Eshelman School of Pharmacy: Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Governance Document

Applies-to-Faculty Unit-Policy Appointment-Promotion-and-Tenure

Unit Policy

Title

Preamble
Definition of Appointment Series and Faculty Ranks
Criteria for Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion
Metrics for Documenting Academic Productivity
Evaluating Academic Productivity and Impact
Meet-the-Mark for Appointment, Reappointment and Promotion
Characteristics for Appointment at, or Promotion to, Advanced Faculty Ranks
Tenure
Other Potential Actions
Procedures
References
Meet-the-Mark Criteria Tables
Appendices

I. Preamble

A. Statement of Purpose

This document has been developed to summarize and communicate the philosophy, policies, and procedures underlying considerations of faculty appointment, reappointment, promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review in the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The faculty at the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy has a broad-ranging mission encompassing teaching at the undergraduate, professional, graduate, and post-graduate levels, including continuing education; developing and maintaining individual research programs of distinction; contributing to collaborative research efforts; and providing service to a variety of constituencies at the local, state, national and international levels. This document is intended, in part, to provide philosophical and practical guidelines to recognize each faculty member's specific contributions to the mission of the School.

B. Statement of Values

The UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy aspires to lead the state, the nation, and the world in all aspects of its mission, as articulated in the School's Vision and Mission Statements. Consequently, the faculty must strive to be nationally and internationally-recognized leaders in their individual areas of expertise; it is expected that, irrespective of their rank, type of appointment, or area of expertise, all faculty in the School will pursue scholarly activities in some form. Scholarly activities are not necessarily limited to peer-reviewed publications, but may be more broadly defined. The degree to which the School values and rewards each member of the faculty must include consideration of the impact of the individual's scholarship. Further, faculty are expected to maintain a collegial environment that fosters open discourse and values the diversity of background and thought inherent in a major research university, and demonstrate professional behavior consistent with the Core Values of the School.

The School is committed to creating and maintaining an environment in which each of its members can advance to the fullest extent allowed by the faculty's abilities, and where the expectations and respect for faculty rank are held to be equivalent irrespective of track (i.e., tenure, fixed-term, professor of the practice, adjunct, visiting, joint or emeritus). This document articulates a framework and standards for the demonstration, documentation and acknowledgement of those contributions to the School, University, scholarly discipline, and society in general that will be considered valid evidence for progression in faculty rank.

The School promotes three general mission areas: research, teaching, and service/administration. Scholarship may be pursued in any of these areas, but generally will be tied to research or teaching. Although many definitions may be offered, for the purposes of this document, scholarship is defined as the creation, dissemination, and application of new knowledge, or the synthesis of existing knowledge in novel ways or in a manner that allows practical application to an identifiable problem. Areas of scholarship include discovery, application, and education and are described in Section III below.

Academic freedom, as it relates to the scholarly activities of faculty, is a core value of the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy. Indeed, it is the policy of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to maintain and encourage full freedom of its faculty to pursue, within the law, scholarship in all its forms, and to protect its faculty from influence that would restrict the exercise of such freedom. The complete statement of the University's position on academic freedom may be found in the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

C. Congruence with University Policy

Faculty appointments, reappointments, and promotions in the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, together with relevant tenure considerations, are recommended in accordance with the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This document provides guidelines and serves to clarify additional requirements for faculty appointments in the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy. The University Trustee Policies and Regulations do take precedence in the case of a conflict.

II. Definition of Appointment Series and Faculty Ranks

A. Primary Appointment Tracks

With few exceptions, the majority of full-time faculty at the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy will be designated as either "Tenure Track" or "Fixed-term". This designation will be identified at the time of recruitment.

i. Tenure track

Tenure-track appointments are intended for those faculty who will contribute full-time effort to all three general mission areas of the School, with an emphasis on research and scholarship. Appointment, promotion, and the granting of tenure in the tenure track are governed by University regulations in: The Faculty Code of University Government; Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

ii. Fixed-term

Fixed-term faculty members are appointed for a specified period of time, ranging from 1 to 5 years. Consideration should be given to appointments greater than one year for fixed-term faculty members who have served three years or longer. The fixed-term appointment will generally have a focus on Clinical Practice, Research, or Teaching depending on the nature of the appointment and as outlined in the faculty member's offer letter.

B. Other Appointment Tracks

i. Professor of the Practice

This fixed-term appointment (from 1 to 5 years) is appropriate for a senior field-specific expert whose contribution to teaching, scholarship, and/or service upon joining the University community has its foundation in a prior career of distinguished achievement.

ii. Adjunct

Adjunct appointments are predominately at-will and are intended for individuals who may contribute to one or more aspects of the School's mission, but are employed outside the School, have a primary appointment in a different School, and do not hold a joint appointment in the School. Alternatively, the adjunct appointees may be employed outside the University. Candidates for adjunct appointments possess unique qualifications for teaching, research, academic administration, or public service from an academic base, but for whom none of the professorial appointments, the instructor appointment, or a joint appointment is appropriate.

Adjunct faculty have limited responsibilities in the School/respective Division. When engaged they may be involved in teaching, research, service, or administrative duties. Adjuncts do not receive regular salary from the appointing department for the limited activities in which they engage, but may receive compensation for specific services or activities performed. Full-time University employment prohibits additional compensation from the department making the adjunct appointment. Appointments may be renewed for fixed terms of one to five years. The titles Adjunct Professor, Adjunct Associate Professor, Adjunct Assistant Professor, or Adjunct Instructor may be used.

iii. Visiting

Visiting appointments are of brief duration for a term of not more than one year. One successive appointment for a term not more than one year may be made. Visiting appointments are intended for individuals who are not employed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Visiting faculty may receive full or partial compensation from the University, but do not receive benefits.

iv. Joint

A faculty member may hold more than one academic appointment at the University, but there may be only one "home" or primary appointment in a department. A joint appointment occurs when the appointee holds - in addition to a tenure track or fixed-term appointment in the primary department - a fixed-term appointment in another department. This fixed-term, secondary appointment may be salaried or non-salaried. The need for an additional appointment may be attributed to a faculty member teaching in more than one School or department or collaborating on scholarship activities with colleagues in other departments.

There are instances in which departments and/or schools want genuine full joint appointments with joint tenure or tenure track regardless of future funding. Cover letters appointing tenure track joint appointments should be made clear and stated in the cover letter that the faculty member and dean or department chair understands the implications of the joint appointment for the faculty member's progression towards tenure, if they are not already tenured. Junior faculty should fully understand the expectations placed on them by both departments and understand that both departments will review them for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure.

With full joint appointments, it is expected that review in the secondary department is just as important as in the primary department. If a decision is made to award tenure, the faculty member has tenure in both departments. If the secondary department decides not to award tenure, the secondary appointment must be changed to a fixed term appointment, i.e., adjunct, or eliminate the tenure track title in the joint department. Rights and privileges in the secondary department are negotiated between the faculty member and that chair in accordance with their department personnel policies.

An appointment to a single department may be converted into a joint appointment. The department chair for the existing appointment shall put forward through the regular channels for review of initial appointments a recommendation that the existing appointment be converted into a joint appointment. The joint recommendation shall include the same elements required for a recommendation for initial joint appointment. Upon approval of such a recommendation, the joint appointee retains the single rank with the same incidents of academic tenure already possessed. Thereafter, all personnel actions affecting his or her academic tenure shall be processed as provided in the case of an initial joint appointment.

v. Emeritus

Emeritus appointments are reserved for those members of the voting faculty, as defined in the Faculty Code of University Government, who take service retirement and are no longer performing compensated services for the University. These individuals may continue to use the professorial titles and distinctions that they held immediately prior to retirement with the designation "emeritus" or "emerita" appended. Emeritus status may be withheld from a retiring faculty member by a school or department only in exceptional circumstances that must be explained in writing to the faculty member by the dean or division chair. Examples of such exceptional circumstances may include, but are not limited to:

The faculty member is the subject of an incomplete investigation into potential violations of university policies at the time of retirement; or
The faculty member is the subject of a disciplinary or discharge proceeding the time of retirement.

A faculty member who is notified in writing that emeritus status is being withheld may request in writing that the Provost review the decision. After considering the relevant facts and circumstances, the Provost shall decide whether the faculty member is to receive emeritus status.

In addition to the benefits and privileges retired faculty receive as University retirees, retired faculty members who continue active participation in the academic life of the University may be provided amenities that may be appropriate for the nature and extent of their work, to the extent financial, space, personnel, and other functional constraints may permit. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to nor guaranteed, the opportunity to use or be assigned office space and laboratory facilities. Emeritus faculty should be listed in the School directory and should be provided the opportunity to store appropriate academic work and materials on the School's website. It is also appropriate that faculty with emeritus status be included in lists of school faculties in official University publications.

C. Ranks

i. Instructor

This rank is appropriate for persons for whom there is reasonable expectation that in the normal course of events they will progress to the rank of Assistant Professor. The appointment is for a probationary term of one year, renewable for three additional successive one-year terms (i.e., a total of four years). No reappointment beyond four years is allowed. At least 12 months before the end of a fourth successive term a decision shall be made and communicated in writing to the instructor as to whether upon expiration of that term they will be reappointed to the rank of Assistant Professor, or not reappointed. No reappointment to the rank of instructor may be made after four years' employment at that rank.

An appointment or reappointment at the rank of instructor may be made with the special condition that automatically upon conferral of a specified academic degree the instructor shall be reappointed at the rank of Assistant Professor. Section 2.b.(3) of the Tenure Regulations states that promotion at any time from the rank of instructor to that of Assistant Professor constitutes an initial appointment at the latter rank. In such cases the appointment to Assistant Professor shall be retroactive to the effective date of instructor or to July 1 or January 1 immediately preceding the conferral of the degree whichever is nearest in point of time.

ii. Assistant Professor

The Assistant Professor rank represents an entry-level appointment, regardless of the specific appointment series. This rank typically applies to the first appointment in a faculty capacity, although individuals with substantial, and relevant experience may receive an initial appointment at a higher rank.

iii. Associate Professor

The Associate Professor rank represents the next level in rank after that of Assistant Professor. Appointment at, or promotion to, the rank of Associate Professor is reserved for those individuals who have documented significant accomplishments in their areas of research, teaching, or clinical practice and have been recognized as experts in that area outside the boundaries of the University (e.g., at the national level).

iv. Professor

The rank of professor is reserved for those individuals who are clearly advanced in their areas of scholarship, with a body of work consistent with sustained excellence that establishes a reputation of leadership that is international in scope. Appointment at, or promotion to, the rank of professor is based on demonstration of significant and sustained impact of the individual's work within the faculty's defined area(s) of scholarship.

III. Criteria for Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion

A. Areas of Scholarship

i. Scholarship of Discovery

The scholarship of discovery may be viewed primarily as those activities that lead to the creation and dissemination of new knowledge. The scholarship of discovery may be non-clinical, translational, or clinical in nature. In some cases, the development and commercialization of intellectual property may fall in the scholarship of discovery.

ii. Scholarship of Application

The scholarship of application focuses on bringing contemporary knowledge to bear on problems of consequence to individuals, institutions, or society. An important historical responsibility of professional schools is to make the connection of theory with practice. The scholarship of application could generate new knowledge, enhance understanding of the subject matter under investigation, develop new applications based on existing knowledge, or develop new innovations for implementation in real-world practice. Many components of translational, clinical, health services, implementation, and social behavioral research fall within this category of scholarship. In some cases, the development and commercialization of intellectual property may fall in the scholarship of application.

iii. Scholarship of Education

The scholarship of education involves the search for innovative and best practices to develop skills and disseminate knowledge. This includes the rigorous investigation of questions related to improving teaching and student learning as well as development of new teaching/learning methods in the residential and experiential setting. The ultimate aim is to understand and improve the effectiveness, efficiency, quality, and/or sustainability of pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences education. In some cases, the development and commercialization of intellectual property may fall in the scholarship of education.

B. Areas of Teaching

Faculty engage in a wide range of teaching activities at the School, including, but not limited to, curriculum and course design (e.g., development of curricula for whole programs of study as well as individual courses, short courses, and modules); course coordination; course teaching; small group facilitation; assessment and evaluation; academic advising; undergraduate, professional, graduate and postgraduate mentoring; and precepting. The success of the School's educational mission relies not only on faculty engagement throughout the learning process, but also on the use of evidence-based strategies that promote outcome-driven learning and success.

C. Areas of Service and Administration

i. Leadership and Service to the School and University

Many faculty provide leadership and service to the School in addition to their primary area of focus. When individuals have significant administrative duties, several factors should be considered in evaluating their productivity and impact, including the effort dedicated to the administrative appointment, the quality of their administrative work and leadership, the impact of these efforts on the School, and whether the time spent on administrative tasks might detract from their scholarly work and warrant an adjustment in effort across service, teaching and scholarship. While administrative activities cannot serve as a primary criterion for promotion and tenure, it is important to document the candidate's administrative effort, responsibilities, and impact, especially when the candidate is truly a "faculty-administrator," meaning they have maintained all traditional faculty responsibilities in addition to their administrative role.

ii. Leadership and Service to the Profession and Communities

Virtually all faculty activities are pursued in a communal environment. For example, the University is a community of scholars; professional associations (regional, national, and international) represent communities of individuals with similar interests and expertise; and faculty who pursue their scholarly endeavors in a state-supported institution are, at least to some extent, responsible to the state-wide community in particular, and to a community of scholars and teachers globally. An important element, therefore, is the degree to which an individual works effectively in this communal environment, and the degree to which one's efforts benefit the profession and community at large. To a large extent, the ability to engage in work that benefits the communities external to the School and University may be viewed as an essential characteristic of a broadly contributing member to the organization.

IV. Metrics for Documenting Academic Productivity

It is incumbent on each faculty member to document contributions to research/scholarship, teaching, and service/administration in alignment with the School's mission as related to their respective rank and track. Table 1 provides examples of evidence, but does not serve as an exhaustive source, that may be used for documenting productivity for each of the three mission areas.

A. Documenting Performance in Research and Scholarship

While traditional metrics generally apply to all areas of scholarship, non-traditional discipline-specific expectations may also be relevant to specific cases. Some parameters considered in assessing the quality of the faculty's scholarship include significance, innovation, and the overall impact upon the relevant field.

i. Demonstrable Area of Focus

The faculty member, together with the faculty's Chair, is expected to articulate clearly the area of scholarship upon which the individual's activities will be judged. The definition of a candidate's area of focus typically would be determined by the alignment of primary publications and presentations related to a central theme or issue. It is anticipated that a significant portion, but likely not the entirety, of an individual's scholarly work would have such a focus on one or more areas of scholarship.

ii. Evaluation of the Published Work

Several factors are considered including: the rigor of the work; the appropriateness and reputation of the journal (smaller niche journals may be appropriate when addressing impact in a particular field); the perspective from outside reviewers on the importance and impact of the scholarship and the published work; and evidence that the work is cited by others and/or has had an impact on the field. To a lesser extent, the quantity of the published research is also important; however, this is considered in the context of the discipline, the nature of the work conducted, and the rank of the faculty. Of importance is a sustained record of scholarship.

There are some factors that are important considerations as well when evaluating one's published work:

Team science is highly valued. It is important to consider that some faculty who support funded, collaborative research, may contribute meaningfully to papers without necessarily assuming a lead or last/corresponding author position on the paper. Therefore, it is important to ensure that these unique contributions are recognized and considered in assessing evaluation of the published work.; and
Scholarly work (which may be outside the faculty member's primary area of scholarship or focus) that stems from supporting the development of students, trainees, and early career faculty.

iii. Independence

In many cases, the independent contribution of an individual in their scholarly work is self-evident (e.g., first- or senior author publications, principal investigator or co-principal investigator on grants and contracts). However, many aspects of pharmacy and the pharmaceutical sciences rely on team science for their impact, are highly interdisciplinary and, given the collaborative nature of such scholarship, care must be taken in assessing the contributions of faculty whose scholarly activities include these collaborative relationships with others, including former mentors. In such cases, it is incumbent upon the faculty member to clearly define the role played in the collaborative project and the extent of independent intellectual contribution made toward the overall project.

B. Documenting Performance in Teaching

Teaching embodies a wide range of activities, and indicators of performance may include the following roles and/or activities: coordinator of team-taught courses; teaching a portion of, or whole course; facilitator of small group discussions; case writer; contributor to the revision of existing courses or the development of new courses or teaching approaches; development of educators and preceptors; design of new curricula on a broad scale; creator of new educational materials; and non-traditional teaching within the professional degree program (e.g., serving as a mentor in the Research and Scholarship in Pharmacy pathway). In addition, the training and mentoring of professional and graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, residents and visiting scholars outside the classroom setting, as well as participation in other forms of trainee mentoring relationships such as thesis, or dissertation, or postdoctoral fellowship advisory committees, constitute important areas of teaching responsibility. Innovation in teaching may also be of significant value to the academic organization and/or the broader community it serves. Metrics of performance include, but are not restricted to, peer and student evaluations as well as awards.

C. Documenting Performance in Service/Administration and Contributions to the University or Professional Community

Acceptable performance in service and contributions to the University or professional community are typically documented through input from key points-of-contact (internal or external to the University) relating to the effectiveness and impact of the service and/or documentation from the faculty member. The School expects all faculty to make measurable contributions to the University community consistent with our core values of WE CARE and in alignment with the School's strategic plan. The faculty annual review process requires faculty to identify and document their contributions to the University, the profession, or the community in alignment with the goals of the University, the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, and the division. The Division Chair should acknowledge these contributions and provide feedback regarding the faculty member's level of engagement, noting any considerations or opportunities for enhanced engagement.

D. Quantitative Versus Qualitative Performance Indicators

Certain aspects of faculty productivity (e.g., extramural funding; publications, patents, and presentations; didactic teaching load; licensed intellectual property or startup creation; mentoring of students in a research or clinical environment) are amenable to quantitative summary and evaluation. While quantitative aspects are important, many characteristics that are crucial to a comprehensive evaluation of performance (the actual impact of scholarly work; the effectiveness of classroom instruction; the effectiveness and impact of mentoring relationships; the degree to which the individual contributes broadly to the School) defy a truly quantitative approach. The UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy does not utilize strict quantitative guidelines for decisions of appointment, reappointment, promotion, or tenure, but rather a balanced approach, utilizing quantitative and qualitative metrics, to formulate recommendations for action.

V. Evaluating Academic Productivity and Impact

A. General Considerations

The process of evaluating a faculty member for promotion begins at the point of hire. As part of the hiring process, the hiring supervisor (in most cases the Chair of the Division in which the academic appointment is made) must articulate a clear set of expectations associated with the appointment. These expectations must include statements regarding the areas of responsibility for the new faculty member (i.e., clinical practice, research, teaching, service, administration). The expected distribution of effort among all potential areas of faculty responsibility should be developed based on the requirements of the specific position and the career aspirations of the faculty member.

When a candidate accepts a faculty appointment, the candidate formally accepts the stated expectations associated with that appointment. While these expectations are assumed to be part of the overall process of negotiating the initial appointment, they may change with time as the needs of the Division, School, and faculty member change. However, the evolution of changes in responsibility and expectation must be negotiated and documented (typically at the time of annual reviews). Such changes may impact the individual's ability to be promoted within the individual's appointment series and should only be pursued after due consideration of the School's promotion guidelines. In the absence of such specificity, the faculty member would receive little guidance as they progress through the academic rank, and success would entirely depend on self-motivation rather than something that is planned and managed.

In building the case for promotion, it is incumbent upon both the candidate and the Division Chair to frame that case with respect to the specific expectations of the position. The primary area of responsibility - clinical practice, research, or teaching - must be clearly articulated. Performance in that primary area must be documented in a manner that will allow comprehensive and thoughtful analysis by all individuals involved in the review process. Secondary areas of responsibility must be specified, together with the expectations for contributions in these areas based on the fractional effort that has been negotiated and agreed to by both the faculty member and the Chair.

VI. Meet-the-Mark Criteria for Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion of Faculty

Faculty promotion requires achievement to 'meet-the-mark' criteria. The purpose of 'meet-the-mark' is to promote faculty when they have met the standards for promotion, rather than after a specific number of years. It also reduces the heightened scrutiny by promotion committees and the need for a dossier that accompanies early promotion considerations to be considered "extraordinary." 'Meet-the-mark' applies to both the granting of tenure and promotion to Associate and Full Professor on both the fixed-term track and the tenure-track.

The School's 'meet-the-mark' criteria are minimum required criteria for promotion and/or tenure requests and are expected to be applied across all divisions. However, each division may establish additional criteria to define 'meet-the-mark;' these additional criteria must be reviewed and approved by the Full Professors' Committee and the Dean and made widely available to division faculty and to the review committees responsible for evaluation of promotion and tenure requests.

Table 1 provides examples of the types and levels of evidence to guide evaluations of the quality and impact of a faculty member's work. Externally peer-reviewed outputs or other independently evaluated measures of quality and impact are considered Tier I evidence. Documented academic preparation, professional development, training from accredited sources, feedback, evaluations and assessment from students, graduates, peers, and others are considered Tier II evidence. Tables 2, 3, and 4 outline 'meet-the-mark' criteria for fixed-term (clinical, teaching), fixed-term (research), and tenure track faculty, respectively.

i. Tenure-track appointments

The primary area of responsibility for faculty in the tenure track is scholarship. Consequently, success for a tenure-track faculty member typically would be based on considerations of the quality and impact of that scholarship, and the degree to which that scholarship establishes the candidate as an expert or thought leader within the specific discipline. Typically, the amount (e.g., funding level, duration, and continuity) and type (investigator-initiated, competitive, peer-reviewed) of financial support; the quality (journal reputation, citations), role in (first or senior author, editor) and number of journal articles, patents, reviews, book chapters, books; the degree to which the individual's opinion is sought on review panels, in authoring scholarly texts, or through consultative arrangements, membership on scientific advisory boards, corporate boards; creation of commercializable intellectual property; and the general reputation within the field as articulated by external referees are used as indicators of performance as a scholar. It is important to evaluate each of these indicators in the context of the individual's area of scholarly focus. For some, investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed funding may be the "gold standard" for financial support of the scholarly work; for others, those types of funding mechanisms may not be entirely relevant. No a priori value can be applied to any of these metrics in the absence of a clear understanding of the individual's area of focus. In addition to scholarship, the tenure-track faculty is expected to be involved, at some level, in all traditional areas of faculty responsibility. Thus, it is important to document the quality and impact of the faculty's efforts as an educator, and the contributions and impact they have made through service commitments.

ii. Fixed-term appointments

Faculty with fixed-term appointments should be evaluated in alignment with the meet-the-mark criteria and, importantly, in alignment with the allocation of effort discussed during the annual faculty review. The amount of effort devoted to teaching, scholarship, and service (and, where applicable, patient care and administration) may vary depending on the faculty member and need of the position. For all faculty, scholarship is an important and complementary element of the position and will be evaluated during the reappointment and promotion process in the context of the faculty's primary responsibilities and the effort (as discussed with the faculty's Chair) that can be devoted to scholarly pursuits.

a. Clinical

Fixed-term appointments in this track are intended for those faculty who have patient care responsibilities and focus the majority of their efforts on teaching in the experiential environment. It is essential to solicit letters from appropriate reviewers for those whose primary responsibility is clinical care.

Note: This new designation is effective June 2019. Faculty hired prior to June 2019 may have been hired under a former definition of Clinical, which did not require that they maintain a clinical practice.

b. Teaching

Fixed-term appointments in this track are intended for those faculty who are primarily engaged in teaching (effort to be outlined in the School's Faculty Workload Policy), with relevant scholarship, service, and patient care (where applicable) also considered. For those faculty who focus the majority of their efforts on teaching, the effort will be established and defined when the position is created, included in the offer letter, and re-evaluated annually. Consistent with the School's ARPT statement of values it is expected that, irrespective of their rank, type of appointment, or area of expertise, all faculty in the School will pursue scholarly activities in some form.

Note: The modifiers for the fixed-term appointments (i.e., Clinical, Research, Teaching) are important at the time the appointment is made, as they serve to frame the primary set of responsibilities of the faculty member. In addition, they are important at the time of the annual evaluation as well as evaluation during the appointment, reappointment, or promotion process, as they provide guidance upon which to base the evaluation. Finally, these modifiers are helpful in reporting descriptive data on the School's faculty, both externally or internally. Faculty, however, may drop the modifiers in communications regarding their working titles, regardless of whether they are in the tenure, tenure-track, or fixed-term track. For example, when stating their appointment and rank in signature lines within emails or other forms of communication and on business cards, faculty may drop the modifiers and refer to their appointment and rank as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor, independent of track.

iii. Professor of the Practice

Evaluation of professors of the practice is based on their contributions to the teaching, research, and service missions of the School. The precise mix of teaching, research, and service pursued by a professor of the practice must be defined at the time of initial appointment and revisited as needed. The faculty member should be evaluated in the context of their primary responsibilities.

iv. Adjunct appointments

Adjunct faculty are appointed to address very specific, narrowly defined areas of need (e.g., providing a limited number of lectures, serving on graduate student committees). Appointment at, or promotion to, a specific rank in the adjunct series must be appropriate for the stature of the individual in the faculty's field of specialization and aligned with the expectations set forth for the individual at the time of appointment with regards to teaching, research, and service.

v. Joint appointments

The approach to evaluating faculty with joint appointments in a specific series is not different than that described for appointments within the School. However, all relevant units partnering in the joint appointment must be participants in the evaluation leading to promotion.

A. Other Factors

Good Citizenship

Defined as a pattern of behaviors by faculty members that promote the welfare of the school, and, therefore, the larger university. Good citizenship consists of two primary components: engagement and collegiality. Good citizenship means that faculty engage in the work of the Division, School, and University, and exhibit behaviors that demonstrate collegiality with the goal of optimizing relationships, responsibilities, productivity, and opportunities that promote the mission and the greater good of the School and University.

Good citizenship will be discussed during reappointment, promotion, and tenure discussions. While being "a good citizen" and upholding the School's WE CARE values are expectations, these factors, alone, do not justify a decision of whether or not to reappoint, promote and/or tenure a faculty member or approve a post-tenure review.

i. Engagement

Defined as positive contributions by a pharmacy faculty member in assigned activities and participation in additional opportunities toward the development and advancement of the mission and work of their division, school, and university. Examples of engagement may include:

Participation in ESOP Faculty and Division Meetings and School/University Committees, where applicable: Regular attendance at meetings and actively contributing to discussions and decision-making processes.
Involvement in Student-Related Activities: Participating in student-centered and student-related events and initiatives; participating in recruitment and co-curricular events.
Engagement in Professional Development Activities: Engaging in workshops, seminars, and conferences to enhance personal and professional growth, and sharing knowledge gained with colleagues and students.
Contribution to Optimizing Organizational Efficiencies and Effectiveness: Contributing to the completion of surveys, data collection, use of data, and continuous quality improvement efforts as well as a willingness to provide input, feedback and insights to improve processes and programs.
Contribution to Building Community and Connections throughout the School: Participating in activities, events, and gatherings to build connections and a positive and inclusive community within the School; in person attendance at meetings and a consistent presence in the office.
Participating in and Actively Contributing to Research Collaborations: Being an active and involved collaborative member of a research team.
Contribution to Curriculum Development and Quality Improvement: Being involved in the design, review, and improvement of the professional and/or graduate program curriculum to enhance student learning and outcomes.
Commitment to Others: Being available to meet with and provide support to faculty colleagues, trainees, staff, and peers.
Participation in National and/or International Organizations: Engaging in committees, meetings, or other efforts within national or international organizations.
Community Outreach: Participating in or organizing community service programs/initiatives, health fairs, public education programs, and public health emergency events to extend the impact of the School beyond the campus.
Advocacy and Promotion of the Profession and the School: Actively engaging in efforts to advocate for and advance the profession or the School.

ii. Collegiality

Defined as interpersonal behaviors that promote a positive and productive work environment and culture that ultimately benefit other faculty, students, staff, and constituents, as well as the division, school, university, discipline, profession, and/or lab or practice site in which the faculty member is engaged. Examples of collegiality may include:

Developing and nurturing positive collaborative working relationships with faculty colleagues, leadership, staff, and trainees;
Treating faculty colleagues, staff, and trainees, with respect in words, speech and actions;
Being civil with one another (e.g., kind, considerate of others; not rude or condescending);
Exhibiting a sense of understanding when disagreements arise and a desire to work toward a common goal and solution;
Initiating collaboration and cooperation in research, teaching, service, and governance;
Collaborating and working together with others to provide support, share information, and contribute to enhancing the collective work being done;
Intentional and professional interactions with faculty colleagues, staff, and trainees;
Offering and accepting constructive comments and feedback in a professional and collaborative spirit;
Maintaining standards of professionalism in relationships with faculty colleagues, trainees, and staff at the School and the University and with the public both in person and/or in a professional presence online;
Creating a welcoming environment.

WE CARE Values

Faculty are also expected to uphold the School's core values of WE CARE:

Welcoming (creating an environment of inclusion and belonging)
Equity (opportunity for all)
Commitment (relentless passion for impact to society)
Accountability (ownership and responsibility)
Respect (appreciation and value for others)
Excellence (pre-eminence in all that we do)

Assessment of GOOD CITIZENSHIP and WE CARE Values

Chair assessment of good citizenship (i.e., engagement and collegiality) and WE CARE values (along with faculty self-assessment and input) should be assessed and discussed:

At the time of the annual review
At the time of reappointment, promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review
Anytime throughout the year when issues may arise that warrant assessment

The assessment should recognize positive behavior and, if warranted, identify opportunities for improvement. A form is provided (its use is not required) to aid in this assessment. Faculty not meeting expectations for good citizenship and/or not upholding the School's WE CARE values should receive feedback on areas of opportunity for improvement and be provided specific strategies and resources to address the behaviors.

Good citizenship will be discussed during reappointment, promotion, and tenure discussions. While being "a good citizen" and upholding the School's WE CARE values are expectations, these factors, alone, do not justify a decision of whether or not to reappoint, promote and/or tenure a faculty member or approve a post-tenure review.

Documentation of Good Citizenship and WE CARE Values

In alignment with the assessment, documentation should recognize positive behavior and, if warranted, identify opportunities for improvement. Once discussed with the faculty member, this should be documented:

in the annual review letter
in writing to the faculty member at any point throughout the year (if the need to discuss arises outside the annual review period)
in the letter to the faculty member for the faculty member's reappointment, promotion, tenure, or post-tenure review.

It is an expectation that any assessment of good citizenship and WE CARE values is discussed together in person with the faculty member.

Institutional needs and resources

As described in the University Trustee Policies and Regulations, decisions regarding appointment, reappointment, and tenure always consider the needs of the School and the resources that are available to address those needs. Please refer to the policy document for more information.

VII. Characteristics for Appointment at, or Promotion to, Advanced Faculty Ranks

A. Associate Professor

The transition from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor in any of the appointment series (tenure-track, fixed-term, or adjunct), or initial appointment at the rank of Associate Professor, is based on the following characteristics:

Demonstrated potential for continued academic productivity;
Relevance of the faculty's scholarly activities to the mission of the Division and the School;
Evidence that the faculty has made important intellectual contributions to a defined area of scholarship or to intellectual property development and commercialization;
A reputation as an expert in the faculty's field, external to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (i.e. on the national or international level);
Contributions to the teaching mission of the School;
Effective service, including to the scientific/professional community, at a level appropriate for time in rank;
Broad contributions to the Division, School, and University

An important hallmark of this transition is evidence that the faculty has indeed developed a defined body of scholarly work. When the scholarship is truly collaborative, and/or is pursued under the auspices of a center or an institute director, or faculty sponsor, it is incumbent on the faculty and the Division Chair to demonstrate that they not only made important intellectual contributions, but served as a significant intellectual driving force for an appropriate portion of the work.

The degree to which the faculty has met this standard may be ascertained, in part, by invitations to speak at professional meetings or to provide lectures at other academic institutions; first or senior/corresponding authorship on manuscripts or scholarly reviews; or service on review panels, editorial boards, scientific advisory boards, and leadership roles in grant applications. In addition, evaluations from key collaborators and outside reviewers would provide important context for understanding the degree to which the faculty's intellectual contributions were important to the development and success of the scholarly work. Further, it is incumbent upon the faculty and the Division Chair to demonstrate that the faculty member is nationally recognized for contributions to the relevant area of specialization.

B. Professor

The transition from Associate Professor to Professor in any of the appointment series or initial appointment at the rank of Professor builds upon the characteristics established or considered in promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor (see above). Consistent with their track the faculty must be able to demonstrate the following:

Evidence of sustained intellectual contributions to scholarly activities in a well-defined area, which could include creation and commercialization of intellectual property;
Recognition as an international authority in the discipline of specialization;
Evidence of sustained contributions to the teaching missions of the School at a high level, if applicable; and
Evidence of sustained service commitments (to the School, University, scientific discipline, profession) at a high level

C. Professor of the Practice

Appointment at this fixed-term rank is appropriate for a senior field-specific expert whose contribution to research, teaching, or service upon joining the University community has its foundation in a prior career of distinguished, non-academic achievement. It is not appropriate to employ the rank distinctions "Associate" or "Assistant" with this appointment. Evaluations should be based on the expectations outlined for the faculty member.

D. Early Promotion and/or Tenure

Early promotion and/or tenure may be considered if the applicant is exceptional and achievement of the criteria for promotion/tenure have been clearly met or exceeded. Sustained faculty accomplishment at UNC-Chapel Hill should be the hallmark of readiness for promotion and tenure. Competitive external offers that convey higher rank or tenure may be a rationale for an earlier promotion or tenure review, but require careful review and consideration by the Division Chair, Full Professors' Committee, and Dean to ensure that the early promotion/tenure satisfies UNC ARPT standards.

It should be considered a rare event for an Assistant Professor to be considered for promotion and/or tenure at the time of first reappointment as a probationary Assistant Professor. Consideration for promotion and/or tenure with a submitted dossier should not generally occur in less than four years at UNC-Chapel Hill (except for those with years of previous experience that are recognized and described in the offer letter as it relates to the timing and criteria for promotion/tenure review at UNC-Chapel Hill).

It should be considered a rare event for an Associate Professor with tenure to be considered for promotion to Full Professor with a submitted dossier with less than four years in rank at UNC-Chapel Hill.

VIII. Tenure

A. Policies Governing the Granting of Tenure

Academic tenure refers to the conditions and guarantees that apply to a faculty member's employment. More specifically, it refers to the protection of a faculty member against involuntary suspension or discharge from, or termination of employment with, the University, except upon specified grounds and in accordance with specified procedures.

Tenure is not earned, but rather is granted by the University following an assessment of institutional needs and resources and evidence of service to the academic community, potential for future contribution, commitment to the welfare of the University, and demonstrated professional competence, including consideration of commitment to effective teaching, research, and public service. Tenure may be withheld on any grounds other than those specifically stated to be impermissible in the Trustee Policies and Regulations.

B. Early Tenure

See VII.D. above.

C. Policies Governing Post-Tenure Review

A post-tenure review is conducted every five years from the effective date of conferred permanent tenure. All members of the faculty of the UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy are expected throughout their careers to maintain the standards of excellence in teaching, research, and service that are set forth in this document. Evaluation of performance will consider changing expectations at different stages of faculty careers.

The fundamental purpose of post-tenure review in the UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy is to ensure that the tenured faculty assists in advancing the School's mission and its leading position nationally and globally through continued pursuit of research, teaching, and service activities with excellence. To achieve this purpose, the review process should assist individual faculty members in their ongoing professional development, in particular in their efforts to enhance their skills as educators, their accomplishments as scholars, and their contributions to the School, the profession, and the public.

The review process is intended to foster constructive dialogue between colleagues, a dialogue characterized by fairness, mutual respect, a desire to learn, open-mindedness, and appreciation for the importance of academic freedom. The process of review also serves to enhance a sense of accountability within the UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy and the University. The process conforms to the Framework for Implementation of Post-Tenure Review adopted by the University's Board of Trustees and the University Board of Governors. The system of post-tenure review supplements, rather than substitutes for, other systems of review, including annual reviews, reviews for promotion, or reviews associated with other personnel actions taken pursuant to University policies on matters relating to faculty conduct and performance.

IX. Other Potential Actions

A. Suspension, Diminishment in Rank, Discharge

During any fixed or probationary term appointment and while on permanent tenure, a faculty member may be suspended, diminished in rank, or discharged from employment only on the grounds and in accordance with the procedures as outlined in the Trustee Policies and Regulations.

B. Non-Reappointment

A decision not to reappoint upon expiration of a tenure-track appointment at the Assistant Professor or Associate Professor without tenure rank, may be made by the Dean of the UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy in consultation with the respective Division Chair and after consultation with the assembled Full Professors Committee. This information may be found in the Trustees Policies and Regulations. A decision not to reappoint a fixed-term faculty member may be made by the Dean of the UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy in consultation with the respective Division Chair. Every effort will be made to provide the faculty member with at least a six-month notice period prior to the end of the contract, with a minimum notice of 30 days.

X. Procedures

A. General

The faculty member has responsibility to collaborate with their Division Chair to assemble and send forward to Human Resources at the UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy all material necessary for appointment, reappointments, and awards of promotion and tenure.

B. Division Voting

All dossiers that will be presented to the Full Professors' Committee require a vote from the assembled full professors and, where applicable, tenured associate professors of the division. The Division Chair will call upon the eligible voting members of the faculty to review dossiers in advance of the Full Professors' Committee meeting. The vote of the division shall be included in the letter to the Full Professors' Committee. Reason(s) for any negative votes or abstentions of division faculty members should be documented in the letter. It is recommended that all division discussions regarding appointments, reappointments, promotions, and tenure in the tenure-track occur in face-to-face meetings (or via Zoom) to encourage thoughtful discussion; voting can take place via Qualtrics or by show of hands. Similarly, it is recommended that all division discussions regarding appointments and promotions in the fixed-term track occur face-to-face to encourage thoughtful discussion; voting can take place via Qualtrics or by show of hands.

C. Full Professors' Committee

All appointments, reappointments, and promotions that result in permanent tenure, appointments, and reappointments for greater than one year (including fixed-term appointments and joint appointments), and post-tenure reviews must be reviewed and voted on by the School's Full Professors' Committee. The committee is comprised of all fixed-term full professors with a clinical or teaching focus, and tenured full professors who have a primary appointment at the Eshelman School of Pharmacy. By the nature of their appointment and absence of rank, Professors of the Practice, while highly valued faculty within the School, are not members of the Full Professors Committee.

i. Voting Process

Face-to-face discussions should occur when possible. The School utilizes electronic distribution of dossiers to the Full Professors' Committee via restricted access to an electronic shared folder. Attendance is taken at each meeting. While individual votes are confidential, participation in the process is not a secret. It is important to excuse faculty members who have a significant conflict of interest from voting on a candidate for promotion and tenure (faculty members with a conflict of interest should not vote or report an abstention). A committee member who has co-authored substantial or ongoing publications or grants with a candidate during the time period under review should recuse himself/herself from the committee to avoid raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.

The voting ballot allows voters to explain negative or abstained votes. All Full Professors electing to vote not in favor or abstain are asked to provide written comments justifying their vote. Any negative or abstained votes should be presented to the Dean by the Chair of the Full Professors' Committee for final decision on whether to support the request. The Dean will take into consideration the vote count and explanation of votes when making a final determination.

ii. Documentation of the Vote

The vote of the Full Professors Committee must be included in the recommendation letter from the Chair and the Dean to the APT and the Provost in the following format: The vote of the Full Professors should include the overall vote of the Full Professors, followed by the vote of the tenured faculty and the vote of the fixed-term faculty. Importantly, in the case of decisions pertaining to tenure-track faculty, the votes of the tenured faculty must be reported separately from the votes of the fixed-term faculty.

For example:

Overall, # FP voted on this action:
- # tenured faculty voting:
  - # tenured faculty voting yes,
  - # tenured faculty voting no,
  - # tenured faculty abstained;
- # fixed-term faculty voting:
  - # fixed-term faculty voting yes,
  - # fixed-term faculty voting no,
  - # fixed-term faculty abstained.

If eligible voting faculty are absent from the Full Professors meeting, an explanation must be captured (after the documentation of the vote) in the letter to the Provost. For example: Of the # eligible voting faculty, # were absent for the reason of XXX (e.g., travel, scheduling conflict, on leave), and this bears no reflection on the candidate.

D. Recruitment Guidelines

i. Tenured/Tenure Track Position Postings

Must be advertised nationally for a minimum of 30 calendar days.

ii. Fixed-Term Position Postings

Must be advertised locally and regionally for a minimum of 14 calendar days.

iii. Interviewing Candidates

Search committees must send a list of interview candidates to Human Resources at the UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy for approval prior to interviewing. Only candidates that meet the minimum qualifications as outlined in the posting should be interviewed. Searches must receive approval by the Provost Office before interviews can begin.

iv. Search Waivers

A search waiver is used under special circumstances to hire outside of the formal recruitment process. The UNC-Chapel Hill University Compliance Office follows the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFFCP) guidelines. Waivers for searches should be carefully considered and utilized sparingly and cautiously to ensure confidence in the open search process and to ensure equal opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill. In addition, any search with fewer than 5 applicants must be approved by the Provost. Refer to the UNC-Chapel Hill Faculty/Academic Personnel Recruitment page for more information about search waivers.

E. Fixed-Term Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion

Faculty in the UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy are appointed to 12-month service periods, for a duration of one to five years. The service period may begin any time during the year. Fixed-term faculty appointments are made at the ranks of adjunct, visiting, teaching, clinical or research (assistant, associate, full) professor, and professor of the practice. Adjunct appointments may be at-will or for a fixed term for a duration of one to five years. Visiting faculty appointments generally may not exceed one-year at a time in duration.

The Division Chair may independently appoint such faculty for one-year renewable appointments. Division Chairs are encouraged to consider appointments greater than one year for fixed-term faculty who have served three years or longer. For terms longer than one year, the Division Chair must consult and report a vote of the Schools' Full Professors Committee.

Fixed-term faculty appointments are appropriate for individuals who possess sound qualifications for teaching, research, academic administration, or public service, but for whom none of the tenure-track professorial ranks are appropriate because of the School's programmatic needs or budgetary exigencies. Tenure may not be acquired through fixed-term ranks. An appointment is "permanent" if 50% FTE or greater and one year or greater in term. An appointment is "temporary" if less than 50% FTE or a visiting appointment of one year or less. An appointment to a higher rank is possible based on appropriate criteria.

F. Documentation for Initial Appointment and Promotion of Fixed-Term Faculty

i. AP2 Form

Departments must use UNC-Chapel Hill's AP2 form.

ii. Conditions of Employment (COE) Form: [For Initial Appointments Only]

The Conditions of Employment form set forth by UNC-Chapel Hill for all new appointments. Departments must use UNC-Chapel Hill's COE form.

iii. Contract/Appointment Letter from Chair/Dean to Employee

The letter should follow the University-approved template available in the Manager Toolkit on the School's HR website.

iv. Curriculum Vitae

In every subheading, list items in reverse chronological order with most recent items first. Pages should be numbered, and date should be included so that reviewers will know they have the most recent version. The CV is meant to allow all faculty members an opportunity to showcase their teaching, scholarship, service, engagement, creative endeavors, interdisciplinary activities, and a wide array of accomplishments including non-traditional products. The following is the preferred order for presentation of the CV (NOTE: Initial hire CVs may be submitted in the order received):

Personal
Education
Professional experience
Honors
Bibliography and products of scholarship (as applicable)
Teaching record
Grants (role, total direct grant amount, % effort, agency, dates, etc.)
Professional service

v. Personal Statements (For Promotion Only)

The following is the preferred order for personal statements, to follow the CV.

Research Statement
Teaching Statement
Service statement (includes administrative effort/responsibilities and/or patient care, if applicable); community engagement, if applicable)

vi. Letters of Recommendation - Outside the University (at least two, for promotion only)

A minimum of two letters from outside the base unit, which may include letters from outside of the department or outside of the University, is required. The letters may come from individuals with whom the candidate has worked, normally from outside the institution. A minimum of four letters is recommended to be requested. All letters received should be included in the documentation packet.

vii. Teaching Documentation (For Promotion Only)

When a portion of effort is devoted to teaching, promotion within fixed-term appointments require teaching documentation. Fixed-term faculty without a portion of effort devoted to teaching are exempt from this requirement. Teaching documentation is to include the following:

Reflective statement.
Teaching activities:
- Courses taught each semester for the past three years and number of students taught by section.
- List the names of graduate students supervised, thesis titles, and completion dates for degree work since employment at UNC-Chapel Hill.
- Undergraduate honors projects should be included as well.
Teaching evaluations: summaries should be provided showing quantitative data that evaluates the teaching effectiveness (do not include individual student evaluation sheets or grade sheets). Typically, at least four teaching evaluations are included.
Peer evaluations: The peer evaluation of teaching form was developed for use as part of the School's ARPT process, which requires teaching observations in conjunction with other evidence of teaching performance. The Division Chair will work with the faculty member being reviewed to arrange for peer evaluation. The dossier should include a minimum of two peer evaluations. As a best practice, the peer evaluations should be conducted by peer faculty colleagues other than the Division Chair. Ideally, the evaluations should include observation of at least two different class / remote sessions and preferably within different courses, where applicable. When possible, the reviews should occur during the year prior to or the year in which the promotion is conducted. Peer evaluations should be completed by faculty members at the rank of associate or full professor. Results of teaching observations should be used in conjunction with other teaching evidence when making summative decisions. Other evidence of teaching expertise and performance could include:
- Completion of professional training workshops related to teaching and learning
- Completion of graduate degrees or certificates in education and/or related fields
- Publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts demonstrating teaching effectiveness
- Receipt of teaching awards
- Receipt of the School's Worthy of Recognition designation
- Results of student evaluations

viii. Transcript - Certified Official Copy: (for initial appointments only, collected by HR Office).

ix. Background check: (for initial appointments only, initiated by HR Office)

G. Documentation for Reappointment of Fixed-Term Faculty

i. Contract/Appointment Letter from Chair/Dean to Employee

The letter should follow the University-approved template available in the Manager Toolkit on the School's HR website.

ii. Curriculum Vitae (for multi-year reappointments only)

In every subheading, list items in reverse chronological order with most recent items first. Pages should be numbered, and date should be included so that reviewers will know they have the most recent version. The CV is meant to allow all faculty members an opportunity to showcase their teaching, scholarship, service, engagement, creative endeavors, interdisciplinary activities, and a wide array of accomplishments, including non-traditional products. The following is the preferred order for presentation of the CV:

Personal
Education
Professional experience
Honors
Bibliography and products of scholarship (as applicable)
Teaching record
Grants (role, total direct grant amount, % effort, agency, dates, etc.)
Professional service

iii. Division Chair's Letter to Full Professors Committee (for multi-year reappointments only)

Following the Full Professors Committee/Provost template letter, the Division Chair will prepare a letter to present the fixed term faculty member's multi-year reappointment to the Full Professor's committee.

H. Review of Tenure and Tenure Track Faculty

Review and recommendation of prospective tenure-track and tenured faculty appointees are made by the Division Chair in consultation with the Full Professors Committee. The recommendation of the relevant Division Chair is reviewed and approved by the Dean prior to moving upward in the approval chain for further administrative and committee review. The review committees for the University include: Health Science Appointments Committee (HSAC) for all Health Affairs Schools, the University Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (APT) Committee, and the Board of Trustees (BOT).

i. Timing of Review and Notification

Faculty members should be notified of a decision no less than 12 months before the end of term. It is advised that faculty begin preparing the dossier no later than six months prior to anticipated notification date.

ii. Tenure Track Assistant Professors (Third-year reviews)

Initial appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor is for a probationary term of four years. No less than 12 months before the end of this term, the Assistant Professor must be notified in writing whether they will be recommended for a second probationary term of three years or not reappointed. Assistant Professors are reviewed during the sixth year for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, no reappointment, or under exceptional circumstances reappointment at the rank of Assistant professor.

iii. Tenure Track Associate Professors (Fourth-year reviews)

Initial appointment to the rank of Associate Professor without tenure is for the probationary term of five years. No less than 12 months before the end of this term, the Associate Professor must be notified in writing whether they will be reappointed with tenure, promoted to Professor, or not recommended for reappointment. If the Associate Professor will not be reappointed at the end of the five-year term, the Division Chair must notify him or her at least on year before the current term ends.

Newly recruited Associate Professors coming with tenure from another university should be assessed by the Dean and Division Chair for whether to recommend tenure at the time of offer. Based on this recommendation, the vote of the Full Professors is required to extend the offer of tenure at the time of offer. Newly recruited Associate Professors coming without tenure from another university will not be extended the offer of tenure consideration at the time of the offer unless they clearly and compellingly demonstrate that they have already met promotion and tenure standards at UNC-Chapel Hill. In this case, newly recruited Associate Professors without tenure can be considered for tenure, in rare instances, if qualified by UNC standards. The vote of the Full Professors is required to extend the offer of tenure at the time of offer.

Associate Professors with tenure must undergo review for both possible promotion to Full Professor and to meet the post-tenure review requirement of the University. It is possible for promotion reviews and post-tenure reviews to take place simultaneously. Post-tenure review and review for promotion to Full Professor are carried out simultaneously. Every five years, Associate Professors with tenure must have a full internal review that constitutes their required post-tenure review. If the faculty member wishes to be considered for promotion to Full Professor at that time, then external recommendation letters are solicited as part of that review. If the faculty member does not wish to be reviewed for possible promotion at that time, then only a review is completed.

I. Documentation for Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure of Tenure-Track Faculty

The following documents are required to be submitted in the dossier presented to the Full Professors Committee.

i. AP2 Form

Departments must use UNC-Chapel Hill's AP2 form.

ii. Conditions of Employment (COE) Form: [For Initial Appointments Only]

The Conditions of Employment form set forth by UNC-Chapel Hill for all new appointments. Departments must use UNC-Chapel Hill's COE form.

iii. Curriculum Vitae

Personal
Education
Professional experience
Honors
Bibliography and products of scholarship (as applicable)
Teaching record
Grants (role, total direct grant amount, % effort, agency, dates, etc.)
Professional service

iv. Personal Statements (For Promotion Only)

The following is the preferred order for personal statements, to follow the CV.

Research Statement (for reappointment, promotion, and tenure only)
Teaching Statement (for reappointment, promotion, and tenure only)
Service statement (includes administrative effort/responsibilities, if applicable); community engagement, if applicable (for reappointment, promotion, and tenure only)

v. Recommendation Letter from Chair/Dean to the Provost

The Division Chair's letter should include an outline of duties and responsibilities and demonstrate why the faculty member is being recommended for appointment or promotion. The letter should be endorsed by the Dean and must include the following (see appendices for additional tips regarding the Division Chair's letter and letter template):

Recommended appointment date
The vote of the Full Professors should include the overall vote of the Full Professors, followed by the vote of the tenured faculty and then the vote of the fixed-term faculty. Importantly, in the case of decisions pertaining to tenure track faculty, the voted of the tenured must be reported separately from the votes of the fixed-term faculty.
- For example:
  - Overall, # FP voted on this action:
    - # tenured faculty voting:
      - # tenured faculty voting yes,
      - # tenured faculty voting no,
      - # tenured faculty abstained;
    - # fixed-term faculty voting:
      - # fixed-term faculty voting yes,
      - # fixed-term faculty voting no,
      - # fixed-term faculty abstained.
- If eligible voting faculty are absent from the Full Professors meeting, an explanation must be captured (after the documentation of the vote) in the letter to the Provost. For example: Of the # eligible voting faculty, # were absent for the reason of XXX (e.g., travel, scheduling conflict, on leave), and this bears no reflection on the candidate.
If promotion, statement of faculty member "meeting the mark" in the summary.
Evidence supporting designated area of excellent.
Any other appropriate information about the candidate not already documented.

vi. Copy of Letter Soliciting Recommendation (For Initial Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure only)

The Division Chair should write an official letter soliciting outside letters. The CV, job posting (when applicable), and ARPT document should accompany the Division Chair's letter. It is important that all letters indicate if a relationship exists between the letter writer and the candidate, in order to prevent any conflict of interest from occurring. If no relationship exists, this should be explicitly stated in the letter. See the appendices for the standard solicitation letter, including information on possible conflicts of interest.

vii. Letters of Recommendation - outside the University (At Least Four; For Initial Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure only).

Two letters are solicited from a list of names provided by the candidate and two from individuals selected by the Division Chair or Dean, as appropriate. Reviewers must be above the rank of the candidate, optimally full professors. All letters should be from individuals independent of the candidate, except in the case of initial tenure-track appointments (i.e., Assistant/Associate Professor w/out tenure). Letters may not be from individuals who have significant involvement with a candidate, e.g., a collaborator, mentor, previous co-worker, former dissertation chair, friend, etc., but may be from individuals who know the candidate through professional interactions, e.g., reviewed the candidate's publications or served on a review committee together. A minimum of six to eight letters should be requested. All letters received should be included, not a selected subset.

In addition to the minimum four required independent letters, any number of additional letters from any source may also be submitted. These may be from individuals within the institution with whom the candidate has collaborated or from former colleagues, collaborators, mentors, or other individuals connected with the candidate. Each outside letter should have a designation in the upper right-hand corner indicating whether the writer of the letter was suggested by the candidate or was chosen by the Division Chair or Dean. See the appendices for tips regarding external letters of evaluation for tenure and tenure-track appointments.

Outside Letters of Recommendation for Tenured Appointments - A minimum of four letters of evaluation are required: all four from outside the institution, all from individuals independent of the candidate, two from a list of names provided by the candidate and two from individuals selected by the Department Chair or Dean, as appropriate. Ideally, all of the letters should come from research institutions.
Outside Letters of Recommendation for Initial Tenure-Track Appointments (i.e., Assistant/Associate Professor without tenure) - A minimum of four letters of evaluation are required, which may come from individuals that the candidate identifies and selects and with whom the candidate has worked. Normally, all four should come from outside the institution, but in certain circumstances may come from individuals within the institution. Ideally, all of the letters should come from research institutions.
In certain situations, external letters of recommendation may come from outside academia (e.g., industry); however, please work with the School's HR team to determine if this is appropriate.

viii. Teaching Evaluations (For Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Only)

Summaries should be provided showing quantitative data that evaluates the teaching effectiveness. Do not include individual student evaluations or grade sheets. Typically, at least four teaching evaluations are included.

ix. Peer Evaluations of Teaching (For Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Only)

The peer evaluation of teaching form was developed for use as part of the School's ARPT process, which requires teaching observations in conjunction with other evidence of teaching performance. The Division Chair will work with the faculty member being reviewed to arrange for peer evaluation. The dossier should include a minimum of two peer evaluations. Ideally, the evaluations should include observation of at least two different class / remote sessions and preferably within different courses, where applicable. When possible, the reviews should occur during the year prior to or the year in which the reappointment, promotion and/or tenure, or post-tenure review is conducted. Peer evaluations should be completed by faculty members at the rank of associate or full professor. As a best practice, the peer evaluations of teaching should be conducted by peer faculty colleagues other than the Division Chair. Results of teaching observations should be used in conjunction with other teaching evidence when making summative decisions (see the meet-the-mark criteria for teaching).

Examples of other evidence of teaching expertise and performance could include:

Completion of professional training workshops related to teaching and learning
Completion of graduate degrees or certificates in education and/or related fields
Publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts demonstrating teaching effectiveness
Receipt of the School's Worthy of Recognition designation
Results of student evaluations

x. Transcript - Certified Official Copy: (for initial appointments only, collected by HR Office).

xi. Background Check

HR will determine if a background check is required and initiate it.

J. Transitioning Between Tracks

The ability to move from track to track is feasible, but only for a limited number of existing faculty members carefully selected by the Eshelman School of Pharmacy.

i. Transitions from Fixed-Term to the Tenure-track

Transition of faculty from fixed-term to the tenure-track typically requires an open recruitment; however, on the rare occasion that an existing fixed-term faculty member receives an external offer that conveys promotion and/or tenure consistent with UNC-Chapel Hill standards for a tenure-track position, a search waiver can be requested through Human Resources in lieu of an open search, for a proposed track transition or promotion, subject to approval of the Dean, the Division Chair, the Full Professors, the review committees, the Provost, and the Board of Trustees.

ii. Transition from the Tenure-track to Fixed-Term

Transition of faculty from the tenure-track to fixed-term requires an open recruitment. On the rare occasion that an existing tenure-track faculty member would like to voluntarily transfer to the fixed-term, a waiver of recruitment may be requested through Human Resources. The procedure will follow the normal waiver of recruitment policy.

K. Post-Tenure Review

Once every five years, each tenured member of the faculty (Associate and Full Professor) must undergo a formal post-tenure review. The Full Professors Committee serves as the School's post-tenure review committee and is responsible for conducting the review, for formulating recommended action, and for communicating those recommendations to the Division Chair and Dean. Prior to the review, the faculty member should meet with the Division Chair and summarize progress made during the time since the last post-tenure review (or since granting of tenure in the case of the first post-tenure review). Faculty members who are to undergo review in a given year should be advised by their Division Chair at least six (6) months in advance.

i. Information Considered During Review

The faculty member should provide the Division Chair with an updated CV, updated teaching portfolio (with results from course evaluations), reflective self-evaluation of the preceding five-year period, and a plan of action for the next five years. The Division Chair must provide their summary and recommendation in a letter to the Full Professors, together with the faculty member's dossier. The Division Chair may also provide the Full Professors Committee with additional information that may be pertinent, including information developed during periodic merit reviews and information relating to the faculty member's ongoing work within the Division or the School.

The reflective self-evaluation of the preceding five-year period should include an assessment of the following areas: research and scholarship; teaching; and service (include administrative responsibilities and patient care, if applicable); good citizenship (engagement and collegiality); and WE CARE values. Included in this reflection should be a plan of action for the next five years.
The teaching portfolio should include a peer evaluation of teaching. Peer review of syllabus materials, visitation of classes, and other indicators of teaching will be conducted to enhance the insights of the faculty as a whole about teaching and provide relevant information on the faculty member being reviewed. As a general matter, at least two class sessions of at least two courses during the year prior to or the year in which the post-tenure review of an individual faculty member is conducted is recommended. Peer evaluation should be completed by faculty members at the rank of associate or full professor. As a best practice, the Division Chair should not conduct peer reviews for faculty who they are presenting for post-tenure review.
The Chair letter should include whether the faculty member is performing at 'Exceeding Expectations,' 'Meeting Expectations,' or 'Not Meeting Expectations' in each area, including research, teaching, and service. An overall assessment of performance at 'Exceeding,' 'Meeting,' or 'Not Meeting Expectations' should conclude the letter. In addition, an assessment of good citizenship should be included in the letter.
If the faculty member is at the Associate Professor level, the post-tenure review should include plans for possible promotion.

ii. Recognition of Performance

The Full Professors Committee will consider whether the faculty member being reviewed is performing at 'Exceeding Expectations,' Meeting Expectations,' or 'Not Meeting Expectations' that need to be addressed through the creation of a success plan, which will be communicated to the faculty member by the Division Chair in writing.

iii. Establishment and Monitoring of Success Plan

The Division Chair and the faculty member will meet to formulate a success plan designed to assist the faculty member in strategies to optimize performance in alignment with the review of the Full Professors. The creation of a success plan will utilize a University-approved template for documentation of success plans, which includes clear goals, indicators of goal attainment, a reasonable time frame for the completion of goals, and a statement of consequences if the goals are not reached. The performance of a faculty member who is found to not be meeting expectations in overall performance and who is working on completion of a success plan will be reviewed by the Full Professors Committee on an annual (or more frequent, if needed) basis for a period of up to five years, until such time as substantial deficiencies have been remedied. In the event that substantial deficiencies in performance continue to exist at the end of the five-year period, the Division Chair should notify the Dean, who will consider whether grounds for dismissal or other disciplinary action exist under the Trustees Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure.

iv. Appeals of Findings of Substantial Deficiencies and Success Plans

Faculty members found by the Division Chair and Post-Tenure Review Committee to have substantial deficiencies in performance and for whom a success plan is established may appeal the finding of substantial deficiency or the terms of the success plan within 30 days of receiving a final letter from the department chair, including such findings and success plan.

v. Record Keeping

Post-tenure review letters are emailed to the faculty member by the Chair of the Full Professors Committee, with the Dean, Division Chair, and Human Resources Director copied. Post-tenure review letters are stored in Division files as well as Human Resources personnel files.

L. Administrative Division Chair Appointments

i. Internal Appointments

The Dean recommends such appointment and reappointment to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, with final approval by the Board of Trustees. Chairs are appointed for terms of three to five years on recommendation of the Dean, who consults with the departmental faculty in identifying nominees for the Chair role. This includes Interim/Acting Division Chair appointments. Administrative appointments are at-will and subject to discontinuation.

ii. External Appointments

Candidates external to the University being considered for a Division Chair position are reviewed and approved by the Eshelman School of Pharmacy Full Professors Committee through the standard process for initial faculty appointments. Since the recruitment is for both the faculty appointment and the chair role, a single vote by the committee covers the entire appointment, with no separate vote required for the chair position.

iii. Documents Required for Division Chair Appointments

AP2 Form
Curriculum Vitae
Recommendation Letter from Dean to the Provost.

M. Management of External Offers and Promotion Review

Activation of retention efforts prior to a faculty member's receipt of an external offer letter is permissible, provided that the faculty member can demonstrate written evidence of candidacy (e.g., job talk, being on a short list of applicants) from another university or employer. The UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy is committed to exploring retention of faculty, when possible, for accomplished faculty members with external offers or evidence of a high level of external interest. Typically, a counteroffer should not be considered more frequently than every five years. Exceptions for additional earlier counteroffers will require explicit in-advance agreement of the Provost. Only faculty members who are fully qualified for a promotion based on UNC-Chapel Hill's criteria should be considered for promotion and/or tenure as part of the counteroffer.

Given that the promotion and tenure process moves slowly, it is important to indicate to the faculty member in the counteroffer that all efforts will be made by the faculty member to assemble the dossier as efficiently as possible and for the chair to move it forward as efficiently as possible for consideration. Post-tenure review may provide information that suggests a promotion is timely. However, in some cases when the School has determined that promotion for a faculty member is timely, a promotion review can be used as an alternative to post-tenure review, if it occurs prior to the fifth year after the initial promotion to tenured Associate Professor. Spousal hiring as part of faculty retention efforts is permissible provided the hiring meets the requirements of applicable University policies.

N. Faculty Orientation

Newly hired faculty and relevant School staff will undergo ARPT orientation and training at the level of the School by individuals knowledgeable about appointments, promotion and tenure. This will help faculty and staff to understand promotion-related timelines and promotion/tenure expectations.

In addition, Division Chairs and other administrators may undergo training offered through the Provost's Office or the Faculty Affairs Office and the University's APT Committee on ARPT processes and procedures as well as APT best practices and pitfalls, when available. Further, Human Resources will provide Division Chairs with a list of reappointment, promotion and/or tenure, and post-tenure review dates for all of their faculty and touch base each January about the faculty to be reviewed that calendar year.

O. Faculty Mentoring

Mentoring is a fundamental activity within the Eshelman School of Pharmacy and the University. The ability to mentor and support all faculty members is integral to the School and the University's ability to develop a high-performing and engaged faculty.

The Bill and Karen Campbell Faculty Mentoring Program: A powerful asset for new faculty at the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy. Through the program, experienced, insightful, and trusted senior faculty serve as guides, allies, and advocates of junior faculty.
Establishing mentoring teams for faculty: For faculty not enrolled in the Campbell Mentoring Program, opportunities exist to establish faculty mentoring teams for individual faculty. Within the School, Division Chairs are responsible for ensuring that faculty are well positioned to reach their full potential.
Faculty Annual Reviews: Annual faculty reviews should clearly document reflections from the past year as well as career planning moving forward. Faculty are asked to identify and document any professional development needs they may have and to discuss these with their Chair.
Other: The School will be familiar with and educate Division Chairs and faculty on the mentoring resources available on campus, including through the Center for Faculty Excellence.

P. Reporting Requirements

All tenure denials determined by the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy will be documented by the Human Resources team at the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy and submitted in an annual report to the Provost. As requested by the University, the School will annually submit the names of faculty members who a) switched from the tenure-track to the fixed-term track, b) left the institution during the probationary term, and c) were denied a secondary probationary term as Assistant Professor. Finally, the School will evaluate how well it is succeeding in under-represented minority promotions as well as how the School is diversifying its faculty.

XI. References

Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The Faculty University Government, UNC-Chapel Hill Faculty Council
The Code, Board of Governors, University of North Carolina. Chapter VI, "Academic Freedom and Tenure."

XII. Meet-the-Mark Criteria Tables

Table 1. Types and Levels of Evidence to Guide Evaluations of Quality and Impact

Note: This table provides examples of evidence that can be used to guide ARPT decisions. Please note that this table is not exhaustive and that not all types or levels of evidence are required for ARPT.

Types and Levels of Evidence that May Guide ARPT Decisions	Scholarship	Teaching and Mentoring	Leadership and Service within the School/University	Leadership and Service outside the School/University
Externally peer-reviewed outputs or other independently evaluated measures of quality and impact [Tier I]	Peer-reviewed publications Peer-reviewed awards Competitive extramural funding Intellectual property and commercialization Invited presentations Books/book chapters	Expert peer-reviewed syllabi/assignments, exams, assessments Evidence-based peer observation reports Peer-reviewed publication(s) demonstrating teaching effectiveness Criterion-based, peer-reviewed teaching awards Successful mentoring of trainees	Criterion-based, peer-reviewed service awards Elected positions in University Faculty Governance Leadership positions appointed by the Dean, Chancellor, or UNC System President	Criterion-based, peer-reviewed service awards Elected positions in international, national, and/or state-level professional associations Serving on national/international review panels Serving on editorial boards, scientific advisory boards, and corporate boards Consultation to corporate entities, hospitals, and other institutions
Other outputs and documented academic preparation [Tier II]	Relevant earned graduate degrees or accredited certificates in relevant fields. Completion of relevant accredited professional training workshops Contributed posters/abstracts Non-peer reviewed awards Chairing or organizing sessions, symposia, workshops, short courses, conferences Engagement in digital scholarship (e.g., open publishing, blogs)	Relevant earned graduate degrees or accredited certificates in education and/or related fields Completion of relevant accredited professional training workshops Mentored Research Awards (e.g. NIH K01) Summary reports of student feedback Teaching observations from internal peers Administrator evaluations Non-peer-reviewed awards	Relevant earned graduate degrees or accredited certificates in relevant fields Completion of relevant accredited professional training workshops Non-peer-reviewed awards Appointed positions School and UNC committee assignments	Relevant earned graduate degrees or accredited certificates in relevant fields Completion of relevant accredited professional training workshops Non-peer-reviewed awards State service National and international committee assignments Journal reviewer

Table 2. Fixed-Term Track (Clinical or Teaching Focus) Meet-the-Mark Criteria

Note: The criteria should be applied in alignment with the faculty member's established effort.

Focus Area	Assistant Professor to Associate Professor	Associate Professor to Professor
Teaching	Evidence of effectiveness as a teacher through consistently strong peer and student evaluations and evidence of achievement of learners. Evidence of effectiveness in creating and fostering a positive environment/culture for student learning. Documentation of consistent teaching activity (coordination, facilitation, lecturing, curriculum design, etc.). Evidence of advising and mentorship effectiveness. Documentation of a reflective approach to developing and improving teaching practice over time.	Evidence of consistent and sustained effectiveness as a teacher. Documentation of consistent and sustained teaching activity. Evidence of sustained advising and mentorship effectiveness. Evidence of leadership or engagement in curricular change or advances in teaching and learning at a division, school or institutional level.
Service	Documentation that the faculty member regularly attends and engages in service activities. Evidence of positive contributions to service within the Division and School as well as locally and nationally. If applicable, evidence of administrative productivity and positive reputation.	Documentation that the faculty member regularly attends and engages in service activities. Evidence of positive contributions to service within the Division and School as well as locally and nationally. If applicable, evidence of administrative productivity and positive reputation.
Scholarship	Evidence that the faculty has developed a scholarly body of work. A record of scholarly work and publications published in respected refereed journals. Authorship of review articles, book chapters, etc. Author on research posters/abstracts at meetings. Evidence of invited presentations.	Evidence of sustained scholarly productivity and intellectual contributions. A record of scholarly work and publications published in respected refereed journals. Authorship of review articles, book chapters, etc. Evidence of invited presentations. Evidence that the candidate is recognized at the national or international level.
Overall Metrics	Demonstrated potential for continued academic productivity. Reputation as an expert in the field external to UNC (national/international). Appropriate level of contributions to the teaching mission. Effective service appropriate for time in rank. Broad contributions to the Division, School, and University. Important intellectual contributions to a defined area of scholarship.	Evidence of sustained contributions at a high level to the teaching missions (if applicable). Evidence of sustained service commitments at a high level. Evidence of sustained intellectual contributions to scholarly activities. Recognition as a national or international authority.

Table 3. Fixed-Term Track (Research Focus) Meet-the-Mark Criteria

Note: The criteria should be applied in alignment with the faculty member's established effort.

Focus Area	Assistant Professor to Associate Professor	Associate Professor to Professor
Research / Scholarship	Evidence that the faculty has developed a scholarly body of work with evidence of co-authored, first, or senior authored publications. Record of work in respected refereed journals. Authorship of reviews, book chapters, etc. Research posters/abstracts at meetings. Evidence of invited presentations.	Evidence of sustained intellectual contributions to scholarly activities in a defined area. Record of work in respected refereed journals. Authorship of reviews, book chapters, etc. Evidence of invited presentations. Recognized at the national or international level.
Service (if applicable)	Regular attendance and engagement in service activities. Positive contributions to service (Division, School, local, national).	Regular attendance and engagement in service activities. Positive contributions to service (Division, School, local, national).
Teaching (if applicable)	Evidence of effectiveness as a teacher. Creating/fostering positive learning environment. Advising and mentorship effectiveness. Reflective approach to improving teaching practice.	Evidence of effectiveness as a teacher. Creating/fostering positive learning environment. Advising and mentorship effectiveness. Reflective approach to improving teaching practice.
Overall Metrics	Demonstrated potential for continued academic productivity. Reputation as an expert external to UNC. Appropriate contributions to teaching mission. Effective service appropriate for time in rank. Broad contributions to Division, School, University. Important intellectual contributions to scholarship.	Sustained contributions to teaching mission (if applicable). Sustained service commitments. Sustained intellectual contributions to scholarly activities. Recognition as national/international authority.

Table 4. Tenure Track Meet-the-Mark Criteria

Focus Area	Assistant Professor to Associate Professor with Tenure	Associate Professor to Professor
Research / Scholarship	Evidence of defined body of scholarly work with first author publications; nationally recognized. Record of original, peer reviewed papers. Evaluated on rigor, journal reputation, impact, and citations. Authorship of reviews, chapters, books. First/senior author on posters/abstracts. Grants: Record of external grant support as PI, co-I, or independent researcher (at least one active investigator-initiated grant from federal sources or equivalent/significant alternative).	Sustained demonstration of scholarly productivity. Record of significant and high impact original papers as first or senior author. Authorship of reviews, chapters, books. Grants: Record of sustained external grant support as independent researcher (history of maintaining at least one active investigator-initiated grant from federal funding/equivalent or significant alternative).
Teaching	Evidence of effectiveness as a teacher. Creating/fostering positive learning environment. Documentation of consistent teaching activity. Advising and mentorship effectiveness. Reflective approach to improving teaching practice.	Evidence of consistent and sustained effectiveness as a teacher. Creating/fostering positive learning environment. Documentation of consistent and sustained teaching activity. Sustained advising and mentorship effectiveness. Reflective approach to improving teaching practice.
Service	Regular attendance and engagement in service activities. Positive contributions to service. Administrative productivity (if applicable). Evidence that candidate will continue to be productive/asset to institution.	Regular attendance and engagement in service activities. Positive contributions to service. Administrative productivity (if applicable). Evidence that candidate will continue to be productive/asset to institution.
Overall Metrics	Demonstrated potential for continued academic productivity. Relevance of activities to mission. Important intellectual contributions to scholarship/IP. Reputation as expert external to UNC (national/international). Contributions to teaching mission. Effective service appropriate for time in rank. Broad contributions to Division, School, University.	Sustained intellectual contributions to scholarly activities (well-defined area). Recognition as international authority. Sustained contributions to teaching mission at high level. Sustained service commitments at high level.

(Note: See Appendices below for workflow diagrams and templates.)

Contact Information

Primary Contact

Name: Mary McClurg, PharmD, MHS
Title: Professor and Executive Vice Dean-Chief Academic Officer
School: UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy
Email: mroth@unc.edu

Name: Nicole Kenney, MBA, PHR
Title: Senior Director of Human Resources and Engagement
School: UNC-Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy
Email: nkenney@unc.edu

0 reviews

Print Article

Updating...

Eshelman School of Pharmacy: Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Governance Document

Title

Contents

I. Preamble

A. Statement of Purpose

B. Statement of Values

C. Congruence with University Policy

II. Definition of Appointment Series and Faculty Ranks

A. Primary Appointment Tracks

i. Tenure track

ii. Fixed-term

B. Other Appointment Tracks

i. Professor of the Practice

ii. Adjunct

iii. Visiting

iv. Joint

v. Emeritus

C. Ranks

i. Instructor

ii. Assistant Professor

iii. Associate Professor

iv. Professor

III. Criteria for Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion

A. Areas of Scholarship

i. Scholarship of Discovery

ii. Scholarship of Application

iii. Scholarship of Education

B. Areas of Teaching

C. Areas of Service and Administration

i. Leadership and Service to the School and University

ii. Leadership and Service to the Profession and Communities

IV. Metrics for Documenting Academic Productivity

A. Documenting Performance in Research and Scholarship

i. Demonstrable Area of Focus

ii. Evaluation of the Published Work

iii. Independence

B. Documenting Performance in Teaching

C. Documenting Performance in Service/Administration and Contributions to the University or Professional Community

D. Quantitative Versus Qualitative Performance Indicators

V. Evaluating Academic Productivity and Impact

A. General Considerations

VI. Meet-the-Mark Criteria for Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion of Faculty

i. Tenure-track appointments

ii. Fixed-term appointments

a. Clinical

b. Teaching

iii. Professor of the Practice

iv. Adjunct appointments

v. Joint appointments

A. Other Factors

Good Citizenship

i. Engagement

ii. Collegiality

WE CARE Values

Assessment of GOOD CITIZENSHIP and WE CARE Values

Documentation of Good Citizenship and WE CARE Values

Institutional needs and resources

VII. Characteristics for Appointment at, or Promotion to, Advanced Faculty Ranks

A. Associate Professor

B. Professor

C. Professor of the Practice

D. Early Promotion and/or Tenure

VIII. Tenure

A. Policies Governing the Granting of Tenure

B. Early Tenure

C. Policies Governing Post-Tenure Review

IX. Other Potential Actions

A. Suspension, Diminishment in Rank, Discharge

B. Non-Reappointment

X. Procedures

A. General

B. Division Voting

C. Full Professors' Committee

i. Voting Process

ii. Documentation of the Vote

D. Recruitment Guidelines

i. Tenured/Tenure Track Position Postings

ii. Fixed-Term Position Postings

iii. Interviewing Candidates