College Promotion Procedures and Department Guidelines for Instructional Faculty (2021)

PREAMBLE

Promotion procedures for instructional faculty are governed by procedures and guidelines at multiple levels of the institution. A digest of official policies regarding promotion that have been endorsed by the Bloomington Faculty Council (BFC) and the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty & Academic Affairs can be found at: https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-resources/tenure-promotion/non-tenure-track/index.html.

This document presents more specific guidelines for promotion decisions for non-tenure-track instructional faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences.

1. 1. REVIEWS FOR LECTURER AND CLINICAL RANK FACULTY
      1. Promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer or from Assistant Clinical Professor to Associate Clinical Professor
         1. Annual reviews
            Each lecturer and clinical rank faculty member will be reviewed annually by the Chair of the Department during their probationary period. These annual reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the faculty member is progressing towards a favorable promotion decision and offer departments an opportunity to bring potential problems to the candidate’s attention in a timely fashion. A written summary of the annual review must be provided to the candidate.
            
            
         2. Reappointment reviews
            Lecturers and clinical assistant professors initially receive a three-year
            appointment. During that appointment, they are reviewed by their chair or a department committee in year 2 for possible reappointment for year 4, in year 3 for possible reappointment in year 5, and so on. Similar to mid-term reviews for tenure-track faculty, the College recommends that departments make the third year review a more comprehensive review, with a departmental review committee report, vote of eligible department faculty, and review by the Chair of the Department. This is an opportunity for the full faculty to become familiar with the contributions of the candidate and to provide mentorship and evaluate progress towards meeting the criteria for promotion. In the case of a decision not to reappoint, candidates may appeal the decision following University policy https://policies.iu.edu/policies/aca-22-reappointment-non-reappointment-probationary-period/index.html. In the case where 2 reappointment is made, it is important to emphasize that this decision does not guarantee eventual promotion.
            
            
         3. Review period
            Lecturers and clinical assistant professors are normally reviewed for
            promotion during the sixth year of the probationary period. This is an up-or-out decision. Early promotion reviews are allowed in especially meritorious cases or when prior service at another institution warrants such consideration.
            
            The University has Family Leave and Medical Leave policies that can affect the timing of promotion by extending the probationary period for a pre-specified and contractual period of time. Faculty members should discuss the timing of the leave and its relation to the promotion process with the Chair of the Department who will consult with the Associate Executive Dean and seek approval from the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. This formal process ensures that there is appropriate and clearly written documentation of leave agreements (using the “Understanding on Probationary Status” form, found at: https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/doc/understanding-on-probationary-
            status.pdf.)
            
            
         4. Peer evaluations of teaching
            The College expects chairs (or their designees) to arrange for lecturer and clinical rank faculty to receive regular peer evaluations of teaching during the probationary period, with a minimum of one peer evaluation each academic year. Probationary faculty may request more frequent peer evaluations and, whenever possible, the College encourages chairs to satisfy those requests. When teaching assignments allow, a combination of peer evaluations that allow comparisons across courses as well as comparisons within a specific course over time is preferred.
            
            
      2. Promotion from Senior Lecturer to Teaching Professor or from Associate to Full Clinical Professor
         1. Annual reviews
            Each senior lecturer and associate clinical professor will be reviewed annually by the Chair of the Department or by a faculty committee. These annual reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the faculty member is progressing towards a favorable decision on promotion to the next rank.
            
            
         2. Review period
            Senior lecturers and associate clinical professors may apply for promotion to the next rank at any time; they may also choose not to apply for promotion to the third rank. Because emphasis in the promotion decision is placed on accomplishments in rank, candidates must remain in rank long enough to assemble a record of new, significant contributions to teaching and (for clinical faculty) service. For that reason, promotions to the next rank within three years of the initial promotion are rare.
            
            
         3. Peer evaluations of teaching
            The College expects chairs to arrange for senior lecturers and associate clinical professors to receive regular peer evaluations of teaching prior to consideration for promotion to the next rank, with a minimum of one peer evaluation every other academic year. As for probationary faculty, when teaching assignments allow, peer evaluations that allow comparisons across courses as well as comparisons within a specific course over time are most helpful to review committees. The strongest promotion dossiers include peer evaluations of most courses in the instructor’s repertoire.
            
            
   2. EVALUATIVE CATEGORIES
      1. Rating Categories
         Candidates for promotion within the lecturer ranks are evaluated exclusively based on contributions to teaching. Department chairs may assign teaching-related service to lecturers. Service or research in support of teaching, whether or not assigned, is considered as part of the Teaching section of the dossier. Candidates for promotion within the clinical ranks are evaluated based on contributions to teaching and service. Research in support of teaching or service may be included as
         evidence of teaching or service effectiveness as relevant. Evaluations of teaching use the categories of excellent, very good, effective, or ineffective. Evaluations of service use the categories of excellent, very good, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory.
         
         
      2. Basis for Promotion
         As noted, lecturer rank faculty are considered for promotion based solely on excellence in teaching. Clinical rank faculty may choose to be considered for promotion based on excellence in teaching, excellence in service, or on a balanced case. For clinical rank faculty, the dossier must demonstrate excellence in the area chosen as the basis for promotion with at least satisfactory/effective performance in the other area or, in balanced cases, must achieve a rating of very good in both evaluative areas. In all cases, dossier materials must be evaluated on the basis
         chosen by the candidate.
         
         As for promotion within the tenure-track ranks, promotion into the second rank of the lecturer and clinical rank classifications should be based on judgments of the prospects for future contributions as well as current achievements whereas promotion to the third rank is based principally on achievements in rank.
         
         Candidates with academic and professional achievements that predate their Indiana University appointments should be informed that their achievements at Indiana University are considered to be a better reflection of their contributions than earlier work.
         
         
      3. Rating Performance Areas
         
         1. Teaching
            1. For promotion to senior lecturer or clinical associate professor, a rating of excellent in teaching requires the candidate to provide evidence of significant progress toward becoming an outstanding classroom or clinical 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 teaching philosophy, clear and well- conceptualized syllabi and instructional materials, positive student evaluations, positive peer evaluations, and participation in pedagogical workshops or training, among other teaching accomplishments. Service and research in support of teaching may also provide evidence of contributions to unit teaching missions and commitment to continued development as an instructor. A rating of very good in teaching is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of progress toward becoming an outstanding classroom or clinical instructor as well as an interest in pedagogical developments in their field and in continued professional growth. A rating of effective is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of high-quality instruction in their own classes and a commitment to student success.
            2. For promotion to teaching professor, a rating of excellent in teaching
               requires that the candidate provide evidence of pedagogical leadership outside of the home unit while at the rank of senior lecturer as well as a sustained record of excellence in classroom teaching. This leadership can be at the College, campus, city, county, state, national, or international level. Examples of such evidence include: pedagogical publications (e.g. articles, textbooks, publisher-distributed curricular materials); significant mentoring of undergraduate and/or graduate students outside the home unit with demonstrated impact after graduation; leadership in a professional and/or accrediting body related to pedagogy; substantial service with a non-profit or government entity related to pedagogical expertise; leading a series of pedagogical workshops for campus faculty outside of the home unit. Administrative appointments (e.g., director of language instruction) are not ordinarily considered evidence of pedagogical leadership unless they are accompanied by significant initiatives in pedagogy and curriculum. A rating of very good in teaching is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of pedagogical leadership within their home units while at the rank of senior lecturer and who have maintained a sustained record of excellence in classroom instruction. A rating of effective is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of continued high-quality instruction in their classes and a commitment to student success.
            3. For promotion to full clinical professor, a rating of excellent in teaching requires that the candidate provide evidence of outstanding classroom or clinical instructor as well as contributions to teaching outside of the classroom or clinic. Evidence of such contributions might include development of instructional/curricular materials that are used or referenced by other instructors in the candidate’s field; leadership positions in regional, national, or international organizations concerned with pedagogy; pedagogical publications or presentations; and University, regional, national, or international teaching awards. A rating of very good requires evidence of strong classroom or clinical instruction as well as some contributions to teaching outside the classroom. Such contributions can include, but are not limited to, mentoring and advising that has had a demonstrable impact on student achievement; direction of the studies of undergraduate or graduate students through independent studies, research experiences, or thesis or dissertation advising; as well as the examples given for teaching excellence. A rating of effective is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of continued high-quality instruction in their classes and/or clinical supervision and a commitment to student success.
               
               
         2. Service/Engagement
            Faculty in the clinical ranks are evaluated based on service as well as
            teaching.
            1. For promotion to associate clinical professor, to achieve a rating of
               excellent in service, candidates must provide evidence that they have achieved or are on their way to achieving a position of service-related leadership that is recognized outside of the university. For promotion to full clinical professor, candidates must provide evidence of having achieved visibility and stature within their profession resulting from service activities.
            2. For promotion at either rank, a rating of very good requires evidence of impact beyond one’s home unit on the university, the discipline, or public, private, professional, or civic organizations and institutions.
            3. A rating of satisfactory is appropriate for candidates who meet the general expectation that all faculty contribute meaningful service to the institution throughout their careers. For promotion to full clinical professor, to receive a rating of satisfactory, candidates should
               demonstrate increased contributions to the effective operations of their units, school, the university, and/or their discipline over time.
               
               
      4. General expectations
         Regardless of a candidate’s basis for promotion, it is expected that all candidates will make a positive contribution to the professional environments of their departments. There should also be strong indications in the dossier that the candidate will maintain and enhance the level of performance on which the awarding of promotion is based.
         
         
   3. DEPARTMENT PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION REVIEWS
      1. External Reviewers
         In the spring semester prior to the year when the promotion case is to be considered, the Chair of the Department will consult with members of the department and with the candidate to prepare a list of external reviewers who will be invited to evaluate the record of the candidate. Six external letters are required, with the expectation that three letter writers were chosen by the department and three by the candidate. Reviewer letters will be obtained by the department on behalf of the Executive Dean. As for tenure-track promotions, external reviewers are asked to evaluate the candidate’s accomplishments based on the dossier materials.
         
         For promotion to senior lecturer, “external” reviewers may be from an Indiana University unit other than the candidate’s home unit (including affiliates of that unit). Departments have the option of requiring that some letters come from outside Indiana University, provided that departments apply the same requirement to all candidates.
         
         For promotion to teaching professor, at least four of the six external reviewers must come from outside Indiana University; up to two may come from Indiana University provided they come from outside the candidate’s home unit (including affiliates of that unit). Departments have the option of requiring that more letters from outside Indiana University provided that the same requirement applies to all candidates.
         
         All clinical rank promotions require six external letters.
         
         For senior lecturer, teaching professor, and clinical rank promotions, the department and the candidate will each prepare a list of six potential reviewers which will be submitted together to the divisional Associate Dean for approval and selection. The candidate and department lists must be distinct and chairs must include embedded links to prospective reviewer web pages/CVs along with brief descriptions of the reviewers’ expertise and relationships to the candidate on the lists they submit to the Associate Dean. Candidates have the right to see the external letters after they arrive. However, it is generally recommended that the candidate not read the letters at least until after the dossier has left the department.
         
         The selection of reviewers should be governed by the need to provide a full and fair evaluation of the candidate’s work. When selecting reviewers, candidates and departments should consider the relevance of a potential reviewer’s specializations, the currency of their knowledge of the state of the field, and the value potential reviewers’ diverse perspectives on the profession bring to the evaluation of the candidate’s professional accomplishments and contributions. College and campus promotion review committees generally expect, but do not require, that reviewers hold positions comparable to the highest applicable rank at peer institutions or better. However, candidates and departments may balance this expectation with a recognition that systemic inequalities in the academy may have prevented some qualified reviewers from achieving these ranks. For senior lecturer and teaching professor promotions, reviewers may hold non-academic positions of comparable rank. Dissertation advisors, close personal friends, collaborators, former students, or other individuals who might be viewed as having a conflict of interest are not to be asked to serve as external reviewers.
         
         All requested letters that are received by the department must be included in the dossier. By implication, if additional letters are requested in an effort to ensure that the six-letter minimum is achieved, some dossiers may include more than six letters.
         
         
      2. Internal Letters
         The chair of the department may also solicit on-campus letters only from those who have been asked to observe the candidate’s teaching, those who are in a position to comment knowledgeably on the candidate’s contributions to their collaborative projects, and those from outside the department who may comment on the candidate’s service contributions elsewhere (e.g., directors of programs, institutes, or centers). In all other instances, solicited or unsolicited letters from other faculty members (especially those in the home department) are discouraged.
         
         
      3. Candidate’s Statement
         Candidates are required to complete and submit their personal statements before the department committee report is prepared and external letters are solicited. Candidates’ personal statements should include a section describing their teaching programs, indicating courses taught, pedagogical objectives and methods, and any past, present, or future course development activity. For clinical faculty, they should also include a discussion of any service activities for the department, the College, the university, the profession, and/or the community. The personal statement should be accessible to several audiences, including external reviewers, fellow department members, other university colleagues, and administrators. Candidates are encouraged to seek advice on their personal statements from recently promoted and/or senior colleagues.
         
         External reviewers must be sent the candidate’s CV, the candidate’s personal statement, at least a subset of materials documenting the candidate's performance in rank or other documents demonstrating the candidate’s prominence in their field (that the candidate has chosen) and the unit’s promotion criteria/expectations. All external reviewers receive the same materials, and departments should have standard expectations across each rank for the external review packet.
         
         
      4. Joint Appointments
         Faculty with joint appointments will have a Memorandum of Understanding that identifies the promotion home and describes the procedures for promotion consideration.
         
         
      5. Dossier
         The Chair of the Department is responsible for ensuring that the dossier is compiled correctly; no promotion candidate should be expected to prepare their own dossier without the assistance of departmental staff or the oversight of the chair. Promotion dossiers are electronic. Access to the dossier is password-controlled and only eligible faculty and administrators have access to the dossier. The chair of the department is responsible for identifying those in the department who should have access to the dossier once it is uploaded and ready for review.
         
         The dossier must include all materials listed in the General section and all other items under Teaching and (for clinical faculty) Service/Engagement that apply to the candidate:
         
         
         • General
           • Department and School Criteria/Expectations for Promotion
           • Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae (for promotion to teaching professor or full clinical professor, clearly indicate work done in rank)
           • Candidate’s Statements on Teaching and (for clinical faculty) Service/Engagement
           • External Letters
           • List of Reviewers Selected (indicating those who did/did not respond and reason for non-response)
           • Department List of Prospective Reviewers (including brief summary of credentials and relationships with candidate)
           • Candidate’s List of Prospective Reviewers (including credentials and relationships with candidate)
             
             
         • Teaching
           • List of Courses Taught (chronologically by semester, number of students enrolled, grade distribution)
           • Sample of Course Materials (syllabi, exercises, assignments, exams, student work)
           • Graduate Training as relevant (PhD and Masters—committee member or chair; dissertation titles)
           • Student Awards, Honors, Collaborative Publications, Achievements
           • Undergraduate Research Experiences and Mentoring
           • Student Course Evaluations (including summary of quantitative data; all qualitative responses)
           • Solicited/Unsolicited Letters from Former Students
           • Evidence of Student Learning Outcomes (assessment strategies; data; changes made in response to this information)
           • Peer Evaluations of Teaching
           • Curricular Development (including new courses; evidence of impact)
           • Professional Pedagogical Development (e.g., conferences, workshops, learning communities, master classes)
           • Teaching Publications (including scholarship of teaching and learning; textbooks)
           • Teaching Awards, Honors, Grants, Fellowships
             
             
         • Service/Engagement
           
           • Evidence of Service to the University, School and Department
           • Evidence of Service to the Profession
           • Evidence of Engagement with Non-Academic Communities and Agencies
             
             All vote-eligible faculty have the right and responsibility to review the dossier prior to the departmental vote.
             
             
   4. PROMOTION COMMITTEE AND REPORT
      The College recommends that during the spring semester prior to the deadline by which the promotion case will be submitted, the Chair works with the candidate and an elected faculty committee as defined by departmental faculty governance procedures to select a review committee that has the appropriate rank and expertise to evaluate the dossier. The departmental review committee should include no fewer than three faculty members. If there are an insufficient number of appropriately ranked faculty members in the department to constitute a review committee, the Chair of the Department should work with the candidate and the elected faculty committee to select appropriate committee members from faculty in other related departments with guidance from the Associate Executive Dean. Departments may propose alternative procedures that must be approved by the Executive Dean’s Office.
      
      The review committee is charged with submitting a written report to the department faculty evaluating the candidate’s case for promotion. In particular, the committee report will include:
      
      1. an evaluation of teaching consisting of a discussion of the indicators of teaching excellence that the department finds most relevant. These could include peer observations; the quality of course materials; the breadth, content, and innovation of teaching; and numerical and/or written student evaluations. and,
      
      2. (for clinical faculty) an evaluation of department, university, professional, and community service (local, national, and international).
      
      If departments choose to prepare their committee reports in the fall, those reports should provide a summary and evaluation of the external reviewers’ assessments and of any internal letters; otherwise, the summary and evaluation should be covered in the chair’s letter.
      
      The review committee report must conclude with a recommendation to the department regarding promotion (for clinical faculty, with reference to the basis chosen by the candidate: teaching, service, or balanced case). The committee report must provide a recommendation in all relevant evaluative areas as well as an overall recommendation. The committee report will be made available to all vote-eligible faculty for review prior to the department meeting. This is a confidential document that is included in the dossier but that should not otherwise be shared outside the eligible voting members.
      
      The review committee report should not be edited in response to the departmental deliberation and vote. The chair’s letter must describe the discussion and deliberation in the department meeting and vote, capturing the range of assessments presented at the meeting of the vote-eligible faculty, giving later reviewers a better understanding of the grounds for both positive and negative votes (if any).
      
      The following categories of faculty are eligible to vote on each type of promotion:
      
      
      • Senior lecturer: tenured associate and full professors, senior lecturers, teaching professors, associate clinical professors, and full clinical professors.
      • Teaching professor: tenured full professors, teaching professors, full clinical professors
      • Associate clinical professor: tenured associate and full professors, associate clinical professors, full clinical professors
      • Full clinical professor: tenured full professors, full clinical professors.
        
        Departmental governance documents must establish which faculty members with FTE less than 1.0 are eligible to vote. An overall vote on promotion must be taken, as well as separate votes in each of the relevant performance areas, using campus-wide evaluative categories.
        
        If a candidate has appointments in multiple units (i.e., a split appointment), oneunit is designated as the “promotion home.” For split appointments, the promotion home is now identified in a Memorandum of Understanding. Generally, non-promotion-home units prepare brief review reports which they submit with their recommendations to the chair/dean of the home unit, who includes them in the dossier for consideration by the home unit.
        
        
   5. DEPARTMENT MEETING AND VOTE
      The Department will hold a meeting early in the fall semester to consider its promotion recommendation for the candidate, at which the chair presides. Vote- eligible faculty members meet and discuss the committee report and the case. Regardless of rank, faculty are eligible to vote only if they have been “materially engaged” in the review process, as evidenced (for example) by their familiarity with the dossier or attendance at meetings where the case is discussed. No proxy votes are allowed. The departmental recommendation must be based on the ballots from three or more vote-eligible faculty members, not including the chair. Following discussion, members vote by secret ballot on whether to recommend promotion on the stated basis (i.e., teaching, service) or as a balanced case. Prior to the vote, the chair will review campus criteria and requirements for a vote in support of the candidate.

For the category of teaching, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, effective, and ineffective. For the category of service, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. The chair must make clear at the meeting that, in cases where the basis for promotion is teaching or service, in order to register a positive vote for promotion, the ballot must indicate excellence in the primary area of consideration and at least satisfactory/effective in the other area and that, in cases where the basis for promotion is a balanced case, in order to register a positive vote for promotion, the candidate must be rated as very good at a minimum in both categories. All other votes will register as a negative vote. Faculty members have the right to abstain. Absences and abstentions do not register as a vote on the ballot. The chair’s letter should provide an account of any absences or abstentions.

When all ballots have been submitted, the votes will be tallied by an appropriate senior staff member specified in the faculty governance documents, and the chair will inform the vote-eligible faculty members of the results. The anonymity of the individual votes will be maintained, although the ballots will be kept in a secure location by the Chair of the Department in case they are requested by the Executive Dean or the Provost. The Chair of the Department does not vote on the departmental ballot, but rather records their vote as part of the chair’s review on the vote record in eDossier. 

VI. THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR'S REVIEW
After the department vote, the Chair of the Department writes a separate statement. The statement includes a description of the department’s deliberations, including any unique characteristics of the discipline that may bear on the case and an accounting of the discussions in the meeting that might explain the vote, particularly in the case of negative votes, abstentions, absentees and faculty who fail to vote. The Chair is responsible for presiding at the meeting and for ensuring that there is ample time to discuss the case; the Chair should remind faculty it is their obligation to express their views whether positive or negative, but it is particularly important if they do not plan to support the case for promotion. The Chair also offers an independent recommendation regarding promotion; this recommendation is not bound by the department vote. The Chair’s statement, the departmental review committee report, and the recorded vote are added to the dossier. The College strongly recommends that the chair meet with the candidate in a timely fashion to discuss the vote. The completed file is then forwarded to the College of Arts and Sciences through the eDossier system. The deadline for submission of the dossier to the College is generally in the second half of September.

• Degree of Candidate Access to File
According to Indiana University policy, all dossier materials including external
reference letters must be shared with the candidate upon request at any time in the review process. In general, we recommend that candidates refrain from viewing letters until the departmental recommendation is made. Chairs should familiarize themselves with the eDossier interface and work with the candidates, as necessary, to provide them access to the letters. Candidates may also add new material to the dossier at any time during the review process and should do so if new information becomes available (e.g., an acceptance of a manuscript or article, an award nomination) that would improve the case for promotion. Candidates should be aware that, after they have submitted their edossiers, any new information they add will appear in the supplemental materials section.

VII. COLLEGE AND CAMPUS PROCEDURES
A. College Promotion Committee
Once the eDossier leaves the department, it goes to the College Instructional Faculty Promotion Committee. The committee includes both tenure-track and non-tenure-track instructional faculty of appropriate rank, balanced among the divisions of the College and appointed to ensure that at least 60% of the members hold tenure-track positions.
The Associate Executive Dean presides over the Instructional Promotion Faculty Committee. The participation of the Associate Executive Dean is limited to an organizational and procedural role to ensure that the vote of the Committee represents an independent evaluation of the dossier, free from the direct influence of the Executive Dean’s Office.

The committee reads the file and writes a report evaluating the candidate’s teaching and, for clinical faculty, service. If a member of the candidate’s department(s) is serving on this committee, they are recused from discussion and voting. The committee members vote by secret ballot following the same procedures as a department. It is important to note that at no stage in the process (i.e., the Department, Promotion committees, Executive Dean, etc.) may the basis for considering the promotion change. The committee vote is advisory to the Executive Dean, and is included in the report that goes into the candidate’s dossier.

B. Executive Dean’s Office
After the eDossier leaves the Committee, the Executive Dean writes a letter evaluating the teaching and (where relevant) service record of the candidate based on the contents of the dossier and indicates whether the College supports or does not support promotion. Both the Executive Dean and the Associate Executive Dean write the letter for promotion. This letter is uploaded to eDossier and the Executive Dean’s vote is recorded in the vote record before the eDossier is routed to the campus committee in early to mid-December. For candidates in the Media School, Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture and Design. eDossiers route through the school committee and the Dean of the School.

Divisional College faculty are included in the membership of the school committees. Before submitting the Dean’s letter and recommendation, the Dean will consult with the Executive Dean of the College no later than two weeks before the school’s deadline to submit the dossier to the Vice Provost’s Office. Following consultation, the school Dean’s letter is uploaded and the Dean’s vote is recorded in eDossier before routing the dossier to the campus committee.

C. Campus Committees
After the file leaves the College, it goes to the Campus Instructional Faculty Promotion Advisory Committee, which includes members from the College and from other schools on campus. The Campus Committee members also read the file and write a report evaluating the candidate’s teaching and, for clinical  faculty, service. The committee members vote on whether the candidate should be promoted. The Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs (VPFAA) prepares the final substantive evaluation and recommendation for the “executive level” (Provost and President), who in turn make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. A decision on promotion is communicated via campus mail once approved by the Board of Trustees prior to July 1.

D. Reconsideration
Faculty members may request reconsideration upon receiving a negative promotion decision from the executive level if they believe that there were unjustifiable judgments of professional competence or judgments based on erroneous information. That request entails the preparation of a written rebuttal and the addition of new material germane to the deliberations. If the candidate chooses to request additional external letters, they must be obtained following the same procedures used to obtain the initial set of letters. When the rebuttal materials are completely prepared, they are included in the dossier, which is sent in its entirety back to the first level of review that made a negative recommendation (and then it is reviewed again by all subsequent levels). Rebuttal materials must be submitted by the candidate for review within two months following notification of the negative decision.

E. Appeal Process
If the above reconsideration results in a negative decision or if the candidate
foregoes the reconsideration opportunity, the candidate has the right to file a grievance (after the executive level decision) with the BFC Faculty Board of Review (FBOR) on procedural grounds only. The Board will decide whether evidence supports the conclusion that procedural irregularities had consequences for the legitimacy of the outcome, and if so, suggests remediation to the Provost (who decides whether the review needs to be redone, all or in part). A grievance will not in itself extend the probationary period (unless so requested by the Provost). The candidate must submit materials to the FBOR within two months following notification of the negative decision by the executive level, or within one month following completion of the reconsideration process.

VIII. DEPARTMENT PROMOTION DOCUMENTS
The College requires each department to have a document that describes its promotion procedures for non-tenure-track instructional faculty, consistent with the College and campus guidelines. The guidelines must provide details for the faculty governance procedures associated with Section IV above.

A. Preamble
All department guidelines must include the following preamble: “These guidelines outline the criteria for promotion for instructional faculty in the Department of XXXX. They provide a specific departmental context within the general university framework for promotion of faculty. Promotion procedures are governed by procedures and guidelines at multiple levels
of the institution. A digest of official policies regarding promotion that have been endorsed by the Bloomington Faculty Council (BFC) and the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty & Academic Affairs can be found at:
https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-resources/tenure-promotion/non-tenure-track/index.html. 

B. Teaching
Department guidelines must explicitly state that excellence in teaching is required for promotion cases in the lecturer ranks and that, for clinical rank faculty, the basis for promotion may be excellence in teaching, excellence in service, or a balanced case. Department guidelines must also specify that teaching must be evaluated as at least effective for promotion in the clinical rank promotions when service is the basis. Please review the College “Policy on the Evaluation of Pedagogical Practices” revised and adopted in 2006:
https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/cpc/policies/evaulation-pedagogy.html. It is essential that the department guidelines specify what excellence or minimum effectiveness means in teaching and service in the context of the particular department; the standards must be consistent with the broad definitions provided on the VPFAA website https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-resources/tenure-promotion/non-tenure-track/index.html.

The guidelines should address the relative contribution and importance of the different components of teaching effectiveness. These may include, but are not restricted to, the following:

1. Course syllabi, assignments, and other course materials
2. Numerical student course evaluations;
3. Written student evaluations;
4. Peer evaluations;
5. Graduate student supervision and committee work;
6. Undergraduate supervision;
7. Post-doc supervision;
8. Participation in pedagogical development activities;
9. Teaching awards;
10. Teaching publications;
11. Curricular/pedagogical development;
12. Awards received by students.

C. Service/Engagement
Department guidelines must explicitly state that excellence in service/engagement is required for clinical rank promotion cases where service is the basis and that service must be evaluated as at least satisfactory when teaching is the basis. It is essential that the guidelines clearly specify what an effective service record looks like and how service expectations increase from consideration for promotion to associate versus full clinical professor.

Candidates seeking promotion on the basis of excellence in service/engagement must provide evidence that they have achieved or are on their way to achieving local community/regional/national/international visibility and stature resulting from service activities; abundant department or university committee work is insufficient for promotion on the basis of service. The key is to demonstrate that the candidate’s efforts have been sustained and transformative, for a professional association, government agency, or non-academic community. Technical competence and professional skills are indispensable for coping with the complexities of contemporary society. Faculty members are encouraged to make service contributions that draw from their expertise to diverse communities outside of the academy, from local neighborhood groups to national and international advisory panels. Specific issues to address:

1. The role of department service.
2. The role of College and university service.
3. The role of professional service.
4. The role of community service.
5. The role of national and international service.