1. Candidate should show a record of additional activity since achieving the rank of Associate Professor consistent with the maintenance of academic qualification. The quantity and quality of activity during the period should be considered along with the distribution of activity over time.2. Publications may be in any of the three areas: discipline based scholarship (basic scholarship), contributions to practice scholarship (applied scholarship), and learning and pedagogical research (the scholarship of teaching and learning).


Page 14


Table FEvaluation Criteria for Promotion to Rank of Professor in Service(Includes Interaction with Practice for School of Accountancy):

Evaluation Criteria for evaluationExcellent Meets requirements for Good plus:

- Significant leadership on department, college or university committees- Significant service for the academic and/or professional organizations.(Professional organization service might be categorized as interaction with practice for the School of Accountancy).

Good Meets the requirements for satisfactory plus:- some leadership roles within Department, College, University committees or professional organizations.- At least some service must be in academic or professional organizations.(Professional organization service might be categorized as interaction with practice for the School of Accountancy).

Satisfactory Performs accepted service roles including but not limited to- Attendance at departmental and College faculty meetings- Properly advising students if applicable- CIT and departmental committee assignments.(Includes for School of Accountancy meeting interaction with practice requirements.)


Page 15

Documents

College of Business Tenure and Promotion Policies … · Web viewCOLLEGE OF BUSINESS Tenure and Promotion Policies and Procedures I. Introduction The College of Business will recommend