5.3 UH-CLEAR LAKE PROMOTION AND TENURE

Approved by University Council January 20, 1994

Amendment Approved by University Council April 11, 1996

1.0 Eligibility
2.0 Professorial Responsibilities and Activities
3.0 Standards
4.0 Review Process
5.0 Promotion and Tenure Schedule
6.0 Third Year Review of Assistant Professors

1.0 Eligibility

Top

1.1 Candidates for Tenure and Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor

1.1.1 Tenure track faculty in the probationary period will be kept informed of their progress toward tenure and promotion by means of the annual faculty reviews and the third year review of assistant professors. In year five of a seven-year probationary period, the faculty member will be notified that the final and mandatory review for tenure will take place in the sixth year of the probationary period. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to request or decline review in the sixth year of the probationary period. The faculty member's decision to become a candidate for promotion and tenure should be submitted to the dean. If a faculty member declines review in the sixth year, such declination will be deemed to be a resignation effective at the end of the probationary period.

1.1.2 All assistant professors who are retained through their probationary period and who apply for tenure and promotion from assistant to associate professor, will be reviewed in the sixth year of the probationary period. In exceptional cases, however, candidates who believe that they have achieved a truly outstanding record earlier in their career may apply for promotion and tenure between the fourth and sixth year at UH-Clear Lake.

1.1.3 Candidates for tenure appointed at the rank of associate professor or professor who are serving probationary periods may expect to be considered for tenure in the third year of the four year probationary period. In cases of perceived exceptional merit, a faculty member may choose to apply for an earlier consideration for tenure. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to request or decline review in the third year of the probationary period. If a faculty member declines review in the third year, such declination will be deemed to be a resignation effective at the end the probationary period.

1.2 Time counted toward tenure and promotion review will - commence with the first Fall Semester of employment for candidates who were appointed on dates other than the Fall Semester.

1.3 As noted, no time in rank is specified for promotion from associate professor to professor.

2.0 Professorial Responsibilities and Activities

Top

Candidates will be judged in the three traditional areas of professorial responsibility: Teaching and Educational Activities; Research, Scholarly, or Artistic Activities; and Service.

2.1 Teaching and Educational Activities

2.1.1 Teaching consists of direct involvement with students inside or outside the classroom. It includes classroom instruction and seminars, supervision of independent study and graduate research, and direction of graduate theses. All university professors are expected to incorporate new knowledge into their courses on a continuing basis.

Evidence of teaching expertise may include: evaluations by colleagues, student evaluations, course syllabi, letters, or solicited opinions.

2.1.2 Educational activities include, but are not limited to, the development of new curricula, new courses, new degree programs and new training programs; the writing of textbooks and educational publications; presentations about teaching at professional meetings; and technology transfer or dissemination.

2.2 Research, Scholarly, or Artistic Activities

2.2.1 Research, scholarly or artistic activities are those which lead to the creation and dissemination of new knowledge; to increased problem-solving capabilities, including such activities as design and analysis; to original critical or historical theory and interpretation; or to the production of art or artistic performance.

2.2.2 Evaluation of competency in scholarly and artistic activities must include records of accomplishments (i.e. published or in press material [either proof of final acceptance, off-print, or paper copy of an electronic publication], commissions, exhibitions, inventions, awards, grants, etc.) and letters of evaluation from those knowledgeable in the candidate's field, both inside and outside the university.

2.3 Service

2.3.1 Service includes: I) service to professional organizations and journals; 2) service to the university; and 3) service to the public.

2.3.2 Service is the application and dissemination of knowledge or skill for the solution of problems and the improvement of the university, the profession, or the community. Service to the university in support of its activities is required of all UH-Clear Lake faculty members.

3.0 Standards

Top

Candidates for promotion or tenure at any level will be judged in the three traditional areas of professorial responsibility: Teaching and Educational Activities; Research, Scholarly, or Artistic Activities; and Service. The comparative scale shall be: "poor", "less than satisfactory", "satisfactory", "very good", and "excellent".

3.1 Standards for Associate Professor with Tenure

Any candidate for promotion to associate professor with tenure is expected to be "excellent" or "very good with the promise of becoming excellent" in at least one of the three areas of evaluation. The candidate must also be rated at least "very good" in a second of the three areas and "satisfactory" in the third one. In addition, each candidate must be at least "very good" in "Teaching and Educational Activities" (Section 5.2.2).

3.2 Standards for Professor

• To be promoted to professor, candidates must have state, regional, or national reputations. This reputation may be achieved in any of the three areas of professorial responsibility. Candidates must also be "excellent" in either "Teaching and Educational Activities" or "Research, Scholarly, or Artistic Activities" and at least "very good" in the other two areas (i.e. teaching and service or scholarly activity and service).
• To be excellent in "Research, Artistic, or Scholarly Activities", candidates must have made substantial, outstanding, and continuing contributions to their professions.
• To be excellent in teaching, candidates must be unusually effective in all the traditional aspects of university teaching applicable to their disciplines: classroom instruction and seminars, supervision of independent study and graduate research, as well as the directing of graduate theses.

Excellence in teaching should also include distinction in educational activities, but it cannot rest upon educational activities alone (Section 5.2.2, l.b).

4.0 Review Process

Top

The candidate begins the review process by submitting a written request for review to the dean or dean's designate.

At the school level, a candidate's case must be reviewed by: (1) a peer review committee, (2) the academic associate (associate dean, faculty chair, or program coordinator/chair) and (3) the dean. The academic associate's review is to be independent of the peer review and concurrent with it. The dean's review makes use of recommendations from both the peer review committee and the academic associate.

4.1 The Peer Review Committee

Candidates for promotion or tenure must be reviewed by a committee of their peers. The committee will consist of those tenured faculty in the same discipline as the. candidate; their rank must be equal or be higher than the rank requested by the candidate. The committee must include a minimum of five faculty members.

4.1.1 If more than five faculty are eligible for the committee, they will decide: (1) to act as a committee of the whole or (2) to elect from among themselves a review committee.- No one eligible for membership may be excluded from the committee.

4.1.2 If fewer than five faculty are eligible for the peer review committee, they will all be members, and faculty from appropriate related disciplines will be added to form a five-person committee. To find these additional members, the dean will consult with the candidate and with the eligible individuals from the candidate's discipline.

The peer review committee elects its own chair who then calls and conducts its meetings. The committee must decide, through a thorough, judicious, and confidential review of the candidate's materials, whether the candidate has met the standards for the rank requested. To do so, the committee has access to a candidate's records, whether submitted by the candidate or in the files in the dean's office. The candidate, likewise, will have access to all materials used by the committee.

4.2 The Peer Review Committee Report

• The peer review committee's report should include a specific, analytical appraisal of all the significant evidence favorable and unfavorable. It should analyze the candidate's performance in each of the traditional areas of professorial responsibility: Teaching and Educational Activities; Research, Scholarly, or Artistic Activities; and Service; and it should document its judgments from the supporting material.
• The peer review committee's recommendation must not be ambiguous. It should clearly favor or not favor the granting of promotion or tenure. All members who agree with the report's judgment should sign it; no member who does not agree with the report should sign it.
• If the committee cannot reach a clear decision, its division and the reasons for it should be expressed either in the report or in separate concurring or dissenting statements by individual members. These should be submitted with the main report, and all committee members should be aware of them.

4.3 Documentation of the Candidate's Case

Candidates are expected to present evidence in support of their cases for promotion and tenure. The record to be reviewed will consist of the candidate's personnel file and the following submissions by the candidate:

4.3.1 A formal request for promotion or tenure in the university.

4.3.2 A current curriculum vita.

4.3.3 A narrative of the candidate's case for promotion and tenure. This material should be organized under the three categories of professorial responsibility: teaching, research or artistic activities, and service.

4.3.4 Supporting materials may include: teaching evaluations, published research, artistic products, etc.

4.3.5 External evaluations. The candidate and the peer review committee will agree on a list of at least three outside experts to evaluate the candidate's record in the evaluator's area of expertise. The external reviewer will be asked to make judgements about the candidate's performance relative to the performance of individuals at institutions comparable to UH-Clear Lake. The candidate will be responsible for developing an "external evaluation file" which shall include a curriculum vitae plus products showing evidence of proficiency in teaching, scholarship or service. The academic associate will be responsible for mailing letters and the "external evaluation file" to the external evaluator. However, the replies will be received by the dean.

5.0 Promotion and Tenure Schedule

Top

In the spring of each academic year, a schedule will be published containing specific dates which shall govern the completion of the stages of the tenure and promotion evaluation process. The schedule must allow sufficient time at each step of the process for review of the documentation and formulation of recommendations.

5.1 The dean or the dean's designate will notify in writing each assistant professor who is in the fifth year of a seven-year probationary period that he or she must prepare a promotion and tenure review file and be evaluated in the sixth year.

Nontenured associate professors or professors will be notified in the second year of their probationary period about the required documentation to be submitted in the third year of their probationary period.

An associate professor seeking professorial rank must notify the dean of his or her intentions by the time specified in the published schedule.

5.2 The peer review committee will be formed in the spring semester preceding the review year. The committee will meet with the faculty member to agree on individuals who will serve as external evaluators. The candidate will provide the "external evaluation file" to be sent for outside review to the academic associate by June 1. The academic associate will mail letters and the "external evaluation file" no later than June 15 and will request outside reviewers to return their evaluations to the dean by September 15.

5.3 Candidates may add supporting material unavailable at earlier stages of evaluation until that date on which the promotion and tenure recommendation is forwarded to the dean.

5.4 The peer review committee submits its recommendation to the dean, with copies to the candidate's academic associate and the candidate.

5.5 The candidate's academic associate makes his or her recommendation independent of the peer review committee's recommendation and submits it to the dean, with copies to the chair of the peer review committee and the candidate.

5.6 The dean submits his or her recommendation to the senior vice president and provost, who then submits it to the president. The peer review committee's and academic associate's recommendations accompany the dean's recommendation. The dean also sends his or her recommendation to the academic associate, the chair of the peer review committee, and the candidate.

5.7 After reviewing the recommendations of the peer review committee, the academic associate and the dean, the senior vice president and provost forwards his or her recommendation to the president, with copies to the candidate, academic associate, and the chair of the peer review committee, and the dean.

5.8 The candidate may appeal a negative recommendation by the senior vice president and provost. Any appeal of the senior vice president and provost's recommendation must be heard, and a recommendation by the grievance committee forwarded to the president by a date specified to the committee by the president. For a grievance matter, see Handbook Grievance Procedures (11.2).

5.9 Recommendations for tenure and promotion will be transmitted from the president to the chancellor, with a copy to the candidate, academic associate, the chair of the peer review committee, the dean and the provost.

5.10. A positive recommendation will be reviewed at the System level. The UH Board of Regents will take final actions to award tenure or promotion.

6.0 Third Year Review of Assistant Professors

Top

It is the responsibility of the academic community to provide guidance to nontenured faculty with regard to their candidacy and progress toward promotion and tenure. Employment of nontenured faculty is renewed on an annual basis and normally should involve career development during the probationary period.

The third year review of assistant professors will include:

6.1 Current strengths and weaknesses of the nontenured faculty member in the areas of Teaching and Educational Activities; Research, Scholarly, or Artistic Activities; and Service.

6.2 Progress toward tenure and promotion.

6.3 Suggestions for strengthening the faculty member's candidacy.

6.4 Feedback regarding the format and documentation of the candidate's vita and supporting materials.

The third year review process is similar to a promotion and tenure review. Its purpose is to provide guidance to the nontenured faculty member regarding future directions and activities. To provide the most effective and clear feedback, the dean will be responsible for communicating to the individual the review's assessments and recommendations for future directions. The faculty member will receive copies of all assessments and recommendations at the time of the meeting with the dean.

The third year review's recommendations and findings do not imply a specific commitment to future university action in promotion and tenure.

6.5 Procedure

6.5.1 All designated third year faculty will be informed by the dean of the guidelines of this process, the dates for submission and the composition of their vita and documentation. Normally, this process would be conducted in the Fall, shortly after the promotion and tenure review of sixth year nontenured faculty. Participating third year faculty will be asked to submit a current vita and documentation of all relevant past activities and all publications (including those in press). The faculty member may also discuss projects and papers in progress. However, those activities in process will not be given major consideration in the review. The documentation should be organized under the three areas of Teaching and Educational Activities; Research, Scholarship or Artistic Activities; and Service. No external letters shall be solicited for this review.

6.5.2 The review committee members charged with the responsibility of assessment should not rate the faculty member according to the standards of "excellent", "very good", "satisfactory", "less than satisfactory" and "poor"; nor should they present judgments regarding the future likelihood of the person receiving favorable review for promotion or tenure.

6.5.3 The vita and documentation will be reviewed by a committee of tenured faculty of the person's discipline. (Composition of the committee and its charge will reflect current promotion and tenure guidelines). The committee will submit a written report and recommendations to the next level of review, that of the academic associate. At the completion of that review, the academic associate will forward a written report and recommendations along with the peer review committee report to the dean.

6.5.4 The dean will examine the faculty member's documentation and vita, review the reports from the peer review committee and academic associate and develop recommendations. The dean, or the dean's designee, will be responsible for communicating in written and verbal form the results of the review process and the assessment of the faculty member. This assessment will include discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member's current activities, suggested actions for strengthening the faculty member's candidacy and general comments on the format and documentation. This communication should provide feedback to guide the future directions of the nontenured faculty member, with the understanding that the purpose of the review is to help the faculty member in his or her professional development.

Top