Indiana University School of Dentistry

Document Sample
Indiana University School of Dentistry Powered By Docstoc
					              Indiana University School of Dentistry
                 Promotion & Tenure Guidelines
                              2006
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

       1.      Summary
       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
       dossier.

       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
following goals:
-      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.


                                        2
     4.      “Mid-term” Review by the School’s Promotion and Tenure
             Committee
     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
     Affairs.

C.   NOTIFICATION FOR PROMOTION OR TENURE
     CONSIDERATION

     1.      Promotion
     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.

     2.      Tenure
     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
            TENURE

     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
                                             3
  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
  early spring.

TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROMOTION AND/OR TENURE
                         DOSSIER
         (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

                                           4
             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
                                           Department Chair

             Mid-September                 Department Chair completes supporting letter and
                                           forwards dossier to IUSD Office of Academic
                                           Affairs who forwards it to the school P/T
                                           Committee

             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
                                           letter

             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.

                                              5
         -    Evaluation of teaching.
         -    Evaluation of research.
         -    Evaluation of service.
         -    Appendices

       Documentation of accomplishments in teaching, research, and service for use
       in the dossiers is described below under V. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION
       AND TENURE.

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.

     A. TEACHING

 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.




                                                  6
7
1. Criteria
Teaching

Type            Unsatisfactory                  Satisfactory                      Highly Satisfactory              Excellent:
                                                                                                                   Scholarly: ―dissemination of
                                                                                                                   results and findings through
                                                                                                                   appropriate publications‖
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
                comparative                                                                                        reflective
                No information on learning
                outcomes
                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
                campus goals
                Poor course or curricular
                design products
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


                                                                     8
                        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.,
                                                                                                                       journals)
                                                                                                                       Peer review supporting the quality
                                                                                                                       of the publications, presentations
                                                                                                                       or other dissemination methods
                                                                                                                       National or international teaching
                                                                                                                       awards or significant funding for
                                                                                                                       teaching projects
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




                                                                            9
                                                           Documentation of Teaching Performance in IUPUI Faculty Dossiers


Dimensions of teaching
Performance
                                                                                              Potential Locations

                               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
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
                                                                                                                                      unit goals
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
                                                                 teaching
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,
                                                                 student/alumni reports,
                                                                 approach toward UPL’s (for
                                                                 UG courses)
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
development                                                                                                                           knowledgeable
Recognition (grants, awards)                                     Details on CV entries, if             List of recognitions
                                                                 needed



                                                                                        10
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
          campus).
     - Give evidence of utilizing instructional objectives and assessing
          outcomes.
     - 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
          effectiveness.
     - 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
          committees.
     - Identify roles that relate to teaching in meetings, conferences, or
          programs of professional organizations.

                                        11
          -    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
               degree research.
          -    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.


B.   RESEARCH

     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.




                                               12
         1.        Criteria

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
                                                         creative activity
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



                                                                                      13
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
                                                         and department.
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.




                                                                                      14
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
     department.
-    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
     multi-authored publications.
-    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,
     national meetings).
-    Provide evidence of the ability to perform independent research (e.g.,
     being the ―principal investigator‖, ―project director‖, ―primary
     author‖).
-    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
     consulting activities).




                                       15
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
above:

                                                   16
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
review process.

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.


                                                   17
              1.   Criteria.


Service
Type               Unsatisfactory              Participation            Annotation: above          Near Excellence:           Excellent:
                                                                        ―routine‖                  Pattern of Significant     Scholarly:
                                                                                                   Contributions              “dissemination of
                                                                                                                              results and findings
                                                                                                                              through appropriate
                                                                                                                              publications”
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
                                                                                                                              received.
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
                                                                                                                              significance and



                                                                             18
                                                                                                                                 academic nature of the
                                                                                                                                 work have been
                                                                                                                                 received.
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
                                                                                                                                 received.
      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‖




                                                                                   19
     2.      Additional Comments on Documentation of Service
Performance
      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
           achieved).
      - 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
           public sectors.
      - 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
           expertise.
      - Describe patient care related accomplishments as part of faculty
           assignment (e.g., referral of patients from practitioners;


                                         20
          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.




                                        21

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:9
posted:12/11/2011
language:English
pages:21