Memo Regarding Promotion & Tenure
Table of Contents
Click for Quick Links
I. INTRODUCTION
II. FACULTY ROLE IN UNIVERSITY MISSION
III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FACULTY EVALUATION
A. The Faculty Evaluation Process
1. Annual Evaluation
2. Promotion in Rank Evaluation
3. Evaluation of Probationary Faculty
4. Internal Applicants for Administrative Positions
B. Criteria
C. Standards
IV. ANNUAL EVALUATIONS
A. General Description
B. Specific Applications
1. Probationary Faculty
2. Tenured, Not Fully Promoted
3. Tenured, Fully Promoted
4. Not Tenurable, Not Fully Promoted
5. Not Tenurable, Fully Promoted
C. Mandatory Procedures
V. PROMOTION IN RANK
A. General Description
B. Criteria for Promotion to a Specific Rank
1. Instructor
2. Assistant Professor
3. Associate Professor
4. Professor
C. Criteria for Promotion to Equivalent Rank Position
D. Mandatory Procedures
VI.EVALUATION FOR CONTINUOUS APPOINTMENT (TENURE)
A. General Description
B. Eligibility
C. Length of Probationary Period
D.Mandatory Procedures
VII.APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE OF GUIDELINES
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Relations to Other Bylaws, Policies, and Regulations
C. Modifications of Provisions
D. Revisions
E. Effective Date / Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty:
Annual Evaluations, Promotion, and Tenure *
Accepted: May 12, 1989
Revisions Approved by the Academic Senate on December 4, 2001
I. INTRODUCTION
The ability of a university to function, progress, and develop excellence depends both on the individual performance of each faculty member and on the collective performance of the faculty as a whole. Thus, the success and reputation of a university are highly dependent upon the talents that exist among its faculty and how effectively those talents are marshaled to accomplish the mission of the academy. To achieve and maintain high quality, a faculty evaluation system is essential. Properly administered, an evaluation system will encourage professional growth of individual faculty members, assure retention of only those faculty members who demonstrate a high level of scholarship and academic performance, and permit appropriate recognition of achievement.
The work of faculty members as independent professionals is not easily categorized or measured. Because it is inherently judgmental, the evaluation of faculty must be constrained by principles and procedures designed to protect academic freedom and to ensure accuracy, fairness, and equity. The purpose of this document is to outline these broad principles and to establish the rigorous and common procedures necessary to maintain these qualities in the faculty evaluation process. The Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR), colleges, departments, and other administrative sub-units shall supplement these guidelines with more detailed descriptions and interpretations of the criteria and standards that, when approved, will apply to faculty members in the particular unit.
Back to Table of Contents
II. FACULTY ROLE IN THE UNIVERSITY MISSION
The mission of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has been defined by State statutes and Board of Regents policy. UNL is Nebraska's only comprehensive, doctoral degree granting university and is its land-grant institution. The Role and Mission statement approved by the Board of Regents adopts a functional tripartite approach to the university's mission: "These three parts of the University's educational mission--instruction, research, and public service-are interdependent, and form the foundation of the University's contributions to the State."
Accomplishing the University's mission requires a creative, collective intermingling of individual faculty talents. Consequently, each individual faculty member likely will have a unique role in the institution and a special assignment in terms of the focus and distribution of effort among instructional, research, and service responsibilities. The evaluation criteria and processes must accommodate such differences.
Back to Table of Contents
III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FACULTY EVALUATION: PROCESS, CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
A. The Faculty Evaluation Process
The faculty evaluation process at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln is designed to assist the institution in attracting promising faculty members, helping them reach their potential, retaining only the outstanding, and rewarding their proficiency. The process has three distinct components:
1) Annual Evaluation
The annual evaluation provides, on a regular basis, an opportunity to judge the progress of a faculty member's performance during the past year and to develop goals and objectives of achievement for the future; it forms the basis for any annual merit salary raises and other rewards. Cumulatively, the annual evaluations establish a continuous written record of expectations and performance that will encourage professional growth and provide support for promotion, tenure and other recognition. The annual evaluation process helps develop the best match between the faculty member's expertise and the institutional mission. Guidelines for evaluation for continuous appointment may be found in Section VI below.
2) Promotion in Rank Evaluation
Promotion in rank is a visible way to recognize exemplary performance of a faculty member. The promotion in rank evaluation provides the opportunity to assess a faculty member's growth and performance since initial appointment or since the last promotion. The process is necessary to determine when promotion to a specific academic rank is warranted. Guidelines for evaluation for continuous appointment may be found in Section VI below.
3) Evaluation of Probationary Faculty
Prior to the award of a Continuous Appointment (tenure), probationary faculty undergo a particularly rigorous evaluation involving an assessment of accumulated accomplishments and a determination of whether the performance is likely to meet expectations for the indefinite future.
The faculty evaluation process entails shared responsibility exercised by different persons in the various administrative units of the University. Primary responsibility for the conduct, quality, and presentation of an individual's work lies with the particular faculty member. Evaluation of an individual's academic accomplishments begins with review by departmental or collegiate peers. Subsequent levels of independent review are used to assure fairness and integrity in the application of appropriate standards and procedures among departments and colleges, and to uphold institutional goals of academic excellence. Guidelines for evaluation for continuous appointment may be found in Section VI below.
4.Internal applicants for administrative positions. Evaluation of internal applicants for UNL administrative positions differs from those listed above and are not covered in this material except to note that faculty who are candidates for such a position will be asked to waive their right of access to the files being used in the search process. This is done in order to create a level playing field with external candidates.
B. Criteria
Faculty members are hired to accomplish objectives of specific academic units and are to be judged accordingly. Consequently, the evaluation of faculty is to be carried out in the context of each faculty member's particular role in the institution with a clear understanding of what is expected of the individual. accomplishments of the faculty member are judged against these expectations.
Individuals will be evaluated according to norms established for them related to the faculty's collective responsibility to teach, to advise, to engage in research and creative activity, to make research findings and new knowledge known through publication or equivalent demonstration, and to provide public and institutional service. Particular faculty members will vary in the extent to which their responsibilities emphasize one or more parts of the University's mission. Criteria against which individual faculty members are judged must reflect these varying assignments.
Initially, the chair/head or other University official responsible for hiring shall, in the approved letter of appointment, spell out the general apportionment of the faculty members major responsibilities. The terms of this apportionment are to be reviewed periodically and may be changed by mutual consent (Regents Bylaws, 4.3). Within the terms of this general apportionment of responsibilities and subject to a faculty member's general area of competence, the details of a faculty member's specific assignments or job description should be subject to joint consultation but are to be determined by the department chair, unit administrator, or director concerned (Regents Bylaws, 3.4.4).
Each unit shall refine these broad criteria in areas of teaching, research, and service in ways that reflect the discipline and its mission. The refined criteria shall be applied to all faculty members in ways which equitably reflect each one's particular responsibilities and assignments. How the unit criteria apply to a faculty member's own set of duties should be made clear at the time of appointment and reviewed in the annual evaluation.
Adjustments in the expectations for faculty members may occur over time in keeping with changing institutional and personal priorities. Such adjustments shall occur in a timely fashion and with reasonable effort made to assure mutual understanding-- another aim of the annual evaluation process. It must be clear, however, that no special adjustments of norms for units or individuals shall alter the University's fundamental criterion: all faculty members must do scholarly or professional work that demonstrates creative achievement.
C. Standards
Qualitative evaluation of faculty, while highly subjective, is the essence of the faculty evaluation process. The single common standard by which to judge the extent of achievement is that of excellence -- excellence in creativity and in significance of contribution. Although specifics as to what constitutes excellence in particular cases are necessarily a matter of judgment that varies from discipline to discipline, faculty members must be given reasonable assistance to understand the components of that judgment.
Back to Table of Contents
IV. ANNUAL EVALUATIONS
A. General Description
Consistent with Regents Bylaws, 4.6, the performance of individual faculty members is evaluated annually throughout their career at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. These evaluations provide faculty members with a written record of continuing expectations and accomplishments, an ongoing critique of strengths and weaknesses, and a set of base documents that support the annual distribution of performance-based salary adjustments and other rewards. The primary purpose of these annual evaluations is to assist individual faculty members in developing their talents and expertise to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the role and mission of the University. The specific nature and purpose of a faculty member's annual review will vary, however, in accord with that person's type of appointment, rank, and, where appropriate, tenure status.
B. Specific Applications
1) Probationary Faculty
Probationary faculty are those who are on tenure track but not yet tenured. For these persons, the annual evaluation develops information concerning the faculty member's progress toward promotion and tenure. The annual evaluation communicates areas of progress and strength, and alerts the faculty member to performance deficiencies at the earliest possible time. The official responsible for the evaluation must consult periodically with the appropriate body of tenured faculty during the process. Any concerns held by the responsible official or the participating faculty regarding the faculty member's performance should be clearly stated in the written evaluation. The review will make specific recommendations for self-improvement and professional development which will enhance the faculty member's chances of eventually achieving promotion and tenure.
While the absence of negative evaluations does not guarantee the granting of tenure, annual evaluations should apprise probationary faculty members of performance deficiencies in time for them to take corrective action. Occasionally, these annual evaluations will result in termination and, where appropriate, terminal contracts; in these cases, notice shall be given in accord with Regents Bylaws 4.4.2. The annual evaluation also provides the opportunity to develop changes in responsibilities that reflect the strengths of the individual and the needs of the University. If the recommendation of the responsible official is for termination, and that recommendation is inconsistent with the candidate's previous annual evaluations, that official shall, as part of the recommendation, submit a written explanation of the inconsistency.
2) Tenured, Not Fully Promoted
Since a faculty member normally will be promoted from assistant to associate professor concurrent with or prior to an award of tenure, the annual evaluation of faculty who are tenured, but not fully promoted, will generally emphasize quantitative and qualitative progress toward the rank of professor. While not all faculty will attain the rank of professor, annual evaluations should aid faculty in achieving that distinction.
3) Tenured, Fully Promoted
Promotion to the rank of professor has required a consistent record of achievement at a level that indicates many strengths and few weaknesses. Consequently, the primary purpose of evaluating professors is to indicate how they are performing in relation to proper expectations, an important factor in performance-based salary adjustments. The annual evaluation process is also used to encourage faculty members to continue to perform at exemplary levels.
4) Not Tenurable, Not Fully Promoted
Evaluation of faculty who are not eligible for tenure but are promotable may emphasize different criteria from those applied to other faculty. This classification includes Cooperative Extension agents, Nebraska Forest Service staff, and other equivalent rank faculty. Annual evaluations will focus primarily on strengths and weaknesses, on the best use of a person's talents to meet the unit's needs, and on specific recommendations for improvement and professional development. Annual evaluations for these persons will generally emphasize quantitative and qualitative progress toward the rank equivalent to professor. While not all faculty will attain the rank equivalent to professor, annual evaluations should assist people toward that goal. These evaluations may lead to adjustment of duties and, occasionally, will lead to notice of termination. If the recommendation of the responsible official is for termination, and that recommendation is inconsistent with the candidate's previous annual evaluations, that official shall, as part of the recommendation, submit a written explanation of the inconsistency.
5) Not Tenurable, Fully Promoted
Promotion to Extension Home Economist, Extension Agriculturist, Forester and other ranks equivalent to that of professor has required a consistent record of achievement at a level that indicates many strengths and few weaknesses. Consequently, the primary purpose of evaluating those who hold these ranks is to determine how well they are performing in relation to proper expectations, an important factor in performance-based salary adjustments. The annual evaluation process is also used to encourage fully promoted faculty members to continue to perform at exemplary levels. If the recommendation of the responsible official is for termination, and that recommendation is inconsistent with the candidate's previous annual evaluations, that official shall, as part of the recommendation, submit a written explanation of the inconsistency.