POLICY
MEMORANDUM 75-III.22-3 Issued:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Editorial
Amendments:
Revised:
Revised:
GENERAL STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES:
FACULTY PROMOTION, REAPPOINTMENT, AND
TENURE
Preamble
The
standards and procedures for faculty review set forth herein are designed to
promote and maintain excellence in the quality of the faculty at The University
of Texas at
The
faculty is charged through the ad hoc committees and the Committee on
Qualifications of Academic Personnel (CQ) with the evaluation of the academic
qualifications of faculty members who are under consideration for
reappointment, promotion, or tenure. The
President, acting on advice from the faculty and other factors such as
University needs and budgetary limitations, is responsible to the Chancellor
and to the Board of Regents for final decisions on recommendations for
promotion, reappointment, and tenure.
Standards
The
University recognizes three categories of standards of performance in matters
of promotion, reappointment and tenure.
They are (a) creative productivity and professional achievement; (b)
teaching effectiveness; and (c) University citizenship, that amorphous blend of
willingness to participate actively as citizens in the life of the University
and as collegial representatives of the University in extramural settings. Faculty in the tenure track are expected to
perform well in each arena, and they are expected to demonstrate excellence as
teachers, as creative professionals, or both.
The
Creative Productivity and Professional
Achievement
Evidence
of research and of scholarly or creative achievements should include
publication in peer-reviewed journals; monographs which contribute to advancing
knowledge or its utilization in the resolution of societal problems;
development of widely adopted clinical or educational techniques which advance
the quality of life; presentations at professional gatherings; and visual and
other artistic contributions in regional and national exhibitions.
It
is the responsibility of the Dean and faculty of each School to provide
guidelines for peer review that articulate the substance of the standards
concerning creative productivity and professional achievement expected of a
faculty member. The standards should
define the philosophy and objectives of the various academic programs. These guidelines should be made available to
all faculty in each School, and a copy should accompany the file of a candidate
under review through all the stages of review.*
(*Guidelines are attached.)
School
Guidelines are intended to supplement and not substitute for the standards detailed for Creative Productivity and
Professional Achievement. Accordingly,
the guidelines should be applied in
concert with the standards, and should not be misunderstood as superseding the
standards in any way.
Teaching
Because
of the difficulties in measuring teaching effectiveness, it is extremely
important that ad hoc committees seek a variety of ways to evaluate an
individual's teaching. Teaching
effectiveness is not to be measured solely in terms of teaching in organized
courses. The willingness and ability to
supervise Independent Studies and direct graduate students towards preparation
for qualifying examinations and in preparing theses and dissertations is a
major function of faculty in most Schools of the University. The willingness, or lack of it, to engage in
teaching of undergraduate and interdisciplinary courses, of Teacher Education
courses and student teaching supervision, of core or required courses, teaching
of evening or Saturday courses, etc., should also be considered as part of the
faculty member's overall profile as a teacher.
Additionally, the willingness and ability to undertake certain types of
administrative activities that are directly related to curriculum development,
and to assume duties of student advisement, should be considered part of an
individual's teaching effectiveness.
Additional evidence of a faculty member's contribution to improve
teaching effectiveness would be the development, implementation, and publishing
of innovative educational methods.
University Citizenship
All
faculty members are expected to participate as citizens in the life of the
University. Citizenship and service to
the academic community typically include membership in governance bodies and
committees, administrative duties, program planning and development, public service,
and special assignments from the President.
Procedures
The
procedures for the review of non-tenured tenure track faculty members for
promotion, reappointment, and/or tenure, and for the review of tenured
Associate Professors for promotion to Professor are intended to provide for a
thorough and impartial review of the qualities of each faculty member in terms
of the standards set forth above.
In
accordance with the Regents' Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter
III, Section 6, for purposes of calculating the period of probationary service
prior to a review for tenure, an "academic year" shall be the period
from September 1 through the following August 31.
If
a faculty member is initially appointed during an academic year, the period of
service from the date of appointment until the following September 1 shall not
be counted as academic service toward fulfillment of the maximum probationary
period. One year of probationary service
is accrued by at least nine months full-time academic service during any
academic year. A faculty member shall be
considered to be on full-time academic service when in full compliance with
Regental standards pertaining to minimum faculty workloads.
A
faculty member who determines that certain personal circumstances may impede
his or her progress toward achieving demonstration of eligibility for
recommendation of award of tenure may make a written request for extension
specifying the reason(s) for the requested extension. Personal circumstances that may justify the
extension include, but are not restricted to, disability or illness of the
faculty member; status of the faculty member as a principal caregiver of a
preschool child; or status of the faculty member as a principal caregiver of a
disabled, elderly, or ill member of the family of the faculty member. It is the responsibility of the faculty
member to provide appropriate documentation to adequately demonstrate why the
request should be granted.
The request for extension shall be limited to one academic year. A request for an additional academic year's extension will follow the established request process, with the maximum duration of extension, whether consecutive or nonconsecutive, to be two academic years.
Normally,
requests for extension must be made in advance of the academic year or semester
for which the extension is desired and may be made no later than three months
prior to the deadline for initiation of the mandatory review process to
determine recommended award of tenure, or notice, as provided under Subsection
6.7 of the Regents' Rules, that the next year will be the faculty
member's terminal year of the appointment.
The
decision regarding the request shall be made by the Executive Vice President
and Provost (Provost), upon recommendation of the Department Head and the Dean,
within 30 working days from the date the request is received in the Office of
the Provost.
It
is the policy of The University of Texas at Dallas that tenure-track faculty
who are not awarded tenure at the end of the sixth academic year of their
probationary service be given notice of non-renewal and be appointed to one
year of terminal service. Therefore, a
review and decision for faculty serving their sixth year in a rank is
mandatory. In all other instances, the
timing for recommendations for tenure and promotion, or for non-renewal of
appointment, is discretionary. Once an
ad hoc committee has been formed and has decided to proceed with a
discretionary tenure review (in particular, after the soliciting of outside
letters has begun), the review will not be interrupted. Normally, all tenure reviews are definitive
and end with a decision to promote or to issue a notice of terminal year
appointment. Newly appointed
tenure-track faculty members will be notified in their letter of appointment of
the number of years of prior service, if any, credited toward satisfaction of
the probationary period of service at The University of Texas at
In
the first two years of service, faculty may be recommended for non-reappointment
by the Faculty Personnel Review Committee, the Dean, and the Provost, without
formal ad hoc committee review. Faculty
in the first year of service will be notified of non-reappointment by March 1,
and faculty in the second year will be notified of non-reappointment by
December 15. The appointment of faculty
who are so notified will terminate with completion of that contract year. Faculty in the third, fourth, or fifth years
of service may be recommended for non-reappointment on the basis of an ad hoc
committee review. Written notification
of non-reappointment must be provided by July 30, and the faculty member is
entitled to a terminal academic year of appointment.
For
Assistant Professors, tenure decisions typically will be made in the sixth year
of service. Assistant Professors may
request a tenure review prior to the sixth year of service with the
understanding that the decision reached as a result of that review will either
be to promote to Associate Professor with tenure or to issue a notice of
terminal year appointment. A faculty
member appointed initially without tenure must serve one academic year at The
University of Texas at
Reviews
conducted during the third and tenure-decision years should include
recommendations from an ad hoc committee, the Dean, the Committee on
Qualifications of Academic Personnel (CQ), and the Provost, with final action
taken by the President. The third-year
review should decide, if possible, whether the performance of the faculty
member demonstrates a potential for tenure at a subsequent point of tenure
review. A notice of non-reappointment
and a terminal year of appointment may occur if the faculty member under review
demonstrates extreme inadequacy in original investigation or teaching. Following
the third-year review, the faculty member should be advised of desired future
achievements.
Professional
progress conferences may be held at an appropriate time each year at the
request of a non-tenured faculty member.
These conferences should enable the faculty member to have some assessment
of his or her professional progress, with emphasis on each of the basic
elements on which the professional quality of a faculty member's performance is
based namely, teaching effectiveness, creative productivity and professional
achievement, and University citizenship.
The
dates given in the schedule below are deadlines and should be followed as
closely as possible. For promotions to
the rank of Professor, the Provost is encouraged to advance the review process
so that the ad hoc committee review may begin in the preceding Spring.
Schedule
of Review Process Third-Year Tenure or
for
Faculty Who Are Beyond Reappointment Tenured Faculty Professor
The Second Year
of Service Review Review Review
Faculty
Personnel Review
Committee recommendation and
notification to faculty member
and the Provost
by the Dean April
1 April 1 April 1
Request
from Provost to faculty
seeking
promotion to Professor
to update their
files by April 15 April
1
Establishment of ad hoc Review
Committees for promotion to
Professor; review by Deans’
Council; appointments made;
Provost meets with ad hoc Review
Committee
chairs and chair of CQ April
8
Request from Provost to third-year
and T/TT faculty to update their
files by
September 1 April
15 April 15
Establishment
of ad hoc Review
Committees and
notification to
third-year and
T/TT faculty to
consult with
Dean April
15 April 15
Deans’ Council
make final ad hoc
Review
Committee assignments
for third-year
and T/TT reviews April
15 April 15
Provost, Ad Hoc
Review Committee
Chairs, and
Chair of CQ Meeting
for third-year
and T/TT reviews September
1 September 1
File with ad
hoc Review Committee
report
forwarded to Dean November
1 December 15 November 1
File with ad
hoc Committee report
and recommendation
of Dean
forwarded to CQ November
21 January 15 November 21
Schedule of Review Process Third-Year Tenure or
for Faculty Who
Are Beyond Reappointment Tenured Faculty Professor
The Second Year
of Service Review Review Review
File
with recommendation of
Dean
and recommendation of
CQ forwarded to
Provost December
21 February 15 December 21
File with recommendation of
Provost
forwarded to President January
15 March 1 January 15
Notice of Appointment to faculty
member from
President April
1* April 1* April 1*
*This
is a target date; the President is obligated to provide notice of non-renewal
to faculty beyond their second year of probationary service by July 30.
Faculty Review Files
A
faculty member who will be reviewed under this policy for reappointment,
granting of tenure and/or promotion is responsible for preparing the file which
will constitute the essential basis for this review. The Review File as submitted by the faculty
member to the Office of the Provost will include a complete professional vita
from the faculty member which covers the areas of research, teaching, and
service; copies of the five most significant publications or creative works; a
written evaluative description of the publications or creative works that the
faculty member believes are most pertinent to the tenure and/or promotion
judgments; and, for review which may result in granting of tenure and/or
promotion, a list in a marked, sealed envelope of at least six but not more
than twelve individuals recommended as external evaluators of the faculty member's
professional qualifications and contributions.
In addition, all internal third-year, sixth-year, and tenure reviews
should be accompanied by statistical summaries of the teaching evaluation form
for each course taught during the previous six regular, long semesters
(including transcripts of or original comments by students). Statistical summaries and student comments
should be obtained from the School Dean.
The Review File should also include any other available information
regarding teaching effectiveness, such as copies of syllabi and exams. Upon
receipt of the basic Review File from the faculty member, the Office of the
Provost will inventory the contents and insert a copy of the inventory in the
file.
The
basic Review File will be transferred from the Office of the Provost to the
faculty member's ad hoc committee at the appropriate point in the review
cycle. The ad hoc committee will work
with the faculty member in assuring that the Basic Review file as submitted is
supplemented and completed as necessary.
All additions or changes in the file shall be noted on the inventory
sheet, with copies of alterations sent to the Office of the Provost.
The
ad hoc committee has the authority and responsibility to add material to the
basic Review File; these additions being clearly identified in the "ad hoc
committee" component of the Review File.
Possible additions will include items such as the letters from external
and internal evaluators for the ad hoc committee's review of teaching
performance, and the ad hoc committee's recommendations. All these additions will be entered on the
file inventory sheet.
Faculty Right to Files
If
a faculty member requests to see his or her file during the review process,
then (depending on who is in possession of the file at the time of the request)
the Chair of the ad hoc committee, or the Chair of the Committee on
Qualifications of Academic Personnel (CQ), or the Dean is required to send the
file promptly to the Office of the Provost, where it will be made available to
the faculty member.
Faculty Personnel Review Committee
Faculty
Personnel Review Committees are chaired by the Dean of the School and must
include at least four tenured faculty members from the School appointed by the
Dean or elected by the faculty. If
appointed, service on the Faculty Personnel Review Committee should rotate
among the tenured faculty on a staggered annual cycle with no appointment to
exceed two years. If elected, terms should be for two years with no members
succeeding themselves. Only tenured
faculty may serve on this committee, and recommendations regarding tenured
Associate Professors may be made only by tenured Professors.
All
faculty members other than Professors will have their previous year's work
reviewed annually by the Faculty Personnel Review Committee. This annual review can lead to:
1. A
recommendation that an ad hoc committee be composed to assess the faculty
member's suitability for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, or
2. In
the case of faculty in their first or second year of service, to a
recommendation that the faculty member not be reappointed.
These
recommendations will be communicated by the Dean to the Provost according to
the schedule.
A
faculty member may request an ad hoc committee review even if the School's
initial decision is not to initiate such a review. Such requests will be submitted to the Dean
of the School for recommendation to the Provost.
Ad Hoc Committees
Ad
hoc committees are formed to review faculty upon the recommendation of the Faculty
Personnel Review Committee or, given a request of a faculty member, on the
recommendation of the Dean. Ad hoc
committees are composed of five tenured faculty members nominated by the Deans
and appointed by the Provost. Where
possible, the ad hoc committee should include three members of the specific
areas of competence of the faculty member under review. In cases where a School has too few tenured
faculty relative to the number of cases to be considered, the number of ad hoc
committee members may be reduced to four.
At least one, but no more than two, member(s) of the committee will be
appointed from outside the School, and no fewer than two will be appointed from
within the School. Candidates will be
notified of the composition of the ad hoc committee and may discuss its
possible re-composition with the Dean, if they prefer.
Soon
after ad hoc committees are appointed, the Provost shall convene a meeting of
their Chairs with the Chair of the Committee on Qualifications of Academic
Personnel (CQ) to go over the requirements of the review process.
The
task of the ad hoc committee is to conduct a thorough review of the faculty
member's qualifications for promotion, reappointment, and/or tenure. It is not the role of the ad hoc committee to
serve as a partisan for or against the faculty member. Weaknesses should be addressed as well as
strengths. With regard to the substance
of the review, the ad hoc committees are asked to assess qualifications of the
faculty member in terms of the University's standards.
The
ad hoc committee has the authority to solicit information and opinions from any
other sources in order to conduct a thorough review. In soliciting such information, the ad hoc
committee is not bound to send the exact publications or creative works
identified within the written evaluative description of the publications or
creative works submitted by the faculty member; however, any deviations should
be justified. For third-year reviews,
above-rank faculty colleagues should be given the opportunity to provide
written individual opinions to the ad hoc committee for its consideration. For tenure reviews, the ad hoc committee
should solicit written individual opinions from above-rank faculty colleagues.
For
tenure or promotion recommendations, the ad hoc committee should obtain
opinions concerning the faculty member's professional qualifications from at
least five external authorities, these authorities being selected without prior
reference to the list of external authorities provided by the faculty member as
potential evaluators. To ensure the
independence of the committee's choices from the candidate's recommendations,
the candidate's recommendations should be submitted in an appropriately marked,
sealed envelope. After the committee's
choices have been determined, additional references as suggested by the
candidate can be added to the list of those to be contacted. Requests for evaluation of the candidate
should follow the example letter provided to the ad hoc committees and should
state clearly that tenure review files may be inspected by the faculty
member. The credentials of the external
reviewers should be reported in sufficient detail to establish their competence
to make the evaluations requested of them.
The ad hoc committee report should state the total number received, and
the number outstanding at the time of forwarding the file to the Committee on
Qualifications of Academic Personnel (CQ).
The ad hoc committee should clearly indicate which reviewers were chosen
by the committee and which were chosen just by the candidate. Reappointment and termination recommendations
for third-year faculty may be based solely on the solicitations of internal
appraisals and the judgment of the ad hoc committee.
Also,
for tenure and promotion reviews, faculty members of rank higher than the
faculty member under review are charged with reviewing the ad hoc review file
and shall offer collective as well as individual judgments. In accord with each School's policies, the
collective judgment will be in the form of a secret ballot by the above-rank
faculty in favor of or in opposition to the promotion and/or tenuring of the
faculty member under review. The vote
must take place after the ad hoc review file has been assembled, including the
ad hoc committee's written report, and before the file is forwarded to the
Dean. No one shall vote who has not read
the ad hoc review file. All votes must
be accompanied by signatures of everyone who has voted attesting to the fact
that the above-rank faculty member has read the file. All faculty voting will sign a letter
reporting the vote and summarizing the discussion. The letter will be written by a member of the
faculty who will be chosen by the faculty present at the time of the vote. Any written recommendations of any kind added
to the file must be signed by all those participating in the recommendation.
Ad
hoc committees, in judging the merits of a faculty member, should ignore
entirely any anonymous material that may have found its way into a review file. Material may be anonymous because it is not
signed or because, even though signed, it reports anonymous or secondhand
(hearsay) evidence. Appraisals of
teaching taken in accord with School and University policy on the evaluation of
teaching are not anonymous material in this sense, provided that there exists a
chain of certification in which those making the original judgments were not
anonymous to the person(s) preparing summaries of and/or transmitting the
original report(s).
Recommendations
of ad hoc committees and the attendant evidence are to be forwarded to the Dean
for further review. The report of the ad
hoc committee should be signed by all committee members.
Dean
Upon
review of the ad hoc committee file, the Dean shall append the Dean's recommendation
to the file and forward the file to the Committee on Qualifications.
Committee on Qualifications
The
Committee on Qualifications is composed of twelve tenured faculty members, two
from each School with the exception of General Studies, appointed by the
President with the advice of the Academic Council. Administrators above the level of Department
Head are not eligible to serve. The
Committee is advisory to the Provost and is responsible for certifying that the
evidence in the file substantiates the recommendations of the ad hoc committee
and the Dean. The Committee may not
solicit data on its own. The Committee
on Qualifications forwards the file with its recommendations to the
Provost. The report of the Committee on
Qualifications should be signed by all committee members present at the
discussion of that file.
Executive Vice President and Provost
The
Provost is responsible for reviewing all of the files related to faculty
promotions, reappointments, and tenure, and for making a recommendation to the
President regarding each. Before issuing
a recommendation for or against promotion of a faculty member to the rank of
Associate Professor or Professor, or for tenure, which is contrary to the
recommendation of a Dean, the Committee on Qualifications, or the ad hoc
committee, the Provost will first meet with the disagreeing Dean or Committee,
and explore the reasons in the file leading to their recommendation. The Provost’s recommendation to the President
must contain a summary of these discussions.
President
The
President is responsible to the Chancellor and the Board of Regents for final
decisions on recommendations for reappointments, promotions, and tenure.
Post Decision Notification
Following
the President's decision, the President will inform the Provost who will convey
the President's decision to the faculty member, the Dean, the Chair of the
Committee on Qualifications, and the Chair of the ad hoc committee.
Appeal
Procedures
for appeal of a decision on reappointment, promotion, or tenure are in Part
One, Chapter III, Section 6.35 of the Regents' Rules and Regulations.
SCHOOL
GUIDELINES
SCHOOL OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES
The
following guidelines serve to elaborate and provide greater specificity to the
Standard of Creative Productivity and Professional Achievement for the review
of faculty in the
The
creative productivity and professional achievement of faculty members in the
HUMANITIES
(Art
and Performance/Aesthetic Studies, Literary Studies/Studies in Literature,
Historical Studies/History of Ideas)
For
faculty in the Humanities, evidence of creative productivity and professional
achievement will normally take the form of the publication of a book or books,
and/or chapters and essays in multi-authored publications, and/or articles in
peer-review journals.
For
promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, creative productivity and
professional achievement will be assessed in accordance with the following
guidelines:
1. The
candidate has selected research projects which will lead to significant results
in the field.
2. The
candidate has demonstrated through performance at UTD the ability to conduct
independent research.
3. The
candidate's independent research has contributed significantly to the field.
4. At
what institutions would the candidate's productivity at the time of assessment
justify promotion to tenure.
For
promotion to the rank of Professor with tenure, creative productivity and
professional achievements will be assessed as follows:
1. Scholars
in related fields recognize as notable the contributions of the candidate.
2. The
candidate has made an impact in the field of the candidate's scholarly
pursuits.
3. At
what institutions would the candidate's productivity at the time of assessment
justify promotion to Professor.
ART
AND PERFORMANCE/AESTHETIC STUDIES
For
faculty in Art and Performance/Aesthetic Studies, evidence of creative
productivity and professional achievement will be as follows:
ART
AND PERFORMANCE/AESTHETIC STUDIES: For
promotion to Associate Professor with tenure in Art and Performance/Aesthetic
Studies (Theater), the following guidelines apply:
1. For
actors and directors, recommendations for promotion and tenure are to be made,
among other factors, on the basis of evidence of demonstrated excellence in
performance or productions, including regional critical acclaim.
2. For
technical directors, stage designers, and costume designers, recommendations
for promotion and tenure are to be made, among other factors, on the basis of
evidence of demonstrated excellence in productions on the UTD campus or
elsewhere.
For
promotion to Professor in Art and Performance/Aesthetic Studies (Theater), the
following guidelines apply:
1. For
actors and directors, recommendations for promotion and tenure are to be made,
among other factors, on the basis of evidence of demonstrated excellence in
performance or productions, including national critical acclaim.
2. For
technical directors, stage designers, and costume designers, recommendations
for promotion and tenure are to be made, among other factors, on the basis of
evidence of demonstrated excellence through regional/national recognition in
productions on the UTD campus or elsewhere.
ART
AND PERFORMANCE/AESTHETIC STUDIES (VISUAL ARTS): For promotion to Associate Professor with
tenure in the Art and Performance/Aesthetic Studies (Visual Arts), the
following guidelines apply:
1. For
studio artists, recommendations for promotion and tenure are to be made, among
other factors, on the basis of the demonstrated excellence of their exhibited
work, including at least regional critical acclaim.
For
promotion to Professor in Art and Performance/Aesthetic Studies (Visual Arts),
the following guidelines apply:
1. For
studio artists, recommendations for promotion are to be made, among other
factors, on the basis of the demonstrated excellence of their exhibited work,
including national critical acclaim.
LITERARY
STUDIES/STUDIES IN LITERATURE (CREATIVE WRITING): For promotion to Associate Professor with
tenure in Literary Studies/Studies in Literature (Creative Writing), the
following guidelines apply:
1. For
Creative Writers, recommendations for promotion and tenure are to be made,
among other factors, on the basis of the demonstrated excellence in creative
writing, including publication and regional critical acclaim.
For
promotion to Professor in Literary Studies/Studies in Literature (Creative
Writing), the following guidelines apply:
1. For
Creative Writers, recommendations for promotion and tenure are to be made,
among other factors, on the basis of demonstrated excellence in creative
writing, including publication and national critical acclaim.
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
The
following guidelines serve to elaborate and provide greater specificity to the
Standards of Creative Productivity and Professional Achievement for the review
of faculty in the
Individuals
will be evaluated on the basis of their present and potential future
contribution to the fundamental basis of practice of the profession of
engineering and/or computer science, and on the conduct of research of scholarly
activity appropriate to the training of graduate students and advanced
undergraduate students in the School. In
addition, the relevance of the areas of contribution to the present and future
needs of the School will be considered.
Candidates
must compare favorably to the best individuals in his or her field at a
comparable level of professional development.
Promotion and tenure decision will also be predicated on the
anticipation of improving upon, or at the very least maintaining, the following
levels of performance.
Tenure
and promotion to Associate Professor will be based upon sufficient
accomplishment to visibly demonstrate strong potential that the individual will
become a leading teacher and scholar/researcher.
Promotion
to Professor will be based upon the attainment of a sound scholarly reputation
and national stature as a leading teacher and scholar/researcher.
To
aid in determining the candidate's satisfaction of the previously stated
principles, the following issues will be considered:
1. Has
the candidate demonstrated excellence, innovation and creativity in the
initiation and completion of significant contributions to present and future
practice as evidenced by: demonstrated
improvements to industrial practice; creation of novel designs, development and
dissemination of new theories, principles, and practices; patents applied for
and granted; software developed and utilized; and related evidences of
originality?
2. Does
the candidate have the ability to attract external support at a level
appropriate to the development and sustenance of an active research program in
his or her area?
3. Has
the candidate demonstrated the ability to successfully guide master's and
doctoral students' theses and dissertations?
4. Is
the candidate known and professionally active on a regional, national and
international level as a consultant; as a participant in cooperative
educational and research activities with industries, governments or
universities; as an invited speaker or lecturer; and as a member of
professional, scientific, honor society or academy boards, committees and
activities?
The
The
following guidelines serve to elaborate and provide greater specificity to the
Standards of Creative Productivity and Professional Achievement and Teaching
Performance for review of faculty in the
Teaching
The
School has several unique characteristics.
The faculty is quite small and the total enrollment large. Faculty have very large advising loads and
administrative duties. Each student
participates in the development of her or his degree program in accordance with
broad guidelines; hence there is a heavy emphasis on quality student advisement
and needs assessment. These factors are
considered critical to the evaluation of teaching activities in the School.
Creative
Productivity and Professional Achievement
Faculty
must present evidence of an ability to sustain a successful academic
career. Confirmation of creative
productivity and professional achievement for faculty includes: publication in peer-reviewed journals,
chapters, books or monographs; awards of grants and contracts; a superior
record of professional practice and/or applied work.
For
promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, faculty performance will be
assessed in accordance with the following guidelines:
1. The
candidate has initiated research projects which will lead to significant
results or applications in their field.
2. The
candidate has demonstrated the ability to conduct independent research.
3. The
candidate's independent work has contributed significant applications or
results to the field.
For
promotion to the rank of Professor with tenure, faculty performance will be
assessed in accordance with the following guidelines:
1. The
candidate has initiated research projects which have lead to significant results
or applications in their field.
2. The
candidate has made an impact with pure research and/or applications in the
field of the candidate's scholarly pursuits.
Do fellow professionals consider the candidate's contributions as they
pursue their own work?
3. A
total record comparable to that which would justify promotion at major
universities.
The
following guidelines serve to elaborate and provide greater specificity to the
Standard of Creative Productivity and Professional Achievement for the review
of faculty in the
The
candidate must present evidence of an ability to maintain a successful
scholarly career. The most significant
evidence of creative productivity and professional achievement for faculty in
the
The
In general, faculty holding clinical
appointments are expected to make teaching and scholarly contributions of equal
quality to other faculty in the School but with a lesser expectation of the
quantity of such contributions, proportionate to the percentage of time
committed to clinical activity. The
qualitative evaluation of clinical contributions is difficult given the private
nature of the clinical process but there are some measures by which candidates
may be reasonably evaluated. Criteria by
which the School will evaluate clinical contributions may include: evidence that the candidate's clinical innovations
have had an impact on clinical practice, testimony from knowledgeable
professionals who regularly interact with the clinical role of the candidate,
sampling of client satisfaction with the candidate's services, leadership roles
in clinical professional organizations on a state, regional, or national level,
appointments to government or professional committees who oversee clinical
preparation and certification, other evidence of clinical contributions
including preparation of professional materials for dissemination of
information, professional presentations and writings of a primarily clinical
nature, and indices of clinical contributions to the community as well as the
Callier Center.
For
promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, creative productivity and
professional achievement will be assessed in accordance with the following
guidelines:
1. The
candidate's research has contributed significantly to the field and, where
appropriate, the candidate's clinical innovations have had an impact on clinical
practice.
2. The
candidate has demonstrated through performance at UTD the ability to conduct
independent research.
3. The
candidate's independent research has contributed significantly to the field.
4. For
candidates with clinical responsibilities as part of their academic
appointment, evidence that clinical duties are performed in an excellent manner
and that the candidate provides innovative and creative contributions in the
clinical domain.
For
promotion to the rank of Professor with tenure, creative productivity and
professional achievements will be assessed as follows:
1. Scholars
in related fields recognize as notable the contributions of the candidate.
2. The
candidate has made an impact in the field of the candidate's scholarly pursuits.
3. For
candidates with clinical responsibilities as part of their academic
appointment, evidence that clinical duties are performed in an excellent manner
and that the candidate provides innovative and creative contributions in the
clinical domain.
The
following guidelines serve to elaborate and provide greater specificity to the
Standard of Creative Productivity and Professional Achievement for the review
of faculty in the
The
School's purpose in reviewing faculty for retention, promotion, and tenure is
to assure itself that the candidate is, and will continue to be, a creative and
productive scholar, a lively and stimulating colleague, an active participant
in the intellectual life of the University, and an enhancement to the
University's distinction in the candidate's area. For the typical faculty member in this
School, the chief form of evidence in the area of creative productivity and
professional
achievement is publication in peer-reviewed journals, and publication of
important monographs, chapters, or books.
In
cases of promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, creative productivity
and professional (scholarly) achievement will be measured against four
benchmarks:
1. Has
the candidate initiated a program of research in a significant area?
2. Has
the candidate demonstrated ability to conduct independent research in work
accomplished at UTD?
3. To
what degree has the candidate's independent research made a significant
contribution to the candidate's field or profession?
4. At
what institutions would the candidate's performance to date justify promotion
and tenure?
For
promotion to Professor, the following questions relating to professional
achievement and productivity should be addressed and fully demonstrated:
1. Must
fellow professionals consider the candidate's contributions as they pursue
their own work?
2. What
is the impact of the candidate's research on the candidate's field and
profession as a whole?
3. At
what institutions would the candidate's record justify promotion to the rank of
Professor?
The
following guidelines serve to elaborate and provide greater specificity to the
Standards for Creative Productivity and Professional Achievement for the review
of faculty in the
For
the typical faculty member in this School, publication in the peer-reviewed
primary research literature, and publication of important monographs, book
chapters, or books provide the most important forms of evidence.
In
cases of promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, the University must
determine the desirability of an indefinite continuation of the candidate's
appointment. Since any such evaluation
is necessarily subjective, no generally applicable quantitative tests are
possible, and the decision must rest on professional judgement. The candidate's record in Creative
Productivity and Professional Achievement will be evaluated against the
following criteria:
1. A
record of published, independent research showing substantive quality, with
sufficient quantity to give reasonable confidence of continued productivity.
2. A
current research program which gives prospects of making significant
contribution to the candidate's field.
3. Demonstrated
ability to conduct independent research effectively at UTD.
4. A
record of external funding from research grants or contracts appropriate to the
candidate's seniority and specialty. The
School is particularly interested in encouraging those types of support which
reinforce its educational programs.
5. A
total record comparable to that which would typically justify promotion to
Associate Professor with tenure at major graduate-level universities.
In
cases of promotion to the rank of Professor, the University must determine the
candidate's professional standing and leadership status, both inside and
outside the University. It is expected
that the candidate will meet criteria 1 - 4 above at levels corresponding to
the more senior status and longer career history. The candidate's record will also be evaluated
against the following criteria:
6. Achievement
of a recognized position of leadership among the candidate's peers in the
scholarly world.
7. A
total record comparable to that which would typically justify promotion to
Professor at major graduate-level universities.
SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
WITHIN THE
Science/Mathematics
Education faculty will be evaluated in the same areas of performance as for
other faculty at The University of Texas at
For
these faculty, Creative Productivity and Professional Achievement will
typically be expressed by authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles,
textbooks, workbooks, teaching materials, and/or educational software as well
as by invited presentations. Work of
quality sufficient for publication in well regarded, refereed Science or Math
Education journals is expected, but expectation of quantity of productivity
will normally be tempered by recognition of other demands of such a faculty
member's time. The participation of a
Science/Mathematics Education faculty member in student teacher supervision,
local ISD in-service programs, accreditation visits, local/state/national
organizations, and the like, is normally expected and exemplifies these
demands, as does the requirement that such faculty teach in exemplary fashion.
Evaluation
of Science/Mathematics Education faculty, in accord with the mission of the
Science/Mathematics Education Department and the responsibilities it requires
of the particular faculty member, thus differs only in the relative weights of
the three areas from the typical faculty member in the School of Natural
Sciences and Mathematics, and in the nature of the publication outlets
available to them.
The
following guidelines serve to elaborate and provide greater specificity to the
Standard of Creative Professional Achievement for the review of faculty in the
In
great measure, the creative productivity and professional achievement of
faculty members in the
At the time of review the candidate should provide a statemen