The Red Book: Guidelines and Processes for Promotion & Tenure

Revised by the IUSSW Promotion & Tenure Committee and Approved by the IUSSW Faculty Senate May 10, 2024.

Promotion and Tenure Process #

Outside Letters

Inside Letters

Candidate’s Dossier

Faculty member submits dossier to department chair (or dean of units without departments, such as Social Work).

School Committee Review & Vote

Faculty committee reviews to vote.

Processs #

1

Year 5 Spring Semester:

Faculty member prepares and submits materials for external reviewers. Office of the Dean solicits external reviews.
2

Year 6 Beginning of Fall Semester

Faculty member submits dossier to department chair (or dean of units without departments, such as Social Work). The faculty member has the right to review all materials in the dossier and add new materials to it at any point in the process. The faculty member has the right to be informed of any negative recommendation and appeal before consideration of the case at the next level.

Contact Information #

Guidelines and Processes for Promotion & Tenure #

Preamble #

The principle of peer review mandates a process of evaluation that assures that all candidates for promotion and tenure be judged in a fair and relevant manner. This would seem to suggest that such judgments can only be made equitably within the context of the realities that give form and substance to an individual’s particular profession or academic discipline. In accordance with the recommendations of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the School of Social Work defines “scholarship” to include a range of activities that goes well beyond the traditional view of empirical research. Scholarship encompasses four separate but overlapping functions: “the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching” (Boyer, 1990).[1] This inclusive concept of scholarship is based on the assumption that all four of these functions are essential components of viable social work education, and as such, should be regarded with equal status. The intent is to affirm the distinctive contributions and talents of each faculty member in a manner that is uniquely suited to the mission of the School of Social Work.

The “scholarship of discovery” comes the closest to the traditional notion of research. It involves the production of new knowledge through a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods. It represents the process by which the body of knowledge that informs our professional practice is expanded and enriched.

The “scholarship of integration” provides the means by which knowledge is synthesized within and across professional and academic boundaries. It not only helps to overcome what some critics consider to be the reductionist tendency of theory driven research, but also provides a context within which new insights and meanings can be discovered via meta-analytical principles. Integration implies a multilateral approach to knowledge building which connects research to practice, practice to theory, and theory and practice to further research. It is reciprocal, convergent and synergistic in nature and provides the scaffolding to bridge the artificial boundaries created by specialization.

The “scholarship of application” is at the heart of professional social work practice. It operationalizes the driving imperative “to serve,” rather than merely “to know.” It goes beyond interpretation to implication. It requires the scholar to recast knowledge in functional or heuristic terms. Practice provides the crucible within which to test the efficacy of professional knowledge and connect theory to real-world problems. In addition, it provides a bottomless reservoir of experience to be investigated and synthesized through further discovery and integration. Application of knowledge is the essence of professional education, and as such, is recognized as a legitimate form of scholarship.

All faculty are familiar with the “scholarship of teaching.” For many, it represents the principal form of scholarship in which they engage on a regular basis. If the scholarship of application, or practice, represents the “heart” of the professional social work enterprise, then the scholarship of teaching provides the “life’s blood” of the professional process. It constitutes the means by which the fruits of discovery, integration and application efforts are transmitted to a new generation of scholarly practitioners. As Boyer notes, “In the end, inspired teaching keeps the flame of scholarship alive. Almost all successful academics give credit to creative teachers – those mentors who defined their work so compellingly that it became, for them, a lifetime challenge.”

Teaching is certainly not only the vehicle through which existing knowledge is transmitted to students, but it does provide the context within which critical thinking generates new ideas to be explored and debated in terms of their efficacy and implications for application to real world issues. As such, the spirit of inquiry that characterizes inspired research seems to originate from the same sense of wonderment and healthy skepticism that represents the hallmark of effective teaching.

While most academic institutions identify the general nature of the documentation that is to be considered as supporting evidence of an individual’s application for promotion and/or tenure, rarely do they specify how the various forms of documentation are to be interpreted and applied in relation to any given unit, such as social work. Since the nature of academic units vary widely, it is reasonable to assume that the relative importance of different forms of supporting documentation should vary accordingly. For that reason, the School of Social Work has identified the specific kinds of documentation that it considers appropriate when qualitative judgments are being made regarding the relative merits of an individual’s scholarly contributions (see Section VI, VII, and VIII in these Guidelines). It is also recognized that the nature of scholarship as manifested within professional schools (e.g., social work) should be judged somewhat differently than it is within the academic disciplines.

While the University community mandates that promotion and tenure be tied directly to a faculty member’s performance in the areas of teaching, research and service, it is assumed that each school or academic unit is free to define (within limits) how these areas can best be evaluated and/or weighted within the context of the specific culture and mission of the school or unit in question. While the criteria for judging the quality of scholarship are by no means entirely unique to each profession or discipline, there exist sufficient differences to justify the position that each school retains the right to identify and define whatever distinctions do in fact exist. This requires that the faculty within the School of Social Work identify the kinds of documentation it considers to be the most compelling evidence in support of the various forms of scholarship. In the final analysis, if scholarship is to be adequately assessed by peers, it must be presented in some tangible form capable of independent review.

The Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure require that a candidate for promotion normally excel in at least one of the three traditional areas of teaching, research, or service, and be at least satisfactory in each of the other two, or “present a balance of highly satisfactory performance in all three areas sufficient to demonstrate comparable long-term benefits to the University.” However, IUSSW provides candidates with the opportunity to present an “integrative case” based on that faculty member’s performance in research, teaching, and service and contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion at the level of school, campus, and community. Evaluations by the committee are based on the overall case that is grounded in excellence. It is incumbent upon the candidate for promotion and/or tenure to identify the specific area(s) of scholarship in which she or he is claiming “excellence,” and to provide tangible evidence that strongly supports the claims being made. The level of documentation varies in relation to the rank being sought. Normally, candidates applying for promotion to Associate Professor are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they are well on the way to establishing an emerging national reputation. Candidates for Full Professor are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they have attained a national reputation.

In the School of Social Work, the faculty do not adhere to the a priori assumption that research conducted by an individual faculty member is in some way inherently superior to research endeavors of a collaborative nature. While individual efforts are highly valued, in some instances, collaborative research initiatives may well provide a context for the production of more substantive scholarly products. The intent is to encourage and reward the forms of scholarship that contribute most to the body of knowledge that informs professional practice, and in so doing, enable faculty to draw upon their strengths, while at the same time learn from the strengths of their colleagues. Regarding any such collaborative work, however, the candidate must clearly indicate what role(s) he or she played in the endeavor.

Finally, the School concurs with Derek Bok (1990)[2] who cautions that the political realities of a post-cold war global economy dictate that “faculty need to engage in new kinds of research and professional outreach … All this implies new faculty roles … working in teams, working on real-world problems, writing for publics beyond one’s peers.” As a corollary to this premise, Bok argues that universities would do well to pay special attention to the potential contributions of the “applied fields” such as social work. In this regard, it is the position of the School of Social Work that “applied or practice-sensitive research” be viewed of equal intellectual importance and rigor as its “basic research” counterpart. It is also the position of The School of Social Work that scholarship enhancing and promoting the causes of diversity, equity, and inclusion be viewed as equally rigorous and important when evaluating a candidate’s application for promotion.

[1] Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

[2] Bok, D. (1990). Universities and the future of America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

I. Partner Campus Policies #

The Indiana University School of Social Work (IUSSW) is administratively centered on the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IU Indianapolis) campus, and has Social Work and Labor Studies faculty positions on multiple campuses of Indiana University. At this point in time, tenure and promotion applications as well as third-year reviews of Labor Studies faculty on all campuses and Social Work faculty on all but one campus are administered through the IU Indianapolis campus. The detailed guidelines and processes in this document reflect IU Indianapolis and IUSSW policies. The exception concerns Social Work faculty on the Indiana University Northwest (IUN) campus. The current Memorandum of Understanding between IU Northwest and IUSSW, signed in October 2011, includes the following statement regarding tenure and promotion (pp. 3-4):

Tenure and promotion: The IU Northwest SW faculty will adhere to the promotion and tenure procedures and deadlines posted for the IU Northwest campus. The Dean of the IU Northwest CHHS will solicit evaluations from selected external reviewers, which become part of the dossier. Dossiers for tenure, promotion, and third year review will be routed as follows: SW Primary Review Committee, IU Northwest SW director, IUSSW Dean (or his or her designee), CHHS Unit Committee, then to CHHS Dean. Under current IU and IU Northwest procedures, dossiers are then routed to IU Northwest Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee, IU Northwest Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, IU Northwest Chancellor, IU President, and IU Board of Trustees.

The SW Primary Review Committee is comprised of a subset of the elected College of Health and Human Services committee and representation from the IUSSW Promotion and Tenure Committees, consistent with policies of the IU Northwest campus with respect to rank and tenure status. The Primary Committee will be comprised of three faculty members, from IU Northwest Social Work and IUSSW, to assure social work peer review. The Primary Committee is chaired by an IUIN faculty member.

Recommendations by the SW Primary Committee, IU Northwest SW Director, and IUSSW Dean (or his or her designee) are included in the dossier to be reviewed by the CHHS Unit Committee. IU Northwest CHHS Dean and IUSSW Dean will confer to appoint at least one SW faculty member (either from IU Northwest or from IUSSW) to the Unit Committee. IUSSW faculty would be expected to review only SW dossiers. IU Northwest SW faculty would have full committee membership and service expectations.

The designated campus-wide committee is that of IUN. The Primary Review, the Unit Committee, and the IU Northwest Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee will review social work candidates according to the IUSSW tenure and promotion guidelines/standards (Redbook) and IU Northwest Promotion and Tenure Policies and Guidelines. The Redbook will be on file in the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at IUN.

II. Third-Year Review for Tenure-Track Faculty #

This section pertains only to tenure-track faculty. Non-tenure-track faculty have an annual review leading up to promotion.

The purpose of the Third-Year Review is for the candidate to present and evaluate their materials and for the Promotion and Tenure Committee to review the materials and identify what actions will help the candidate build a solid case for tenure and/or promotion. Based on the standards set by the school for promotion and tenure, the committee makes written recommendations to the candidate about steps the candidate could take to improve his/her case. The evaluations of unsatisfactory, satisfactory, highly satisfactory, or excellent in each area are based on what the committee believes is necessary to reach these standards at the time of tenure or promotion. Therefore, it is rare for candidates to receive third-year review evaluations of “excellent.” The School of Social Work also provides for candidates to present an integrative case that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion grounded in excellence. The evaluations and the written feedback should clearly inform the candidate regarding whether or not they appear to be on track to meet the standards at the time of tenure and promotion, and what particular areas they need to strengthen in the remaining time in order to do so. If the candidate’s Third-Year Review raises significant issues, the candidate is encouraged to seek a fourth-year review. Any fourth-year reviews will follow the same guidelines and deadlines as third-year reviews.

Documentation needed for the Third-Year Review includes:

an updated and signed curriculum vita using the IU format (see Section XI)
a narrative, no longer than five, single-spaced pages, discussing teaching, research, and service, identifying the area of excellence (teaching, research, or service) or intent to pursue a “balanced case” (see Section III.A., below)
copies of publications and/or letters from journals acknowledging submission or acceptance
syllabi of all courses taught
a table summarizing your course evaluation scores for those considering promotion and tenure on the basis of excellence in teaching
any unsolicited supportive letters or emails from students or colleagues (optional)
evidence of professional development to enhance teaching and research (this should be listed in the curriculum vita or mentioned in the candidate’s statement)
a statement of plans related to teaching, research, service, and professional development for the next few years.

The candidate should assemble the materials as searchable PDFs. When existing electronic files are converted into PDF format, they are usually searchable. When documents are scanned, additional steps will need to be taken to make the document searchable. For help, please see the link to Instructions for Creating PDF Portfolios on p. ii or contact UITS or the Center for Teaching & Learning as they may be able to provide one-on-one help. The candidate will deliver the Third-Year Review to the Office of the Dean no later than March 1 of the candidate’s third year.

See Section XII for the Process and Responsibilities Related to Third-Year Review (p. 47).

III. Acceptance of Nomination & Notification of Candidacy #

A. Promotion #

Faculty members may be nominated for promotion in rank by one or more faculty colleagues, or they may nominate themselves. Whatever the form of nomination, however, as soon as possible after a faculty member has decided to pursue candidacy for promotion she or he should notify the Chair of the Indiana University School of Social Work Promotion and Tenure Committee of the candidacy. Notification of candidacy must be in writing and should be received no later than 5:00 P.M. on March 1 for the review to occur during the following year. Of course, nominations may be submitted at any time prior to that time.

The letter of candidacy should contain a statement indicating that the faculty member is a candidate for promotion. In most cases, an area of excellence (i.e., teaching, service, or research/scholarship) should also be clearly indicated. In 1993, the Faculty Council of Indiana University approved, as an alternate to this normal process, a “balanced case” approach to promotion. In the event of a “balanced case,” the faculty member should specify that and go on to support “highly satisfactory performance” in each of the three areas (teaching, service, and research/scholarship). The School of Social Work also provides for candidates to present an integrative case that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion grounded in excellence. Further details regarding the timing of various steps in the review process may be found in the Process and Responsibilities document (see Section XI below). The candidate is reviewed at several levels: IUSSW Promotion and Tenure Committee, Dean, campus specific Promotion and Tenure Committee, Campus and University administration, and IU Board of Trustees. Review at each level is based on the dossier submitted by the candidate, as described more fully in the rest of this document, supplemented by external letters of review (see Section V below) and by the cumulative reports of any prior review stages.

B. Tenure #

Faculty members may become candidates for tenure through various routes. She or he may have reached the point for tenure evaluation as contracted during the hiring process. (Commonly, this would occur during the sixth academic year of employment.) Alternately, a faculty member may seek early tenure. Whatever the form of nomination, however, as soon as possible after a faculty member has decided to pursue candidacy for tenure she or he should notify the Chair of the Indiana University School of Social Work Promotion and Tenure Committee of the candidacy. Notification of candidacy must be in writing and should be received no later than 5:00 P.M. on March 1 for the review to occur during the following year. Of course, nominations may be submitted at any time prior to that time.

The letter of candidacy should contain a statement that she or he is a candidate for tenure. The area of excellence should also be clearly indicated. Further details regarding the timing of various steps in the review process may be found in the Process and Responsibilities Document appended to these Guidelines. The candidate is reviewed at several levels: IUSSW Promotion and Tenure Committee, Dean, local campus Promotion and Tenure Committee, Campus and University administration, and IU Board of Trustees. Review at each level is based on the dossier submitted by the candidate, as described more fully in the rest of this document, supplemented by external letters of review (see Section V below) and by the cumulative reports of any prior review stages.

IV. Promotion and Tenure Dossiers #

A. Responsibility and Due Date #

Preparation of the major sections of promotion and tenure dossiers is the responsibility of the candidate (see subsection B below for a detailed description of dossier sections and who is responsible for producing them). The Dean of the Indiana University School of Social Work provides newly employed faculty with copies of those documents that address applicable policies and procedures. The Promotion and Tenure Committee also disseminates information regarding current promotion and tenure policies and procedures, including guidelines and timetables. Candidates will find additional, essential information about dossier preparation in the current IU Indianapolis Guidelines prepared by the Dean of Faculties. Links to the Campus guidelines and related resources appear in the beginning of this document. Because University and Campus guidelines change somewhat each year, candidates are urged to consult them at the time of preparing materials for review. While this document reflects the School of Social Work’s criteria and processes, it is revised less frequently. In the case of inconsistencies between Campus and School guidelines, candidates are advised to follow Campus guidelines and to report inconsistencies to the Dean of the School of Social Work and to the School’s Promotion and Tenure Committee Chair.

Because every university setting is unique in its approach to promotion and tenure, candidates may wish to consult senior members of the faculty for advice regarding the presentation of their materials. Because the function of the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the Indiana University School of Social Work is evaluation, the Committee Members are prohibited from giving advice to individuals concerning how best “to make one’s case.” The Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, however, is charged with providing faculty with information concerning the format in which materials are to be presented, the process through which the evaluation occurs, and the criteria upon which it is based.

The P&T Committee provides an informational forum, ideally during the fall semester. Attendance of non-tenured faculty or faculty seeking promotion is strongly encouraged for optimizing the dossier and strengthening one’s case for tenure and promotion. The sections of the dossier completed by the candidate should be uploaded to eDossier no later than 5:00 P.M. on the first day of classes for the Fall semester on the IU Indianapolis campus. This is necessary for the Promotion and Tenure Committee to carefully review the materials presented, prepare a recommendation report, and forward the candidate’s portion of the dossier along with Committee’s report to the Dean by mid-October. The Dean then adds his or her review comments, insures that all sections of the dossier are complete, and submits the completed dossier to the Office of Faculty Appointments and Advancement (OFAA) by the last Friday in October.

B. Organization of Materials #

The candidate’s promotion or tenure dossier should be organized as specified in the most current IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers. The dossier presents the evidence upon which promotion and/or tenure decisions are to be made. Guidelines for dossier format and documentation are to be used whether the candidate is being reviewed for promotion, tenure, or both.

The sections of the dossier that the candidate prepares should be no more than 50 pages (includes candidate’s statement and all evidence in Teaching, Research and

Service sections; excludes CV and department/school guidelines). In general, documents should have one-inch margins, single-spaced copy using typical fonts (Arial, Calibri, Times New Roman) with a font size no smaller than 11 point. All electronic documents will be submitted as searchable PDFs. (When existing electronic files are converted into PDF format, they are usually searchable.

When documents are scanned, additional steps will need to be taken to make the document searchable. For help with either process, please consult the PDF Instructions posted on our website or contact UITS or the CTL as they may be able to provide one-on-one help.)

The candidate owns the dossier; however, certain materials are added to the dossier by others as a regular part of the process. These include but are not limited to:

External Assessments
- Before the review process begins, external reviews will be added by the primary/department or school/unit person designated to collect them.
Committee/Administrator reviews
- Evaluative reports will be added to the dossier by each committee or administrator. Copies of the evaluative reports are to be sent to the candidate as the dossier is forwarded. As these evaluations are added, they become a permanent part of the dossier.
- The Dean is expected to certify that the above condition has been met.
- The candidate is not expected to respond to or comment on these evaluative reports.

Detailed instructions for submitting material into the eDossier system:

All dossiers for faculty should be divided into the following sections [note: sections shown in italics are NOT prepared by the candidate; sections shown in bold count towards the 50-page limit]:

Checklist/Routing and Action Form No longer applies
Review Level Two (Unit/School)
*03. Review Level One (Primary/Department)
External Assessments
Reference Letters
Candidate’s statement
Teaching
Research and Creative Activity
Professional and University Service
Curriculum Vita and Assessment of Dissemination Outlets
Appendices

*NOTE: School of Social Work dossiers to be routed through IU Indianapolis will not contain Section 03.

These sections include material created by others, such as reviews by relevant committees and administrators, the external review letters, and internal review letters. The Dean (or Dean’s designee) is responsible for assembling Sections 01-05 of the final dossier.

The Candidate’s Statement should begin with an introductory statement describing the candidacy (promotion to what rank and/or tenure, as appropriate), containing a clear indication of the candidate’s chosen area(s) of excellence. This statement reflects the candidate’s own self-assessments of accomplishments in teaching, research and creative activity, and service. Prospects for continued development in these areas must be addressed. The Candidate’s Statement is where the candidate demonstrates how she or he meets school and university criteria for promotion and/or tenure. This very important part of the dossier is where the candidate “states her or his case” and refers to the evidence in the rest of the dossier that supports that case. The candidate is encouraged to write a well-organized, concise narrative statement of no more than seven single-spaced pages, with a minimum font of 10pt. Candidates have the option to limit the Candidate’s Statement to five pages and include two single-spaced pages, addressing the area of excellence, as a section introduction in the chosen area of excellence (either Teaching, Research, or Service). Candidates are cautioned to describe their work in clear language that can be understood by readers from other disciplines.

The candidate’s statement should contain five sub-sections: an introductory section; sections entitled evaluation of teaching, evaluation of research and scholarly activities, and evaluation of service; and a summary section. The introduction may contain a discussion about the candidate’s professional philosophy or perhaps an elaboration about the candidate’s area of excellence. The candidate should also mention any extenuating circumstances that may pertain to his or her candidacy. (For example, a candidate may have received some years toward tenure at Indiana University due to previous teaching experience as negotiated with the Dean at the time of employment.) In the introduction and the section related to the claimed area of excellence, the candidate should strive to make the strongest possible case for excellence, as this is usually the most essential judgment that dossier reviewers at any level must make.
The Candidate’s Statement should address the interrelated aspects of a whole, integrated career. Few candidates make sharp distinctions among the various aspects of their work as they do it, and the statement should indicate how the candidate views the integration of these aspects, even while assessing achievements in each. Special attention should be given to work that cuts across specializations and disciplines and that helps integrate and apply knowledge to broad patterns of intellectual activity.
Candidates engaged in interdisciplinary work, or team science, should make every effort to represent their contribution to collaborative scholarship clearly as well as the significance and value of any interdisciplinary approach they are pursuing. Candidates should carefully document their individual contributions within this context and should also demonstrate some level of independent research beyond the team science work.
Candidates should be careful to provide clear and sufficient information about their individual roles in collaborative projects, publications, presentation, or grants.
The sub-sections of the candidate’s statement related to the areas of teaching, service, and research and scholarly activities should be as concise, specific, and pointed as possible in demonstrating how the candidate meets or exceeds school and university criteria for promotion or tenure. The candidate should avoid meaningless or insignificant items that do not add to the case. She or he should, however, mention everything that is necessary to show excellence in the area selected for excellence, and satisfactory performance in the other areas. For DEI cases, the candidate should demonstrate how their contributions in teaching, research and service are integrated. The candidate should indicate where in the rest of the dossier the relevant evidence may be found. These sub-sections should also contain information about the candidate’s future plans, particularly in the area of excellence, as appropriate. Whenever possible, tenure-track faculty members should state specific plans for a research or creative activity agenda, for a plan to enhance teaching effectiveness, and for continued participation through professional service in their profession, the campus, and community.
In the summary section, candidates may wish to address their compatibility with the needs and mission of the school and university. The candidate’s statement should be signed and dated by the candidate.

Objective documentation of the candidate’s activities and accomplishments is extremely important. Sections 07, 08, and 09 of the dossier contain core evidence to support claims made in the candidate’s statement regarding teaching, research and service, respectively. These sections are an integral part of the dossier and move forward through all levels of review. Any additional supporting materials should be placed in Appendices (see Section 11, below). More details about the elements of core evidence and evaluative criteria are contained in subsequent sections of the Red Book addressing Teaching, Research, and Service, respectively.

Each section of core evidence should be carefully organized. The candidate may include an introductory statement of no more than 2 pages in the section regarding the candidate’s area of excellence, briefly describing the items of evidence included and explaining any contextual information necessary for the reader to interpret the evidence. Wherever feasible, the candidate should include self evaluations of performance and incorporate the results of evaluation efforts by others. For example, within the evaluation of teaching section, statistical analyses of ratings on student evaluations during the period under review should be presented. As part of the process of preparing summary analyses of raw evaluation data, it is often helpful to ask a colleague to review the data and its analysis to ensure accuracy. Clearly presenting results of statistical analyses in numerical terms or in the form of graphical representations may help committee members better understand the relevance of evaluation statements made in the candidate’s statement.

Refer to section VII of this document regarding the criteria and sources of evidence to document teaching. Candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of teaching.

Refer to section VIII of this document regarding the criteria and sources of evidence to document research and creative activity. Candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of research and creative activity.

Refer to section IX of this document regarding the criteria and sources of evidence to document service. Candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of service.

This section is prepared by the candidate and the primary level reviewers/administrators. This section contains the following documents which should be placed in the dossier in the exact order listed below:

An assessment of the dissemination outlets in the candidate’s area or excellence (or in all areas for a balanced case). In the School of Social Work, this is typically prepared by the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. It is NOT prepared by the candidate, although the candidate should provide the Chair with preliminary information related to the stature of journals in which publications appear (e.g., acceptance rates or published rankings of journals). The Chair, however, must validate such information before preparing this assessment.
A copy of the candidate’s current curriculum vita prepared in accord with the current IU Indianapolis standard format for curricula vitae, as shown in Section X of this document. Publications should be organized on the CV by teaching, research, and service. Templates for the IU Indianapolis CV format can be obtained from the Office of Academic Affairs’ list of P&T resources.

Contain additional material supporting the core evidence. As with all other aspects of the dossier, the candidate is urged to limit appendix materials to those related to the criteria the candidate addresses in making their case. Subfolders for appendix content have been added in eDossier in the Research/Creative Activity, Teaching, and Service Engagement sections.

A few examples may help clarify the distinction between core evidence and other materials. Consider a candidate whose claim to excellence rests in part on a few major publications discussed in the candidate’s statement. Copies of select publications or selections from them should be included as core evidence in Section 07, 08, or 09 (depending upon whether the publications are relevant for teaching, research or service claims, respectively). Copies of the candidate’s other publications should be included in an appendix. As another example, the candidate may include as core evidence selected letters from colleagues or others supporting a particular claim made in the candidate’s statement; additional relevant letters may be placed in an appendix. Please note that these letters are those that the candidate may have received directly over the years, or letters specifically requested by the candidate. These are not the same as internal review letters solicited by the Dean and entered by the Office of the Dean into Section 05 of the dossier. As a final example, a candidate seeking promotion on the basis of excellence in teaching may choose to present as core evidence a summary table or chart highlighting relevant aspects of student course/instructor evaluation. (Note that the candidate should not submit all raw evaluation forms, even in the appendix).

Candidates should review the website used by the campus Promotion and Tenure Committee which indicates the expected content of the 11 sections.

V. External Review Letters #

An essential aspect of the promotion or tenure processes is the evaluation of a candidate by credible, external reviewers. These external assessments are necessary to provide an objective evaluation of the value and impact of a candidate’s work, and to demonstrate that the candidate has achieved an emerging national reputation (for advancement to associate professor) or has achieved a sustained national reputation (for advancement to full professor). At least six external assessment letters are required. Academic external reviewers must be at a rank higher than the current rank of the candidate, and at a peer (or higher) institution. When there are highly qualified academic reviewers who are considered top experts in the field but they do not meet the rank or peer institution guidelines, the Dean must provide sufficient explanation as to why they have been selected as an appropriate reviewer. A maximum of 2 peers from other campuses of Indiana University or Purdue University may be considered “external” if they meet the “arms-length” criteria described below. Non-academic external reviewers may be included when a clear explanation of the relevance of such a review is presented by the Dean of the School of Social Work. Letters of evaluation should be sought, whenever possible, from professionals other than those at institutions where the faculty member has taught, where she or he received graduate education, or from coauthors. The IU Indianapolis Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossier include the following criteria for “arms-length” or independence of external reviewers:

The relationship between the reviewer and the candidate should be as independent as possible. To qualify as “arm’s length” or independent, reviewers providing external assessment should have no personal, professional, or academic relationship with the candidate that would cause them to be vested in the candidate’s promotion. Specific examples of reviewers to avoid include (but are not limited to): 1) former or current mentors, 2) co-authors, or scholarly collaborators in the last five years. Exceptions can be made in the case of very large national clinical trials where multiple authors have a very distant relationship or in the case of serving on national research or service panels. The department chair [or Dean] needs to specifically make the case for including such a reviewer. If in doubt, please contact the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Every precaution should be taken to ensure that referees are objective and credible; persons closely associated with the candidate may not be as objective as those who are not personally associated. Reviews deemed to not comply with the “arms-length” criteria will not count towards the six needed reviews. (pp. 25-26)

By April 1, the School’s Promotion and Tenure Committee should submit to the Dean of the School of Social Work names of twelve persons who might be asked for letters of evaluation, along with a brief description of why these persons should be considered as reviewers. According to current Campus guidelines, the candidate should not be involved in the selection of external reviewers, with two exceptions: 1) the candidate may list those he or she would definitely not want to serve as an external reviewer, and 2) the candidate may provide a list of key scholars in a field if these are not known to the Promotion and Tenure Committee members, and must indicate how these individuals meet the “arm’s length” criteria for independence noted above. In the School of Social Work, candidates are encouraged to submit such lists, and they must be submitted to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee by March 15, and the candidate must indicate why the potential external reviewer is qualified to review the candidate’s materials and how the potential external reviewer meets the “arm’s length” requirements as specified above. The Dean of the School of Social Work or the Chair of the School’s Promotion and Tenure Committee, however, are not obligated to use external reviewers suggested by candidates and may seek additional guidance, if needed, to identify appropriate external reviewers from, for example, Deans, Chairs, or senior faculty in similar disciplines at other universities. Candidates are not to be informed of the identities of the final external reviewers.

By April 1, the candidate will submit an electronic (pdf) version of their external review packet to the Dean’s Office. Eight external reviews will be requested to ensure that each candidate ends up with the required six external reviews that are deemed to be ‘arm’s length” reviews. External review packets generally include the candidate’s curriculum vita, candidate’s statement, and core evidence (see these Guidelines, throughout, for definition and examples of core evidence). To ensure that the external review packet meets the current guidelines, candidates are strongly advised to submit one copy of their packet for review by the P&T Committee and/or Chair before the final version is due.

By May 1, the Dean’s Office will email each selected external reviewer: 1) a letter requesting the external review; 2) a pdf of the candidate’s materials; 3) a copy of the School and Campus Criteria for Tenure and Promotion; and 4) an External Referee Form to be signed and returned by the external reviewer along with the review letter.

In Section 04 of the final dossier, the Dean (or Dean’s designee) will include:

A sample of the external assessment solicitation letter;
A list containing brief statements (two or three sentences) on the expertise of each external referee;
The external assessment letters; and
A completed External Referee Form placed in the same order reviewers appear on the expertise list mentioned above.

The candidate may not request access to external reviewers’ letters until the final dossier has been submitted to the campus (see Section XII).

VI. Internal, Solicited Review Letters #

In all cases where the candidate has declared teaching as an area of excellence, and optionally otherwise, a random sample of students will be selected to provide comments, as outlined further in Section XI of this document. To protect the confidentiality of the students and the integrity of the process, the candidate will not have access to these comments at any time.
The candidate may provide a list of other colleagues and professionals who are familiar with the candidate’s work and might be willing to write a letter of support, as outlined further in Section XI. For candidates whose area of excellence is service, obtaining these letters is particularly important to document the candidate’s service achievements. The Dean will solicit these letters and include them in the candidate’s file. The Dean may also request internal reference letters from additional individuals not indicated by the candidate. Letters of support should not be solicited from individuals who have decision-making responsibility for the candidate’s promotion and/or tenure (i.e., members of the P&T Committee, the Dean, the Vice Chancellor). If a letter of support is submitted by a faculty member who is later voted onto the P&T Committee, that letter will be removed from the candidate’s packet.
The Dean (or Dean’s designee) is responsible for assembling Section 05 of the final dossier. This section contains:

- A sample of the internal reference solicitation letter;
- All internal letters received.

The candidate may not request access to these internal letters until the final dossier has been submitted.

(Note that the candidate may directly solicit other letters from individuals if they provide essential support for the candidate’s claims related to Teaching, Research, and/or Service. However, these letters should be considered “core evidence” and placed by the candidate in Dossier Section 07, 08, or 09, or “ancillary evidence” and included in the appendix material, as appropriate.)

VII. Teaching #

Teaching is a scholarly function that is vital to this school. The candidate should make a special attempt to identify quantitative and qualitative teaching contributions. The collection of data on teaching as a scholarly endeavor and service requires considerable attention. The collection of such data should be ongoing. Areas of important information related to teaching include: teaching load; quality of teaching and courses; curriculum development efforts; participation in educational projects and programs; and advising and field liaison activities. In order to document teaching performance, the faculty member should keep detailed records of teaching activities. Those quantitative and qualitative aspects of teaching which the file reflects will serve to distinguish among excellent, highly satisfactory, and satisfactory performance levels. Faculty members should therefore regularly update their teaching activities files in order to maintain a complete and current data base. The file, then, can serve as a basis for each tenure track faculty member’s preparation of the annual reports for the dean and the promotion and tenure committee. The file also, of course, serves as an aid in the preparation of promotion and/or tenure dossiers.

Since teaching is both a technology and an art, its excellence is not totally quantifiable nor can it be narrowly defined. The following broad guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion and tenure. The items below should guide faculty as examples of useful ways to document positive work in teaching, but should not be used as a checklist for which every item should be checked. In addition to the criteria shown in this document, candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of teaching.

Satisfactory Performance (Required if teaching is not designated as the area of excellence.)

Quantitative and qualitative information from the candidate, students, and peers indicating that instruction has been satisfactory in fostering appropriate learning outcomes
Teaching load (e.g., classroom, online, service-learning, field) is clearly documented and contextualized
Evidence of development as a teacher (e.g., improvement in educational materials, approach, or effectiveness over time)
Evidence of new course development or significant course revision (e.g., use of technology, service learning) presented with evidence on effectiveness
Mentoring or advising load is clearly documented and contextualized
Evidence of student satisfaction (including but not limited to end-of-semester student learning/course evaluation surveys)
Evidence of a satisfactory impact on student learning and achievement
Evidence of some local dissemination of good practice and/or SoTL
Record of seeking development as a teacher, such as conference or workshop attendance, teaching experimentation, or reading on teaching
Reflective commentary on candidate’s own teaching
Peer assessment on effectiveness of efforts toward personal growth in teaching

Highly Satisfactory Performance (Required for a “balanced case” application)

Quantitative and qualitative information on teaching and learning outcomes that make the case for effective and innovative instruction
Nature of course or curricular development clearly reflects an informed knowledge base, clear instructional goals, and assessment of the outcomes
Important impact and student achievement documented
Evidence of regular and significant local dissemination of good practice and recognition of high quality of teaching
Grants or awards at the department or campus level (For clinical and lecturer categories, this level constitutes excellence)
High level of activity in examining practice, seeking new ideas, obtaining feedback, and engaging in dialogue on teaching with campus or disciplinary peers
Positive peer assessment of the teaching experiments in the above category (For clinical and lecturer categories, this level constitutes excellence)
Indications of substantial positive impact on colleagues through mentoring, committee work, or other work

Excellent Performance (Required if teaching is designated as the area of excellence.)

As noted in the preamble, the level of documentation varies in relation to the rank being sought. Normally, candidates applying for tenure or for promotion to Associate Professor with teaching as an area of excellence are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they are well on the way to establishing an emerging national reputation for excellence in teaching. Candidates for Full Professor are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they have established such a national reputation. Typically, such a reputation is evidenced by publications related to teaching in highly regarded national journals, success in generating external funding related to teaching activities, participation in national conferences, hearings or review committees and by major invited presentations at a national level.

The following are required if teaching is designated as the area of excellence.

Documentation of extraordinarily successful teaching and learning outcomes. Generally, student evaluations should be at or above 4.0 on the School’s 5-point measures on the School’s Instructor and Course Evaluation Forms. Such scores, however, are not in themselves sufficient to demonstrate student learning outcomes.
The case for teaching excellence is grounded in a sophisticated teaching philosophy
Evidence of innovative and reflective teaching practice
Evidence of the production of effective course and curricular products
Evidence of dissemination of ideas within the profession or generally through publication, presentation or other means. This is critically important in making a case for excellence in teaching. Accordingly, any peer-reviewed products that are related to teaching must be clearly indicated as such, both in Section 07 of the dossier and in the curriculum vita.
Evidence of impact (that is, the work has been adopted by others locally, nationally or internationally)
Evidence of a scholarly and reflective approach to mentoring and advising
Demonstrated impact on accomplishments of students, advisees, and mentees
External peer review clearly demonstrates the attributes of scholarly work associated with mentoring or advising, including peer refereed presentations and publications and national recognition of the quality of work
Positive departmental evaluations of the stature of the published work (e.g., journals)
Peer review supporting the quality of the publications, presentations or other dissemination methods
National or international awards for teaching or dissemination of scholarly teaching, or significant funding for teaching projects
Extensive record of participation in experimentation, reflection, pursuit of conceptual and practical knowledge of teaching and learning
Membership in communities of practice at the campus, national, or international level
Evidence of contribution to, leadership in, and impact upon curriculum development and improvement
Participation in dissemination of good practice
Peer reviews of teaching and its impact (including but not limited to two or more peer reviews of teaching, at least one in advance of third-year reviews, if applicable, and another in advance of the submission of promotion or tenure dossiers; at least one of which must reflect excellence).

In preparation of the section entitled “Evaluation of Teaching,” the candidate should select evidence that supports the specific criteria the candidate is using to make her or his case. This section counts towards the 50-page limit on the dossier. The following areas should be considered as possible documentation for teaching:

Include courses that were both individually and team-taught during the period upon which promotion or tenure is based. Describe teaching roles and degrees of input in the development of the team-taught courses. Identify specific course numbers, titles, number of students, and the required or elective nature of course. Syllabi, bibliographies, exams, handouts, and other pertinent course materials should be included as appendices arranged by course number and semester in chronological order.
Give data on teaching load including number of courses taught and whether new or repeat, numbers of advisees, number of field placements made, number of field liaisons.
Include reports from peer reviews of classroom teaching. It is preferable that a formal classroom evaluation be done by the staff of the Center for Teaching and Learning. However, this can also be done by asking other faculty members to sit in on the candidate’s class to identify the strengths and areas for improvement in conducting the class as well as to review syllabi, assignments, etc.
A candidate seeking promotion on the basis of teaching should show student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching arranged by course and semester in chronological order for at least the past five years or time in rank, whichever is less. Present tables and/or charts summarizing and comparing at least three years of data from formalized teaching evaluations. Include summaries and discuss the educational/instructional implications of the quantitative evaluative data presented. Candidates may find it helpful to discuss the patterns and trends related to specific dimensions of the student quantitative evaluations (e.g., items related to course content, items related to instructor effectiveness, items related to course objectives).

Additional, important information as to the performance of the candidate can be derived from measures of central tendency (i.e., means, medians and modes) and measures of dispersion (i.e., standard deviations, quartiles) in comparison to those from other sections of the same courses taught by others. Raw data from all student evaluations need not be submitted, but should be available to the Promotion and Tenure Committee upon request.

Give evidence of degree of satisfaction and performance related to field instruction as well as field liaison for students. Include information on activities and contributions in the area of field instruction, e.g., internships developed, supervision, etc.
Give evidence of degree of satisfaction and performance related to advising from students and other sources.
Include assessments of performance by former students who indicate the beneficial relationship as to what they are doing professionally as this relates to what they learned from the instructor.
Provide evidence that courses taught contribute to overall student learning outcomes and evidence that students have met or exceeded course or curricular learning objectives.

- The role of the faculty member in assisting students to meet learning objectives should be documented and assessed. This may be captured through peer review or through systematic assessment of student achievement or from standardized, nationally-normed profession-related tests.
- Faculty who teach undergraduate students should also address how their courses and scholarship of teaching contribute to learning outcomes and the Principles of Undergraduate Learning (PULs) in the statement they submit for this section.
- At the graduate and graduate professional levels, comparable assessment measures for student learning should be developed if they do not yet exist and the Principles of Graduate and Professional Learning (PGPLs) should be addressed.

Show contributions to course development including innovations in and/or the improvement of instructional materials (textbooks, laboratory manuals, handouts used for guiding learning, audiovisual materials, etc.) and experimentation with different teaching methods and techniques.
Show contributions to curriculum development. Include documents or materials produced.
Identify special activities that have contributed to teaching effectiveness. Note attendance and documentation thereof at university institutes, workshops, courses and programs. Note role as presenter, participant or attender.
Indicate special awards or other forms of recognition received from students, colleagues or organizations that afford evidence of impact on students and/or the curriculum. Give specific information on the nature of such awards whether school, university, local, state or national. Identify awarding organization.
Include comments by other faculty members in other departments/schools of the University whose students have been in the candidate’s classes.
Include videotapes of classes demonstrating use of special skills.
Include the development of research on teaching methods and techniques as well as materials, including such resources as textbooks, films, and television tapes that demonstrate contributions to teaching in the candidate’s subject area.
Identify positions, roles and activities that relate to teaching in conferences, programs and meetings of professional educational organizations.
Identify the roles and contributions in guiding students and colleagues in their doctoral and master’s research.
Identify the roles and contributions to student recruitment and retention.
Identify the roles in orientations of students and other activities related to facilitating the socialization and adjustments of new students.
Identify roles in obtaining teaching grants for the School.
Identify roles and contributions to professional teaching organizations.
Identify publications and presentations related to teaching.
Identify activities related to mentoring new faculty in their teaching roles.

If applicable, the candidate should communicate information regarding unusual circumstances (including illness, special workload assignments, problematic situations, etc.) affecting workload and performance.

VIII. Research and Scholarly Activities #

As discussed in the Preamble to the Guidelines for Promotion & Tenure, “scholarship” may be thought of as falling into four general categories that are at once distinct, yet interdependent in nature: 1) the scholarship of discovery; 2) the scholarship of integration; 3) the scholarship of application; and 4) the scholarship of dissemination (teaching). The following section refers to all forms of scholarship and assumes that faculty will submit tangible documents in support of the various forms of scholarship cited in their promotion and tenure materials. It is essential that claims of excellent, highly satisfactory, and satisfactory performance in the areas of teaching, research or service be accompanied by documentation that allows for peer review.

Social Work and Labor Studies are applied disciplines. Therefore, in the Indiana University School of Social Work, scholarly activity necessarily covers the gamut of knowledge building from recognition and definition of a condition or a problem through assessment of need, development and evaluation of interventions, to formal theory development, testing and application of theory. The development and testing of basic theory for the profession has high priority but valid and effective scholarship leading to demonstration and evaluation of a practice innovation or new data on the differential needs of specific groups or communities is also recognized as of great importance to the profession.

As indicated above, at the time the candidate formally notifies the promotion and tenure committee of her or his candidacy, all scholarly products prepared during the period upon which the case for promotion or tenure is based should be submitted to the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Given the wide range of media available, candidates may submit copies of books, published or unpublished papers, grant proposals, audio‑visual productions, computer programs, etc. However, evidence of scholarship must be submitted in a form which allows members of the review committees an opportunity to evaluate or to arrange for evaluation of the scholarly products.

As is the case with teaching and service, research and scholarly production are not totally quantifiable. In social work and labor studies, research and scholarship cannot be narrowly defined. However, because the scholarly products themselves are available for review there exists a greater opportunity for objective evaluation. The following guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion and tenure in relation to research and scholarly activities. The items below should guide faculty as examples of useful ways to document positive work in teaching, but should not be used as a checklist for which every item should be checked. In addition to the criteria shown in this document, candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of research.

Satisfactory Performance (required if research and scholarly activities is not designated as the area of excellence)

Candidate has performed research that is appropriate to the discipline/profession and reflects standards of good practice or candidate has performed research as part of a cross-disciplinary effort that highlights the contributions of the professional discipline in addressing challenging social problems
Candidate has disseminated the results of research in scholarly journals and other appropriate venues; all scholarly products are readily accessible for review. Accordingly, any peer-reviewed products that are related to research and scholarship must be clearly indicated as such, both in Section 08 of the dossier and in the curriculum vita.
Research program is clearly articulated
Evidence and results of attempts to secure internal grants and/or external support; proposals reflect scholarship and show potential for future success
Evidence of the peer review of scholarly products
Peer review of the nature and stature of journals and the significance of the candidate’s research publications
Evidence of the candidate’s plans for continued research
Evidence of at least local dissemination of scholarly production and research findings
Evidence of recognized good practice in the area of research and scholarship
In the School of Social Work, during the period of time under review, the candidate should average at least:
- One publication of a peer reviewed journal article or acquisition of funded support every other year, and
- A conference presentation of a peer reviewed paper or poster, a written report on unfunded research, submission of a grant proposal, or publication of a book chapter, monograph, etc. every other year.

Highly Satisfactory Performance (Required for a “balanced case” application)

Candidate’s research and scholarly production has attracted favorable peer reviews and comments that refer to quality and reflect strong evidence of potential for future productivity
Candidate has secured internal grants and/or external support and provides evidence of continuing efforts to secure more
Evidence of regular local and external peer review of research and scholarly production
Evidence of regular and significant dissemination of scholarly production and research findings
In the School of Social Work, during the period of time under review, the candidate should average at least:
- One publication of a peer reviewed journal article or acquisition of funded support every other year, and
- A conference presentation of a peer reviewed paper or poster, a written report on unfunded research, submission of a grant proposal, or publication of a book chapter, monograph, etc. every other year.

Excellent Performance

As noted in the preamble, the level of documentation varies in relation to the rank being sought. Normally, candidates applying for promotion to Associate Professor with research as an area of excellence are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they are well on the way to establishing an emerging national reputation for excellence in research. Candidates for Full Professor are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they have established such a national reputation. Typically, such a reputation is evidenced by publication in highly regarded national journals, membership on the editorial boards of scholarly journals, success in generating external funding for one’s area of scholarship, participation in national conferences, hearings or review committees and by major invited presentations at a national level. The following are required if research is designated as the area of excellence.

Evidence of significant research contributions to the knowledge in and impact upon the field that clearly demonstrate attributes of scholarly work associated with research, including peer refereed presentations and publications and national recognition of the quality of research and scholarship
Candidate has secured external support and makes significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work associated with obtaining external support, including the degree to which evaluation processes were competitive
Expert external peer review clearly demonstrates the attributes of scholarly work associated with research, including peer refereed presentations, grants, and publications
Evidence of national and/or international recognition of and an emerging reputation for the high quality of work (for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor)
Evidence of a national and/or international recognition of and an established reputation for the high quality of work (for promotion to the rank of Professor)
Evidence of a program of scholarly activities that have contributed to the discipline’s knowledge base and improved the work of others
Internal and external recognition of the stature and impact of the research and scholarly work
In the School of Social Work, during the period of time under review, the candidate should average at least:
- One publication of a peer reviewed journal article or acquisition of funded support every year; and
- One or more of any combination of the following each year: a conference presentation of a peer reviewed paper or poster; a written report on internally funded or unfunded research; submission of a grant proposal; or publication of a book chapter, monograph, an additional journal article, etc.

In preparation of the section entitled “Evaluation of Research and Scholarship,” the candidate should select evidence that supports the specific criteria the candidate is using to make her or his case. This section counts towards the 50-page limit on the dossier. The following areas should be considered as possible documentation for research and scholarship:

Professional texts or other books published by a reputable publisher together with comments by prepublication reviewers and by comments or reviews from the profession.
Papers published in generally available professional journals, which are refereed by her or his peers. The comments of peers through the refereeing process and through citations to the published work, ultimately establish the significance of the work.

When joint papers are referenced, the contribution of the faculty member under consideration should be identified. The bibliographic references should include the authors’ names in the same order as in the original paper with an explanation of the significance of the ordering of the names. If there is a senior or principal author, he or she should be indicated by an asterisk.

Papers or chapters published in an independently edited book but not previously published in a refereed journal together with comments upon the contribution and upon the book as a whole.
Papers accepted by a refereed journal but not yet published together with evidence of acceptance for publication. Comments by referees or editors may be included.
Computer software and multi-media productions than can be used by others in education or training. Recognition by others of the utility and benefits of these technological innovations should be included.
Substantial presentations at respected professional conferences or meetings. Ordinarily such a presentation will be presented in the form of a completed paper to be presented to the Promotion and Tenure Committee. The candidate should explain whether the presentation was invited or refereed. Include a discussion of the significance and impact of peer reviewed presentations, including status of the venue, competitive acceptance rates (where available), number of attendees and any retrievable evidence of the presentation.
Because social work is an applied profession, its theory building and research is often focused on practice issues and may be published within the format, for example, of a manual or monograph. Such work may be submitted if the scholarly contributions to the overall work are clearly indicated. Such publication is valuable within the profession but is less often refereed or critiqued. Evidence of acceptance and use within the profession could be submitted for review purposes.
External grant proposals that reflect intellectual, conceptual, and scholarly effort may be submitted for critical evaluation even if the grant itself was denied, whether or not the proposal has been funded. All funded grants should include the dollar amounts awarded.
Internal grant proposals that reflect a scholarly effort. Include dollar amounts for all funded grants.
Papers which have been submitted to journals but not yet accepted for publication should be identified as to the journal or journals to which they have been submitted. The status of the submission should be indicated and a copy of the paper should be provided to the Promotions and Tenure Committee.
Papers in preparation are not meaningful for the purposes of tenure and promotion and should not be included in the final dossier. However, current scholarly activity may be described within the narrative section in order to support the ongoing nature of a candidate’s research interests. If an adequate draft has been completed, such manuscripts may be submitted in order to reflect a continuation of the process of development or to gain the critical assistance of the committee members as partial evidence in support of the candidate’s identified scholarly agenda.

IX. Service #

In higher education three broad categories of activities have come to be labeled service. These include university service (committee or other governance activities internal to the school or university related to program development and institutional policy), professional or disciplinary service (committee, editorial, or other work for local, regional, national, or international professional or disciplinary associations), and community service (activities other than basic research and teaching involving direct relationships with groups external to the academic and professional communities).

The Indiana University School of Social Work is uniquely positioned, as a result of having a mission and philosophy which not only supports but expects its social work and labor studies faculty to be engaged in professional service, to provide leadership to the University. In an era where there is widespread public support for the University to contribute to the well-being of the broader community, the contributions made by the faculty in the area of service take on added significance in the overall assessment process.

Service is not totally quantifiable nor can it be narrowly defined. Therefore, the following broad guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion and tenure. The items below should guide faculty as examples of useful ways to document positive work in teaching, but should not be used as a checklist for which every item should be checked. In addition to the criteria shown in this document, candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of service.

Satisfactory Performance (required if service is not designated as the area of excellence)

Minimal service expectations include acceptable service in at least one of the areas below.

University Service (includes service to campus, school, and educational program)
- Evidence that candidate fulfills routine, required, and expected school and program service functions in a satisfactory manner (e.g., active participation in faculty senate, school or educational program committees)
Service to Profession or Discipline
- Evidence that candidate fulfills routine, required, and expected service functions associated with the profession or discipline; and does so in a satisfactory manner
Service to Community
- Evidence that the candidate engages in professional or discipline related service in the community

Highly Satisfactory Performance (Required for a “balanced case” application)

Minimal service expectations include acceptable service in at least two of the areas below.

University Service (includes service to campus, school, and educational program)
- Accompanied by independent testimony of value of work (e.g., letter from the committee chair; acceptance by Faculty Council; “wrote a policy that was approved by committee”) that is above and beyond what is “required or expected”
- Played a major role in initiative over a period of time that contributed to campus, school, or educational program goals, with independent evidence of significance, role, impact, and effective communication to others
Service to Profession or Discipline
- Accompanied by independent evidence of success, impact (e.g., ratings by participants; “organized a workshop series for conference that was successfully offered”)
- Played a major role in an initiative over a period of time that contributed to discipline’s goals or organization’s mission, with independent evidence of significance, impact, role, and effective communication to others
Service to Community
- Accompanied by independent evidence of impact (e.g., “chaired a subcommittee of the board that accomplished X, Y, & Z”; “played a leadership role in developing the capacity of a community-based organization”)
- Played a major role in an initiative over a period of time that contributed to community goals, with independent evidence of significance, role, impact, and effective communication to others

Excellent Performance

Minimal service expectations include excellent performance in two of the areas below and highly satisfactory performance in one.

As noted in the preamble, the level of documentation varies in relation to the rank being sought. Normally, candidates applying for promotion to Associate Professor with service as an area of excellence are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they are well on the way to establishing an emerging national reputation for excellence in service. Candidates for Full Professor are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they have established such a national reputation. Typically, such a reputation is evidenced by publications related to service in highly regarded national journals, service leadership beyond the local level, participation in national conferences, hearings or review committees and by major invited presentations at a national level. Any peer-reviewed products that are related to service must be clearly indicated as such, both in Section 09 of the dossier and in the curriculum vita. Note that excellence in the area of service requires evidence of accomplishments beyond exemplary performance of assigned administrative responsibilities. The following are required if service is designated as the area of excellence. University Service may include service to the university, campus, school, and educational program.

Service to the University
- Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work, including peer refereed presentations and publications and national recognition of the quality of work
- Awards and recognition that reflect on the significance and academic nature of the work have been received
- Evidence of the impact of one’s university service (e.g., adoption of a policy, revision of a program, procedure, or process, etc.)
Service to Profession or Discipline
- Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work, including peer refereed presentations and publications and national recognition of the quality of work
- Awards and recognition that reflect on the significance and academic nature of the work have been received
- Evidence of the impact of one’s professional or disciplinary service (e.g., adoption of a policy, revision of a program, procedure, or process, etc.)
Service to Community
- Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work, including peer refereed presentations and publications and national recognition of the quality of work
- Awards and recognition that reflect on the significance and academic nature of the work have been received
  - Evidence of the impact of one’s community service (e.g., adoption of a policy, revision of a program, procedure, or process, etc.).

In preparation of the section entitled “Evaluation of Service,” the candidate should select evidence that supports the specific criteria the candidate is using to make her or his case. This section counts towards the 50-page limit on the dossier. The following areas should be considered as possible documentation for service:

Documents indicating service as a reviewer or editor for a manuscript, newsletter, or textbook.
Copies of reports of school or university committees.
Records of activities and accomplishments as a result of administrative assignments, such as chair or coordinator.
Faculty Annual Summary Reports.
Logs of student recruiting, counseling and advising.
Records of advising student organizations.
Programs or announcements of organized colloquia, seminars, continuing education programs, conferences, workshops or special events.
Copies of publications produced as a result of one’s service (describe nature and extent of contribution) including school or university bulletins, brochures, as well as grant proposals.
Records of public relations activities with accrediting agencies, trustees, news media, legislative bodies or representatives.
Letters of recommendation from committee chairs, deans, or other administrators in the University.
Letters of acknowledgment or recommendation from groups, offices, or agencies in the private or public sector.
Letters of acknowledgment or recommendation from alumni or students.
Announcements of honors or awards received for service.
Announcements of grants received for the development or implementation of service activities.
Records of consultations with various organizations and the benefits to the University which accrued from such activity.
Documents indicating leadership in professional societies.
Documents indicating editorship of professional journals.
Copies of public statements or testimonies given in areas of service.

DMAI to output CV #

DMAI to output CV

X. Integrative Case Based on Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion #

Deans, chairs, faculty, and particularly members of promotion/tenure and merit review committees now recommend considering new ways of engaging in a more comprehensive review of the totality of the faculty member’s work and the impact that it has on the discipline, the campus, and the community. This type of review considers activities within and spanning across the domains of research, teaching, and service that enhance and make valuable contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion on the campus, in the broader community and in professional disciplines. Hence, there is an option of also seeking promotion and tenure based on an integrative diversity, equity and inclusion case. In the past many departments and schools have prioritized metrics that count products aligned with research or creative activity, teaching or service and “binning” which treated domains of faculty work as mutually exclusive. The university now recommends that it is important to shift away from this quantitative “sorting and counting” and move toward a much more holistic integrative review of all domains of faculty work especially that which incorporates valuable contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion.

The School of Social Work (IUSSW) is committed to considering new ways of engaging in a more comprehensive review that rewards the totality of a faculty member’s work that spans across the domains of research, teaching and service and that enhances diversity, equity and inclusion on the campus, in the broader community, and professional disciplines. An equity approach to promotion and tenure requires that we not engage in comparisons of productivity that would lead to simplistic counts of products over time. It asks us to consider the different conditions and contexts of faculty work, as well as the overall meritorious impact of that work on our campus, our community, and professional disciplines. The School of Social Work also provides for candidates to present an integrative case that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion grounded in excellence.

A subset of the IFC DEI committee was formed in October 2020 to provide examples of DEI work that could be included as evidence in a P&T dossier for candidates who wish to document this work within and/or across the areas of research, teaching and service. The working group decided not to group examples within the three traditional categories of faculty work, given how these activities could be in or span multiple categories depending on the individual and their school’s standards. A list of activities and examples is provided further below in this document in the sections on (criteria and evidence supporting materials) that could be considered an integrative diversity, equity and inclusion case.

For DEI cases, the candidate should demonstrate how their contributions in teaching, research and service are integrated. The presentation of evidence does not need to align with the traditional categories of research, teaching and service. The integrative DEI case demonstrates overall excellence while showing how the candidate’s work in all areas and beyond promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion at the level of school, campus, community, and field. A DEI integrated case grounded in excellence as per the campus guidelines “demonstrates excellence across an array of integrated scholarly activities aligned with diversity, equity, and inclusion, consistent with IU policy on balanced cases: a candidate may present evidence of balanced strengths that promise excellent overall performance of comparable benefit to the university.”

This aligns with the description of the institutional value of “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” in the guidelines for promotion and tenure which state: “Faculty work that contributes to the diversity of learners and scholars at IU Indianapolis and that enhances our environment of equity and inclusion is highly valued and should be acknowledged and rewarded in the review process” (IU Indianapolis Academic Affairs, 2021, pp.6-7). Below are some definition guides provided by the campus on how to conceptualize a framework for an integrative case on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Diversity: Perceived human differences in appearance, thinking, and actions, shaped by historical and social systems of advantage and disadvantage. Diversity includes but is not limited to intersectional identities formed around ideas and experiences related to race, ethnicity, class, color, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, size, disability, veteran status, national origin, religion, and/or marital status.

Equity: The promotion of access, opportunity, justice, and fairness through policies and practices that are appropriate for specific individuals and groups. While the term “equality” recognizes a common humanity, “equity” recognizes the distinct needs of individuals and groups, which cannot be addressed with generalized solutions that fail to acknowledge structural inequities.

Inclusion: An approach designed to ensure that the thoughts, opinions, perspectives, and experiences of all individuals are valued, heard, encouraged, respected, and considered. While “diversity” ensures adequate representation of human difference, “inclusion” solicits and centers diverse contributions.

Tangible evidence for an integrative case should be presented that varies in relation to the rank being sought. For example, when seeking promotion and tenure to an associate professor the candidate provides evidence that they are well on the way to establishing an emerging national reputation. If seeking promotion to full professor candidates are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they have attained a national reputation.

The candidate is reviewed at several levels: IUSSW Promotion and Tenure Committee, Dean, campus specific Promotion and Tenure Committee, Campus and University administration, and IU Board of Trustees. Review at each level is based on the dossier submitted by the candidate, as described more fully in the rest of this document, supplemented by external letters of review (see Section V below) and by the cumulative reports of any prior review stages.

Throughout the candidate statement and CV, and supported by dossier materials, readers should be able to discern these features:

Integrative: The candidate has intentional and interrelated activities as an IU Indianapolis faculty member who demonstrates integration of DEI in teaching, research, and service that is mutually intertwined.

Impact: The impact of the DEI integrative candidate’s work should be measured beyond the standard criteria of publication, teaching evaluation, grants, and committee work. In addition to these important criteria, DEI candidates should be evaluated by the impact of their work in promoting diversity, equity and inclusion at the school, campus, university, and program level, as well as the impact of their work on local communities and the field of social work. The candidate may also demonstrate how their work impacts students, faculty and community members in areas such as retention of under-represented students and faculty, mentoring of under-represented groups and individuals, and promotion of community work and collaborative projects that further the causes of diversity, equity and inclusion.

Peer-reviewed dissemination reaching a national level of impact, sustained over time and with a plan for the future. Peer-reviewed dissemination should include work that promotes DEI at any level.

Activities that benefit diverse students, faculty, staff, and community partners such as:

Community-Engaged Research
Mentoring
Community Organizing
Training, workshops, organizing conferences, etc.
Affectual Labor
Serving on committees, boards, etc.

Independence: Candidate will have been an essential and generative actor within diversity initiatives; sole-author or sole-PI are not the only indicators of this, as long as co-worker attestation is present.

To achieve associate rank excellence consists of:

Benefits to the university are, taken as a whole, clearly valuable, impactful and exemplary and overall activities illustrate an emerging national reputation.
Activities across teaching, scholarship/creative activities, and service should be more than minimally satisfactory (according to unit and campus criteria).

To achieve full rank excellence consists of:

Candidate should have sustained accomplishment over time especially in the five years prior to submission (some periods of greater or lesser accomplishments are to be expected)
A national level of visibility and participation in the discipline or other relevant venues

In preparation of the sections entitled “Evaluation of Research,” “Evaluation of Teaching,” and “Evaluation of Service,” the candidate should select evidence that supports the specific criteria the candidate is using to make their integrative diversity, equity, and inclusion case. This section counts towards the 50-page limit on the dossier. The areas listed under “Evidence/Supporting Materials” in the sections of Research, Teaching, and Service in the Red Book may be considered as possible documentation of evidence and supporting materials OR candidates may choose to prepare their documentation in a fully integrated way without relying on the silos of Research, Teaching, and Service. Candidates are not limited to those listed areas of possible documentation in the Red Book to make their integrative diversity, equity, and inclusion case.

The nature of scholarly work that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion may be diverse and time-intensive. The evidence to support it may differ from traditional forms of scholarship. Non-traditional activities, products, dissemination outlets, and alternative metrics should be acknowledged as acceptable forms of documentation. Scholarly outcomes may include community projects, documentation of activism, community resources, student-focused initiatives, exhibits, websites, interdisciplinary work and other non-traditional products or communication. A diversity, equity, and inclusion case may or may not involve community engagement. Review of integrative DEI scholarship must take into account the faculty members’ investment in activities such as building community relationships, engaging in action that promotes equity, engaging in reciprocal learning and project definition, experimenting with inclusive and collaborative methods, and writing grants to support collaboration with faculty, students, and stakeholders.

Candidate statement:

Presents a philosophy of and competence in diversity, equity and inclusion that is carried out in activities and achievements (similar to a teaching philosophy: spells out, when necessary, specific targeted areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion or relevant public scholarship, community engagement, and/or other activities.).
Articulates how the candidate’s activities and achievements are interrelated.
Shows that the candidate’s work is intentional and coherent.
Addresses:
- Contributions to scholarly discourse (peer-reviewed dissemination)
- Participation of community partners
- Local / stakeholder impact
Establishes both independence and initiative—articulates the candidate’s own role in multi-person endeavors and shows how the candidate leads in initial conception, execution, or expansion.
Ties work to the unit, campus or university mission.

Not every item on a candidate’s CV is expected to be part of diversity, equity, and inclusion work, but a substantial and interrelated set of items should be. Where diversity, equity, and inclusion work occurs sporadically or occasionally, the candidate should choose a different type of case.

Dossier evidence:

Material in the dossier’s main sections exists to provide details, context, and confirmation of assertions in the candidate’s statement.

Description of teaching, research, and service (including administrative) load throughout the time in rank.
Discussion of teaching: reflection on the following sources of evidence to demonstrate continual growth (mentoring is a form of teaching):
- Peer evaluations
- Student evaluations; for mentoring or other non-course teaching, the chair / director should arrange for anonymous feedback.
- Student learning evidence
- Professional development activities
- If teaching involves non-IU students (community members), feedback from recipients.
Scholarly communication: contributions to the national discourse in the form of peer-reviewed dissemination.
- Discussion of 3-5 key publications, presentations, creative works, or alternative products and activities, etc.
- Attestation of individual role in multi-author works (confirmation from co-PIs, co-authors, etc.)
Evidence detailing community involvement and impact
- Documentation of collaboration activities.
- Assessment of projects by community partners
- Evaluation of quality and impact, e.g. input from recipients; program/outcomes evaluation.

Overall, readers should be able to see evidence of teaching, scholarship/creative activity, and service.

The integrative CV has the following format. All grants/fellowships are combined; all awards are combined; administrative roles are separated; all publications are combined.

Candidates should use the * symbol to indicate diversity-centered items.

Education

Appointments

Administrative roles

Past appointments

Licensure, Certification, Specialty Board Status

Professional Organization Memberships

Professional Development

Teaching Assignments

Mentoring (letters of support)

Other teaching [includes curriculum development]

Grants funded or not funded

Awards

Use DEI as *

Other activities or roles.

Campus/university citizenship (roles, dates.)

Community projects and activities (candidate role; organizations involved; scope (time period, budget, and/or number of participants or recipients.)

Connect to grants and publications by use of numbers.

Publications [NOT divided by area]

Refereed

Non-refereed

Recommendations from the IFC Diversity Equity and Inclusion Committee (IFC DEI)

Working Group on DEI Research-Based Evidence for P&T

While minimum standards of satisfactory or excellent work could be articulated within each school’s guidelines, the working group offers a delineation between minimum standards (underlined) and standards that would equate to excellence (in bold). This document concludes with a set of recommendations from the working group for accounting for DEI work in the P&T dossier.

EXAMPLES

Publication/Dissemination

Publications about DEI in any venue demonstrating impact (e.g., targeted disciplinary venues) and/or through alternative ways of dissemination (e.g., altmetrics; blog analytics)
Conference peer reviewed presentations and/or invited speaking engagements (e.g., invitations, keynote addresses, workshops, guest lectures); community-based, national, and/or international
Policy work and impacts related to DEI

Grants

Grants internal or external related to DEI
Grants serving communities of color or other marginalized and minoritized communities
Funded projects related to DEI.

Mentorship

Advising and/or mentoring underrepresented and/or international students (undergrad, graduate, professional students)
Serving as an advisor to a student organization related to marginalized/minoritized groups (e.g., Black Student Union, Alliance for Immigrant Justice, Latino Student Association, LGBTQ Student Alliance (LGBTQSA), etc.
Mentoring faculty/staff from underrepresented groups
Mentoring faculty engaged in community-based research
Program development and leadership targeting underrepresented high school students

Teaching

Inclusive teaching practices (e.g., pedagogy, DEI content, multicultural courses, diversity and global perspectives)
Curriculum development and/or revision related to DEI

Research/Discovery/Creative Activity

Research agenda pertaining to DEI (e.g., health disparities)
Any efforts of “diversifying”–e.g., collections; newly created programs; innovations/interventions related to DEI
Scholarship/research/creative activity focused on minoritized and diverse communities (e.g., community engaged research)
Recruitment and/or retention of diverse research teams/personnel

Service

Community board service linked to DEI
Chairing a DEI-based board
Community-based outreach to minoritized communities (e.g., programming for K-12 students, community organizations, religious institutions)
Consulting work (paid or unpaid) related to DEI
Any efforts to increase the presence of underrepresented groups and communities in open platforms
Service on department, school, and/or campus committees pertaining to DEI work
Leading/delivering DEI professional development programming
Chairing or membership in the department/school/unit diversity committee
National service to the discipline related to DEI (e.g., elected position in national organization)
DEI professional development (e.g., trainings, workshops, certification, reading groups)
Policy work and impacts related to DEI
Creating and/or leading programs related to DEI, on campus and/or beyond (e.g., efforts that create spaces/programs that facilitate greater sense of belonging and a welcoming environment for marginalized students, faculty and/or staff)
Serving on search committees when diverse membership is requested
Providing exposure to the research produced by underrepresented groups in open knowledge environments

Community Engagement/Public Scholarship/Activism

Community engaged research
Coaching and providing supports to community engaged researchers; engaging communities (e.g., building capacity)
Policy work and impacts related to DEI
Scholarship creation and/or management
Active recruitment and/or retention of diverse students, faculty, and staff
Activism
Social justice work

Awards

National, international, local (campus), and/or community-based awards and/or recognitions for DEI work

FACET membership based on DEI work

Recommendations

Overlapping activities should count in various domains of faculty life as applicable.
The generation of examples is a developmental process, open to incremental contributions as new activities related to DEI arise.
An integrative case that demonstrates excellence and impact in DEI should exhibit a wide range of activities.
DEI work that spans different categories of faculty work should be marked visibly in the CV, with a symbol (e.g., *) or organized in a separate section (even if duplicative).
DEI work should be assessed through annual reviews and weighted differentially as a measure of value.
Ensuring accountability of faculty work in DEI is a demonstration of institutional responsiveness to ongoing student demand.

XII. Process and Responsibilities #

In September of the candidates’ third year, the Dean will tell the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee who will be doing a third-year review during the spring semester. The chair will give each candidate the third year review schedule.
Faculty whose promotion and tenure decisions are made on IU Northwest can request that the IUSSW Promotion and Tenure Committee do a third year review by notifying the chair of the IUSSW Promotion and Tenure Committee no later than December 1 of their third year.
The third-year dossier is due on March 1, during the spring semester of the candidate’s third year. The dossier should be turned into the Office of the Dean. All materials must be organized into a searchable PDF portfolio consisting of the following PDF files: a signed curriculum vita prepared using the standard CV format as it appears in the Red Book Section X; a narrative, no longer than five, single-spaced pages, discussing teaching, research, and service, identifying the area of excellence; a copy of all publications; syllabi of all courses taught; unsolicited letters of support from students and/or colleagues (optional); and a statement of plans related to teaching, research, service, and professional development for the next few years. Products referenced in the narrative such as peer review summaries, reports of creative teaching practices, etc. should also be included as PDF files. The emphasis should be on work done since coming to the School. For help with constructing a searchable PDF portfolio, see the link on p. iii for Instructions for Creating PDF Portfolios or contact UITS or the CTL as they may be able to provide one-on-one help.
The third-year dossier will be turned into the Office of the Dean who will record the time and date of submission and then file the materials. The dossier will be reviewed to assure that the materials listed in #3 above have been included. The Office of the Dean will arrange for appropriate, secure, confidential storage of the dossiers during the review process and will provide access to the dossier to members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.
The Promotion and Tenure Committee Report will be completed by no later than April 15. It will be given to the Office of the Dean, where it will be held in a secure location until all promotion and tenure committee members have signed it. A copy of the signed report will be given to the Promotion and Tenure Committee Chair, to the Dean, and to the candidate.
The Dean will also provide a written assessment of the candidate’s third-year review dossier. The Office of the Dean will submit this letter, the committee report, and the dossier to the Executive Vice Chancellor’s Office by May 1.
The candidate will be invited to meet with the Promotion and Tenure Committee to discuss the report, preferably by the end of the spring semester. If the candidate’s Third-Year Review raises significant issues, the candidate is encouraged to seek a fourth-year review.
All deliberations of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will be confidential.
Observing this schedule assures that the Promotion and Tenure Committee will have adequate time to review each dossier and the candidate will have time to complete the work necessary to be successful at the time of promotion and/or tenure. Any variation to this schedule must be requested in writing at least one week before the deadline. These written requests should be sent to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.

Note: If specified dates fall on weekends or holidays, the next business day should apply. Persons or entities underlined in the items below are those responsible for initiating actions. Candidates for promotion to Senior Lecturer follow the same submission timeframe as candidates for P&T.

1. The Eligible Candidate Reports from the Faculty Records Office will be forwarded from the Dean to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee by January 15. If any of these dates falls on a weekend, the materials will be due at 5:00 pm on the following Monday.
2. By no later than February 1, the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will inform the candidates of their eligibility for tenure and/or promotion as well as the promotion and tenure schedule.
3. Candidates will send written notification of their intention to stand for promotion and/or tenure to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee by no later than March 1 in the year when the dossier will be uploaded. The Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will give the Dean a list of people who intend to stand for promotion and/or tenure by no later than March 7.
4. Although normally candidates are not supposed to recommend possible external reviewers, if a candidate believes that the Dean and members of the P&T Committee may not be aware of leading scholars in the candidate’s area of expertise, the candidate may submit a list of up to twelve possible external reviewers to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee no later than March 15. For each possible external reviewer the candidate will identify why this person would be qualified to review the materials; how this person meets the “arm’s length” independence criteria regarding the relationship the candidate has to the external reviewer; and the name, address, phone number, and e-mail address of the possible reviewer. The candidate may also submit a list of individuals who he or she would definitely not want to have considered as an external reviewer to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, also no later than March 15.
5. The Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will submit a prioritized list of potential external reviewers for each candidate to the Office of the Dean no later than April 1. If the Promotion and Tenure Committee members have been unable to identify eight external reviewers for a candidate, they will consider the names suggested by the candidate for inclusion on this list. They will not include those identified by the candidate as not For each possible external reviewer the Chair will identify why this person would be qualified to review the materials; what relationship the candidate has to the external reviewer; and the name, address, phone number, and e-mail address of the possible reviewer.
6. Promotion and Tenure candidates should notify the Office of the Dean when all of their materials have been uploaded on eDossier.
7. Each candidate will submit an electronic (pdf) version of their External Review packet to the Office of the Dean no later than April 15. External Review packets generally include the candidate’s curriculum vita, candidate’s statement, and core evidence (see Guidelines, throughout, for definition and examples of core evidence). External review packets will be emailed to the external reviewers. Reviewers will be given the option to request a hard copy.
8. The Dean will write a letter soliciting each external review that will be emailed with the candidate’s packet of information. This letter will explain our promotion and tenure guidelines, identify the candidate’s area of excellence, request a letter evaluating the candidate, ask for a copy of the external reviewer’s resume or curriculum vita, and remind the external reviewer that their letter must be sent back by June 1. In addition to the materials provided by the candidate, the materials emailed to the external reviewers will also include copies of the School and Campus criteria for promotion and tenure, and an External Reviewer Form, to be completed and returned by the external reviewer. Letters and packets of material will be emailed by the Office of the Dean by May 1.
9. When the external evaluation letters are returned, the originals will be scanned and included in Section 04 of the candidate’s dossier by the Office of the Dean. Hard copies of the letters and completed External Review Forms will be filed in the candidate’s paper files by the Office of the Dean. The Office of the Dean will notify the Dean of any letters that have not been received by June 10. By June 30, the Dean will either send a reminder letter or make a telephone call to any external reviewers who have not sent an evaluation letter, resume or curriculum vita, and completed External Reviewer Form. Candidates may not request to see the external review letters until the final submission of the complete dossier to the Faculty Records Office on the last Friday in October.
10. One copy of each resume or curriculum vita from the external reviewers will be made by the Office of the Dean. The original curriculum vita will be filed with the rest of the candidate’s material in a separate file identified as curriculum vita related to (name of the candidate). The copies of the curriculum vita for external reviewers related to each candidate are not sent forward with the candidate’s dossier.
11. The Office of the Dean will include a brief description of each external reviewer in the beginning of Section 04 of the completed dossier, followed by the letters from the external reviewers and the completed External Review Forms, placed in the order they appear in the expertise statement list.
12. By May 1, each candidate who chooses to have students surveyed will give the Office of the Dean a copy of class rosters from the last five years. This option is a choice for candidates whose area of excellence is research or service or who are presenting a balanced case, but even for them, it is optional. By June 1, the Dean will write a letter to students soliciting either letters of support or completion of an evaluation form. This evaluation form will be developed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Some system of random selection will be used to decide which fifty students should be asked for letters. When the letters are sent in, they will be filed by the Office of the Dean along with other material related to the candidate in a file titled letters of support from students for (name of the candidate). Note: to protect the confidentiality of the students and the integrity of the process, candidates will not have access to these individual letters or surveys.
13. By May 15, each candidate has the option to give the Office of the Dean a list of colleagues and professionals who are familiar with the candidate’s work and might be willing to write a letter of support. For candidates whose area of excellence is service, obtaining these letters is particularly important to document the candidate’s service achievements. By June 1, the Dean will write a letter asking these people for letters of support to be returned by July 15. When the letters are sent in, they will be filed by the Office of the Dean along with other material related to the candidate in a file titled solicited letters of support for (name of the candidate). The Office of the Dean will prepare Section 05 of the candidate’s final electronic dossier, beginning with a sample of the internal reference solicitation letter, followed by the internal letters received. Note: candidates may not request access to these solicited letters of support until the final dossier has been submitted.
14. The final dossier sections prepared by the candidate (Sections 06-11) must be uploaded into eDossier by the first day of classes for the fall semester on the IU Indianapolis campus.
15. The candidate may request to see receive copies of the external review letters once the final dossier has been submitted to the Faculty Records Office on the last Friday in October.
16. The Office of the Dean will arrange for appropriate, secure, confidential storage of P&T materials during the review process.
17. When the candidate submits his or her portions of the dossier to the Office of the Dean, the Office of the Dean will begin to assemble the final dossier, including the sections not prepared by the candidate (see Section IV.B of this document for a list of dossier sections and who is responsible for preparing them).
18. By September 15, the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will tell each candidate about any materials added to or deleted from the dossier that will be sent forward to the campus committee.
19. If extenuating circumstances exist, no later than September 20, the Candidate may submit a written request to the Dean and to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee to extend the time to submit the dossier. Under no circumstances will the deadline to submit dossiers extend beyond the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. If approved by the Dean, the Office of the Dean will forward the extension request by September 30 to the Assistant Dean of the Faculties for FAA. Within one week of the extension being approved, the Office of the Dean must send the following information for each candidate electronically to ofaa@iu.edu: (First, Middle and Last name; University ID Number; Area of Excellence; Type of Review (promotion, tenure or both); and Title sought (does not apply to tenure only candidates).
20. The Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will submit to the Office of the Dean the Promotion and Tenure Committee’s written recommendation containing its evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, research, and service performance to later than October 1. This report will be signed by all committee members. The original will be scanned for inclusion in Section 02 of the candidate’s electronic dossier, and two hard copies of the report will be made by the Office of the Dean. The original hard copy will be placed in Section 02 of the appropriate candidate’s paper dossier to be retained by the School. One copy of the signed report will be given to the Promotion and Tenure Committee Chair. The second copy of the Promotion and Tenure report will be given to the candidate no later than October 1.
21. The Dean’s report containing his or her recommendation regarding promotion and tenure and a summary evaluation of the candidate’s professional activities must be dated, signed, and printed on School letterhead, no later than the last Friday in October. The original will be scanned for inclusion in Section 02 of the candidate’s electronic dossier. A copy of the Dean’s report will be given to the candidate no later than the last Friday in October.
22. The Office of the Dean is responsible for insuring that the candidate’s final dossier is complete and organized as required prior to submitting the electronic dossier to the Faculty Records Office. The Office of the Dean is responsible for assembling Sections 01-05 of the dossier (note that School of Social Work dossiers to be submitted to the IU Indianapolis campus will not have a Section 03, Departmental level review) and the front part of Section 10 containing the assessment of the quality and stature of journals or other dissemination vehicles containing the candidate’s publications. The Dean will inform the Promotion and Tenure Chair when the dossiers are complete.
23. No later than the last Friday in October, the Office of the Dean will submit the edossier for each candidate to the Faculty Records Office for the IU Indianapolis Promotion and Tenure Committee.
24. All deliberations of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will be confidential.
25. Observing this schedule assures that the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Dean will have adequate time to process each application. In the case of extenuating circumstances, a candidate may request in writing an extension of a deadline. These written requests should be sent to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.
26. If deadlines are not met by the candidate, the Promotion and Tenure Committee has the authority to not act on the candidate’s application.

XIII. Process Timelines #

A. Third-Year Review Timeline for Tenure Track Faculty #

Dean’s Office informs P&T Chair which faculty are in their third year.

P&T Chair provides candidates a Third-Year Review schedule and other materials.

Candidates on IU Northwest notify the P&T Chair of their intent to complete a Third-Year Review.

Candidates turn in Third-Year Review dossiers to Dean’s Office and Chair of the P&T Committee.

The P&T Committee submits its review and recommendation letter to the Dean’s Office and to the candidate.

The Dean provides a written assessment of the candidate’s dossier. The Dean’s Office submits the dossier, committee report, and Dean’s assessment to the Office of Academic Affairs.

Candidates have the option of meeting with the P&T Committee to discuss the report.

B. Promotion and Tenure Timeline for Tenure-Track Faculty and candidates for promotion (Lecturers, Clinical Faculty, and Research Faculty) #

Dean’s Office provides list of eligible candidates to P&T Chair.

P&T Chair informs candidates of their eligibility.

Candidates give notice of intent to stand for P&T.

P&T Chair provides list of P&T candidates to Dean’s Office.

Candidates provide list of 12 potential external reviewers (see Section V).

P&T Chair submits final list of selected external reviewers to the Office of the Dean.

Candidates submit their External Review packet as a single pdf to the Office of the Dean. The External Review packet should contain the candidate’s cv, narrative, and some sample publications.

Dean’s Office emails packets to external reviewers, including External Referee Form and School and Campus criteria.

Candidates who choose to may submit a list of colleagues and professionals for solicited letters to Dean’s Office.

If requested by candidate, Dean’s Office solicits support letters from professionals/ colleagues.

External review letters and completed External Referee Forms due.

Reminder letter/call to external reviewers (as needed).

Solicited letters due to Dean’s Office.

Candidate uploads all P&T materials into the eDossier.

The Dean, in consultation with the Chair of the P&T Committee, provides an assessment of the dissemination outlets in the candidate’s area of excellence (or in all areas for a balanced case), such as the quality of journals, peer-reviewed conferences, and venues of presentations or performance. This assessment will be uploaded into the eDossier.

P&T Chair informs the candidate of any dossier materials added/deleted.

If a candidate wishes to request a time extension to submit a dossier due to extenuating circumstances, the Candidate may submit a written request to the Dean and to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee no later than September 20 to extend the time to submit the dossier.

If extenuating circumstances exist, a request for a time extension to submit a dossier to the Dean of the Faculties through OFAA should be sent by the last Friday in September to the Assistant Dean of the Faculties. Within one week of the extension being approved, the following information for each candidate must be sent electronically to ofaa@iu.edu: (First, Middle and Last name; University ID Number; Area of Excellence; Type of Review (promotion, tenure or both); and Title sought (does not apply to tenure only candidates).

Office of the Dean assembles Sections 01-05 of the dossier, as well as the front section of Section 10 (assessment of the quality of journals or other dissemination outlets).

P&T Committee Reports submitted to the Office of the Dean.

P&T Committee Reports, Dean’s report and external review letters given to candidates.

Deadline for Candidate option to withdraw.

For campus level review, units/schools need to route the candidate’s materials through eDossier to the Dean of the Faculties through OFAA no later than the last Friday in October.

Under no circumstances will the deadline for the Office of the Dean to submit completed dossiers extend beyond the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Dossiers submitted late after that date or not submitted in accord with these guidelines may be returned and consideration deferred until the following year.

Campus committee reviews dossiers and forwards recommendations to the Dean of Faculties and the Chancellor.

Dean of Faculties and Chancellor review dossiers and make recommendations to the University President and Board of Trustees.

Action by Board of Trustees.

Official announcement of decisions.

(12 month faculty): Promotion takes effect.

(10-month faculty): Promotion takes effect.

Tenure takes effect.

XIV. Promotion in Clinical Ranks #

Appointment to the rank of Clinical Assistant Professor is based on documented educational and clinical preparation. Promotion in rank to Clinical Associate Professor or Clinical Professor is based on both past achievement and future potential. Accordingly, examples listed under criteria at each rank are meant to exemplify expected behavior/performance at the time of appointment to each rank. For example, promotion to the rank of Clinical Associate would necessitate documentation of those behaviors/accomplishments described under that rank at the time of promotion. It is important to note that exemplars listed under each criterion are just that; they are neither exhaustive nor exclusive.

Promotion in clinical rank requires documentation of excellence, as designated by the rank applying for, in either teaching or service, and satisfactory performance in the other. Although faculty in clinical rank are not evaluated on research/scholarship, participation in those activities, especially as they contribute to teaching and/or service excellence, are not precluded. Promotion in clinical rank follows the same procedure as all other college/campus promotion and tenure cases.

Candidates for Clinical Associate Professor and Clinical Professor follow the same timeline as tenure track candidates.

The baseline for effective teaching is pedagogic skill and competency in the faculty member’s subject matter. Below is a non-exhaustive and non-exclusive list of examples and characteristics displayed by excellent teachers:

Being professionally active in curriculum development, policies and procedures related to implementation of curriculum, oversight and monitoring of course implementation, teaching development, mentoring of other faculty and individual, small group, and/or classroom instruction with students;
Being committed to and facilitating student achievement of learning outcomes;
Linking social work education to social work practice in the community;
Teaching in interactive ways as partners in the learning experience and providing opportunities for life-long learning;
Respecting individuals, individual differences and diversity of opinion, and adapting teaching methods to a variety of student backgrounds and learning styles;
Effectively utilizing technology, where appropriate, to enhance the learning experience;
Being readily available for consultation with students at times convenient to students;
Using multiple and fair measures to assess student work, and providing ongoing, clear feedback to students;
Participating in peer reviewed scholarly work (presentations, articles, book reviews, manuscripts appearing in peer reviewed journals, etc.) to disseminate information regarding teaching.

Faculty must provide periodic documented peer review of teaching, good or excellent curriculum development, individual, small group, and/or classroom instruction with students. Evidence could include surveys of liaisons, field instructors, educational partners, prospective students, current students, former students, and internal letters of support.

NOTE ABOUT TIMELINE: The procedure for application for promotion from Clinical Assistant Professor to Clinical Associate Professor or Clinical Professor shall follow the same procedures and timeline as that for other promotions.

Criterion 1: Demonstrates competency and increasing levels of expertise in facilitating student and educational partners learning through formal and informal instruction in a variety of settings including one on one, small group, traditional classrooms, presentations, publications, manuals, online or hybrid delivery modes, within the school, university or professional organizations.

Exemplars for Criterion #1

Clinical Assistant Professor

Participates in curriculum development or revision, incorporating technology and/or other instructional methods as appropriate, to enhance the quality and effectiveness of instruction.
Participates in policy & procedure development or revision, to enhance the quality and effectiveness of curriculum implementation & instruction.
Utilizes evidence informed or best practices for teaching and learning as applied to a variety of settings.
Works collaboratively with program faculty to ensure high quality learning experiences for students and educational partners.
Intentionally infuses learning experiences for students and educational partners with content and pedagogical practices that reflect respect for diversity and difference and creates safe learning environments that are inclusive of differing opinions.
Instructional activities net favorable reviews (e.g., good to excellent) by students and educational partners.

Clinical Associate Professor

Leads curriculum development and/or revision, incorporating technology and/or other instructional methods as appropriate, to enhance the quality and effectiveness of instruction.
Leads policy & procedure development or revision, to enhance the quality and effectiveness of curriculum implementation & instruction.
Systematically evaluates outcomes of evidence informed or best practice teaching/learning strategies applied in a variety of settings.
Acts as a consultant, collaborator or mentor to new, other or adjunct faculty in teaching, course or curriculum development.
Serves as a mentor, consultant or collaborator in supporting faculty or adjunct faculty with content and/or pedagogical practices that reflect respect for diversity and difference and creates safe learning environments that are inclusive of differing opinions.
Instructional activities net favorable reviews (very good to excellent) by students and educational partners.

Clinical Professor

Leads curriculum development and/or revision and evaluation and utilizes evaluation data for curricular improvement. Evaluates the impact of the use of technology and/or other instructional methods, as appropriate, and uses evaluative results to improve curricular delivery.
Leads policy & procedure development and/or revision and evaluation and utilizes evaluation data for policy & procedural improvement.
Utilizes outcome evaluations of evidence informed or best practice teaching and learning strategies to inform course development, revision and/or curriculum development applying theory and research in teaching/learning settings.
Serves as an education leader for curriculum development and/or delivery for students, community groups, and educational partners in local, regional, state or national venues.
Serves in a leadership capacity within the school, field and/or external communities to advance practices that reflect respect for diversity, difference and inclusion.
Instructional activities are rated as excellent and are recognized by students and educational partners.

Suggested Evidence:

Evidence submitted should describe the quality of the candidate’s teaching as completely as possible and provide documentation of impact on student learning and/or professional development. Evidence may derive from course evaluations including ratings and narrative feedback, external reviews, course syllabi, outcomes from workshop delivery to external or internal constituents, letters from students and/or community partners including but not limited to clinical agencies, letters from colleagues, adjunct faculty or mentees. Peer reviewed evidence could include surveys of liaisons, field instructors, educational partners, prospective students, current students, former students, and internal letters of support.

Unusual Circumstances

The baseline for effective service is professional and public service that involves a high level of skill in communicating and applying the knowledge of one’s professional competence to the university, the profession, and/or the community. Service may be both inside and outside the university and may be rendered to the academic unit, department, community, professional organizations, governmental bodies and other institutions. Satisfactory service requires consistent activity, good citizenship, and an equitable contribution. Below is a non-exhaustive and non-exclusive list of examples and characteristics displayed by excellent service:

Linking community understanding of social work practices and social work education
Being readily available for consultation with university, professional, and/or community partners, and publishing and keeping liberal office hours at times convenient to community partners;
Using multiple and fair measures to assess university, professional, and/or community partner work, and providing ongoing, clear feedback to partners;
Engaging in community outreach to provide context for service in areas such as: presentations, trainings, and continuing education;
Participating in peer reviewed scholarly work (presentations, articles, book reviews, manuscripts appearing in peer reviewed journals, etc.) to disseminate information regarding service;
Serving in interactive ways as partners in the learning experience and providing opportunities for life-long learning;
Inclusive service reflects the diversity and difference of individuals, organizations and communities;
Effective utilization of technology to enhance service and community collaborations;
Providing documented peer review of service. Evidence of good or excellent service could include: Surveys of liaisons, field instructors, community partners, prospective students, current students, former students, internal letters of support, and donor development;
Serving on school, campus, university, and/or organization committees and boards.

Criterion 2: Service

Demonstrates competency and increasing levels of expertise in service within the university, the profession or in local, regional, national or global organizations.

Exemplars for Criterion #2

Clinical Assistant Professor

Participation in collaborative professional or public service.
Utilizes evidence informed/based practices to guide, professional or public service activities aimed at enhancing service to the university, profession, or community.
Effectively utilizes relevant and appropriate technology to support professional or public service projects.
Demonstrates consistent service to the university, the school, program (BSW/MSW), program campus, profession, and to local regional, national or global communities.

Clinical Associate Professor

Plays a lead role in collaborative professional or public service.
Utilizes and assists others collaboratively in utilizing evidence informed/based practices to guide professional or public service to enhance service to the university, profession, or community.
Collaborates with others to make most effective and efficient use of technology to guide professional/public service projects.
Demonstrates consistent and active collaborative efforts aimed at professional or public service within the contexts of the university, the school, program (BSW/MSW), program campus, profession and to local regional, national or global communities

Clinical Professor

Principal role organizing professional or public service.
Serves as a project lead/consultant in introducing, implementing and evaluating evidence informed/based activities designed to enhance service to the university, profession, or community.
Demonstrates leadership in guiding university/community partners on use of appropriate technology to enhance project development, implementation and/or outcome evaluations.
Assumes leadership roles in active engaged service to the school, program (BSW/MSW), program campus, profession, and to local regional, national or global communities.

XV. Promotion to Senior Lecturer and Teaching Professor #

Candidates applying for promotion to Senior Lecturer are expected to provide evidence of excellence in teaching, and evidence of satisfactory performance in university and professional service. They are required to have two independent peers external to IUSSW conduct peer reviews of the case. Candidates are expected to demonstrate evidence of publicly disseminated and peer-reviewed scholarship in teaching. In accordance with the guidelines from the Dean of Faculties (p. 38), some level of national, peer-reviewed dissemination is required for advancement to Senior Lecturer. The scholarship can either be in the subject area in which the person teaches or scholarship of teaching and learning.

An annual review is required during which guidance and discussion about potential promotion to senior lecturer can and should be discussed. Since lecturers are non-tenured faculty, a three-year review is not required. Dossiers for promotion to Senior Lecturer are to be submitted to the Dean’s Office by the first day of the fall semester in August and will be processed along the same timeframe as P&T dossiers.

Like all faculty, a minimum of 6 letters of review must be sought. However, these can be external to the department or school or discipline as long as an objective assessment of teaching and professional service can be provided (see page 28 of the IU Indianapolis guidelines. Other pages to consult include 4, 19, 23, 27, 31 and 41). See More

Sample senior lecturer dossier:

An Adobe connect program on promotion to senior lecturer:

Candidates for Senior Lecturer follow the same timeline as tenure track candidates.

Description

In order to document teaching performance, the lecturer should keep detailed records of teaching activities. Those quantitative and qualitative aspects of teaching which the file reflects will serve to distinguish among excellent, satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance levels. Lecturers should therefore regularly update their teaching activities files in order to maintain a complete and current data base. The file, then, can serve as a basis for each lecturer’s preparation of the annual reports for the Associate Dean and also for the dossier when seeking promotion to Senior Lecturer.

Since teaching is both a technology and an art, its excellence is not totally quantifiable nor can it be narrowly defined. The following guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion to senior lecturer. Candidates for senior lecturer should demonstrate excellence in the activities of teaching, which is signified by excellence in instruction, in mentoring and advising, and in contributions to pedagogy.

Excellent Performance. Candidates should provide evidence for each of the five core elements of Excellence in Teaching:

Instruction

Documentation of successful teaching and learning outcomes, such as in course evaluations and unsolicited letters and emails from students. The student evaluations should generally be at or above 4.0 on the School’s five point scale on the end-of-semester Student Course Evaluations.
Two peer reviews of teaching and its impact, preferably with one peer review by the second year of teaching. (If the peer review does not reflect evidence of excellence, the candidate’s narrative must document professional development related to the areas noted on the evaluation.)
Significant record of participation in professional development related to teaching and learning
Evidence of innovative and reflective teaching practice as referenced in a coherent teaching philosophy
Products of dissemination of ideas related to teaching and learning within the profession or generally through publication, presentation or other means. Peer review supporting the quality of the publications, presentations or other dissemination methods.

Candidates should provide evidence of some of the following supplemental elements of Excellence in Teaching. The items below should guide faculty as examples of useful ways to document achievement in these areas, but should not be used as a checklist for which every item should be checked.

Mentoring and advising

Evidence of a scholarly and reflective approach to mentoring, advising, and/or field liaison
Demonstrated impact on accomplishments of students, advisees, and mentees as noted by observations from peers and letters from students
Scholarly work associated with mentoring or advising, including presentations and publications, that arise from interactions with students

Contributions to pedagogy

Evidence of contribution to, leadership in, or impact upon curriculum development and improvement
Evidence of impact (that is, the work has been adopted by others) at the school or campus level or beyond
Evidence of the production of effective course and curricular products

Description

In higher education three broad categories of activities have come to be labeled service. These include: university service (committee or other governance activities internal to the school or university related to program development and institutional policy); professional or disciplinary service (committee, editorial, or other work for local, regional, national, or international professional or disciplinary associations); and community service (activities involving direct relationships with groups external to the academic and professional communities).

The Indiana University School of Social Work is uniquely positioned, as a result of having a mission and philosophy which not only supports but expects its social work and labor studies faculty to be engaged in professional service, to provide leadership to the University. In an era where there is widespread public support for the University to contribute to the well-being of the broader community, the contributions made by the lecturer in the area of service take on added significance in the overall assessment process.

Criteria

Satisfactory Performance

Minimal service expectations include service in at least one of the areas below.

University Service (includes service to campus, school, and educational program)

Evidence that candidate fulfills routine, required, and expected school and program service functions in a satisfactory manner (e.g., active participation in faculty senate, school or educational program committees)

Service to Profession or Discipline

Evidence that candidate fulfills routine, required, and expected service functions associated with the profession or discipline, and does so in a satisfactory manner

Service to the Community

Evidence that the candidate engages in professional or discipline related service in the community, such as training initiatives, pro bono work, or other technical assistance; and does so in a satisfactory manner such as membership in professional organizations or other communities of practice

Promotion to Teaching Professor #

Candidates applying for promotion to Teaching Professor can be characterized by excellence, distinction and innovation in the instructional enterprise. Candidates are expected to provide evidence of scholarly dissemination and excellence in teaching, including classroom innovation, student interactions, scholarly dissemination, contributions to course design and creation, and collaboration with faculty and staff in development of teaching strategies. They are required to have two independent peers external to IUSSW conduct peer reviews of the case. Candidates are expected to demonstrate evidence of publicly disseminated and peer-reviewed scholarship in teaching. The scholarship can either be in the subject area in which the person teaches or scholarship of teaching and learning.

Teaching professors will be expected to have a terminal degree, expertise in the discipline, and pedagogical expertise within the discipline. An annual review is required during which guidance and discussion about potential promotion to teaching professor can and should be discussed. Since senior lecturers are non-tenured faculty, a three-year review is not required. Dossiers for promotion to Teaching Professor are to be submitted to the Dean’s Office by the first day of the fall semester in August and will be processed along the same timeframe as P&T dossiers.

Like all faculty, a minimum of 6 external letters of review must be sought. However, these can be external to the department or school or discipline as long as an objective assessment of teaching and professional service can be provided, see more here.

Candidates for Teaching Professor follow the same timeline as tenure track candidates.

Description

In order to document teaching performance, the lecturer should keep detailed records of teaching activities. Those quantitative and qualitative aspects of teaching which the file reflects will serve to distinguish among excellent, satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance levels. Senior Lecturers should therefore regularly update their teaching activities files in order to maintain a complete and current data base. The file, then, can serve as a basis for each Senior Lecturer’s preparation of the annual reports for the Associate Dean and also for the dossier when seeking promotion to Teaching Professor.

Criteria

Since teaching is both a technology and an art, its excellence is not totally quantifiable nor can it be narrowly defined. The following guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion to teaching professor. Candidates for teaching professor should demonstrate excellence in the activities of teaching, which is signified by excellence in instruction, in mentoring and advising, and in contributions to pedagogy.

Excellent Performance. Candidates should provide evidence for each of the core elements of Excellence in Teaching:

Standards for Excellence in Advancement to Senior Lecturer:

Documented student learning
Distinct teaching philosophy
Achievement of excellence in a teaching-related domain
Achievement of excellence in instruction (see below)

Standards for Excellence in Advancement to Teaching Professor:

Record of publicly disseminated and peer reviewed scholarship in teaching
Documented student learning
Distinct teaching philosophy
Achievement of excellence in a teaching-related domain, sustained over time
Achievement of excellence in instruction (see below)

Documentation of Student Learning:

Student learning outcomes (e.g., at course, program levels)
Student input into teaching (e.g., student evaluations)
Peer evaluations of teaching

Documentation of Distinct Teaching Philosophy:

Teaching philosophy statement
Reflection on input from student learning outcomes, student evaluations, and peer evaluations

Excellent achievement in Instruction and also in at least one of the other domains (course or curricular development, mentoring/advising, service in support of teaching/learning), depending on responsibilities.

Excellent Achievement in Instruction for both Senior Lecturer and Teaching Professor: #

Documentation of extraordinarily successful teaching and learning outcomes. The case for teaching excellence is grounded in a sophisticated teaching philosophy

Excellent Achievement in Course or Curricular Development:

Advancement to Senior Lecturer:

In addition to producing effective course and curricular products, shows evidence of having disseminated ideas locally or internally through administration, mentoring, publication, presentation, or other means

Advancement to Teaching Professor:

In addition to producing effective course and curricular products, shows evidence of having disseminated ideas within the profession or generally through administration, mentoring, publication, presentation, or other means.

Excellent Achievement in Mentoring and Advising:

Mentoring and advising (of students) is characterized by a scholarly approach. High accomplishments of students mentored or advised are consistently linked to the influence of mentor, demonstrating impact. Scholarly and reflective approach to mentoring and advising is documented.

Excellent Achievement in Service in Support of Teaching and Learning:

Course coordination, training of other faculty, support of student learning experiences, support of community in area of expertise, etc.

External Reviewer Requirements:

Advancement to Senior Lecturer:

Reviewers can be from IU, PU or IU Indianapolis as long as they have no close associations with the candidate and are outside the candidate’s department (or school, if there are no departments).

Advancement to Teaching Professor:

At least two reviewers must be outside the IU and PU systems. Up to 4 reviewers may be from IU, PU or IU Indianapolis as long as they have no close associations with the candidate and are outside the candidate’s department (or school, if there are no departments). External Reviewers: 2021 and beyond, up to 2 reviewers may be from other IU or PU campuses; at least 4 reviewers must be outside of the IU and PU systems.

Standards for Satisfactory Service for both Senior Lecturer and Teaching Professor:

Routine department expectations; chair’s determination that service is more than mere participation Satisfactory Service to Discipline or Community
Routine, required or expected service to the discipline or community

XVI. P&T Committee Membership & Voting Procedures #

The IUSSW P&T Committee will consist of 14 members who have been promoted and/or awarded tenure:

a. Non-Tenure Track Sub-Committee: 7 Senior Lecturers, Teaching Professors, Clinical Associate Faculty
b. Tenure Track Sub-Committee: 7 Social Work and/or Labor Studies faculty

The Co-Chairs (one tenure track, one non-tenure track) will be responsible for overseeing and organizing the P&T Committee’s work. The Co-Chairs will work collaboratively in establishing the committee agenda. The Co-Chairs will be selected from within each sub-committee.

All tenured Social Work and Labor Studies Faculty and all non-tenure track faculty who have been promoted are eligible to be placed on the ballot except for:

a. Administrators with evaluative functions (Dean, Associate Dean for Academics, Director of Field)
b. Those already serving out a term on the P&T Committee
c. Those who plan to retire during the coming academic year
d. Those approved for a sabbatical in the coming academic year
e. Those serving as Chair or Secretary of Faculty Senate
f. Those just recently tenured or promoted in the past year
g. Those going up for Full Professor in the coming academic year
h. Those who are completing 4 consecutive years of service

Tenure-track faculty (both Social Work & Labor Studies) will vote to fill any open tenure-track positions. Non-tenure track faculty will vote to fill any open non-tenure track positions.

The Secretary of Faculty Senate will run the elections as needed, typically at the end of the spring semester or as needed to fill vacancies.

Elected members will serve a two year term. Members may be reelected for a second consecutive term (for a total of 4 consecutive years). A faculty member voted onto the committee as a replacement for a member who had to leave the P&T Committee will serve for the remainder of that term.

Tenure-track faculty will vote on tenure track candidates. Non-tenure track faculty will vote on non-tenure track candidates.

The Red Book: Guidelines and Processes for Promotion & Tenure

Promotion and Tenure Process #

Candidate’s Dossier

School Committee Review & Vote

Processs #

Year 5 Spring Semester:

Year 6 Beginning of Fall Semester

Contact Information #

Contact

Guidelines and Processes for Promotion & Tenure #

Preamble #

I. Partner Campus Policies #

II. Third-Year Review for Tenure-Track Faculty #

III. Acceptance of Nomination & Notification of Candidacy #

A. Promotion #

B. Tenure #

IV. Promotion and Tenure Dossiers #

A. Responsibility and Due Date #

B. Organization of Materials #

Sections 01-05

Section 06: Candidate’s Statement

Sections 07, 08, and 09: Core Evidence

Section 07: Evaluation of Teaching

Section 08: Evaluation of Research and Creative Activity

Section 09: Evaluation of Service

Section 10: Curriculum Vita

Section 11: Appendices

V. External Review Letters #

VI. Internal, Solicited Review Letters #

VII. Teaching #

A. Description

B. Criteria

C. Evidence/Supporting Materials

D. Unusual Circumstances

VIII. Research and Scholarly Activities #

A. Description

B. Criteria

C. Evidence/Supporting Material

D. Unusual Circumstances

IX. Service #

A. Description

B. Criteria

C. Evidence/Supporting Materials

D. Unusual Circumstances

DMAI to output CV #

X. Integrative Case Based on Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion #

A. Description

B. Criteria for Evaluation of Integrative Case for Promotion, Tenure, and Merit Review

C. Evidence and Supporting Materials

CV

XII. Process and Responsibilities #

A. Process & Responsibilities: Third-Year Review for Tenure-Track Faculty

B. Process and Responsibilities: Promotion and Tenure

XIII. Process Timelines #

A. Third-Year Review Timeline for Tenure Track Faculty #

September

December

March

April

May

B. Promotion and Tenure Timeline for Tenure-Track Faculty and candidates for promotion (Lecturers, Clinical Faculty, and Research Faculty) #

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

January - March

April

July

August

July (of the following academic year)

XIV. Promotion in Clinical Ranks #

A. Description

B. Teaching