College Promotion Procedures and Department Guidelines for Research Rank Faculty (November 2023)

College Promotion Procedures and Department Guidelines for Research Rank Faculty (November 2023)

PREAMBLE

Promotion procedures for research rank 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 research rank faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences.

I. REVIEWS FOR RESEARCH RANK FACULTY

1. Appointment as Assistant Research Scientist for Current IU Research Associates, Postdoctoral Fellows, and Professional Staff

   1. 1. Annual reviews
         The College recommends that research associates, postdoctoral fellows, and professional staff engaged in research-related activities be provided with regular reviews of their progress: from the department, if funded by the College, or from their research supervisor, if funded from other internal or external sources.
         
         These reviews serve both a formative and summative purpose. They offer feedback relevant to the associate/fellow/staff member's career progression and also allow supervisors an opportunity to evaluate their scientific or scholarly work. A written summary of the review should be provided to the associate/fellow/staff member.
      2. Review period
         Research associates, postdoctoral fellows, and professional staff may be eligible for appointment at the assistant scientist/scholar rank at any time consistent with the terms of their original appointment. Campus policy indicates that, in some fields, candidates should have at least one year of successful postdoctoral research experience before being appointed as an assistant research scientist.
2. Promotion from Assistant Research Scientist/Scholar to Associate Research Scientist/Scholar or from Associate to Senior Research Scientist/Scholar

1. 1. 1. Regular reviews
         Research scientists/scholars (hereafter, research scientists) should receive a review at the time of each reappointment. These reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the research faculty member is progressing towards a favorable decision on promotion to the next rank. The reviews may involve a faculty committee or may be delegated to the relevant director. Each research scientist should be provided with a written summary of the review. Because department chairs provide a chair's letter during promotion consideration, it is appropriate for the chair to receive a copy of the written review summary.
      2. Review period
         Research scientists may apply for promotion to the next rank at any time although most promotions follow a timeline similar to that for tenure-track faculty. Because emphasis in the promotion decision is placed on accomplishments in rank, promotion to the next rank is normally considered after a minimum of three years.
         
         

II. EVALUATIVE CATEGORIES

1. 1. Rating Categories
      Candidates for promotion within the research ranks are evaluated exclusively based on contributions to research. Service in support of research may be considered in the evaluation of research. Evaluations of research use the categories of excellent, very good, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory.
      
      Appointment as assistant scientist and promotion to associate scientist should be based on judgments of the prospects for future contributions as well as current achievements whereas promotion to senior scientist is based principally on achievements in rank. For appointment as assistant scientist and promotion to associate research scientist, all research since completion of the terminal degree should be considered. Research accomplishments in rank are considered most relevant for promotion to senior scientist.
      
      
   2. Rating Performance Areas
      1. 1. Research
   3. 1. 1. 1. Because candidates for promotion in the research ranks are evaluated exclusively based on research and research-related service, candidates must be evaluated as "excellent" in research to justify a positive vote for promotion.
            2. The qualifications for each of the research ranks should be roughly equivalent to the research qualifications for tenure-track faculty. Specificexpectations for promotion should be included in research faculty appointment letters and be addressed in departmental governance documents
            3. For appointment as assistant research scientist, a rating of excellent in research is required. An excellent rating requires that the candidate provide evidence of significant progress toward making substantive contributions to the research of others (if appointed in a research center, research core, or as part of principal investigator's research group) or of conducting original, independent research. A rating of very good in research is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of some progress toward making substantive contributions to the research of others or of conducting original, independent research but whose contributions do not yet reach the level expected of an assistant research scientist. A rating of satisfactory is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of high-quality support for the research of other faculty or of their supervisor.
            4. For promotion from assistant research scientist to associate research scientist, a rating of excellent in research requires that the candidate provide evidence of having begun to achieve national or international recognition for their contributions to the research of others or for their own independent research. For scientists with assigned service responsibilities, evidence for excellence in research may include service in support of grants, publications, collaborative publications, or the like. A rating of very good in research is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of research contributions that have not yet achieved the level of national or international recognition one would expect for a rating of excellent. A rating of satisfactory is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of high-quality contributions to the research of others or high- quality independent research that has not yet begun to achieve national or international recognition. Note that this is a promotion only and differs from the tenure and promotion process of a tenure-track assistant professor. If a rating of excellent in research is not achieved in the promotion case of an assistant research scientist the candidate remains in rank as an assistant research scientist and can request consideration for promotion at a later date.
            5. For promotion to senior research scientist, a rating of excellent in research requires evidence of continued growth in research contributions that indicate significant disciplinary contributions and national or international recognition as an independent researcher or for essential, innovative, or outstanding contributions to independent research as part of a team. Here, too, for scientists with assigned service responsibilities, evidence for excellence in research may include service in support of grants, publications, collaborative publications, or the like. A rating of very good is appropriate for candidates who have maintained consistent contributions to research while in rank but whose research has not developed beyond what was presented at the time of promotion to associate scientist and has yet achieved the level of national or international recognition associated with a rating of excellent. A rating of satisfactory is appropriate for candidates who have maintained steady, high-quality contributions to research while in rank.
2. C. General expectations

All research scientists are expected to make a positive contribution to the professional environments of their departments.

III. DEPARTMENT PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION REVIEWS

1. 1. External Reviewers
      For appointment to the rank of assistant research scientist, in the spring semester prior to the year when the 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 reviewers who will be invited to evaluate the record of the candidate. When selecting reviewers, Chairs should honor the general principle that the preferences of both the candidate and the department are reflected in that selection. Three letters are required for appointment as an assistant research scientist, with at least one of the letters coming from the current IU supervisor and two of the letters coming from outside Indiana University. As a general rule, reviewers should hold positions comparable to associate or senior scientists or associate or full professors at peer institutions or better. Letters from former advisors or supervisors are allowed for appointment to assistant research scientist, as they would be for initial hires.

      For promotions to associate or senior research scientist, 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.
      When selecting reviewers, Chairs should honor the general principle that the preferences of both the candidate and the department are reflected in that selection. Six external letters are required, three letter writers being chosen by the department and three by the candidate. Reviewer letters will be obtained by the department on behalf of the Executive Dean.

      For promotions to associate and senior research scientist, the department and the candidate will prepare independent lists of six potential reviewers. For candidates whose positions are funded by the College, the names of potential reviewers must be submitted to the divisional Associate Dean for approval and selection. The lists submitted to the Associate Dean must include embedded links to prospective referee web pages/CVs along with brief descriptions of the reviewers' expertise and relationships to the candidate. If the department's list of external reviewers overlaps with the candidate's list of external reviewers, these reviewers will count as candidate-recommended. Once the external letters arrive, candidates may request to see them, and departments must oblige by allowing the candidate to read the letters. 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. For promotions to associate or senior scientist, reviewers should hold positions comparable to senior scientist or full professor. Because research scientist positions have notable differences from tenure-track position, the College recommends that at least some reviewers hold research rank positions. For all research rank promotions, reviewers may hold non-academic positions of comparable rank.
      
      When selecting reviewers, candidates and departments should also 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. Dissertation advisors, close personal friends, collaborators, former students, or other individuals who might be viewed as having a conflict of interest should not be asked to serve as external reviewers for promotions to associate or senior research scientist.
      
      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 can comment knowledgeably on the candidate's contributions to research. If a research scientist is working under the supervision of a principal investigator on a research grant, a letter from their supervisor is required as part of the dossier. If a research scientist is working in a research center, research institute, or research core, a letter from the relevant director is required. 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 a draft of their research statements by the deadline set within their departments, typically in the spring prior to the promotion consideration. Candidates' statements should include a section describing their contributions to research, including a description of major projects, publications, and, when relevant, grants. The 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 statements from recently promoted and/or senior colleagues.
      
      External reviewers must be sent the candidate's CV, 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. The College recommends that the candidate's research statement and position description be included in the information sent to external referees.
      
      
   4. Joint Appointments
      Research 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. Dossiers for appointment to assistant research scientist cannot be routed through the eDossier system. Instead, materials for those appointments should be provided to the College through a shared folder (e.g., on OneDrive) that can be accessed by promotion committee members. Dossiers for promotion to associate or senior scientist 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 Research that apply to the candidate. If Service in support of Research is included as part of the evidence for Research Excellence, the Service subfolders in the eDossier can be used to provide that evidence.
      
      
      • General
        1. Department and School Criteria/Expectations for Promotion
        2. Candidate's Curriculum Vitae
        3. Candidate's Research Statement
        4. External Letters
        5. List of Referees Selected (indicating those who did/did not respond and reason for non-response)
        6. Department List of Prospective Referees (including brief summary of credentials and relationships with candidate)
        7. Candidate's List of Prospective Referees (including credentials and relationships with candidate)
           
           
      • Research
        1. Copies of Publications and/or Evidence of Creative Work (including scholarly presentations)
        2. Reviews of Candidate's Books, Creative Performances and Exhibitions
        3. List of Grants Applied for/Received (include cover sheet/abstract; funding source; amount; PI)
        4. Copies of Manuscripts or Creative Works in Progress
        5. Evidence for the Impact/Influence of Publications or Creative Works (e.g., citations)
        6. Evidence for the Stature/Visibility of Journals, Presses or Artistic Venues
        7. Awards and Honors for Research/Creative Activity
        8. Candidate's Contributions to Collaborative Projects (with letters from collaborators)
           
           
      • Service/Engagement
        1. Evidence of Service to the University, School and Department
        2. Evidence of Service to the Profession or Field
        3. Evidence of Engagement with Non-Academic Research-Related Communities and Agencies
           
           
   6. Promotion Committee and Report
      A committee report is not required for appointments to assistant research scientist/scholar.
      
      For promotions to associate or senior scientist/scholar, 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 must include an evaluation of the candidate's accomplishments with reference to the departmental review criteria.
      
      If departments choose to prepare their committee reports in the fall, those reports should provide a summary and evaluation of the external referees' 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. 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).
      
      
   7. Department Meeting and Vote
      The Department will hold a meeting early in the fall semester to consider its appointment/promotion recommendation for the candidate, at which the chair presides. Vote-eligible faculty members meet and discuss 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 appointment/promotion. Prior to the vote, the chair will review College and campus criteria and requirements for a vote in support of the candidate. For the category of research, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. The chair must make clear at the meeting that in order to register a positive vote for promotion, the ballot must indicate excellence in research. 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 at a level of detail established within each department or unit. 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.
      
      The following categories of faculty are eligible to vote on each type of promotion:
      Assistant scientist: assistant, associate, and full professors, assistant scientists, associate scientists, senior scientists.
      Associate scientist: tenured associate and full professors, associate scientists, senior scientists.
      Senior scientist: tenured associate and full professors, senior scientists.
      
      Departmental governance documents must establish which faculty members with FTE less than 1.0 are eligible to vote.
      
      All vote-eligible faculty have the right and responsibility to review the dossier prior to the departmental vote.
      
      
   8. The Department Chair's Review
      After the department vote, the Chair of the Department writes a separate statement. (For appointments to assistant research scientist, this statement takes the place of the committee report.) 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 a shared folder for promotions to assistant research scientist, and through the eDossier system for promotions to associate and senior scientist. The deadline for submission of the file to the College is generally in the second half of September.
      
      
   9. 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) 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.
      
      

IV. COLLEGE AND CAMPUS PROCEDURES

1. College Promotion Committee
   For appointments to assistant research scientist/scholar, the dossier will be reviewed by two research rank members of the College Research Faculty Promotion Subcommittee. If both members recommend appointment, the dossier will proceed directly to the Executive Associate Dean and Executive Dean for review. If either or both members recommend against appointment, the dossier will be reviewed by the entire Subcommittee before being sent to the Executive Associate Dean and Executive Dean for their decision. The Executive Dean will inform the chair and the candidate of the final decision regarding appointment by December.
   
   For promotions to associate or senior scientist, after the eDossier leaves the department, it goes to the College Research Faculty Promotion Subcommittee. The committee includes both tenure-track and non-tenure-track research 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 Executive Associate Dean presides over the Research Faculty Promotion Subcommittee. The participation of the Executive Associate 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 research, teaching, and service. Any members of the candidate's department(s) are recused from discussion and voting. The committee members vote by secret ballot following the same procedures as a department (see Section IV.G). The committee vote is advisory to the Executive Dean and is included in the report that goes into the candidate's dossier.
   
   
2. Executive Dean's Office
   After the eDossier leaves the Committee, the Executive Associate Dean and Executive Dean write a joint letter evaluating the research record of the candidate based on the contents of the dossier and indicates whether the College supports or does not support 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.
   
   
3. Campus Committees
   For promotions to associate or senior scientist, after the dossier leaves the College, it goes to the Campus Research Faculty Promotion Advisory Subcommittee, which includes members from the College and from other schools on campus. The Campus Subcommittee members also read the file and write a report evaluating the candidate's research. 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.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. 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.
   
   

V. DEPARTMENT PROMOTION DOCUMENTS

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

1. Preamble
   All department guidelines must include the following preamble: "These guidelines outline the criteria for promotion for research rank 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.
   
   
2. Research
   Department guidelines must explicitly state that excellence in research is required for appointment/promotion in the research ranks.
   
   It is essential that the department guidelines specify what excellence in research means 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) and with the College guidelines.
   
   The guidelines should address the relative contribution and importance of the different components of research effectiveness. These may include, but are not restricted to, the following:

1. 1. Books, articles, book chapters, and other creative work;
   2. The role of quantity versus quality in publications or creative activity;
   3. The role of professional standing and "impact" on the field, wherewhat constitutes evidence of professional impact is important;
   4. The role of external grant funding and, in particular, whether it figures into research excellence directly or indirectly through the publication of articles;
   5. The role of conference attendance and other professional activities that are signs of professional regard (e.g., editorial activities);
   6. The value placed on contributions to the research of others relative to independent research.
   7. The value placed on assigned research-related service relative to independent research.