Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Indiana University School of Dentistry Promotion & Tenure Guidelines 2006I. UNIVERSITY POLICIES Evaluation of faculty for promotion and tenure at the Indiana University School of Dentistry will follow the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Guidelines ( They are consistent with the mission of the Indiana University School of Dentistry.II. THE FACULTY Faculty ranks and titles are described under Faculty Appointments. They include tenured, tenure-track, clinical, research, visiting, and adjunct faculty.III. PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCEDURES A. FACULTY GUIDANCE 1. Summary Each faculty member has a department Chair whose responsibilities include guiding the faculty member through career development, promotion, and tenure. A copy of this document is provided upon initial appointment, and an Individual Faculty Career Plan is developed and continually reviewed. An evaluation of teaching, research, and service including progress towards promotion and tenure is made each year by the department Chair. The Unit Promotion and Tenure Committee also reviews each probationary faculty member’s progress toward tenure and promotion after three years at the school. In the Spring of the fifth year (or other year when the dossier for promotion or tenure must be completed), the faculty member meets with the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, the chair of the school’s Promotion and Tenure Committee and the department Chair to again receive counseling on the promotion and tenure process and guidance for development of the dossier. 2. Individual Faculty Career Plan The Chair of each department will discuss and establish with each faculty member within that department a written Individual Faculty Career Plan. This plan should be designed to be dynamic and is to be reviewed at least annually. It should be based upon the assumption that the faculty member will be remaining on our faculty until retirement or specifically state otherwise. The plan must take into account the missions of the school and department, the place of the faculty member in the context of accomplishment of these missions and his or her individual goals. Of necessity, the plan will be more specific for the immediate upcoming years and more general for those more distant. From a comparison of the plan with the strengths and needs of the
  2. 2. faculty member, faculty development needs should become clear and shouldevolve constantly. These needs should be prioritized and progress in satisfyingthem should be evaluated as part of the Faculty Annual Review process. TheIndividual Faculty Career Plan should be included in at least the first FacultyAnnual Summary Report and periodic modifications reported in subsequentreports. Progress on the plan and pursuit of faculty development opportunitiesto achieve it will also be evaluated as part of the appropriate portions(Teaching, Research, or Service) of the Faculty Annual Review.Development of the Individual Faculty Career Plan should accomplish thefollowing goals:- ensure clear and documented communication between the Chair and faculty member as to individual, department, and school goals as well as mutual short and long range expectations;- in conjunction with other established faculty review policies and procedures, maintain a clear career direction to maximize success in tenure, promotion, productivity, and fulfillment;- assist the Chair and school administration in prioritization and fulfillment of faculty development.3. Annual Review by Department ChairThe Department Chair will annually review ALL faculty members in thedepartment. This review will involve an evaluation of progress towardpromotion and tenure (if appropriate) based upon information provided by thefaculty member in the Faculty Annual Summary Report (see the IUSDIntranet at, the Individual Faculty Career Plan,and any supplemental material deemed important by the faculty member. Thereview includes a meeting with Department Chair plus one other facultyperson (optional) chosen by the person being reviewed to:- discuss the faculty member’s concerns, goals, and suggestions regarding his or her own faculty appointment and responsibilities;- confirm the faculty member’s understanding of the criteria for promotion to the next academic rank;- provide the faculty member with a realistic plan for promotion.The Department Chair completes the Faculty Annual Review form (SeeAppendix B) which describes the evaluation of teaching, research, andservice; indicates the progress made toward promotion and/or tenure; andincludes a recommendation for or against reappointment. For tenured facultythe Chair makes a recommendation for satisfactory or unsatisfactoryperformance. The post-tenure review and enhancement policy and proceduresare described in a following section. The completed annual review form issigned by Department Chair and forwarded to the school’s Dean forAcademic Affairs who will transmit it to the Dean of the school forevaluation. The Dean will add comments, sign the report and return it to thefaculty member for signature and optional comment. 2
  3. 3. 4. “Mid-term” Review by the School’s Promotion and Tenure Committee After a probationary tenure track faculty member has been at the school for 3 years, the school’s Promotion and Tenure Committee will review progress made toward promotion and tenure and make recommendations.B. FACULTY ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT (FASR) All full-time and part-time faculty in the Indiana University School of Dentistry must complete a Faculty Annual Summary Report (see the IUSD Intranet at As described above, this report is part of the annual review procedure. The report covers the period of the previous calendar year (January through December), and is to be completed by February 1st. The completed report (along with a current CV) is sent to the Department Chair with two copies sent to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.C. NOTIFICATION FOR PROMOTION OR TENURE CONSIDERATION 1. Promotion Faculty members may be nominated for promotion in rank by one or more of their faculty colleagues, or they may nominate themselves. Nomination should be made in writing to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs early in the Spring semester. The nomination must state that the faculty member is a candidate for promotion and must declare an area of excellence (teaching, research, service, or balanced case). This nomination will initiate procedures that are described below under part D. 2. Tenure A decision on tenure is to be made before the end of the sixth year of academic employment. Commonly this occurs during the sixth year, but the candidate may request consideration in an earlier year. At the appropriate time, preferably early in the Spring semester of the 5th year, the faculty member is to notify in writing the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs of the candidacy. The letter of candidacy is to identify the area of excellence (teaching, research, service, or balance case). This nomination will initiate procedures that are described below under part D. D. OVERALL PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING PROMOTION OR TENURE These IUSD Promotion and Tenure Guidelines as well as the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Guidelines are used. A timetable for development of the promotion and/or tenure dossier is listed below. After the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs receives a letter of nomination for promotion or tenure candidacy, the Office for Academic Affairs schedules a meeting between the candidate and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and may also include the Department Chair, and/or the Chair of the Unit Promotion and Tenure 3
  4. 4. Committee to discuss the candidacy, promotion and tenure process, and development of the dossier. The candidate and Department Chair are to work with the school’s Office of Academic Affairs for assistance with formatting the dossier. The completed dossier, including all letters of evaluation, is to be presented to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs for final format evaluation in early August. The dossier is then provided to the departmental Primary Committee for review and evaluation. The Primary Committee should consist of 3 full-time tenured faculty holding the rank of full professor ( if possible). This committee will write a letter of evaluation, including a recommendation for or against promotion and/or tenure, and append the letter to the dossier. The Department Chair will then add a letter of evaluation, and the dossier will be reviewed by the school’s Promotion and Tenure Committee. This committee will insert its evaluation letter, and the dossier will then be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs for a written evaluation and recommendation from the Dean of the School. The completed dossier with all letters of evaluation is sent by the school’s Office of Academic Affairs to the IUPUI Office of the Dean of Faculties by early November for evaluation by the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Committee. This Committee makes a recommendation to the IUPUI Dean of the Faculties. In consultation with the Dean of Faculties, the Chancellor of IUPUI makes a recommendation to the President of Indiana University. The final determination is made by the Indiana University Board of Trustees. Candidates for promotion and/or tenure are notified of the final decision in early spring.TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROMOTION AND/OR TENURE DOSSIER (THESE DATE WILL BE SPECIFIED EACH YEAR) Time Period Activity January – March Dean of the school and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs discuss eligibility of potential candidates with Department Chairs March-May Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Chair of school P/T Committee and the Department Chair meet with candidates to develop plans May IUPUI Promotion & Tenure Guidelines for the current year are distributed May-June Department Chairs send letters requesting external evaluations; enclosures include the candidate’s current curriculum vita, personal statement plus the list of guidelines developed for reviewers/evaluators July Department Chairs send follow-up letters to external reviewers, if needed 4
  5. 5. Early August Prior to submitting dossier to Primary Committee, candidates review organization of their dossier with the Office of Academic Affairs to ensure that IUPUI guidelines are followed Mid August Candidate submits 3 copies of the completed dossier to their Primary Committee for review Late August Primary Committee completes review of dossier and submits their report to the candidate’s Department Chair Mid-September Department Chair completes supporting letter and forwards dossier to IUSD Office of Academic Affairs who forwards it to the school P/T Committee Mid-October IUSD Promotion & Tenure Committee completes review of dossier and submits their supporting letter to IUSD Office of Academic Affairs Early November The Dean of the School reviews dossiers and writes letter Early November Completed dossiers delivered to the IUPUI Office of the Dean of the Faculties for further review by the IUPUI Promotion & Tenure CommitteeIV. PROMOTION AND TENURE DOSSIERS Guidelines for completing promotion and tenure dossiers for each coming year are distributed to schools in the Spring semester by the IUPUI Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Dean of the Faculties. These also contain guidelines for preparation of the curriculum vitae, which is submitted with the dossier. The same dossier format is used for both promotion and tenure. Current guidelines are distributed to all faculty members at the time of their “Mid-term” review and upon nomination for candidacy for promotion and/or tenure. A copy of the current guidelines also can be obtained any time from the office of the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the school. The general contents of the dossier are: - Routing sheet; completed checklist of dossier contents. - Letters of evaluation/recommendation from the primary committee, the department Chair, the school’s (unit) Promotion & Tenure Committee, the Dean, and outside reviewers contacted by the department Chair. The candidate’s curriculum vitae. Personal statement by the candidate assessing his or her own accomplishments. 5
  6. 6. - Evaluation of teaching. - Evaluation of research. - Evaluation of service. - Appendices Documentation of accomplishments in teaching, research, and service for use in the dossiers is described below under V. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE.V. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE Standards for Faculty Accomplishment Recommendations for promotion and tenure for Indiana University School of Dentistry faculty are based upon documented achievements in teaching, research, and service that are consistent with the mission of the school. Excellence is the standard of faculty accomplishment. Thus, for tenure track faculty, a candidate for promotion or tenure should excel in at least one of the categories of teaching, research, or service and be at least satisfactory in the other two. Alternatively, the candidate may present a “balanced case” with high quality achievements in all three areas demonstrating excellence in overall work. For non-tenure track faculty, a candidate for promotion should excel in teaching (clinical ranks) or research (scientist ranks) and be at least satisfactory in service. A. TEACHING Teaching is a primary function of Indiana University School of Dentistry. Teaching responsibilities are viewed as at least equal in importance to those of research and service in regard to promotion in rank or achieving tenure. Teaching activity may occur in the clinical environment, in didactic courses or seminars, in the laboratory setting, in small problem-based learning classes or larger sessions for group learning activities, in guiding and counseling students individually, in mentoring students, in continuing education, or in course, curriculum, methodology, or teaching material development. See next page for chart. 6
  7. 7. 7
  8. 8. 1. CriteriaTeachingType Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory Excellent: Scholarly: “dissemination of results and findings through appropriate publications”Instruction Incomplete lists of formal Quantitative and qualitative Quantitative and qualitative In addition to documenting that instruction information from the information about teaching excellent learning outcomes No evidence to interpret load candidate, students, and peers and learning outcomes associated with the instructor, No information about goals indicating that instruction has effectively presented and underlying conceptual basis for the of instruction been satisfactory in fostering clearly establishing that the teaching approaches and No or only raw student appropriate learning quality of inspection is philosophy of instruction described evaluation data with no outcomes noteworthy in sophisticated ways interpretation of their Evidence that teaching is meaning, either absolute or innovative and practice is reflective comparative No information on learning outcomes Lack of peer review evidence or token peer commentary not based on systematic review Poor performance on many of the above measuresCourse or No evidence of nature of Evidence of new course Nature of course or curricular In addition to producing effectiveCurricular Activities or results Development or significant development course and curricular products,Development Evidence on outcomes, but no course revision (e.g., use of Clearly reflects an informed shows evidence of having evidence of individual role Technology, service learning) knowledge base, clear disseminated ideas nationally or No review by others presented with evidence on instructional goals, and internationally within the No evidence on how work is effectiveness assessment of the outcomes profession or generally through connected with department or publication or presentation campus goals Poor course or curricular design productsMentoring and Number of students and Load is clearly documented Thorough documentation on Thorough and reflectiveAdvising details of interaction not Peer and student satisfaction all aspects documentation provided indicated by evidence Noteworthy student Mentoring and advising Comparative load for unit not Satisfactory impact on achievement Characterized by scholarly indicated student achievement clear approach Information on satisfaction High accomplishments of students 8
  9. 9. with and impact of mentoring mentored or advised consistently and advising not present linked to influence of mentor Poor performance on quantity, quality, or impact indicated by dataScholarly Activities, No information available Evidence of some local Evidence of regular and Documentation of a program ofIncluding Awards about scholarship of teaching dissemination of good significant local scholarly work that has contributed Poor performance in this area practice and recognition of dissemination of good to knowledge base and improved No teaching awards or teaching efforts practice and recognition of the work of others through recognitions high quality of teaching dissemination channels No evidence of dissemination Grants and awards at the Positive departmental evaluations of good practice department or campus level of the stature of the work (e.g., journals) Peer review supporting the quality of the publications, presentations or other dissemination methods National or international teaching awards or significant funding for teaching projectsProfessional No information about Record of some activity, such High level of activity in Extensive record of participation inDevelopment teaching development efforts as conference or workshop examining practice, seeking experimentation, reflection, pursuitEfforts given attendance, personal new ideas, obtaining of conceptual and practical Poor record of performance experimentation, or reading feedback, and engaging in knowledge of teaching and in pursuing growth in Record of coaching others in dialogue on teaching with learning teaching teaching campus or disciplinary peers Membership in communities of No information on mentoring Reflective commentary on Indications of substantial practice on the campus, national, or of other colleagues or how own teaching has positive impact on international level indications of ineffective changed Development of colleagues Participation in dissemination of performance in this area Peer assessment on Positive peer assessment of good practice effectiveness of efforts these efforts Peer testimony on efforts and toward personal growth or impact of candidate’s work in this mentoring of others area 9
  10. 10. Documentation of Teaching Performance in IUPUI Faculty DossiersDimensions of teachingPerformance Potential Locations Section II: Personal Section III: Narrative CV (Part of Section I) Peer Review (external and internal Statement Contained in Evaluation of –may be part of Sections I or III) TeachingTeaching Load Details on students List of courses, etc. Comment on relative size of load Mentored, advised, etc.Teaching goals List of goals Comment on fit with IUPUI and unit goalsContinuing professional Description of activities Details of workshops List of formal activitiesdevelopment undertaken attended, study, reading, etc.Use of exemplary teaching Description of methods Details, on specific methods Local peer review, external ifmethods such as teaching with knowledgeable technology, use of PBL, service learning, or other innovative methods, inclusive teachingQuality of teaching Reflective comments Student rating summaries, Local peer review, external if peer review of class knowledgeable performance or materialsEvidence of student learning Reflective comments Results of nationally normed Local peer review, external if tests, pre-post evaluations of knowledgeable course knowledge gains, analysis of student work, student/alumni reports, approach toward UPL’s (for UG courses)Ethics Self-report Student report Local peer reviewScholarship of teaching and Descriptions of scholarly Details, commentary on Publications, presentations, Local or external peer reviewnational leadership approach activities listed in CV national leadership on teaching in disciplineCourse and curriculum Self-report Details on CV entries List of committees, etc. Local peer review, external ifdevelopment knowledgeableRecognition (grants, awards) Details on CV entries, if List of recognitions 10
  11. 11. needed 11
  12. 12. 2. Additional Comments on Documentation of Teaching Performance Documenting teaching effectiveness is a key part of the dossier submitted for promotion and tenure considerations. At least some of the following areas should be considered for inclusion: - Provide documented summaries of formal student evaluation of teaching as well as any qualitative student evaluations. - Give evidence of degree of student satisfaction and performance related to advising or mentoring students. - Provide evidence on how the candidate specifically contributed to the current success or scholarly activity of specific former students (e.g., co-authored papers, joint conference presentations, etc). - Include comments by faculty in other departments, schools, or universities whose students may have been taught by the candidate. - Provide peer evaluations of facilitating, lecturing, mentoring, course organization, syllabi, textbooks, or any other aspect of teaching. - Show contributions to curriculum development; new course/program/case development; improvements from course reorganization; improvement of teaching materials (e.g., textbooks, video tapes, slide presentations, syllabi, laboratory manuals, class handouts, computer programs, PBL cases, independent learning outlines, GLA); use of improved teaching methods. - Provide evidence of the quality of teaching materials developed by the candidate (e.g., published reviews of textbooks or text chapters, evaluation by outside reviewers, use of materials by others on or off campus). - Give evidence of utilizing instructional objectives and assessing outcomes. - Show evidence of attempts to improve teaching effectiveness such as attendance or other participation in programs, courses, institutes, or workshops on teaching. - Describe special awards or other accolades (e.g., from students, colleagues, the school or university, or professional organizations) that afford evidence of teaching capability or effectiveness. - Describe research by the candidate on teaching and list any grants received related to teaching. - Describe invited presentations to students at other schools or universities and provide any available evidence of teaching effectiveness. - List invited continuing education courses given and provide available evidence of teaching effectiveness. - Describe activities related to development or evaluation of teaching programs in dentistry or in a specific discipline on a local, state, national, or international level. - Describe activity on National or Specialty Board test construction committees. - Identify roles that relate to teaching in meetings, conferences, or programs of professional organizations. 12
  13. 13. - Describe activities on educational review boards (e.g., membership on accrediting teams). - Describe activities in mentoring undergraduate students or graduate students in specialty/certificate programs or in doctoral or masters degree research. - Describe teaching activities including time commitment/assignment, course numbers and names, level of courses, role in the courses (e.g., director, clinic instructor, tutor, lab instructor, lecturer - including how many lectures given in a course), how often the courses are taught, how many years teaching in a given course, numbers of students involved in each course.B. RESEARCH Research is the generation of new knowledge through the use of thescientific method. It is central to the mission of the school and university, and itis considered as equal in importance to teaching and service in regard to promotion in rank or achieving tenure. The research may be basic,behavioral, clinical, or be in health services or teaching. See next page for chart. 13
  14. 14. 1. CriteriaResearch/Creative Activity: Some Possible Benchmarks(but this will depend on the norms of the school, department and discipline) Type Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory ExcellentResearch/Creative Activity Research has not been Candidate has Adding new critical Significant contributions that clearly demonstratein the form of publications, regularly conducted. performed research insights to a subject so that attributes of scholarly work associated with research,presentations, gallery Research may have that is appropriate to others working in the field including peer refereed presentations andshowings, performances been conducted, but the now view the subject with publications and national recognition of the quality there is no evidence of discipline/profession greater clarity or with new of research. dissemination. and reflects standards perspectives Developing research methods that break new ground Evidence comes only of good practice. Competitive or invited or offer new solutions to problems encountered in from colleagues, Competitive or invited presentations to peers at the field collaborators, or ex- presentations to local international and national Independent scholar – as shown by grant funding as students. and state groups, to meetings P.I., articles as lead author, invited presentations Individual role and those outside the Co-authorship, but Number of publications, gallery showings etc. level of contributions discipline or to the lay candidate’s role and significantly exceed what is appropriate for the rank, on collaborative work public. independent contribution discipline and nature of the work. is unspecified. Research has moved are specified Pattern of significantly increasing work in research Number of beyond simple Number of publications, or creative activity. publications, gallery extensions of thesis or gallery showings etc. are showings, etc. are not post-doctoral work. greater than what is appropriate for the Number of appropriate for the rank, rank, discipline and publications, gallery discipline and nature of the nature of the work showings etc. are work No pattern of sustained appropriate for the Pattern of steadily work in research or rank, discipline and increasing work in creative activity nature of the work research or creative Pattern of sustained activity work in research or creative activityGrants and No evidence of Internal grants Grants at national, Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate theExternal support Attempts to seek Grants at the local and international level attributes of scholarly work associated with external support state level Co-P.I. status applications and support, including the degree to which the process was competitive. P.I. status, funding amounts (depends on discipline and size of usual grants), stature of granting agencies 14
  15. 15. Peer Review Only from Department or school Some peer review in the Expert external peer review clearly demonstrates the Collaborators. has provided clear form of external letters – attributes of scholarly work associated with research, Internal letters only information about the some letters from persons including peer refereed presentations, grants and Letters only from stature of journals and not known to the publications. Colleagues where there the significance of the candidate, others from There is evidence of national recognition of the is a past research publications. school or campus and quality of work. Relationship In the case of creative others from collaborators Evidence of impact of the work is clearly provided (dissertation advisors) activity, there are (but need to delineate role by a number of reviewers at top institutions who are No statement on statements about the in research projects) truly external and unrelated to the candidate, as well quality of journals, quality of the galleries Evidence of impact of the as by the school and department, local peers, galleries or or work is provided at the collaborators and some external reviewers. performance/exhibition performance/exhibition school and department Gallery or performance reviews from experts and venues venues. level as well as by local peers which appear in major national and No comments on The department peers, collaborators and international sources. candidate’s plan for affirms the candidate’s some external reviewers continued research or plans for continued Gallery or performance creative activity research. reviews from local media No evidence of impact Evidence of impact of and non-expert reviewers. of scholarly work scholarly work is provided by the school and department.Mentoring and Number of students is Load and effectiveness Quality of student research External peer review clearly demonstrate theAdvising provided are documented. projects, student evaluation attributes of scholarly work associated with data, letters from students, mentoring or advising, including peer refereed students as co-authors on presentations and publications and national grants and abstracts recognition of the quality of work.Other scholarly activities, No awards. Local dissemination of Awards at local and state Evidence of a program of scholarly work that hasincluding awards No editorships or good practice and level, invitations to give contributed to knowledge base and improved the editorial board service. recognition has presentations to the public, work of others. No grant reviewing occurred. awards from civic and non- Departmental evaluations of the stature of the work activities. Editor or member of profit organizations. (e.g., journals) are provided. editorial board of local Editor or member of Prestigious awards at national and international level, or state journals. editorial board of more particularly competitive awards. Local grant reviewing/ major publications in the Editor or member of editorial board of top journals field. or publications, invited jury member for top national State and national grant and international performance events and venues. reviewing. Grant reviewing for major national and international agencies and organizations. 15
  16. 16. 16
  17. 17. 2. Additional Comments on Documentation of Research PerformanceDocumenting research activity is a key part of the dossier submitted forpromotion and tenure considerations. At least some of the following areasshould be considered for inclusion:- Describe research in progress in relation to the mission of the department.- List the publications in refereed journals giving the complete reference and all authors.- List papers accepted for publication in refereed journals and provide evidence of acceptance.- List papers submitted to refereed journals but not yet accepted.- Describe the role of the candidate in the research reported in multi-authored publications.- Provide evidence of the quality of the peer-reviewed publications listed (e.g., quality of the journals, citations of the work by others, analysis of the publications by outside reviewers).- List and describe other research-related publications (e.g., invited reviews, abstracts of research presentations at conferences, symposia, national meetings).- Provide evidence of the ability to perform independent research (e.g., being the “principal investigator”, “project director”, “primary author”).- Provide evidence of continuing research activity (e.g., description of research plan; number of publications per year; record of publication/presentation of research papers at national meetings; number and progress of research students mentored).- List of external and internal grants or contracts received, including a description of the candidate’s role on each (e.g., principal investigator, project director, co-investigator, investigator). - List grant proposals submitted that are pending.- Describe any courses or workshops taken to enhance research activity. - Describe mentoring of other faculty in research. - Describe activity in directing or promoting student research.- Provide evidence of a national reputation (e.g., invitations to speak at conferences, meetings, symposia, other universities, government agencies, editorship of journals, membership on editorial boards; reviewing manuscripts for journals; appointments to research review boards and NIH study sections; activities and offices held in professional organizations; chairing sessions at national research meetings; awards; evaluations by outside reviewers; advisory and consulting activities). 17
  18. 18. C. PROFESSIONAL SERVICEProfessional service is normally provided to three specific groups: the public (e.g., the community,clients, patients), the profession or discipline, and, less frequently, the campus and University.Satisfactory professional service is expected of each faculty member and librarian. The importanceassigned to service in considering candidates for tenure or promotion will necessarily vary according toindividual circumstances and the mission of the unit. Professional service, including professionalservice in the community and patient or client services, is characterized by those activities conducted onbehalf of the University that apply the faculty members and librarians disciplinary expertise andprofessional knowledge of interrelated fields to the needs of society. To be the basis for tenure oradvancement in rank, professional service must be directly linked to the unit’s and campus’ mission; thequality and impact of professional service must be evaluated within this context. To be considered asthe basis for advancement in rank or for tenure, professional service must be documented as intellectualwork characterized by the following: (1) command and application of relevant knowledge, skills, andtechnological expertise; (2) contributions to a body of knowledge; (3) imagination, creativity andinnovation; (4) application of ethical standards; (5) achievement of intentional outcomes; and (6)evidence of impact. Peer review by peers within IUPUI and by disciplinary peers at other universitiesis an essential component for evaluating all aspects of professional service, as it is for teaching andresearch. While not peer review, evaluations of effectiveness by clients, patients, and other recipients ofor participants in professional service activities may be critically important as evidence that can besummarized and assessed by disciplinary peers. Ordinarily, professional service to the community andto the profession or discipline is the basis for consideration in cases in which excellence in service isadvanced for promotion or tenure. For lecturers, this service may be directed toward the academic unit,but must be characterized as intellectual work to be considered as professional service. For example,developing standards for the assessment of the portfolios of entering students may be appropriatelyclassified as professional service, whereas serving on a search and screen committee would beUniversity service. To serve as the basis for advancement in rank or tenure, University service must bedirectly linked to the mission of the unit and must be assessed as intellectual work with the sameexpectations for peer review as in teaching, research, and professional service to the community.The distinction between professional service and service to the University requires some elaboration.Faculty and librarian service to the University through committees and administration is important andrequired. The community of scholars depends on the mutual responsibility of individuals to support anddevelop the institution that sustains them. Service must be a factor in these considerations, becauseunsatisfactory service to the University may preclude tenure and promotion. However, withoutadditional significant accomplishments that are related to the practice of the candidates discipline orprofession and professional service to the community, both of which can be evaluated by peers,University service is rarely appropriate for either advancement in rank or tenure. Administrative servicethat uses disciplinary expertise for innovative or successful achievements reviewed by peers may beoffered as evidence of achievement of professional service when such work has been planned andstipulated in advance and when it is derived from the mission of the unit. Faculty appointed in theclinical ranks advance through the excellence of their professional service or teaching, and lecturersadvance through excellence in teaching, but must be satisfactory in professional service.This section should minimally include the following items:A. Description of the candidates professional service activities. Faculty involved in clinical practiceshould describe the variety and extent of patient or client care. Those activities which are trulyexceptional should be annotated to differentiate these activities from the level of clinical serviceexpected of the faculty as a normal distribution of effort. For all faculty, committee service or voluntaryservice should ordinarily not be included unless it is a direct reflection of professional expertise and hasbeen evaluated by peers as substantive professional and intellectual work. Professional service that isthe basis of advancement in rank or tenure must be clearly established as intellectual work as describedabove: 18
  19. 19. 1. Evidence of the significance and impact of the professional service should be provided throughtangible results that can be assessed in the context of unit and campus mission.2. Evidence of the candidates individual contributions, especially when the professional service iscollaborative in nature; specific contributions of the candidate should be noted.3. Evidence of leadership in providing professional service, especially when there is a collaborativeenvironment, including contributions that build consensus, help others (including patients or clients)complete required assignments, and reflect the best practices and standards of the discipline; evidenceof increasing levels of responsibility and sustained contributions are important.4. Evidence of effective dissemination of results that establishes the intellectual contributions andadvances the knowledge base of the discipline or field is expected. When professional development isthe specified area for excellence, this dissemination will most likely occur through peer refereedpublications. Special care may be required when the professional service is in an interdisciplinary fieldand publication is in journals outside the discipline. Faculty working in interdisciplinary fields shouldnot be disadvantaged solely because the journals are not well known. Instead, the department or schoolshould take steps to assess the actual work instead of relying on the reputation of the journal.NOTE: The full bibliography of publications relevant to professional service should be provided in thecurriculum vitae as specified in the standard format. Refereed and non-refereed publications should beseparated into distinct categories. Publications should not be listed again in this section.5. Evidence of effective dissemination of results to peers, practitioners, clients, patients or servicerecipients in reports and other documents that are designed appropriately to make the resultsunderstood and useful; while these reports may not be peer reviewed as a part of the publication anddissemination process, they should be evaluated by disciplinary peers as a part of the advancementreview process.B. Evaluation of the quality of the candidates professional service activities by the chair and colleaguesor associates, including external peer evaluation when excellence in professional service is the primarybasis for promotion or tenure.1. External peer evaluation of products or results of professional service, including refereed andnon-refereed publications, should be a primary part of the evidence presented when professional serviceis an area of excellence. While some peers may come from the practice community, a majority shouldbe academic peers from institutions with an equal or greater reputation in the area(s) of professionalservice. Care should be taken in describing the qualifications and relevance of external reviewers,especially when the reviewers are not academically based.2. Peer evaluation should include assessments from local faculty colleagues who are best able toplace the quality of professional service within a context of departmental or school or interdisciplinarystandards, including an understanding of quality as a function of the quantity of service and disciplinaryor interdisciplinary norms.3. Evaluation by clients, patients or service recipients is important, just as student evaluations areimportant as one aspect of assessing teaching. Faculty should arrange for timely evaluations byrecipients and determine appropriate ways to use this information. Client evaluations, however, may notsubstitute for peer evaluations.C. When professional service is highly repetitive, as is often the case in patient care, candidates shouldexplain the nature of the activities. Quantity of patient service ordinarily is not a sufficient factor inpromotion or tenure, although it is expected to be high to support an area of excellence. 19
  20. 20. 1. Criteria.ServiceType Unsatisfactory Participation Annotation: above Near Excellence: Excellent: “routine” Pattern of Significant Scholarly: Contributions “dissemination of results and findings through appropriate publications”University* No evidence of nature Citizenship: routine “wrote a policy that “not required or Significant of activities or results. Chair’s evaluation was approved by expected” (p.25). contributions that Evidence on outcomes, (p.9)of more than committee” Played a major role in clearly demonstrate the but no evidence of “mere participation” Accompanied by initiative over a period attributes of scholarly individual role. (p.25) independent testimony of time that contributed work, including peer No review by others. Necessary, (p. 12,24) of value of work (e.g., to campus or unit goals, refereed presentations No evidence on how but not sufficient (p. letter from the with independent (p. 22,24) and national service work is 25) committee chair, evidence of recognition of the consistent with acceptance by Faculty significance, role, quality of work. professional Noted in CV, not in Council) impact, & effective Awards and recognition development or goals. P&T document communication to that reflect on the others. significance and academic nature of the work have been received.Discipline No evidence of nature Activities: routine, “organized a workshop Played a major role in Significant of activities or results required, or expected series for conference an initiative over a contributions that Evidence on outcomes, that was successfully period of time that clearly demonstrate the but no evidence of offered” contributed to attributes of scholarly individual role Accompanied by discipline’s goals or work, including peer No review by others independent evidence organization’s mission, refereed presentations No evidence on how of success, impact (e.g. with independent and publications (p. service work is ratings by participants) evidence of 22,24) and national consistent with significance, impact, recognition of the professional role, and effective quality of work. development or goals. communication to Awards and recognition others. that reflect on the significance and 20
  21. 21. academic nature of the work have been received.Community No evidence of nature Professional Activities: “chaired a Played a major role in Significant of activities or results routine, required, or subcommittee of the an initiative over a contributions that Evidence on outcomes, expected board that period of time that clearly demonstrate the but no evidence of accomplished X, Y, & contributed to attributes of scholarly individual role Z.” community goals, with work, including peer No review by others “played a leadership independent evidence refereed presentations No evidence on how role in developing the of significance, role, and publications (p. service work is capacity of a impact, and effective 22,24) and national consistent with community-based communication to recognition of the professional organization” others. quality of work. development or goals Accompanied by Awards and recognition independent evidence that reflect on the of impact. significance and academic nature of the work have been received. • University service is not ordinarily the basis for “excellence” • Must be assessed as “intellectual work” with “peer review” • Patient service: “exceeds normative level,” “contributes to knowledge base,” “must be documented through appropriate publications” and “repetitive service—no matter in what quantity or even at what level of proficiency—is not itself sufficient for excellence” • “While not peer review, evaluations of effectiveness by … patients …may be critically important as evidence that can be summarized and assessed by disciplinary peers” 21
  22. 22. 2. Additional Comments on Documentation of ServicePerformance Documenting service activity is a key part of the dossier submitted for promotion and tenure considerations. At least some of the following areas should be considered for inclusion: - List service on department, school, campus, and university committees or special groups and describe specific contributions to the committee’s efforts including any service as chair, subcommittee chair, secretary, etc. - Give evidence of specific accomplishments as an administrator (e.g., describe the role played in development/progress of faculty or staff; describe role in fostering communication; describe any planning mechanisms developed; document any role played in the success of any new or improved programs administered; show any mechanisms developed to identify needed improvements; show how goals have been met and outcomes achieved). - Give evidence of performing special service for the school or university (e.g., organizing or participating in functions or meetings held at the school or on campus such as dental day, research day, alumni programs, campus tours; organizing displays for the school; student recruiting; monitoring compliance of the school with specific regulations; advising student groups in a non-teaching capacity). - List memberships in professional organizations and describe any special related activities (e.g., offices held, committee service, meetings or workshops organized, review board activity). - Describe activity as an editor of professional publications, a member of editorial review boards, or a book reviewer. - Describe service as an advisor or consultant in a professional capacity to any local, state, regional, national or international agency or organization. - Provide letters of acknowledgment for professional service activity from groups, offices, or agencies in the professional or public sectors. - Provide evidence of awards received for service. - Describe any grants received for the development of service activities and identify specific role in the related project. - List any educational degree or board certifications received. - Describe interactions with the news media in person, in print, or broadcast that is based in scholarship and involved professional expertise. - Describe patient care related accomplishments as part of faculty assignment (e.g., referral of patients from practitioners; 22
  23. 23. evaluations from patients and clinical staff; certification by specialty boards; membership of a specialty examining board; awards that recognize clinical expertise; special consulting on patient care; efforts to improve mechanisms of clinical care). - Describe activity in organizing or participating in school-sponsored outreach programs in the community.VI. UNIT PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE The members of the Indiana University School of Dentistry Promotion and Tenure Committee (the Unit Committee) include one member elected by each department plus two members elected by the Faculty Council. All members are to be tenured and hold the rank of professor. Members serve two-year appointments and may be re- elected. The committee elects a Chair who also serves as the school’s representative on the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Committee. This committee will consider both promotion and tenure candidacies, and will conduct a “Mid-term” evaluations of all tenure track faculty. 23