04.02.20-Tenure and Promotion
Tenure and Promotion
SOHA PPS 04.02.20
Revised Date 11/01/2023
Effective Date: 12/01/2023
Next review date: 04/02/2028 (E5Y)
Sr. Reviewer: SOHA Director
01. POLICY STATEMENT. SOHA is committed to supporting the university mission through the effective hiring, evaluating, developing, and promoting of faculty. The applies to all faculty lines eligible for promotion. The purpose of this policy is to communicate to faculty the School of Health Administration policy and procedures governing tenure and promotion of faculty members. This policy should be construed as the minimum requirements for tenure and promotion decisions. Additional sources include:
01.01. AA/PPS 04.02.20 (8.10) Tenure/Promotion Review
01.02. AA/PPS 04.02.01 (8.01) Development and Evaluation of Tenure-Track Faculty
01.03. AA/PPS 04.01.01 (7.02) Faculty Hiring
01.04. COHP 04.02.20 Tenure and Promotion
01.05. American Association of State Colleges and Universities, “The Core of Academe”
01.06. Faculty Handbook
02. DEFINITIONS.
02.01. The faculty of SOHA view teaching, scholarly/creative activity, service, and collegiality as essential to the achievement of tenure and promotion.
02.02. Research in SOHA is defined in three categories: Publications, Grants, and other scholarly activities.
a. Publications are data-driven research (quantitative or qualitative) in peer-reviewed scholarly/professional journals. Authors should verify the journal is not predatory (check using CABELLS), its impact factor (IF) is listed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR), and that it is peer reviewed. Research is defined by the Oxford dictionary as systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
1. Peer review is defined by Elsevier as a validation of academic work, helping to improve the quality of published research. PubMed recognizes peer review as, “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” (Kelly, Sadeghieh, and Adeli, 2014). It transcends the editing process. The library’s Research Guides coach on peer review. A blind peer-review process is preferred.
2. Predatory journals or publishers are defined as “entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.” These entities “accept articles for publication — along with authors’ fees — without performing promised quality checks for issues such as plagiarism or ethical approval” (Nature, 2019). These journals/publishers often do not index the work, which means publications are extremely difficult to find, and therefore, they are not read or used in other research.
3. Priority should be given to articles that advance what is taught in SOHA (24 competencies) and can be integrated into our curriculum. Some articles can be in pedagogy (what we teach, how and why we teach it, process improvement, etc.). Some articles should show leadership in research through first authorship. Leadership is defined as organizing the research effort, extending invitations to subject matter experts, resolving conflict, submitting the final work to a journal, and managing the review process.
b. Grants are any assistance by way of a sum of money or other resource provided to Council by State, Federal or non-government agencies on the condition that the assistance is used for a specified purpose.
1. External. An external grant is what follows the definition above. This can be through a private entity (Shepherd’s Foundation, the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, or other), a state agency, or federal agency. A funded external grant carries the weight of two publications.
2. Internal. An internal grant is one within the university (REP, or IDEA). This is a good way for someone to start writing grants, but it does not contribute to the external funding number used by the university for national research university status. A funded internal grant is considered as other scholarly activities.
c. Other scholarly publications (e.g., textbooks, book chapters) may be regarded in SOHA as equivalent to peer-reviewed articles if they carry a similar level of prestige, require a similar level of effort, and undergo a peer-review process beyond editing. A published book chapter would be equivalent to one publication, and a published textbook would be equivalent to multiple publications. N.B.: The SOHA leadership discourages tenure-track faculty from pursuing textbooks due to the time involved that distracts them from publishing journal articles.
1. Other scholarly activities including but not limited to non-scholarly books, publications in non-peer-reviewed journals or trade publications, conference proceedings, case publications (not in peer-reviewed journals), Internet-based publications, study guides, papers (refereed) at professional conferences, invited presentations and workshops at professional conferences, internal grants, non-peer reviewed journals and book chapters, and software development, are recognized and appreciated by SOHA, but these may not be considered as productivity for T&P decisions and research workload releases.
2. These activities provide evidence of activity, but they do not substitute for peer-reviewed articles/books or external grants because they do not directly support the university’s strategic goals. Other scholarly publications or activities alone will not result in promotion.
02.03 At the core of SOHA's philosophy and of relevance to the performance evaluation of faculty is collegiality, professional and ethical behavior, honesty and integrity, collaboration, and contributions to the missions of SOHA, the College, the University, and the local/professional community. Collegial faculty members are expected to contribute to the positive functioning of SOHA, the College, and the University (AA/PPS No. 04.02.20). Although collegiality can be a highly subjective quality, there are measurable components that go beyond projecting an affable disposition, e.g., teaching for another in an emergency, collaborating on research, providing a SME lecture to augment another faculty member’s course, and supporting university initiatives.
02.04. When opining on the promotion for a non-tenure line faculty member, the Chair of the PC will invite a like-faculty member to provide input. This person will not vote. The most senior person (FTE) from the pool will be chosen on a staggered 3-year term. All discussions are confidential.
03. PROCEDURES FOR TENURE AND PROMOTION
03.01. Typically, the probationary period prior to the award of tenure is six years and the period for promotion is five years in rank (AA/PPS 04.04.20 and COHP 04.02.20). The last year is typically the year of consideration. See Figure 1 for an example.
Figure 1: Example of the typical probationary period (year hired = year 1).
Candidates with strong performance may request to be considered one year early, without prejudice.
03.02. Credit toward tenure as a condition of hire will affect this timeline. See Figure 2 for an example.
Figure 2: Example of a probationary period where year hired = year 3.
03.03. Leaves of absence and part-time appointments do not count as part of the probationary period.
03.04. Faculty may toll up to two years on their tenure clock (see AA/PPS 04.02.20). See Figure 3 for an example.
Figure 3: Example of a probationary period two years tolled.
03.05. Once tenured, faculty typically spend five years in rank prior to promotion, but this timeline can be altered (either direction) based on performance. Although the total record of performance will be considered, performance since the last promotion will be emphasized. See Figure 4 for an example.
Figure 4: Example of a probationary period for second promotion.
03.06. Candidates for promotion must be mindful of the university’s expectations of sustained performance in the dimensions of teaching, scholarship, service, and collegiality. The leadership of SOHA encourages all faculty to map out their metrics on a timeline that demonstrates sustained performance. Where there is a lag in performance, the candidate may want to postpone seeking promotion until five consecutive years of performance can be documented.
03.07. The Texas State Vita (Form IA) must document all achievements since the initial date of full employment and highlight those activities which apply to the probationary period.
03.08. If a tenure-track faculty member pursues a clinical/practice appointment, years of service on the tenure-track will not be considered in the determination of the initial rank of appointment.
03.09. Teaching: A strong record in teaching is essential and would normally include evidence of sustained teaching effectiveness and commitment to continuous improvement in the form of:
a. Statement of teaching philosophy (required).
b. Student evaluations (required) – these should be at or above the SOHA median (~4.0), however consideration is given for complexity/unpopularity of material.
c. Evaluations by School Director (required). This should be listed under additional documentation under the Tenure and Promotion section of the Faculty Qualifications Systems (FQ).
d. Evaluations based on classroom observations by senior faculty members (required). This peer-evaluation is performed by the members of the Personnel Committee. See the SOHA Policy on Annual Evaluation and Merit for evaluation cycle. Peer evaluations should be listed under additional documentation under the Tenure and Promotion section of FQ.
e. Evidence of continuing education in teaching discipline.
f. Other evidence, possibly including but not limited to letters from former students, development or revision of courses or programs, evidence of innovative instructional materials and teaching techniques, faculty development activities focused on improving teaching effectiveness (such as attendance at conferences and workshops or formal academic study), and teaching awards, honors, and funded teaching grants.
g. During evaluation periods, senior faculty will also examine grade distributions of all faculty (published in CatStats).
03.10. Research:
a. Candidates for tenure should document a strong record in research which includes evidence of sustained research contributions, defined as approximately two data-driven, peer-reviewed publications per year in a scholarly journal with an impact factor > 1.0 (>9 pubs), one funded grant per year, or one textbook per year (funded grants and textbooks are not required for tenure). Faculty should be mindful of the university’s strategic goal to attain a National Research University status, which requires peer-reviewed, published research recognized in respective fields (ours is health administration), and externally funded grants. Research activity that does not promote this strategic goal may not be recognized by the university as a research outcome. Research that is eligible for consideration for tenure and promotion includes publications and grants.
b. Candidates for promotion to Professor should document a strong record in research with an average of two additional peer-reviewed, data-driven (non-opinion) research articles that support the university’s strategic goal per year (>9 pubs), one funded grant per year, or one textbook per year since promotion to Associate Professor in the approved research agenda for the period under review, which is usually five years (funded grants and textbooks are not required for promotion). The peer-reviewed journal articles should demonstrate increasing evidence of leadership in research through first authorship. Records of candidates for Professor should demonstrate effort through grant activity, and they may show more activity in contributions toward textbooks. Research productivity must be sustained over the period under review, and there must be evidence of sustainability (future research).
c. Grants.
1. Those on the tenure-track should consider grant activity carefully due to the opportunity cost that it incurs reference to publishing quality articles. Faculty may coordinate with the Director 6 months in advance for a workload release for writing grants. They are also encouraged to support grant efforts of others.
2. Newly tenured faculty will be asked to submit one external grant submission per year that, in addition to research, attempts to fund one GRA and travel to a conference where research can be presented. It is also recommended to include tenure-track faculty on grants.
3. Senior faculty should coach tenure-track faculty on REP submissions.
4. Faculty should report their grant activity on FQ to be included in the Annual Evaluation process.
d. Other scholarly publications (e.g., textbooks, book chapters) may be regarded in SOHA as equivalent to peer-reviewed articles if they carry a similar level of prestige, require a similar level of effort, and undergo a peer-review process beyond editing. A published book chapter would be equivalent to one publication, and a published textbook would be equivalent to two publications. N.B.: The SOHA leadership discourages tenure-track faculty from pursuing textbooks due to the time involved that distracts them from publishing journal articles.
e. Expectations of faculty.
1. Faculty on the tenure track should focus their efforts on establishing a sustained research agenda. The SOHA leadership will help mentor them along this path, and they will only assign limited-service responsibilities.
2. Once faculty are tenured, they should be mindful of scholarly expectations should they desire to pursue promotion to Professor. While they are not under the same probationary period for tenure, if promotion to Professor is a goal, they should maintain the sustained record of publication that helped them achieve tenure. Consideration for promotion will view the last five years or time since promotion for scholarly outcomes. Records with <10 data-driven, scholarly publications, or equivalent externally funded grants or textbooks awarded/published in a sustained manner since promotion will be difficult to defend or support.
3. Once faculty are promoted to Full Professor, they have the greatest level of flexibility for scholarly pursuits. They should be mindful, however, that consideration for merit will consider scholarly outcomes and mentoring of junior faculty.
03.11. Service.
a. Evidence of a strong commitment to service may include but is not limited to the following:
1. Membership on (junior faculty) or chairing of (senior faculty) University, College, or Department committees.
2. Membership (junior faculty) or leadership (senior faculty) in national, regional, and/or local professional organizations.
3. Academic and career advising.
4. Sponsorship and advising of student organizations.
5. Service to the community, including consulting activities.
6. Mentoring of students and other faculty.
7. Peer review of journal manuscripts or grant proposals.
8. Administrative activities such as leadership roles or degree proposals.
9. Serving as “ambassadors” of SOHA programs in college, university, or national events (conferences, etc.).
10. Interprofessional and interdepartmental teaching and honoring requests from other departments (with coordination with the SOHA Director).
b. Newly hired, tenure-track faculty will be asked to assume limited and targeted time and energy to service at the SOHA or COHP level. Greater service expectations will start in contract year two. Additional service responsibility is expected with seniority. See SOHA policy on governance for further detail.
c. Faculty serving in administrative roles should become conversant in standard university metrics that relate to formula funding and quality, e.g., SCHs, faculty-to-student ratios, program growth, SLOs, etc. CATSTATs and University Reporting (LOGI) are excellent resources for these metrics.
d. Service activities carry greater weight in evaluating candidates for Professor than for Associate Professor and tenure. Candidates for tenure and/or promotion must understand that recommendations on service are based on judgments. Tenure-track faculty must assume the personal responsibility to know the current expectations for tenure and constantly monitor the environment for changes. The annual meeting with all tenure-track faculty will cover these expectations.
03.12. Collegiality:
a. The objective viewpoint – Many aspects of collegiality can be measured. Some were mentioned above. Faculty are encouraged to list on their CV evidence of collegiality in these measured activities.
b. The subjective viewpoint – Faculty who struggle in this area often see this attribute to be either fake or contrived (Hargreaves, 1991), however, much research has been conducted on this power skill (Massey et al, 1994; Bovbjerg, 2006; Cipriano, 2011; Shaw, 2012).
Figure 5: Collegiality subscales (not provided as a standard, but only as an example)
Many of these suggestions demonstrate higher levels of Emotional Intelligence (EI): Greet fellow faculty in the hallway (quietly and politely); Offer assistance to help plan or implement changes to curriculum to improve the program, the student, or both; Once per semester, invite one faculty member to guest lecture in your course as a subject matter expert, and offer to reciprocate; Invite others to contribute to research; Offer a best practice at a faculty meeting; Recommend a colleague for a CHP or Presidential Faculty Award of Excellence; Set a goal to memorize the children’s’ names of the faculty in the offices on either side of you; Participate in university, college, and school assessments relative to performance/perceptions of President, Provost, Dean, Director, etc.; “Managing Up” by speaking positively about faculty/peers to students and other professionals (Kumar, Adhish, Chauhan, 2015). This is the soft side of collegiality, and while it can be contrived, it can easily be practiced.
04. CLINICAL/PRACTICE FACULTY
04.01. Search and hiring of faculty for clinical/practice appointments are described in AA/PPS 04.01.01.
04.02. Appointments to these positions recognize professional background and contributions as well as potential to provide education, scholarship, service, and collegiality.
04.03. Clinical/practice faculty are eligible for all benefits except tenure.
04.04. Clinical/practice faculty are annual appointments subject to annual performance review and reappointment, and their continued hire is based on funding and SOHA needs.
a. A lecturer of clinical/practice may be appointed for a specific term, not to exceed three years, or if for a lesser period of time, the time period specified, subject to annual reappointment review.
b. An assistant/associate/professor of clinical/practice may be appointed for a term not to exceed five years or, if for a lesser period of time, the time specified, subject to annual reappointment review.
c. A faculty member may be reappointed in the clinical/practice for additional terms, contingent on satisfactory performance review, continuity of funding, and departmental need.
04.05. Clinical/Practice faculty are eligible to serve as Graduate Faculty, subject to qualifications.
04.06. The probationary period for clinical/practice faculty are the same as for tenure-track faculty: Typically, five years in rank. See Figure 6 for an example.
Figure 6: Example of a probationary period for Clinical/Practice faculty.
Candidates for promotion should be mindful of expectations of teaching, scholarship, service, and collegiality for consideration for promotion.
a. Teaching: student evaluations should be at or above the SOHA median (~4.0). Peer evaluations should be at or above the SOHA median.
b. Scholarship: The expectations for Clinical/Practice appointments are not as high as for Tenure-line faculty. Clinical/Practice faculty are encouraged to produce data-based (non-opinion) research and seek publication in high-quality journals with an impact factor (IF) of > 1.0. Adequate performance is one publication every other year of consideration. Other scholarly activities, as defined in paragraph 02.02.c., will serve as the majority of activity for clinical/practice faculty, but these outcomes will not count as high as a data-based research publication.
c. Service: These are defined as outreach activities both internal and external to the university, committee membership, program coordination, or related professional activities.
d. Collegiality: The rules of collegiality apply equally to all faculty (see section on collegiality, as defined in 03.12.).
04.07. If Clinical/Practice faculty pursue a tenure-track appointment at Texas State University, years of service in the clinical/practice role will not be considered in the determination of rank or appointment and probationary period for tenure or promotion purposes.
05.01. INSTRUCTIONAL LINE FACULTY – See SOHA PPS 04.01.26
06. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION FOR ALL FACULTY
06.01. General Information: Recommendations on tenure/promotion and promotion are based on judgments of professional achievements and on the expectation of future achievement. To gain the support of the SOHA leadership (PC and Director), candidates for tenure and promotion are expected to have a strong record in teaching, research, service, and collegiality as documented in their curriculum vitae submitted in University format. In assessing the expectation of future achievement, the following should be considered:
a. The record over the entire career will be considered.
b. The record since being hired at Texas State University will be emphasized.
c. The sustained record since the most recent promotion will be prioritized.
d. Future prospects for continuing achievement (sustainability) should be evident.
06.02. The timeline for T&P and promotion are listed on the university’s website.
06.03. External Review: The purpose of external reviews is to obtain a professional assessment of the tenure and/or promotion candidate's performance by individuals with similar expertise in the discipline. External reviewers should ordinarily hold the terminal degree (a doctorate and a masters, one of which must be in healthcare administration or a closely related discipline) and be a professor in rank. External reviewers should be from a Carnegie R1 or R2 university. To minimize biases for or against the candidate, external reviews should not be solicited from the candidate's thesis/dissertation advisor, co-authors, former students, or former professors. The external reviewer shall provide feedback on the quality and significance of the candidate's performance in the areas of scholarship, teaching, and service. External reviews shall follow the following process.
a. Along with the candidate's submission of intent to apply for promotion/tenure by June 1, candidates for tenure and promotion will submit to the School Director the names, titles, and complete addresses of three (3) individuals who have the qualifications to serve as external reviewers.
b. Materials to be reviewed will be updated in the Faculty Qualifications (Watermark) system so that they appear in the report generated.
c. On or by June 15, the School Director will solicit from the Personnel Committee the names and complete addresses of three (3) individuals who have qualifications to serve as external reviewers.
d. The School Director will then select at least one (1) individual from the candidate’s list and two (2) from the PC’s list and contact them by phone/e-mail to determine their willingness to serve as external reviewers.
e. If the external reviewer asks for additional information from the Director, the PC will be notified.
f. If the individuals selected are willing to serve, the School Director shall send a letter explaining the following information to the external reviewers:
1. The purpose of the external review.
2. The type of information required.
3. The time frame for completion of the review.
4. A statement to the effect that their comments will become part of the candidate's evaluation file that will be reviewed by individuals in the University community involved in the evaluation process, and that they refrain from contacting the candidate for promotion or tenure.
5. Instructions to mail the review to the School Director (or FQ system, if activated).
6. The candidate’s curriculum vitae.
7. Materials to be used in the evaluation of the candidate's scholarship.
06.04. Internal (SOHA) review:
a. PC: The external reviews should be completed on or by the date in October identified by the University and in time for the Personnel Committee to review during the evaluation of the candidate. It is realized that extenuating circumstances beyond the candidate's control may prevail. In such cases, the School Director may consult the Personnel Committee about a possible and reasonable extension of the deadline.
b. Director: The SOHA Director provides his/her own evaluation and recommendation as part of the internal review. These are forwarded to the College Review Group and Dean for action. The Director will inform the candidate within 3 days of the PC’s recommendation.
06.05. College Level Review.
a. In January, The College Review Group will analyze the candidates’ packets and make a recommendation for T&P (tenure-track) or promotion (tenured or clinical/practice). This recommendation is forwarded to the Dean for action.
b. By February 1st, the Dean makes a recommendation for T&P (tenure-track) or promotion (tenured or clinical/practice). This recommendation is forwarded to the Provost for action.
06.06. Provost and Board of Regents. By April 9th, the Office of the Provost will meet with the University President to review packets for T&P (tenure-track) or promotion (tenured or clinical/practice). Their recommendation is forwarded to the State of Texas Board of Regents for review and approval by April 30th. The Office of the Provost will notify candidates of the recommendation to the Board of Regents.
06.07. Candidates are usually notified by May 28th of the final determination for T&P (tenure-track) or promotion (tenured or clinical/practice).