Contents
Catalog Links
Share

Procedures for Promotion

Procedures for Promotion The Appointment and Promotion Committee (the “Committee”) shall review all requests for promotion in accordance with the "Criteria for Promotion" and make its recommendations on an annual basis.

I. Application for Promotion A faculty member shall become a candidate for promotion (a “candidate”) via letter of intent to the Committee Chair by the date(s) specified in Section X. Timetable and Process of Promotion (below). See II.1 below, which specifies letter of intent contents.

 

II. Documentation The candidate’s electronic portfolio should include the components below. Items 1-5 are provided to the Academic Unit Leader or Designee[1] (AUL/D) by the candidate; Items in 6a-6c are subsequently added by the AUL/D and Dean (if relevant):

  1. A Letter of Intent that specifies:
    1. Current rank and time since initial appointment (or last promotion review)
    2. Selected area(s) of impact
  2. A completed Self-Evaluation for Promotion document using the template provided on Faculty Compass under Professional Development, Promotion Resources section.
  3. Curriculum vitae (CV) formatted using the IHP template provided on Faculty Compass under Professional Development, Promotion Resources section.
  4. Four exemplars of scholarly work (for examples, see the Criteria and Examples for Appointment and Promotion)
  5. A Letter of Support from one (1) professional colleague, either within or outside of the IHP. The colleague may be of any rank or discipline, but may not be a potential external reviewer. The colleague should speak to your scholarship, teaching and/or service and be someone with whom you have collaborated, co-taught or received formal peer review for teaching, or served on a professional committee, task force, board, etc.
  6. Letters of Evaluation from the following individuals addressing the extent to which the Candidate meets the criteria for promotion:
    1. Three (3) external reviewers (for Associate Professor and Professor ranks).  See Section III. External Review Procedure.
    2. The AUL. This letter should evaluate the impact of the candidate’s contributions in the context of their responsibilities within the Department/School/Center, as well as within their respective scholarly fields. The AUL may identify a Designee to provide this letter and/or oversee AUL responsibilities related to the Procedures for Promotion.
    3. The Dean (SHRS, SON if AUL is not the Dean)

Candidates may include additional materials that provide a unique perspective on how they meet the criteria for promotion. The committee reserves the right to request additional documentation from the Candidate and to exclude materials not clearly linked to the promotion criteria. 

III. External Review Procedure For candidates applying for Professor or Associate Professor, three (3) external peer reviewers will evaluate appropriateness for promotion based on the Institute’s criteria for promotion in the area of scholarship. The AUL/D shall consult with the candidate to identify six (6) unbiased potential external reviewers and will solicit commitments from at least three to provide a review (see Section X. Timetable and Process of Promotion. An unbiased or “arm’s length” reviewer is a person who is not compromised in his or her ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and scholarly reputation of the candidate. The following are examples of professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external reviewer:

  • Having acted as the thesis or dissertation adviser for the candidate
  • Having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution
  • Having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications, or a co-inventor of intellectual property
  • Having been related to the candidate by birth or marriage
  • Having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate
  • Having a close personal or family relationship (vacation together, godparents, etc.)
  • Potential reviewers who are personally known to the candidate are not, per se, excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the candidate may have discussed a project, attended a conference or participated on a professional committee. 

External reviewers must be at or above the rank of Associate Professor. They should be recognized as educational and scholarly leaders in their fields.  External reviewers will be asked to evaluate the impact of the candidate’s scholarly work and the potential for sustained scholarly contributions.

The portfolio materials sent to external reviewers by the AUL/D will include:

  1. A cover letter from the AUL/D that follows the standard template provided by the Committee. The cover letter indicates the candidate’s current department, rank and area(s) of impact, and outlines procedures, timeline, and evaluation guidelines for the review process. The reviewers will be informed that the Institute will make every reasonable effort to keep their evaluations confidential to the extent permitted by law.
  2. The 'IHP Scholarship Model' and the scholarship section(s) of the 'Criteria and Examples for Appointment and Promotion' for the relevant area(s) of impact, or the 'Criteria and Interpretive Statements for Rank' (through 2016-2017 cycle).
  3. The Scholarship section of the Candidate's Self-Evaluation for Promotion
  4. The Candidate’s CV
  5. The Candidate’s four (4) exemplars of scholarly work
IV. Failure to Meet Deadline

In the event the committee has not received all necessary portfolio components by the deadline specified in Section X. Timetable and Process of Promotion, the Committee shall not act on the candidate’s portfolio and shall consider the application to have been withdrawn. Under extenuating circumstances, the AUL/D or Dean may petition the Committee for deadline extension. 

V. Committee Action The committee shall review all documentation and, by majority vote, make a recommendation in writing regarding promotion or denial of promotion to the Provost. This recommendation shall be accompanied by documentation and/or related justification as the committee members deem appropriate.

VI. Institutional Review The Provost, upon review of the portfolio, the committee’s recommendation and other available documents and explanations, shall decide whether or not to recommend promotion to the Board of Trustees, and shall notify the candidate of this recommendation in writing prior to the June meeting of the Trustees each year. If a candidate is not recommended for promotion, the Provost shall give the candidate the reasons for the recommendation.

VII. Denial of Promotion In the event a candidate is denied promotion, the candidate may not request consideration for promotion to the same rank during the following academic year, unless recommended by the Dean or Center Director from the Candidate’s school or program.

VIII. Review of Denial of Promotion In the event a candidate believes the denial of promotion is in violation of: (1) the Procedures for Promotion, or (2) the Academic Freedom Policy as applied to the process for promotion, the candidate has the right to request a review within 30 days after the date of denial of promotion by submitting written documentation to the President stating the grounds upon which the candidate bases his or her request for review. Academic judgment is not subject to grievance.

IX. Final Authority Notwithstanding the appeals process, the Board of Trustees grants final approval for promotion.

 

X. Timetable and Process of Promotion 

The following timetable shall be followed each academic year. If any dates fall on a holiday or weekend, the deadline will be the first working day following the deadline.

 Due Date Promotion Activity 
 May 15  As part of the annual performance review, the Faculty member consults with the Academic Unit Leader1 or Designee (AUL/D) to determine readiness to seek promotion.
 June 15  The faculty member confirms with the AUL/D the intent to apply for promotion for the following academic year. The AUL/D reviews the process and timeline for promotion and assists in identifying the components and content of the portfolio. In the case of promotion to associate or full professor, the AUL/D consults with the faculty member to identify names of 6 arms-length potential external reviewers.
 July 1  The faculty member submits a letter of intent to seek promotion to the Appointment and Promotion Committee Chair. The AUL/D emails potential external reviewers and solicits commitments from them to provide a review by November 1st.  See Procedures for Promotion for guidance on selecting appropriate external reviewers.
 Sept 15  The Candidate submits an electronic promotion portfolio to the AUL/D through the designated IHP Intranet site. The AUL reviews it for organization. For promotion to Associate Professor and Professor, the AUL/D forwards relevant components of the portfolio with cover letter and review guidelines to three (3) External Reviewers. See Procedures for Promotion for included components. Cover letter template and review guidelines for External Reviewers are provided by the Appointment and Promotion Committee.
 Nov 15  The AUL/D reviews the External Reviewers’ evaluation letters, writes an AUL/D letter of evaluation, and has all portfolio materials compiled in electronic format and delivered to the Dean (in CIPSI, the Director) for review.
 Jan 1  The Dean (in CIPSI, the Director) adds a letter of evaluation to the electronic portfolio and submits the final portfolio to the Provost’s office. The Appointment and Promotion Committee is notified of portfolio availability.
 Mar 30  The Chair of the Committee submits a written summary of the Committee’s recommendations to the Provost. The Provost reviews the portfolio and the committee’s recommendation and puts forth the final recommendation to the President for consideration at the June Board of Trustees meeting. The Provost shall notify the Candidate of this recommendation in writing prior to the June meeting.
 July 1  Candidates receive notification of the Board of Trustees’ decision via written communication from the Provost.  If promotion has been approved, it takes effect at this time.

Adopted by the Faculty, 1/82

Revised 2/84, 11/87, 6/88, 4/23/10, 11/8/2010, 6/2014, 10/2014, 4/2015, 7/2015, 7/2016

 


[1]The Academic Unit Leader (AUL) is the academic leader responsible for overseeing the scholarly progress of the Candidate. In the School of Nursing, the AUL is the Dean or the Dean’s designee. In SHRS, the AUL is the Department Chair or Program Director. In CIPSI, the AUL is the Center Director.