For any questions please send e-mail to: NDSU.Policy.Manual@ndsu.edu

SECTION 352: PROMOTION, TENURE, and EVALUATION

SOURCE: NDSU President & NDSU University Senate

1. INTRODUCTION

   1.1

   The promoting of faculty and awarding of tenure, and the prerequisite processes of evaluation and review, are of fundamental importance to the long-term ability of the University to carry out its mission. Promotion recognizes the quality of a faculty member's scholarship and contributions in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Promotion acknowledges that the faculty member's contribution to the university is of increasing value. Tenure assures academic freedom and enhances economic security for faculty members who show promise of sustained contributions in those three areas. Tenure aims to both recognize a candidate's potential long-term value to the institution as evidenced by professional performance and growth and to provide the expectation of continued employment. The decision to award tenure rests on criteria that reflect the potential long-term contribution of the faculty member to the purposes, priorities, and resources of the institution, unit, and program. Due to the emphasis on institutional purposes and priorities, tenure recommendations should be reviewed at department, college, and university levels.

   1.2

   From the University's mission flows the expectation that each faculty member will make contributions of high quality to the areas of teaching, research, and service. "Teaching" includes all forms of instruction both on- and off-campus. "Research" includes basic and applied research and other creative activities. "Service" includes public service, service to the University, college, and department, and service to the profession. Because of the University's mission, the quality and quantity of contributions in all three areas will be considered at the times of promotion and tenure. But, because of variations among faculty in strengths and/or responsibilities, faculty members are not expected to exhibit equal levels of accomplishment in all areas. Moreover, disciplines will vary with respect to the kinds of evidence produced in support of quality of contributions.

   1.3

   The policies and standards of each college should be congruent with the University's mission and its policies on promotion and tenure, and also should reflect the college's unique expectations of its faculty members. The policies and standards of academic units within each college should be consistent with the missions of the University and college and their policies on promotion and tenure, and also should designate evidence of how faculty in the academic unit meet the expectations of the college and University.

2. UNIVERSITY PROMOTION, TENURE, POST-TENURE, AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

   2.1

   Promotion and granting tenure are not automatic and no formulas apply. In addition to contributions in the areas of teaching, research, and service, consideration may be given to professional background, experience, and time in rank.

   2.2

   In the areas of teaching, research, and service (as defined above), the following criteria will serve as general standards for evaluation of contributions by a candidate for promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review.

   2.2.1

   A candidate demonstrates quality of teaching (encompassing both instruction and advising) by providing evidence of the following:

   2.2.1.1

   the effective delivery of instruction to and the stimulation of learning by students and/or clients;

   2.2.1.2

   the continuous improvement of courses or instructional programs;

   2.2.1.3

   the effective advising and mentoring of undergraduate and/or graduate students.

   2.2.2

   A candidate demonstrates quality of research by providing evidence of

   2.2.2.2

   furthering of or original contributions to knowledge, either by discovery or application, resulting from the candidate's research, and/or

   2.2.2.3

   creative activities and productions that are related to the candidate's discipline.

   2.2.3

   A candidate demonstrates quality of service by providing evidence of

   2.2.3.1

   contributions to the welfare of the department, college, university, or profession, and/or

   2.2.3.2

   contributions to the public that make use of the faculty member's academic or professional expertise.

   2.3

   The evaluation of a candidates performance shall be based on the individual's assigned responsibilities in teaching, research, and service, on- or off-campus, in regional, national, or international areas. Judgments will be based on evidence of both the quality and significance of the candidate's work. In evaluating the candidate's performance, evidence and information from multiple sources shall be considered such as:

   2.3.1

   the receipt of awards or special recognition including certification or licensing, whether for teaching, research, professional activity, or service;

   2.3.2

   presentation of scholarly or professional papers, and publication of books or articles;

   2.3.3

   juried or invited presentations of shows, music or fine art;

   2.3.4

   the development and public release of new products, research techniques, copyrights, and patents or other intellectual property;

   2.3.5

   peer, student, and client evaluation of course materials, of expertise and ability to communicate knowledge, and of respect for students and receptivity to their questions and concerns in all instructional settings;

   2.3.6

   peer evaluation of course content and design, of teaching methods, and of an individual's contribution to the improvement of instructional programs through the development and/or implementation of new courses, curricula or innovative teaching methods;

   
   

   2.3.7

   peer evaluation of the development or implementation of innovative courseware tools that support technology-enhanced learning;
   
   

   2.3.8

   evaluation by advisees of the quality of graduate and undergraduate advising.
   
   

   2.3.9

   peer evaluation of research by colleagues from an individual's discipline or area of expertise;

   2.3.10

   evaluation of an individual's service contributions by peers, administrators, and constituents;

   2.3.11

   active participation in and leadership of societies which have as their primary objective the furtherance of scholarly or professional interests or achievements;

   2.3.12

   active participation and leadership in University governance and programs at the department, college, university, and system levels;

   2.3.13

   effective management or improvement of administrative procedures or programs.

   2.4

   The foregoing list is not exhaustive, and other forms of information and evidence might be produced in support of the quality and significance of the candidate's work. The mission statements and specific promotion and tenure criteria of the individual academic units are important in defining the appropriate forms of evidence in the context of the candidate's discipline and distribution of responsibilities.

3. COLLEGE AND DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION, TENURE, POST-TENURE, AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

   3.1.

   Each academic unit is responsible for refining the University promotion, tenure, post-tenure, and evaluation criteria and applying those criteria within the special context of the unit. Thus, each academic unit will develop specific promotion, tenure, post-tenure, and evaluation criteria and designate the types of evidence to be used for evaluation of progress toward tenure, for renewal, promotion, and tenure decisions, and for post-tenure review. Within the framework of the University's promotion and tenure criteria, each academic unit shall specify the relative emphasis on teaching, research, and service, and the extent to which a faculty member's assigned responsibilities can be allocated among teaching, research, and service.

   3.2

   A statement of promotion, tenure, post-tenure, and evaluation criteria specific to each college shall be developed by the Promotion, Tenure, and Evaluation (PTE) committee of the college in consultation with the Dean and approved by the faculty of the college. The faculty of each department shall also develop a statement of criteria for promotion, tenure, post-tenure, and evaluation that shall be reviewed and approved by the college PTE committee and the Dean to assure consistency with the college promotion, tenure, post-tenure, and evaluation criteria. The college and departmental statements, and any subsequent changes, shall be reviewed and approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs to assure consistency with University and State Board of Higher Education (SBHE) policies.

   3.3

   The basis for review of the candidate's dossier and any recommendations on promotion and/or tenure shall be the promotion and tenure criteria of the academic unit which are in effect at the time of the promotion and/or tenure decision.

   3.4

   Ordinarily, to be eligible for tenure, a faculty member must complete a probationary period of six years of continuous academic service to the institution and meet the criteria for tenure. However, in exceptional circumstances, a faculty member who satisfies the criteria for early tenure may be granted tenure prior to the completion of the probationary period. Each academic unit will establish the criteria for such early tenure as part of its statement on promotion, tenure, post-tenure review, and evaluation.

4. PERIODIC REVIEW

   4.1

   Periodic reviews of faculty serve multiple functions. The reviews assist faculty members in assessing their professional performance, assist the administration with delineating areas to which particular effort should be directed to aid in improving the professional achievement of the faculty members, and contribute to the cumulative base upon which decisions about renewal, promotion, and tenure are made. In addition, periodic reviews may result in changes in responsibilities, modified expectations, and/or altered goals for performance.

   4.2

   The procedures for periodic review that are developed by each academic unit shall be reviewed and approved by the college PTE committee and the Dean.

   4.3

   All full-time faculty will be reviewed annually. Unless college or department procedures provide otherwise, annual reviews of non-tenured faculty shall be conducted prior to February 1 (see deadlines for non-renewal, SBHE Policy 350.3). For tenured faculty, the annual review shall be conducted prior to April 1 of the academic year in which the review is to be conducted. Formal mid-probationary reviews are to be optional within each unit. When requested by any party to the tenure process, formal feedback shall be provided to the individual by the department chair, dean, college committee, and the academic vice president.

   4.4

   Unless college or department procedures provide otherwise, the department chair or head of the academic unit will be responsible for the conduct of the review and the communication of its results. Periodic reviews shall result in a written report to the faculty member being reviewed. The report shall state expectations and goals for the coming review period. For probationary faculty, the report shall include an assessment of the faculty member's progress toward tenure and recommendations for improvement. Should the periodic reviews indicate that a faculty member is not making satisfactory progress toward tenure, the report may include a recommendation for nonrenewal. In making a judgment on satisfactory progress toward tenure, due consideration shall be given to the candidate's academic record, performance of assigned responsibilities, and potential to meet the criteria for promotion and tenure at the end of the probationary period. Should periodic reviews indicate that a faculty member's progress toward tenure has been detrimentally affected by exceptional circumstances beyond the faculty member's control, other than exceptional personal or family circumstances governed by Policy 350.1, the report may include a recommendation for an extension of the six-year probationary period or a waiver of the continuous service requirement. The recommendation will be governed by the procedures set forth in Policy 350.1 for an extension or waiver request based on personal or family circumstances.

   4.5

   For tenured faculty, the report shall include an evaluation of the faculty member's performance, including progress toward promotion when appropriate, and any recommendations for improvement. Should the annual reviews indicate that performance of a faculty member is unsatisfactory under the standards for post-tenure review, the report shall include a recommendation for appropriate remedial action.

   4.6

   The faculty member being reviewed shall have 14 days to respond in writing to the written report if the faculty member wishes to do so. The written report, and any written response from the faculty member, shall become part of the faculty member's official personnel file.

5. COMPOSITION OF PTE COMMITTEES

   5.1.

   The PTE committee should be as reflective as possible of the college's breadth of disciplines and fields of expertise. Each college will have a PTE Committee consisting of at least three faculty members elected by the faculty of the college. Ordinarily, at least three departments or sub-units of a college will be represented on the committee, and usually no more than one member of the same department may serve on the committee at one time.

   5.2

   Only tenured faculty members who have completed three years of full-time appointment with the University and who have attained the rank of associate professor or above are eligible for election to a college or department PTE Committee. Faculty members being considered for promotion may not serve while under consideration.

   5.3

   The PTE committee is part of a process of peer review. Thus, faculty holding administrative appointments are not eligible. ("Administrative appointment" includes appointments as President, Vice President, Dean, Associate or Assistant Dean, or Department Chair or head of an academic unit.)

6. PTE PROCEDURES

   6.1

   The candidate's dossier will be submitted to the department chair or head of the academic unit for review at the departmental level using procedures developed by the department. The chair or head will forward the dossier together with the department's recommendations, and an explanation of the basis for them, to the College Dean and the college's PTE Committee no later than November 1.

   6.2

   The candidate shall ensure that the dossier is complete, current, accurate, and ready for review no later than November 1. Materials added to the dossier after that date will be limited to recommendations made pursuant to this policy and to any response made to the recommendations by the candidate. Recommendations and any other materials collected as part of the evaluation process at the department, college, and university levels must be added to the candidate's dossier before being sent forward to the next level of review. At the time that any written materials are added to the candidate's dossier, copies of the added material must be sent to the candidate for review. The candidate shall have 14 calendar days to respond in writing to the additional materials. Any response from the candidate to such materials must be in writing and included in the dossier for review at the next level.

   6.3

   The college PTE Committee and the college Dean will independently review and evaluate the candidate's dossier. The PTE Committee will prepare a written report, including recommendations and an explanation of the basis for them, that will be included in the candidate's dossier. The report and recommendations shall be submitted to the Vice President for Academic Affairs by January 15. A copy shall be sent to the Dean, the chair or head of the academic unit, and the candidate.

   6.4

   The College Dean will prepare a separate written report, including recommendations and an explanation of the basis for them, that will be included in the candidate's dossier. The Dean will forward the report and recommendations, and the dossier of the candidate, to the Vice President for Academic Affairs by January 15. A copy of the Dean's report shall be sent to the PTE committee, the chair or head of the academic unit, and the candidate.

   6.5.

   The Vice President for Academic Affairs shall review the candidate's materials and the recommendations of the department, college PTE Committee, and College Dean. The Vice President shall make a recommendation in writing, including an explanation of the basis for it, by March 31, to the President who shall then either make the final recommendation to the SBHE for tenure and/or promotion or shall notify the candidate of nonrenewal or nonselection for promotion. Copies of the Vice President's written recommendation shall be sent to the candidate, the department chair, the College Dean, and the college PTE Committee.

   6.6

   In the case of faculty holding joint appointments the PTE Committees of each college concerned shall review and recommend only for those activities and responsibilities of the candidate which are defined within their college. Prior to the PTE review, the deans of the respective colleges will consult and determine, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, which PTE Committee shall have primary responsibility for the review.

   6.7

   Evaluations for promotion to Associate Professor and granting of tenure will ordinarily be conducted concurrently.

7. APPEALS

   7.1.

   Appeals of periodic reviews are made by requesting a reconsideration by the evaluating party. If not satisfied, the faculty member may initiate the grievance process pursuant to Section 353.

   7.2.

   Appeals of nonrenewal and nonpromotion decisions shall be pursuant to Policy 350.3.

HISTORY: May 13, 1974; Amended February 10, 1975; December 12, 1988; May 14, 1990,; April 1992; December 12, 1994 (Effective date July 1, 1995); June 1997; November 2000, October 2001.