Article 4: Promotion and Tenure

1. Rationale
2. Review Committees and the Review Process
3. Selection of the Committee on Review (COR) First Level Review
4. The Committee on Review Process at the First Level
5. Review Process by the School of Health Professions Promotion and Tenure Committee
6. Process of Promotion and Tenure Review for a Candidate Who is Serving as Program Director
7. Evaluation and Notification Process
8. Third Year Review
9. Third Year Committee on Review
10. Third Year Committee on Review Process
11. Materials to be Submitted for Third Year Review
12. Appointment to Rank of Assistant Professor
13. Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor (and the Awarding of Tenure)
14. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor
15. Assignment of New Faculty
16. Leave of Absence or Sabbatical
17. Tenure

Back to the Table of Contents

Article 4a: Rationale

1. The School of Health Professions and each of its programs must maintain high standards in recruitment, promotion and award of tenure to faculty members. "Because of the wide diversity within the university, it is recognized that there must be some variation among units in the development of specific criteria for judging the merits of individual faculty. However, variation in criteria must not translate into variation in standards" (System-Wide Perspectives on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure: Oct. 29, 1984).

   Consistent with university policy, contributions of faculty should be Consistent with university policy, contributions of faculty should be weighed in three areas:

   • Teaching and student advising;
   • Research/scholarly achievement; and
   • Service and/or administration.

The first two are paramount; the third is an important complement.

2. Advancement from the rank of assistant professor to associate professor and from associate professor to professor represent degrees of scholarly recognition and maturity. Promotion to the rank of associate professor and award of tenure reflects demonstrated potential for achieving a national reputation in the discipline. The faculty member who is promoted to the rank of professor shall have established such a reputation.
   
   
3. The university stipulates that each department (program) in consultation with the dean (director) of its respective school shall develop and maintain (subject to periodic review), criteria and procedures for tenure and promotion, consistent with campus and university policies. In the matter of promotion and tenure, the School of Health Professions shall develop criteria and procedures for promotion and tenure that are consistent with campus and university policies. The programs within the School of Health Professions represent diverse disciplines and such being the case each will function as a department and shall develop its own program- and discipline-specific promotion and tenure criteria. The procedures for achieving tenure and advancement in rank shall be consistent with those developed and approved by the school. Each program's criteria and procedures for determining academic rank distinctions may exceed those of the school or other programs within the school but cannot be binding upon any other program. In accordance with campus and university policy, both school and program promotion and tenure criteria shall address research/scholarly activity, teaching (and advising), and service. Criteria shall not be purely quantitative and insofar as possible shall be defined operationally in a way appropriate to the discipline. Each prospective faculty member shall be informed in writing of his/her responsibilities with regard to those procedures, prior to appointment to a tenure-track or professorial rank position in a program.
   
   
4. *New full-time faculty (75% and above) shall receive a paper copy of the academic tenure regulations. This is in compliance with the statement on the Personnel Action Form (PAF) that the new faculty member has been provided with a copy of the regulations. The latest version of the academic tenure regulations may be found on the Web by using the following procedures:
   
   
   • On the Web enter: http://www.system.missouri.edu/uminfo/rules/content.htm#chp310 (save as bookmark).
   • Print sections 310.010 through 310.080.
   • The latest version of the regulations should be given to new faculty by the beginning date of their appointment.

New part-time faculty shall receive a document stating the above mentioned information which is to be read and signed by all new part-time faculty (including Graduate Teaching Assistants, Graduate Research Assistants, Graduate Instructors, etc.) to indicate that they have been informed of the procedure for accessing the academic tenure regulations. A copy of the signed form should be placed in the faculty member's personnel file. Other copies may be kept at the discretion of the division.

Approved February 24, 1998 (Policy Committee)
Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4b: Review Committees and the Review Process

1. Each non-tenured member on regular appointment (candidate) will be evaluated by a Committee on Review (COR) composed of three tenured faculty members during the academic year preceding the one in which the tenure decision must be made. In the case of an assistant professor, the review would normally occur in the fifth academic year, and for an associate professor in the third academic year.
   
   
2. A recommendation to consider a candidate for promotion in academic rank or award of tenure (continuous appointment) shall be initiated by the program director. The designation of the members of the COR and the procedures for processing applications for promotion and/or tenure shall be guided by Executive Order 6A (September, 1992).
   
   
3. Tenured faculty members may be considered for promotion (from the rank of associate professor to professor) at the appropriate time(s) established by current university tenure guidelines.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4c: Selection of the Committee on Review (COR)
First Level Review

1. Upon request by the program director, the candidate will nominate two tenured faculty to serve on the COR. The program director will then appoint three qualified individuals to serve. At least one of these should be selected from those suggested by the candidate. All members of the COR should be individuals who are qualified to review the faculty member's activities, contributions, and progress. In programs with sufficient tenured faculty to provide appropriate guidance and evaluative judgments of merit, the COR may be conducted by a committee formed from within the candidate's program. However, external members from outside the program may be selected as needed. For candidates whose programs do not include sufficient numbers of tenured senior faculty, the COR may consist of members are drawn primarily from other programs within the School of Health Related Professions or may include members from other university departments or divisions. Such an arrangement does not replace the role of the regular standing committee for Promotion and Tenure of the School of Health Professions.
   
   
2. The candidate will submit his/her dossier for promotion/tenure consideration to the COR. (Refer to current university guidelines for content and organization of the dossier).

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4d: The Committee on Review Process at the First Level

1. The COR shall review all materials provided by the candidate.
   
   
2. This committee may solicit whatever additional information its members deem appropriate, from within and outside the university, to evaluate the candidate in the areas of teaching, research/scholarly activity, and service/administration.
   
   
3. Prior to the deliberation of the COR, all tenured members of the School of Health Professions faculty holding the same rank as or higher rank than that of the candidate shall be given the opportunity to provide written and signed comments to the COR regarding the candidate being considered.
   
   
4. The members of the COR will collectively write an integrative report designed to review scope and significance of research, teaching, and service/administration. The individual comments of all reviewers and other individuals who provide input to the COR shall be kept confidential. The report shall be submitted to the program director.
   
   
5. The program director should compose a letter summarizing the content of the COR's report as well as his/her own independent assessment. The letter should include recommendations for promotion and award of tenure. In the event that the program director is a non-tenure faculty member, the program director shall delegate these responsibilities to a senior tenured faculty member from the candidate's program or from the School of Health Professions. This individual should not serve on the COR or on the School of Health Professions Promotion and Tenure Committee. However, the COR should solicit evaluative input from the program director, and the program director should receive copies of the COR's report.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4e: Review Process by the School of Health Professions and Promotion and Tenure Committee

1. Upon receipt of the recommendations from the COR and from the program director, the School of Health Professions Promotion and Tenure Committee shall review the candidate's dossier, the COR's report, and the letter from the program director. This committee may offer the candidate suggestions for clarification, supplementation, or organization of the dossier. The School of Health Professions Promotion and Tenure Committee may solicit additional information as necessary to enable formulation of an evaluative summary of the candidate's qualifications toward promotion or promotion with tenure. The School of Health Professions Promotion and Tenure Committee shall then make appropriate recommendations.
   
   
2. Reports, letters, and recommendations from the candidate's COR, the program director, and the School of Health Professions Promotion and Tenure Committee shall then be submitted to the director of the School of Health Professions. S/he shall review all recommendations and may consult with members of his/her faculty individually or in a group and may confer with others. The director should solicit whatever additional information is deemed appropriate for making an independent evaluation and recommendation.
   
   
3. The director shall then forward all recommendations to the dean of the School of Medicine. Subsequent reviews will take place by the chancellor, assisted by a campus-wide promotion and tenure advisory committee, and finally, by the president of the university.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4f: Process of Promotion and Tenure Review
For a Candidate Who is Serving as Program Director

1. In the event that the candidate seeking advancement in rank or the award of continuous appointment (tenure) serves as a program director, the School of Health Professions Promotion and Tenure Committee shall invite the participation of three additional tenured faculty members to serve as the COR. They may be from within the candidate's program, school or from other university departments and schools whose expertise and rank enable them to give insightful evaluations in the review process.
   
   
2. All members of the candidate's program faculty with equal or higher rank shall be given the opportunity to submit signed written comments to the committee, which shall remain confidential. This group of reviewers shall solicit whatever additional information is necessary to reach a decision concerning the candidate's qualifications and to make a recommendation for promotion and/or promotion with tenure.
   
   
3. The report of this group shall be forwarded to the director of the School of Health Professions. S/he will compose a letter summarizing her/his independent assessment and recommendations. The committee report and the director's letter shall be submitted to the dean of the School of Medicine, the chancellor, the campus-wide promotion and tenure advisory committee, and finally to the president of the university.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4g: Evaluation and Notification Process

1. In the promotion and tenure (continuous appointment) process, the final decision is made by the president. In accord with Executive Order 6A, recommendations by committees, program directors, school directors, deans, and chancellors are not binding on the president.
   
   
2. When a recommendation for continuous appointment cannot be substantially supported, a negative recommendation should be made at the earliest possible time by the first level of review (COR). To insure fair and timely review of all actions, committees, program directors, school directors and deans shall communicate their recommendations to candidates under consideration and give each candidate reasonable time to submit written rebuttal to the recommendation so that both recommendation and rebuttal may be forwarded to the next level of review.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4h: Third Year Review

1. When the number of years between the initial appointment of a tenure-track faculty member and the mandatory year for tenure review is greater than four, an especially extensive annual review must be made three years before the occurrence of the mandatory year. Faculty members for whom the period between initial appointment and the mandatory year is four years or less may request a mid-probationary review midway between the appointment and the mandatory year.
   
   
2. The Third Year (or Mid-Probationary) Review is an opportunity for the program to provide feedback and guidance to the faculty member (candidate) concerning progress on the tenure track, including specific evaluation as to how well the candidate is meeting the program's expectations. Although the review represents a formal collection, analysis and sharing of information, it should be a part of a larger and ongoing process in which the tenure-track faculty member receives feedback and guidance from the program director and faculty members.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4i: Third Year Committee on Review

1. Upon request by the program director, the non-tenured faculty member (candidate) will nominate two faculty members from the candidate's program or from the School of Health Professions to serve on the Committee on Review (COR).
   
   
2. The program director will then appoint three individuals to serve as the COR. At least one of these should be one of those suggested by the candidate. All members should be individuals who are qualified to review the faculty member's activities and progress. Whenever possible, at least two of these should be within the candidate's discipline/program/primary area. Alternatively, members may be selected from tenured faculty in other programs/departments within the School of Health Professions or from other departments/divisions of the university. Committee members external to the candidate's program should be selected according to their ability to provide added depth and scope to the review process by contributing expertise from an area related to the candidate's discipline or primary area.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4j: Third Year Committee on Review Process

1. The Committee on Review (COR) shall review all materials provided by the candidate and will collectively write an integrative report designed to review scope and significance of research, teaching, and service/administration. The individual comments of all reviewers shall be kept confidential. The report shall be submitted to the program director.
   
   
2. The program director should forward a copy of the report to the director of the School of Health Professions. The program director should also compose a letter summarizing the content of the COR's report as well as his/her own independent assessment. The letter should include recommendations for continued development. The letter should clearly state that the third year review is to provide feedback and guidance to the faculty member and does not represent an assessment of what the ultimate outcome of promotion and tenure review will be. It should be clear that a positive third year review does not assure a positive recommendation at the six-year review. Copies of both the COR's report and the program director's letter should also be sent to the candidate.
   
   
3. The final step in the Third Year (or Mid-Probationary) Review is a meeting between the candidate, the COR, the program director, and the director of the School of Health Professions. In the event that the candidate for Third Year or Mid-Probationary Review is a program director, the COR shall be made-up of tenured faculty members from within or outside the candidate's program or the School of Health Professions upon agreement to such an arrangement between the program director (candidate) and the director of the School of Health Professions. In this case, the COR's report will be sent to the standing committee on Promotion and Tenure of the School of Health Professions and to the director of the school.
   
   
4. The outcomes of the Third-Year or Mid-Probationary Review process should be:
   1. A statement of progress toward tenure
   2. Recommendations to facilitate candidate's progress
   3. Recommendation regarding reappointment for the following year
      
      
5. Schedule for the Third-Year Review:

   April 1: The individual on tenure track submits information to the COR.

   April 22: Results of the review by the COR, in written form, are sent to the candidate, the program director, the School of Health Professions Promotion and Tenure Committee and also to the director of the School of Health Professions.

   April 30: Response in the form of a meeting of the candidate with the program director, the COR members, the School of Health Professions Promotion and Tenure Committee and the director of the School of Health Professions.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4k: Materials to be Submitted for Third Year Review

1. The candidate should submit a current vitae, which shall include the following:
   
   
   1. Statement of teaching, research, and service and/or administrative responsibilities, reviewed historically.
      
      
   2. Teaching portfolio which includes student and peer teaching evaluations, including quantitative as well as qualitative interpretation.
   3. Awards and Honors.
      
      
   4. Summary of research/scholarly activities, including but not limited to:
      
      
      1. refereed journal articles
      2. books, book chapters
      3. other publications, including abstracts and proceedings
      4. refereed presentations
      5. invited publications, presentations
      6. research grants submitted, awarded
      7. descriptive statement of research goals, ongoing research, manuscripts submitted for publication
      8. editorships or consultantships
         
         
   5. Summary of service contributions, including but not limited to:
      
      
      1. clinical service
      2. involvement in professional organizations
      3. committee assignments
      4. provision of continuing professional education experiences
      5. other contributions to the program, the School of Health Professions, the university, the community.
         
         
   6. Administrative contributions (if applicable) to the program, the School of Health Professions, or the university.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4l: Appointment to Rank of Assistant Professor

1. Criteria shall include the following:
   
   
   1. An earned Ph.D. degree in the immediate discipline or from a closely associated/compatible doctoral program.
      
      
   2. Demonstrated interest and ability in research/scholarly activity.
      
      
   3. An interest in students and teaching; the ability to communicate complex ideas clearly both orally and in writing is essential. Some supervised teaching experience at the college or university is level is desirable.
      
      
   4. The applicant should evidence a sincere interest in contributing to the goals of the program and the school. S/he should be willing to accept committee assignments and serve as advisor to students.
      
      
   5. The applicant should also be willing to become involved with state, regional, or national organizations which have significant impact on the profession.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4m: Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
(And the Awarding of Tenure)

1. Criteria shall include the following:
   
   
   1. An earned Ph.D degree in the immediate discipline or from a closely associated/compatible doctoral program.
      
      
   2. A minimum of three (3) years served as an assistant professor at the college or university level.
      
      
   3. Evidence of research/scholarly activity, professional growth, and the potential for establishing a national reputation in his/her field. This should be demonstrated by activities such as:
      
      
      1. Publications in refereed professional journals, chapter contributions, and publication of books of a scholarly nature.
      2. Research presentations at regional/state, and national professional meetings.
      3. Grant writing efforts to secure research funding utilizing internal and/or external sources.
      4. Evidence of appropriate efforts to further professional growth through continuing education endeavors.
         
         
   4. Academic/clinical teaching experience at the graduate and/or undergraduate level. Instruction should reflect: depth and breadth of knowledge, capacity for effective dissemination of that knowledge, and creativity. The applicant should be willing to participate actively in curriculum development, revision, and evaluation. Merit in teaching may be demonstrated by means such as the following:
      
      
      1. Teacher evaluation questionnaires, with interpretation and comparative data.
      2. Classroom visitations by departmental/divisional/university peers.
      3. Innovative contributions to courses and/or to the entire curriculum.
      4. Evidence of excellence in advising and enthusiasm and high degree of involvement in the education of students.
   5. Demonstrated ability in the furtherance of the functions of the program/school as determined by colleagues and the head of the program/school. Evidence may include:
      
      
      1. Participation on program, school, campus or university faculty committees and other administrative or service activities that contribute to the well-being of the institution.
      2. Effective cooperation and collaboration with colleagues within and outside the program (and mentoring of junior colleagues when appropriate).
         
         
   6. Service to the discipline through leadership in professional organizations, editorial consultantships or other appropriate activities.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

4n: Promotion from Associate professor to Professor

1. Criteria for determining eligibility for promotion shall include the following:
   
   
   1. Possession of a Ph.D. degree in the immediate discipline (or from a closely associated/compatible doctoral program.
      
      
   2. A minimum of three years served as an associate professor at the college or university level.
      
      
   3. Sustained record of contributions during a career to research, scholarship, teaching and service, significantly beyond those necessary for advancement to the rank of associate professor.
      
      
   4. Establishment of a national/international reputation is his/her field.
      
      
   5. Demonstrated leadership and sustained ability to participate in the furtherance of the functions of the program, the school, and the university.
      
      
   6. Sustained contributions to his/her professional discipline.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4o: Assignment of New Faculty

1. The promotion criteria as stated shall also apply to the appointment of new faculty at the respective academic ranks. When an Affirmative Action "Request to Make an Offer" on regular appointment (with or without special tenure consideration) is received by the director of the school, copies shall be made and distributed to members of the School of Health Professions Promotion and Tenure Committee. The committee's recommendation regarding rank and tenure (or years toward tenure) shall be submitted to the director of the school within five (5) working days after receipt by them.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4p: Leave of Absence or Sabbatical

1. Insofar as official university policies permit, a leave of absence or sabbatical shall not be a factor in decisions regarding rank or promotion.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top

Article 4q: Tenure

1. The academic Tenure Regulations of the University of Missouri, as approved by the Board of Curators, shall govern the granting or withholding of tenure relative to all faculty of the School of Health Professions.

Approved March 7, 1995

Back to the Top