Employee Resources - Promotion and Tenure
College of Engineering Promotion and Tenure
|SUGGESTED SCHEDULE 2016-17:|
|Download this document|
|May 2016||Identification of candidates for promotion and tenure for the 2016-17 academic year|
|May-July||Unit Chairs, Unit P&T Committee, and candidate collaborate to determine roster of external reviewers.|
|No later than late July||External reviewers selected and notified.|
|Late July||Candidate’s portion of P&T documents submitted to the Unit P&T Committee.|
|Early September||All external review letters received.|
|September||College of Engineering Promotion and Tenure Committee organizational meeting|
|Fri. Oct. 28||Unit P&T Committee recommendations including reconsideration, if applicable, completed.|
|Fri. Nov. 18||Unit administrator recommendations including reconsideration, if applicable, completed.|
|Fri. Dec. 2||Promotion and tenure material from the unit is due in the Dean’s office. All promotion and tenure material, both hard copy and electronic as prescribed in the CoE P&T Documentation Guidelines, must be submitted by 5:00 PM on this date. Cases not submitted by the deadline may not be considered at the discretion of the CoE P&T Committee. Files will be reviewed by the Dean's Office for completeness.|
|Fri. Dec. 9||Candidates' electronic files made available to CoE P&T Committee via Blackboard.|
|Th. Jan. 5, 2017||College of Engineering P&T Committee recommendation meeting for all cases [114D Othmer, 9 AM - 4:30 PM, lunch served]|
|Fri. Jan. 20||College of Engineering P&T Committee recommendation meeting for all cases involving reconsideration (if necessary) [114 Othmer, 11 AM - 2 PM]|
|January 31||Promotion cases and other cases involving tenure due in the Senior Vice Chancellor’s office with Dean’s recommendation.|
|February 28||Promotion cases not involving tenure due in the Senior Vice Chancellor’s office with Dean’s recommendation.|
Adopted by the College of Engineering & Technology on May 5, 2000. The promotion and tenure guidelines rewrite committee recommends that the College of Engineering adopts the following guidelines as the only set of guidelines for promotion and tenure in the College. Furthermore, the committee recommends that only one committee, the College Promotion and Tenure Committee, consider promotion and tenure.
These guidelines will be effective August 14, 2000. A candidate who was appointed to a tenured/tenure track position prior to 1 August 2000 may choose to use the new guidelines or those guidelines in place at the time of their appointment to the tenured/tenure track position. The Dean's office of the College of Engineering will develop a form for this option. Effective with the 2005-2006 academic year, all cases for promotion and/or tenure will be considered under the guidelines described in this document.
Process for Continuous Appointment: Promotion and Tenure
Scholarship encompasses four areas: discovery, integration, presentation and application. Faculty members are expected to guide, motivate, and inspire students and colleagues.
Teaching refers to the broad area of student/faculty interaction for educational purposes. This includes activities inside and outside of the classroom that result in student development. Faculty are expected to continually improve their teaching. The scholarship of teaching enlists creative and critical thinking, which transcends the boundaries of the classroom walls.
The scholarship of research involves scientific activities in the creation of new knowledge and the continual testing and revaluation of previous work. Research in the broad sense includes not only scientific investigations, but also design, creative problem solving, and other forms of creative activity. The principal part of the research function is the directing and support of graduate students and the dissemination of research results.
Service is the application of professional knowledge by a faculty member in a responsible manner to consequential problems. Professional development activities, such as short courses, workshops, and obtaining and maintaining a license or certification in a specific field, are encouraged in appropriate fields and may provide evidence of a candidate's continued competence in an area of specialization. However, these professional activities are not scholarly in nature and should not be used in assessing the scholarly performance of a candidate.
The evaluation of a candidate for promotion and/or tenure is based upon the candidate's performance in their assigned workload over the time period under review, which may include time spent at other institutions. The relative proportion of time assigned to teaching, research, and service varies among candidates and must be considered in all performance evaluations. 1
Simultaneous promotion and tenure at the required tenure consideration date2 is the normal case for advancement from Assistant to Associate Professor. Promotion and tenure before the. required tenure consideration date is based upon a rapid start in the candidate's scholarly work. Associate Professors seeking tenure follow the guidelines for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor.
II. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
II.A Promotion from Assistant Professor or Associate Professor to Associate Professor with Tenure
Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor with tenure is primarily dependent upon evaluations of documented evidence of scholarly work in teaching and/or research, because Assistant Professors are rarely given significant explicit service appointments. Teaching assignments may include the teaching of undergraduate classes, graduate classes or both. Evaluations of a candidate's performance in the areas of teaching and research must take into account the relative proportions assigned to these two areas in the candidate's appointment, and what kind of classes the candidate is expected to teach. Service activities are considered an essential component of a candidate's performance, but are given less weight in promotion and tenure decisions.
II.A. 1 Teaching
A candidate for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor must demonstrate the scholarship of teaching and the ability to transfer knowledge effectively to undergraduate students and/or graduate students. His or her students should be prepared for succeeding classes and for further development in professional practice or graduate school. The academic advising of undergraduate students is an important aspect of teaching and candidates are expected to provide effective undergraduate advising.
In the scholarship of teaching, discovery is the creation of new knowledge, and integration is the weaving of the discovery into the students' educational experience. Presentation attracts and engages the learners (both students and teachers), enabling them to further explore the knowledge, and through application, the learners use the knowledge to solve problems. A candidate whose scholarly work is in the area of teaching is expected to seek funding from appropriate sources to assist with their educational creative activities and to disseminate the results of these activities.
A candidate whose scholarly activities are in the area of research is expected to participate in the graduate program. This participation includes the support and supervision of graduate students, teaching of graduate level courses, presentation of seminars, presentation and publication of research, submission of proposals, and direction of projects.
The candidate for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor should show the ability and commitment to conceive, develop and direct research projects and the ability to disseminate peer accepted results of that research. There must be demonstrable results of the research. These results include graduate students that have completed their programs under the direction of the candidate, published results (refereed journal papers, refereed conference papers, etc.) and research support from external sources.
In the area of research, the candidate is expected to have participated successfully in the M.S. and/or Ph.D. program by teaching at the graduate level, being a member of graduate student committees and supervising graduate students. The peer accepted research results must include original work beyond that included in the work presented for the terminal degree. Finally, the candidate must have demonstrable results, which show the ability to establish a research. program.
II A.3 Service
The service function includes service to the institution, the community, the nation, and to the faculty member’s profession. The area of service is not a primary objective of a candidate for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor with tenure. However, at a minimum the candidate should have provided service to the University, College, or Department through participation on committees and by advising undergraduate students. The candidate is also encouraged to become involved in other service activities such as those listed below.
- University, college and departmental committees.
- Advising student organizations and student recruiting.
- Reviewing papers and proposals.
- Professional societies at the local, state, and national levels.
- Chairing sessions at regional and national meetings.
- Service to regional and/or national level committees or holding office of the appropriate professional societies.
- Editing of journals and/or symposium proceedings.
- Providing technical assistance through the University Engineering Extension center, or other University, College, or outreach organizations.
- Governmental committees and advisory boards.
- Uncompensated consulting in the private sector in the candidate’s area of expertise.
- Operating a business or research center that contributes to the university system.
- Giving public service presentations or testimony in the person’s areas of expertise.
Owning and/or operating a business outside the profits of the university system is not considered service. Other extracurricular services such as participating in civic organizations are not discouraged, but are not included among faculty expectations.
II.B. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor
Promotion to Full Professor is usually recognition of sustained excellence in research and teaching at a level beyond that required for promotion to Associate Professor and tenure. The candidate for Full Professor should have assumed leadership roles in their areas to be considered for promotion. In addition, a candidate for promotion to Full Professor must have moved beyond the milieu of their individual scholarly work and have contributed to the improvement of the research and/or teaching environment of their colleagues.
Long term, exceptional performance in scholarly teaching and service may also lead to promotion to Full Professor in those situations where the candidate's appointment as an Associate Professor does not have a significant research component. More details may be found in the current UNL Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty: Annual Evaluations, Promotion, and Tenure (which were approved by Chancellor Perlman on December 5, 2001). Note that it is imperative that departments who have candidates who choose to pursue promotion based primarily on excellence in teaching and/or service or outreach follow the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs instructions:
|“For those promotions-to-full reviews where the primary claim for promotion is based on excellent performance in teaching and/or service or outreach, the department should have taken care to develop evaluation criteria, ways of measuring quality, and external validation that reflect standards as rigorous as (though different from) the standards applied in cases with a more traditional faculty profile.”|
Because each case is unique it would be impossible to identify these metrics ahead of time. Therefore each candidate must declare that they are pursuing this option in writing to 1) their department chairperson, 2) the chairs of the college and unit promotion and tenure committees, and 3) the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at least three (3) years in advance of seeking promotion (during the 2006-07 and 2007-08 promotion and tenure cycles the three year declaration requirement will be waived, if appropriate metrics have been previously identified by the candidate and the program unit). The unit committee chair, in conjunction with the department chair, will be responsible for identifying the evaluation criteria and the methods for measuring quality for this candidate. These evaluation criteria will be agreed to in writing by the Dean. These criteria and quality metrics will be used for annual evaluations for the candidate so that a record of their achievements over a sustained length of time will be available. In addition, the committee chair will be responsible for developing an external validation process that reflects the rigorous standards required for promotion at UNL. As an example, if a candidate chooses to pursue promotion based on excellence in teaching he or she will have to demonstrate scholarly and creative accomplishments with national impact on teaching. Evidence of this impact could include journal papers in peer reviewed engineering education journals, external letters from prominent educators describing how the candidate’s initiatives in this area have had a national impact on teaching, etc and a documented record of obtaining external funding in engineering education.
The candidate for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor must demonstrate a sustained record of evidence of their teaching effectiveness and innovation in knowledge transfer at the undergraduate and graduate level. In addition, there should be a demonstrated commitment to improvement in the quality of one's teaching performance. This commitment is evidenced by such activities as continued participation in teaching, improvement programs, continuing education in the area of teaching effectiveness, research and publication of innovative teaching approaches, the incorporation of technological advances into course materials, curriculum development, and recognition by individuals noted for their teaching excellence within or outside of the college. In exceptional cases promotion may occur with demonstration of excellent, nationally recognized activity in the teaching area alone.
The candidate for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor should demonstrate a sustained record of excellence in scholarly research, graduate student development, and publication. It is expected that the research will be recognized at the national level. The acceptance of high quality research is evidenced by such activities as a sustained peer-reviewed external funding and publication record, invited reviews and lectures, invitation to participate in review and planning panels and specialist's conferences, and reference to the candidate's work by others in the field.
In addition to the service activities listed for promotion from Assistant to Associate professor with tenure, the candidate for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor is expected to demonstrate leadership abilities in the service activities.
III. DOCUMENTATION OF EVIDENCE
III. A. Teaching
There are many approaches to the scholarship of teaching, and careful evaluations must take this into account. No single source of data or method, including student evaluations of teacher performance, provides sufficient information to make a judgment concerning a candidate's teaching ability. To aid in the evaluation of the scholarship of teaching, a Teaching Portfolio is useful for candidates who are using teaching as their major emphasis for promotion and tenure.
If a Teaching Portfolio is used, it must be created in consultation with a tenured faculty member, chair, or professional schooled in the proper procedure so that the material represented indicates empirical evidence of scholarly teaching. The Teaching Portfolio should include the following: examples of items such as a course syllabus, homework and laboratory assignments, examinations, grading methodology, samples of student work (both good and bad), and descriptions of special teaching techniques. The following list indicates examples of items that could be placed in the Teaching Portfolio to aid in evaluating the teacher's ability to transfer knowledge to the student.
- Student evaluations of teacher performance. They must be used by all faculty for every course except for independent study courses and thesis.
- Teaching Analysis by Students (TABS) scored by the University’s Teaching and Learning Center (TLC). TABS is designed to be given at intervals deemed necessary by the instructor to critique the method of delivery so that the instructor can make appropriate changes as needed. TABS is an excellent resource in the evaluation process.
- Student exit cards and student interview documenting teaching effectiveness.
- Publications in scholarly journals on teaching, writing of textbooks, workbooks, or manuals.
- Peer evaluations in the classroom preferably by an appropriate designee trained I teaching assessment methods. Written summaries by the evaluator are a documentation of teaching performance.
- The development and presentation of new courses or new course material. This includes uses of novel means of presentation such as classroom demonstrations, educational software; self ¬paced workbooks, television and other audio-visual media.
- Participation in short courses and seminars, either as a student or a presenter.
- Teaching awards.
For candidates who choose not to use a Teaching Portfolio to frame their teaching, many of the items in the previous list are important to include in the teaching section of their Promotion and Tenure document.
The documentation of research effort is greatly aided by the review processes that exist within professional groups and agencies that either publish or fund research. The criteria for evaluation of a candidate's research rely heavily on the outcome of these review processes. Independent external peer reviewers, as well as internal reviewers, should be asked to evaluate the quality and the impact of the research.
Publication of original research results in refereed journals is a strong indication of significant contributions in research. Research monographs, research reviews, the receipt of patents, and research awards are evidence of research contributions. Technical presentations, conference proceedings, and technical papers presented at national or international meetings are valuable measures of research and may provide visibility for research performance.
The theses and dissertations of graduate students serve as a means for communicating and documenting the results of the research directed by the candidate. Thus, successful completion of MS and PhD students provides a record of directed research.
The ability to attract external support may be a measure of research activity. The funding process provides documentation of this effort. Funding agency reviews of proposals may provide an assessment of the quality of the proposed research. Regular reports to a funding agency may also serve as indicators of progress in the research. Funding that supports research leading to scholarly publications is a strong indication of significant contribution in research.
A proposal receiving good reviews should be considered a positive indication of effort even if limited agency resources prevent funding. Obtaining research equipment, acting as a collaborating investigator on a major research project, or making a major contribution as co-principal investigator on a research project that involves more than one faculty member are all indications of research activities.
Letters of recognition, certificates, awards, program listings and other indications of participation in service activities are examples to document service contributions.
Adopted May 5, 2000
Amended section II.B April 27, 2006
I. Introduction and Mission
The ability of a college to function, progress, and develop excellence depends both on the individual performance of each faculty member and on the collective performance of the faculty. Thus, the success and reputation of a college are highly dependent upon the talents that exist among its faculty and how effectively those talents are marshaled to accomplish the mission of the college. To achieve and maintain high quality, a faculty evaluation system is essential. Properly administered, an evaluation system will encourage professional growth of individual faculty members, assure retention of only those faculty members who demonstrate a high level of scholarship, academic performance and service, and permit appropriate recognition of achievement.
The work of faculty members as independent professionals is not easily categorized or measured. Because it is inherently judgmental, the evaluation of faculty must be constrained by principles and procedures designed to protect academic freedom and to ensure accuracy, fairness, and equity. The purpose of this document is to outline these broad principles and to establish the rigorous and common procedures necessary to maintain these qualities in the faculty evaluation process. These procedures shall be considered adjunct to the current Guidelines for Evaluation of Faculty of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
The College of Engineering (CoE) embraces its unique role as the singular intellectual and cultural resource for engineering and technology instruction, research and outreach within the state. The College provides students with comprehensive engineering and technology programs to fulfill their highest aspirations and ambitions.
Accomplishing the CoE's mission requires a creative, collective intermingling of individual faculty talents. Consequently, each individual faculty member likely will have a unique role in the CoE and a special assignment in terms of the focus and apportionment of faculty responsibilities among teaching, research, service, extension, and administration. The evaluation criteria and processes must accommodate such differences.
II. Statement of Faculty Workload
The apportionment of faculty in the CoE is, in general, divided among the areas of teaching, research, service, extension, and administration. It is recognized that individual departments and other administrative sub-units that have independent promotion and tenure processes (hereafter referred to as Units) within the CoE have differing emphasis on each of these areas dependent upon the mission particular to the Unit. Faculty members shall work with their respective chairs to reach a written agreement on the apportionment for the specific calendar year. &  During the Promotion and Tenure process, faculty members shall be evaluated on the basis of this apportionment using criteria specific to their particular discipline. These criteria shall be applied to faculty members such that the apportionment is equitably reflected.2 & 3 The Promotion and Tenure material submitted to the Dean’s office shall have a clear description of the Unit’s process for achieving the apportionment. The material submitted to the Dean’s office shall include documentation of this distribution for each year. In cases in which the apportionment is modified during the calendar year, adequate documentation of such changes is also required by the University of Nebraska. For information about the activities associated with these apportionment areas, please refer to documentation contained in the College of Engineering Criteria for Promotion and Tenure.
III. Promotion and Tenure Timeline
The College of Engineering Promotion and Tenure (CoE P&T) committee must be given adequate time to consider each case before it. The members of the CoE P&T committee shall work together so that they can perform the evaluations in an efficient manner. Included in this process is the necessity of reconsideration at each step. Following the notification of the initial decision of the CoE P&T committee, candidates may request reconsideration by the committee within three working days. Below is the Promotion and Tenure timeline to be followed by all Units of the CoE. Specific dates for each year will be provided in a memorandum from the Associate Dean in charge of academic affairs in September of the fall semester. The flowchart shown below schematically outlines the Promotion and Tenure process from the Unit level to the level of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (SVCAA). It is essential that all Units abide by these deadlines when planning the Unit promotion and tenure schedule.
1 See Bylaws of the Board of Regents
2 See Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty: Annual Evaluations, Promotion, and Tenure
3 See College of Engineering Criteria for Promotion and Tenure
Timeline for the Promotion and Tenure Process College of Engineering
|Organization meeting for CoE P&T Committee||Before Thanksgiving Break|
|Material due in the Dean’s Office||Monday following Thanksgiving|
|Promotion and Tenure Meeting||In the week prior to the start of classes, spring semester|
|Promotion and Tenure Reconsideration Meeting (if necessary); single meeting to hear all reconsideration cases||No sooner than 10 business days following submittal of draft reports to candidates|
|Material due in the Vice Chancellor’s Office with the Dean’s recommendation||TBD by SVCAA|
2 If the dean and the CoE P&T committee concur on a recommendation against promotion, the process terminates (promotion only). The candidate and department each may appeal the decision to the vice chancellor.
IV. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE
A. Formation, Composition and Duration
The CoE P&T committee shall consist of one member from each CoE Unit. Each Unit shall elect one faculty member to serve a three year term as a member of the CoE P&T committee. No substitutions are allowed during deliberations within any given year. For the first cycle of implementation of these procedures, one third members shall serve on the P&T committee for one year, and second one third members for two years, and the remaining one third members for the full three year term. After the first year, one third members shall be elected each year. This will provide the Committee with experience, continuity and appropriate representation. All CoE tenured full Professors except those with full-time administrative appointments such as Deans and Heads/Chairs are eligible to become the members of the CoE P&T committee. In case a Unit does not have full Professors, an Associate Professor shall be elected. Only one faculty member can be elected from each Unit to serve on the CoE P&T committee. The duration of each member’s service on the P&T committee for the first cycle of implementation will be decided by the CoE Dean. In the case when a member is incapacitated, a formal replacement will be made following the election process mentioned above.
B. Selection and Responsibilities of the Chairperson
The entire CoE P&T committee will elect the chairperson. The chairperson shall hold a full Professor rank. Candidates for the position of chairperson must be in the second or third year of their term on the CoE P&T committee except for the first cycle.
The chairperson may not serve more than two consecutive one-year terms. The chairperson shall be elected by secret ballot administered by the CoE Associate Dean in charge of academic affairs at the first meeting of the CoE P&T committee. The vote shall be on a single ballot in which each member lists the candidates in order of preference. The candidate with the highest overall ranking shall be elected chairperson.
The chairperson’s responsibilities include ensuring the appropriateness, fairness and completeness of the discussion on each candidate’s file. The chairperson shall also make sure that each participating member of the CoE P&T committee is well-informed before the committee discusses and votes on the promotion and tenure recommendations. All the deliberations of the CoE P&T committee must be kept confidential.
C. Responsibilities of Members
Committee members should attend all committee meetings and familiarize themselves with the appropriate procedures, guidelines and bylaws. It is of paramount importance that each committee member thoroughly evaluates the promotion and tenure files of each candidate before the scheduled meeting of the CoE P&T committee.
Each year, the CoE P&T committee shall have a first meeting only to become familiar with the review process. At this first meeting of the CoE P&T committee, the CoE Associate Dean in charge of academic affairs shall provide an overview of the process and the criteria for evaluating candidates according to their faculty apportionment to the committee and distribute the following materials to each member:
1. Bylaws of the Regents of the University of Nebraska
2. Bylaws of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln
3. University of Nebraska - Lincoln Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty: Annual Evaluations, Promotion and Tenure
4. College of Engineering Procedures for Annual Evaluations, Promotion and Tenure
5. College of Engineering Criteria for Promotion and Tenure.
V. PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE PROCEDURESA. Discussion of Files
All members of the CoE P&T committee must read and evaluate each file prior to the beginning of the meeting. The chairperson shall solicit discussion from all participating committee members. Any committee member with conflict of interest shall excuse himself/herself from voting. A Unit representative member shall not vote on a candidate from his/her unit. The CoE P&T committee voting shall not be by secret ballot. The chairperson shall ensure that discussion is based solely on material in the candidate’s promotion and/or tenure documentation file in accordance with University policy.
B. Role of the College Deans during CoE P&T Committee Meetings
The CoE Dean may be present at CoE P&T committee meetings, but shall not participate in any discussions or vote. The CoE Associate Dean in charge of CoE academic affairs shall attend each meeting of the CoE P&T committee to ensure that all rules and procedures are properly followed, but not to participate in any discussions or vote. The Associate Dean, as well as the CoE P&T chairperson, will keep the committee discussions limited to the material contained in the candidate’s file.
C. Final Committee Reports
The CoE P&T committee chairperson shall draft a written report for each faculty member evaluated for promotion and /or tenure. This report, prepared with assistance from committee members, shall contain at least the following: a final vote count, a clear statement of recommendation for approval or denial of promotion and/or tenure, and a brief of the evidence supporting the recommendation. This report shall also contain a summary discussion of any dissenting views. The draft recommendation shall then go to the candidate and the candidate’s Unit Head/Chair.
D. Appeal Procedures
A candidate shall have three working days after receiving the draft report to request in writing to the CoE P&T committee chairperson for reconsideration. The chairperson shall arrange a time and date for reconsideration. The chairperson shall inform the candidate of the time and date for reconsideration presentation in writing immediately following his/her request. At least seven working days must be given to the candidate for the preparation of his/her presentation. Candidates appealing shall represent themselves at the reconsideration meeting. The meeting shall last until the issues in dispute have been completely discussed. The duration of the discussion shall be at the discretion of the chairperson of the CoE P&T committee. The committee shall revote after the discussion. Only then shall the chairperson send the recommendation to the Dean, with copies, to the candidate and Unit head/chair. The Dean shall also send the candidate a draft of his/her recommendation before forwarding it to SVCAA.
The Dean shall also provide an opportunity to the candidate to appeal to the Dean before he/she makes his/her letter final. The candidate must submit the appeal in writing within five working days of receiving the letter from the Dean.
VI. COLLEGE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPARTMENTS
A. Unit Promotion and Tenure Committee:
The Procedures for Annual Evaluations, Promotion and Tenure for the College of Engineering shall take precedence over procedures and guidelines of any Unit within the College. Units within the CoE may supplement these procedures and guidelines with more detailed descriptions and interpretations of the criteria and standards that, when approved, will apply to faculty members in the particular unit.
A.1 Composition of Committee:
All tenured faculty at the rank of Associate Professor or Full Professor shall be eligible for inclusion on the Unit Promotion and Tenure (U P&T) committee. The U P&T committee shall have at least three members. When a promotion to Full Professor is being considered, only the Full Professors on the U P&T Committee shall participate in the evaluation and discussion. A minimum of three Full Professors shall be members of the U P&T Committee in any year in which a promotion to Full Professor is being considered. The U P&T Committee shall elect a member of the committee to serve as the committee chair.
A.2 Supplementing the U P&T Committee:
The Unit may not have sufficient qualified faculty to meet the requirements of Sec. VI A.1 of this document, either because less than three faculty are tenured, or because the committee will consider promotions to the rank of Full Professor, and less than three faculty members hold the Full Professor rank. The Unit Head/Chair in consultation with Full Professors in the Unit shall contact several possible eligible faculty from other Units to ask if they are willing to serve on the U P&T committee. A group at least twice the number required to reach the minimum of three Full Professors should be created. Additional faculty members will then be appointed from this group by the Dean to serve on the U P&T committee to make up the required number of Full Professors.
B. External Reviewers:
The external review procedure shall conform to Sections V-D-4 and VI-D-5 of the University of Nebraska’s “Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty: Annual Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure” The external review shall be of the candidate’s scholarly performance and capability.
Specific details may be found in Appendix A.
A minimum of three external review letters is required, but six or more is preferred.
C. Unit Promotion and Tenure Procedure:
The U P&T committee shall consider each promotion and tenure file presented to it. The Unit Head/Chair may participate in the meetings of the U P&T committee as a resource but shall not vote. The U P&T committee shall make a positive or negative recommendation concerning each file to the Unit Head/Chair. The vote of the committee in deciding this recommendation shall be by secret ballot. The letters of recommendation from the Unit Chair/Head and U P&T committee shall be included in each candidate’s file before it is submitted to the COE P&T committee.
The Unit P&T committee letter communicating the vote(s) of the Unit P&T should also communicate justification for the unit P&T committee vote(s).
D. Unit Promotion and Tenure Verification Requirement:
The U P&T committee shall be responsible for the verification of all evidence contained in the candidate’s promotion and tenure file, such as journal articles accepted but not yet published, external grants announced but not yet awarded, record of graduate student advising and graduation history, and any other items that may require verification. The letter of recommendation from the U P&T committee shall contain a statement stating that the U P&T committee has verified the evidence in the candidate’s promotion and tenure portfolio.
E. Responsibilities of the Candidate
|Familiarize herself or himself with all relevant University, College and Department procedures, guidelines and bylaws on an annual basis;|
|Understand and meet all deadlines;|
|Submit all documentation to the Unit P&T committee in the format as specified by the College of Engineering Promotion and Tenure Documentation Guidelines and distributed by the Associate Dean. The candidate will be responsible for providing adequate proof of all components of their promotion and tenure file including papers accepted for publication but not yet published, graduate student lists, research projects broken down according to UNL guidelines (i.e. UNL office of research tracking information, external and internal research, UNL research percentage effort etc.); and|
|Discuss with the unit administrator all promotion requirements (i.e. peer review of teaching, what constitutes external/internal research projects, what constitutes national impact of scholarly work, etc.) to ensure that they understand the University, College and Unit Promotion and Tenure requirements.|
VII. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEAN’S OFFICE
1. On the CoE blackboard site or easily accessible location the Dean’s Office will make the following available to all CoE faculty
- CoE Promotion and Tenure procedures
- CoE Promotion and Tenure Criteria
- CoE CV guidelines
2. A representative from the Dean’s office will meet with potential P&T candidates and unit committee chairs during the Spring semester to acquaint them with the CoE procedures and documentation requirements.
VIII. ANNUAL EVALUATIONS OF THE PERFORMANCE OF PROBATIONARY FACULTY
The annual evaluation of a probationary faculty member is essential to assess the progress of his/her performance each year and to develop goals and objectives of future achievements. The annual evaluation process shall follow the UNL guidelines.
IX. CONSIDERATION OF WORK CONDUCTED PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT AT UNL
Work conducted at previous institution(s) under similar academic appointments may be considered in tenure decisions, such that the total time period considered (from prior to UNL and at UNL) matches or exceeds that of a full tenure clock (i.e. 5 years). In such cases, the candidate will not be considered as going up early for tenure.
X. OUT OF CYCLE CASES
An out of cycle case is one in which a candidate is being hired into either the Associate or Full Professor Rank, with or without tenure. The unit in which the candidate will be tenured shall submit the following for consideration by the College P&T Committee:
- A recommendation letter from Unit Head regarding rank and/or tenure.
- A letter from Unit Promotion and Tenure Committee with results of their vote regarding rank and/or tenure.
- A minimum of three external reference letters. Reference letters submitted as part of the hiring process are acceptable.
- An up-to-date curriculum vitae which contains the following:
- peer-reviewed archival publications,
- supervision of research / creative activity by Ph.D. and M.S. students, and
- Ph.D. and M.S. students graduated;
2) Evidence of funding of the scholarly creative activity -- at minimum, a detailed listing of grants and contracts, each with all investigators identified and with the total funding level specified;
3) Evidence of successful teaching involvement, i.e. listing of courses taught at undergraduate and graduate levels and other teaching-related activity;
4) Evidence of academic and professional service;
5) Evidence of recognition, external evaluation, and impact of academic / professional efforts in research / creative activity, in teaching, and in academic / professional service; and
6) Evidence of other criteria with respect to the requested rank; for example, leadership for the full professor rank.
XI. MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document can be modified by a majority vote of approval by the COE Faculty.
Approved February 2004
First Modification April 28, 2005 (added section VI.D)
Second Modification April 27, 2006 (modified sections VI.B, added VI.E and XII (Appendix A)
Third Modification May 14, 2010 (added Section VIII. F. Responsibilities of the Deans Office; added Section X. Out of Cycle Cases and changed all text references from the “College of Engineering and Technology” (COET) to the “College of Engineering” (CoE). Also added a clarification regarding Unit P&T Committee Letters in section VI. C.
Fourth Modification March 6, 2015 (added statement on number of external references in Section VI.B; added Section IX. Consideration of Work Conducted Prior to Appointment at UNL; clarified documents for submittal by unit regarding Out of Cycle Cases in Section X.)
Procedure for Outside Reviews for Promotion and Tenure Considerations
College of Engineering
1. Outside reviewers will be obtained from a list of no fewer than five individuals prepared by the Unit P&T Committee and a list of no fewer than five individuals prepared by the candidate. The two lists will be mutually exclusive (should have no common entries)
2. In general, the potential reviewers should be Full Professors at universities with similar missions to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln with active research and education programs in the candidate’s area of interest (it is recommended that universities are recognized as Carnegie Comprehensive Doctoral University). The reviewer should have an active research program in the candidate’s area of specialty and have the background to provide a knowledgeable review of the state of the art in the candidate’s research area as well as be able to judge the relevance of the candidate’s work.
According to the UNL guidelines the reviewers must be independent. According to the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs this means “individuals who have had no (or only limited) professional or personal relationships with the candidate and who have been chosen by the unit administrator (or the U P&T committee or dean, as appropriate) for their ability to provide a disinterested ("objective") assessment; these would not include dissertation advisors, current or former collaborators, former colleagues, personal friends or others who have any special relationship to the candidate.”
The list should include 1) detailed contact information (including phone number and email address and, if applicable, the potential reviewers’ web address) for each reviewer and, 2) a short paragraph describing the potential reviewers’ qualifications. Note that the potential reviewers should not be contacted directly by either candidate or the U P&T committee members.
The candidate shall have the right to review the list developed by the U P&T committee and to object to any individual who, in the opinion of the candidate, has a conflict of interest or is unqualified to judge the quality of the candidate’s work. The candidate’s objections shall be in writing, with explanations of the reasons for the objection. The final identification of the reviewers, however, remains the responsibility of the U P&T committee.
The final selection of the reviewers will be done by a random draw by the U P&T committee chairperson and the unit administrator. Three potential reviewers will be chosen from each list.3. Material sent to each reviewer will be standardized and will consist of:
- A cover letter in which the reviewer will be asked to provide an objective assessment of the quality and significance of the candidate’s work and a current C.V.. The contents of the letter will be approved in writing by the candidate and will follow UNL promotion and tenure guidelines.
- A copy of the College Waiver of Right to See Information Form
- Candidate statements identifying that portion of the candidate’s work that in the candidate’s judgment represents his or her most significant work in teaching, research and service.
- Examples of scholarly and creative accomplishments. The College Promotion and Tenure committee anticipates that these would consist of copies of peer reviewed journal articles as chosen by the candidate (it is recommended five articles are provided).
- An updated resume of the candidate.
The College of Engineering Promotion and Tenure Document (PTD) shall consist of Administrative Section I and Candidate Section II (as defined below). The candidate must include mandatory Appendices and an electronic abridged version.
The candidate shall submit two complete copies of the written PTD.
The candidate must include one copy of the Appendices.
The candidate must submit an electronic abridged PTD (as described below).
All documents shall be submitted to the Office of the Dean of the College of Engineering.
One copy of the PTD will be forwarded to Academic Affairs (e.g., the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs) as part of the promotion and tenure review process (note: the materials in the Appendix will not be forwarded to Academic Affairs). One copy of the PTD (Sections 1 and 2, only) and the Appendix will be returned to the candidate at the end of the academic year.
Relevant and substantive material may be added to the PTD during the college’s evaluation process. The candidate may add any substantive material to the PTD at any time. The candidate has the right to approve the addition of any substantive material that is provided by any individual other than the candidate. The addition of relevant and substantive material to the PTD will not require that the evaluation process to be restarted at any level. The candidate has the right to appeal negative recommendations at any or all levels during the process or to add rebuttal statements at any or all levels of the process.
Written PROMOTION and TENURE DOCUMENT (PTD)
Academic Affairs and College of Engineering Required Format
|I: Administrative Section (to be prepared by the department or school)-All items listed in Section I are required.|
|A. Copy of any current departmental Promotion and Tenure guidelines
B. Transmittal form for Tenured or Tenure Track Faculty
C. Letters of appointment or position descriptions, reappointment and record of any changes including apportionment
D. Annual evaluations and/or reappointment letter by Department Chair/Head
E. Promotion and tenure evaluations (as applicable) in this order
|1. Letter from Department Review Committee
2. Letter from College or Institute Committee
3. Letter from Chair
4. Letter from Dean(s)
5. Peer evaluations of teaching
6. External reviews (minimum of three) to be preceded by
a. Sample letter soliciting evaluation
Note: All letters in Section E must include an analysis of quality and impact and what the analysis is based on but need not duplicate previous analysis of quality and impact and a documentation of the basis for this analysis.
|F. Teaching Information|
|1. List of courses taught with summary of quantitative data from student teaching evaluations, if available; or summary of extension education. Use course evaluation form.|
|II. Candidate Section (to be prepared by the candidate)|
A. Curriculum Vitae (Use the College of Engineering P&T Format)
1. Teaching philosophy, goals, and summary of evidence that documents teaching achievements and local and broader impact (1-5 pages)
Appendices (1 copy)
A. Possible examples of supporting evidence for the quality and effectiveness of teaching:
B. Possible examples of supporting evidence of the quality of scholarly, professional, and creative activity:
C. Possible examples of supporting evidence of the quality and significance of professional and institutional service, outreach activities:
D. Possible examples of supporting evidence of the quality and significance of extension activities:
Electronic Abridged Version
Please submit an electronic copy (pdf or MS Word files) of the Candidate Section II of the Written PTD and the Course Evaluation Form from Document Section I. F. to the Associate Dean.
Copies of UNL Transmittal Form and the External Letters of Review from Administrative Section I will be included in the Electronic Abridged Version by the Associate Dean.
|Administrative Section I. to be provided by the candidate in electronic format.|
|I.F. - List of courses taught with summary of quantitative data from student teaching evaluations, if available; or summary of extension education. Use course evaluation form.|
|Candidate Section II: to be provided by the candidate in electronic format.|
A. Curriculum Vitae (Use the College of Engineering P&T Format)
B. Candidate Statement identifying that portion of the candidate’s work that in the candidate’s judgment represents his or her most significant work, explains why he or she thinks this work is significant, and points out what its impact has been or will be. This statement should reference supporting materials in the Appendices. Candidate must also include as appropriate to assignment:
|1. Teaching philosophy, goals, and summary of evidence that documents teaching achievements and local and broader impact (1-5 pages)
2. Research/Creative Activity philosophy, goals, achievements, significance and impact (1-5 pages)
3. Outreach/Service philosophy, goals, achievements, significance, impact at the department, college, university, professional and community levels (1-5 pages)
4. Extension Education philosophy, goals, achievements, significance and impact (1-5 pages)
|Administrative Section I: to be added by the Associate Dean.|
|I.A. Transmittal form for Tenured or Tenure Track Faculty
I.E.6. External reviews (minimum of three)