College Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Department Guidelines
January 9, 2014 (Revised October 2017 and February 2021)
PREAMBLE
Promotion and tenure procedures are governed by procedures and guidelines at multiple levels of the institution. A digest of official policies regarding promotion and tenure 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/tenure-track/index.html
This document presents more specific guidelines for promotion and tenure decisions in the College of Arts and Sciences.
I. FACULTY REVIEWS
A. Tenure-Probationary Period
1. Annual reviews
Each tenure-track 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 tenure 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. Midterm reappointment review
No later than the third year of the probationary period, each tenure-track faculty member will receive a midterm reappointment review. The midterm review is a thorough review that involves a departmental review (personnel) committee report, vote of eligible department faculty, and review by the Chair of the Department. This is an opportunity for senior colleagues to learn more about each junior colleague’s work, provide mentorship, and evaluate the progress towards meeting the criteria towards tenure. In the case of a decision not to reappoint, candidates may appeal the decision following BFC policy (https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/policies/bl-aca-e17-review-non- reappointments/index.html). In the case where reappointment is made, it is important to emphasize that this decision does not guarantee tenure. Please refer to the College Policy on Midterm Pre-tenure Review: https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/cpc-committee/college-policies/policies/tenure-and-promotion/midterm-pre-tenure-review.html
3. Review period
A candidate is normally reviewed for tenure and promotion before the seventh year of the tenure probationary period. An early tenure review can occur in an unusually meritorious case or when prior service at another institution warrants such consideration. Work produced since the tenure candidate’s first appointment at IUB is assumed to be a better predictor of future productivity than earlier work. Work conducted prior to a candidate’s first appointment to IUB (e.g., scholarly or scientific publications) may be taken into consideration as additional evidence of pace, future trajectories, and continuity or change in research interests.
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 considering such leaves should consult with the Associate Executive Dean and the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. Faculty members should discuss the timing of the leave and its relation to the promotion and tenure process with the Chair of the Department who will also consult with the Executive Dean’s office and receive approval from the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs to ensure that there is appropriate and clearly written documentation of leave agreements (using the “Understanding on Tenure 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 faculty to receive regular peer evaluations of teaching during the probationary period, with a minimum of one peer evaluation each academic year. When teaching assignments allow, a combination of peer evaluations that allow comparisons across courses (especially lower- v. upper-level undergraduate and undergraduate v. graduate) as well as comparisons within a specific course over time are preferred.
B. Promotion from Associate to Full Professor
1. Annual reviews
Each tenured associate professor will be reviewed annually by the Chair of the Department. These annual reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the faculty member is progressing towards a favorable decision on promotion to full professor.
2. Review period
Associate professors may apply for promotion to full professor at any time.
However, 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 research, teaching, and service. For that reason, promotions to full professor within three years of promotion to associate professor are rare.
3. Peer evaluations of teaching
The College expects chairs to arrange for associate professors to receive regular peer evaluations of teaching prior to consideration for promotion to full professor, with a minimum of one peer evaluation every other academic year. As for probationary faculty, when teaching assignments allow, a combination of peer evaluations that allow comparisons across courses (especially lower- v. upper- level undergraduate and undergraduate v. graduate) as well as comparisons within a specific course over time are most helpful to review committees.
II. EVALUATIVE CATEGORIES
A. Rating Categories
Candidates for tenure and promotion to associate professor and for promotion to full professor are rated in research/creative activity and service as excellent, very good, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. Evaluations of teaching use the categories of excellent, very good, effective, or ineffective.
B. Basis for Promotion
A candidate must decide the basis for promotion, in consultation with the Department chair. Both for tenure and promotion to associate professor and for promotion to full professor, the basis for promotion in most departments and in most cases is excellence in research or creative activity. Promotion to full professor based on excellence in teaching or service/engagement, or on a balanced case is less common but may be justified in certain specific cases. In all cases, dossier materials must be evaluated on the basis chosen by the candidate. The dossier must also demonstrate at least satisfactory/effective performance in the areas not selected as a basis for promotion. The most effective dossiers will provide multiple, independent indicators of contributions and impact.
C. Rating Performance Areas
1. Research/Creative activity
This is the default basis for promotion for most units in the College.
a. For tenure and promotion to associate professor, to receive a rating of excellent, the candidate must have achieved, or be well on the way to
achieving, a position of national and/or international leadership , based on a record of scholarly accomplishment and distinction appropriate to their field(s). Because tenure is a forward-looking decision, candidates should also provide evidence of an ongoing program of research or creative activity. For promotion to full professor, to receive a rating of excellent, the candidate must have achieved a position of leadership in a substantial field based on a documented and robust record of achievement and distinction.
b. To receive a rating of very good for tenure and/or promotion, the candidate must present evidence of high-quality and significant contributions to the field(s), although those contributions may not yet have resulted in the same degree of progress toward establishing a national and/or international reputation that is expected for a rating of excellent.
c. To receive a rating of satisfactory for tenure and/or promotion, the candidate must present evidence of sustained scholarly or creative activity that is positively evaluated while in rank.
2. Teaching
Tenure and promotion based on excellence in teaching will be considered only in very specialized cases.
a. For tenure and/or promotion to full professor, a rating of excellent in teaching requires the candidate to provide evidence of outstanding classroom instruction as well as broad teaching impact beyond the campus. The candidate’s accomplishments in classroom instruction should be comparable to those of the most effective teachers at this institution. Candidates for tenure based on teaching should also have achieved or be well on the way to achieving a national and/or international reputation for teaching impact. Candidates for promotion to full professor based on teaching should provide evidence of having achieved a national and/or international reputation as a leader in the practice or study of teaching. Examples of broad teaching impact include, but are not limited to, development of instructional/ curricular materials that are used or referenced by instructors in the candidate’s field; leadership positions in regional, national, or international organizations concerned with pedagogy; pedagogical publications or presentations; and regional, national, or international teaching awards.
b. A rating of very good requires evidence of outstanding classroom instruction as well as significant 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; and College or campus teaching awards; as well as the examples given for teaching excellence.
c. 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.
3. Service/Engagement
Tenure and promotion based on excellence in service/engagement will be considered only in very specialized cases.
a. For tenure, 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 nationally or internationally recognized. For promotion to full professor, candidates must provide evidence of having achieved national/international visibility and stature resulting from service activities.
b. For promotion at either rank, a rating of very good requires evidence of significant impact beyond one’s home unit on the university, the discipline, or public, private, professional, or civic organizations and institutions.
c. 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 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. Balanced case
Successful promotion based on a Balanced Case requires a candidate to be rated “Very Good” in all three performance. Overall, the candidate's contribution to the university must be shown to be comparable in excellence to that of a candidate with a single primary area.
D. 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 tenure and promotion is based.
E. Comparison group
The populations within which candidates for tenure and promotion are to be evaluated in regard to research, creative activity, and teaching are those who have recently received tenure/promotion or who will soon be considered for tenure/promotion at major research universities.
III. Additional Considerations
With the growth of interdisciplinary research and with the emergence of new fields, not all research/creative activity fits comfortably into traditional “disciplinary” expectations or understandings. The world of scholarly and scientific publishing also is undergoing significant change. New forms of digital scholarly communication (e-journals, moderated websites, blogs) continue to emerge and grow. In response to the developments, IUB Tenure and Promotion Guidelines include three additional areas for consideration:
A. Interdisciplinarity
Candidates for tenure and promotion are encouraged to pursue innovation wherever it seems promising, even at the edges of disciplinary boundaries or between them.
Reviewers at all levels should be open to the possibility that work “on the edges” or straddling two fields may eventually transform research agendas in fundamental ways not always easily recognized by the home unit. A candidate’s interdisciplinarity may require that home units adapt their expectations/criteria and procedures. For example, practices for assembling review committees and soliciting external referees may need to be altered in order to ensure that all aspects of research/creative activity are assessed by properly knowledgeable evaluators.
B. New Scholarly Communications
Reviewers at all levels should consider that the best new research/creative activity may not necessarily appear in the top traditional disciplinary journals or in books published by the historically most prestigious publishing houses. Peer reviewed publications are given greater weight than those that are not. Candidates assume responsibility for providing evidence of the value of their publication outlets.
C. Impact on Diverse Communities
In assessing the impact of research/creative activity, reviewers should consider the variety of communities – inside the academy and beyond – which may be transformed in significant ways by a candidate’s work. The emergence of “public scholarship” expands the range of audiences to whom a scholar/artist may direct their research/creative activity, and sometimes the best of this work does not appear in narrowly-defined professional outlets. Candidates should describe how their research/creative activity targeted for non- academic audiences intersects with work targeted to a scholarly community. Public scholarship will not supplant expectations for publications targeted to peer professional communities, but it may supplement that work. Evidence for “public scholarship” includes panel/commission and other technical reports, policy white papers, and strategic plans for community/civic groups.
IV. DEPARTMENT PROCEDURES FOR TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEWS
A. External Referees
In the spring semester prior to the year when the tenure or promotion case is to be considered, the Chair of the Department will consult with members of the department and, when appropriate, members of any research institute/center with which the faculty member is affiliated, and prepare a list of external referees who will be invited to evaluate the record of the candidate. Subsequently, the candidate will be asked to submit a list of potential external referees to the Chair of the Department. Each list must include 6 names and should be submitted together to the divisional Associate Dean for approval and selection. The candidate and department lists must be developed independently and chairs must include embedded links to prospective referee web pages on the lists they submit to the Associate Dean. If the department’s list of recommended external referees overlaps with the candidate’s list of recommended external referees, these referees’ names will count as candidate- recommended referees. This process is followed to ensure the department’s list is independent of the candidate’s list. 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.
External referees should generally be from comparable or more highly regarded institutions. Ideally, they should be Full Professors who have the appropriate expertise to evaluate the candidate’s record. 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 referees. The expectation is that there will be six letters in the file: normally three from the candidate’s list and three from the department’s list.
There may not be fewer than six letters. However, all requested letters that are received by the department must be included in the dossier. Thus, on occasion there may be more than six letters if additional letters are requested in an effort to ensure that the six-letter minimum is achieved and more than six ultimately are submitted by the referees. All solicited letters should be included in the candidate’s dossier prior to the departmental vote, so that all voting faculty members have access to this information. External referees are usually asked to submit their letters by mid- August.
B. 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.
C. Candidate’s Statement
Candidates are required to complete and submit a draft of their personal statements no later than May 15th prior to tenure and promotion consideration. The research statement should embed the listing of publications on the CV in a narrative trajectory, highlighting finished projects, current work, and future plans. A succinct statement is most effective. Candidates’ personal statements also should include a section describing their teaching programs, indicating courses taught, pedagogical objectives and methods, and any past, present, or future course development activity. It should also contain a discussion of service activities for the department, the College, the university, the profession, and the community. The personal statement should be accessible to several audiences, including external referees, fellow department members, other university colleagues, and administrators. Thus, the personal statement should strike a balance between communicating with experts in the field and those who are not members of the discipline and who may not be familiar with the candidate’s area of research. Candidates are encouraged to seek advice on their personal statements from recently tenured and/or senior colleagues. It is recommended that the candidate’s personal statement be included in the information sent to external referees.
D. Joint Appointments
Faculty with joint appointments will have a Memorandum of Understanding that identifies the tenure home and describes the procedures for tenure and promotion consideration.
E. Dossier
The Chair of the Department is responsible for ensuring that the dossier is compiled correctly; no tenure or promotion candidate should be expected to prepare their own dossier without the assistance of departmental staff or the oversight of the chair. Tenure and 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 Research/Creative Activity, Teaching, and Service/Engagement that apply to the candidate:
General
1. Department and School Criteria/Expectations for Tenure/Promotion
2. Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae (indicate peer reviewed publications; list
separately publications to be considered research, teaching or service; for promotion to full, indicate work done since appointment as associate professor)
3. Candidate’s Statements on Research/Creative Activity, Teaching, Service/Engagement
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/Creative Activity
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)
Teaching
1. List of Courses Taught (chronologically by semester, number of students enrolled, grade distribution)
2. Sample of Course Materials (syllabi, exercises, assignments, exams, student work)
3. Graduate Training (PhD and Masters—committee member or chair; dissertation titles)
4. Student Awards, Honors, Collaborative Publications, Achievements
5. Undergraduate Research Experiences and Mentoring
6. Student Course Evaluations (including summary of quantitative data; all qualitative responses)
7. Solicited/Unsolicited Letters from Former Students
8. Evidence of Student Learning Outcomes (assessment strategies; data; pedagogical adjustments)
9. Peer Evaluations of Teaching
10. Curricular Development (including new courses; evidence of impact)
11. Professional Pedagogical Development (workshops; learning communities, master classes)
12. Teaching Publications (including scholarship of teaching and learning; textbooks)
13. Teaching Awards, Honors, Grants, Fellowships
Service/Engagement
1. Evidence of Service to the University, School and Department
2. Evidence of Service to the Profession (including book reviews)
3. 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.
F. Promotion and Tenure Committee and Report
The College recommends that during the spring semester prior to the deadline by which the tenure and/or 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 the candidate’s research/creative activity;
2. an evaluation of teaching consisting of a discussion of teaching metrics that include the numerical student evaluation scores, written comments, and peer evaluations, as well as a narrative that provides an assessment of such factors as breadth, content, and innovation; and,
3. an evaluation of department, university, professional, and community service (local, national, and international)
4. Reports written in the fall 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 (see p. 13).
The review committee report must conclude with a recommendation to the department regarding tenure and promotion on the basis chosen by the candidate (i.e., research/creative activity, teaching, service) or as a balanced case. The committee report must provide a recommendation in all three areas— research/creative activity, teaching, and service—as well as an overall recommendation. The committee report will be made available to all tenured faculty of appropriate rank for review prior to the department meeting. This is a confidential
document that cannot be shared outside the eligible voting members prior to the department vote and it is formally included in the dossier.
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 voting-eligible faculty, giving later reviewers a better understanding of the grounds for both positive and negative votes (if any).
Both tenured Associate and Full Professors are eligible to vote in tenure and promotion cases, but only Full Professors are eligible to vote for promotion from Associate to Full Professor. Departmental governance documents must establish which faculty members with FTE less than 1.0 are eligible to vote. An overall vote on tenure and/or promotion must be taken, as well as separate votes in each of the three performance areas, using campus-wide evaluative categories.
If a candidate has appointments in multiple units (i.e., a split appointment), one unit is designated as the “tenure home.” For split appointments, the tenure home is now identified in a Memorandum of Understanding. Non-tenure-home units send their review reports and recommendations to the chair/dean of the home unit, who includes them in the dossier for consideration by the home unit.
G. Department Meeting and Vote
The Department will hold a meeting early in the fall semester to consider its promotion and tenure recommendation for the candidate, at which the chair presides. Voting members meet and discuss the committee report and the case. 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 tenure and/or promotion on the stated basis (i.e., research/creative activity, 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 categories of research and service, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. For the category of teaching, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, effective, and ineffective. The chair must make clear at the meeting that in order to register a positive vote for tenure and promotion, the ballot must indicate excellence in the primary area of consideration and at least satisfactory/effective in the other two areas (except in a balanced case, in which all areas must be ranked very good). 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.
H. 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 (e.g., books versus articles, extent of co-authorship, significance of order of names on publications, etc.) 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 tenure and/or promotion. The Chair also offers an independent recommendation regarding tenure and/or 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. It is strongly recommended 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 file to the College is generally in the middle of September for tenure cases, and late September for promotion to Full Professor, Clinical Associate and Clinical Full Professor cases, and Senior Lecturer and Teaching Professor cases.
I. 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 tenure. Candidates should be aware that, after the dossier has “closed,” new information appears in the supplemental materials section.
V. COLLEGE AND CAMPUS PROCEDURES
A. College Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committees
Once the file leaves the department, it goes to the College Tenure Committee in the case of promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure and the College Promotion Committee in the case of promotion to Full Professor. The composition of the committees reflects a balance among the divisions of the College.
The Executive Dean presides over the Tenure Committee and the Associate Executive Dean presides over the Promotion Committee. The participation of the 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 Dean.
The committee reads the file and writes a report evaluating the candidate’s research, teaching, and service. If a member of the candidate’s department(s) is serving on this committee, s/he is recused from discussion and voting. The committee members vote by secret ballot following the same procedures as a department (see Section I.B.13). It is important to note that at no stage in the process (i.e., the Department, Tenure and Promotion committees, Dean, etc.) may the basis for a positive recommendation differ from the original basis on which the case was presented by the department and the candidate. 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 file leaves the Committee, the Executive Dean writes a letter evaluating the research/creative activity, teaching, and service record of the candidate based on the contents of the dossier and indicates whether the College supports or does not support tenure and/or 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, Global and International Studies, and the School of Art 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 either to the Campus Tenure Advisory Committee or the Campus 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 research, teaching, and service. The committee members vote on whether the candidate should be promoted and, if appropriate, receive tenure. 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 tenure and/or promotion is communicated in campus mail once approved by the Board of Trustees prior to July 1.
D. Reconsideration
A faculty member may request a reconsideration upon receiving a negative tenure or 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). The reconsideration process will not add time to the candidate’s tenure probationary period, even if those deliberations extend into the seventh probationary year. 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 tenure 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.
Guidelines for Department Tenure and Promotion Documents
The College requires each department to have a document that describes its promotion and tenure procedures, consistent with the following guidelines. The guidelines must be aligned with and detail the faculty governance procedures associated with sections 11-14 in the College Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Guidelines document above.
A. Preamble
All department guidelines must include the following preamble: “These guidelines outline the criteria for promotion and tenure in the Department of XXXX. They provide a specific departmental context within the general university framework for promotion and tenure of faculty. If the department’s criteria for tenure change during the period of candidacy, the faculty member may choose to be evaluated for tenure under the criteria in force at the time of hiring; promotion reviews are grounded in current expectations.”
Promotion and tenure procedures are governed by procedures and guidelines at multiple levels of the institution. A digest of official policies regarding promotion and tenure 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/tenure- track/index.html
This document describes procedures and guidelines that departments must follow for promotion and tenure.
B. Research/Creative Activity
Department guidelines must explicitly state that excellence in research/creative activity is required for a standard tenure and/or promotion case in which research/creative activity is the basis. The department guidelines must also specify that research/creative activity must always rise to the level of Satisfactory for tenure and/or promotion when research/creative activity is not the basis. It is essential that the department guidelines specify the standards for excellence or minimum effectiveness in research/creative activity in the context of the discipline; the standards must be consistent with the broad definitions provided on the VPFAA website: https://bfc.indiana.edu/doc/guidelines/PrinciplesPoliciesTenurePromotion.pdf
Department guidelines should address the relative weight and importance of the following in evaluating research/creative activity:
1. Books, articles, book chapters, and other creative work;
2. The role of quantity versus quality in publications or creative activity, mindful of the campus-level expectation that quality is considered more important than quantity alone;
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)
The department guidelines must state that, in order for book manuscripts to be considered published research, they must be accepted by a publisher, and irreversibly “in production.” Book manuscripts are considered “in production” when all creative and scholarly work has been completed by the author. Similarly, articles and book chapters must either be “in press” or “forthcoming” in order to be considered published research. “Forthcoming” means that an article or book chapter has been accepted for publication and requires no further creative or scholarly revisions. A letter to this effect from a journal editor or editor of a volume for each “forthcoming” publication is recommended. Department guidelines must state that books that are “in production” and articles/chapters that are “in press” or “forthcoming” at the time the dossier is considered by the external referees will be given greater weight in the decision than material under review or merely under contract.
Candidates are expected to establish independent lines of research/creative activity. For that reason, it is vital to establish the autonomous role played by the candidate in collaborative publications and grant proposals. Candidates must describe their roles in the research statement. Letters from collaborators describing the contributions of the candidate to co-authored work are expected in the dossier.
C. Teaching
Department guidelines must explicitly state that excellence in teaching is required for a promotion case where teaching is the basis. The department guidelines must also specify that teaching must always rise to the level of minimum effectiveness for tenure and/or promotion when teaching is not the basis. Please review the College “Policy on the Evaluation of Pedagogical Practices” revised and adopted in 2006:
https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/cpc-committee/college-policies/policies/tenure-and-promotion/evaluation-pedagogy.html
It is essential that the department guidelines specify what excellence or minimum effectiveness means in teaching in the context of the particular department; the standards must be consistent with the broad definitions provided on the VPFAA website: https://bfc.indiana.edu/doc/guidelines/PrinciplesPoliciesTenurePromotion.pdf
The guidelines should address the relative contribution and importance of the following:
1. Numerical student course evaluations;
2. Student written evaluations;
3. Peer evaluations. VPFAA Promotion and tenure guidelines state that peer reviews of teaching should be ongoing (annually for pre-tenure faculty and periodically for tenured faculty). In the case of promotion to full professor, the general expectation in the College is that a peer evaluation will be conducted at least every other year.
4. Graduate student supervision and committee work;
5. Undergraduate supervision;
6. Post-doc supervision;
7. Teaching awards;
8. Teaching publications;
9. Curricular/pedagogical development;
10. Awards received by students.
D. Service/Engagement
Department guidelines must explicitly state that excellence in service/engagement is required for a tenure or promotion case where service is the basis and that service plays an important role in the promotion process when research/creative activity or 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 Professor.
Candidates seeking tenure and/or promotion on the basis of Excellence in Service/Engagement must provide evidence for national/international visibility and stature resulting from service activities (even abundant local committee work is insufficient). 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 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. undefinedundefined