3. The Tenure/Promotion Review Process

3. The Tenure/Promotion Review Process

There are two evaluation processes that ‘tenure track’ faculty undergo during their careers at the University of Massachusetts. The first is tenure. Tenure as defined in Appendix II is “the right of a faculty member to continuous employment in an academic position until retirement age, subject to dismissal or suspension only as established in Trustee policy.” Tenure decision year as defined in Appendix II is “the academic year during which a faculty member is considered for an appointment with tenure.” The second process, promotion, may be linked with the tenure process. Promotion involves moving from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and from Associate Professor to Full Professor. In most cases, the tenure process is linked to promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor.

The tenure and promotion (Assistant to Associate Professor) and promotion (Associate to Full Professor) processes are outlined in detail in the "Academic Personnel Policy of the University of Massachusetts" (see Appendix II) commonly referred to as the “Red Book”. In short, the process is a multi-stage evaluation in order by the: 1) Department Personnel Committee(DPC); 2) Department Chair; 3) School Personnel Committee(SPC); 4) Dean; 5) Provost; 6) Chancellor; 7) Board of Trustees; and the President of the University.(In cases of promotion only, the Provost has the authority to make the final decision, and the case does not advance to the Board or President.)Each level is advisory to the next leveluntil the final decision is reached. Faculty should be familiar with this process and are encouraged to ask questions to Chairsand the Dean for clarification. Ultimately, the President has the authority to appoint members of the faculty to tenure/promotion or promotion to Distinguished Professor or to a named professorship with the concurrence of the Board of Trustees.

The promotion/tenure evaluation is initiated by the Department Chair who informs the faculty members of their tenure decision year. The Chair then asks the faculty members to nominate several external reviewers who will evaluate their progress. The Chair will also nominate several external reviewers. Generally, the Chair will finalize a list of external reviewers from those nominated by the faculty member and the DPC. The Chair will then request evaluation letters from these external reviewers. There is a school timeline for the review process that is distributed to departments annually. The Provost’s Office provides a master calendar which can be found here: https://www.umass.edu/provost/resources/all-resources/academic-personnel/reappointment-promotion-and-tenure

Documentation of Faculty Progress

Faculty considered for promotion and tenure will prepare documentation of their efforts in the form of a dossier referred to as the Basic File, which will be uploaded for review to APWS. The Basic File includes the following major categories of performance:

  1. The Curriculum Vitae;
  2. Personal Statement Regarding Research, Teaching and Service;
  3. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning;
  4. The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments;
  5. Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and the Profession.

Departmental Personnel Committee

Each department forms a Department Personnel Committee (DPC) that is advisory to the Provost on personnel issues such as promotion and tenure. The DPC is formed in different ways either as a committee of selected faculty members or as a committee of the whole, according to the bylaws of the department. When constituted, the DPC elects a Chair of the committee. The DPC oversees most personnel actions in the department and advises the Department Chair on Personnel Issues. Guidance on which faculty are permitted to vote on this committee is described in each department’s bylaws. Charges of the committee are:

  1. To independently review teaching, research, creative accomplishments, scholarship and service relative to a faculty member's appointment;
  2. To act in an advisory role to the Provost and the faculty on issues related to the tenure and promotion processes.

The primary role of the committee is to provide the initial evaluation for promotion and tenure using criteria appropriate to the faculty member's responsibilities. It should be emphasized that the committee must conduct its activities consistent with the requirements of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and in a manner that guarantees an individual's right to privacy.

The faculty member under review will receive a copy of the evaluation letter prepared by the DPC and may respond to the evaluation by writing a letter that then becomes part of the Basic File.

School Personnel Committee

The School Personnel Committee (SPC) functions as described in the Board of Trustees document and the collective bargaining contract. It operates according to personnel policies as identified by and in accord with University equal opportunity regulations(see Article IX of the School By-Laws, Appendix I). The School Personnel Committee is formed by one representative of each department of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, Communications Disorders, Health Promotion & Policy, Environmental Health Sciences, Kinesiology and Nutrition for a total of six members. On the initial meeting of the academic year, the SPC elects a Chair who organizes meetings regarding personnel issues for the School. The promotion file including letters from the DPC and Department Chair are reviewed and a recommendation is forwarded to the Dean. The charge of this committee is similar to that of the DPC:

  1. To independently review teaching, research, creative accomplishments, scholarship and service relative to a faculty member's appointment;
  2. To act in an advisory role to the Provost on issues related to the tenure and promotion processes.

The primary role of the committee is the same as that of the DPC. The faculty member under review will receive a copy of the evaluation letter prepared by the SPC and may respond to the evaluation by writing a letter that then becomes part of the Basic File.

Criteria Evaluated in the Faculty Review Process

The following information outlines the kinds of activity accomplishments deemed important in the promotion/tenure or promotion to Full Professor review process. Each department has provided a culture document that describes some of these accomplishments more specifically for its discipline. The kinds of activity are not completely different between the two review processes although the promotion to Full Professor offers higher standards in these activities. The list is not complete and questions concerning additional activities to be included should be directed to the Department Chair or designated senior faculty assigned to assist the candidate. The evaluations shall be applied in light of the differences in mission and work assignments at their particular location.

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

  • A variety of evaluation data, both formative and summative, from a variety of sources that reflect teaching performance based on class observations and involvement in classes.
  • An individual's involvement in activities that are focused toward improvement of his/her teaching.
  • All courses taught during the academic year by semester and enrollments.
  • Advising undergraduate and graduate students.
  • Performance of students in subsequent courses, tangible results and benefits derived by clientele.
  • Any other pertinent information you feel should be included regarding teaching ability and effectiveness.
  • Supervision of graduate and undergraduate dissertations, theses, projects. Type of degrees and years granted.
  • Membership on graduate degree candidates’ committees.

The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments

  • Publications – List in standardized bibliographic form. The contribution of the candidate should be clearly indicated.
  1. Articles published in refereed journals
  2. Books or part(s) of books
  3. Articles published in non-refereed journals
  4. Articles published in in-house documents
  5. Research reports to sponsors
  6. Papers accepted for publication (include page numbers)
  7. Manuscripts in progress(in a separate list)
  • Funded research projects, grants, contracts
  1. Date, title, agency
  2. Completed or in progress
  3. Funded amount
  4. Percent effort supported by grant/contract and role (e.g., PI, co-investigator)
  • Patents
  • Creative accomplishments (dance compositions, instructional films, stage performances, etc.)
  • Academic studies and advanced degrees (List all programs completed or participated in which enhance teaching/coaching and therapeutic intervention abilities.)
  • Participation in seminars and workshops (Include sponsor and short description of activity.)
  • Activities related to Community Participatory Research with products that demonstrate impact at the community level or beyond.
  • Papers presented at professional and technical meetings (Include meeting, paper titles, date, and invited or personally submitted.)
  • Speaking engagements, consulting activities, services to governmental, professional, and industrial associations, educational institutions, etc.
  • Honors and awards of scholarship or professional activity
  • Membership and active participation in professional and learned societies(include offices held, committee work and other responsibilities.)
  • Editorial responsibilities or review of books or articles

Teaching Innovations

  • Course revisions (including curriculum integration, writing intensive, etc.)
  • Extension education courses developed or conducted
  • Textbooks or manuals authored
  • Any other pertinent information regarding research, creative accomplishment, and scholarship
  • Description of new methods of teaching established courses
  • New courses developed

Service and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and the Profession

  • Service to the University
  1. Record of committee work at campus, college, department and University levels
  2. Participation in University or Campus governance bodies and related activities
  3. Administrative support work (College, Department, or Program representative)
  4. Record of contributions to the University's programs to enhance equal opportunity and cultural diversity
  • Outreach Services as a representative of the University
  1. Participation in community affairs as a representative of the University
  2. Service to governmental agencies--local, state, or federal
  3. Service to business and industry
  4. Service to public or private organizations (including community engagement that has been impactful)
  • Service to the Profession
  1. Active participation in professional and learned societies (e.g., offices held, committee work, and other responsibilities).
  2. Any other pertinent information you feel should be included regarding service to the profession.

Criteria for Advancement in Promotion and Tenure

The Department and School have a wide range of knowledge sub-domains and disciplinary approaches to the study of Public Health and Health Sciences. The criteria for advancement in promotion and tenure will be consistent with the general university guidelines (see Appendix III), the individual contract expectations in regard to workload contributions in teaching, research and service, and the norms established for each knowledge subdomain at a major research institution. Those norms strongly influence faculty evaluating their colleagues for promotion and tenure, but no specific criteria may be codified without being negotiated with the faculty union. Faculty who expect to advance in tenure and rank must demonstrate commendable levels of performance in all components of his/her positioning the three major categories of:

  1. Teaching ability and effectiveness;
  2. Research, creative accomplishments and scholarship;
  3. Service to the University, society, and the profession.

Teaching ability and effectiveness will be judged in relation to direct and indirect teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Direct teaching involves responsibility for particular courses within the department academic programs whereas indirect teaching involves advising and mentoring of students. Commendable levels of performance in direct teaching will include the demonstration of being an effective teacher as judged by studentevaluation. Effectiveness in teaching is judged by the performance level and the positive change in performance level achieved by students in the class setting. Additional norms include effectiveness of communication, appropriateness of techniques used for communication, and the cutting-edge contemporary nature of the content of the course taught. Indirect teaching includes mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students in research labs and thesis/dissertation work. A student’s successful completion of their degree reflects positively on a faculty mentor.

The research, creative accomplishment and scholarship norms for advancement will vary with the chosen knowledge sub domain of the faculty person. Research norms will be employed with faculty emphasizing a science or humanities focus. It is expected that faculty will develop, and demonstrate within the level of the respective track, a systematic cutting-edge line of research, creative accomplishment, and/or scholarship.

Service and outreach contributions will be evaluated based upon activities within and outside of the university. In-house service will normally be reflected in committee work at the department, college, and university levels. Service is judged on the effective contribution to administrative and procedural functions of the institution. Service outside the university will normally involve consulting to government, industry, and state and local agencies that relate to the individual’s chosen line of research, scholarship, or creative accomplishment. Contributions here are evaluated in relation to the significance of the advising and the degree of sustained consultation.

From Section 4.6 of the “Red Book” (see Appendix I):

Recommendations for promotion shall be based on qualifications and contributions in the areas of teaching; of research, creative, or professional activity; and of service; and on the following considerations:

a) For appointment to Assistant Professor, the faculty member must possess the appropriate terminal degree, or equivalent professional experience, and have a record of achievement in the field of academic specialization. In addition, the candidate must show promise of continuing professional development and achievement.

b) For promotion to Associate Professor, the faculty member must have a record of achievement sufficient to have gained recognition on and off campus among scholars or professionals in his or her field; and must show promise of continuing professional development and achievement.

c) For promotion to Professor, the faculty member must have a record of achievement sufficient to have gained substantial recognition on and off campus from scholars or professionals in his or her field; and must show significant potential for continuing professional achievement.

From Section 4.9 of the “Red Book” (see Appendix I):

The award of tenure can be made only by the President with the concurrence of the Board of Trustees. Consideration of a candidate for tenure shall be based on the following:

a) Convincing evidence of excellence in at least two, and strength in the third, of the areas of teaching; of research, creative or professional activity; and of service, such as to demonstrate the possession of qualities appropriate to a member of the faculty occupying a permanent position.

b) Reasonable assurance of continuing development and achievement leading to further contributions to the University.

The Chair’s Responsibilities in the Tenure Process

In the evaluation process, the Department Chair’s responsibilities include evaluating the dossier of the faculty member seeking promotion or tenure and promotion. The Chair considers the recommendation of the DPC in writing an evaluation letter that is submitted for review by the School Personnel Committee. The faculty member under review will receive a copy of the evaluation letter prepared by the Chair and may respond to the evaluation by writing a letter that then becomes part of their Basic File.

The Dean’s Responsibilities in the Tenure Process

The role of the Dean in the evaluation process includes an independent evaluation of the dossier of the faculty member seeking promotion or tenure and promotion, including the evaluation of the Department Chair/Head and the evaluation of the SPC. The Dean considers the recommendation of the Chair/Head, the DPC and the SPC in writing an evaluation letter that is forwarded with the dossier to the Provost’s office for consideration. The faculty member under review will receive a copy of the evaluation letter prepared by the Dean and may respond to the evaluation by writing a letter that then becomes part of the Basic File.

The Provost’s Responsibilities in the Tenure Process

Once the Basic File has undergone reviews by the DPC, Chair, SPC and the Dean, it is then forwarded to the Provost’s Office for review. The Provost considers all previous reviews during evaluation of the Basic File. In tenure cases, the Provost writes a letter to the Board of Trustees recommending tenure; if the Provost does not recommend tenure, the case does not advance to the Board. In promotion cases not involving tenure (except promotion to Distinguished Professor or to a named professorship), the Provost writes a letter to the candidate to inform him or her of the final decision.

The Role of the President and the Board of Trustees

The Board of Trustees has the statutory authority to make decisions in matters of faculty status and may delegate that authority only to appropriate administrative officials (Mass. G.L. c.75 §3A). The President has been delegated the authority to appoint members of the faculty to tenure with the concurrence of the Board of Trustees. Within the framework of Trustee policy, the chancellors have been delegated the authority to make decisions in all matters of faculty status. Any re-delegation of appointing authority to the Provost or other academic administrative officials is subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees.

pfreeman

Actions