College promotion and tenure guidelines on annual review
Each tenure-track faculty member will be reviewed annually by the Chair of the Department during their probationary period. These annual reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the faculty member is progressing towards a favorable tenure decision and offer departments an opportunity to bring potential problems to the candidate’s attention in a timely fashion. A written summary of the annual review must be provided to the candidate.
No later than the third year of the probationary period, each tenure-track faculty member will receive a midterm reappointment review. The midterm review is a thorough review that involves a departmental review (personnel) committee report, vote of eligible department faculty, and review by the Chair of the Department. This is an opportunity for senior colleagues to learn more about each junior colleague’s work, provide mentorship, and evaluate the progress towards meeting the criteria towards tenure. In the case of a decision not to reappoint, candidates may appeal the decision following BFC policy. In the case where reappointment is made, it is important to emphasize that this decision does not guarantee tenure. Please refer to the College Policy on Midterm Pre-tenure Review.
A candidate is normally reviewed for tenure and promotion before the seventh year of the tenure probationary period. An early tenure review can occur in an unusually meritorious case or when prior service at another institution warrants such consideration. Work produced since the tenure candidate’s first appointment at IUB is assumed to be a better predictor of future productivity than earlier work. Work conducted prior to a candidate’s first appointment to IUB (e.g., scholarly or scientific publications) may be taken into consideration as additional evidence of pace, future trajectories, and continuity or change in research interests.
The University has Family Leave and Medical Leave policies that can affect the timing of promotion by “extending the probationary period” for a pre-specified and contractual period of time. Faculty members considering such leaves should consult with the Associate Executive Dean and the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. Faculty members should discuss the timing of the leave and its relation to the promotion and tenure process with the Chair of the Department who will also consult with the Executive Dean’s office and receive approval from the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs to ensure that there is appropriate and clearly written documentation of leave agreements.
The College expects chairs (or their designees) to arrange for faculty to receive regular peer evaluations of teaching during the probationary period, with a minimum of one peer evaluation each academic year. When teaching assignments allow, a combination of peer evaluations that allow comparisons across courses (especially lower- v. upper-level undergraduate and undergraduate v. graduate) as well as comparisons within a specific course over time are preferred.
Promotion from Associate to Full Professor
Each tenured associate professor will be reviewed annually by the Chair of the Department. These annual reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the faculty member is progressing towards a favorable decision on promotion to full professor.
Associate professors may apply for promotion to full professor at any time. However, because emphasis in the promotion decision is placed on accomplishments in rank, candidates must remain in rank long enough to assemble a record of new, significant contributions to research, teaching, and service. For that reason, promotions to full professor within three years of promotion to associate professor are rare.
The College expects chairs to arrange for associate professors to receive regular peer evaluations of teaching prior to consideration for promotion to full professor, with a minimum of one peer evaluation every other academic year. As for probationary faculty, when teaching assignments allow, a combination of peer evaluations that allow comparisons across courses (especially lower- v. upper-level undergraduate and undergraduate v. graduate) as well as comparisons within a specific course over time are most helpful to review committees.