Indiana University School of DentistryPromotion & Tenure Guidelines

2006

I. UNIVERSITY POLICIES

Evaluation of faculty for promotion and tenure at the Indiana University School of Dentistry will follow the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Guidelines (http://www.academicaffairs.iupui.edu/appd/faculty_appts.htm). They are consistent with the mission of the Indiana University School of Dentistry.

II. THE FACULTY

Faculty ranks and titles are described under Faculty Appointments. They include tenured, tenure-track, clinical, research, visiting, and adjunct faculty.

III. PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCEDURESA. FACULTY GUIDANCE

1. SummaryEach faculty member has a department Chair whose responsibilities include guiding the faculty member through career development, promotion, and tenure. A copy of this document is provided upon initial appointment, and an Individual Faculty Career Plan is developed and continually reviewed. An evaluation of teaching, research, and service including progress towards promotion and tenure is made each year by the department Chair. The Unit Promotion and Tenure Committee also reviews each probationary faculty member’s progress toward tenure and promotion after three years at the school. In the Spring of the fifth year (or other year when the dossier for promotion or tenure must be completed), the faculty member meets with the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, the chair of the school’s Promotion and Tenure Committee and the department Chair to again receive counseling on the promotion and tenure process and guidance for development of the dossier.

2. Individual Faculty Career PlanThe Chair of each department will discuss and establish with each faculty member within that department a written Individual Faculty Career Plan. This plan should be designed to be dynamic and is to be reviewed at least annually. It should be based upon the assumption that the faculty member will be remaining on our faculty until retirement or specifically state otherwise. The plan must take into account the missions of the school and department, the place of the faculty member in the context of accomplishment of these missions and his or her individual goals. Of necessity, the plan will be more specific for the immediate upcoming years and more general for those more distant. From a comparison of the plan with the strengths and needs of the

faculty member, faculty development needs should become clear and should evolve constantly. These needs should be prioritized and progress in satisfying them should be evaluated as part of the Faculty Annual Review process. The Individual Faculty Career Plan should be included in at least the first Faculty Annual Summary Report and periodic modifications reported in subsequent reports. Progress on the plan and pursuit of faculty development opportunities to achieve it will also be evaluated as part of the appropriate portions (Teaching, Research, or Service) of the Faculty Annual Review.

Development of the Individual Faculty Career Plan should accomplish the following goals:- ensure clear and documented communication between the Chair and

faculty member as to individual, department, and school goals as well as mutual short and long range expectations;

- in conjunction with other established faculty review policies and procedures, maintain a clear career direction to maximize success in tenure, promotion, productivity, and fulfillment;

- assist the Chair and school administration in prioritization and fulfillment of faculty development.

3. Annual Review by Department ChairThe Department Chair will annually review ALL faculty members in the department. This review will involve an evaluation of progress toward promotion and tenure (if appropriate) based upon information provided by the faculty member in the Faculty Annual Summary Report (see the IUSD Intranet at https://plato.iusd.iupui.edu), the Individual Faculty Career Plan, and any supplemental material deemed important by the faculty member. The review includes a meeting with Department Chair plus one other faculty person (optional) chosen by the person being reviewed to:

- discuss the faculty member’s concerns, goals, and suggestions regarding his or her own faculty appointment and responsibilities;

- confirm the faculty member’s understanding of the criteria for promotion to the next academic rank;

- provide the faculty member with a realistic plan for promotion.

The Department Chair completes the Faculty Annual Review form (See Appendix B) which describes the evaluation of teaching, research, and service; indicates the progress made toward promotion and/or tenure; and includes a recommendation for or against reappointment. For tenured faculty the Chair makes a recommendation for satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance. The post-tenure review and enhancement policy and procedures are described in a following section. The completed annual review form is signed by Department Chair and forwarded to the school’s Dean for Academic Affairs who will transmit it to the Dean of the school for evaluation. The Dean will add comments, sign the report and return it to the faculty member for signature and optional comment.

2

4. “Mid-term” Review by the School’s Promotion and Tenure Committee

After a probationary tenure track faculty member has been at the school for 3 years, the school’s Promotion and Tenure Committee will review progress made toward promotion and tenure and make recommendations.

B. FACULTY ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT (FASR)

All full-time and part-time faculty in the Indiana University School of Dentistry must complete a Faculty Annual Summary Report (see the IUSD Intranet at https://plato.iusd.iupui.edu). As described above, this report is part of the annual review procedure. The report covers the period of the previous calendar year (January through December), and is to be completed by February 1st. The completed report (along with a current CV) is sent to the Department Chair with two copies sent to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.

C. NOTIFICATION FOR PROMOTION OR TENURE CONSIDERATION

1. PromotionFaculty members may be nominated for promotion in rank by one or more of their faculty colleagues, or they may nominate themselves. Nomination should be made in writing to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs early in the Spring semester. The nomination must state that the faculty member is a candidate for promotion and must declare an area of excellence (teaching, research, service, or balanced case). This nomination will initiate procedures that are described below under part D.

2. TenureA decision on tenure is to be made before the end of the sixth year of academic employment. Commonly this occurs during the sixth year, but the candidate may request consideration in an earlier year. At the appropriate time, preferably early in the Spring semester of the 5th year, the faculty member is to notify in writing the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs of the candidacy. The letter of candidacy is to identify the area of excellence (teaching, research, service, or balance case). This nomination will initiate procedures that are described below under part D.

D. OVERALL PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING PROMOTION OR TENURE

These IUSD Promotion and Tenure Guidelines as well as the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Guidelines are used. A timetable for development of the promotion and/or tenure dossier is listed below. After the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs receives a letter of nomination for promotion or tenure candidacy, the Office for Academic Affairs schedules a meeting between the candidate and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and may also include the Department Chair, and/or the Chair of the Unit Promotion and Tenure

3

Committee to discuss the candidacy, promotion and tenure process, and development of the dossier. The candidate and Department Chair are to work with the school’s Office of Academic Affairs for assistance with formatting the dossier. The completed dossier, including all letters of evaluation, is to be presented to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs for final format evaluation in early August. The dossier is then provided to the departmental Primary Committee for review and evaluation. The Primary Committee should consist of 3 full-time tenured faculty holding the rank of full professor ( if possible). This committee will write a letter of evaluation, including a recommendation for or against promotion and/or tenure, and append the letter to the dossier. The Department Chair will then add a letter of evaluation, and the dossier will be reviewed by the school’s Promotion and Tenure Committee. This committee will insert its evaluation letter, and the dossier will then be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs for a written evaluation and recommendation from the Dean of the School. The completed dossier with all letters of evaluation is sent by the school’s Office of Academic Affairs to the IUPUI Office of the Dean of Faculties by early November for evaluation by the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Committee. This Committee makes a recommendation to the IUPUI Dean of the Faculties. In consultation with the Dean of Faculties, the Chancellor of IUPUI makes a recommendation to the President of Indiana University. The final determination is made by the Indiana University Board of Trustees. Candidates for promotion and/or tenure are notified of the final decision in early spring.

TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROMOTION AND/OR TENURE DOSSIER

(THESE DATE WILL BE SPECIFIED EACH YEAR)

Time Period Activity

January – March Dean of the school and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs discuss eligibility of potential candidates with Department Chairs

March-May Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Chair of school P/T Committee and the Department Chair meet with candidates to develop plans

May IUPUI Promotion & Tenure Guidelines for the current year are distributed

May-June Department Chairs send letters requesting external evaluations; enclosures include the candidate’s current curriculum vita, personal statement plus the list of guidelines developed for reviewers/evaluators

July Department Chairs send follow-up letters to external reviewers, if needed

4

Early August Prior to submitting dossier to Primary Committee, candidates review organization of their dossier with the Office of Academic Affairs to ensure that IUPUI guidelines are followed

Mid August Candidate submits 3 copies of the completed dossier to their Primary Committee for review

Late August Primary Committee completes review of dossier and submits their report to the candidate’s Department Chair

Mid-September Department Chair completes supporting letter and forwards dossier to IUSD Office of Academic Affairs who forwards it to the school P/T Committee

Mid-October IUSD Promotion & Tenure Committee completes review of dossier and submits their supporting letter to IUSD Office of Academic Affairs

Early November The Dean of the School reviews dossiers and writes letter

Early November Completed dossiers delivered to the IUPUI Office of the Dean of the Faculties for further review by the IUPUI Promotion & Tenure Committee

IV. PROMOTION AND TENURE DOSSIERS

Guidelines for completing promotion and tenure dossiers for each coming year are distributed to schools in the Spring semester by the IUPUI Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Dean of the Faculties. These also contain guidelines for preparation of the curriculum vitae, which is submitted with the dossier. The same dossier format is used for both promotion and tenure. Current guidelines are distributed to all faculty members at the time of their “Mid-term” review and upon nomination for candidacy for promotion and/or tenure. A copy of the current guidelines also can be obtained any time from the office of the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the school.

The general contents of the dossier are:- Routing sheet; completed checklist of dossier contents.- Letters of evaluation/recommendation from the primary committee, the

department Chair, the school’s (unit) Promotion & Tenure Committee, the Dean, and outside reviewers contacted by the department Chair. The candidate’s curriculum vitae. Personal statement by the candidate assessing his or her own accomplishments.

5

- Evaluation of teaching.- Evaluation of research.- Evaluation of service.- Appendices

Documentation of accomplishments in teaching, research, and service for use in the dossiers is described below under V. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE.

V. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE

Standards for Faculty AccomplishmentRecommendations for promotion and tenure for Indiana University School of Dentistry faculty are based upon documented achievements in teaching, research, and service that are consistent with the mission of the school. Excellence is the standard of faculty accomplishment. Thus, for tenure track faculty, a candidate for promotion or tenure should excel in at least one of the categories of teaching, research, or service and be at least satisfactory in the other two. Alternatively, the candidate may present a “balanced case” with high quality achievements in all three areas demonstrating excellence in overall work. For non-tenure track faculty, a candidate for promotion should excel in teaching (clinical ranks) or research (scientist ranks) and be at least satisfactory in service.

A. TEACHING

Teaching is a primary function of Indiana University School of Dentistry. Teaching responsibilities are viewed as at least equal in importance to those of research and service in regard to promotion in rank or achieving tenure. Teaching activity may occur in the clinical environment, in didactic courses or seminars, in the laboratory setting, in small problem-based learning classes or larger sessions for group learning activities, in guiding and counseling students individually, in mentoring students, in continuing education, or in course, curriculum, methodology, or teaching material development.

See next page for chart.

6

7

1. Criteria

Teaching

Type Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory Excellent:Scholarly: “dissemination of results and findings through appropriate publications”

Instruction Incomplete lists of formal instructionNo evidence to interpret loadNo information about goals of instructionNo or only raw student evaluation data with no interpretation of their meaning, either absolute or comparativeNo information on learning outcomesLack of peer review evidence or token peer commentary not based on systematic reviewPoor performance on many of the above measures

Quantitative and qualitative information from the candidate, students, and peers indicating that instruction has been satisfactory in fostering appropriate learning outcomes

Quantitative and qualitative information about teaching and learning outcomes effectively presented and clearly establishing that the quality of inspection is noteworthy

In addition to documenting that excellent learning outcomes associated with the instructor, underlying conceptual basis for the teaching approaches and philosophy of instruction described in sophisticated waysEvidence that teaching is innovative and practice is reflective

Course orCurricular Development

No evidence of nature ofActivities or resultsEvidence on outcomes, but no evidence of individual roleNo review by othersNo evidence on how work is connected with department or campus goalsPoor course or curricular design products

Evidence of new courseDevelopment or significant course revision (e.g., use of Technology, service learning) presented with evidence on effectiveness

Nature of course or curricular developmentClearly reflects an informed knowledge base, clear instructional goals, and assessment of the outcomes

In addition to producing effective course and curricular products, shows evidence of having disseminated ideas nationally or internationally within the profession or generally through publication or presentation

Mentoring andAdvising

Number of students and details of interaction not providedComparative load for unit not indicatedInformation on satisfaction

Load is clearly documentedPeer and student satisfaction indicated by evidence Satisfactory impact on student achievement clear

Thorough documentation on all aspectsNoteworthy student achievement

Thorough and reflective documentationMentoring and advisingCharacterized by scholarly approachHigh accomplishments of students

8

with and impact of mentoring and advising not presentPoor performance on quantity, quality, or impact indicated by data

mentored or advised consistently linked to influence of mentor

Scholarly Activities,Including Awards

No information available about scholarship of teachingPoor performance in this areaNo teaching awards or recognitionsNo evidence of dissemination of good practice

Evidence of some local dissemination of good practice and recognition of teaching efforts

Evidence of regular and significant local dissemination of good practice and recognition of high quality of teachingGrants and awards at the department or campus level

Documentation of a program of scholarly work that has contributed to knowledge base and improved the work of others through dissemination channelsPositive departmental evaluations of the stature of the work (e.g., journals)Peer review supporting the quality of the publications, presentations or other dissemination methodsNational or international teaching awards or significant funding for teaching projects

Professional Development Efforts

No information about teaching development efforts givenPoor record of performance in pursuing growth in teachingNo information on mentoring of other colleagues or indications of ineffective performance in this area

Record of some activity, such as conference or workshop attendance, personal experimentation, or readingRecord of coaching others in teachingReflective commentary on how own teaching has changedPeer assessment on effectiveness of efforts toward personal growth or mentoring of others

High level of activity in examining practice, seeking new ideas, obtaining feedback, and engaging in dialogue on teaching with campus or disciplinary peersIndications of substantial positive impact onDevelopment of colleaguesPositive peer assessment of these efforts

Extensive record of participation in experimentation, reflection, pursuit of conceptual and practical knowledge of teaching and learningMembership in communities of practice on the campus, national, or international levelParticipation in dissemination of good practicePeer testimony on efforts and impact of candidate’s work in this area

9

Documentation of Teaching Performance in IUPUI Faculty Dossiers

Dimensions of teachingPerformance

Potential Locations Section II: Personal Statement

Section III: NarrativeContained in Evaluation ofTeaching

CV (Part of Section I) Peer Review (external and internal –may be part of Sections I or III)

Teaching Load Details on students Mentored, advised, etc.

List of courses, etc. Comment on relative size of load

Teaching goals List of goals Comment on fit with IUPUI and unit goals

Continuing professional development

Description of activities undertaken

Details of workshops attended, study, reading, etc.

List of formal activities

Use of exemplary teaching methods

Description of methods Details, on specific methods such as teaching with technology, use of PBL, service learning, or other innovative methods, inclusive teaching

Local peer review, external if knowledgeable

Quality of teaching Reflective comments Student rating summaries, peer review of class performance or materials

Local peer review, external if knowledgeable

Evidence of student learning Reflective comments Results of nationally normed tests, pre-post evaluations of course knowledge gains, analysis of student work, student/alumni reports, approach toward UPL’s (for UG courses)

Local peer review, external if knowledgeable

Ethics Self-report Student report Local peer reviewScholarship of teaching and national leadership

Descriptions of scholarly approach

Details, commentary on activities listed in CV

Publications, presentations, national leadership on teaching in discipline

Local or external peer review

Course and curriculum development

Self-report Details on CV entries List of committees, etc. Local peer review, external if knowledgeable

Recognition (grants, awards) Details on CV entries, if needed

List of recognitions

10

2. Additional Comments on Documentation of Teaching PerformanceDocumenting teaching effectiveness is a key part of the dossier submitted for promotion and tenure considerations. At least some of the following areas should be considered for inclusion:- Provide documented summaries of formal student evaluation of

teaching as well as any qualitative student evaluations.- Give evidence of degree of student satisfaction and performance

related to advising or mentoring students.- Provide evidence on how the candidate specifically contributed to

the current success or scholarly activity of specific former students (e.g., co-authored papers, joint conference presentations, etc).

- Include comments by faculty in other departments, schools, or universities whose students may have been taught by the candidate.

- Provide peer evaluations of facilitating, lecturing, mentoring, course organization, syllabi, textbooks, or any other aspect of teaching.

- Show contributions to curriculum development; new course/program/case development; improvements from course reorganization; improvement of teaching materials (e.g., textbooks, video tapes, slide presentations, syllabi, laboratory manuals, class handouts, computer programs, PBL cases, independent learning outlines, GLA); use of improved teaching methods.

- Provide evidence of the quality of teaching materials developed by the candidate (e.g., published reviews of textbooks or text chapters, evaluation by outside reviewers, use of materials by others on or off campus).

- Give evidence of utilizing instructional objectives and assessing outcomes.

- Show evidence of attempts to improve teaching effectiveness such as attendance or other participation in programs, courses, institutes, or workshops on teaching.

- Describe special awards or other accolades (e.g., from students, colleagues, the school or university, or professional organizations) that afford evidence of teaching capability or effectiveness.

- Describe research by the candidate on teaching and list any grants received related to teaching.

- Describe invited presentations to students at other schools or universities and provide any available evidence of teaching effectiveness.

- List invited continuing education courses given and provide available evidence of teaching effectiveness.

- Describe activities related to development or evaluation of teaching programs in dentistry or in a specific discipline on a local, state, national, or international level.

- Describe activity on National or Specialty Board test construction committees.

- Identify roles that relate to teaching in meetings, conferences, or programs of professional organizations.

11

- Describe activities on educational review boards (e.g., membership on accrediting teams).

- Describe activities in mentoring undergraduate students or graduate students in specialty/certificate programs or in doctoral or masters degree research.

- Describe teaching activities including time commitment/assignment, course numbers and names, level of courses, role in the courses (e.g., director, clinic instructor, tutor, lab instructor, lecturer - including how many lectures given in a course), how often the courses are taught, how many years teaching in a given course, numbers of students involved in each course.

B. RESEARCH

Research is the generation of new knowledge through the use of the scientific method. It is central to the mission of the school and university, and it is considered as equal in importance to teaching and service in regard to promotion in rank or achieving tenure. The research may be basic, behavioral, clinical, or be in health services or teaching.

See next page for chart.

12

1. Criteria

Research/Creative Activity: Some Possible Benchmarks(but this will depend on the norms of the school, department and discipline)

Type Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory ExcellentResearch/Creative Activity in the form of publications, presentations, gallery showings, performances

Research has not been regularly conducted.Research may have been conducted, but there is no evidence of dissemination.Evidence comes only from colleagues, collaborators, or ex-students.Individual role and level of contributions on collaborative work is unspecified.Number of publications, gallery showings, etc. are not appropriate for the rank, discipline and nature of the workNo pattern of sustained work in research or creative activity

Candidate has performed research that is appropriate to the discipline/profession and reflects standards of good practice.Competitive or invited presentations to local and state groups, to those outside the discipline or to the lay public.Research has moved beyond simple extensions of thesis or post-doctoral work.Number of publications, gallery showings etc. are appropriate for the rank, discipline and nature of the workPattern of sustained work in research or creative activity

Adding new critical insights to a subject so that others working in the field now view the subject with greater clarity or with new perspectivesCompetitive or invited presentations to peers at international and national meetingsCo-authorship, but candidate’s role and independent contribution are specified Number of publications, gallery showings etc. are greater than what is appropriate for the rank, discipline and nature of the workPattern of steadily increasing work in research or creative activity

Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate attributes of scholarly work associated with research, including peer refereed presentations and publications and national recognition of the quality of research.Developing research methods that break new ground or offer new solutions to problems encountered in the fieldIndependent scholar – as shown by grant funding as P.I., articles as lead author, invited presentationsNumber of publications, gallery showings etc. significantly exceed what is appropriate for the rank, discipline and nature of the work.Pattern of significantly increasing work in research or creative activity.

Grants and External support

No evidence of Attempts to seek support

Internal grantsGrants at the local and state level

Grants at national, international levelCo-P.I. status

Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work associated with external applications and support, including the degree to which the process was competitive.P.I. status, funding amounts (depends on discipline and size of usual grants), stature of granting agencies

13

Peer Review Only from Collaborators.Internal letters onlyLetters only from Colleagues where there is a past Relationship (dissertation advisors)No statement on quality of journals, galleries or performance/exhibition venuesNo comments on candidate’s plan for continued research or creative activityNo evidence of impact of scholarly work

Department or school has provided clear information about the stature of journals and the significance of the research publications.In the case of creative activity, there are statements about the quality of the galleries or performance/exhibition venues.The department affirms the candidate’s plans for continued research.Evidence of impact of scholarly work is provided by the school and department.

Some peer review in the form of external letters – some letters from persons not known to the candidate, others from school or campus and others from collaborators (but need to delineate role in research projects)Evidence of impact of the work is provided at the school and department level as well as by local peers, collaborators and some external reviewersGallery or performance reviews from local media and non-expert reviewers.

Expert external peer review clearly demonstrates the attributes of scholarly work associated with research, including peer refereed presentations, grants and publications.There is evidence of national recognition of the quality of work.Evidence of impact of the work is clearly provided by a number of reviewers at top institutions who are truly external and unrelated to the candidate, as well as by the school and department, local peers, collaborators and some external reviewers.Gallery or performance reviews from experts and peers which appear in major national and international sources.

Mentoring andAdvising

Number of students is provided

Load and effectiveness are documented.

Quality of student research projects, student evaluation data, letters from students, students as co-authors on grants and abstracts

External peer review clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work associated with mentoring or advising, including peer refereed presentations and publications and national recognition of the quality of work.

Other scholarly activities, including awards

No awards.No editorships or editorial board service.No grant reviewing activities.

Local dissemination of good practice and recognition has occurred.Editor or member of editorial board of local or state journals.Local grant reviewing/

Awards at local and state level, invitations to give presentations to the public, awards from civic and non-profit organizations.Editor or member of editorial board of more major publications in the field.State and national grant reviewing.

Evidence of a program of scholarly work that has contributed to knowledge base and improved the work of others.Departmental evaluations of the stature of the work (e.g., journals) are provided.Prestigious awards at national and international level, particularly competitive awards.Editor or member of editorial board of top journals or publications, invited jury member for top national and international performance events and venues.Grant reviewing for major national and international agencies and organizations.

14

15

2. Additional Comments on Documentation of Research PerformanceDocumenting research activity is a key part of the dossier submitted for promotion and tenure considerations. At least some of the following areas should be considered for inclusion:- Describe research in progress in relation to the mission of the

department.- List the publications in refereed journals giving the complete reference

and all authors.- List papers accepted for publication in refereed journals and provide

evidence of acceptance.- List papers submitted to refereed journals but not yet accepted.- Describe the role of the candidate in the research reported in

multi-authored publications.- Provide evidence of the quality of the peer-reviewed publications

listed (e.g., quality of the journals, citations of the work by others, analysis of the publications by outside reviewers).

- List and describe other research-related publications (e.g., invited reviews, abstracts of research presentations at conferences, symposia, national meetings).

- Provide evidence of the ability to perform independent research (e.g., being the “principal investigator”, “project director”, “primary author”).

- Provide evidence of continuing research activity (e.g., description of research plan; number of publications per year; record of publication/presentation of research papers at national meetings; number and progress of research students mentored).

- List of external and internal grants or contracts received, including a description of the candidate’s role on each (e.g., principal investigator, project director, co-investigator, investigator).

- List grant proposals submitted that are pending. - Describe any courses or workshops taken to enhance research activity. - Describe mentoring of other faculty in research. - Describe activity in directing or promoting student research.

- Provide evidence of a national reputation (e.g., invitations to speak at conferences, meetings, symposia, other universities, government agencies, editorship of journals, membership on editorial boards; reviewing manuscripts for journals; appointments to research review boards and NIH study sections; activities and offices held in professional organizations; chairing sessions at national research meetings; awards; evaluations by outside reviewers; advisory and consulting activities).

16

C. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Professional service is normally provided to three specific groups: the public (e.g., the community, clients, patients), the profession or discipline, and, less frequently, the campus and University. Satisfactory professional service is expected of each faculty member and librarian. The importance assigned to service in considering candidates for tenure or promotion will necessarily vary according to individual circumstances and the mission of the unit. Professional service, including professional service in the community and patient or client services, is characterized by those activities conducted on behalf of the University that apply the faculty member's and librarian's disciplinary expertise and professional knowledge of interrelated fields to the needs of society. To be the basis for tenure or advancement in rank, professional service must be directly linked to the unit’s and campus’ mission; the quality and impact of professional service must be evaluated within this context. To be considered as the basis for advancement in rank or for tenure, professional service must be documented as intellectual work characterized by the following: (1) command and application of relevant knowledge, skills, and technological expertise; (2) contributions to a body of knowledge; (3) imagination, creativity and innovation; (4) application of ethical standards; (5) achievement of intentional outcomes; and (6) evidence of impact. Peer review by peers within IUPUI and by disciplinary peers at other universities is an essential component for evaluating all aspects of professional service, as it is for teaching and research. While not peer review, evaluations of effectiveness by clients, patients, and other recipients of or participants in professional service activities may be critically important as evidence that can be summarized and assessed by disciplinary peers. Ordinarily, professional service to the community and to the profession or discipline is the basis for consideration in cases in which excellence in service is advanced for promotion or tenure. For lecturers, this service may be directed toward the academic unit, but must be characterized as intellectual work to be considered as professional service. For example, developing standards for the assessment of the portfolios of entering students may be appropriately classified as professional service, whereas serving on a search and screen committee would be University service. To serve as the basis for advancement in rank or tenure, University service must be directly linked to the mission of the unit and must be assessed as intellectual work with the same expectations for peer review as in teaching, research, and professional service to the community.

The distinction between professional service and service to the University requires some elaboration. Faculty and librarian service to the University through committees and administration is important and required. The community of scholars depends on the mutual responsibility of individuals to support and develop the institution that sustains them. Service must be a factor in these considerations, because unsatisfactory service to the University may preclude tenure and promotion. However, without additional significant accomplishments that are related to the practice of the candidate's discipline or profession and professional service to the community, both of which can be evaluated by peers, University service is rarely appropriate for either advancement in rank or tenure. Administrative service that uses disciplinary expertise for innovative or successful achievements reviewed by peers may be offered as evidence of achievement of professional service when such work has been planned and stipulated in advance and when it is derived from the mission of the unit. Faculty appointed in the clinical ranks advance through the excellence of their professional service or teaching, and lecturers advance through excellence in teaching, but must be satisfactory in professional service.

This section should minimally include the following items:A. Description of the candidate's professional service activities. Faculty involved in clinical practice should describe the variety and extent of patient or client care. Those activities which are truly exceptional should be annotated to differentiate these activities from the level of clinical service expected of the faculty as a normal distribution of effort. For all faculty, committee service or voluntary service should ordinarily not be included unless it is a direct reflection of professional expertise and has been evaluated by peers as substantive professional and intellectual work. Professional service that is the basis of advancement in rank or tenure must be clearly established as intellectual work as described above:

17

1. Evidence of the significance and impact of the professional service should be provided through tangible results that can be assessed in the context of unit and campus mission.

2. Evidence of the candidate's individual contributions, especially when the professional service is collaborative in nature; specific contributions of the candidate should be noted.

3. Evidence of leadership in providing professional service, especially when there is a collaborative environment, including contributions that build consensus, help others (including patients or clients) complete required assignments, and reflect the best practices and standards of the discipline; evidence of increasing levels of responsibility and sustained contributions are important.

4. Evidence of effective dissemination of results that establishes the intellectual contributions and advances the knowledge base of the discipline or field is expected. When professional development is the specified area for excellence, this dissemination will most likely occur through peer refereed publications. Special care may be required when the professional service is in an interdisciplinary field and publication is in journals outside the discipline. Faculty working in interdisciplinary fields should not be disadvantaged solely because the journals are not well known. Instead, the department or school should take steps to assess the actual work instead of relying on the reputation of the journal.

NOTE: The full bibliography of publications relevant to professional service should be provided in the curriculum vitae as specified in the standard format. Refereed and non-refereed publications should be separated into distinct categories. Publications should not be listed again in this section.

5. Evidence of effective dissemination of results to peers, practitioners, clients, patients or servicerecipients in reports and other documents that are designed appropriately to make the resultsunderstood and useful; while these reports may not be peer reviewed as a part of the publication and dissemination process, they should be evaluated by disciplinary peers as a part of the advancement review process.

B. Evaluation of the quality of the candidate's professional service activities by the chair and colleagues or associates, including external peer evaluation when excellence in professional service is the primary basis for promotion or tenure.

1. External peer evaluation of products or results of professional service, including refereed and non-refereed publications, should be a primary part of the evidence presented when professional service is an area of excellence. While some peers may come from the practice community, a majority should be academic peers from institutions with an equal or greater reputation in the area(s) of professional service. Care should be taken in describing the qualifications and relevance of external reviewers, especially when the reviewers are not academically based.

2. Peer evaluation should include assessments from local faculty colleagues who are best able to place the quality of professional service within a context of departmental or school or interdisciplinarystandards, including an understanding of quality as a function of the quantity of service and disciplinary or interdisciplinary norms.

3. Evaluation by clients, patients or service recipients is important, just as student evaluations are important as one aspect of assessing teaching. Faculty should arrange for timely evaluations by recipients and determine appropriate ways to use this information. Client evaluations, however, may not substitute for peer evaluations.

C. When professional service is highly repetitive, as is often the case in patient care, candidates should explain the nature of the activities. Quantity of patient service ordinarily is not a sufficient factor in promotion or tenure, although it is expected to be high to support an area of excellence.

18

1. Criteria.

ServiceType Unsatisfactory Participation Annotation: above

“routine”Near Excellence: Pattern of Significant Contributions

Excellent:Scholarly: “dissemination of results and findings through appropriate publications”

University* No evidence of nature of activities or results.Evidence on outcomes, but no evidence of individual role.No review by others.No evidence on how service work is consistent with professional development or goals.

Citizenship: routineChair’s evaluation (p.9)of more than “mere participation” (p.25)Necessary, (p. 12,24) but not sufficient (p. 25)

Noted in CV, not in P&T document

“wrote a policy that was approved by committee”Accompanied by independent testimony of value of work (e.g., letter from the committee chair, acceptance by Faculty Council)

“not required or expected” (p.25).Played a major role in initiative over a period of time that contributed to campus or unit goals, with independent evidence of significance, role, impact, & effective communication to others.

Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work, including peer refereed presentations (p. 22,24) 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.

Discipline No evidence of nature of activities or resultsEvidence on outcomes, but no evidence of individual role No review by othersNo evidence on how service work is consistent with professional development or goals.

Activities: routine, required, or expected

“organized a workshop series for conference that was successfully offered”Accompanied by independent evidence of success, impact (e.g. ratings by participants)

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.

Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work, including peer refereed presentations and publications (p. 22,24) and national recognition of the quality of work.Awards and recognition that reflect on the significance and

19

academic nature of the work have been received.

Community No evidence of nature of activities or resultsEvidence on outcomes, but no evidence of individual roleNo review by othersNo evidence on how service work is consistent with professional development or goals

Professional Activities:routine, required, or expected

“chaired a subcommittee of the board that accomplished X, Y, & Z.”“played a leadership role in developing the capacity of a community-based organization”Accompanied by independent evidence of impact.

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.

Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work, including peer refereed presentations and publications (p. 22,24) 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.

University service is not ordinarily the basis for “excellence” Must be assessed as “intellectual work” with “peer review” Patient service: “exceeds normative level,” “contributes to knowledge base,” “must be documented through appropriate publications” and “repetitive

service—no matter in what quantity or even at what level of proficiency—is not itself sufficient for excellence” “While not peer review, evaluations of effectiveness by … patients …may be critically important as evidence that can be summarized and assessed

by disciplinary peers”

20

2. Additional Comments on Documentation of Service Performance

Documenting service activity is a key part of the dossier submitted for promotion and tenure considerations. At least some of the following areas should be considered for inclusion:- List service on department, school, campus, and university

committees or special groups and describe specific contributions to the committee’s efforts including any service as chair, subcommittee chair, secretary, etc.

- Give evidence of specific accomplishments as an administrator (e.g., describe the role played in development/progress of faculty or staff; describe role in fostering communication; describe any planning mechanisms developed; document any role played in the success of any new or improved programs administered; show any mechanisms developed to identify needed improvements; show how goals have been met and outcomes achieved).

- Give evidence of performing special service for the school or university (e.g., organizing or participating in functions or meetings held at the school or on campus such as dental day, research day, alumni programs, campus tours; organizing displays for the school; student recruiting; monitoring compliance of the school with specific regulations; advising student groups in a non-teaching capacity).

- List memberships in professional organizations and describe any special related activities (e.g., offices held, committee service, meetings or workshops organized, review board activity).

- Describe activity as an editor of professional publications, a member of editorial review boards, or a book reviewer.

- Describe service as an advisor or consultant in a professional capacity to any local, state, regional, national or international agency or organization.

- Provide letters of acknowledgment for professional service activity from groups, offices, or agencies in the professional or public sectors.

- Provide evidence of awards received for service.- Describe any grants received for the development of service

activities and identify specific role in the related project.- List any educational degree or board certifications received.- Describe interactions with the news media in person, in print, or

broadcast that is based in scholarship and involved professional expertise.

- Describe patient care related accomplishments as part of faculty assignment (e.g., referral of patients from practitioners;

21

evaluations from patients and clinical staff; certification by specialty boards; membership of a specialty examining board; awards that recognize clinical expertise; special consulting on patient care; efforts to improve mechanisms of clinical care).

- Describe activity in organizing or participating in school-sponsored outreach programs in the community.

VI. UNIT PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE

The members of the Indiana University School of Dentistry Promotion and Tenure Committee (the Unit Committee) include one member elected by each department plus two members elected by the Faculty Council. All members are to be tenured and hold the rank of professor. Members serve two-year appointments and may be re-elected. The committee elects a Chair who also serves as the school’s representative on the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Committee. This committee will consider both promotion and tenure candidacies, and will conduct a “Mid-term” evaluations of all tenure track faculty.

22