School of Nursing: Standard on Faculty Appointment, Promotion and Tenure

To describe the guidelines for appointment, promotion, and tenure as well as post-tenure review in the School of Nursing at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Unit Standard

Title

School of Nursing: Standard on Faculty Appointment, Promotion and Tenure 

Introduction

Purpose

To describe the guidelines for appointment, promotion, and tenure as well as post-tenure review in the School of Nursing at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Scope

This document provides guidelines and serves to clarify the requirements for tenure-track faculty appointments, reappointments, promotions, and tenure at the UNC-CH SON.

Faculty appointments, reappointments, and promotions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) School of Nursing (SON) are carried out in accordance with the policies and regulations of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. These actions are governed by:

1. The Code of the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina at www.northcarolina.edu/apps/policy/index.php;
2. The Faculty Code of University Government at https://facultygov.unc.edu/files/2018/08/FacultyCode2018_Final.pdf;
3. Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at https://facultygov.unc.edu/files/2018/10/2018-11-15-Trustee-Policies-and-Regulations-Governing-Academic-Tenure.pdf; and
4. Faculty Policies, Procedures and Guidelines at https://academicpersonnel.unc.edu/faculty-policies-procedures-guidelines/.

Tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee.

Although all faculty members are responsible for their own career successes, the SON has in place a plan—the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Nursing Faculty Mentorship Plan by which each tenure-track faculty member will be mentored toward academic advancement and continued scholarly achievement.

Standard

Section 1. Guidelines for tenure-track appointments

I. Definitions

Appointment refers to the original designation of rank.

Promotion refers to advancement to the next higher rank.

Tenure-track appointments are those appointments leading to tenure, either by original appointment, reappointment, or promotion. Tenure-track ranks are (a) professor, (b) associate professor, (c) assistant professor, and (d) instructor.

II. Descriptions of appointment at each rank

A. Tenure-track appointments

1. Professor: Promotion to or initial appointment at the rank of professor confers permanent tenure from the effective date of the promotion or appointment. While it is unusual for an associate professor with tenure to seek promotion to professor in fewer than 4 years in rank, there are circumstances when a faculty member has exhibited high levels of achievement and should be considered for promotion sooner.

   After being promoted to full professor, a faculty member's performance is reviewed every 5 years according to guidelines for post-tenure review defined by the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees and by the UNC Board of Governors, and by the School of Nursing Post-Tenure Review Policy. However, in the case of full professors who also hold senior administrative appointments in the School of Nursing (i.e., at an assistant, associate dean position), the Post-Tenure Review is conducted as a part of their administrative review that occurs every five years from the date of the administrative appointment.

   Post-Tenure Review: The UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees and the UNC Board of Governors have defined Guidelines for the post-tenure review of all senior faculty members, specifically associate and full professors. Therefore, each tenured faculty member in the School of Nursing will undergo a rigorous review once every 5 years. Tenured faculty members who hold senior administrative appointments will also have post-tenure reviews under the School of Nursing policy for post-tenure review.

2. Newly recruited associate or full professors coming with tenure from another university should be assessed by the dean, chair and/or division head for whether to recommend tenure at the time of offer to UNC-Chapel Hill. Based upon this recommendation, the vote of the APT committee members is required to extend the offer of tenure at UNC-Chapel Hill at the time of the offer. In these cases, UNC-Chapel Hill will generally award tenure with the new appointment or as soon as possible thereafter if there is compelling evidence the individual meets UNC-Chapel Hill's expectations in terms of scholarship and creative endeavor, teaching, and service. The recommendation to award tenure will be reviewed by the APT Committee, the Provost, and the Board of Trustees.

   This assessment will consider:

   1. The entire body of scholarly, creative, service, and educational accomplishments prior to coming to UNC-Chapel Hill.
   2. Evidence that the new faculty member will contribute to the multiple missions of the school.
   3. External letters from reviewers who may be familiar with the body of work at the previous university.
   4. In the unusual case of an associate professor arriving with that rank from another university which does not grant tenure at the associate professor level, the faculty member will be considered for tenure at UNC-Chapel Hill based upon UNC-Chapel Hill's criteria.
   5. In cases where a faculty member has been approved for tenure at another university but is waiting for tenure there to become final and official, the faculty member will similarly be considered for tenure at UNC-Chapel Hill at the time of offer, as described above.
   6. For a faculty member who was tenured at a previous university with clearly fewer demanding criteria than at UNC-Chapel Hill, but who still wishes to move to UNC-Chapel Hill, they may be offered a position at a lower rank or without tenure.

3. Associate professor without tenure – Newly recruited associate professors coming without tenure from another university or having been assistant professors at the previous university will not be extended the offer of tenure consideration at UNC-Chapel Hill at the time of the offer. The initial appointment at the rank of associate professor is for a probationary term of up to 5 years. Typically review for reappointment as associate professor with tenure should be initiated at the end of the 3rd or at the beginning of the 4th year of the probationary term, although it may be done earlier when the faculty member has shown their ability to meet the expectations for tenure in the areas of research, teaching, and service. The reappointment as associate professor with permanent tenure, which must be approved by the UNC Board of Trustees, may be effective by the conclusion of the 5th year. Deferring review is not an option for a probationary associate professor.

4. Assistant professor: Appointment to the rank of assistant professor, or promotion to the rank of assistant professor from the rank of instructor, serves two probationary terms. The first of these is 4 years in duration with review for reappointment to a second occurring no less than 12 months before the end of this term. The second probationary term is typically 3 years in length, with the review for promotion and tenure occurring in the 6th year of the appointment. In most cases, the promotion from assistant to associate professor will become effective during the 7th year of appointment. The Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill require that both final approval of reappointment to the second probationary term and of promotion to associate professor after the second probationary term must occur a full year before the end of the preceding term.

   In truly exceptional cases, promotion may be considered when a faculty member has met all criteria for promotion, even if the time is shorter than normally expected. However, it should be considered a rare event for an assistant professor to be considered for promotion 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 fewer than four years at UNC-Chapel Hill (except for those with years of previous experience that is recognized in the letter of offer). The candidate must present evidence that the rate of productivity or impact of the work exceeds the required norm of performance that would ordinarily be considered at the regular interval. Requests for early promotions need to be exceptionally well-documented.

5. Instructor: This rank is appropriate for an individual appointed to the faculty with the reasonable expectation that in the normal course of events s/he will progress to the professorial ranks in this or another institution. Initial appointment is for a probationary term of 1 year; three additional 1-year terms, for a total of 4 terms, are allowed without promotion.

B. Visiting appointments

This appointment is appropriate for individuals of faculty rank who are waiting for their permanent faculty appointment to be reviewed by the SON APT Committee, and the University Health Sciences Advisory and APT Committees.

C. Joint appointments

Joint appointments are a primary mechanism of promoting interdisciplinary scholarship. These appointments must have a single department designated as its base department and the base department is responsible for processing all personnel actions.

1. Joint appointments can be made between (a) two academic departments with promotion and tenure decisions requiring votes in the two departments; (b) an academic department and a curriculum, institute or center that does not have faculty lines with promotion and tenure decisions requiring a vote only in the home department; and between (c) an academic department and a curriculum, institute or center that has faculty lines with promotion and tenure decisions requiring votes in both units.

2. There are two types of joint appointments, including a: (a) mutual-hiring joint appointment made at the hiring stage, typically in response to the availability of special funding for that purpose and (b) sequential joint appointment made at the request of a faculty member already holding an academic appointment.

   1. Mutual-hiring joint appointments typically involve a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the appointing units that specifies the expectations for teaching and service, the salary split between departments, and the method for constituting review committees at the time of consideration for tenure and for promotion.
   2. Sequential joint appointments require completion of a "Recommendation of Joint Appointment" form signed by the heads of each appointing unit that accompanies other paperwork provided to the Office of the Provost.
3. Academic units involved in joint appointments should develop an MOU, a copy of which is provided to the faculty member and filed in the Provost's Office, which includes expectations for teaching and service in each unit and how these needs will be met if the jointly appointed faculty member is no longer able or willing to meet them in one of the units; the salary split between units; procedures for making recommendations in salary adjustments; provision of space; provision of administrative support; administration of grants and contracts; split of F&A funds and patent/royalty income; description of the process that will be followed in promotion and tenure proceedings; if one unit is the primary tenure home, specification of the role of the joint unit in the evaluation process; description of procedure to be followed if the joint appointment is dissolved at the end of its term, either because of denial of tenure in one unit or request of the head of one unit or faculty member.
4. Grounds for dissolving a faculty member's joint appointment in a particular unit should be articulated (e.g., because that faculty member no longer contributes to the unit). Procedures to initiate the dissolution are articulated at the level of the Provost.
5. Specific procedures established at the level of the Provost are established for situations in which one unit denies tenure and/or promotion and the second unit approves (or would approve if it could). For example, if the joint appointment is between units that both hold faculty lines, the joint appointment could be dissolved, leaving the candidate with promotion and tenure in the unit that made the affirmative decision

III. Failure to give timely notice of non-reappointment

1. If a decision not to reappoint is made but not communicated to probationary tenure-track faculty member in a timely manner, a 1-year terminal appointment commencing on the date of expiration of the current term of appointment shall be offered in writing. This offer shall serve as timely notice of non-reappointment upon expiration of the terminal-year appointment

IV. Standards for appointments and promotions

Criteria for appointment and promotion by rank

The three major criteria against which appointments and promotions are judged are competence in research, teaching, and service, the latter of which includes practice, service to the SON, state, nation, international community, and profession, and engaged scholarship and activities. Persons appointed to the tenure-track ranks are expected to demonstrate satisfactory competence in two of these domains and outstanding competence in at least one of these domains. Movement from local to national and international recognition for scholarship is expected as the faculty candidate moves up the ranks. Competence is expected to increase as rank increases.

School of Nursing faculty members are evaluated through assessment of their performance, evidence of the impact/significance of their work, and evidence that their work is being recognized by others. These are defined as follows:

• Performance: The scholarly, teaching, and service activities in which the faculty member has been engaged. Performance is what the faculty member has done.
• Impact or Significance: The importance and influence of the faculty member's work in shaping nursing research, education, and practice. Impact and significance also can be reflected in the faculty member's influence on the work of others.
• Recognition: Evidence that peers and students as well as professional and community leaders hold the faculty member's accomplishments in high regard.

Tenure: Tenure is not just earned; rather it is bestowed 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 research, teaching, or service. Tenure may be withheld on grounds permissible in the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Multidisciplinary Collaboration and Team Science: The School of Nursing faculty values and is therefore committed to encouraging and optimizing opportunities for collaboration within and across disciplinary lines in research, teaching, and service. We consider team science to be defined as: "a collaborative, cross-disciplinary, effort to address a scientific challenge or question that leverages the strengths and expertise of professionals trained in different fields" (Bennett, Gadlin, & Levine-Finley, 2010, p.1). It is often through interdisciplinary and sometimes transdisciplinary team science that creative solutions and new knowledge emerge for many of the complex health problems with which the discipline of nursing is concerned. Therefore, faculty are encouraged to pursue interdisciplinary research, teaching and service. For interdisciplinary team science activities that involve collaborations, evaluation of interdisciplinary contributions in the areas of research, teaching and service must clearly document the candidate's specific contribution to joint scholarly products (including multi-authored publications and media) and, as relevant, and when available the per cent effort expended on the product (e.g. funded grants). Faculty who submit team science products as a substantial portion of their scholarship dossier should include independent evidence and evaluation of performance, impact, and recognition in the form of an additional letter(s) describing these contributions. It is a faculty member's contribution and the scope and significance of the activity or scholarly product that will be evaluated for promotion and tenure.

D. Rank-Specific Criteria

Instructor: The University does not hire into the rank of instructor on the tenure track, except in very specific circumstances. This rank will not be included further in this document.

Assistant Professor: Initial appointments to the rank of Assistant Professor should be made only to persons who hold the doctoral degree in the discipline or in a related discipline. Seven years is the usual time to serve as Assistant Professor, with interim review in the 3rd year (also called the midterm review) and review for tenure and promotion in the 6th year. Equivalent previous academic service may be considered as time in rank if this is documented in the offer letter.

Associate Professor: Persons proposed for promotion to associate professor with tenure or newly recommended for appointment as associate professor with tenure must show evidence of satisfactory competence in two domains and outstanding competence in at least one domain (research, teaching, service).

Professor: Appointment or promotion to the highest rank should be reserved only for those with a clear record of sustained achievement in all three areas (research, teaching, and service), evidence of national and international recognition in their fields of scholarship and promise for sustained future accomplishment. Achievements in one designated area must be outstanding. Five years is the average length of time between appointment to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure and promotion to Professor.

V. Meet the Mark Criteria for Appointments and Promotions

The purpose of School of Nursing (SON) Meet-the-Mark is to guide faculty members about promotion 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 the tenure-track. Time served in a comparable position on the non-tenure track, in another department, or at another institution may be taken into consideration at the time of appointment request, as described in the offer letter.

Faculty members are expected to manage their career development and to be knowledgeable about: APT processes; to seek information as needed from their division head, mentor(s), or HR representative; to accurately catalog their academic, scholarly, and service activities; and, to abide by SON APT timelines and processes. Annually, eligible faculty members (i.e., those below the rank of professor) should discuss with their division head their time in rank and review timing of and readiness for their next promotion. The APT review calendar for any academic year is established in February of the preceding academic year. Additions to the review calendar can occur in the early fall semester of the academic year in a meeting between the APT Chair, the APT Chair-elect and the division head. The earliest review of a dossier for an addition to the calendar occurring at least 6 months after that meeting. Considerations must be given to the ability to recruit external reviewers and the full development of the dossier.

As a research-intensive higher education institution, each faculty member on the tenure track is expected to demonstrate evidence of scholarship, typically in the research arena. A faculty member seeking promotion and/or tenure in another area (i.e., teaching or service as their area of excellence) is typically hired with that expectation or has a change to another area of excellence approved by the dean and/or her designee. Regardless of the area of excellence, scholarship must be evident in the relevant area to be considered for tenure and/or promotion. The degree to which faculty participate in the required elements outlined below will vary based on rank and track; however, all faculty are expected to contribute to the teaching, research, and service missions of the UNC School of Nursing.

The "meet the mark" criteria for promotion and tenure are reviewed using these overall areas of consideration:

• Significance and overall impact of work on the faculty member's chosen field of inquiry
• Quality and quantity of work as reflected in publication/dissemination outlets
• Sources of support for scholarship in chosen field of inquiry
• Evidence of leadership in the field of inquiry
• Evidence of recognition of work and growing national or international reputation in area of expertise and
• Likelihood of sustained future accomplishment.

Areas of excellence

Faculty members seeking tenure need to show evidence of satisfactory competence in two of these areas of excellence and outstanding competence in at least one area. Movement from local to national and international recognition for scholarship is expected as the faculty candidate moves up the ranks. Competence is expected to increase as rank increases. What follows are guidelines for excellence in each area.

Research - Research is the scholarly contribution to the generation of knowledge. It encompasses the conceptualization and design of investigations and the systematic collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of information. Included in our definition of research are studies that involve laboratory, field, clinic, library, archival, and other sources of information. Competence of research excellence is primarily documented by evidence that includes research funding, data-based and refereed presentations, and publications in top-tier scientific venues.

All criteria in italics are required for excellence or competence in this role, as relevant. For excellence in this role, faculty are expected to also distinguish themselves in additional ways, examples of which are offered here.

¹ The expectation is for 1-2 articles per year (on average) as senior author unless the research commitment is as part of a team, in which the senior author expectation may be waived with clear documentation of the faculty member's contribution to the publications.

² The expectation is for 1-2 articles per year (on average) as senior author unless the research commitment is as part of a team, in which the senior author expectation may be waived with clear documentation of the faculty member's contribution to the publications.

Teaching - Teaching is required of all tenure track faculty. Teaching refers to instruction in any of a variety of venues including the classroom (in person and online), and clinical area, as well as research supervision and mentorship of undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and visiting scholars, and participants in continuing education programs.

All criteria in italics are required for excellence or competence in this role, as relevant. For excellence in this role, faculty are expected to also distinguish themselves in additional ways, examples of which are offered here.

Service - All faculty are expected to demonstrate a service commitment to the School of Nursing, University, and profession. Service is a consideration in a decision regarding promotion and tenure.

This category includes:

• Professional and academic leadership roles directed toward improving the health of the public,
• Clinical practice including responsibility for the care of people seeking health services, clinical consultation, active participation in technical assistance programs for health (may include continuing education efforts here if components of such programs),
• Development or implementation of new systems for the delivery of health service or improvement of the health of the public, and effective advocacy of health causes.
• Effective advocacy of professional or health causes, and efforts influencing state or national health policies; and
• Engaged scholarship and activities including creative, critical, scientific, and humanistic work for the public good that influences, enriches, and improves the lives of people in communities outside UNC-CH.

All criteria in italics are required for excellence or competence in this role, as relevant. For excellence in this role, faculty are expected to also distinguish themselves in additional ways, examples of which are offered here.

² The expectation is for 1-2 articles per year (on average) as senior author unless the research commitment is as part of a team, in which the senior author expectation may be waived with clear documentation of the faculty member's contribution to the publications.

³ The expectation is for 1-2 articles per year (on average) as senior author unless the research commitment is as part of a team, in which the senior author expectation may be waived with clear documentation of the faculty member's contribution to the publications.

References

Bennett, L.M., Gadlin, H. & Levine-Finely, S. (2010). Collaboration and Team Science: A Field Guide. National Institutes of Health Publication No. 10-7660, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

VI. Procedures

A. Affirmative Action

All appointments and promotions must comply with appropriate affirmative action and equal employment opportunity rules and regulations. The details of this procedure are published (UNC-Chapel Hill policy statement on non-discrimination at https://eoc.unc.edu/our-policies/policy-statement-on-non-discrimination/, but may be stated briefly a commitment by the University to equality of opportunity and a pledge that it will not practice or permit discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, gender, national origin, age, religion, creed, genetic information, disability, veteran's status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

B. Composition and Selection of the Appointments, Promotion and Tenure Committee

The SON APT Committee is composed of all tenured full professors in the SON, 4 tenured associate professors elected by the faculty to serve for 3-year terms, and any division head at the rank of tenured associate professor. The APT committee reviews all tenure-track faculty candidates for appointment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure and makes recommendations to the dean. The APT committee develops criteria and processes for these reviews that are then reviewed and voted on by the faculty.

C. Deadlines

Appropriate paperwork, complete in every detail, should be initiated in time to reach the HR manager's office in accordance with the review schedule. This schedule will be released from the HR manager's office in September of each academic year.

D. Processing Steps

1. SON APT
2. Dean
3. Health Sciences Advisory Committee
4. APT Subcommittee (Provost's Office)
5. UNC-CH APT Committee
6. UNC-CH Board of Trustees

E. Frequency of Evaluation

Evaluations will be scheduled according to the length of the faculty member's appointment as follows:

1. Instructors: annually
2. Assistant professor without tenure: in the 3rd year of the first probationary term and 2nd year of the second probationary term.
3. Associate professor without tenure: no later than the 4th year of the probationary term.
4. Associate and full professors with tenure: post-tenure review no fewer than every 5 years (see Policy on post-tenure review).

F. Grievance & Appeal

In the event of a negative recommendation for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, faculty may request a meeting with the Dean to discuss her/his recommendation within fourteen (14) days after receiving written notice of non-reappointment. If faculty are not satisfied, they may then proceed as provided by (a) Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at https://facultygov.unc.edu/files/2018/10/2018-11-15-Trustee-Policies-and-Regulations-Governing-Academic-Tenure.pdf (b) Faculty Code at https://facultygov.unc.edu/files/2018/08/FacultyCode2018_Final.pdf; (c) and Faculty Grievance and Hearings Committees at https://facultygov.unc.edu/procedures-for-the-faculty-grievance-committee/.

G. Personnel Files

1. Access: Faculty members may review their personnel files by making a formal request through the Office of University Counsel. Access to personnel files is limited to division heads, the Office of the Dean, and Administrative Services personnel.
2. Annual Updating: Faculty members are responsible for maintaining their own current and accurate curriculum vitae and to submit them annually to their division head's office.
3. APT dossiers: All members of the committee will have access to all review folders of faculty up for review uploaded to a secure drive. Materials (all materials except scholarly products and teaching evaluations) assembled for the APT dossier will be included in the personnel file or returned to the faculty member as appropriate (i.e., scholarly products and teaching evaluations).

Post-Tenure Review

Each faculty member is subject to post-tenure review no less often than every five years following the conferral of permanent tenure. Reviews must examine all aspects of a faculty member's academic performance and must involve faculty peers. While annual performance reviews may inform the post-tenure review process, they are not a substitute for a comprehensive post-tenure review. Comprehensive evaluations conducted for other purposes, such as a review for promotion, may be substituted for or combined with post-tenure review. A review may be delayed for compelling reasons approved by the Provost (see Appendix B).

The goals of post-tenure review are to promote faculty development, ensure faculty productivity, and provide accountability. Accordingly, the purpose of post-tenure review at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is to support and encourage excellence among tenured faculty by:

1. providing an opportunity to review five-year goal(s) and/or plans that are aligned with annual performance evaluations and consistent with the needs of the SON,
2. recognizing and rewarding exemplary faculty performance,
3. providing for a plan and timetable for improvement of performance of faculty found deficient and,
4. for those whose performance remains deficient, providing for the imposition of serious sanctions, which may, in the most acute cases, include a recommendation for discharge.

The review will take into consideration the general expectations for the rank held by the reviewee and the faculty member's assignments since promotion, tenure, or the most recent post-tenure review.

The goal of consistency across post-tenure reviews is paramount and should include the materials considered, the areas of focus in the review, and the nature and scope of recommendations made to the division head.

The post-tenure review process conforms to the policies and guidelines concerning post-tenure review adopted by the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina and by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Schedule for Review

Professors and tenured associate professors will be reviewed no less often than every five years, which means that at least by 4 years and 6 months since the last review the faculty member will be notified by the division head (or designee) of the upcoming post-tenure review. With input from division heads, the dean may schedule a review for an individual faculty member sooner than five years from the faculty member's last review if the dean has concerns about the faculty member's performance or to evaluate the success of a development plan previously created for the faculty member.

The division head should ascertain no later than August 1st of the previous academic year the schedule of reviews for all associate professors who will be 4.5 years post tenure during the academic year and whether the faculty member is going to seek or defer promotion review. If the faculty member is deferring review for promotion, then the post-tenure review will occur during the upcoming academic year. Therefore, any associate professor who deferred an already scheduled promotion review in APT during the prior academic year, will have a post-tenure review during the upcoming academic year.

When promotion to full professor occurs, the faculty member's five-year post-tenure review schedule is based on the start of the full professorship. Should promotion not be awarded, the next post-tenure review will be five years after the promotion review up to the time that promotion does occur.

Committee membership

The Post-Tenure Review Committee will be composed of three (3) elected tenured faculty members, two (2) full professors and one (1) associate professor. The term for each committee member is three (3) years, with the possibility of serving two consecutive terms. When a full professor is being reviewed, at least one full professor committee member must be involved in the review.

All committee members will be knowledgeable about the SON and UNC Chapel Hill policies on post-tenure review. They will also complete the UNC General Administration digital training modules on guidelines related to personnel and tenure, the essential elements of a useful and thoughtful review, how to prepare, conduct and manage a meaningful review process, and how to provide constructive criticism in a positive manner.

Review Process

Post-Tenure Review includes the following process:

1. Prior to the academic year, the division head will have identified all faculty members who will need to undergo post-tenure review during the upcoming academic year. Each associate professor subject to post-tenure review in the upcoming academic year will need to declare, no later than the start of the academic year, if they will seek promotion to professor during the upcoming academic year. If promotion will be sought, no post-tenure review will be scheduled during the upcoming academic year.
2. Faculty members scheduled for review during the academic year will be notified by the division head (or designee) at least six months in advance to provide them with sufficient time to accumulate the review materials (see Attachment A).
3. At the beginning of each academic year, the Post-Tenure Review Committee will review the post-tenure policy and meet with the relevant division head to determine the faculty members for review during the year and any scheduling issues that need to be attended to for the year. The committee will arrange its own meeting schedule.

4. Post-tenure review should involve an examination of qualitative and quantitative evidence of all relevant aspects of a faculty member's professional performance over the previous five years in relation to the mission of the SON and institution, as well as the assigned responsibilities of the faculty member, their interests and career stage.

   1. If a faculty member's assignment(s) do not include the three primary missions (i.e., teaching, research, and service), but instead focus primarily on one or two of these areas, the review shall take this allocation of these responsibilities into account.
5. The Post-Tenure Review Committee will meet to review the provided materials and will prepare a written summary of its conclusions and recommendations to the faculty member undergoing review and the appropriate division head, who has the discretion to share the review with the dean. The Committee's report shall include a discussion of how the faculty member's performance meets, exceeds or does not meet expectations within the expected performance areas (e.g., scholarship/research, teaching, service, and practice) relevant to their rank and considering the faculty member's interests, assignments, and the stage of the faculty member's career. The report should identify and recognize performance that exceeds expectations. The process may also identify specific areas in which faculty members can improve and, in such cases, the process should result in specific recommendations and plans for improvement. It is important that there is transparency in the review and subsequent recommendations and that these recommendations are consistent across reviews.
6. For faculty members whose overall performance is seen as meeting or exceeding expectations, the division head will discuss the report of the review committee with the faculty member, with no further actions being needed.
7. For faculty members whose overall performance is seen as not meeting expectations, the report of the Post-Tenure Review Committee shall include a statement of the faculty member's primary responsibilities, directional goals established, and specific descriptions of shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member's assigned duties. When shortcomings are identified, a comprehensive plan for improvement (aka a development plan) should be prepared by the division head as addressed below. The division head will meet with the faculty member to examine all aspects of their post-tenure review and overall performance.
8. The faculty member being reviewed will be given an opportunity by the division head to provide a written response to the Post-Tenure Review Committee's report. The division head will maintain, as a part of the faculty member's confidential personnel file within the SON, a record of the report and any response to it.

9. For a faculty member whose overall performance reflects substantial deficiencies, a comprehensive plan for improvement (i.e., a development plan) will be prepared, jointly, by the division head and the reviewed faculty member. The development plan will reflect the post-tenure review evaluation and recommendations from the Committee's report.

   1. Each development plan will be individualized, flexible, and take into consideration the intellectual interests, abilities, and career stage of the specific faculty member. It will also respect the needs of the division, the SON, and the Institution. The development plan will include clear goals, steps to achieve those goals, indicators of goal attainment, a clear and reasonable time frame for the completion of goals, resources available for implementation of the plan, and an explicit statement of the consequences of failure to attain the goals. Annual reviews will be used to assess the progress made toward the goals that were spelled out in the development plan. The division head will acknowledge in writing a faculty member's clear improvement along with the successful completion of a development plan.
10. A faculty member whose overall performance has been found to show substantial deficiencies and for whom a development plan has been recommended has the right to appeal the findings of the Post-Tenure Review Committee and the recommendation for a development plan. The initial appeal is to be submitted in writing to the SON Dean. Before the decision on an appeal, the dean will meet individually with the faculty member, the division head, and, if deemed necessary, one or more members of the Post-Tenure Review Committee. The dean will prepare a written summary of the appeal; the decision reached by the dean will be final.
11. In the case of a faculty member who fails to successfully complete their development plan and whose performance continues to be deficient, the division head will notify the dean of the SON. The Dean will then consider whether grounds for disciplinary action up to and including dismissal exist under the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure.

Records

The SON will maintain a list of the faculty members reviewed each year, a record of completed reviews and responses to the reviews, and the names of all faulty members for whom a development plan was recommended and a copy of the development plan. The Post-Tenure Review Committee will send to the dean the number of faculty members reviewed during the previous year, the number of faculty members for whom a development plan was recommended and established, and the number of faculty members who are subject to review, but for whom a delay was approved by the Provost along with the compelling reason(s) for the delay.

Periodic Review of Post-Tenure Review Process

The APT Committee will evaluate and, if deemed necessary, revise the post-tenure review process every five years.

Contact Information

Primary Contact

Name: Valerie Howard

Telephone: 919-966-3731

Email: howardv@unc.edu