College Policy for Clinical-Track Faculty (2023)
Promotion and Reappointment
(approved April 24, 2023)
Promotion
Assistant Clinical Professor to Associate Clinical Professor & Associate Clinical Professor to Clinical Professor
1. In accordance with University (ACA-18) and Campus (BL-ACA-A3) policies, promotion to Associate Clinical Professor and Clinical Professor is based on performance of teaching and service.
2. Clinical faculty work and teach primarily in the clinical setting and may be involved in research that derives from their primary assignment in teaching and service. The College considers the definition of a clinical setting broadly, including a range of specialized instructional environments. Clinical faculty may, but need not, contribute to the research efforts of their unit through their clinical work, but they are not expected to do individual research.
3. Assistant clinical professors have the option of being evaluated for reappointment and promotion based on the College policies in force at the time of their original appointment. Associate clinical professors must utilize current policies for promotion. Irrespective of the criteria used, clinical faculty should consult the current College guidelines at the time of their promotion for relevant procedures.
4. According to University policy (ACA-18), Clinical appointees by the sixth probationary year, and no later than the seventh year, shall be considered for promotion and long-term contracts. Standards for promotion and reappointment to long-term contracts should be formulated by units; criteria within a unit should be uniform, but flexible enough to accommodate some differences in responsibilities specified in the initial contracts. Candidates in the probationary period who are not promoted and who do not receive reappointment to long-term contracts will not be eligible for reappointment.
5. At Indiana University Bloomington, the following evaluative categories must be used to rate performance in teaching: Excellent, Very Good, Effective, and Ineffective. To rate performance in service, the categories are: Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory.
(a) For promotion from Assistant Clinical Professor to Associate Clinical Professor, a rating of Excellent in clinical teaching, or in the classroom, requires that the candidate provide compelling evidence of significant progress toward becoming an outstanding and innovative instructor as well as a sustained commitment to remaining current with pedagogical developments in their field, and to continued professional growth. Examples of such evidence could include a clearly articulated and sophisticated clinical instruction philosophy, clear and well-conceptualized course plans and instructional materials, positive student evaluations, positive peer evaluations, and participation in pedagogical/clinical workshops or training, among other instructional accomplishments. Research in support of clinical instruction may also provide evidence of contributions to unit teaching missions and commitment to continued development as a clinical educator. A rating of Very Good is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of progress toward becoming an exemplary classroom or clinical instructor as well as an interest in pedagogical and technological developments in their field and in continued professional growth. A rating of Effective is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of quality instruction in clinical or classroom settings and a commitment to student success. Instructional ratings below this level are considered Ineffective.
For clinical service, a rating of Excellent requires evidence that the candidate has made significant progress towards a position of leadership in clinical service, contributing outside of their home unit at the university, national or international level. A rating of Very Good is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of sustained contributions that have a positive impact on the home unit as well as at the university or disciplinary level or in institutions and organizations outside of the university. A rating of Satisfactory for service should be based on substantial accomplishments in clinical service, minimally within the home unit. Accomplishments that fail to reach this level justify a rating of Unsatisfactory for service.
(b) For promotion from Associate Clinical Professor to Clinical Professor, these same ratings and criteria apply, but the candidate should provide evidence of continued professional growth and sustained contributions relative to the prior promotion, or for individuals hired at the Associate level, relative to peers at a similar stage of promotion. Significant and documented leadership in the areas of teaching and service should also be demonstrated for rankings of Excellent in either category.
6. Candidates for promotion from Assistant to Associate or Associate to Clinical Professor may be promoted on the basis of teaching or service, or through a balanced case, following the established norms of the home unit. In order to justify a positive vote for promotion, for cases with a single primary area, that area, either teaching or service must be rated Excellent with the other performance area being rated at least Effective/Satisfactory. For balanced cases, performance must be rated at least Very Good in both categories.
A candidate must decide the basis for promotion, in consultation with the Department chair. In all cases, dossier materials must be evaluated on the basis chosen by the candidate. The most effective dossiers will provide multiple, independent indicators of contributions and impact.
Consistent with University policy (ACA-18), research activities in support of teaching or service are factored into the ratings for the categories of either Teaching or Service and should not be rated separately. Evaluation for promotion should respect the diversity of clinical settings and the diversity of missions among academic units in the College. As University policy (ACA-18) indicates, faculty who, in addition to teaching and service, have portions of their time allocated to doing research for which they are a principal or co-principal investigator, who have research laboratories, or who are otherwise expected to do individual research should ideally be transitioned to tenured or tenure-probationary positions.
7. Typically, a body of work will be necessary to demonstrate excellence in clinical instruction, classroom teaching achievements, or service activity. The dossier must include elements stipulated by campus, College, and departmental/unit policies and guidelines. These documents and/or activities typically can be comprised of the following types of information:
• a statement of teaching philosophy;
• syllabi from all courses taught in rank;
• peer observations;
• participation in pedagogical workshops or training;
• student evaluations, whether OCQ or instructor-administered, recognizing that they contain biases both favorable and unfavorable;
• innovations in classroom, laboratory or clinical instruction;
• curriculum development;
• development of remote instructional modalities;
• mentoring undergraduate and/or graduate students within the home unit (e.g., directing honors theses, capstone papers, etc.);
• substantial service with a non-profit or government entity related to an area of clinical expertise
• organizing, coordinating, or presenting in clinical instruction workshops for other faculty
• active engagement in a professional and/or an accrediting body-related to their area of practice
• active engagement with a non-profit or government entity related to clinical expertise
• documented engagement with Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice through teaching, mentoring, service, and/or other activities.
8. Faculty may be reviewed for promotion from Associate Clinical Professor to full Clinical Professor at any time, at the faculty member's request or by invitation of faculty of rank in the unit (department/unit or school). If promotion is denied, the candidate may request another review in a later year, and as many times as necessary. Home units should evaluate all faculty who have been in rank for seven years or more for possible promotion to upper ranks each year, during an annual meeting between the faculty member and the chair or dean.
Associate Clinical Professors need not pursue promotion the rank of Clinical Professor. A decision by the faculty member not to pursue promotion, or a negative decision following a promotion application, should not be considered a reason to deny reappointment.
II. Reappointment
A. Reappointment Standards
1. Standards for reappointment to long-term contracts should be formulated by units; criteria within a unit should be uniform, but flexible enough to accommodate some differences in responsibilities specified in the initial contracts. Reappointment of clinical faculty to a long-term contract must be based on standards of performance in teaching and service in a clinical setting and may include classroom teaching. For those faculty members primarily assigned to a clinical setting, this includes excellence in clinical instruction (for examples see I.A.7, above) as evidenced by activities such as curriculum development; innovation and mentoring at the school, college, campus or university level; and/or by recognition and impact at the regional or national level). For those clinical faculty whose primary responsibility is service in the clinical setting, reappointment should be based on a similarly high level of sustained leadership or essential contributions in the clinic.
2. Reappointment to the clinical ranks is retrospective, summarizing work done during the contract period. In the event of non-reappointment, faculty in their first probationary year of service must be given notice no later than February 1. During the second year of service, notice must be given not later than November 15. During the third and subsequent years, at least twelve months notice must be provided.
B. Reappointment Procedures
Clinical professors are on long-term contracts with the option for reappointment. Reappointment decisions involve a comprehensive review of faculty accomplishments during the current contract period including preparation of a written report that provides an evaluation of the candidate's contributions. Each department should develop written procedures for reappointment reviews, addressing each of the following:
1. The materials the candidate is expected to submit. While reappointment reviews are not as comprehensive as promotion reviews, candidates should submit sufficient materials to allow the home unit to meaningfully evaluate their accomplishments. The College recommends that, at minimum, candidates provide a written teaching statement that summarizes their classroom teaching and/or clinical instruction and challenges during the current contract period (suggested length: 3-7 pages) a summary of documents that allow for evaluation of teaching and service, that could include sample syllabi for 2-3 representative courses, 2-3 peer reviews of classroom teaching or clinical instruction, or a few examples of assignments or activities from those same courses (e.g., the documents listed in section 1.A.6.)
2. The Reappointment Committee. The College recommends a three-member committee of vote-eligible faculty. This committee, and the candidate, will be notified of the need to create a written report by the unit head (e.g., chair, director). Further, the College recommends that the unit head provide candidates and their committees with updated College guidelines and procedures (written by College deans and sent to chairs and directors annually) for these reports as early as possible prior to reappointment. Candidates should be provided with a copy of the review report, with opportunities to correct any errors of fact.
3. Who will vote on the reappointment. Voting eligibility is based on rank appropriateness, as described in the Campus Non-tenure Track guidelines and the College Instructional Faculty guidelines. Each department or home unit's promotion and reappointment documents should clearly state who is eligible to vote on promotions within the clinical ranks.
C. Negative Reappointment Decisions
In the case of a decision not to reappoint, it is especially important that candidates be provided with the rationale for the decision. In such cases, candidates may appeal the decision following University policy https://policies.iu.edu/policies/aca-22-reappointment-non-reappointment-probationary-period/index.html).
The College policy complements but does not supersede campus and IU policies for clinical faculty in matters related to workload, responsibilities, academic freedom and faculty rights. See campus and university policies for details on these policies.
University Academic Freedom Policy
https://policies.iu.edu/policies/aca-32-academic-freedom/index.html
The First Amendment at Indiana University – INTERIM
https://policies.iu.edu/policies/ua-14-first-amendment-indiana-university/index.html
BL-ACA-A1 Academic Appts
https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/policies/bl-aca-a1-academic-appointments/archived-2019-06-14.html