Last
modified: 06.15.06
Tenure
and Promotion Policy (for those appointed after
January 1, 2005)
Tenure is a right to continuing employment granted by
the University to a faculty member upon the completion
of the pretenure period. Tenure is granted by Drexel
University in the belief that by so doing, the professional
development of the faculty member is enhanced through
greater academic freedom in teaching, research, scholarship
or creative work, and service.
The
contemporary concept of tenure in U.S. colleges and
universities can be traced to the “Statement of Principles
of Academic Freedom and Tenure,” which was adopted in
1940 by the American Association of University Professors
and the Association of American Colleges and where the
basic principles of tenure as a system to protect the
academic freedom of faculty members were first articulated.
The
decision between tenure and a one-year terminal contract
is based on the estimated probability that a faculty
member being considered for tenure is or will become
an excellent faculty member. This judgment is premised
on exhaustive and collective consideration of a candidate’s
expert knowledge of her/her academic field, pedagogy,
publication record, research and scholarly accomplishments
and/or artistic productivity, and service to Drexel
University and to the world of higher education. Specifically,
the decision to grant tenure is premised on collective
consideration of the exhibits constituting the candidate’s
comprehensive dossier as that dossier is evaluated against
discipline-specific and professionally acknowledged
standards of excellence. If the estimated probability
of continued excellence is high, tenure should be recommended;
otherwise a one-year terminal contract should be recommended.
Tenure
is granted to successful candidates after an initial
pretenure period of employment not to exceed a total
of six tenure-track years of employment in the assistant
professor, associate professor, or professor rank at
Drexel University. Drexel University’s Board of Trustees,
upon the recommendation of the president, has the sole
authority for granting tenure to a faculty member. Attainment
of tenure can only occur through specific action by
the Board of Trustees.
From
time to time, Drexel may elect to bring in an established
previously tenured faculty member with an immediate
award of tenure. Such candidates should be from universities,
schools and departments that are comparable to Drexel
equivalent units. Prior to the award of tenure, such
candidates shall be reviewed by the tenured faculty
of the department or unit to which the candidate is
appointed. The review may include the assembly of a
complete dossier, equivalent to that prepared for internal
candidates, including, importantly, the acquisition
of outside letters from recognized experts.
Tenure-track
or tenured service in any rank in other institutions
of higher education may be credited toward the Drexel
pretenure period up to a maximum credit of three years,
at the election of the faculty member and upon the recommendation
of the faculty member’s College Dean or School Director.
When such credit has been established, the pretenure
at Drexel is reduced by the amount of credit, so that
the pretenure period could be as short as four years.
Faculty appointed initially at a date other than September
1(for 9 month contracts) or between July 1 or the first
Monday in August (for 12 month contracts) are special
cases and their first year of service at Drexel counting
toward the six year pretenure period will be stated
in their initial contract.
A
faculty member shall have the privilege of election
to waive any or all prior service credit allowable under
these tenure rules. Such waiver is subject to the Provost’s
approval, and once granted, shall be appended to the
faculty member’s letter of appointment, and shall not
be revocable. The election must be made on or before
October 15th of the first year of employment or a comparable
timeframe for faculty appointed at different times.
The election could be in the following language:
I
acknowledge that Drexel University's tenure policy
mandates a pretenure period of six years of service
prior to the granting of tenure and that I have years
of prior service at a professional rank from other
institutions of higher education. I hereby elect to
waive______ years of this service and, in so doing,
recognize and agree that my tenure review year shall
be for the Academic Year ___________________, and
that this election is not revocable. I intend to be
legally bound hereby.
Part-time service, auxiliary service, and service in
any non-tenure-track position, whether at Drexel University
or any other institution, will not be credited toward
the pretenure period. When tenure track faculty are
hired with prior credit, the mid-point review will occur
in a different year, depending upon the number of years
of prior-service credit. In cases where individuals
are hired with three years of prior-service credit,
there will a mid-point review at the end of their first
year at Drexel.
Individual
extensions of the pretenure period of up to three years
may be made for candidates in the event of exceptional
circumstances whether individual or in the University,
or part or parts thereof, which would prevent tenure
award at the end of the normal period. No guarantee
is implied, however, that tenure will ultimately be
granted. Such circumstances may include, but are not
limited to, serious illness, family emergency, or extraordinary
teaching or administrative assignments. Such an extension
shall require tenured faculty or appropriate constituent
faculty body consideration at the departmental, program,
College or School level, including approval by the College
Dean or School Director, by the provost, and by the
faculty member. Upon written request by the faculty
member within one year after each live birth or after
each adoption, an extension of up to one year of the
pretenure period shall be granted by the provost to
any faculty member who will be the primary care giving
parent.
Termination of Tenure-Track or
Tenured Faculty
Termination
of a faculty member shall be undertaken for compelling
reasons only, such as (a) termination for adequate cause
that is related directly and substantially to the fitness
of faculty members in their professional capacities
as teachers or researchers; (b) termination due to extraordinary
budget considerations in which a condition of financial
exigency (as defined in the “Recommended Institutional
Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure”) is demonstrable;
(c) termination due to medical disability in which there
is clear and convincing medical evidence that the faculty
member, even with reasonable accommodation, is no longer
able to perform the essential duties of the position;
(d) release of tenure by virtue of voluntary retirement
or voluntary resignation. Dismissal proceedings for
tenured faculty members for any of the above reasons
will be carried out under the standards approved by
the American Association of University Professors as
outlined in the AAUP American Association of University
Professors Policy Documents and Reports Ninth Edition
(2001).
By resolution of the Board of Trustees*,
the Office of the Provost will maintain a rolling six
year analysis of the University’s staffing and tenure
projections, with particular attention to the aggregate
number of tenured and tenure-track appointments. The
Provost will forward a report yearly to the President,
on the last Friday of the month of January, containing
the aggregate number of tenured and tenure-track faculty
at the University.
*
See “Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees,”
December 11, 1991.
Categories and Criteria of Evaluation for Tenure and
Promotion
To
encourage the thoroughness, fairness, and objectivity
of the reviews in which the work and activities of candidates
with a wide range of interests and abilities are evaluated,
the following four categories of evaluation are affirmed
by Drexel University. Though no individual is expected
to demonstrate excellence in all categories, it is expected
that a successful candidate will demonstrate at least
a satisfactory level of accomplishment in all four categories;
(1)
have expert knowledge of his or her academic field
and a commitment to continuing development of this
competence;
(2)
have evidence of effective teaching;
(3)
have a continuing program of research or other scholarship
or creative activity, including production of art
or artistic performance, or what is most appropriate
to the particular academic discipline; and
(4)
have assumed a fair share of administrative and service
tasks to the program, department, School or College,
and university, and to the profession at the national
and/or international level.
Further,
successful candidates must demonstrate excellence in
(1) and either (2) in teaching or (3) in publication,
research, scholarship and/or artistic productivity,
as appropriate to the discipline; and whereas the candidate
has exhibited excellence in (1) and (2) or (1) and (3),
the candidate will have at least satisfactory performance
in the other two areas in (3) in publication, research,
scholarship and/or artistic productivity, as appropriate
to the discipline and (4) in service or (2) in teaching
and (4) in service.
The
particular items listed after each category are offered
mainly for illustrative purposes; the order in which
they are listed is not indicative of any type of priority
ranking. No item should be counted as alone necessary
or sufficient for purposes of demonstrating the quality
of one’s work within a particular category. Further,
the lists in each category should not be construed to
exhaust all of the possible items that might otherwise
be included. Note especially that tenure and promotion
review committees should not construe the following
as check-lists.
Expert
Knowledge and Commitment to Continuing Development
1.
Is sought to serve on grant review panels, peer review
panels, or other types of review panels
2.
Is invited to serve on editorial boards in journals
in their field
3.
Is sought for appropriate informal and formal consultation
services in industry and government
4.
Is invited to serve as moderators or panel discussants
at regional, national, and international meetings
5.
Is awarded fellowships, awards, or other types of
honorary recognition
6.
Seeks ongoing active participation at conferences,
seminars, or programs in their field
7.
Maintains certifications and/or attends formal or
informal courses or classes to increase
knowledge and expertise
8.
Participates in activities that support ongoing professional
development
Pedagogy
1.
Effectiveness in undergraduate and/or graduate teaching
in the classroom and laboratory, as applicable to
the discipline
2.
Contributions to the curriculum, such as substantial
revisions of existing courses, and
development of new courses and techniques of teaching
3.
Publications related to teaching in the candidate’s
discipline, such as textbooks, aids, manuals, etc.
4.
Effectiveness as an undergraduate and/or graduate
adviser and/or mentor, including dissertation, thesis,
or independent study advisement
Publication,
Research, Scholarship and/or Artistic Productivity
1.
Quantity and quality of research, artistic investigation,
or scholarship, as evidenced by publications, presentations
of papers (including invited presentations nationally
and internationally), research reports, exhibitions,
etc. Particular notice will be given to papers and
articles that are invited or subject to peer review.
Consideration should also be given to publications
related to the advancement of pedagogical theory and
method in one’s field. Notice should also be given,
in appropriate disciplines, to the candidate’s success
in securing external funding. Whether securing external
funding is expected, and to what extent, must be made
absolutely clear to every tenure track faculty member
at the time of appointment.
2.
Effectiveness in directing the research of students.
3.
Originating, participating in, and/or directing research
projects.
4.
Evaluation of scholarly and/or artistic accomplishment
by recognized authorities outside of Drexel where
appropriate.
Service
to the University, to the Profession, and to Society
in General
1.
Leadership and/or participation in faculty elective
bodies and service on committees at program, department,
college or school and University levels
2.
Service to individual students and/or student organizations
3.
Promotion of the University through extramural activities,
such as recruitment events, alumni affairs, etc.
4.
Other forms of service to the profession and society
Criteria
employed in evaluating a candidate’s work shall be applied
to each of the four categories of evaluation. One of
the most important and challenging duties a tenure and
promotion review committee has is to articulate and
incorporate within their final written recommendation
the criteria employed and the basis of their judgments
regarding a candidate’s work, including any reliance
on external reviewers. Programs, Departments and Schools
or Colleges may establish their own standards and criteria
for tenure provided such standards and criteria are
consistent with the University-wide general standards
and are communicated to all tenure-track hires at the
time of the appointment.
Procedures During the Pretenure
Period
Drexel
University hires tenure track faculty members with the
understanding that if they meet stated Program, Department,
School or College and University criteria for tenure
during the pretenure period, then they will be considered
for tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor
no later than the beginning of their sixth year at the
University. The University will provide a positive approach
in assisting junior faculty to achieve tenure. Each
academic unit will discuss the nature of the support
and guidance they will provide to the candidate at the
time of appointment and ongoing.
1.
The precise terms and conditions of every appointment
must be stated in writing and be in the possession
of both the University and the faculty member before
the appointment is finalized.
2.
All tenure-track faculty members are appointed on
nine (9) or twelve (12) month contracts during the
pretenure period.
3.
The Annual Evaluation: The
status of each faculty member on appointment for the
pretenure period shall be reviewed annually in a conference
with his/her Department Head or Program Chair or Director
in the fall quarter or semester. This review shall include
a written evaluation of the faculty member's performance
to date, his/her salary and academic rank, and his/her
prospects for future employment including tenure at
the University. Each school or college shall have written
procedures in regard to the nature and scope of this
review, and these procedures shall be made known to
the faculty member when he or she is first employed
by the University. No matter what the procedure, the
candidate should be allowed to express his or her view
to the evaluating Department Head or Program Chair or
Director, as part of an interview before the report
is written, as well as by giving a written response
to the written report. This written response should
become part of the documentation of the faculty member.
When the judgment at an annual evaluation is unconditionally**
or conditionally***
positive, the Department Head or Chair or Director will
recommend to the College Dean or School Director that
the faculty member’s contract with the University be
renewed for the following year. When the judgment is
negative, the Department Head, Chair, or Director will
recommend to the College Dean or School Director the
following:
a. If the faculty member has continuously served the
University for not more than one year at the end of
the current appointment term, notice of the intention
not to reappoint the faculty member beyond the current
appointment term shall be given at least three months
prior to the end of the current appointment term.
b. If the faculty member has continuously served the
University for more than one year but not more than
two years at the end of the current appointment term,
notice of the intention not to reappoint the faculty
member beyond the current appointment term shall be
given at least six months prior to the end of the
current appointment term.
c. If the faculty member has continuously served the
University for more than two years at the end of the
current appointment term, the faculty member shall
be given a terminal appointment.2 The notice of the
intention not to reappoint the faculty member beyond
the terminal appointment shall be given prior to the
start of the terminal appointment year.
Whether a positive or negative judgment issues, the
faculty member is provided with a copy of the Department
Head’s or Program Chair or Director’s report within
15 days of the annual performance review having taken
place and, in any case, no later than December 1st.
4.
The Mid-Point Review****:
During the third year of employment (less for those
faculty members who are hired with one or more years
of prior service credit), all tenure-track faculty members
also undergo a formal mid-point review, in addition
to annual reviews. The mid-point review employs the
same categories and criteria of evaluation as does the
tenure review, and is conducted with appropriate rigor.
The process is managed by the Department Head, Chair,
or Director in consultation with the department’s or
program’s tenure and promotion review committee, or
in academic units without Department Heads, by the senior
administrator. Specific mid-point review procedures
and calendar dates may differ from department to department,
between programs or between Schools and Colleges, but
all procedures differing from University policy must
be set down in writing and approved by the respective
Department Head, Chair or Director, College Dean or
School Director, and by the Provost.
|
|
See
Section 5.a., below, for what is meant by an “unconditional”
judgment. |
|
|
See
Section 5.b., below, for what is meant by a “conditional”
judgment. |
|
|
Refer
to the “University Midpoint Review Calendar,” pages
11-12, for relevant dates and deadlines. |
The
mid-point review is internal (external referees are
optional*****)
and takes place during the winter and spring quarters
or spring semester of the third year of appointment.
The, committee tasked to complete the mid-point review
will complete it no later than April 1st of the candidate’s
third year of service******.
A final report prepared by the Department Head, Chair,
or Director*******
is then transmitted to the candidate, together with
the Committee’s report. Individuals acknowledge receipt,
add comments if desired, and return the reports to the
respective administrative officer who gave the candidate
the reports within seven (7) days after receiving it.
A complete copy of the mid-point review file, including
the report of the departmental or program tenure and
promotion review committee or mid-point review committee
(whichever committee it tasked to conduct the review),
the Department Head, Chair, or Director’s final report,
and the candidate's responses, shall be forwarded to
the College Dean or School Director no later than April
15th of the third year of appointment. The College Dean
or School Director shall write a response and communicate
this to the candidate no later than April 30th. The
candidate’s response will be completed and forwarded
to the College Dean or School Director no later than
May 3rd. All of these same materials, together with
the College Dean or School Director’s recommendation
shall be forwarded to the Office of the Provost by May
5th. It is the College Dean or School Director’s responsibility
to forward a complete copy of the review file to the
respective tenure and promotion review committee at
the time of the candidate’s tenure review.
5.
As noted, near the conclusion of the mid-point review,
the faculty member under review receives a written statement
from the Department Head, Chair, or Director. The report
will reflect one of the following findings:
a.
The candidate appears to be making satisfactory progress
towards tenure and promotion. This finding is based
on strong evidence that the candidate will very likely
meet the standard of excellence demanded by a successful
tenure review. In this case, the University’s expectation
is for continued professional development at the rate
demonstrated in the first portion of the pretenure
period.
b.
The candidate appears to be progressing towards tenure
and promotion with qualifications. In such cases,
it is imperative that appropriate actions by the candidate
be taken to remedy deficiencies in the candidate’s
performance as the candidate will be evaluated fully
on the four categories of evaluation at the time of
the tenure review. The mere elimination of deficiencies,
however, cannot alone warrant the granting of tenure.
With such findings, the burden of responsibility for
performance improvement is on the candidate; however,
the Department Head, Chair, or Director (or his or
her designee) should provide all reasonable assistance.
c.
The candidate has not made sufficient progress towards
tenure and promotion as to be judged a viable candidate.
In such cases, the candidate will be given a one-year
terminal contract for the following academic year.
Procedure in the Year of Tenure Review
By
January 31st of each year, the Provost will confirm
the list of faculty members who must be considered for
tenure in the following academic year and will forward
those names to the respective College Deans or School
Directors. The names of those faculty members will be
verified by either the College Dean or School Director
and returned to the Provost within 14 days.
The
Provost may approve the addition of other eligible faculty
members to the list for tenure review, at the written
request of those faculty members and upon the recommendation
of their respective College Deans or School Directors.
Faculty members requesting early review should take
note that, as in all tenure reviews at Drexel University,
a decision either to tenure or terminate will be made.
|
|
See
Section 5.a., below, for what is meant by an “unconditional”
judgment. |
|
|
See
Section 5.b., below, for what is meant by a “conditional”
judgment. |
|
|
Refer
to the “University Midpoint Review Calendar,” pages
11-12, for relevant dates and deadlines. |
Recommendations
for the granting of tenure originate in an academic
department, program or their equivalent; this may be
a school or, in colleges without departments, the college.
All
departmental, program, school or college-based tenure
and promotion review committees within the university
should be constituted by March 1 of each calendar year.
The procedure for forming the initial tenure and promotion
review committee is left to each academic unit, but
is in all cases written down and available for review.
Specifically, all departments, programs, schools and
colleges are required to submit their tenure and promotion
policies and procedures to the Office of the Provost
for approval annually, that is, by January 31. While
it is understood that these policies and procedures
may differ depending upon the nature and function of
the unit, each must be consistent with general University
guidelines and standards and approved by the Office
of the Provost.
When a tenure and promotion review committee is established,
formal procedures must be followed. General orderliness
of record is important regarding dates and attendance
of meetings, evidence considered, votes taken, manner
of voting and outcome. Once the review process has begun,
candidates are not permitted to have access to any of
the materials reviewed by the tenure and promotion review
committee. All information associated with the review
(thus, materials submitted by the candidate or others
for review, or generated by the review process) must
be regarded as strictly confidential by persons involved
in the review. However, within these guidelines of confidentiality,
the overall promotion and tenure process should allow
for feedback to each faculty candidate at appropriate
times and through appropriate channels to ensure that
misunderstandings, misconceptions, and disagreements
be confronted at the level at which they occur. In the
case of contradictory findings, it is the responsibility
of the later reviewer to assure the consistency of the
information evaluated in arriving at the recommendation.
Members of promotion and tenure committees participate
with the understanding that all matters related to their
deliberations remain confidential. In addition, faculty
candidates under review are discouraged from approaching
committee members at any time concerning the disposition
of their review and should understand that inquiries
of this type are deemed entirely inappropriate. Confidentiality
of the promotion and tenure process is to be respected
forever, not just during that particular year of review.
Any exceptions to the requirement of confidentiality
can only be authorized by the University’s Office of
the General Counsel.
Additional Guidelines for Candidates
Seeking Promotion
Standards for promotion will be guided by the same four
categories of evaluation for tenure. It is assumed that
promotion to the rank of associate professor will accompany
the awarding of tenure. Any exceptions to this policy
must be communicated to and approved by the Provost
on or before November 1 of the year in which the individual
is being considered. It is assumed that candidates for
promotion to the rank of professor will have served
no less than four years in rank as associate professors.
Any exceptions to this policy must be communicated to
and approved by the Provost on or before June 30 of
the calendar year during which an individual with less
than four years in rank is to be considered for promotion
to the rank of professor. Whenever a candidate is being
considered for promotion to full professor, he or she
may be reviewed by fellow faculty at the rank of full
professor only********.
********
See “Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees,”
December 11, 1991.
Process,
Criteria, and Calendar for the Selection of External
Reviewers
Following
the election or appointment of a committee chair for
any tenure and promotion review committee, the first
order of business will be to identify and secure a
sufficient number of qualified external reviewers.
In the best of circumstances, external reviewers provide
highly informed, candid, and comprehensive evaluations
of the body of work under review. In effect, the external
reviewer speaks not only (if indirectly) to the candidate,
but to the University, regarding the number and quality
of the elements that compose the body of work, its
appropriateness within, and contribution to, the discipline
or field, and to the expectation that we may reasonably
hold in regard to future direction and probability
of success. Accordingly, the selection of external
reviewers is a matter to be taken most seriously.
The following information is not intended to be exhaustive,
but seeks only to establish what is minimally acceptable.
Selection
Process and Calendar
There
must be at least five external reviewers associated
with each tenure and promotion case. The majority
of external reviewers should be selected by members
of the initial tenure and promotion review committee
from a list of potential reviewers generated exclusively
by the tenure and promotion review committee; two
additional external reviewers should be selected by
the tenure and promotion review committee from a list
of potential reviewers generated by the candidate.
In
order to ensure a more timely assembly of external
reviewers who will immediately begin to review a candidate’s
dossier following the September 1 submission date,
all initial tenure and promotion review committees
should finalize a list of at least 8 potential (some
departments or programs may require more) external
reviewers by April 15th (the following Tuesday for
days that fall on a weekend or holiday) of the spring
preceding the anticipated fall review of the candidate.
As
mentioned, the slate of 8 potential reviewers will
come from two sources: The initial Tenure and Promotion
Committee will propose 6 external reviewers and an
additional 2 reviewers will be selected by the committee
from the slate of 6 reviewers proposed by the candidate.
As each candidate knows January 31 of each year if
he/she will be undergoing tenure review the following
fall, each candidate will submit their slate of 6
potential reviewers by March 15th to the respective
tenure and promotion committee.
Once
8 external reviewers have been selected by the Tenure
and Promotion Committee, the Chair should then forward
that list to the Office of the Provost on April 15th.
The Provost will respond to the respective tenure
and promotion review committee Chair within 10 days
if he or she has confirmed the external slate or if
he or she has determined that some potential external
reviewers perhaps do not appear to meet the criteria
for selection. If it is confirmed that some external
reviewers do not meet the criteria, the Provost’s
Office will work with the Chair to arrive at any appropriate
substitutions.
Upon
confirmation of the slate by the Office of the Provost,
each respective Tenure and Promotion Chair should
select and secure at least 5 confirmed reviewers from
the slate of which at least are 3 selected by the
committee’s list and at least 2 generated from the
candidate’s proposed list of reviewers. All final
external reviewers should submit in writing their
“willingness to serve.” Committees are well advised
to have secured a “willingness to serve” from more
than the minimum number of external reviewers (5)
needed to conduct a review.
Selection
Criteria for External Reviewers
• External reviewers should be nationally or internationally
acknowledged experts in their respective disciplines
and/or professions; and preferably from academic or
research institutions equal to or better than Drexel
University for the candidate’s specific field.
•
There may be cases in which an outstanding individual
is affiliated with an institution of lesser caliber
than Drexel or have no current institutional affiliation
whatsoever. In these exceptional cases, the Committee
should provide evidence supportive of the judgment
that the potential reviewer is outstanding.
•
For tenure review, external reviewers will, typically,
be members of the professoriate who must hold tenure
and, preferably, who hold the rank of “Professor,”
although tenured Associate Professors may also be
selected.
•
External reviewers may not have served on the candidate’s
dissertation proposal committee or dissertation committee.
•
External reviewers should not be (or have been) co-authors
of the candidate, nor should they be (or have been)
co-PIs. (Current or former co-authors and co-PIs may
instead write letters addressed to the committee Chair.)
Summary
The
reports early in the process are critically important
as being closest to the evidence and to persons best
technically equipped to judge the evidence. The departmental
or program committee report (if instituted), the Department
Head, Chair or Director’s report, and the college or
school’s committee report(s) must present clear findings
and the evidence considered in arriving at those findings.
The decision between tenure and a terminal contract
is based on the estimated probability that the person
being considered is or will become an outstanding faculty
member. This judgment is made with full consideration
of his/her expert knowledge in his/her academic discipline
and commitment to ongoing development of this competence,
in teaching, in research, scholarship or other creative/artistic
activity and in service to Drexel. If the estimated
probability is high, tenure should be recommended; otherwise
a terminal contract should be recommended.
Workflow
and Calendar
A
universal Drexel calendar for all Colleges and Schools
for the Mid-Point Review and for Tenure and Promotion
Review is described. The Office of the Provost shall
post by June 1st of every year the tenure and promotion
calendar and the mid-point calendar that will be used
in advance of the next two years.
Click
HERE
to view University Tenure and Promotion Calendar
|