Indiana University School of Dentistry
Promotion & Tenure Guidelines
I. UNIVERSITY POLICIES
Evaluation of faculty for promotion and tenure at the Indiana University
School of Dentistry will follow the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Guidelines
(http://www.academicaffairs.iupui.edu/appd/faculty_appts.htm). They are
consistent with the mission of the Indiana University School of Dentistry.
II. THE FACULTY
Faculty ranks and titles are described under Faculty Appointments. They
include tenured, tenure-track, clinical, research, visiting, and adjunct faculty.
III. PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCEDURES
A. FACULTY GUIDANCE
Each faculty member has a department Chair whose responsibilities include
guiding the faculty member through career development, promotion, and
tenure. A copy of this document is provided upon initial appointment, and an
Individual Faculty Career Plan is developed and continually reviewed. An
evaluation of teaching, research, and service including progress towards
promotion and tenure is made each year by the department Chair. The Unit
Promotion and Tenure Committee also reviews each probationary faculty
member’s progress toward tenure and promotion after three years at the
school. In the Spring of the fifth year (or other year when the dossier for
promotion or tenure must be completed), the faculty member meets with the
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, the chair of the school’s Promotion and
Tenure Committee and the department Chair to again receive counseling on
the promotion and tenure process and guidance for development of the
2. Individual Faculty Career Plan
The Chair of each department will discuss and establish with each faculty
member within that department a written Individual Faculty Career Plan.
This plan should be designed to be dynamic and is to be reviewed at least
annually. It should be based upon the assumption that the faculty member will
be remaining on our faculty until retirement or specifically state otherwise.
The plan must take into account the missions of the school and department,
the place of the faculty member in the context of accomplishment of these
missions and his or her individual goals. Of necessity, the plan will be more
specific for the immediate upcoming years and more general for those more
distant. From a comparison of the plan with the strengths and needs of the
faculty member, faculty development needs should become clear and should
evolve constantly. These needs should be prioritized and progress in satisfying
them should be evaluated as part of the Faculty Annual Review process. The
Individual Faculty Career Plan should be included in at least the first Faculty
Annual Summary Report and periodic modifications reported in subsequent
reports. Progress on the plan and pursuit of faculty development opportunities
to achieve it will also be evaluated as part of the appropriate portions
(Teaching, Research, or Service) of the Faculty Annual Review.
Development of the Individual Faculty Career Plan should accomplish the
- ensure clear and documented communication between the Chair and
faculty member as to individual, department, and school goals as well
as mutual short and long range expectations;
- in conjunction with other established faculty review policies and
procedures, maintain a clear career direction to maximize success in
tenure, promotion, productivity, and fulfillment;
- assist the Chair and school administration in prioritization and
fulfillment of faculty development.
3. Annual Review by Department Chair
The Department Chair will annually review ALL faculty members in the
department. This review will involve an evaluation of progress toward
promotion and tenure (if appropriate) based upon information provided by the
faculty member in the Faculty Annual Summary Report (see the IUSD
Intranet at https://plato.iusd.iupui.edu), the Individual Faculty Career Plan,
and any supplemental material deemed important by the faculty member. The
review includes a meeting with Department Chair plus one other faculty
person (optional) chosen by the person being reviewed to:
- discuss the faculty member’s concerns, goals, and suggestions
regarding his or her own faculty appointment and responsibilities;
- confirm the faculty member’s understanding of the criteria for
promotion to the next academic rank;
- provide the faculty member with a realistic plan for promotion.
The Department Chair completes the Faculty Annual Review form (See
Appendix B) which describes the evaluation of teaching, research, and
service; indicates the progress made toward promotion and/or tenure; and
includes a recommendation for or against reappointment. For tenured faculty
the Chair makes a recommendation for satisfactory or unsatisfactory
performance. The post-tenure review and enhancement policy and procedures
are described in a following section. The completed annual review form is
signed by Department Chair and forwarded to the school’s Dean for
Academic Affairs who will transmit it to the Dean of the school for
evaluation. The Dean will add comments, sign the report and return it to the
faculty member for signature and optional comment.
4. “Mid-term” Review by the School’s Promotion and Tenure
After a probationary tenure track faculty member has been at the school for 3
years, the school’s Promotion and Tenure Committee will review progress
made toward promotion and tenure and make recommendations.
B. FACULTY ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT (FASR)
All full-time and part-time faculty in the Indiana University School of
Dentistry must complete a Faculty Annual Summary Report (see the IUSD
Intranet at https://plato.iusd.iupui.edu). As described above, this report is
part of the annual review procedure. The report covers the period of the
previous calendar year (January through December), and is to be completed
by February 1st. The completed report (along with a current CV) is sent to the
Department Chair with two copies sent to the Associate Dean for Academic
C. NOTIFICATION FOR PROMOTION OR TENURE
Faculty members may be nominated for promotion in rank by one or more of
their faculty colleagues, or they may nominate themselves. Nomination should
be made in writing to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs early in the
Spring semester. The nomination must state that the faculty member is a
candidate for promotion and must declare an area of excellence (teaching,
research, service, or balanced case). This nomination will initiate procedures
that are described below under part D.
A decision on tenure is to be made before the end of the sixth year of
academic employment. Commonly this occurs during the sixth year, but the
candidate may request consideration in an earlier year. At the appropriate
time, preferably early in the Spring semester of the 5th year, the faculty
member is to notify in writing the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs of the
candidacy. The letter of candidacy is to identify the area of excellence
(teaching, research, service, or balance case). This nomination will initiate
procedures that are described below under part D.
D. OVERALL PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING PROMOTION OR
These IUSD Promotion and Tenure Guidelines as well as the IUPUI
Promotion and Tenure Guidelines are used. A timetable for development of
the promotion and/or tenure dossier is listed below. After the Associate Dean
for Academic Affairs receives a letter of nomination for promotion or tenure
candidacy, the Office for Academic Affairs schedules a meeting between the
candidate and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and may also include
the Department Chair, and/or the Chair of the Unit Promotion and Tenure
Committee to discuss the candidacy, promotion and tenure process, and
development of the dossier. The candidate and Department Chair are to work
with the school’s Office of Academic Affairs for assistance with formatting
the dossier. The completed dossier, including all letters of evaluation, is to be
presented to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs for final format
evaluation in early August. The dossier is then provided to the departmental
Primary Committee for review and evaluation. The Primary Committee
should consist of 3 full-time tenured faculty holding the rank of full professor
( if possible). This committee will write a letter of evaluation, including a
recommendation for or against promotion and/or tenure, and append the letter
to the dossier. The Department Chair will then add a letter of evaluation, and
the dossier will be reviewed by the school’s Promotion and Tenure
Committee. This committee will insert its evaluation letter, and the dossier
will then be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs for a written
evaluation and recommendation from the Dean of the School. The completed
dossier with all letters of evaluation is sent by the school’s Office of
Academic Affairs to the IUPUI Office of the Dean of Faculties by early
November for evaluation by the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Committee.
This Committee makes a recommendation to the IUPUI Dean of the Faculties.
In consultation with the Dean of Faculties, the Chancellor of IUPUI makes a
recommendation to the President of Indiana University. The final
determination is made by the Indiana University Board of Trustees.
Candidates for promotion and/or tenure are notified of the final decision in
TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROMOTION AND/OR TENURE
(THESE DATE WILL BE SPECIFIED EACH YEAR)
Time Period Activity
January – March Dean of the school and the Associate Dean for
Academic Affairs discuss eligibility of potential
candidates with Department Chairs
March-May Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Chair of
school P/T Committee and the Department Chair
meet with candidates to develop plans
May IUPUI Promotion & Tenure Guidelines for the
current year are distributed
May-June Department Chairs send letters requesting external
evaluations; enclosures include the candidate’s
current curriculum vita, personal statement plus the
list of guidelines developed for reviewers/evaluators
July Department Chairs send follow-up letters to
external reviewers, if needed
Early August Prior to submitting dossier to Primary Committee,
candidates review organization of their dossier with
the Office of Academic Affairs to ensure that
IUPUI guidelines are followed
Mid August Candidate submits 3 copies of the completed
dossier to their Primary Committee for review
Late August Primary Committee completes review of dossier
and submits their report to the candidate’s
Mid-September Department Chair completes supporting letter and
forwards dossier to IUSD Office of Academic
Affairs who forwards it to the school P/T
Mid-October IUSD Promotion & Tenure Committee completes
review of dossier and submits their supporting letter
to IUSD Office of Academic Affairs
Early November The Dean of the School reviews dossiers and writes
Early November Completed dossiers delivered to the IUPUI Office
of the Dean of the Faculties for further review by
the IUPUI Promotion & Tenure Committee
IV. PROMOTION AND TENURE DOSSIERS
Guidelines for completing promotion and tenure dossiers for each coming
year are distributed to schools in the Spring semester by the IUPUI Office of
the Executive Vice Chancellor and Dean of the Faculties. These also contain
guidelines for preparation of the curriculum vitae, which is submitted with the
dossier. The same dossier format is used for both promotion and tenure.
Current guidelines are distributed to all faculty members at the time of their
―Mid-term‖ review and upon nomination for candidacy for promotion and/or
tenure. A copy of the current guidelines also can be obtained any time from
the office of the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the school.
The general contents of the dossier are:
- Routing sheet; completed checklist of dossier contents.
- Letters of evaluation/recommendation from the primary committee, the
department Chair, the school’s (unit) Promotion & Tenure Committee,
the Dean, and outside reviewers contacted by the department Chair. The
candidate’s curriculum vitae. Personal statement by the candidate
assessing his or her own accomplishments.
- Evaluation of teaching.
- Evaluation of research.
- Evaluation of service.
Documentation of accomplishments in teaching, research, and service for use
in the dossiers is described below under V. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION
V. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
Standards for Faculty Accomplishment
Recommendations for promotion and tenure for Indiana University School of
Dentistry faculty are based upon documented achievements in teaching, research,
and service that are consistent with the mission of the school. Excellence is the
standard of faculty accomplishment. Thus, for tenure track faculty, a candidate
for promotion or tenure should excel in at least one of the categories of teaching,
research, or service and be at least satisfactory in the other two. Alternatively, the
candidate may present a ―balanced case‖ with high quality achievements in all
three areas demonstrating excellence in overall work. For non-tenure track
faculty, a candidate for promotion should excel in teaching (clinical ranks) or
research (scientist ranks) and be at least satisfactory in service.
Teaching is a primary function of Indiana University School of Dentistry.
Teaching responsibilities are viewed as at least equal in importance to those of
research and service in regard to promotion in rank or achieving tenure. Teaching
activity may occur in the clinical environment, in didactic courses or seminars, in
the laboratory setting, in small problem-based learning classes or larger sessions
for group learning activities, in guiding and counseling students individually, in
mentoring students, in continuing education, or in course, curriculum,
methodology, or teaching material development.
See next page for chart.
Type Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory Excellent:
Scholarly: ―dissemination of
results and findings through
Instruction Incomplete lists of formal Quantitative and qualitative Quantitative and qualitative In addition to documenting that
instruction information from the information about teaching excellent learning outcomes
No evidence to interpret load candidate, students, and peers and learning outcomes associated with the instructor,
No information about goals indicating that instruction has effectively presented and underlying conceptual basis for the
of instruction been satisfactory in fostering clearly establishing that the teaching approaches and
No or only raw student appropriate learning quality of inspection is philosophy of instruction described
evaluation data with no outcomes noteworthy in sophisticated ways
interpretation of their Evidence that teaching is
meaning, either absolute or innovative and practice is
No information on learning
Lack of peer review evidence
or token peer commentary not
based on systematic review
Poor performance on many of
the above measures
Course or No evidence of nature of Evidence of new course Nature of course or curricular In addition to producing effective
Curricular Activities or results Development or significant development course and curricular products,
Development Evidence on outcomes, but no course revision (e.g., use of Clearly reflects an informed shows evidence of having
evidence of individual role Technology, service learning) knowledge base, clear disseminated ideas nationally or
No review by others presented with evidence on instructional goals, and internationally within the
No evidence on how work is effectiveness assessment of the outcomes profession or generally through
connected with department or publication or presentation
Poor course or curricular
Mentoring and Number of students and Load is clearly documented Thorough documentation on Thorough and reflective
Advising details of interaction not Peer and student satisfaction all aspects documentation
provided indicated by evidence Noteworthy student Mentoring and advising
Comparative load for unit not Satisfactory impact on achievement Characterized by scholarly
indicated student achievement clear approach
Information on satisfaction High accomplishments of students
with and impact of mentoring mentored or advised consistently
and advising not present linked to influence of mentor
Poor performance on
quantity, quality, or impact
indicated by data
Scholarly Activities, No information available Evidence of some local Evidence of regular and Documentation of a program of
Including Awards about scholarship of teaching dissemination of good significant local scholarly work that has contributed
Poor performance in this area practice and recognition of dissemination of good to knowledge base and improved
No teaching awards or teaching efforts practice and recognition of the work of others through
recognitions high quality of teaching dissemination channels
No evidence of dissemination Grants and awards at the Positive departmental evaluations
of good practice department or campus level of the stature of the work (e.g.,
Peer review supporting the quality
of the publications, presentations
or other dissemination methods
National or international teaching
awards or significant funding for
Professional No information about Record of some activity, such High level of activity in Extensive record of participation in
Development teaching development efforts as conference or workshop examining practice, seeking experimentation, reflection, pursuit
Efforts given attendance, personal new ideas, obtaining of conceptual and practical
Poor record of performance experimentation, or reading feedback, and engaging in knowledge of teaching and
in pursuing growth in Record of coaching others in dialogue on teaching with learning
teaching teaching campus or disciplinary peers Membership in communities of
No information on mentoring Reflective commentary on Indications of substantial practice on the campus, national, or
of other colleagues or how own teaching has positive impact on international level
indications of ineffective changed Development of colleagues Participation in dissemination of
performance in this area Peer assessment on Positive peer assessment of good practice
effectiveness of efforts these efforts Peer testimony on efforts and
toward personal growth or impact of candidate’s work in this
mentoring of others area
Documentation of Teaching Performance in IUPUI Faculty Dossiers
Dimensions of teaching
Section II: Personal Section III: Narrative CV (Part of Section I) Peer Review (external and internal
Statement Contained in Evaluation of –may be part of Sections I or III)
Teaching Load Details on students List of courses, etc. Comment on relative size of load
Mentored, advised, etc.
Teaching goals List of goals Comment on fit with IUPUI and
Continuing professional Description of activities Details of workshops List of formal activities
development undertaken attended, study, reading, etc.
Use of exemplary teaching Description of methods Details, on specific methods Local peer review, external if
methods such as teaching with knowledgeable
technology, use of PBL,
service learning, or other
innovative methods, inclusive
Quality of teaching Reflective comments Student rating summaries, Local peer review, external if
peer review of class knowledgeable
performance or materials
Evidence of student learning Reflective comments Results of nationally normed Local peer review, external if
tests, pre-post evaluations of knowledgeable
course knowledge gains,
analysis of student work,
approach toward UPL’s (for
Ethics Self-report Student report Local peer review
Scholarship of teaching and Descriptions of scholarly Details, commentary on Publications, presentations, Local or external peer review
national leadership approach activities listed in CV national leadership on
teaching in discipline
Course and curriculum Self-report Details on CV entries List of committees, etc. Local peer review, external if
Recognition (grants, awards) Details on CV entries, if List of recognitions
2. Additional Comments on Documentation of Teaching Performance
Documenting teaching effectiveness is a key part of the dossier
submitted for promotion and tenure considerations. At least some of the
following areas should be considered for inclusion:
- Provide documented summaries of formal student evaluation of
teaching as well as any qualitative student evaluations.
- Give evidence of degree of student satisfaction and performance
related to advising or mentoring students.
- Provide evidence on how the candidate specifically contributed to
the current success or scholarly activity of specific former students
(e.g., co-authored papers, joint conference presentations, etc).
- Include comments by faculty in other departments, schools, or
universities whose students may have been taught by the candidate.
- Provide peer evaluations of facilitating, lecturing, mentoring, course
organization, syllabi, textbooks, or any other aspect of teaching.
- Show contributions to curriculum development; new
course/program/case development; improvements from course
reorganization; improvement of teaching materials (e.g., textbooks,
video tapes, slide presentations, syllabi, laboratory manuals, class
handouts, computer programs, PBL cases, independent learning
outlines, GLA); use of improved teaching methods.
- Provide evidence of the quality of teaching materials developed by
the candidate (e.g., published reviews of textbooks or text chapters,
evaluation by outside reviewers, use of materials by others on or off
- Give evidence of utilizing instructional objectives and assessing
- Show evidence of attempts to improve teaching effectiveness such
as attendance or other participation in programs, courses, institutes,
or workshops on teaching.
- Describe special awards or other accolades (e.g., from students,
colleagues, the school or university, or professional organizations)
that afford evidence of teaching capability or effectiveness.
- Describe research by the candidate on teaching and list any grants
received related to teaching.
- Describe invited presentations to students at other schools or
universities and provide any available evidence of teaching
- List invited continuing education courses given and provide
available evidence of teaching effectiveness.
- Describe activities related to development or evaluation of teaching
programs in dentistry or in a specific discipline on a local, state,
national, or international level.
- Describe activity on National or Specialty Board test construction
- Identify roles that relate to teaching in meetings, conferences, or
programs of professional organizations.
- Describe activities on educational review boards (e.g., membership
on accrediting teams).
- Describe activities in mentoring undergraduate students or graduate
students in specialty/certificate programs or in doctoral or masters
- Describe teaching activities including time
commitment/assignment, course numbers and names, level of
courses, role in the courses (e.g., director, clinic instructor, tutor, lab
instructor, lecturer - including how many lectures given in a
course), how often the courses are taught, how many years teaching
in a given course, numbers of students involved in each course.
Research is the generation of new knowledge through the use of the scientific
method. It is central to the mission of the school and university, and it is
considered as equal in importance to teaching and service in regard to
promotion in rank or achieving tenure. The research may be basic, behavioral,
clinical, or be in health services or teaching.
See next page for chart.
Research/Creative Activity: Some Possible Benchmarks
(but this will depend on the norms of the school, department and discipline)
Type Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory Excellent
Research/Creative Activity Research has not been Candidate has Adding new critical Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate
in the form of publications, regularly conducted. performed research insights to a subject so that attributes of scholarly work associated with research,
presentations, gallery Research may have that is appropriate to others working in the field including peer refereed presentations and
showings, performances been conducted, but the now view the subject with publications and national recognition of the quality
there is no evidence of discipline/profession greater clarity or with new of research.
dissemination. and reflects standards perspectives Developing research methods that break new ground
Evidence comes only of good practice. Competitive or invited or offer new solutions to problems encountered in
from colleagues, Competitive or invited presentations to peers at the field
collaborators, or ex- presentations to local international and national Independent scholar – as shown by grant funding as
students. and state groups, to meetings P.I., articles as lead author, invited presentations
Individual role and those outside the Co-authorship, but Number of publications, gallery showings etc.
level of contributions discipline or to the lay candidate’s role and significantly exceed what is appropriate for the rank,
on collaborative work public. independent contribution discipline and nature of the work.
is unspecified. Research has moved are specified Pattern of significantly increasing work in research
Number of beyond simple Number of publications, or creative activity.
publications, gallery extensions of thesis or gallery showings etc. are
showings, etc. are not post-doctoral work. greater than what is
appropriate for the Number of appropriate for the rank,
rank, discipline and publications, gallery discipline and nature of the
nature of the work showings etc. are work
No pattern of sustained appropriate for the Pattern of steadily
work in research or rank, discipline and increasing work in
creative activity nature of the work research or creative
Pattern of sustained activity
work in research or
Grants and No evidence of Internal grants Grants at national, Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the
External support Attempts to seek Grants at the local and international level attributes of scholarly work associated with external
support state level Co-P.I. status applications and support, including the degree to
which the process was competitive.
P.I. status, funding amounts (depends on discipline
and size of usual grants), stature of granting agencies
Peer Review Only from Department or school Some peer review in the Expert external peer review clearly demonstrates the
Collaborators. has provided clear form of external letters – attributes of scholarly work associated with research,
Internal letters only information about the some letters from persons including peer refereed presentations, grants and
Letters only from stature of journals and not known to the publications.
Colleagues where there the significance of the candidate, others from There is evidence of national recognition of the
is a past research publications. school or campus and quality of work.
Relationship In the case of creative others from collaborators Evidence of impact of the work is clearly provided
(dissertation advisors) activity, there are (but need to delineate role by a number of reviewers at top institutions who are
No statement on statements about the in research projects) truly external and unrelated to the candidate, as well
quality of journals, quality of the galleries Evidence of impact of the as by the school and department, local peers,
galleries or or work is provided at the collaborators and some external reviewers.
performance/exhibition performance/exhibition school and department Gallery or performance reviews from experts and
venues venues. level as well as by local peers which appear in major national and
No comments on The department peers, collaborators and international sources.
candidate’s plan for affirms the candidate’s some external reviewers
continued research or plans for continued Gallery or performance
creative activity research. reviews from local media
No evidence of impact Evidence of impact of and non-expert reviewers.
of scholarly work scholarly work is
provided by the school
Mentoring and Number of students is Load and effectiveness Quality of student research External peer review clearly demonstrate the
Advising provided are documented. projects, student evaluation attributes of scholarly work associated with
data, letters from students, mentoring or advising, including peer refereed
students as co-authors on presentations and publications and national
grants and abstracts recognition of the quality of work.
Other scholarly activities, No awards. Local dissemination of Awards at local and state Evidence of a program of scholarly work that has
including awards No editorships or good practice and level, invitations to give contributed to knowledge base and improved the
editorial board service. recognition has presentations to the public, work of others.
No grant reviewing occurred. awards from civic and non- Departmental evaluations of the stature of the work
activities. Editor or member of profit organizations. (e.g., journals) are provided.
editorial board of local Editor or member of Prestigious awards at national and international
or state journals. editorial board of more level, particularly competitive awards.
Local grant reviewing/ major publications in the Editor or member of editorial board of top journals
field. or publications, invited jury member for top national
State and national grant and international performance events and venues.
reviewing. Grant reviewing for major national and international
agencies and organizations.
2. Additional Comments on Documentation of Research Performance
Documenting research activity is a key part of the dossier submitted for
promotion and tenure considerations. At least some of the following areas
should be considered for inclusion:
- Describe research in progress in relation to the mission of the
- List the publications in refereed journals giving the complete reference
and all authors.
- List papers accepted for publication in refereed journals and provide
evidence of acceptance.
- List papers submitted to refereed journals but not yet accepted.
- Describe the role of the candidate in the research reported in
- Provide evidence of the quality of the peer-reviewed publications
listed (e.g., quality of the journals, citations of the work by others,
analysis of the publications by outside reviewers).
- List and describe other research-related publications (e.g., invited
reviews, abstracts of research presentations at conferences, symposia,
- Provide evidence of the ability to perform independent research (e.g.,
being the ―principal investigator‖, ―project director‖, ―primary
- Provide evidence of continuing research activity (e.g., description of
research plan; number of publications per year; record of
publication/presentation of research papers at national meetings;
number and progress of research students mentored).
- List of external and internal grants or contracts received, including a
description of the candidate’s role on each (e.g., principal investigator,
project director, co-investigator, investigator).
- List grant proposals submitted that are pending.
- Describe any courses or workshops taken to enhance research activity.
- Describe mentoring of other faculty in research.
- Describe activity in directing or promoting student research.
- Provide evidence of a national reputation (e.g., invitations to speak at
conferences, meetings, symposia, other universities, government
agencies, editorship of journals, membership on editorial boards;
reviewing manuscripts for journals; appointments to research review
boards and NIH study sections; activities and offices held in
professional organizations; chairing sessions at national research
meetings; awards; evaluations by outside reviewers; advisory and
C. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
Professional service is normally provided to three specific groups: the public (e.g., the community,
clients, patients), the profession or discipline, and, less frequently, the campus and University.
Satisfactory professional service is expected of each faculty member and librarian. The importance
assigned to service in considering candidates for tenure or promotion will necessarily vary according to
individual circumstances and the mission of the unit. Professional service, including professional
service in the community and patient or client services, is characterized by those activities conducted on
behalf of the University that apply the faculty member's and librarian's disciplinary expertise and
professional knowledge of interrelated fields to the needs of society. To be the basis for tenure or
advancement in rank, professional service must be directly linked to the unit’s and campus’ mission; the
quality and impact of professional service must be evaluated within this context. To be considered as
the basis for advancement in rank or for tenure, professional service must be documented as intellectual
work characterized by the following: (1) command and application of relevant knowledge, skills, and
technological expertise; (2) contributions to a body of knowledge; (3) imagination, creativity and
innovation; (4) application of ethical standards; (5) achievement of intentional outcomes; and (6)
evidence of impact. Peer review by peers within IUPUI and by disciplinary peers at other universities
is an essential component for evaluating all aspects of professional service, as it is for teaching and
research. While not peer review, evaluations of effectiveness by clients, patients, and other recipients of
or participants in professional service activities may be critically important as evidence that can be
summarized and assessed by disciplinary peers. Ordinarily, professional service to the community and
to the profession or discipline is the basis for consideration in cases in which excellence in service is
advanced for promotion or tenure. For lecturers, this service may be directed toward the academic unit,
but must be characterized as intellectual work to be considered as professional service. For example,
developing standards for the assessment of the portfolios of entering students may be appropriately
classified as professional service, whereas serving on a search and screen committee would be
University service. To serve as the basis for advancement in rank or tenure, University service must be
directly linked to the mission of the unit and must be assessed as intellectual work with the same
expectations for peer review as in teaching, research, and professional service to the community.
The distinction between professional service and service to the University requires some elaboration.
Faculty and librarian service to the University through committees and administration is important and
required. The community of scholars depends on the mutual responsibility of individuals to support and
develop the institution that sustains them. Service must be a factor in these considerations, because
unsatisfactory service to the University may preclude tenure and promotion. However, without
additional significant accomplishments that are related to the practice of the candidate's discipline or
profession and professional service to the community, both of which can be evaluated by peers,
University service is rarely appropriate for either advancement in rank or tenure. Administrative service
that uses disciplinary expertise for innovative or successful achievements reviewed by peers may be
offered as evidence of achievement of professional service when such work has been planned and
stipulated in advance and when it is derived from the mission of the unit. Faculty appointed in the
clinical ranks advance through the excellence of their professional service or teaching, and lecturers
advance through excellence in teaching, but must be satisfactory in professional service.
This section should minimally include the following items:
A. Description of the candidate's professional service activities. Faculty involved in clinical practice
should describe the variety and extent of patient or client care. Those activities which are truly
exceptional should be annotated to differentiate these activities from the level of clinical service
expected of the faculty as a normal distribution of effort. For all faculty, committee service or voluntary
service should ordinarily not be included unless it is a direct reflection of professional expertise and has
been evaluated by peers as substantive professional and intellectual work. Professional service that is
the basis of advancement in rank or tenure must be clearly established as intellectual work as described
1. Evidence of the significance and impact of the professional service should be provided through
tangible results that can be assessed in the context of unit and campus mission.
2. Evidence of the candidate's individual contributions, especially when the professional service is
collaborative in nature; specific contributions of the candidate should be noted.
3. Evidence of leadership in providing professional service, especially when there is a collaborative
environment, including contributions that build consensus, help others (including patients or clients)
complete required assignments, and reflect the best practices and standards of the discipline; evidence
of increasing levels of responsibility and sustained contributions are important.
4. Evidence of effective dissemination of results that establishes the intellectual contributions and
advances the knowledge base of the discipline or field is expected. When professional development is
the specified area for excellence, this dissemination will most likely occur through peer refereed
publications. Special care may be required when the professional service is in an interdisciplinary field
and publication is in journals outside the discipline. Faculty working in interdisciplinary fields should
not be disadvantaged solely because the journals are not well known. Instead, the department or school
should take steps to assess the actual work instead of relying on the reputation of the journal.
NOTE: The full bibliography of publications relevant to professional service should be provided in the
curriculum vitae as specified in the standard format. Refereed and non-refereed publications should be
separated into distinct categories. Publications should not be listed again in this section.
5. Evidence of effective dissemination of results to peers, practitioners, clients, patients or service
recipients in reports and other documents that are designed appropriately to make the results
understood and useful; while these reports may not be peer reviewed as a part of the publication and
dissemination process, they should be evaluated by disciplinary peers as a part of the advancement
B. Evaluation of the quality of the candidate's professional service activities by the chair and colleagues
or associates, including external peer evaluation when excellence in professional service is the primary
basis for promotion or tenure.
1. External peer evaluation of products or results of professional service, including refereed and
non-refereed publications, should be a primary part of the evidence presented when professional service
is an area of excellence. While some peers may come from the practice community, a majority should
be academic peers from institutions with an equal or greater reputation in the area(s) of professional
service. Care should be taken in describing the qualifications and relevance of external reviewers,
especially when the reviewers are not academically based.
2. Peer evaluation should include assessments from local faculty colleagues who are best able to
place the quality of professional service within a context of departmental or school or interdisciplinary
standards, including an understanding of quality as a function of the quantity of service and disciplinary
or interdisciplinary norms.
3. Evaluation by clients, patients or service recipients is important, just as student evaluations are
important as one aspect of assessing teaching. Faculty should arrange for timely evaluations by
recipients and determine appropriate ways to use this information. Client evaluations, however, may not
substitute for peer evaluations.
C. When professional service is highly repetitive, as is often the case in patient care, candidates should
explain the nature of the activities. Quantity of patient service ordinarily is not a sufficient factor in
promotion or tenure, although it is expected to be high to support an area of excellence.
Type Unsatisfactory Participation Annotation: above Near Excellence: Excellent:
―routine‖ Pattern of Significant Scholarly:
Contributions “dissemination of
results and findings
University* No evidence of nature Citizenship: routine ―wrote a policy that ―not required or Significant
of activities or results. Chair’s evaluation was approved by expected‖ (p.25). contributions that
Evidence on outcomes, (p.9)of more than committee‖ Played a major role in clearly demonstrate the
but no evidence of ―mere participation‖ Accompanied by initiative over a period attributes of scholarly
individual role. (p.25) independent testimony of time that contributed work, including peer
No review by others. Necessary, (p. 12,24) of value of work (e.g., to campus or unit goals, refereed presentations
No evidence on how but not sufficient (p. letter from the with independent (p. 22,24) and national
service work is 25) committee chair, evidence of recognition of the
consistent with acceptance by Faculty significance, role, quality of work.
professional Noted in CV, not in Council) impact, & effective Awards and recognition
development or goals. P&T document communication to that reflect on the
others. significance and
academic nature of the
work have been
Discipline No evidence of nature Activities: routine, ―organized a workshop Played a major role in Significant
of activities or results required, or expected series for conference an initiative over a contributions that
Evidence on outcomes, that was successfully period of time that clearly demonstrate the
but no evidence of offered‖ contributed to attributes of scholarly
individual role Accompanied by discipline’s goals or work, including peer
No review by others independent evidence organization’s mission, refereed presentations
No evidence on how of success, impact (e.g. with independent and publications (p.
service work is ratings by participants) evidence of 22,24) and national
consistent with significance, impact, recognition of the
professional role, and effective quality of work.
development or goals. communication to Awards and recognition
others. that reflect on the
academic nature of the
work have been
Community No evidence of nature Professional Activities: ―chaired a Played a major role in Significant
of activities or results routine, required, or subcommittee of the an initiative over a contributions that
Evidence on outcomes, expected board that period of time that clearly demonstrate the
but no evidence of accomplished X, Y, & contributed to attributes of scholarly
individual role Z.‖ community goals, with work, including peer
No review by others ―played a leadership independent evidence refereed presentations
No evidence on how role in developing the of significance, role, and publications (p.
service work is capacity of a impact, and effective 22,24) and national
consistent with community-based communication to recognition of the
professional organization‖ others. quality of work.
development or goals Accompanied by Awards and recognition
independent evidence that reflect on the
of impact. significance and
academic nature of the
work have been
University service is not ordinarily the basis for ―excellence‖
Must be assessed as ―intellectual work‖ with ―peer review‖
Patient service: ―exceeds normative level,‖ ―contributes to knowledge base,‖ ―must be documented through appropriate publications‖ and ―repetitive
service—no matter in what quantity or even at what level of proficiency—is not itself sufficient for excellence‖
―While not peer review, evaluations of effectiveness by … patients …may be critically important as evidence that can be summarized and assessed
by disciplinary peers‖
2. Additional Comments on Documentation of Service
Documenting service activity is a key part of the dossier submitted
for promotion and tenure considerations. At least some of the
following areas should be considered for inclusion:
- List service on department, school, campus, and university
committees or special groups and describe specific contributions
to the committee’s efforts including any service as chair,
subcommittee chair, secretary, etc.
- Give evidence of specific accomplishments as an administrator
(e.g., describe the role played in development/progress of faculty
or staff; describe role in fostering communication; describe any
planning mechanisms developed; document any role played in
the success of any new or improved programs administered;
show any mechanisms developed to identify needed
improvements; show how goals have been met and outcomes
- Give evidence of performing special service for the school or
university (e.g., organizing or participating in functions or
meetings held at the school or on campus such as dental day,
research day, alumni programs, campus tours; organizing
displays for the school; student recruiting; monitoring
compliance of the school with specific regulations; advising
student groups in a non-teaching capacity).
- List memberships in professional organizations and describe any
special related activities (e.g., offices held, committee service,
meetings or workshops organized, review board activity).
- Describe activity as an editor of professional publications, a
member of editorial review boards, or a book reviewer.
- Describe service as an advisor or consultant in a professional
capacity to any local, state, regional, national or international
agency or organization.
- Provide letters of acknowledgment for professional service
activity from groups, offices, or agencies in the professional or
- Provide evidence of awards received for service.
- Describe any grants received for the development of service
activities and identify specific role in the related project.
- List any educational degree or board certifications received.
- Describe interactions with the news media in person, in print, or
broadcast that is based in scholarship and involved professional
- Describe patient care related accomplishments as part of faculty
assignment (e.g., referral of patients from practitioners;
evaluations from patients and clinical staff; certification by
specialty boards; membership of a specialty examining board;
awards that recognize clinical expertise; special consulting on
patient care; efforts to improve mechanisms of clinical care).
- Describe activity in organizing or participating in
school-sponsored outreach programs in the community.
VI. UNIT PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE
The members of the Indiana University School of Dentistry
Promotion and Tenure Committee (the Unit Committee) include one
member elected by each department plus two members elected by the
Faculty Council. All members are to be tenured and hold the rank of
professor. Members serve two-year appointments and may be re-
elected. The committee elects a Chair who also serves as the school’s
representative on the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Committee. This
committee will consider both promotion and tenure candidacies, and
will conduct a ―Mid-term‖ evaluations of all tenure track faculty.