School of Social Welfare Promotion, Retention, and Tenure Committee Policies and Procedures

PRINT DISCLAIMER: Official version of this document is accessible in the online policy library at https://policyoffice.ku.edu/. Printed copies may not reflect the most recent updates.

DOCUMENT TYPE:

Policy

PURPOSE:

The policies of the School of Social Welfare are in line with University of Kansas rules governing promotion and Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, Article VI. Recommendations concerning promotion and tenure shall be made solely in accordance with the standards and procedures in Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations Article VI and the written criteria, procedures, and guidelines adopted pursuant to it.

This policy applies to all promotion and tenure decisions involving members of the tenure track faculty of the School of Social Welfare. Unclassified academic staff who hold faculty equivalent rank are also evaluated for promotion in rank pursuant to this policy and references to faculty in this policy include unclassified academic staff to the extent they are evaluated for promotion using the standards and procedures of this policy, with due regard for their distinctive roles and professional responsibilities.

APPLIES TO:

The School of Social Welfare tenure track faculty and unclassified academic staff who hold faculty equivalent rank.

CAMPUS:

Edwards, Lawrence

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Section 1. University Rules Governing Promotion
Section 2. School of Social Welfare Committee on Promotion, Retention and Tenure
Section 3. Annual Reviews
Section 4. Progress Toward Tenure and Progress Toward Promotion Review
Section 5. Review of Promotion and Promotion with Tenure Applications
Section 6. Review of Applications for Promotion to Full Professor and to Faculty-Equivalent Positions for Unclassified Academic Staff
Section 7. PRT Committee Promotion Procedures
Section 8. Promotion Policies and Procedures Following the PRT Committee Review

POLICY STATEMENT:

Section 1. University Rules Governing Promotion

1.1 The policies of the School of Social Welfare are in line with University of Kansas rules governing promotion and Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, Article VI. Recommendations concerning promotion and tenure shall be made solely in accordance with the standards and procedures in Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations Article VI and the written criteria, procedures, and guidelines adopted pursuant to it.

1.2 This policy applies to all promotion and tenure decisions involving members of the tenure track faculty of the School of Social Welfare. Unclassified academic staff who hold faculty equivalent rank are also evaluated for promotion in rank pursuant to this policy and references to faculty in this policy include unclassified academic staff to the extent they are evaluated for promotion using the standards and procedures of this policy, with due regard for their distinctive roles and professional responsibilities.

Section 2. School of Social Welfare Committee on Promotion, Retention and Tenure (PRT)

2.1 Committee Membership

2.1.1 The PRT Committee consists of seven elected members and an alternate member. Membership includes elected tenured faculty members, including at least one full professor. If available, at least one unclassified academic staff with faculty position equivalent to associate or full professor is elected to PRT. A tenured faculty person or unclassified academic staff with faculty position equivalent to associate or full professor will be elected to PRT to serve as an alternate. Alternate PRT member will serve actively when a regular member of the PRT Committee is also a mentor for candidate. Members and alternate members serve three years. In extraordinary circumstances, such as an insufficient number of eligible faculty or a heavy committee workload, the faculty can vote to increase or decrease the number, or adjust the rank (i.e., associate or full professor) and position type (i.e., include unclassified academic staff with faculty positions equivalent to associate or full professor) of required members to serve on the Committee for an agreed upon time period, subject to rules and regulations outlined in Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations. This adjustment will be determined during the Committee elections.

2.1.2 No person shall serve simultaneously on more than one committee (department, college or school, or university) considering promotion and tenure. Likewise, the Dean of the School of Social Welfare, who has an independent responsibility to evaluate a candidate, shall not serve as a member of the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT). Only members of the PRT Committee and its chair participate in or observe its deliberations and no students or pre-tenured faculty members shall serve, participate, or observe on any promotion and tenure committee or vote on any recommendation concerning promotion and tenure.

2.2 Committee Roles and Duties

2.2.1 The Committee advises faculty candidates of promotion, tenure, and sabbatical, Keeler Intra-University Professorship application guidelines; reviews their application materials; and, makes recommendations to the Dean. The Committee conducts annual and progress toward tenure and/or promotion reviews of unclassified academic staff and pre-tenured tenure-track faculty, advises them with regard to PRT standards, and gives a written report to the Dean and the faculty member with observations on faculty progress and suggestions about preparation for promotion or tenure applications. The Committee is also responsible for post-tenure reviews (as outlined here: https://services.ku.edu/TDClient/818/Portal/KB/ArticleDet?ID=21486)

2.2.2 The Committee has two roles to perform in carrying out its decision-making function. These roles and functions are carried out at several points in time: annual reviews, progress toward tenure reviews, and promotions with or without tenure. It acts as a consultant on the review process to candidates while they are preparing their materials and it acts as an evaluator once the materials have been submitted. The University and School’s pre-established criteria serve as a framework for recommendations. As required by University protocol, the Dean then makes an assessment and forwards select materials with their recommendations to UCPT.

2.2.3 In its consultative role, the Committee attempts to clarify University rules and expectations and provides an explicit statement of its own procedures and its bases for evaluation. In this role, the applicant may consult with the Committee as a whole or with individual members while materials are being prepared and receive information about the application process. The purpose of this consultation is to enhance the likelihood that a well-organized and accurate application is submitted.

2.2.4 For the remainder of this policy, except when indicated otherwise, the term “faculty” refers to both tenure-track faculty and unclassified academic staff.

2.3 Pre-Tenure and Pre-Promotion Mentoring

2.3.1 Before the end of the first semester following appointment, faculty members shall be provided with information concerning the standards and procedures for award of tenure and promotion in rank, including copies of the written criteria and procedures approved by the School, and of the Provost’s guidelines and forms. Prior to tenure and prior to promotion, a faculty member is considered to be serving a probationary period and the School may decide not to reappoint the faculty member as provided in FSRR Section 6.4.3. Policies surrounding probationary periods and non- reappointment or unclassified academic staff are located in the University policy library here: https://services.ku.edu/TDClient/818/Portal/KB/ArticleDet?ID=21426 and here: https://services.ku.edu/TDClient/818/Portal/KB/ArticleDet?ID=21248).

2.3.2 Pre-Tenure and Pre-Promotion Schedule of Reviews
The PRT committee conducts annual reviews and Progress toward Tenure or Progress toward Promotion reviews of unclassified academic staff and pre-tenured tenure-track faculty, advises them with regard to PRT standards, and gives a written report to the Dean and the faculty member with observations on faculty progress and suggestions about preparation for promotion or tenure applications. This process is intended to provide faculty members with a meaningful appraisal of their progress toward tenure and/or promotion and to orient them toward basic aspects of the tenure and/or promotion process.

 

Table 1.

 

 

Section 3. Annual Reviews 

3.1 Working with the faculty member, the School shall, on an ongoing basis, generate and compile the documentation necessary to evaluate teaching (or professional performance), scholarship and service. This annual review consists of faculty submitting to the PRT Committee the following materials:

• A current CV formatted as per the Provost’s website
• A copy of the annual report
• Faculty members with teaching duties shall submit student evaluations of teaching, to include:
• University and School of Social Welfare student course evaluations
  • A table (template provided by PRT) summarizing university and School of Social Welfare student course evaluation scores from all previous courses taught at the University of Kansas.
  • Some faculty members (i.e., unclassified academic staff) may have professional performance standards that are not consistent with those of tenure-track faculty. These faculty members shall submit evidence of performance consistent with their specific job descriptions (e.g., external funding applications submitted and received).
  • Some faculty members may wish to include a reflective statement that provides a description of work done over the past calendar year and how this work is contributing to the creation of a trajectory of growth in research, teaching and/or service.

3.2 Pre-tenure and pre-promotion faculty members may receive clarifying questions from the PRT Committee during the written evaluation preparation period. The written evaluations are informed also by an in-person meeting between the pre- tenure/pre-promotion faculty member and the PRT Committee. The PRT Committee will use all submitted materials to evaluate teaching, scholarship, service and other performance areas, as appropriate the faculty member’s job description, as “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “marginal,” or “poor.” Once PRT has completed the written evaluation, it is submitted to the Dean of the School of Social Welfare, with a copy to the faculty member who was the subject of the evaluation.

Section 4. Progress Toward Tenure and Progress Toward Promotion Review 

4.1 Approximately midway between a faculty member’s appointment and mandatory review year (usually the third year), under guidelines issued by the Provost, the School shall conduct a formal review of a pre-tenured faculty member’s progress toward tenure and unclassified academic staff member’s progress toward promotion. The Progress toward Tenure or Progress toward Promotion review consists of essentially the same process outlined in Sections 5 through 7, excluding external reviews and the UCPT review.

4.2 Conflict of Interest

In cases of conflict of interest (as defined by the university) that occur for a member of the PRT Committee, that member will be recused and replaced with a designated alternate member selected by vote of the faculty. If a candidate believes that there is a conflict of interest, the candidate may petition the Committee to have that person recuse himself or herself. If a Committee member does not recuse himself or herself, a decision about whether that person has a conflict of interest will be made by a majority of the other Committee members.

4.2.1 In the event that the person recused is the only Full Professor serving on the Committee and the candidate is applying for promotion to Full Professor or an unclassified academic staff equivalent, then the alternate Committee member must also be a Full Professor or unclassified academic staff equivalent.

4.3 Review Independence.  Neither the record of the Progress Toward Tenure Review, nor the results of the Progress Toward Tenure Review, shall be included in a faculty member’s promotion and tenure record. Recommendations for or against promotion and tenure should not be influenced by favorable or unfavorable results of the Progress Toward Tenure Review.

Section 5. Review of Promotion and Promotion with Tenure Applications 

5.1 University Criteria – Tenure-track Faculty

5.1.1 The categories of evaluation for promotion with tenure have been and continue to be teaching, research, and service. Both teaching and research should normally be given primary consideration. Service is also expected of every individual, and its nature and extent may vary widely. It should be the aim of evaluators at every level to ensure that the total contributions of the faculty member to the University are properly recognized.

5.1.2  Promotion with tenure must be based principally upon evidence of achievement since the initial appointment to the faculty. The awarding of tenure must take into account any prior service credited but will be based largely on the evidence of achievement since joining the University of Kansas. The treatment of time spent at another institution may be negotiated at the time of hire, in which case the PRT Committee will consider activities as instructed by the Dean.

 

5.1.3 Absent exceptional circumstances, successful candidates for promotion with tenure will meet disciplinary expectations in all categories, and strong candidates are likely to exceed expectations in one or more categories. For the award of tenure and/or promotion to the rank of associate professor, the record must demonstrate a successfully developing scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as the quality and quantity of publications and creative activities, external reviews of the candidate’s work by respected scholars or practitioners in the field, the candidate’s regional, national, or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly agenda.

5.2 University Criteria – Unclassified Academic Staff

5.2.1 School of Social Welfare promotion policies apply to faculty equivalent unclassified academic staff with due regard for their distinctive roles, job descriptions, and professional responsibilities.

5.2.2 The following information about unclassified academic staff is drawn from the University Handbook (Section II.C). Those seeking additional information should consult this publication, as well as the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, Article VI.

5.2.3 The faculty equivalent academic staff supports the mission of the University through scholarship, public service, and teaching. Members of the academic staff have education, degrees and experience comparable to tenured and tenure-track faculty, are represented through the Faculty Senate, and subject to some policies and procedures that apply to tenured or tenure-track faculty (i.e., Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, Article VI).

5.2.4 In the School of Social Welfare unclassified academic staff supported by State funds may hold the titles of junior, assistant, associate, or senior scientist, curator, or specialist. For unclassified academic staff funded from grants and contracts, the titles are assistant research professor, associate research professor, or research professor.

5.2.5 Promotion in rank for unclassified academic staff is made on the basis of meritorious performance and follows the same procedures as promotion of tenure-track faculty members. (See FSRR Article VI.) The criteria for promotion include teaching, scholarship, service, and professional performance, depending upon the expectations for the specific position, and are clearly articulated in the written position description provided at the time of the initial appointment.

5.2.6 Promotion must be based principally upon evidence of achievement since the initial appointment to the faculty at the University of Kansas. Absent exceptional circumstances, successful candidates for promotion will meet disciplinary expectations in all categories, and strong candidates are likely to exceed expectations in one or more categories.

5.3 Applying University Criteria

5.3.1 Professional performance for unclassified academic staff may include teaching, scholarship/research, and service. However, professional performance is determined specifically to each candidate’s position description. Depending upon the expectations for a specific position, as clearly articulated in the written position description provided at the time of the initial appointment, it may not be appropriate for some unclassified academic staff to be evaluated in all of the following areas. For example, an Assistant Research Professor applying for promotion to Associate Research Professor may have no teaching duties associated with their specific position. As such, evaluation of teaching would not be relevant. Unclassified academic staff applying for promotion should consult with the PRT Committee to identify in which areas they will be evaluated.

5.3.2 Teaching

The following criteria apply to tenure track faculty as well as UAS with teaching responsibilities as a component of their specific position according to the position description. Other academic activities such as mentoring and serving on doctoral committees are evaluated as teaching. The applicant must provide clear evidence of the ability to engage competently in the teaching/learning process.

Informed by the KUSSW adaptation of the KU Benchmarks Rubric, excellence in teaching involves: 

• the ability to engage students fully in the teaching and learning process in classrooms of varying types
• evidence of full knowledge of the curriculum area, including the most recent theory and inquiry
• the ability to integrate and synthesize related areas of knowledge
• the ability to translate theory/concept/research findings into practice
• the ability to demonstrate the links between this curriculum and other areas of the curriculum of the School
• the ability to promote independent learning in students
• the ability to motivate students to learn more; and evidence of the application of the Guiding Principles and Values of the School in classes taught
• evidence of efforts to improve teaching skills over time
• and, involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom.

5.3.2.1 For purposes of evaluating a faculty member’s activity, the following sources of evidence will be reviewed. The PRT Committee recognizes the implicit bias inherent in student evaluations of teaching demonstrated in research-based evidence (Basow & Martin, 2012; Boring, Ottoboni & Starrk 2016; Spooren, Brockx & Mortelmans, 2013). Therefore, the scores attributed to faculty’s teaching will be weighed in balance with peer review of teaching (i.e., peer observation) and Statement of Teaching, Advising Philosophy, and Goals (see descriptions of these below) and demonstration of continuous growth, development, and application of teaching innovations (individual teaching, programmatic level, university level, and teaching scholarship).

1. Student evaluation of quality of teaching will be determined by reviewing university student course evaluations, and teaching awards.

• When reviewing and summarizing the faculty member’s student course evaluations, and then assessing teaching, the committee will also acknowledge the sample size for each course and across courses.

2. Qualitative comments from the student course e evaluations will only be incorporated into the committee’s review during PTTR and promotion.

3. Peer review of quality of teaching and educational activity will be conducted by at least two tenured faculty members chosen bythe PRT Committee from a list of 3 nominees chosen by the candidate. Peer review shall include the following:

• Teaching materials – syllabi, readings, Learning Management System site access, or other evidence of innovative techniques, and classroom observations.
• Student voice or evidence of learning – student feedback forms or assignments that demonstrate understanding of key goals.
• Statement of Teaching, Advising Philosophy, and Goals – statement describing the development of teaching practice over time with a focus on reflection, course goals, and student learning. Here the faculty member can describe and document their teaching challenges and successes, as part of the development of teaching practice over time. This can include formal and informal learning activities they have engaged in to improve their teaching practice.

4. The peer reviewer’s responsibility includes interacting with the faculty member, observing student instruction, and documenting the teaching practices.

5. Committee evaluation of quality of teaching and educational activity will be based on multiple sources of input, including but not limited to the following:

• Applicant's Statement of Teaching, Advising Philosophy, and Goals
• University and School of Social Welfare student course evaluations
• Peer review of teaching (once prior to the PTTR and twice total for promotion with tenure)
• Assessment of contributions to curriculum development through activity of curriculum committees, new course development, and teaching innovations at different levels
• Assessment of additional materials submitted by faculty member that demonstrate teaching and educational activity, such as selection to be participant of teaching focused training, documentation of specific efforts to improve teaching or other evidence of innovative techniques.

6.  Based on the review of these sources, the Committee will characterize the teaching performance for each course as required by the University (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor). Student evaluation scores and the accompanying student comments will be examined to determine if there is a general trend of competence in teaching over time.

5.3.3 Scholarship/Research

The University of Kansas School of Social Welfare values a broad range of scholarly activities. Commensurate with our Mission, Guiding Principles and Values, we believe that the academic community, the discipline, and the public benefit from faculty conducting a wide range of scholarly activities. Faculty engagement in the community (defined as scholarly or creative activities undertaken for the public good, directed in concert with persons and groups outside the School of Social Welfare) is valued and encouraged.

5.3.3.1 Faculty members are entitled to academic freedom and have an obligation to exercise that freedom responsibly. 

5.3.3.2 Scholarship and inquiry in a mission-oriented profession such as social work involves a variety of paths. The root idea of scholarship is to make new and distinctive contributions. The School of Social Welfare values multiple types of scholarly work, including, but not limited to the following: 

• Quantitative research
• Qualitative research
• Mixed methods research
• Historical/archival studies
• Critiques, revisions, and enhancements of theoretical, conceptual, or methodological orientations
• Critical reviews of existing knowledge
• Case studies
• Interdisciplinary research/scholarship using a variety of methodologies
• Art based methods
• Indigenous methods
• Community based Participatory Research
• Program Evaluation  

5.3.3.3 The quality of scholarship must be demonstrated and documented in the faculty member’s Statement of Program of Research/Scholarship, in letters of evaluation of scholarly work from outside reviewers, and in the corpus of the applicant’s scholarly work. The candidate must demonstrate a successfully developing scholarly career and provide evidence of an active and productive program of scholarship.

5.3.3.4 Scholarly communication/dissemination occurs through a plurality of activities and mechanisms. The School of Social Welfare recognizes the importance of communicating scholarly work in diverse ways, to diverse audiences and across settings. The following list of types of scholarly communication is intended to provide general guidelines for categorizing work. The list is not exhaustive and is written with the recognition that methods of dissemination are constantly fluctuating. Faculty members are encouraged to contact the PRT Committee if clarifications are needed regarding the classification of work.

• Scholarly Products or Written Works
• Peer Reviewed
• Journal articles
• Books
• Book chapters
• Conference proceedings
• External Funding proposals, Submitted
• Non-Peer Reviewed
• Monographs
• White papers
• Program reports
• Research briefs
• Commentaries
• Training materials
• Open access materials

 

Candidates are encouraged to develop a program of scholarly communication that is both impactful to the discipline and to the community. The PRT Committee recognizes and encourages scholars to aim for the types of impact that are best aligned with their program of scholarship. This may include a wide array of formats such as multi-media products, op-eds, media appearances, or arts based innovative displays of scholarly work. If a candidate engages in scholarly communication that they believe is impactful yet is difficult to demonstrate as impactful, the PRT Committee encourages the faculty member to consult the committee and obtain a current copy of the impact assessment procedural document. Candidates are encouraged to consult with their mentors and PRT committee members.

Conference proceedings are defined as follows: A published collection of abstracts and papers that were peer reviewed as a condition for acceptance as a presentation and delivered at a scientific meeting.

The PRT Committee recognizes that some scholars may wish to make scholarly contributions through books and book chapters. Provided that these forms of dissemination are peer reviewed and published via an established press, the Committee does not prioritize one form of scholarly work over another. Each book chapter counts as 1 scholarly product. Like peer reviewed journal articles, books and book chapters must be in final form and unconditionally accepted by the publisher. All candidates must maintain documentation of publication status and be prepared to produce this documentation.

Candidates for promotion with tenure are reminded that the Committee’s review of scholarly work is informed by external reviewers, who are provided with six self-selected scholarly products that exemplify the trajectory of growth as a scholar and clearly display the corpus of the work.

University of Kansas policy requires a statement defining “the criteria upon which a work is classified as a major or minor work in this field.” The definition for major and minor works is provided below in Sections 5.3.3.5.5 through 5.3.3.5.8.

5.3.3.5 Expectations of scholarship for promotion, tenure, and criteria for evaluation of scholarship are as follows:

5.3.3.5.1 Tenure Track. In order to evaluate an application for promotion or tenure, the committee must see evidence of a developing scholarly career commensurate with the guidelines outlined above. This evidence derives from three primary sources: (a) scholarly communications, (b) statement of research and scholarship program, and (c) feedback from external reviews. For tenure-track faculty, it would be difficult to make a case for promotion or tenure without at least 12 scholarly products with at least 8 of these subject to peer review. The majority of scholarly communications/products must be in peer reviewed journals or books. Note that 12 or more scholarly products do not guarantee satisfaction of scholarship expectations, because the quality might be considered inadequate by the PRT Committee, the external reviewers, or the Dean. Fewer than 12 scholarly products could be sufficient to meet scholarship expectations only if the PRT Committee, the external reviewers, and the Dean agree that they are of exceptional quality and significance to the profession. See Section 5.3.3.5.12 for more information on determination of quality. The greatest weight is placed on major publications, as defined in Section 5.3.3.5. 

5.3.3.5.2 Unclassified Academic Staff. For certain unclassified academic staff (e.g., Assistant and Associate Research Professors), research and scholarship may not need be supported through publications. The candidate’s written position description provided at the time of their initial appointment will specify whether publications are a requirement of their specific position. UAS with publications requirements as part of their job description are expected to have produced publications or in-press publications that clearly demonstrate the applicant’s scholarly trajectory, commensurate with the guidelines outlined above. For UAS, it would be difficult to make a case for promotion without an average of 3 research products, annually. These publications may include peer reviewed publications (e.g., article, book chapter, book) or non-peer reviewed research products which can be publicly accessed (e.g., KU ScholarWorks), including policy brief, white paper, technical report/manual. Note that the number of publications does not guarantee satisfaction of scholarship expectations, because the quality might be considered inadequate by the PRT Committee, the external reviewers, or the Dean. Fewer than the stated number of publications could be sufficient to meet scholarship expectations only if the PRT Committee, the external reviewers, and the Dean agree that they are of exceptional quality and significance to the profession. See Section 5.3.3.5.12 for more information on determination of quality. The greatest weight is placed on major publications, as defined in Sections 5.3.3.

5.3.3.5.3 Greater weight will be given to works that have relevance to the social work knowledge base, social work practice and social policy.

5.3.3.5.4 he candidate’s contribution to scholarly products will be assessed by their description of their role and contributions in each scholarly product. For promotion to associate, the PRT Committee most heavily weights scholarly products where there is evidence of significant contributions to the product in the form of leadership; first, second, or solo authorship; principal investigator status; and/or co-publication with students and/or community members. For promotion to full, the order of authorship does not factor into weighting. For promotion to full, the PRT Committee most heavily weights scholarly products where leadership, mentoring, and/or interdisciplinary collaboration are evident.

5.3.3.5.5 Major works are scholarly product in any print or electronic medium which are subject to peer review as a requirement prior to publication or prior to funding. This could include journal articles, books, book chapters, published conference proceedings. Certain research products, such as multi-year study research findings, white papers, and program reports, when placed on an electronic repository (e.g., KU Scholarworks) could also be considered major. If a candidate believes that a scholarly product warrants consideration for the designation of "major," but the product does not meet the current definition of major, the candidate may seek a designation change from the PRT Committee, providing a rationale for the change. Candidates are encouraged to contact the PRT Committee and request a review for consideration as major.

5.3.3.5.6 Minor scholarly words are defined as i) non-peer reviewed products (e.g.,  monographs, research reports, briefs, commentaries, podcasts); ii) book reviews; iii) teaching resources, such has modules or videos, blogs, or electronic newsletters/websites.

5.3.3.5.7 Major presentations, whether delivered via virtual or in person attendance, are defined as presentations at national or international conferences, meetings, webinars or podcasts including peer reviewed and invited presentations. National or international are indicated by aims and scope of the event or activity.

5.3.3.5.8 Minor presentations, whether delivered via virtual or in person attendance, are defined as presentations at regional, state and local conferences or conferences, meetings, webinars or podcasts, including peer reviewed and invited presentations. Regional, state and local are indicated by aims and scope of the event or activity. Any candidate who believes that a presentation warrants consideration due to geographic or other factors should request a review of the designation in the calendar year in which the presentation occurs.

5.3.3.5.9 A peer-reviewed publication or presentation is a scholarly work that has been evaluated based on technical rigor, ethical standards, and scientific merits. Peers are those with expertise in the same area and with equivalent credentials. It is assumed that when submitting for dissemination to a forum that has a peer review process, the reviewer qualifications have been determined and ensured at the forum’s oversight. When this is not the case, the candidate should be able to document the presence of peer review.

5.3.3.5.10 While not included in minimum expectations for tenure, research and scholarship which is supported through external funding, is encouraged and recognized in evaluating the candidate's body of scholarship and research. Also not included in minimum expectations, but valued, is support for students that is financed through an application for internal or external funding.

5.3.3.5.11 For certain unclassified academic staff (e.g., Assistant and Associate Research Professors) research and scholarship which is supported through external funding may be required and assessed in evaluating the candidate's body of scholarship and research. The candidate’s written position description provided at the time of their initial appointment will specify whether external funding is a requirement of their specific position. UAS with external funding as a requirement of their specific position are expected to maintain funding for the position through successful administration and involvement in current grants/contracts and pursuit of future funding opportunities as appropriate.

5.3.3.5.12 The quality of individual publications as well as the candidate’s body of scholarship will be assessed by the PRT Committee as well as by external evaluators who are at associate or full professor rank. The quality of the body of work must be reflected in the external evaluators' letters. External evaluators must not include dissertation advisors, former professors, graduate school colleagues, co-authors, KU faculty, or one’s own former students. External evaluators are informed that their evaluation letter will become part of the candidate’s promotion with tenure dossier and will be treated as confidential by the University to the extent we are permitted to do so bylaw. External evaluators will be asked to address the following:

• The quality of each of the candidate’s scholarly communications. Such an assessment might cover their judgment about the theoretical, logical and/or methodological rigor as well as the contribution that the publication has made to the profession.
• The quality of the candidate’s corpus of scholarly work. Such an assessment might cover their judgment about the extent to which the body of work demonstrates an increasing or continuous level of excellence and productivity, and the degree to which the corpus is cohesive in that there are some central questions/issues that drive the research.
• Their assessment of the candidate’s reputation as it pertains to relevant regional, national, and/or international scholarly research and knowledge building activities, as well as the candidate’s ability to independently conceptualize, execute and disseminate scholarly research.
• The coherence and demonstration of the candidate’s scholarly trajectory.

5.3.3.5.13 Criteria

• “Excellent” means that the candidate substantially exceeds disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
• “Very Good” means the candidate exceeds disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
• “Good” means the candidate meets disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
• “Marginal” means the candidate falls below disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
• “Poor” means the candidate falls significantly below disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank

5.3.4 Service

Service will be considered within the following classification:

• School service,
• University service, and
• Professionally related service outside the University, including local community, state and region, national and/or international.

We do not value any one type of service over another since this varies as a function of scholarly work pursued among tenure track faculty and UAS. We favorably evaluate service at various levels according to position description, and look for evidence of regional, national, and international service as academic careers evolve.

Paid practice of any kind, be it direct service, consultation, teaching, speaking (except for a token honorarium) cannot be counted as service since, although it makes a professional contribution, it is already being rewarded through payment; whereas, the concept of service here includes personal donation or contribution.

Judgments about the quality of service will take into account:

• Honors and awards
• Written documents produced in connection with service rendered

Section 6. Review of Applications for Promotion to Full Professor and to Faculty-Equivalent Positions for Unclassified Academic Staff 

6.1 As stated in Article VI of the Rules and Regulations of the Faculty Senate (6.1.5.2), promotion to full professor and to a faculty-equivalent position for unclassified academic staff (FEP) is based on substantial additional achievement since the award of tenure and/or promotion to associate professor or FEP, and faculty members with tenure or FEP are expected to continue to engage in substantial productive activity in the areas of teaching, (or professional performance), scholarship, and service. Although there may be some variation, continuing productivity should prepare most faculty members for promotion to full professor or to FEP within six years of their promotion to the rank of associate professor or to FEP.

6.2 Faculty may apply for promotion to full professor or FEP at any time after receiving tenure and promotion to associate professor or promotion to FEP. However, a recommendation for promotion to full professor or FEP earlier than customary must include evidence of truly exceptional merit.

6.3 The same basic criteria for scholarship, teaching, and service for tenure and promotion apply to work principally completed after application for tenure or after promotion to FEP. For promotion to the rank of professor, the record must demonstrate an established scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as a substantial and ongoing pattern of publication or creative activity, external reviews of the candidate’s work by eminent scholars or practitioners in the field, the candidate’s national or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly career.

6.4 Evidence of this comes from the same sources as in promotion with tenure and promotion evaluative criteria (see Section 5. above). In addition, the distinguished panel of external reviewers must be composed of people who hold a position at least of Full Professor or FEP, or have comparable professional standing in a non-academic setting and possess credentials that will document they have expertise in evaluating the candidate's work within the context of the discipline or profession.

6.5 The process of the PRT Committee in evaluating the work of candidates for promotion to full professor or FEP is essentially the same as the process described above for evaluating the work of candidates for promotion and promotion with tenure. The PRT Committee will use all submitted materials to evaluate teaching, scholarship, and service as “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “marginal,” or “poor.”

6.6 Absent exceptional circumstances, successful candidates for promotion will meet disciplinary expectations in all categories relevant to their job description, and strong candidates are likely to exceed expectations in one or more categories.

Section 7. PRT Committee Promotion Procedures 

7.1 Consideration and evaluation of a candidate’s record is a confidential personnel matter. The PRT Committee will ensure this confidentiality.

7.2 Initiation of Review

7.2.1 Prior to the beginning of the spring semester, the Provost shall notify all faculty whose mandatory review year will be the following academic year, with copies provided to the Dean. Upon receipt of this notice, or if a faculty member requests it prior to the mandatory review year, the PRT Committee shall initiate procedures for evaluating the candidate for promotion and/or the award of tenure.

7.3 A candidate for promotion or tenure must submit his or her application and all required supporting documentation on or before deadline announced by the PRT Committee. The candidate is responsible for completing the appropriate portions of the form and provides necessary documents and information in accordance with the Provost’s guidelines, with assistance from the PRT Committee.

7.4 The PRT Committee shall receive the form and accompanying materials from the candidate and finish compiling the record of a candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service in accordance with the Provost’s guidelines.

7.5 Documentation to Collect for Promotion and for Promotion with Tenure Application. Depending upon the expectations for a specific unclassified academic staff position, as clearly articulated in the written position description provided at the time of the initial appointment, it may be inappropriate for unclassified academic staff to submit some of the following materials. For example, an Assistant Research Professor applying for promotion to Associate Research Professor may have no teaching duties associated with their specific position. As such, teaching materials would not be collected. Unclassified academic staff applying for promotion should refer to the job description to identify what constitutes their professional performance and which materials constitute a complete application. Candidates should refer to the specific instructions for collecting and collating required documents that are posted on the website managed by the Office of the Provost’s Center for Faculty Development and Mentoring (located here: http://facultydevelopment.ku.edu/).

7.6 The candidate will arrange all materials according to instructions set forth by the University, consulting with the PRT Committee chairperson as needed to determine how to package materials for external reviewers of scholarship and for the PRT and UCPT committees. The PRT Committee and the candidate shall verify that the required components of the form have been completed, that all necessary documents have been compiled, and that the record has been organized in the proper format.

7.7 The PRT Committee will ask candidate to provide names of up to six (6) people who may serve as external evaluators and meet the following criteria:

• Hold a position at a level at least equal to the level to which the candidate is seeking promotion or have comparable professional standing in a non- academic setting and possess credentials that will document their expertise in evaluating the candidate's work.
• External evaluators must not include individuals who have a close academic or personal connection with the candidate (e.g., dissertation advisors, former professors, graduate school colleagues, co-authors, KU faculty, former faculty colleagues, personal friends, or one's own former students).
• Candidates may identify up to 2 individuals who they prefer not be reviewers.
• Candidate will choose the selection of work to be sent to external reviewers.

7.8 The PRT Committee solicits names of six external reviewers from Candidates for promotion. The PRT Committee creates a list of six external reviewers as well. The initial 6 potential external reviewers are chosen by the PRT Committee with three (3) originating from the Candidate’s list and three (3) originating with the PRT Committee’s list. If the initial six external reviewers do not respond affirmatively to the request, the PRT Committee solicits the new request from the list that has the least affirmative responses until both the PRT Committee’s list and the Candidate’s list have been exhausted. At this point, if further names are needed, the PRT Committee generates additional names for external review without consulting candidates. When external reviewers agree to evaluate materials, the PRT Committee offers electronic versions of all materials unless the reviewer prefers to receive hard copies. If hard copies are required, the PRT Committee will ask the candidate to make copies of his or her CV and scholarly products.

7.9 The PRT Committee will review external evaluations and all other materials, makea decision as to its recommendation (most typically by consensus, but otherwise by majority vote), complete the Initial Review Evaluation Summary for the Candidate (see Provost’s website), and submit a summary evaluation to the Dean. This summary evaluation will include: the recommendation of the PRT Committee; its ratings of the candidate in the areas of teaching or professional performance, scholarship, and service; and, statements of the reasons for those ratings.

Section 8. Promotion Policies and Procedures Following the PRT Committee Review 

8.1 After independently reviewing all materials, the Dean will concur or not with the PRT Committee’s recommendations in writing, share the PRT summary evaluation with the candidate, make their own recommendation to the UCPT, and provide the candidate with a copy of the corresponding evaluation section of the promotion form.

8.2 If the Dean provides a negative recommendation, the Dean shall include a written rationale based on unit criteria that will be included with the written recommendations provided to candidates.

8.3 If the UCPT sends a request for additional information while conducting its review, the Dean will immediately provide a copy of the request to the candidate and the Chair of the PRT Committee. The candidate will have the opportunity to participate in the preparation for the response to the request for information and/or submit his or her own response.

8.4 In the event of a negative recommendation or a final rating of teaching, scholarship, or service is below the level of “good” by the PRT Committee, the Dean will ask the candidate to submit a written response to him / her for consideration during the Dean’s independent review of promotion tenure applications.

8.5 In the event of a negative recommendation that will not be automatically forwarded by the Dean to the UCPT, the Dean will inform the candidate that he / she may request that the record be forwarded for further review.

CONTACT:

Kristin Trendel
Assistant Dean
School of Social Welfare
785-864-4720
katrendel@ku.edu

APPROVED BY:

Social Welfare Faculty

APPROVED ON:

2021-02-12

EFFECTIVE ON:

2021-02-12 

REVIEW CYCLE:

Annual (As Needed)

CHANGE HISTORY:

05/16/2025: Policy updated. 
03/31/2025: Migration to TeamDynamix from Drupal.
04/25/2022: Converted from PDF to live text page.
04/18/2022: Accessible document added.
07/12/2021: Added newly approved PRT Policies and Procedures from 02/12/21 meeting.
01/05/2021: Added newly approved PRT Policies and Procedures from 12/11/20 meeting.
06/01/2020: Added newly approved PRT policy from 05/08/2020 meeting.
04/22/2014: Added newly approved PRT policy.
05/10/2013: Revised.
05/04/2012: Revised.
09/02/2011: Revised.
12/11/2009: Revised.
09/05/2009: Revised.
05/08/2009: Revised.
02/20/2009: Revised.
09/28/2006: Document edited to reflect correct number of faculty members serving on committee.
09/05/2003: Revised.
09/03/2003: Adopted.