Promotion&Tenure

In 1999, the Faculty Senate, Provost, and President approved a new Promotion and Tenure policy, which substantially changed previous policy and protocol. Fully described in Chapter Five of the Faculty Handbook, the policy is built on the following key components:

• Definition of Scholarship– This is the lynchpin of the policy. Broadly conceived,the policy defines scholarship as “creative, systematic, rational inquiry,” its applications and products. It invites interdisciplinary and collaborative work, and can occur in three of the four areas of faculty responsibility (see below).

• Four Areas of Responsibility– Faculty work is divided into four areas of responsibility, although each faculty member does not necessarily have responsibilities in all four. Work in the first three categories can qualify as scholarship:

- Teaching– The definition of teaching was substantially expanded from prior policies. Particular expressions of effective teaching vary widely, and teachers may demonstrate their pedagogical skills in a variety of ways.

- Research and Creative Activity– This is a key area of responsibility on a research campus like Iowa State.

- Extension and Professional Practice– This responsibility is rooted in our land−grant mission and accordingly involves all faculty, even those without extension appointments.

- Institutional Service–Faculty members are expected to play a vital role in the functioning of the university at all levels by participating effectively in faculty governance and in the formulation of department, college, and/or university policies; or by carrying out administrative responsibilities.

• Position Responsibility Statement– The Position Responsibility Statement, which is the key to this flexible definition of faculty work, is a set of responsibilities agreed upon by both the individual faculty member and his/her department chair.

• Criteria for Promotion/Tenure–The criteria for promotion and tenure translate the definition of scholarship and the four areas of responsibility into a set of standards that can be used to evaluate faculty work.

• The key criterion is that the faculty member demonstrates excellence (associate professor) or national distinction (professor) in scholarship.

- S/he must be “effective” in all areas of responsibility.

- S/he must demonstrate a satisfactory level of institutional service (to achieve associate professor status) or significant level of it (for full professor status).

- S/he must demonstrate the ability to sustain all such contributions.

• Documentation–A new system was developed to document the way that faculty members perform in their areas of responsibility. The required faculty portfolio is not unlike the portfolios being developed on other U.S. campuses; a key distinction of our portfolio system is that it covers all areas of responsibility.

The policy includes specifications for transitioning to this new set of processes and standards, and each year, an increasing number faculty has been reviewed under the terms of the new document. All faculty under review for promotion to full professor have been required to use the new document since Fall 2003. Technically, a few tenure−eligible faculty could still use the older standards; however, since Fall 2002, only two have chosen this option. Major efforts (described below) have been made to facilitate the transition to this new document.

• The Provost has met annually with department chairs and deans to review issues relative to the previous year's review. The Provost has provided a “best practice” document during each meeting. In Spring 2003, the Provost met individually with each college to discuss key issues in the use of the document.

• First−year faculty annually have been invited to attend a series of two meetings on the P&T process, including a question−and−answer session with the Provost and a workshop on preparing materials.

• Three colleges have joined together to hold annual workshops for faculty preparing for review.

• The Faculty Senate coordinated an initial "best practices" document, which is published on the Provost web site.

• In 2002−2003, the Faculty Senate commissioned a taskforce to review the teaching component of the P&T process; the Provost's Office coordinated a survey of administrative reviewers on the evaluation of teaching in the P&T process.

• In Spring 2004, the Faculty Senate convened a taskforce to review the document and its operations to date. A few changes in the policy may result.

• In Spring 2003, the Senate hosted a conference on related issues, “Striking a Balance: Rewarding Different Types of Scholarship at a Modern Land Grant University.”

• The Provost Office hosted the visit of Barbara Cambridge and Pat Hutchings of AAHE/Carnegie Foundation in Spring 2004 to discuss the ways in which the scholarship of teaching and learning is being promoted through the new document.

• The university passed an expanded policy on extensions of the tenure clock for tenure-eligible faculty.

Use of the new document has encouraged members of the campus community to review the definition of faculty work and to revisit previous assumptions about commendable performance. In this dynamic process, the following continue to be important:

• The faculty member plays a key role in the preparation of faculty portfolio for his/her review. This change, while consistent with national practices in portfolio use, is a major change from previous practice, when others largely prepared materials. The Provost's Office put a 25−page cap on the length of the portfolio in Fall 2003, after some dossiers exceeded 100 pages (the length of the CV is not limited).

• External letters continue to play a key role in the process, although our unique document means that we have a responsibility to educate reviewers to our criteria. We have continued to refine this process with a log of requests for outside letters and with a four-page summary of the policy that goes out to external reviewers.

• Since the definition of faculty work is potentially quite flexible, some faculty have assumed that they can ignore department needs and administrative advice to pursue their academic work. To address this misconception, we are continuing to refine the use of the Position Responsibility Statement in evaluation.

• Scholarship is NOT the same as research, and some have not fully understood the broad definition of scholarship yet. Similarly, some have not understood that professional practice is not institutional service.

• Discussion continues on the distinction between scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching. The university is active in the AAHE cluster group of research universities working on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

The university has a strong, forward−looking P&T document and is continually reviewing its current policy to ensure it is as transparent and fair as possible. It remains the keystone for the evaluation of faculty achievement.

Please see the following Office of the Provost web site for additional information about Promotion and Tenure: http://www.provost.iastate.edu/faculty/advancement/promotion.html