307 Promotion, Tenure and Development
At Georgia State University, the quality of faculty accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service largely determines the quality of the institution as a whole. To ensure that the institution and its faculty achieve a high level of excellence, it is necessary for us to engage in periodic evaluations of faculty. As mandated by the policies of the Board of Regents, an evaluation of each faculty member is conducted once a year by the faculty member's supervisor. The criteria that govern promotion and tenure decisions also govern the annual evaluations. Additionally, faculty members are evaluated for the purpose of promotion and tenure at appropriate intervals during their careers. Hence it is imperative that clear standards for promotion and tenure be articulated and publicized. This document provides a statement of promotion and tenure standards for all members of the faculty at Georgia State University.
In what follows, reference will be made to departments, departmental chairs, colleges, and Deans. The policies enunciated are to apply equally to all units comparable to departments (e.g. schools), to those units comparable to colleges (e.g. centers, divisions and library), and to the highest-level supervisors of these comparable units.
Tenure and promotion decisions are to be based on discipline-specific departmental criteria and college criteria, but satisfaction of these criteria should reflect comparable levels of accomplishment across the university. Although faculty members in different colleges are engaged in varied forms of research, creative effort, and other scholarly activity, the quality of achievement appropriate to the field in question should be comparable. This document provides a statement of the general, university-wide standards that govern the specific departmental and college criteria. These university standards define the expected quality of faculty accomplishments, while the departmental and college criteria identify the concrete forms these achievements should take.
Promotion and tenure decisions are extremely important to the life of the institution. They are the means by which the university retains its most valuable scholars, sustains excellence in its instructional program, and promotes its mission to advance knowledge. Consequently, standards should be high even as they take into account such factors as teaching loads and the level of support for scholarship at the institution. Moreover, standards should be expected to rise as the institution continues its drive for excellence.
Promotion and tenure decisions are also among the most important events in a faculty member's professional life. Accordingly, it is essential that all faculty members be treated fairly and granted due process in the deliberations that determine tenure and promotion. This document provides general guidelines that govern specific college procedures for promotion and tenure review; it also defines the procedures to be followed in the university-level review. These guidelines and procedures are designed to assure fairness and due process throughout the review process. Included among them are the appeals procedures to be followed in the event of disagreements over promotion and tenure recommendations.
The Office of the Provost periodically reviews college criteria and procedures for promotion and tenure in order to ascertain whether or not they are in accord with university-level standards and procedures and to ensure that all college policies are consistent with university policies.
Departmental chairs and senior colleagues are expected to mentor and advise all new faculty members. In particular, they should inform them of all promotion and tenure requirements. To this end, they should provide the new faculty members with copies of the appropriate departmental, college, and university promotion and tenure policies and explain the contents of these documents to them.
The Annual Calendar for Promotion and Tenure Review is shown below:
The exact dates are determined by the recommendation deadlines set each year by the University System Office as well as the University's academic calendar and holiday schedule.
3rd week of December: Dean reports Promotion and Tenure Review results to candidates and reasons for negative decisions [candidate has ten (10) business days to appeal to Provost]
3rd week of January: College/Unit Promotion and Tenure recommendations due to Provost
3rd week of January: Candidates' appeals of Promotion and Tenure decisions due to Provost
1st week of February: Provost completes Promotion and Tenure Review and consultation with Deans; Provost responds to appeals from candidates; Provost notifies Colleges and President of Promotion and Tenure recommendations
1st week of February: Deans notify candidates of Provost's Promotion and Tenure recommendations [Deans have three (3) business days to notify candidates and candidates then have ten (10) business days to appeal to the President and a copy to the Dean]
4th week of February: Appeals by candidates of Provost Promotion and Tenure recommendations due to President
1st week of March: President completes Promotion and Tenure Review and consultation with Deans; President responds to appeals from candidates; President informs Colleges of Promotion and Tenure approvals and information is sent to the Chancellor
[Sent to University Senate as an information item | 12/6/07]
307.01 Relevant Tenure Policies of the Board of Regents
1. It is intended that these tenure policies shall be the minimum standard for award of tenure, but they are to be sufficiently flexible to permit an institution to make individual adjustments to its own peculiar problems or circumstances. These policies are to be considered a statement of general requirements which are capable of application throughout the System and are not a limitation upon any additional standards and requirements which a particular institution may wish to adopt for its own improvement. Such additional standards and requirements, which must be consistent with the Regents' Policies, and approved by the Board of Regents, shall be incorporated into the Statutes of an institution.
2. Tenure resides at the institutional level. Institutional responsibility for employment of a tenured individual is to the extent of continued employment on a one hundred percent workload basis for three out of every four consecutive academic quarters until retirement, dismissal for cause, or release because of financial exigency or program modification as determined by the Board (see Section 803.0901).
3. Only Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, and Professors who are normally employed full-time by an institution are eligible for tenure. The term "full-time" is used in these tenure regulations to denote service on a one hundred percent workload basis for two out of every three consecutive academic terms.
Faculty members with adjunct appointments shall not acquire tenure. The award of tenure is limited to the above academic ranks and shall not be construed to include honorific appointments. (Board of Regents Minutes, 1990-91, pp.369-70)
4. Tenure may be awarded, upon recommendation by the President and approval by the Board of Regents, upon completion of a probationary period of at least five years of full-time service at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher. The five year period must be continuous except that a maximum of two years interruption because of a leave of absence or part-time service may be permitted; provided, however, that no probationary credit for the period of an interruption shall be allowed. A maximum of three years credit toward the minimum probationary period may be allowed for service at other institutions or for full-time service at the rank of instructor at the same institution. Such credit for prior service shall be defined in writing by the President and approved by the Chancellor at the time of the initial appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher.
5. The maximum time that may be served at the rank of Assistant Professor or above without the award of tenure shall be seven years, provided, however, that a terminal contract for an eighth year may be proffered if an institutional recommendation for tenure is not approved by the Board of Regents. The maximum time that may be served in any combination of full-time instructional appointments (instructor or professorial ranks) without the award of tenure shall be ten years, provided, however, that a terminal contract for an eleventh year may be proffered if an institutional recommendation for tenure is not approved by the Board of Regents.
6. The maximum time that may be served at the rank of full-time Instructor shall be seven years.
7. Tenure or probationary credit towards tenure is lost upon resignation from an institution, or written resignation from a tenured position in order to take an non-tenured position, or written resignation from a position for which probationary credit toward tenure is given in order to take a position for which no probationary credit is given. In the event such an individual is again employed as a candidate for tenure, probationary credit for the prior service may be awarded in the same manner as for service at another institution.
8. On approval of the award of tenure to an individual by the Board of Regents, that individual shall be notified in writing by the President of his/her institution, with a copy of the notification forwarded to the Chancellor.
9. Notice of the intention to renew or not to renew a non-tenured faculty member who has been awarded academic rank (instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor) shall be furnished, in writing, according to the following schedule:
This schedule of notification does not apply to persons holding temporary or part-time positions in whatever rank stated.
307.02 Time in Rank Requirements by the Board of Regents
The policy of the Board of Regents with respect to minimum time in rank for consideration for promotion (Section 4.03.01 of the Academic Affairs Handbook) states that the normal minimum time in the rank for promotion from the rank of instructor to assistant professor is three years in residence, from the rank of assistant professor to associate professor is four years in residence, and from the rank of associate professor to professor is five years in residence.
307.03 Georgia State University Standards
All candidates for promotion and/or tenure will be evaluated in the three areas of (1) teaching, advising and serving students (to include instruction both inside and outside the classroom environment and professional practice, when appropriate), (2) academic achievement and professional development (to include research, other forms of scholarship, and creative activity), and (3) service (to include departmental, college, university, and professional service as well as public service involving professional expertise). In each of these areas candidates will be evaluated as to whether or not they have met, exceeded, or clearly surpassed the expectations for promotion or tenure at peer institutions, defined to be those institutions rated at the same level by the Carnegie or a comparable criteria. Norms and expectations appropriate to the discipline are specified in the unit/college manuals and are expected to be consistent with those criteria at peer institutions as described above.
The tenure criteria for faculty hired at the rank of associate professor are the same as those for promotion to associate professor with tenure. Similarly, the criteria for tenure at the rank of professor are the same as those for promotion to the rank of professor with tenure. The granting of promotion to associate professor without tenure or tenure at the assistant professor level without promotion should occur only in discipline-specific or exceptional individual circumstances.
Consideration for promotion or tenure prior to the normal minimum time in rank specified by the Board of Regents, measured by standards appropriate to the field, should occur only in cases in which there is a clear indication of exceptional merit.
307.04 Procedures
All promotion and tenure decisions at Georgia State University are to be based on university, college, and departmental procedures as well as on university, college, and departmental standards and criteria. Each unit that is engaged in promotion and tenure decisions must have a manual on promotion and tenure that clearly sets forth its criteria and standards for promotion and tenure as well as the procedures to be followed in the departmental and college phases of the promotion and tenure process. This manual must be approved by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs in accordance with relevant peer university and national norms.
The following general stipulations must be common to the procedures of all colleges:
1. Cumulative Review for Tenure Track Faculty
A formal review of the progress made toward promotion and tenure will be made after three years so that all tenure track faculty members have a clear idea of how adequately they are progressing toward successfully achieving promotion and tenure. This review will be conducted by a committee of at least three faculty of the appropriate rank elected from the tenured faculty. Normally these faculty members will be from the unit; however, in small units faculty of appropriate rank from outside the unit may be elected. This cumulative review should address accomplishments in teaching, advising and serving students, in research/scholarly/creative activity, and in service. It will be based on available information; e.g., annual reports, student and peer evaluations of teaching, curriculum vita, publications, etc.; a candidate should not be expected to prepare additional materials solely for the purpose of the cumulative review. This cumulative review should provide an opportunity for colleagues to review accomplishments and provide assistance to the tenure track faculty member seeking tenure and promotion. Such review should complement efforts to implement mentoring programs within each unit. The cumulative review is distinguished from the annual review in that it encourages a longer term perspective on accomplishments while still permitting time for changes in orientation and activity of the individual involved. Guidelines for cumulative review shall be specified in each unit.
A mid-course review instead of the three-year review is suggested in those cases in which the faculty member is hired with prior credit.
A cumulative review should be reviewed and commented on by the department chair, the Dean and the Provost. Faculty must receive a written report of the results of this review.
2. Cumulative Review and Development for Tenured Faculty [Replaced 20 February 1997] All units will conduct a cumulative review of a tenured faculty member. This review will be conducted either by the elected Promotion and Tenure Committee of the College/Unit or by an independently elected committee consisting of at least three tenured faculty. In case of the latter, the composition of the committee and procedures for its election will be determined by the faculty for each college or unit. This review should begin five years after the most recent promotion and continue at five year intervals unless interrupted by a further promotion or impending candidacy for promotion within a year. This cumulative review should address accomplishments in teaching, advising and serving students, in research/scholarly/creative activity, and in service. It will be based on available information; e.g., annual reports, student/peer evaluations of teaching, curriculum vita, publications, etc. The only additional information that a candidate is expected to supply is a two-page statement of effectiveness in teaching, research, and service over the previous five years. This document should be accompanied by another page outlining projected five-year goals.
Such review provides an opportunity to assess faculty development goals and achievements and provides assistance to faculty in ensuring continuous intellectual and professional growth and provides assistance to the unit in ensuring that all faculty members are contributing to the unit's goals and responsibilities. The cumulative review is distinguished from an annual review in that the former requires faculty and administrators to assess achievements and goals over a longer term, potentially at differing levels (e.g., multi-year projects, research, scholarship) and can facilitate longer term growth and development. Such review might also be connected to determining eligibility to serve as a member of a college's graduate faculty. Guidelines for this review shall be specified in each unit.
A cumulative review should be reviewed and commented on by the department chair, by the Dean and the Provost. Faculty must receive a written report as to the results of this review. After completion of these assessments, a conference is held between the Chair/Director and the faculty member. This conference will produce a plan which focuses on professional goals and/or workload profile, for subsequent approval by the Dean. The Dean of each college will confer with the faculty member and will be responsible for monitoring progress through the regular process of annual faculty evaluations.
Nothing in these guidelines alters the existing rules dealing with tenure termination.
(Source: Approved by the University Senate 20 February 1997)
3. Annual College Meeting
Each college will conduct a meeting each year for the promotion and tenure candidates within the college. This meeting should be held prior to the time candidates must assemble their promotion and tenure dossiers. The purpose of the meeting is to explain promotion and tenure policies and to answer candidates' questions about any and all phases of the promotion and tenure process. The meeting should be open to all interested faculty members in the college.
4. External Reviewer Letters
At least three letters from outside reviewers will be obtained on each candidate. These reviewers should be drawn from lists of those recommended from the candidate, the chair or other appropriate administrator. The outside reviewers will be asked to speak to the quality and level of the candidate's accomplishments in academic achievement/professional development and the impact this work has had on the discipline. Outside reviewers may also be asked to address the candidate's accomplishments in teaching and service, if applicable. The outside reviewers should be affiliated with institutions in which the emphasis on research and scholarship is of a rigor similar to or more demanding than that at Georgia State University. In appropriate circumstances, outside reviewers may be drawn from relevant non-academic settings which maintain similarly rigorous standards. A brief resume of the outside reviewer--or a description of this person's accomplishments and standing in the field (prepared by the departmental chair or other comparable academic official)--should accompany the reviewer's letter of evaluation.
The letters from the outside reviewers will be made available to faculty members involved in the decision making and will be part of the material to be considered by the relevant committees, as well as by any individual or group subsequently involved in the review beyond the initial level.
5. Candidate's Dossier
All candidates for promotion and/or tenure will prepare a dossier that contains a record of their achievements (in teaching, advising and serving students, academic achievement and professional development, and service), appropriate documentation, copies of their published works, all published reviews of their work, and information about the nature and term of any funded research.
5a. Teaching Effectiveness
Candidates for promotion and tenure must submit evidence of teaching effectiveness that includes, but goes beyond, the results of student evaluations. This evidence might include peer evaluation, representative syllabi, selected examinations and quizzes, reading lists or handouts (or comparable information given to students), a list of special projects, theses and dissertations directed, and an indication of teaching awards and student accomplishments.
5b. Scholarly Assessment
Each college will build into its promotion and tenure manual a clear indication of the types of assessments used in the unit. Moreover, the manual should require that relevant committees include in their recommendations an assessment of the quality and standing in the profession of the journals, presses, museums, exhibitions, concerts, performances and the like in which the candidate's work has appeared. Candidates should identify clearly in their dossiers which of their publications appear in refereed journals. Candidates with co-authored works should clearly indicate their contribution to the works, and evaluative committee(s) should incorporate assessment of this contribution in their letter of recommendation.
5c. Service Assessment
Each college will build into its promotion and tenure manual a clear indication of the types of service assessments used in the unit. University, professional and community accomplishments constitute appropriate activity in this area of assessment.
6. Evaluation of Dossier
The chair and the relevant committee of the department or college will assess the dossier of the candidate in a substantive, detailed, and in-depth fashion, placing special emphasis on the quality and contribution to knowledge of the candidate's scholarly work, and, if appropriate, its impact on professional practice. The departmental or college administrator and/or committee should also provide written reference to the substance of letters from the outside reviewers. The augmentation of promotion and tenure committees with members at the appropriate rank from other departments may be considered in small departments which have insufficient numbers of faculty to constitute a committee of at least three members.
7. College Committee and Dean's Role
Each college or unit will have a committee on promotion and tenure. Such committees will evaluate candidates in light of the recommendations of the departmental committee and departmental chair, if applicable, and the letters from the outside reviewers and make recommendations to the Dean concerning the promotion and/or tenure of each candidate. The Dean in turn will evaluate all of the candidates in light of all the available assessments and forward all positive recommendations to the provost of the university.
In all instances of a positive recommendation at the college level, a file containing the candidate's curriculum vitae, the various letters of internal assessment, and the letters from the outside reviewers will go forward for review at the university level.
8. Written Notification to Candidate
At each of the stages of review, a candidate must receive a written notice of the outcome of the deliberations and a copy of any evaluation(s) that are made of the candidate's credentials including any minority reports. A candidate has the right to respond in writing to any or all of these evaluations, and copies of the candidate's response(s) will be included in the material reviewed at all higher levels.
9. Negative Recommendations at College Level
Departmental and college review should result in denial of promotion and/or tenure for candidates whose records do not meet departmental or college criteria. No such candidates should be forwarded for university-level review.
Candidates not recommended by the Dean must be notified in writing no later than ten working days after the Dean's decision. Candidates who are not recommended by the Dean may appeal the Dean's decision to the provost. This appeal must be made in writing no later than ten working days after receipt of the Dean's written decision. (See section on "Promotion and Tenure Appeals to Negative Recommendations Made by College Dean.")
10. Candidates With Probationary Credit
Candidates for promotion to associate professor or for tenure at the associate professor or professor levels who have been given probationary credit for service at other institutions may submit as part of their dossiers any work done during the one, two, or three years spent at other institutions for which the probationary credit was awarded. Candidates for promotion to professor who have received probationary credit may submit all work done since their promotion to associate professor.
11. Pretenure Review
Under exceptional circumstances colleges may wish to issue assurances of no further or limited tenure review to outstanding candidates for faculty positions. These pretenure reviews will occur at the time of appointment and should be restricted to faculty with distinguished records who have been previously tenured at an equivalent institution. Pretenure reviews must be approved by the usual tenure-decision making bodies of the unit, after which the file will be considered complete at the unit level and will then be forwarded to the Provost's Office for review.
L. Calendar
Each college will include in its promotion and tenure manual a calendar for the various steps involved in the promotion and tenure process. An annual calendar for promotion and tenure review is shown at the beginning of this section.
307.05 Procedures To Be Followed During the University-level Review of Promotion and Tenure Candidates
Upon completion of reviews in the colleges, dossiers, which have resulted in favorable recommendation, will be forwarded to the Provost. The Provost will review the dossiers based upon the foregoing guidelines, norms, and expectations of the unit and forward positive recommendations to the President. If the Provost expects to forward a negative recommendation to the President he/she will first consult with the appropriate Dean of the college. The President conducts an independent review of the dossiers, also based upon the foregoing guidelines, norms, and expectations for the unit including college and departmental specifications, and makes promotion and tenure recommendations to the Chancellor. The time interval and the opportunities for review, appeal and consultation reflected on the attached will be specified in a Promotion and Tenure Review Schedule and shall be incorporated into future schedules.
A. Promotion and Tenure Appeals to a Negative Recommendation Made by Department or College Promotion and Tenure Committee or Departmental Chair
Appeals of a negative P&T recommendation by a departmental or college P&T committee or by a departmental chair will be heard in accordance with the appeal procedures provided in the P&T policies of the respective colleges.
B. Promotion and Tenure Appeals to Negative Recommendations Made by College Dean
The college dean shall provide the candidate with a written statement citing reasons for a negative recommendation. Upon receipt of this statement, the candidate shall have, at least, ten business days to appeal the negative recommendation to the Provost. The grounds for appeal shall be procedural errors detrimental to the candidate. Such procedural errors may include violations of due process, such as arbitrariness, capriciousness and discrimination, as well as bias and other forms of nonprofessional judgement on the part of any person or group involved in the promotion and tenure review. A difference in the evaluation of a candidate's accomplishments among the candidate, the departmental or college promotion and tenure committee, the departmental chair, and/or the college dean is not an adequate basis for appeal. The appeal to the Provost must be in writing and must provide a specific statement of the basis for the appeal. New information (e.g., in-process, accepted or published scholarship) which substantially alters the nature of the record as reviewed within the college may not, however, be included. Any such
The Provost may gather additional information pertaining to the appeal from the candidate, the college dean, the departmental chair, the departmental or college promotion and tenure committee, and/or other appropriate individuals inside or outside the university. The Provost may initiate meetings with the candidate and the college dean, together or separately, to discuss specifics of the appeal. If the Provost determines that the candidate's appeal should be supported, the Provost shall remand the promotion and tenure recommendation to the dean. The Provost shall provide the candidate with a written decision, including a statement of the bases upon which the appeal is supported or rejected.
This written decision shall be furnished to the candidate at least ten business days prior to the date the candidate must submit an appeal to the Provost.
C. Promotion and Tenure Appeals to Negative Recommendations Made by the Provost
The Provost will inform the President at the same time as the college Dean of the Provost's P&T recommendations. The Dean shall notify each candidate of the Provost's recommendation within three business days after receiving the recommendation from the Provost. Within ten business days of receiving notice of the negative decision of the Provost, the candidate may appeal in writing to the President. The appeal to the President shall conform to the principles and processes stated above for appeals to the Provost. The President shall provide the candidate a written decision within ten business days of receiving the appeal including a statement of the bases upon which the candidate's appeal is supported or rejected.
The periods specified above for filing appeals shall not supersede deadlines for recommendations to be forwarded to the Board of Regents.
D. Promotion and Tenure Appeals to Negative Recommendations Made by the President
Appeals of a negative decision about a candidate's accomplishments made by the President shall be directed to the Chancellor of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. The appeal policies and procedures of the Board of Regents shall be applied as stated in the Policy Manual of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia ( BOR Policy, Section 201.08).
(Approved by the University Senate, November 3, 1994)