School of Communication Sciences and Disorders

Guidelines for Clinical Promotion

SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION SCIENCES AND DISORDERS

Guidelines for Promotion for Clinical Faculty

(Approved, September 5, 2003. Revised, April 13, 2012)

Promotion is an option for clinical faculty who are full-time employees as defined by the University. These guidelines for promotion specify thecriteria that are to be followed within the School of Communication Sciences and Disorders and the materials that should be developed by the candidate for review by the School's Clinical Faculty Promotion Committee. This information is also designed to assist the members of the Promotion Committee when evaluating candidates. Except as indicated, the guidelines are consistent with University policies as specified in the 2011 on-line University of Memphis Faculty Handbook.

I Optional Interim Evaluation

Clinical faculty members will be given the opportunity to undergo an "interim evaluation" at least one year prior to the formal application for promotion. The interim evaluation is not a requirement and it must be requested by the clinical faculty member. The evaluation, conducted by School's Clinical Faculty Promotion Committee and the Dean, is designed to provide clinical faculty members with information about the status of their progress toward promotion. The clinical faculty member will provide documentation of contributions and accomplishments according to the areas and guidelines described below. This process will not normally involve external peer review. The outcome of this evaluation will remain in the School.

II Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor

Candidates must satisfy the following requirements:

At least five years of full-time (or full time equivalent) clinical experience post-certification.
At least three years of clinical teaching in an academic-clinical setting or other comparable supervisory experience in the field.
Evidence of good character, mature attitude, and stable personality.

Criteria for Promotion Recommendations

Evidence of teaching effectiveness in clinical instruction. This area includes materials indicating command of the academic and clinical subject matter, ability to motivate and mentor students, and creative and effective use of teaching methods.

Candidates must submit student evaluations for all semesters in the past five years in which they have had supervisory and/or teaching responsibilities (or less than five years if not employed at the University of Memphis that long). The greatest weight will be given to anonymous student evaluations, and applicants are encouraged to obtain this type of data. For traditional classroom teaching responsibilities, these evaluations must include the survey approved by the University for teaching evaluations. For clinical supervisory responsibilities, these evaluations must include the form approved by the School for student evaluation of teaching (Appendix A: “Assessment of Clinical Faculty”). Evaluations may also include other types of information.

B. Other evidence of command of subject matter may include, but is not limited to:

Documented evidence of continuing education.
Evidence of classes audited or formally completed.
Journal of readings in academic publications.
Diary of activities followed to update the knowledge base in a particular specialty.
Tutorial tools developed by the clinical faculty member to assist student learning.
Training packets developed by the clinical faculty member for use in instruction.
Specialty certification or recognition.

Evidence of service of a professional nature to the institution, the community and the state. Examples of service include

Participation in School and University committees.
Contracts for provision of services outside the School.
Membership and leadership roles in professional organizations at local, state, national, or international levels.
Service or outreach to the larger society. For example, presentations related to one's discipline or providing professional advice and counsel.

Evidence of scholarly or creative activity. This category includes activities that have resulted in the generation of new ways of conceptualizing some aspect of the clinical process. Generally these activities have yielded a body of knowledge that would be potentially valuable for presentation to peers in a forum such as local, regional or national conferences, or other professional gathering. Candidates should include records of such activities, for example

New or modified clinical protocols and/or therapeutic techniques.

•Papers Presented: This category includes papers presented at local, state, regional, national, or international professional meetings. Authorship of items listed in the vita should appear in the same order as in the presentations.

•Research in Progress: Candidates should provide a clear indication of the status of each project and the candidate’s role.

Completed but unpublished/presented research/scholarly activity. Description should include Purpose, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.

•Publications: This category includes textbooks, chapters in books, and articles in refereed and non-refereed journals, monographs, refereed and non-refereed conference proceedings, book reviews, and related items. Authorship of manuscripts listed in the vita should appear in the same order as in the publications.

•Grant Applications: The candidate should include grant applications submitted including those that have not been funded. The candidate’s role in writing the application and in performing the research should be clear.

III. Promotion to Clinical Full Professor

The candidate must satisfy the following requirements:

At least 10 years of full-time (or full-time equivalent) professional experience in the clinical discipline post-certification.
At least six years of clinical teaching in an academic-clinical setting, with a minimum of four years at the University of Memphis.
A high degree of academic maturity and responsibility.

Criteria for Promotion Recommendations

The rank of clinical professor is not a reward for long service. The rank of clinical professor should be accorded to those with a record of consistent, sustained, high quality scholarly productivity over a period of years. The rank is a recognition that such superior achievement in the field of study will continue on a national and/or international level.

The criteria for promotion to clinical professor incorporate the above criteria for promotion to clinical associate professor with the following additions.

Documented evidence of a consistent pattern of high quality professional productivity.

This should be illustrative of professional productivity at regular intervals over a period of years.

Evidence of national and/or international recognition in the discipline. Such evidence may be indicated by, for example,

Appointments as a reviewer for peer-reviewed journals,
Invited papers and presentations given beyond the state and region,
Honors, grants and awards,
Committee service and leadership with national or international professional organizations.

IV. Procedures

The candidate is responsible for preparing the materials and delivering them to the Administrative office of the School. The candidate's clinical faculty mentor (appointed by the Dean) within the School will typically be a good source of guidance. Well in advance of the review process, the candidate should provide the Dean with a list of six names of potential external reviewers (including addresses and telephone numbers). Letters from mentors are discouraged but, if included, should be so identified. The Dean, with the assistance of the Committee chair, will solicit letters from selected persons on the list as well as from additional individuals not on the list. A minimum of four external reviews should be included in the candidate's materials. These will normally be equally divided between peers nominated by the candidate and peers selected independently by the Dean, with the assistance of the Committee chair. Selection of external reviewers is to be conducted in a manner that will minimize biases for or against the candidate as indicated in the Faculty Handbook (Section on External Peer Review).Each external reviewer will be requested to send identical copies of the letter to the Dean, and to the committee chair.

Once the School's Clinical Faculty Promotion Committee is notified that the candidate's materials are complete, individual committee members will review the materials. Following a subsequent meeting, the Committee will provide a written recommendation to the Dean of the School. As described in the Faculty Handbook, this process continues through the Board of Regents.

Guidelines for Evaluation

When considering each of the above criteria, committee members should seek evidence of (1) accomplishment in areas appropriate to clinical faculty, and (2) potential for continued development and contributions in the future.

Either included with the materials indicated in sections 13 above, or separately, candidates should present evidence of continuing professional development toward established professional goals. Candidates should also demonstrate willingness and ability to work effectively with colleagues.

External Peer Review. Evaluation of the candidate’s activities also requires external peer review by qualified peers not associated with the University of Memphis. The overall goal of the peer review process is an external evaluation of the breadth and scope of the diverse components of the candidate’s responsibilities. The peer reviewers should be a group of individuals who, when taken collectively, can evaluate the candidate’s supervisory/teaching skills, currency of knowledge base, technical competence in the field of expertise, proficiency of execution of administrative component, professional service responsibilities, etc.

Qualified peers would usually include individuals with: (1) equal or greater level of experience in related clinical area, preferably in an academic setting, and (2) equal or higher level of academic degree or qualification. It is acknowledged that there are exceptions to these guidelines. Some recognized clinical scholars who do not meet these experiential or academic standards may nevertheless be very appropriate peer reviewers.

The Committee

During policy making activities, the School's Clinical Faculty Promotion committee is composed of a minimum of three clinical faculty members and two academic faculty members At least one member must hold the rank (either clinical or academic rank) of professor, the others at least the rank of associate professor.

When an application for promotion from clinical associate professor to clinical full professor is considered, the committee will be expanded to include all the clinical full professors in the School. These added members will have an equal voice and vote.

Although all the application materials will be available online, one complete printed copy of the application will be placed in the office of the Dean’s administrative assistant. This copy may be used by the committee members for review and it will be available during the committee’s meeting to discuss and vote on the application.

The School committee will return the application and supporting papers to the Dean along with its recommendations and reasons for those recommendations. These recommendations should reflect the full scope of discussions that took place in the committee meetings, and should also contain the rationale for the recommendation that is consistent with the vote of the committee. If the decision of the School Committee is not unanimous, the committee may also submit to the Dean a minority report with the rationale for dissenting opinions.

Appendix A: Assessment of Clinical Faculty

(Supervisor’s Name) (Semester)

The evaluation process for clinical faculty is very important. Please rate each person you worked with this semester.For any item that you rate as “somewhat disagree” or “strongly disagree”, please include details. Thank you.

Strongly Agree / Somewhat Agree / Somewhat Disagree / Strongly Disagree / No Opinion
NA
The clinical faculty member:
1. Provides specific information regarding his/her
expectations at the beginning of the semester………………………… / O / O / O / O / O
2. Establishes an environment for learning based on
openness, honesty and trust…………………………………………….. / O / O / O / O / O
3. Demonstrates an awareness of and respect for the
student’s time regarding clinical and academic
Commitments……………………………………………………………... / O / O / O / O / O
4. Uses the conference time effectively………………………………... / O / O / O / O / O
5. Demonstrates/shares knowledge of current clinical/
research literature………………………………………………………… / O / O / O / O / O
6. Provides the amount of instruction
commensurate with the level of the student’s knowledge…………….. / O / O / O / O / O
7. Provides clear and constructive feedback…………………………. / O / O / O / O / O
8. Listens openly and respectfully to student’s perceptions,
opinions and rationales ………………………………………………….. / O / O / O / O / O
9. Returns written material in an established time frame …………….. / O / O / O / O / O
10. Encourages and allows for independence commensurate
with the level of the student’s skill………………………………………. / O / O / O / O / O
11. Employs language conducive to facilitating independent
thinking and problem solving ……………………………………………. / O / O / O / O / O
12. Is one who receives my feedback well and attempts to
incorporate my suggestions…………………………………….……….. / O / O / O / O / O
13. Models professional and ethical behavior………….………… … / O / O / O / O / O
14. I learned a great deal from this supervisor………………………… / O / O / O / O / O
15. I shared this information with my supervisor and would
expect that he/she would not be surprised by these comments / O / O / O / O / O
16. The information and ratings given to me by this supervisor,
on my final evaluation, were what I expected ……………………... / O / O / O / O / O
17. This was a new clinical experience/ disorder for me. / O / O / O / O / O

Positive characteristics or strengths of the practicum/clinical educator:

Suggestions for improvement:

Additional comments and suggestions:

Thank you.

Guidelines for Clinical Promotion