School of Business Promotion and Tenure Committee Policy
Policy
Procedure
Purpose:
To provide promotion and tenure expectations and procedures specific to the School of Business and the School of Business Promotion and Tenure Committee.
Applies to:
Tenure-track and tenured faculty
Campus:
Lawrence
Policy Statement:
Summary
Overall promotion and tenure processes, timelines, and required forms are established by the University. The School is responsible for establishing criteria for promotion and tenure recommendations that are in accordance with the standards and procedures in Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations Article VI.
This document provides policy specific to the School of Business, including the composition and responsibilities of its Promotion and Tenure Committee and the committee’s criteria for recommending promotion and tenure.
A. School of Business Promotion and Tenure Committee Composition and Responsibilities
1. Composition
Any tenured member of the faculty of the academic rank of Associate Professor or above is eligible for election to the committee, subject to the exceptions noted in FSRR Section 6.1.4.1
The committee consists of five or seven members. The committee will assess the workload for the coming year and recommend any change in size prior to the annual faculty committee elections. The committee may request that the associate dean responsible for faculty development attend certain committee meetings ex-officio to provide administrative support and policy guidance.
Elections to the committee will follow the guidelines documented in Faculty Committee Election Procedures at G:\BSchool_Shares\POLICIES\Faculty Committee Elections - P&T RED FAC.
2. Responsibilities
The P&T Committee is responsible for conducting the following reviews:
- Progress Towards Tenure Reviews for Assistant Professors
- Promotion and Tenure reviews for Assistant Professors applying for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor
- Promotion reviews for Associate Professors applying for Professor.
These reviews are initial level reviews and recommendations from the School go directly to the University. There is no intermediate level review for School of Business faculty.
The committee is also responsible for making recommendations regarding tenure and rank for proposed external hires of experienced faculty and ensuring that all new hires below the rank of full professor receive copies of this document and the link to the Provost’s guidelines and forms during their first semester of employment.
B. Progress Towards Tenure Review (PTTR)
For an overview of the purpose and outcomes of progress towards tenure reviews, see Office of Faculty Affairs: Progress Toward Tenure Review.
1. Information Use in Review
The P&T Committee considers the documents specified at the faculty development website noted above, including candidate documents and a written report from one peer teaching evaluator (PTE). In addition, the committee requests a report from one peer research evaluator (PRE), and the area director. The committee will try to identify peer teaching and peer research evaluators who are conversant with the reviewee’s area and not objectionable to the reviewee. Reviewees should consult with faculty mentors when preparing materials to be submitted to the committee.
The area director letter from the area director is the primary source of information about service,
The PRE will consider the candidate’s research statement, publications, working papers, work-in-progress, and any other evidence of a developing national reputation. The PTE will conduct a classroom visit and provide a written, confidential assessment of the reviewee’s teaching. This should include a discussion of student evaluations including written comments. In addition, the PTE report should consider the reviewee’s teaching statement, and documentation such as course syllabi, objectives, exams, and assignments. The PTE will provide an opinion on whether course content and teaching skills are appropriate.
Peer evaluator and area director reports should include a summary assessment of the relevant portion of the candidate’s record using the university outcomes for PTTR: demonstrates progress toward tenure, improvement required for continued progress toward tenure, or record not sufficient for progress toward tenure.
2. Recommendation Criteria
To reach a conclusion that evidence is sufficient for continuing the tenure-track appointment, the committee will typically expect to see progress towards tenure in teaching, research, and service.
Progress towards tenure in research is typically reflected in publications and/or papers under later-round review at top journals as well as initial submissions, working papers, work in progress and conference presentations. Publications at journals with notoriously stringent standards are the clearest indication of evidence sufficient for continuing the tenure track appointment. While the committee recognizes that such publications are not always realized early in the probationary period, meaningful progress toward such publications is expected for continued appointment. When assessing studies published in other referred journals or submissions in later round reviews, journal quality will be a primary indicator of progress. The committee will also consider whether the faculty member is beginning to develop a stream of research likely to develop into a national reputation.
Progress toward tenure in teaching is reflected dimensions of teaching such as those in the Center for Teaching Excellence’s Benchmarks for Teaching Excellence (CTE framework), in good or improving student evaluations, appropriate classroom materials, pedagogy, and conduct. Courses should be rigorous, relevant, and consistent with school curricular goals. These factors will be assessed in the context of the number and nature of courses taught.
Progress toward tenure in service is reflected in some limited service activity, typically at the area or school level. Professional service such as conference participation and refereeing activity is also desirable, but does not replace KU service.
Procedures for communication of recommendations are found in the General Instructions for PTTR provided by Faculty Development.
In non-PTTR years, assistant professors’ performance and progress is reviewed by their area directors and candid feedback provided in annual letters.
C. Promotion and Tenure Reviews
For an overview of the purpose and outcomes of the promotion and tenure process, see Office of Faculty Affairs: Promotion and Tenure.
Faculty members who intend to apply for promotion to full professor or for early tenure and promotion to associate should inform the committee by the end of spring semester. Candidates entering a mandatory review year do not need to notify the committee.
1. Information Used in Reviews
The committee considers the documents specified at the faculty development web site noted above, including candidate documents and supporting materials, external evaluations and two peer reviews of teaching. In addition, the committee also solicits two peer reviews of research and a report from the faculty member’s area director, which is a primary source of information about service.
Candidates are encouraged to consult with faculty mentors in preparing materials to be submitted to the committee.
External Evaluations:
To identify and solicit external reviewers, the committee follows the recommended practices, see Office of Faculty Affairs: External Evaluation Guidelines.
Specific criteria for external reviewers include:
- External reviewers shall not have close personal or professional relationships with the candidate
- External reviewers shall hold academic rank or professional position equal to or greater than the rank for which the candidate is being considered.
- External reviewers shall have a national or preferably international reputation in the candidate’s area of research.
- External reviewers who hold chairs or professorships and/or serve as editors or on editorial boards of prestigious journals are preferred.
- External reviewers are solicited near the end of spring semester, so candidates should provide up to six names of potential external evaluators to the committee by the end of April. Candidates may also identify up to two individuals who they do not want as external evaluators.
Peer Teaching Evaluations:
The committee will select two peer teaching evaluators (PTEs) who preferably are with the candidate’s area and who are not objectionable to the candidate.
Each peer teaching evaluator will conduct a classroom visit and provide a thorough, written, confidential assessment of the candidate's teaching portfolio. The teaching portfolio should contain information on several dimensions of teaching such as those in the Center for Teaching Excellence’s Benchmarks for Teaching Excellence (CTE framework). The report should also include an analysis of student evaluations including written comments and consider the candidate's teaching statement, course syllabi, objectives, exams, assignments, original instructional materials, course enrollment, and grade distributions. PTEs will provide opinions on whether course content is current, rigorous, innovative, and appropriate, evaluate and comment on specific teaching skills such as presenting, communication, organization, planning, the ability to include and motivate students, and whether the candidate is appropriately available and accessible to students.
PTEs also should consider other important teaching activities the candidate may be involved in, such as Ph.D. committees and other student mentoring. A PTE may discuss teaching practices with the candidate if desired.
PTE reports should include a summary assessment of the candidate’s teaching using the university scale: excellent, very good, good, marginal, poor.
The committee will select two peer research evaluators (PREs) who preferably are familiar with the candidate’s area and who are not objectionable to the candidate.
Peer research evaluators are provided with the candidate’s C.V. research statement, publications and working papers. They will analyze the candidate's research program and provide the committee with a written report. The report should assess (1) quality, quantity, and impact of the research, (2) quality of the outlets, and (3) the overall nature and quality of the candidate's on-going program of research. This should be done in the context of the School’s criteria for promotion and tenure. In addition to reading publications and working papers, PREs consider the candidate's research statement and information such as journal impact indicators, citations, attention from the business press, and other measures of article impact. Candidates may provide related information to PREs, and PREs may discuss research interests, objectives, methods, and outcomes with the candidate.
PRE reports should include a summary assessment of the candidate’s research using the university scale: excellent, very good, good, marginal, poor.
To assist the committee, templates for communications with external and internal reviewers are maintained in the committee’s G:drive folder.
2. Guidance for Overall Recommendation
FSRR 6.3.2.2 requires the evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service using the adjectives below. The committee defines these terms as follows:
"Excellent" means that the candidate substantially exceeds disciplinary expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank. This adjective will be reserved for performance that so greatly exceeds minimum standards for promotion and tenure that few School of Business faculty members achieve this high level. Excellent performance is profound and unambiguously accomplished.
"Very good" means that the candidate's performance exceeds disciplinary expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank. The individual is consistently highly effective and productive.
"Good" means that the candidate's performance meets disciplinary expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank. The individual is regularly effective and productive.
"Marginal" means that the candidate falls below disciplinary expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank. There are areas of deficiency or ineffectiveness in the candidate's performance, and therefore the school's minimum standards for promotion and tenure are only partially fulfilled.
"Poor" means that the candidate falls significantly below disciplinary expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank. A considerable deficiency or lack of effectiveness is observed.
Finally, the committee either recommends or does not recommend tenure and/or promotion. It is not possible to put into a formula a specification of the qualitative evaluations necessary to secure a positive recommendation. However, committee uses these guidelines:
- If a candidate receives a rating of "poor" in either teaching or research, it will
- be virtually impossible to receive a positive recommendation. • If a candidate receives a rating of "poor" in service, it will be difficult to receive a positive recommendation.
- If a candidate receives a rating of "marginal" in either teaching or research, it will be very difficult to receive a positive recommendation.
- If a candidate receives a rating of "good" in both teaching and research, it will be difficult to receive a positive recommendation regardless of the rating in service. A successful candidate should have an area of strength in either teaching or research indicated by at rating of at least “very good”.
Assessment of a candidate’s record is based on standards existing at the time the candidate is reviewed for promotion, as applied by the extant committee. The committee will assess candidate’s record in the context of these criteria, past promotion and tenure decisions at the School, and standards at peer and aspirant business schools, with the intent to advance the mission of the School.
3. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
Teaching:
For tenure and promotion to associate professor, the candidate’s record must demonstrate effective teaching, as reflected in such factors as command of the subject matter, the ability to communicate effectively in the classroom, a demonstrated commitment to student learning, and involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom. (FSRR 6.2.2.2)
The committee draws on the information listed above to make its assessment. For teaching to be rated good or better, the committee expects to see evidence of rigorous and effective instruction, generally satisfied students, and appropriate materials. The committee also considers whether there is effort towards continuous improvement, such as work with the Center for Teaching Excellence, innovation and experimentation, and adjustments and corrections when necessary.
Research:
For tenure and/or promotion to the rank of associate professor, the candidate’s record must demonstrate a successfully developing scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as the quality and quantity of publications or creative activities, external reviews of the candidate’s work by respected scholars or practitioners in the field, the candidate’s regional, national, or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly agenda. (FSRR 6.2.3.2)
The School expects successful candidates to have a research record demonstrating progress toward achieving national, and preferably, international stature. For evidence, the committee will normally expect publications in the most prestigious academic journals with notoriously stringent acceptance standards. In the absence of prestigious publications, it is unlikely that the committee would rate a research record better than marginal.
Most faculty in the School work in established business disciplines in which there are a few top journals, along with a slightly larger number of second-tier journals, all having stringent refereeing standards and low acceptance rates. The committee considers multiple sources in determining into which category a journal falls. Candidates and disciplines are invited to provide information about the journals in their areas with support for the designations they believe to be appropriate.
The committee recognizes that it can take several years to publish an article in the most prestigious journals. Therefore, candidates with publications in such journals may have a relatively smaller number of total publications. The committee recognizes this trade-off in its evaluation of the candidate.
Additional Considerations for Evaluation of Research:
Programmatic research – Programmatic research is preferred, where a program of research is a related series of research efforts directed toward a common topic or body of knowledge.
Authorship and contribution – The candidate is expected to be a meaningful contributor to collaborative research efforts. The number, variety, and ordering of co-authors as well as other evidence of the candidate’s role are considered. Sole-authored publications are not required, but the committee recognizes their merit.
Prospects for on-going research productivity –The committee expects to see evidence consistent with a reasonable expectation for continued productivity, including submissions, working papers, and work in progress targeted at top-tier journals.
Citations, awards, and policy and practice impact – In some cases, well-cited articles published in well-respected, but not the most prestigious, journals might be judged to be influential. Other evidence that an article has meaningfully affected scholarship, policy or practice, such as awards or citations by policy-makers, may also be considered. It is the candidate’s responsibility to provide the committee with evidence of the impact of their research.
Other publications, such as book chapters, are weighted by considering the prestige of the publication and the quality of the contribution.
Major vs. minor works - University forms require candidates to designate all publications and presentations as major or minor. Typically, peer-reviewed publications are major and practitioner articles are minor. Similarly, presentations at competitive, refereed conferences are major and most others are minor. Candidates are encouraged to confer with area directors, committee members, and other mentors in making major vs. minor distinctions. The committee may suggest changes, and if the candidate’s final designations are at variance with the committee’s assessment, it may indicate areas of disagreement.
Grants and financial support – External research funding is unusual in business, and not expected for a positive recommendation. However, such support is considered positively.
Service:
The service requirements for assistant professors are modest. However, some service at the area or School level is desirable for promotion and tenure. This would include, for example, serving as a member of School committee or a faculty mentor for a School student organization. It is also expected that all tenure candidates will seek out opportunities to provide service to the profession, such as by serving as a journal reviewer or as a reviewer or discussant for papers presented at annual conferences for academic associations in their field. Serving on a University-wide committee, leading a School Committee, or serving in a significant role for a professional group is beyond the normal expectation for an assistant professor.
4. Criteria for Promotion to Professor
Promotion to full professor requires substantial additional achievement since the award of tenure and/or promotion to associate professor (FSRR 6.1.5.2).
Teaching:
The committee draws on the information noted in the previous section to make its assessment. For teaching to be rated good or better, the committee expects to see evidence of continued effectiveness and growth as a teacher, rigorous and effective instruction, generally satisfied students, relevant materials, and continued mastery of subject matter. It also expects to see work mentoring and working with doctoral students, when possible. The committee also considers whether there is effort towards continuous improvement, such as work with the Center for Teaching Excellence, innovation and experimentation, and adjustments and corrections when necessary.
Research:
The committee expects successful candidates to have achieved a national, and preferably, international reputation. Publishing in top-tier journals is considered the best indication of such a reputation. Examples of other indicators include expertise in a particular area, meaningful citations, attention from the business press, participation on editorial boards, and invitations to review for prestigious journals. The committee will normally expect publications in the most prestigious academic journals with notoriously stringent acceptance standards since the award of tenure.
The additional considerations listed above for tenure recommendations are also applicable for assessing a research record for promotion to full professor.
Service:
Candidates for promotion to full professor normally would be expected to regularly participate in Area, School and/or University service activities and to demonstrate a willingness to serve on major school committees. A candidate who has habitually removed his or her name from consideration for election to committees, who has never volunteered or served the University, would likely not qualify for a rating of good or better.
Professional service such as reviewing for prestigious journals and active participation in professional organizations is also expected for a positive recommendation for promotion. Work on editorial boards or in editing roles is preferred and consistent with the expectation of an established national reputation.
5. Communication of Recommendation to Candidates
The dean of the school shall provide, in writing, the recommendations of the initial review to the candidate. If the dean does not concur with a positive recommendation from the committee, or concurs with a negative recommendation, the dean shall include a written rationale that will be included with the written recommendations provided to the candidate.
Forms and processes for this communication and candidate response forms are found at Office of Faculty Affairs.
D. Tenure and Rank Review for External Hires
When the School is considering extending an offer of employment with tenure above the rank of Assistant Professor to an external candidate, the P&T Committee will conduct a review of the candidate's record of teaching, research, and service. The committee should be provided with materials including a C.V., course evaluations, and references. Granting tenure to a person who has not previously been granted tenure by a research university after a standard promotion and tenure process would be an unusual event that would require an extraordinarily strong record. The committee will provide the Dean with a memo recommending whether or not to award tenure and rank to the external candidate with reference to standards described above.
Contact:
School of Business
Capitol Federal Hall
1654 Naismith Drive
Lawrence, KS 66045
785-864-7500
bschoolinfo@ku.edu
Approved by:
School of Business Faculty Assembly
Approved on:
Monday, August 1, 2016
Effective on:
Monday, August 1, 2016
Review Cycle:
Annual (As Needed)
Keywords:
promotion, tenure, committee
Change History:
09/05/2024: Substantial updates.
10/14/2021: Converted from PDF to live text page.
09/25/2018: Updated P&T process.
01/05/2017: Uploaded most recent version of P&T process/White Paper.
School/College Policy Categories:
Promotion & Tenure
