---

For any questions please send e-mail to: NDSU.Policy.Manual@ndsu.edu

---

SECTION 352: PROMOTION, TENURE, and EVALUATION

SOURCE: NDSU President & NDSU University Senate

1. INTRODUCTION

   1.1

   The promoting of faculty and awarding of tenure, and the prerequisite processes of evaluation and review, are of fundamental importance to the long-term ability of the University to carry out its mission. Promotion recognizes the quality of a faculty member's scholarship and contributions in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Promotion acknowledges that the faculty member's contribution to the university is of increasing value. Tenure assures academic freedom and enhances economic security for faculty members who show promise of sustained contributions in those three areas. Tenure aims to both recognize a candidate's potential long-term value to the institution as evidenced by professional performance and growth and to provide the expectation of continued employment. The decision to award tenure rests on criteria that reflect the potential long-term contribution of the faculty member to the purposes, priorities, and resources of the institution, unit, and program. With the individual autonomy derived from academic freedom and tenure comes the responsibility to create and/or maintain an ethical, respectful, and professional work climate for oneself, one's colleagues, one's students, and others with whom one relates professionally. Due to the emphasis on institutional purposes and priorities, tenure recommendations should be reviewed at department, college, and university levels.

   1.2

   From the University's mission flows the expectation that each faculty member will make contributions of high quality to the areas of teaching, research, and service. "Teaching" includes all forms of instruction both on- and off-campus. "Research" includes basic and applied research and other creative activities. "Service" includes public service, service to the University, college, and department, and service to the profession. Because of the University's mission, the quality and quantity of contributions in all three areas will be considered at the times of promotion and tenure. But, because of variations among faculty in strengths and/or responsibilities, faculty members are not expected to exhibit equal levels of accomplishment in all areas. Moreover, disciplines will vary with respect to the kinds of evidence produced in support of quality of contributions.

   1.3

   The policies and standards of each college should be congruent with the University's mission and its policies on promotion and tenure, and also should reflect the college's unique expectations of its faculty members. The policies and standards of academic units within each college should be consistent with the missions of the University and college and their policies on promotion and tenure, and also should designate evidence of how faculty in the academic unit meet the expectations of the college and University.

2. UNIVERSITY PROMOTION, TENURE, POST-TENURE, AND EVALUATION: CRITERIA AND EVIDENCE

   2.1

   Promotion and granting tenure are not automatic. In addition to contributions in the areas of teaching, research, and service, consideration may be given to factors such as professional background and experience.

   2.2

   The evaluation of a candidate's performance shall be based on the individual's contributions to teaching, research, and service, on- and off- campus, in regional, national, or international activities. Judgments will be based on evidence of both the quality and significance of the candidate's work.

   2.2.1 TEACHING

   2.2.1.1 CRITERIA

   In the areas of teaching (as defined above), the following criteria apply to evaluation of contributions by a candidate for promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review:

   2.2.1.1.1

   The effective delivery of instruction to and the stimulation of learning by students and/or clients;

   2.2.1.1.2

   the continuous improvement of courses or instructional programs;

   2.2.1.1.3

   the effective advising and mentoring of undergraduate and/or graduate students.

   2.2.1.2 EVIDENCE

   A candidate demonstrates quality of teaching (encompassing both instruction and advising) by providing evidence and information from multiple sources such as:

   2.2.1.2.1

   the receipt of awards or special recognition including certification or licensing for teaching;

   2.2.1.2.2

   student, peer, and client evaluation of course materials, expertise, and ability to communicate knowledge;

   2.2.1.2.3

   peer evaluation of an individual's contribution to the improvement of instructional programs through the development and/or implementation of new courses, curricula or innovative teaching methods;

   2.2.1.2.4

   the dissemination of best practices in teaching;

   2.2.1.2.5

   evaluation by advisees of the quality of graduate and undergraduate advising.

   2.2.2 RESEARCH

   2.2.2.1 CRITERIA

   In the areas of research and creative activities (as defines above), the following criteria apply to evaluation of contributions by a candidate for promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review:

   2.2.2.1.1

   contributions to knowledge, either by discovery or application, resulting from the candidate's research, and/or

   2.2.2.1.2

   creative activities and productions that are related to the candidate's discipline.

   2.2.2.2 EVIDENCE

   A candidate demonstrates quality of research by providing evidence of completed original work (i.e. published/in press, exhibited, or funded) from multiple sources such as:

   2.2.2.2.1

   presentation of scholarly or professional papers, and publication of books or articles;

   2.2.2.2.2

   juried or invited presentations or productions in the theater, music, or visual arts, design, and architecture;

   2.2.2.2.3

   the development and public release of new products or varieties, research techniques, copyrights, and patents or other intellectual property ;

   2.2.2.2.4

   peer evaluation of research by colleagues from an individual's discipline or area of expertise;

   2.2.2.2.5

   the receipt of awards or special recognition for research ;

   2.2.2.2.6

   the receipt of grants or other competitive awards.

   2.2.3 SERVICE

   2.2.3.1 CRITERIA

   In the areas of service (as defined above), the following criteria apply to evaluation of contributions by a candidate for promotion, tenure and post-tenure review:

   2.2.3.1.1

   contributions to the welfare of the department, college, university, or profession, and/or

   2.2.3.1.2

   contributions to the public that make use of the faculty member's academic or professional expertise.

   2.2.3.2 EVIDENCE

   A candidate demonstrates quality of service by providing evidence and information from multiple sources such as:

   2.2.3.2.1

   the receipt of awards or special recognition for service;

   2.2.3.2.2

   evaluation of an individual's service contributions by peers, administrators, and constituents;

   2.2.3.2.3

   active participation in and leadership of societies which have as their primary objective the furtherance of scholarly or professional interests or achievements;

   2.2.3.2.4.

   active participation and leadership in University governance and programs at the department, college, university and system levels;

   2.2.3.2.5.

   effective management or improvement of administrative procedures or programs.

   2.2.3.2.6

   contributions to knowledge as editors of scholarly publications, or service on editorial boards, juries, or panels;

   2.2.3.2.7

   contributions to the operation of state or federal agencies.

   2.3

   The foregoing lists are not exhaustive, and other forms of information and evidence might be produced in support of the quality and significance of the candidate's work. The mission statements and specific promotion and tenure criteria of the individual academic units are important in defining the appropriate forms of evidence in the context of the candidate's discipline and distribution of responsibilities.

3. COLLEGE AND DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION, TENURE, POST-TENURE, AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

   3.1.

   Each academic unit is responsible for refining the University promotion, tenure, post-tenure, and evaluation criteria and applying those criteria within the special context of the unit. Thus, each academic unit will develop specific promotion, tenure, post-tenure, and evaluation criteria and designate the types of evidence to be used for evaluation of progress toward tenure, for renewal, promotion, and tenure decisions, and for post-tenure review. Within the framework of the University's promotion and tenure criteria, each academic unit shall specify the relative emphasis on teaching, research, and service, and the extent to which a faculty member's assigned responsibilities can be allocated among teaching, research, and service.

   3.2

   A statement of promotion, tenure, post-tenure, and evaluation criteria specific to each college shall be developed by the Promotion, Tenure, and Evaluation (PTE) committee of the college in consultation with the Dean and approved by the faculty of the college. The faculty of each department shall also develop a statement of criteria for promotion, tenure, post-tenure, and evaluation that shall be reviewed and approved by the college PTE committee and the Dean to assure consistency with the college promotion, tenure, post-tenure, and evaluation criteria. The college and departmental statements, and any subsequent changes, shall be reviewed and approved by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs (Provost/VPAA) to assure consistency with University and State Board of Higher Education (SBHE) policies.

   3.3

   For probationary faculty, the basis for review of the candidate's portfolio and any recommendations on promotion and/or tenure shall be the promotion and tenure guidelines and criteria of the academic unit which were provided to the candidate at the time of the candidate's appointment to the position. The dean or director of the college or equivalent unit has the responsibility to provide to the appointee these documents, as well as a position description, contract, or other document that constitutes a tenure or work plan. Tenured candidates for promotion to professor shall be evaluated by the criteria in effect at the time of application.

   3.4 Faculty Hired Without Previous, Relevant Experience

   For a faculty member without previous academic-relevant experience, eligibility for tenure requires a probationary period of six years. Evaluations for promotion to Associate Professor and granting of tenure will ordinarily be conducted concurrently. However, exceptional academic accomplishments may warrant early promotion prior to the completion of the six years of the probationary period. Petitions for early promotion shall be initiated by department heads/chairs, and not by faculty members themselves.

   3.5 Faculty Hired with Previous Relevant Experience

   A faculty member with relevant professional/academic experience may be given credit toward tenure and promotion when this is negotiated as a provision in the original hiring contract. Tenure recommendations and recommendations for appointment at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor for new hires (administrators or faculty with prior experience) are made by the respective Department and the College PTE Committee. The process of review is initiated by the Chair/Head.

   There are two options:
   

   3.5.1

   Faculty may be given one to three years (maximum allowed) of credit. For example, given one year of credit, promotion and tenure application would be due in the fifth year of service; given three years, the application would be due in the third year of service.

   3.5.2

   Faculty may be given the full six year probationary period with the option of applying for promotion and/or tenure at any time following three years of academic service.

   
   

   For either option, failure to achieve tenure will lead to a terminal year contract. Any exceptions to Section 3.5. must be approved by the President.

   3.6 Extension of Probationary Period

   At any time during the probationary period but prior to the sixth year (or prior to the year in which the portfolio is due), a faculty member may request an extension of the probationary period not to exceed three years based on personal or family circumstances, which, according to reasonable expectations, impede satisfactory progress towards promotion and tenure. Faculty given promotion and tenure credit are eligible for this extension. The request must be in writing and will be reviewed and forwarded sequentially with recommendation by the Chair/Head, Dean, and Provost/VPAA to the President who will approve or deny the request. Denial of an extension may be appealed under NDSU Policy 350.4.

   3.6.1. Extension of Probationary Period for Childbirth or Adoption

   A probationary faculty member who becomes the parent of a child or children by birth or adoption, prior to the year in which the portfolio is due, will automatically be granted a one-year extension of the probationary period. Written notification to the Provost/VPAA must be provided by the Department Chair/Head and the Dean of the college within one year of the event and prior to the year in which the portfolio is due. While NDSU supports the use of the extension, the probationary faculty member has the option at any time after the birth or adoption to return to the original schedule of review. Any additional extensions beyond the one year must be requested under the provisions of 3.6 above. Extensions due to childbirth or adoption may not exceed three years.
   (Granting extensions does not increase expectations for performance.)

   3.7

   Each academic unit shall establish the criteria for promotion and tenure, including early promotion, as part of its statement on promotion, tenure, post-tenure review, and evaluation.

4. PERIODIC REVIEW

   4.1

   Periodic reviews of faculty serve multiple functions. The reviews assist faculty members in assessing their professional performance, assist the administration in delineating areas to which particular effort should be directed to aid in improving the professional achievement of the faculty members, and contribute to the cumulative base upon which decisions about renewal, promotion, and tenure are made. In addition, periodic reviews may result in changes in responsibilities, modified expectations, and/or altered goals for performance.

   4.2

   The procedures for periodic review that are developed by each academic unit shall be reviewed and approved by the college PTE committee and the Dean.

   4.3

   All full-time faculty will be reviewed annually. Unless college or department procedures provide otherwise, annual reviews of non-tenured faculty shall be conducted so that decisions and notifications can be made in accord with the deadlines listed in Section 350.3.

   4.4

   Probationary faculty hired into tenure-track positions must receive special review during their third year of service to the institution. This third-year review shall recognize and reinforce areas of strength as well as point out areas of weakness that could jeopardize the case for promotion and tenure. Specific formative evaluations shall be provided to help candidates prepare their strongest case for promotion and tenure. Any extension granted prior to the third year review will delay the review by an equal period.

   4.5

   Unless college or department procedures provide otherwise, the department chair or head of the academic unit will be responsible for the conduct of the reviews and the communication of their results. Periodic reviews shall result in a written report to the faculty member being reviewed. The report shall state expectations and goals for the coming review period. For probationary faculty, the report shall include an assessment of the faculty member's progress toward tenure and recommendations for improvement. Should the periodic reviews indicate that a faculty member is not making satisfactory progress toward tenure, the report may include a recommendation for nonrenewal. In making a judgment on satisfactory progress toward tenure, due consideration shall be given to the candidate's academic record, performance of assigned responsibilities, and potential to meet the criteria for promotion and tenure at the end of the probationary period.

   4.6

   Colleges and departments shall develop specific post-tenure review policies appropriate to their faculty. Annual reviews of tenured faculty shall include an evaluation of the faculty member's performance relative to the current position description. For Associate Professors, annual reviews must include specific recommendations to strengthen the case for promotion. Annual reviews of Professors must recognize and reinforce areas of strength, as well as discuss areas of weakness and recommend improvements. Should the annual reviews indicate that performance of a faculty member is unsatisfactory under the standards for post-tenure review, the report shall include a recommendation for appropriate remedial action.

   4.7

   The faculty member being reviewed shall have 14 days to respond in writing to the written report if the faculty member wishes to do so. The written report, and any written response from the faculty member, shall become part of the faculty member's official personnel file.

5. COMPOSITION OF PTE COMMITTEES

   5.1.

   Each college shall have a PTE Committee consisting of at least three faculty members elected by the faculty of the college. The college PTE committee shall be as reflective as possible of the college's breadth of disciplines and fields of expertise. Ordinarily, at least three departments or sub-units of a college will be represented on the committee, and usually no more than one member of the same department may serve on the committee at one time.

   5.2

   Only tenured faculty members who have completed three years of full-time appointment with the University and who have attained the rank of associate professor or above are eligible for election to a college or department PTE Committee. Faculty members being considered for promotion may not serve while under consideration.

   5.3

   The PTE committee is part of a process of peer review. Thus, faculty holding administrative appointments, including those with interim status, are not eligible. ("Administrative appointment" includes appointments as President, Vice President, Dean, Associate or Assistant Dean, or Department Chair or Head, or Director of an academic unit.)

6. PTE PROCEDURES

   6.1

   The candidate shall ensure that the portfolio is current, accurate and complete for review at the department level using procedures consistent with department and college policies. The chair or head shall forward the portfolio together with the department's recommendations, and an explanation of the basis for them, to the College Dean and the college's PTE Committee no later than November 1.

   6.2

   After November 1, the information that may be added to the portfolio is limited to

   a) Recommendations by the evaluating units considering the portfolio at that time;

   b) the candidate's response to those recommendations;

   c) any materials requested by the evaluators.

   6.2.1

   Candidates may petition the college Dean and PTE committee to add additional materials after the deadline. The Dean and PTE committee must both agree in order for additional material to be added.

   6.2.2

   Any additional materials added to the portfolio must pertain to information or material already in the portfolio, such as pending publications or grant proposals.

   6.3

   Unsolicited individual faculty input is limited to the department level of review.

   6.4

   Recommendations and any other materials collected as part of the evaluation process at the department, college, and university levels must be added to the candidate's portfolio before being sent forward to the next level of review. At the time that any written materials are added to the candidate's portfolio, copies of the added material must be sent to the candidate for review. The candidate shall have 14 calendar days to respond in writing to the additional materials. Any response from the candidate to such materials must be in writing and included in the portfolio for review at the next level.

   6.5

   Allegations of misconduct discovered after November 1 that could be detrimental to a candidate's case (e.g. academic misconduct) shall be handled through the appropriate University policy and mechanisms. In such cases, the PTE process will be suspended until the allegations are resolved. Once the PTE process resumes, the candidate may update the portfolio.

   6.6

   Colleges and departments shall document that they have followed all procedures; e.g., by a comprehensive checklist of the steps in the PTE process. The documentation must be included in the portfolio.

   6.7

   The college PTE Committee and the college Dean shall separately and independently review and evaluate the candidate's portfolio.

   6.8

   The college PTE Committee shall prepare a written report, including recommendations and an explanation of the basis for them, that shall be included in the candidate's portfolio. The report and recommendations shall be submitted to the Provost/VPAA by January 15. A copy shall be sent to the Dean, the chair or head of the academic unit, and the candidate.

   6.9

   The College Dean shall prepare a separate written report, including recommendations and an explanation of the basis for them, that shall be included in the candidate's portfolio. The Dean shall forward the report and recommendations, and the portfolio of the candidate, to the Provost/VPAA by January 15. A copy of the Dean's report shall be sent to the PTE committee, the chair or head of the academic unit, and the candidate.

   6.10.

   The Provost/VPAA shall review the candidate's materials and the recommendations of the department, college PTE Committee, and College Dean. The Provost/VPAA shall make a recommendation in writing, including an explanation of the basis for it, by March 31, to the President. Copies of the Provost/VPAA's written recommendation shall be sent to the candidate, the department chair/head, the College Dean, and the college PTE Committee. The Provost/VPAA may solicit input from a nonvoting advisory committee consisting of tenured, nonadministrative faculty representing each college.

   6.11

   When appropriate, the President shall then make the final recommendation to the SBHE for tenure. When appropriate, the President shall notify the candidate of promotion or denial of promotion.

   6.12

   In the case of joint appointments, the primary responsibility for the review rests with the department and the college that hold the majority or plurality of the appointments. Such department or college shall solicit input from the other units holding the remainder of the appointment as appropriate to the allocation of effort. This input from other units which shall be included in the portfolio.

   6.13

   When evaluating faculty participating in interdisciplinary programs, the primary department may solicit input from the director of the interdisciplinary program as appropriate to the allocation of effort.

7. APPEALS

   7.1.

   Appeals of periodic reviews are made by requesting a reconsideration by the evaluating party. If not satisfied, the faculty member may initiate the grievance process pursuant to Section 353.

   7.2.

   Appeals of nonrenewal and nonpromotion decisions shall be pursuant to Policy 350.3.

8. DOCUMENT RETENTION

   Electronic copies of portfolios shall be maintained by the appropriate college for the length of time specified by the university records management policy. Disposal of these documents, as well as filing of archival copies, will also conform to the university records management policy.

HISTORY: May 13, 1974; Amended February 10, 1975; December 12, 1988; May 14, 1990,; April 1992; December 12, 1994 (Effective date July 1, 1995); June 1997; November 2000, October 2001, October 2007, July 2008.