Portland State University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines

Portland State University Portland State University

PDXScholar PDXScholar

Portland State University Promotion and Tenure

Guidelines

University Archives: Faculty Senate

2022

Portland State University Promotion and Tenure Portland State University Promotion and Tenure

Guidelines Guidelines

Portland State University Faculty Senate

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/facultysenate_promoandtenure

Let us know how access to this document bene3ts you.

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Portland State University Faculty Senate, "Portland State University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines"

(2022).

Portland State University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines

. 1.

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/facultysenate_promoandtenure/1

This Document is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Portland State

University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we

can make this document more accessible: [email protected].

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

FOR THE EVALUATION OF FACULTY

FOR TENURE, PROMOTION, AND MERIT INCREASES

Dated May 17, 1996

Adopted by the PSU Faculty Senate June 12, 1996

2017 Revised Post Tenure Review Guidelines follow the P&T Guidelines

Revisions and amendments

2022 May 02 Faculty Senate approved language on DEI

2021 May 03 Faculty Senate approved teaching professor ranks

2018 June 25 revised (applicable guidelines at time of review)

2017 March 10 revised

2014 April 07 revised, effective 2014 July 01

2014 January voted

2013 October to add new non-tenure-track faculty ranks

2009 July to incorporate new guidelines for promotion within selected research ranks

ii
PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
II. SCHOLARSHIP........................................................................................................................5
A. Overview of Faculty Responsibilities...................................................................................5
B. Scholarly Agenda..................................................................................................................6
1. Individual Faculty Responsibility..................................................................................6
2. Departmental, School and College Responsibilities......................................................7
3. The Uses of a Scholarly Agenda....................................................................................7
C. Scholarship............................................................................................................................7
D. Quality and Significance of Scholarship...............................................................................8
E. Evaluation of Scholarship...................................................................................................10
1. Documentation.............................................................................................................11
2. Research and Other Creative Activities (Research).....................................................12
3. Teaching, Mentoring, and Curricular Activities (Teaching) .......................................13
4. Community Outreach...................................................................................................15
F. Governance and Other Professionally-Related Service......................................................16
III. RANKS....................................................................................................................................17
Emeritus...................................................................................................................................17
Professor: .................................................................................................................................17
Associate Professor..................................................................................................................17
Assistant Professor:..................................................................................................................18
Senior Instructor II...................................................................................................................18
Senior Instructor I....................................................................................................................19
Instructor:.................................................................................................................................19
Professorial Research Appointments.......................................................................................19
Senior Research Associate II ...................................................................................................19
Senior Research Associate I.....................................................................................................20
Research Associate: .................................................................................................................20
Senior Research Assistant II....................................................................................................20
Senior Research Assistant I .....................................................................................................21
Research Assistant...................................................................................................................21
Appointments as Professor of Practice or Clinical Professor..................................................21

iii
PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024
Professor of Practice or Clinical Professor:.............................................................................21
Associate Professor of Practice or Associate Clinical Professor.............................................22
Assistant Professor of Practice or Assistant Clinical Professor...............................................22
Fellow ......................................................................................................................................22
IV. ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS.............................................................................................22
A. Regulations..........................................................................................................................22
B. Use of Faculty Ranks..........................................................................................................24
C. Definition, Use, and Conditions of Faculty Appointments.................................................25
1. Non-tenure track Appointments...................................................................................25
2. Tenure Track Appointments ........................................................................................27
V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROLES AND PROCEDURES/PROMOTION AND TENURE..........30
TENURE-TRACK POSITIONS (AND NTTF RESEARCH ASSISTANT,
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, & RESEARCH FULL PROFESSOR).......................................30
A. Departmental Authority and Responsibility .......................................................................30
B. Responsibilities of the Dean or Equivalent Administrator .................................................36
C. Responsibilities of the Provost............................................................................................36
NON-TENURE TRACK INSTRUCTIONAL POSITIONS – PROMOTION.......................37
A. Departmental Authority and Responsibility........................................................................37
B. Responsibilities of the Dean or Equivalent Administrator .................................................42
C. Responsibilities of the Provost............................................................................................43
NON-TENURE TRACK INSTRUCTIONAL POSITIONS –
CONTINUOUS APPOINTMENT-RELATED ......................................................................44
A. Departmental Authority and Responsibility........................................................................44
B. Initial Appointment.............................................................................................................45
C. Type of Appointment..........................................................................................................45
D. Faculty Offer and Position Descriptions.............................................................................45
E. Annual Review....................................................................................................................46
F. Timing for Continuous Employment Consideration and Appointment..............................47
G. Milestone Review for Continuous Employment.................................................................47
H. Procedures for Milestone Review.......................................................................................50
I. Evaluation Following Continuous Appointment ................................................................53
NON-TENURE TRACK RESEARCH POSITIONS
(RESEARCH ASSISTANT & RESEARCH ASSOCIATE) ..................................................55

iv
PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024
J. Departmental Authority and Responsibility........................................................................55
K. Responsibility of the Dean..................................................................................................56
L. Responsibilities of the Provost............................................................................................56
VI. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON MERIT INCREASES ................................................57
APPENDIX I: CURRICULUM VITAE........................................................................................59
Refereed Publications or Other Creative Achievements .........................................................59
Non-Refereed Publications or Other Creative Achievements .................................................60
Presentations at Professional Meetings....................................................................................60
Honors, Grants, and Fellowships.............................................................................................60
APPENDIX II................................................................................................................................62
1. SAMPLE 30-DAY NOTIFICATION LETTER................................................................63
2. REPORT ON EXTERNAL LETTERS* ...........................................................................64
3. SAMPLE LETTER TO EXTERNAL EVALUATORS FOR TENURE AND
PROMOTIONS TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND FULL PROFESSOR.................65
4. SAMPLE LETTER TO EVALUATORS OUTSIDE
THE DEPARTMENT FOR PROMOTION OF NTTF .....................................................66
APPENDIX III...............................................................................................................................67
1. ROUTING OF RECOMMENDATION............................................................................68
2. APPRAISAL SIGNATURE SHEET AND RECOMMENDATION FORM ...................69
3. ACADEMIC PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL SIGNATURE SHEET
AND RECOMMENDATION FORM...............................................................................70
APPENDIX IV: ADDENDUM FOR OPTIONAL PROMOTIONAL PATHS FOR NON-
TENURE TRACK FACULTY EMPLOYED AT PSU PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2014......71
A. Promotional Options for Non-Tenure Track (NTTF, formerly Fixed-Term)
INSTRUCTIONAL Faculty employed at PSU prior to September 16, 2014.....................71
B. Promotional Options for Non-Tenure Track (NTTF, formerly Fixed-Term)
RESEARCH Faculty employed at PSU prior to September 16, 2014................................72
C. The following Motions approved by the PSU Faculty Senate in 2014 offer guidance
on the adoption and implementation of new NTTF instructional and research ranks........73

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION OF FACULTY

FOR TENURE, PROMOTION, AND MERIT INCREASES

I. INTRODUCTION

Policies and procedures for the evaluation of faculty are established to provide the means

whereby the performance of individual faculty members and their contributions to collective

university goals may be equitably assessed and documented. In the development of these

policies and procedures, the university recognizes the uniqueness of individual faculty

members, of the departments of which they are a part, and of their specific disciplines; and,

because of that uniqueness, the main responsibility for implementation of formative and

evaluative procedures has been placed in the departments.

Departments/units must ensure

that their promotion and tenure guidelines are aligned with and include the spectrum of

scholarship articulated in the institutional guidelines, including, in particular, issues of equity

in relation to promotional assessment/evaluation.

Departmental guidelines should set forth processes and criteria for formative and evaluative

activities which are consistent with the department’s academic mission, as well as with the

mission and vision of the university as an institution. For example, departmental guidelines

might identify evaluative criteria which are appropriate to the discipline, or might delineate

which activities will receive greater or lesser emphasis in promotion or tenure decisions.

They should also include appropriate methods for evaluating the interdisciplinary scholarly

activities of departmental faculty. The Deans and the Provost review departmental

procedures in order to ensure that faculty are evaluated equitably throughout the university.

Evaluation instruments provide a means for gathering information that can provide a basis

for evaluation, but these instruments do not constitute an evaluation in themselves.

“Evaluation” is the process whereby the information acquired by appropriate instruments is

analyzed to determine the quality of performance as measured against the criteria set by the

department, included in the job description, supplemental letter, and other relevant

documents, and connected with the specific scholarly agenda of the faculty in question.

Policies and procedures shall be consistent with PSU Standards sections 580-21-100 through

135.

Approval and implementation of these policies and procedures shall be consistent with the

agreement between Portland State University (PSU) and the American Association of

University Professors, Portland State Chapter, and with the internal governance procedures

of the University. University-wide promotion and tenure guidelines shall not be suspended or

modified without prior approval by the Faculty Senate.

Each year the Provost will establish a timeline to ensure that decision makers at each level of

review will have sufficient time to consider tenure and promotion recommendations

responsibly.

At present, PSU faculty can be appointed as tenure-track or non-tenure track faculty.

Appointments at less than 0.5 FTE are not covered by these Guidelines.

“Departments” includes departments, schools, and other similar administrative units.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

II. SCHOLARSHIP

A. Overview of Faculty Responsibilities

The task of a university includes the promotion of learning and the discovery and

extension of knowledge, enterprises which place responsibility upon faculty members

with respect to their disciplines, their students, the university, and the community. The

University seeks to foster the scholarly development of its faculty and to encourage the

scholarly interaction of faculty with students and with regional, national, and

international communities. Faculty have a responsibility to their disciplines, their

students, the university, and the community to strive for superior intellectual, aesthetic, or

creative achievement. Such achievement, as evidenced in scholarly accomplishments, is

an indispensable qualification for appointment and promotion and tenure in the faculty

ranks. Scholarly accomplishments, suggesting continuing growth and high potential, can

be demonstrated through activities of:

• Research, including academic publications and other creative activities,

• Teaching, including delivery of instruction, mentoring, and curricular activities, and

• Community outreach.

Conflating the terms scholarship and research has sometimes resulted in an undervaluing

of contributions in teaching and community research. These P&T guidelines emphasize

and value the entire mosaic of scholarly accomplishment, including research, teaching,

and community outreach.

All faculty members should keep abreast of developments in their fields

and remain

professionally active throughout their careers.

At PSU, individual faculty are part of a larger mosaic of faculty talent. The richness of

faculty talent should be celebrated, not restricted. Research, teaching, and community

outreach are accomplished in an environment that draws on the combined intellectual

vitality of the department and of the University. As faculty progress in their careers, the

amount of time devoted to different aspects of scholarship may shift. This dynamic

process of growth is essential for our growth as an individual, as an institution, and for

the academy as a whole. Irrespective of the emphasis assigned to differing activities, it is

important that the quality of faculty contributions be rigorously evaluated and that the

individual contributions of the faculty, when considered in aggregate, advance the goals

of the department and of the University.

Effectiveness in teaching, research, or community outreach, when it is part of a faculty

member’s responsibilities, must meet an acceptable standard as determined by the faculty

in each unit and approved by the University. In addition, each faculty member is expected

to contribute to the governance and professionally-related service activities of the

University, school/college, and department, as appropriate. All tenure-track faculty have

a further responsibility to conduct scholarly work in research, teaching, or community

outreach in order to contribute to the body of knowledge in their field(s). Standards for

effectiveness should be clearly articulated and reviewed through an equity lens in order to

account for the hidden and/or unrecognized labor required for developing culturally

responsive and culturally sustaining practices.

Faculty fields may be disciplinary or inter-disciplinary in nature.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

B. Scholarly Agenda

1. Individual Faculty Responsibility

The process of developing and articulating one’s own scholarly agenda is an essential

first step for newly-appointed faculty and is a continuing responsibility as faculty

seek advancement. Each faculty member, regardless of rank, has the primary

responsibility for planning his or her own career and for articulating his or her own

evolving scholarly agenda.

a. The purpose of a scholarly agenda is not to limit a faculty member’s freedom nor

to constrain his or her scholarship, but, primarily, to provide a means for

individuals to articulate their programs of scholarly effort. The scholarly agenda

needs to be specific enough to provide a general outline of a faculty member’s

goals, priorities, and activities, but it is not a detailed recitation of tasks or a set of

detailed, prescribed outcomes. A scholarly agenda:

• articulates the set of serious intellectual, aesthetic or creative questions, issues

or problems which engage and enrich an individual scholar,

• describes an individual’s accomplished and proposed contributions to

knowledge, providing an overview of scholarship, including long-term goals

and purposes,

• clarifies general responsibilities and emphases placed by the individual upon

research, teaching, community outreach, or governance, and

• articulates the manner in which the scholar’s activities relate to the

departmental mission and programmatic goals.

As a faculty member grows and develops, his or her scholarly agenda may evolve

over the years. New scholarly agendas may reflect changes in the set of questions,

issues, or problems which engage the scholar, or in the individual’s relative

emphases on teaching, research, community outreach, and governance.

b. The process of developing or redefining a scholarly agenda also encourages the

individual scholar to interact with and draw upon the shared expertise of his or her

departmental peers. This process promotes both individual and departmental

development, and contributes to the intellectual, aesthetic, and creative climate of

the department and of the University.

2. Departmental, School and College Responsibilities

The development of a scholarly agenda supports a collective process of departmental

planning and decision-making which determines the deployment of faculty talent in

support of departmental and university missions. Departments, schools, and colleges

have the primary responsibility for establishing their respective missions and

programmatic goals within the context of the University’s mission and disciplines as

a whole. Recognizing that departments often accomplish such wide-ranging missions

by encouraging faculty to take on diverse scholarly agendas, departments and

individual faculty members are expected to engage in joint career development

activities throughout each faculty member’s career. Such activities must:

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

• recognize the individual’s career development needs,

• respect the diversity of individual faculty interests and talents, and

• advance the departmental mission and programmatic goals.

Departments shall develop processes for establishing, discussing, agreeing upon, and

revising a scholarly agenda that are consistent with the focus upon individual career

development and collective responsibilities and shall establish regular methods for

resolving conflicts which may arise in the process of agreeing upon scholarly

agendas. The guidance of mentors and advocates is crucial in the development of a

scholarly agenda and in understanding the distinction between a scholarly agenda and

the evaluation process of annual review. It is expected that appropriate mentorship

and support will be available to the faculty member under review. Finally,

departmental processes shall include periodic occasions for collective discussion of

the overall picture resulting from the combination of the scholarly agendas of

individual faculty members.

3. The Uses of a Scholarly Agenda

The primary use of a scholarly agenda is developmental, not evaluative. An

individual’s contributions to knowledge should be evaluated in the context of the

quality and significance of the scholarship displayed. An individual may include a

previously agreed upon scholarly agenda in his or her promotion and tenure

documentation, but it is not required. A scholarly agenda is separate from such

essentially evaluation-driven practices as letters of offer, annual review of tenure-

track faculty, and institutional career support-peer review of tenured faculty, and from

the consideration of individuals for merit awards. In order to clarify the distinction

between the scholarly agenda and the evaluation process of annual review, faculty

should seek out support and advice from their department.

C. Scholarship

The term scholar implies superior intellectual, aesthetic, or creative attainment. A scholar

engages at the highest levels of life-long learning and inquiry. The character of a scholar

is demonstrated by academic achievement and rigorous academic practice. Over time, an

active learner usually moves fluidly among different expressions of scholarship.

However, it also is quite common and appropriate for scholars to prefer one expression

over another. The following four expressions of scholarship (which are presented below

in no particular order of importance) apply equally to Research, Teaching, and

Community outreach (see E.2-4).

1. Discovery

Discovery is the rigorous testing of researchable questions suggested by theory or

models of how phenomena may operate. It is active experimentation, or exploration,

with the primary goal of adding to the cumulative knowledge in a substantive way

and of enhancing future prediction of the phenomena. Discovery also may involve

original creation in writing, as well as creation, performance, or production in the

The contributions of Ernest Boyer are acknowledged in providing the inspiration for sections II.C and II.D.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

performing arts, fine arts, architecture, graphic design, cinema, and broadcast media

or related technologies.

2. Integration

Integration places isolated knowledge or observations in perspective. Integrating

activities make connections across disciplines, theories, or models. Integration

illuminates information, artistic creations in the literary and performing arts, or

original work in a revealing way. It brings divergent knowledge together or creates

and/or extends new theory.

3. Interpretation

Interpretation is the process of revealing, explaining, and making knowledge and

creative processes clear to others or of interpreting the creative works of others. In

essence, interpretation involves communicating knowledge and instilling skills and

understanding that others may build upon and apply.

4. Application

Application involves asking how state-of-the-art knowledge can be responsibly

applied to significant problems. Application primarily concerns assessing the efficacy

of knowledge or creative activities within a particular context, refining its

implications, assessing its generalizability, and using it to implement changes.

D. Quality and Significance of Scholarship

Quality and significance of scholarship are the primary criteria for determining faculty

promotion and tenure for tenure-track faculty. Quality and significance of scholarship are

overarching, integrative concepts that apply equally to the expressions of scholarship as

they may appear in various disciplines and to faculty accomplishments resulting from

research, teaching, and community outreach (see E.2-4).

A consistently high quality of scholarship, and its promise for future exemplary

scholarship, is more important than the quantity of the work done. The criteria for

evaluating the quality and significance of scholarly accomplishments include the

following:

1. Clarity and Relevance of Goals

A scholar should clearly define objectives of scholarly work and clearly states basic

questions of inquiry. Clarity of purpose provides a critical context for evaluating

scholarly work.

• Research or community outreach projects should address substantive intellectual,

aesthetic, or creative problems or issues within one’s chosen discipline or

interdisciplinary field. Clear objectives are necessary for fair evaluation.

• Teaching activities are usually related to learning objectives that are appropriate

within the context of curricular goals and the state of knowledge in the subject

matter.

2. Mastery of Existing Knowledge

A scholar must be well-prepared and knowledgeable about developments in his or her

field. The ability to educate others, conduct meaningful research, and provide high

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

quality assistance through community outreach depends upon mastering existing

knowledge.

• As researchers and problem solvers, scholars propose methodologies, measures,

and interventions that reflect relevant theory, conceptualizations, and cumulative

wisdom.

• As teachers, scholars demonstrate a command of resources and exhibit a depth,

breadth, and understanding of subject matter allowing them to respond adequately

to student learning needs and to evaluate teaching and curricular innovation.

3. Appropriate Use of Methodology and Resources

A scholar should address goals with carefully constructed logic and methodology.

• Rigorous research and applied problem solving requires well-constructed

methodology that allows one to determine the efficacy of the tested hypotheses or

chosen intervention.

• As teachers, scholars apply appropriate pedagogy and instructional techniques to

maximize student learning and use appropriate methodology to evaluate the

effectiveness of curricular activities.

4. Effectiveness of Communication

Scholars should possess effective oral and written communication skills that enable

them to convert knowledge into language that a public audience beyond the

classroom, research laboratory, or field site can understand.

• As researchers and problem solvers, scholars make formal oral presentations and

write effective manuscripts or reports or create original artistic works that meet

the professional standards of the intended audience.

• As teachers, scholars communicate in ways that build positive student rapport and

clarify new knowledge so as to facilitate learning. They also should be able to

disseminate the results of their curricular innovations to their teaching peers.

Scholars should communicate with appropriate audiences and subject their ideas to

critical inquiry and independent review. Usually the results of scholarship are

communicated widely through publications (e.g., journal articles and books),

performances, exhibits, and/or presentations at conferences and workshops.

5. Significance of Results

Scholars should evaluate whether or not they achieve their goals and whether or not

this achievement had an important impact on and is used by others. Customarily,

peers and other multiple and credible sources (e.g., students, community participants,

and subject matter experts) evaluate the significance of results.

• As researchers, teachers, and problem-solvers, scholars widely disseminate their

work in order to invite scrutiny and to measure varying degrees of critical

acclaim. They must consider more than direct user satisfaction when evaluating

the quality and significance of an intellectual contribution.

• Faculty engaged in community outreach can make a difference in their

communities and beyond by defining or resolving relevant social problems or

issues, by facilitating organizational development, by improving existing practices

or programs, and by enriching the cultural life of the community. Scholars should

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

widely disseminate the knowledge gained in a community- based project in order

to share its significance with those who do not benefit directly from the project.

• As teachers, scholars can make a difference in their students’ lives by raising

student motivation to learn, by developing students’ life-long learning skills, and

by contributing to students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities. Teaching scholars

also can make a significant scholarly contribution by communicating pedagogical

innovations and curricular developments to peers who adopt the approaches.

6. Consistently Ethical Behavior

Scholars should conduct their work with honesty, integrity, and responsibilities.

Documentation should be sufficient to outline a faculty member’s objectivity. They

should foster a respectful relationship with students, community participants, peers,

and others who participate in or benefit from their work. Faculty standards for

academic integrity represent a code of ethical behavior. For example, ethical behavior

includes following the human subject review process in conducting research projects

and properly crediting sources of information in writing reports, articles, and books.

E. Evaluation of Scholarship

Scholarly accomplishments in the areas of research, teaching, and community outreach

(see E.2.4) all enter into the evaluation of faculty performance. Scholarly profiles will

vary depending on individual faculty members’ areas of emphasis. The weight to begiven

factors relevant to the determination of promotion, tenure, and merit necessarily varies

with the individual faculty member’s assigned role and from one academic field to

another. However, one should recognize that research, teaching, and community outreach

often overlap. For example, a service-learning project may reflect both teaching and

community outreach.

Some research projects may involve both research and community outreach. Pedagogical

research may involve both research and teaching. When a faculty member evaluates his

or her individual intellectual, aesthetic, or creative accomplishments, it is more important

to focus on the general criteria of the quality and significance of the work (II.D) than to

categorize the work. Peers also should focus on the quality and significance of work

rather than on categories of work when evaluating an individual’s achievements.

The following discussion is intended to assist faculty in formative planning of a scholarly

agenda and to provide examples of the characteristics to consider when evaluating

scholarly accomplishments.

1. Documentation

The accomplishments of a candidate for promotion or tenure must be documented in

order to be evaluated. Documentation and evaluation of scholarship should focus on

the quality and significance of scholarship rather than on a recitation of tasks and

projects.

Each department should judge the quality and significance of scholarly contributions

to knowledge as well as the quantity.

In addition to contributions to knowledge, the effectiveness of teaching, research, or

community outreach must meet an acceptable standard when it is part of a faculty

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

member’s responsibilities. Documentation should be sufficient to outline a faculty

member's agreed-upon responsibilities and to support an evaluation of effectiveness.

Documentation for promotion and tenure normally includes:

• Self-appraisal of scholarly agenda and accomplishments. A self-appraisal should

include:

o A discussion of the scholarly agenda that describes the long-term goals and

purposes of a scholarly line of work, explains how the agenda fits into a larger

endeavor and field of work, and demonstrates how scholarly accomplishments

to date have advanced the agenda.

o A description of how the agenda relates to the departmental academic mission,

within the context of the University mission and the discipline as a whole.

o An evaluation of the quality and significance of scholarly work (see II.D).

o An evaluation of the effectiveness of teaching, research, or community

outreach when it is part of a faculty member’s responsibilities.

• A curriculum vitae including a comprehensive list of significant

accomplishments.

• A representative sample of an individual’s most scholarly work rather than an

exhaustive portfolio. However, a department may establish guidelines requiring

review of all scholarly activities that are central to a faculty member’s scholarly

agenda over a recent period of time.

• Evaluations of accomplishments by peers and other multiple and credible sources

(e.g., students, community participants, and subject matter experts). Peers include

authoritative representatives from the candidate’s scholarly field(s).

2. Research and Other Creative Activities (Research)

Significant factors in determining a faculty member’s merit for promotion are the

individual’s accomplishments in research and published contributions to knowledge

in the appropriate field(s) and/or other professional or creative activities that are

consistent with the faculty member’s responsibilities. Contributions to knowledge in

the area of research and other creative activities should be evaluated using the criteria

for quality and significance of scholarship (see II.D). It is strongly recommended that

the following items be considered in evaluating research and other creative activities:

a. Research may be evaluated on the quality and significance of publication of

scholarly books, monographs, articles, presentations, and reviews in journals, and

grant proposal submissions and awards. An evaluation should consider whether

the individual’s contributions reflect continuous engagement in research and

whether these contributions demonstrate future promise. Additionally, the

evaluation should consider whether publications are refereed (an important form

of peer review) as an important factor. In some fields, evidence of citation or use

of the faculty member’s research or creative contributions by other scholars is

appropriate.

b. The development and publication of software should be judged in the context of

its involvement of state-of-the-art knowledge and its impact on peers and others.

c. In certain fields such as writing, literature, performing arts, fine arts, architecture,

graphic design, cinema, and broadcast media or related fields, distinguished

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

creation should receive consideration equivalent to that accorded to distinction

attained in scientific and technical research. In evaluating artistic creativity, an

attempt should be made to define the candidate’s merit in the light of such criteria

as originality, scope, richness, and depth of creative expression. It should be

recognized that in music and drama, distinguished performance, including

conducting and directing, is evidence of a candidate’s creativity. Creative works

often are evaluated by the quality and significance of publication, exhibiting,

and/or performance of original works, or by the direction or performance of

significant works. Instruments that include external peer review should be used or

developed to evaluate artistic creation and performance. Including critical

reviews, where available, can augment the departmental evaluations. The

evaluation should include a chronological list of creative works, exhibitions, or

performances.

d. Contributions to the development of collaborative, interdisciplinary, or inter-

institutional research programs are highly valued. Mechanisms for evaluating

such contributions may be employed. Evaluating collaborative research might

involve addressing both individual contributions (e.g., quality of work,

completion of assigned responsibilities) and contributions to the successful

participation of others (e.g., skills in teamwork, group problem solving).

e. Honors and awards represent recognition of stature in the field when they recognize

active engagement in research or creative activities at regional, national, or

international levels.

f. Effective participation in disciplinary or interdisciplinary organizations’ activities

should be evaluated in the context of their involvement of state-of- the-art

knowledge and impact on peers and others. For example, this participation might

include serving as editor of journals or other learned publications, serving on an

editorial board, chairing a program committee for a regional, national, or

international meeting, or providing scholarly leadership as an officer of a major

professional organization.

3. Teaching, Mentoring, and Curricular Activities (Teaching)

A significant factor in determining a faculty member’s merit for promotion is the

individual’s accomplishments in teaching, mentoring, and curricular activities,

consistent with the faculty member’s responsibilities. Teaching activities are

scholarly functions that directly serve learners within or outside the university.

Scholars who teach must be intellectually engaged and must demonstrate mastery of

the knowledge in their field(s). The ability to lecture and lead discussions, to create a

variety of learning opportunities, to draw out students and arouse curiosity in

beginners, to stimulate advanced students to engage in creative work, to organize

logically, to evaluate critically the materials related to one’s field of specialization, to

assess student performance, and to excite students to extend learning beyond a

particular course and understand its contribution to a body of knowledge are all

recognized as essential to excellence in teaching.

Teaching scholars often study pedagogical methods that improve student learning.

Evaluation of performance in this area thus should consider creative and effective use

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

of innovative teaching methods, curricular innovations, and software development.

Scholars who teach also should disseminate promising curricular innovations to

appropriate audiences and subject their work to critical review. PSU encourages

publishing in pedagogical journals or making educationally-focused presentations at

disciplinary and interdisciplinary meetings that advance the scholarship of teaching

and curricular innovations or practice.

Evaluation of teaching and curricular contributions should not be limited to classroom

activities. It also should focus on a faculty member’s contributions to larger curricular

goals (for example, the role of a course in laying foundations for other courses and its

contribution to majors, or contributions to broad aspects of general education or

interdisciplinary components of the curriculum). In addition, PSU recognizes that

student mentoring, academic advising, thesis advising, and dissertation advising are

important departmental functions. Faculty may take on differential mentoring

responsibilities as part of their personal scholarly agenda.

To ensure valid evaluations, departments should appoint a departmental committee to

devise formal methods for evaluating teaching and curriculum-related performance.

All members of the department should be involved in selecting these formal methods,

which should align with the university’s mission and vision, particularly around

questions of equity. The department chair

has the responsibility for seeing that these

methods for evaluation are implemented.

Contributions to knowledge in the area of teaching, mentoring, and curricular

activities should be evaluated using the criteria for quality and significance of

scholarship (see II.D). It is strongly recommended that the following items be

considered in the evaluation of teaching and curricular accomplishments:

• contributions to courses or curriculum development

• outlines, syllabi, and other materials developed for use in courses

• the results of creative approaches to teaching methods and techniques, including

the development of software and other technologies that advance student learning,

• development of curricular materials related to the study and understanding of

diversity in various contexts

• the results of assessments of student learning

• formal student evaluations

• peer review of teaching, mentoring, and curricular activities

• accessibility to students

• ability to relate to a wide variety of students for purposes of advising

• engagement in culturally sustaining practices in mentoring and advising

• mentoring and guiding students toward the achievement of curricular goals

• the results of supervision of student research or other creative activities including

theses and field advising

• the results of supervision of service learning experiences in the community

• contributions to, and participation in, the achievement of departmental goals, such

as achieving reasonable retention of students

• contributions to the development and delivery of collaborative, interdisciplinary,

“Department Chair” includes chairs of departments and directors, Deans, or other heads of other similar

administrative units designated in the unit’s promotion and tenure guidelines.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

university studies, extended studies, and inter-institutional educational programs

• teaching and mentoring students and others in how to obtain access to information

resources so as to further student, faculty, and community research and learning

• grant proposals and grants for the development of curriculum or teaching methods

and techniques

• professional development as related to instruction, e.g., attendance at professional

meetings related to a faculty member’s areas of instructional expertise

• honors and awards for teaching.

4. Community Outreach

A significant factor in determining a faculty member’s advancement is the

individual’s accomplishments in community outreach when such activities are part of

a faculty member’s responsibilities. Scholars can draw on their professional expertise

to engage in a wide array of community outreach. Such activities can include defining

or resolving relevant local, national, or international problems or issues. Community

outreach also includes planning literary or artistic festivals or celebrations. PSU

highly values quality community outreach as part of faculty roles and

responsibilities.

The setting of Portland State University affords faculty many opportunities to make

their expertise useful to the community outside the University. Community-based

activities are those which are tied directly to one’s special field of knowledge. Such

activities may involve a cohesive series of activities contributing to the definition or

resolution of problems or issues in society. These activities also include aesthetic and

celebratory projects. Scholars who engage in community outreach also should

disseminate promising innovations to appropriate audiences and subject their work to

critical review.

Departments and individual faculty members can use the following guidelines when

developing appropriate community outreach. Important community outreach can:

• contribute to the definition or resolution of a relevant social problem or issue

• encourage dialogue and exchange among community partners and university

members

• use state-of-the-art knowledge to facilitate change in organizations or institutions

• use disciplinary or interdisciplinary expertise to help groups organizations in

conceptualizing and solving problems

• set up intervention programs to prevent, ameliorate, or remediate persistent

negative outcomes for individuals or groups or to optimize positive outcomes

• contribute to the evaluation of existing practices or programs

• make substantive contributions to public policy

• create schedules and choose or hire participants in community events such as

festivals

Not all external activities are community outreach in the sense intended here. For example, faculty members who

serve as jurors, as youth leaders and coaches, or on the PTA do so in their role as community citizens. In contrast,

community outreach activities that support promotion and tenure advancement fulfill the mission of the department

and of the University and utilize faculty members’ academic or professional expertise.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

• offer professional services such as consulting (consistent with the policy on

outside employment), serving as an expert witness, providing clinical services,

and participating on boards and commissions outside the university.

Faculty and departments should evaluate a faculty member’s community outreach

accomplishments creatively and thoughtfully. Contributions to knowledge developed

through community outreach should be judged using the criteria for quality and

significance of scholarship (see II.D). It is strongly recommended that the evaluation

consider the following indicators of quality and significance:

• publication in journals or presentations at disciplinary or interdisciplinary

meetings that advance the scholarship of community outreach

• honors, awards, and other forms of special recognition received for community

outreach

• adoption of the faculty member’s models for problem resolution, intervention

programs, instruments, or processes by others who seek solutions to similar

problems

• substantial contributions to public policy or influence upon professional practice

• models that enrich the artistic and cultural life of the community

• evaluative statements from clients and peers regarding the quality and

significance of documents or performances produced by the faculty member.

F. Governance and Other Professionally-Related Service

In addition to contributions to knowledge as a result of scholarly activities, each faculty

member is expected to contribute to the governance and professionally-related service

activities of the University. Governance and professionally-related service create an

environment that supports scholarly excellence and the achievement of the University

mission. Governance and professionally-related service actives include:

1) Committee Service. Service on University, school or college, and department or

program committees is an important part of running the University. Department

chairs may request a committee chair to evaluate the value a faculty member’s

contributions to that committee. Such service also may include involvement in peer

review of scholarly accomplishments.

2) University Community. Faculty are expected to participate in activities devoted to

enriching the artistic, cultural, and social life of the university, such as attending

commencement or serving as adviser to student groups.

3) Community or professional service. Faculty may engage in professionally- related

service to a discipline or inter-disciplinary field, or to the external community, that

does not engage an individual’s scholarship. For example, a faculty member may

serve the discipline by organizing facilities for a professional meeting or by serving

as treasurer of an organization.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

III.RANKS

The following definitions of academic rank are based on the premise that a vital University

depends on the active participation of all of its members. Inherent in this charge are the basic

activities of research, teaching, community outreach, and governance and professionally

related service. All personnel decisions will reflect the need to create and maintain a diverse

faculty. The academic ranks in the faculty and the minimum criteria for each rank are:

Emeritus

The Emeritus rank may be awarded upon retirement in recognition of outstanding

performance.

Professor

A tenure track position. A faculty member will normally not be considered for promotion

to Professor until the fourth year in rank as an Associate Professor. Exceptions will be

made only in extraordinary cases. Consideration for the promotion immediately upon

eligibility should occur only on the basis of extraordinary achievement. Length of time in

rank is not a sufficient reason for promotion.

Promotion to the rank of Professor requires the individual to have made significant

contributions to knowledge as a result of the person’s scholarship, whether demonstrated

through the scholarship of research, teaching, or community outreach. The candidate’s

scholarly portfolio should document a record of distinguished accomplishments using the

criteria for quality and significance of scholarship (see II. D). Effectiveness in teaching,

research, or community outreach must meet an acceptable standard when it is part of a

faculty member’s responsibilities. Finally, promotion to the rank of professor requires the

faculty member to have provided leadership or significant contributions to the

governance and professionally-related services activities of the university.

Associate Professor

A tenure track position. A faculty member will not be eligible for consideration for

promotion to Associate Professor until the third year in rank as an Assistant Professor. In

the usual course of events, promotion to Associate Professor and granting of indefinite

tenure should be considered concurrently, in the sixth year in rank as an Assistant

Professor. Exceptions which result in the consideration for the promotion immediately

upon eligibility should occur only on the basis of extraordinary achievement. Length of

time in rank is not a sufficient reason for promotion.

Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor requires the individual to have made

contributions to knowledge as a result of the person’s scholarship, whether demonstrated

through the scholarship of research, teaching, or community outreach. High quality and

significance (see II.D) are the essential criteria for evaluation.

Effectiveness in teaching, research, or community outreach must meet an acceptable

standard when it is part of a faculty member’s responsibilities. Finally, promotion to the

rank of Associate Professor requires the faculty member to have performed his or her fair

share of governance and professionally-related service activities of the University.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

Assistant Professor

A tenure track position. Appointees to the rank of Assistant Professor ordinarily hold the

highest earned degree in their fields of specialization. Rare exception to this requirement

may be made when there is evidence of outstanding achievements and professional

recognition in the candidate’s field of expertise. In most fields, the doctorate will be

expected.

For non-tenure track faculty members whose initial date of hire was prior to September

16, 2014, see Appendix IV: Addendum For Implementation of Amended Guidelines.

Senior Instructor II

Normally, a faculty member will not be eligible for promotion to Senior Instructor II until

the completion of the third year in rank as a Senior Instructor I at PSU.

Recommendations for early promotion in cases of extraordinary achievement can be

made at the department’s discretion. Length of time in rank is not a sufficient reason for

promotion.

Promotion to Senior Instructor II is based on such criteria as: demonstrated expertise in

the development and delivery of new instructional materials; ongoing engagement with

the pedagogy of the discipline; ability to play a lead role in assessment and curriculum

design; demonstrated excellence in advising and mentoring; ongoing engagement with

the profession; evidence of the application of professional skills and knowledge outside

the department as demonstrated by activities such as professionally-related university and

community engagement and scholarly or creative activity that contributes to knowledge

in one’s field and, where appropriate, the community; evidence of ability to work

effectively with individuals from and topics related to diverse populations; and effective

participation in departmental, college/school and university governance as appropriate to

assignment and contract.

Senior Instructor I

Normally, a faculty member will not be eligible for consideration for promotion to Senior

Instructor I until the completion of the third year in rank as an Instructor at PSU.

Recommendations for early promotion in cases of extraordinary achievement or special

circumstances can be made at the department’s discretion. Length of time in rank is not a

sufficient reason for promotion.

Promotion to Senior Instructor I is based on criteria such as: quality of instruction, as

determined by classroom observation, assessment of student-learning outcomes, and

review of student evaluations and course materials; expertise in the discipline, as

demonstrated by activities such as ongoing revision of course materials, curricular

innovations, participation in continuing education, conferences, and other professional

activities; evidence of ability to work effectively with individuals from and topics related

to diverse populations; and participation in departmental, college/school, and university

governance as appropriate to assignment and contract.

Instructor

A non-tenure track faculty appointment for individuals whose responsibilities are

primarily devoted to academic instruction. Such appointments include teaching, advising,

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

and mentoring expectations congruent with creative and engaged instruction. Normally,

this appointment requires an advanced degree in the field of specialization

Professorial Research Appointments

A non-tenure track appointment for a faculty member who is primarily engaged in

research at a level normally appropriate for a professorial rank.

Ranks for these appointments are Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate

Professor, and Research Professor.

Conversion of a Senior Research Associate II to Research Assistant Professor is based on

the nature of the position, its intended duration and responsibilities, and the incumbent’s

record of scholarly accomplishment and responsibilities. The conversion must be

approved by the Dean and Provost.

For non-tenure track faculty members whose initial date of hire was prior to September

16, 2014, see Appendix IV: Addendum for implementation of amended guidelines.

Promotion to Research Associate Professor and Research Professor requires review

outlined in Section V: Administrative Roles and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure

for Tenure-Track Faculty.

Senior Research Associate II

Typically, candidates for promotion to the rank of Senior Research Associate II will meet

the following requirements: six or more years of progressively responsible research or

evaluation experience and demonstrated ability to conduct research independently.

Length of time in rank is not a sufficient reason for promotion.

Promotion to Senior Research Associate II will be based on such criteria as: years of

research experience and demonstrated ability to conduct research independently.

Responsibilities may include designing, developing, and conducting research or

evaluation projects; taking a lead or major role in writing grant proposals; leading in

developing and sustaining community or interdisciplinary research partnerships;

authoring and co- authoring publications for scholarly or community audiences; taking a

lead role in developing new qualitative or quantitative methodologies and data collection

protocols.

Senior Research Associate I

Typically, candidates for the promotion to the rank of Senior Research Associate I will

meet the following requirements: four or more years of progressively responsible

research or evaluation experience; demonstrated ability to participate in developing

funding for research and/or disseminating results; demonstrated ability to take the lead

role in designing and implementing research or evaluation studies. Length of time in rank

is not a sufficient reason for promotion.

Promotion to Senior Research Associate I will be based on such criteria as: years of

research experience and demonstrated ability to take the lead in research and evaluation.

Responsibilities may include assisting in writing grant proposals and scholarly or

community publications; taking a lead role in designing, developing, and executing one

or more studies; designing and overseeing the delivery of intervention protocols to

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

fidelity; developing qualitative and quantitative data collection protocols and

methodologies; establishing and fostering community or interdisciplinary research

partnerships; co-authoring reports, presentations and scholarly papers.

Research Associate

A non-tenure track faculty appointment for individuals who typically have a doctoral

degree or another appropriate combination of educational achievement and professional

expertise. Typically, candidates for the rank of Research Associate will meet the

following requirements: four or more years of progressively responsible research

experience and demonstrated ability to participate in the design, implementation and

oversight of quantitative or qualitative research or evaluation studies. Length of time in

rank is not a sufficient reason for promotion.

Senior Research Assistant II

Typically, candidates for promotion to Senior Research Assistant II will meet the

following requirements: two years of experience at the Senior Research Assistant I rank

or its equivalent; demonstrated ability to perform a variety of research or evaluation

tasks; demonstrated ability to independently manage or coordinate research and

evaluation activities. Length of time in rank is not a sufficient reason for promotion.

Senior Research Assistant I

Typically, candidates for promotion to the rank of Senior Research Assistant I will meet

the following requirements: two years of experience at the Research Assistant rank or its

equivalent and demonstrated ability to perform focused research or evaluation tasks.

Length of time in rank is not a sufficient reason for promotion.

Promotion to Senior Research Assistant I will be based on criteria such as: years of

research experience and demonstrated ability to perform focused research or evaluation

tasks. Responsibilities may include assisting in the coordination of research activities;

communicating with community and interdisciplinary collaborators; basic qualitative or

statistical analysis; maintaining databases; collecting, processing and reporting of data;

assisting in the preparation of reports and presentations.

Research Assistant

A non-tenure track faculty appointment for individuals who typically have a bachelor’s or

master’s degree. Exceptions may include individuals with specific expertise required for

the research project. Typically, individuals in the rank of Research Assistant will gather

research or evaluation data using a pre-determined protocol, carry out routine procedures,

gather materials for reports, perform routine data processing or lab work, data

management, and basic quantitative or qualitative data analysis.

Individuals with the ranks of Senior Research Assistant I and II perform a wider variety

of research and evaluation tasks and are expected to perform tasks with increasing

independence.

Appointments as Professor of Practice or Clinical Professor

A non-tenure track faculty appointment for individuals who are licensed or certified

professionals or practitioners recognized within professional fields. Unique discipline-

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

specific criteria for professional certification may be defined by departments for

classification of professors of practice and clinical professors. The major responsibilities

involve the education and support of students/learners in academic, clinical, and/or

practice settings, supervising clinical experiences, and/or professionally related

community engagement. The title Clinical Professor may be used by some departments

instead of or in addition to Professor of Practice as appropriate for the discipline. Ranks

for these appointments are Professor of Practice/Clinical Professor, Associate Professor

of Practice/ Associate Clinical Professor, Assistant Professor of Practice/ Assistant

Clinical Professor.

Professor of Practice or Clinical Professor

Typically, candidates meet the following requirements unless there is remarkable

achievement: at least 10 years of part- or full-time professional experience in the

clinical/professional discipline post-certification; at least six years of clinical/professional

teaching in an academic setting, with a minimum of four years at Portland State

University; and a high degree of academic maturity and responsibility. Length of time in

rank is not a sufficient reason for promotion.

Promotion to Professor of Practice or Clinical Professor is based on criteria such as:

documented evidence of a consistent pattern of high quality professional productivity and

impact in the professional field that is illustrative of professional productivity at regular

intervals over a period of years and evidence of national and/or international recognition

in the professional field. Such evidence may be indicated by, for example: appointments

as a reviewer of peer- reviewed journals; invited papers and presentations given beyond

the state and region; honors, grants, awards; and committee service and leadership with

national or international professional associations.

Associate Professor of Practice or Associate Clinical Professor

Typically, candidates will meet the following requirements, unless there is remarkable

achievement: A minimum of six years post-certification professional experience to

include at least three years of clinical/professional practice teaching in an academic

setting, with a minimum of two years at PSU. Length of time in rank is not a sufficient

reason for promotion.

Promotion to Associate Professor of Practice or Associate Clinical Professor is based on

evidence of effectiveness in clinical/professional instruction to include materials

indicating command of the academic and/or clinical subject matter, ability to motivate,

mentor/advise, and assess students, and creative and effective use of teaching methods

and evidence of effective engagement of a professional nature.

Assistant Professor of Practice or Assistant Clinical Professor

A non-tenure track faculty appointment for individuals whose primary work is in the

areas of instruction in clinical or professional practice or in professionally-related

community engagement. Faculty hired in this category must hold an advanced degree in

their field of specialization from an accredited program in their discipline and/or have

comparable experience.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

Teaching Professor

A non-tenure track faculty position. Typically, being hired into or promoted to this

position requires a minimum of four years in rank as an Associate Teaching Professor.

Recommendations for early promotion in cases of extraordinary achievement or special

circumstances can be made at the department’s discretion. Consideration for promotion

immediately upon eligibility should occur only on the basis of extraordinary

achievement. Length of time in rank is not a sufficient reason for promotion.

Promotion to the rank of Professor is based on demonstrated and sustained excellence in

teaching, assessment, advising, and mentoring as well as significant contributions to

innovative curriculum or pedagogy. The candidate’s portfolio should document a record

of distinguished accomplishments. Promotion to this rank also requires the faculty

member to have provided leadership or significant contributions in the areas of

governance and professionally-related service within the service parameters outlined for

NTTF in the current CBA. Evidence of the ability to work with, mentor, and advise

students and graduate assistants/tutors/graders of diverse populations is required.

Criteria for promotion may include excellence in educational innovation, curriculum

development, course design, and impact on student learning. A record of distinguished

accomplishments may include wide dissemination of curriculum innovations evidenced

by external adoption, awards from state, regional or national professional organizations,

or other demonstration of significant impact. Additional criteria may include significant

contributions to governance and professionallyrelated service to the university and/or

community outreach, and state or national recognition in the professional field.

While dissemination of scholarly research is not required, it may be used as evidence of

educational innovation and teaching excellence. Such evidence may be indicated by

appointments as a reviewer of peer-reviewed journals, publications, invited papers and

presentations, honors, grants, and/or awards, and committee service and leadership with

national or international professional associations.

Associate Teaching Professor

A non-tenure track faculty position. Typically, being hired into or promoted to this

position requires six years in rank as an Assistant Teaching Professor. Recommendations

for early promotion in cases of extraordinary achievement or special circumstances can

be made at the department’s discretion. Length of time in rank is not a sufficient reason

for promotion.

Promotion to the rank of Associate Teaching Professor is based on demonstrated

excellence in teaching, assessment, advising, and mentoring as well as contributions to

innovative curriculum or pedagogy. The candidate’s portfolio should document a record

of high quality and significance. Promotion to this rank also requires the faculty member

to have provided leadership or significant contributions in the areas of governance and

professionally-related service within the service parameters outlined for NTTF in the

current CBA. An ability to work with, mentor, and advise students and graduate

assistants / tutors / graders of diverse populations is required.

Criteria for promotion may include demonstrated expertise in teaching, the development

and delivery of instructional materials and assessment, communitybased work, ongoing

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

engagement with the profession through participation in state, regional, or national

organizations, grant activities, or conference presentations. The high quality and

significance expected for this rank may be demonstrated by dissemination of curriculum

innovations evidenced by broader adoption, by recognition from professional

organizations, or other demonstration of significance. Production and dissemination of

scholarly work is not required, but it may be an additional way to demonstrate high

quality and significance.

Assistant Teaching Professor

A non-tenure track faculty (NTTF) appointment for an individual whose responsibilities

are primarily devoted to academic instruction, including teaching, advising, and

mentoring at the undergraduate and/or graduate levels. Responsibilities may include

meaningful curricular development or redesign, training graduate teaching assistants and

adjuncts, and/or community-based work.

Appointees to the rank of Teaching Assistant Professor will hold the highest earned

degree in their fields of specialization, related to their instructional responsibilities. In

most fields, the doctorate will be expected. Exception to this requirement may be made

when there is evidence of outstanding achievements and professional recognition in the

candidate’s field of expertise. They are also expected to possess pedagogical and subject

expertise and a demonstrated ability to work effectively with individuals from and topics

related to diverse populations.

Expectations of the position include teaching, assessment, mentoring, advising, and

service. Appointments may include responsibility for undergraduate and/or graduate

education, participation in assessment, conference attendance, and professional activities.

Ability to work with, mentor and advise students and graduate assistants / tutors / graders

of diverse populations and participation in departmental, college / school, or university

service are required.

Fellow

This rank may be used in a variety of cases when individuals are associated with the

institution for limited periods of time for their further training or experience.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

IV.ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS

A. Regulations

Academic appointments in the State System of Higher Education are governed by four

sets of regulations that define the conditions under which faculty ("unclassified academic

employees") may be appointed. Highlights are summarized below.

1. Board Rules

The Board of Higher Education Administrative Rules (OAR 580-020-0005):

Graduate ranks are GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT, GRADUATE

RESEARCH ASSISTANT, and FELLOW.

Faculty titles and ranks are (in alphabetical order): AFFILIATED FACULTY,

CLINICAL PROFESSOR (assistant clinical professor, associate clinical professor,

clinical professor) or PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE (assistant professor of practice,

associate professor of practice, professor of practice), INSTRUCTOR (instructor,

senior instructor I, senior instructor II), LECTURER (lecturer, senior lecturer I, senior

lecturer II), LIBRARIAN (assistant librarian, associate librarian, senior librarian),

RESEARCH ASSISTANT (research assistant, senior research assistant I, senior

research assistant II), RESEARCH ASSOCIATE (research associate, senior research

associate I, senior research associate II), RESEARCH FACULTY (research assistant

professor, research associate professor, research professor), TENURE TRACK OR

TENURED FACULTY (assistant professor, associate professor, professor,

distinguished professor). Faculty titles will not be given to graduate students. The

Board Rules further note that each institution can select from among these ranks and

titles those appropriate to the hiring and retention of their faculty members as it

relates to their institutional mission. PSU has elected not to use the Lecturer and

Librarian ranks and not to limit the Instructor rank to undergraduate instruction only.

2. Oregon State Board of Higher Education Financial Administration

Standard Operating Manual (FASOM)

The Board’s Financial Administration Standard Operating Manual ("FASOM"),

Section 10.012-82, allows for faculty to be appointed with "No Rank." In addition,

the Chancellor’s office has implemented a new class code, 2971 "Unranked," to assist

in processing faculty appointments. These facilitate the appointment of faculty in

academic support, student support, and administrative support positions with

professional titles, with or without faculty rank. A series of professional titles

reflecting responsibilities will provide opportunities for greater clarity as well as

appropriate recognition and promotion for many professionals in these units.

3. Oregon Revised Statutes

The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 240-207) designate specific State System of

Higher Education positions as unclassified (i.e., faculty) "the President and one

private secretary, Vice President, Comptroller, Chief Budget Officer, Business

Manager, Director of Admissions, Registrar, Dean, Associate Dean, Assistant Dean,

Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Instructor, Lecturer, Research

Assistant, Research Associate, Director of Athletics, Coach, Trainer." The Revised

Statutes include "all...members in the State System of Higher Education...whether the

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

type of service is teaching, research, extension or counseling" as being unclassified.

The Revised Statutes thereby provide a primary guide for determining if a State

System of Higher Education position should be designated faculty (unclassified) or

classified.

4. Personnel Division Rules

Under authority granted to the Personnel Division by ORS 240-207, the following

positions have also been designated as unclassified: Librarian; Director of Alumni;

Director of University Development; General Managers; Directors; Producers; and

Announcers of the State Radio and Television Service; Interpreters for Hearing-

Impaired Students; Director of Information Services; and Director of Publications.

B. Use of Faculty Ranks

1. As mandated by OAR 580-20-005(4), Deans, Vice Presidents where appropriate, and

the President shall have the academic rank of Professor.

2. For tenure-track faculty hired after September 16, 2014, the ranks of Assistant

Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor will be limited to

a. teaching-related positions with an expectation for scholarly accomplishment;

b. librarians with an expectation for scholarly accomplishment;

c. research-related appointments with an expectation for scholarly accomplishment;

d. as mandated by state statute for those in administrative positions.

3. Faculty in non-tenure track positions hired after September 16, 2014 that do not have

an associated expectation for scholarly accomplishment will be appointed with one of

the five following designations:

a. at the rank of Instructor or Senior Instructor I or II;

b. at the rank of Research Assistant or Senior Research Assistant I or II;

c. at the rank of Research Associate or Senior Research Associate I or II;

d. at the rank of Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate Professor, or

Research Professor;

e. at the rank of Assistant Professor of Practice or Assistant Clinical Professor,

Associate Professor of Practice or Associate Clinical Professor, Professor of

Practice or Clinical Professor.

f. at the rank of Assistant Teaching Professor, Associate Teaching Professor,

Teaching Professor;

C. Definition, Use, and Conditions of Faculty Appointments

Faculty appointments are defined as (a) non-tenure track or (b) tenure track. Non-tenure

track appointments are (a) fixed-term appointments, (b) probationary appointments, or (c)

continuous appointments. Tenure track appointments are (a) annual tenure appointments

or (b) indefinite tenure appointments:

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

1. Non-tenure track Appointments

a. Fixed-term appointments

Circumstances occasionally warrant the hiring of non-tenure track instructional

faculty on a fixed-term appointment for a specific and limited period of time. For

example, a fixed-term appointment is appropriate for visiting faculty, to fill a

temporary vacancy (such as a vacancy caused by another employee being on

leave or pending a search for a vacant position), when a program is newly

established or expanded, when the specific funding for the position is time-

limited, or for a specific assignment or to fill a discrete need that is not expected

to be ongoing.

The letter of offer for a fixed-term instructional faculty appointment shall state the

reason that warrants the fixed-term appointment.

Fixed term appointments are made for a specified period of time and are not

eligible for tenure. Although fixed term appointments do not require timely notice

under the provisions of OAR 580-21-305, notices of intent to reappoint or not to

reappoint should be sent by April 1 of the first year of a non-tenure track fixed

term appointment and by January 1 of subsequent years. Such notices of intent

may be based on the availability of funds. Departments are required to provide an

annual evaluation of the performance of fixed term faculty after the first year

consistent with the practices specified in their promotion and tenure guidelines. It

should be understood that non-tenure track fixed term appointments are for

specified times and no reason for a decision not to reappoint need be given.

In the event that the University intends to extend a fixed-term appointment

beyond three years of continuous service, the University will provide notice to the

Association at least 60 days in advance of the extension.

This notice shall

provide a rationale for the position remaining a fixed-term appointment.

In the event that a fixed-term instructional faculty member is to be appointed to a

position eligible for a continuous appointment, the University will notify the

Association and the parties agree to discuss, as necessary, the appropriate

probationary period and whether any time served as a fixed-term faculty member

is to be credited to the probationary period.

b. Probationary appointments

Non-tenure track instructional faculty members with a probationary appointment

will be employed on annual contracts during the first six (6) years of employment

as non-tenure track instructional faculty members. Annual contracts during the

probationary period will automatically renew unless timely notice is provided.

Notice of non-renewal of an annual contract during the probationary period must

be provided by April 1 of the first year of the probationary period and by January

1 of the second through fifth years of the probationary period, effective at the end

2015-2019 CBA, Article 18, Sec. 3.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

of that academic year.

Such notices may be based on the availability of funds. It

should be understood that no reason for a decision not to reappoint need be given.

c. Continuous appointments

A continuous appointment is provided to a non-tenure track faculty member who

has completed the necessary probationary period in a continuous appointment-

eligible position. A continuous appointment is an indefinite appointment that can

be terminated only under the following circumstances:

1. Pursuant to Article 22 (Retrenchment).

2. When a sanction of termination is warranted and imposed pursuant to Article

27 (Imposition of Progressive Sanctions).

3. Due to a change in curricular needs or programmatic requirements made in

accordance with applicable shared governance procedures. In such a case:

i. As soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days prior to issuing a notice

of termination, the Department Chair must provide written justification for

the decision and explanation of the applicable shared governance

procedure to the faculty members, the Dean, the Provost and the

Association.

ii. If the employment of multiple faculty members in equivalent positions,

and with equivalent position-related qualifications, skills and expertise,

are to be terminated due to the same change in curricular needs or

programmatic requirements, then lay-off shall be in order of seniority.

Faculty will be laid off in inverse order to length of continuous service at

the University.

iii. The faculty member is to be given at least six months notice of

termination of employment, with such termination effective at the end of

the academic year.

iv. The School/College will make a good faith effort to find a comparable

position within the University for the faculty member.

v. If the reason for the decision that led to the layoff is reversed within three

years from the date that notice of termination was provided to the faculty

member, the affected faculty members will be recalled in inverse order of

layoff. To exercise recall rights, a faculty member must:

1. Notify Human Resources in writing, within 30 days of the termination

notice, of intent to be placed on the recall list. If/when there is a need

for a recall list, the University and the Association will meet promptly

for the purpose of negotiating a process for administering the recall

list.

2. Inform Human Resources of any change in telephone, email or

address.

3. In the event of a recall, Human Resources will contact the faculty

member by phone and email, and notify the Association, of the recall.

4. The recalled faculty member will have ten (10) working days to accept

or reject the position. Failure to contact Human Resources within ten

2015-2019 CBA, Article 18, Sec. 2b.

2015-2019 CBA, Article 18, Sec. 2e.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

(10) working days will be considered a rejection of the position.

5. A recalled faculty member who rejects a position will be removed

from the recall list.

4. If the faculty member receives an unsatisfactory evaluation and fails to

remediate the deficiencies during the subsequent academic year.

d. Non-tenure track appointments considered for tenure track appointment

A non-tenure track appointment does not foreclose the possibility

that a department may wish to consider that faculty member for a

tenure-related appointment. In such cases, the years spent under a

non-tenure track appointment may be considered as a part of the

probationary period for tenure at the time the individual is placed

on the annual-tenure track. A mutually acceptable written

agreement shall be arrived at between the faculty member and

institutional representative as to the extent to which any prior

experience of the faculty member shall be credited as part of the

probationary period, up to a maximum of three years.

2. Tenure Track Appointments

a. Conditions Governing Tenure Track

Annual appointments are given to faculty employed 0.50 FTE or more who will

be eligible for tenure after serving the appropriate probationary period. Only in

exceptional circumstances will appointments under 1.0 FTE be tenure track.

Termination other than for cause or financial exigency requires timely notice (see

OAR 580-21-100 and 580-21-305). Termination other than for cause or financial

exigency shall be given in writing as follows: during the first year of an annual

appointment, at least three months’ notice prior to the date of expiration; during

the second year of service, at least six months; thereafter, at least twelve months.

Probationary Service and Consideration for Tenure. Tenure should be granted to

faculty members whose scholarly accomplishments are of such quality and

significance and demonstrate such potential for long-term performance that the

University, so far as its fiscal and human resources permit, can justifiably

undertake to employ them for the rest of their academic careers. The granting of

tenure should be even more significant than promotion in academic rank, and is

exercised only after careful consideration of a faculty member’s scholarly

qualifications and capacity for effective continued performance over a career.

The granting of tenure reflects and recognizes a candidate’s potential long-range

value to the institution, as evidence by professional performance and growth. In

addition, tenure insures the academic freedom that is essential to an atmosphere

conducive to the free search for truth and the attainment of excellence in the

University.

Tenure normally is considered in the sixth year of a tenure-track appointment,

with a tenure decision to be determined prior to the beginning of the seventh year.

Recommendations to award tenure earlier can be made at the department’s

discretion. If a faculty member is not awarded tenure at the end of six years,

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

termination notice will be given. The six consecutive probationary years of the

faculty member’s service to be evaluated for the granting of tenure may include

prior experience gained in another institution of higher education whether within

or outside of the state system. Ordinarily, this is instructional, research, or clinical

experience at an accredited institution of higher education. Whether such

experience will be included, and to what extent must be decided at the time of

initial appointment in a mutually acceptable written agreement between the

faculty member and Portland State University. The maximum time to be allowed

for prior service is three years.

The accrual of time during the probationary period preceding the granting of

indefinite tenure is calculated in terms of FTE years. An FTE year is the total

annualized, tenure related FTE in a given fiscal year. Therefore, the minimum

probationary period may require more than six calendar years if the faculty

member’s FTE was below 1.00 during the first six years. This could occur for

various reasons, including initial appointment date after the beginning of the

fiscal or academic year (i.e., in the Winter Term), leave without pay for one or

more terms, or a partial FTE reduction during the probationary period. Care

should be taken to be sure to consider a person who has accumulated, for

example, 5.67 FTE years. Delay for another year would not allow for timely

notice. Should circumstances warrant full tenure review prior to the sixth year,

this review should include the external peer review as well (cf. IV,A,1,c).

Indefinite tenure appointments are appointments of 0.50 FTE or more given to

selected faculty members by the institutional executive under authority contained

in IMD 1.020 and OAR 580-21-105 in witness of the institution’s formal decision

that the faculty member possesses such demonstrated professional competence

that the institution will not henceforth terminate employment except for (a) cause,

(b) financial exigency, or (c) program reductions or eliminations.

Because tenure is institutional, not system-wide, faculty who have achieved

tenure status in one state system institution cannot hereby claim tenure in other

institutions of the state system (OAR 580-21-105).

Annual and Third Year Reviews. Faculty on annual tenure must be reviewed after

the completion of the first year of their appointment and each subsequent year. In

order to assure that candidates for tenure have a timely assessment of their

progress so as to permit correction of deficiencies, there must be a review at the

end of the third year. For faculty who have brought in prior service at another

institution, the review will not be conducted until the end of at least one complete

academic year at Portland State University. As a result of this review, candidates

should be given an assessment of their progress toward tenure and of any

deficiencies that need to be addressed. The review shall be in accordance with

department and university procedures that have been approved and signed by the

Office of Academic Affairs (OAA) existing at the time of hire, or at the time of

the review (as described below) and should specifically evaluate the progress of

the faculty member in meeting the standards for the award of tenure; however,

reviews prior to the sixth year are normally only for evaluative purposes and do

not have to include outside evaluation. Upon the completion of the third-year

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

review, the faculty member reviewed will be given an assessment of progress

toward tenure as perceived from all appropriate administrative levels.

Selection of the applicable Department and University P&T Guidelines. Faculty

members subject to review under this section, and under review for promotion

and tenure pursuant to Article V, must choose between the approved Department

and University P&T Guidelines that were in place at the time of hire, or the

approved Department and University P&T Guidelines at the time of the review as

follows.

Starting in Fall 2018, Tenure Track faculty members that have a first or second

year review can choose to be evaluated under the approved P&T guidelines in

place at the time of hire (and as those requirements have been interpreted by the

SCHOOL/COLLEGE/DEPT at the time of hire), or under the approved P&T

guidelines in place at the time of their review. The member will indicate in

writing, the guidelines chosen at the beginning of their narrative.

Starting in Fall 2018 and applicable to those Tenure Track faculty members that

have an upcoming 3

year review, at the time a Tenure Track faculty member

submits their materials for their 3

year review, the member shall indicate at the

beginning of their narrative that they choose to be evaluated under the University

P&T Guidelines and the Department P&T guidelines approved and signed by

OAA on their hiring date, or under the University P&T guidelines and

Department P&T Guidelines that are in place at the time of the review. Once

identified, then that choice will carry forward to the member’s subsequent

reviews through to the tenure decision. The member will cite the approval dates

of the University P&T Guidelines and the Department P&T Guidelines chosen in

their narrative.

For Tenure Track faculty who have passed their 3rd year review as of September

2018, at the time a Tenure Track faculty member submits their materials for their

next review in the tenure process, the member shall indicate at the beginning of

their narrative that they choose to be evaluated under the University P&T

Guidelines and Department P&T guidelines in place on their hiring date, or under

the University P&T guidelines and Department P&T Guidelines in place at the

time of the review. That choice will carry forward to the member’s subsequent

reviews through to the tenure decision. The member will provide in writing, the

approval dates of the University P&T Guidelines and the Department P&T

Guidelines chosen in their narrative.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROLES AND PROCEDURES/PROMOTION AND TENURE

TENURE-TRACK POSITIONS (AND NTTF RESEARCH ASSISTANT, RESEARCH

ASSOCIATE, & RESEARCH FULL PROFESSOR)

A. Departmental Authority and Responsibility

The department as a whole shall establish its general guidelines, including the criteria to

be used for recommendations for promotion and tenure, and shall ensure that these

guidelines fulfill the minimum standards of the University guidelines, which have

priority. The responsibility for evaluating and documenting an individual faculty

member’s performance rests primarily with the department. The criteria to be used for

promotion and tenure must be consistent with university and college or school policy and

must be formulated early to allow maximum time for making decisions.

Approval of departmental procedures and criteria by the Dean and Provost is required. If

a Dean disapproves of existing or newly revised departmental criteria, then he/she will

submit both departmental recommendations and his/her objections or amendments to the

Provost for resolution.

After approval by the Provost, the guidelines must be distributed to all members of the

department faculty and to the academic Dean. All Promotion and Tenure Guidelines

approved by the Office of Academic Affairs (OAA) will show the date of OAA approval.

Department chairs should distribute these guidelines to new faculty upon their arrival at

Portland State University.

In cases where a faculty member’s appointment is equally divided between two or more

departments, there shall be a written agreement as to which department is to initiate

personnel actions, and the faculty member is to be so informed. In cases where a faculty

member is involved in interdisciplinary teaching and/or research, evaluation must be

solicited and provided by all appropriate academic departments. When a faculty

member’s research has clear impact on members of the external community, including

civic groups, practitioners or others, evidence of the value of this work should be

solicited from those most affected.

1. Procedures for Faculty Evaluation

a. The department chair notifies the committee chair of those faculty who are

eligible for review. Faculty members on sabbatical or other approved leaves of

absence shall be given equal consideration for promotion in rank with faculty

members who are on campus.

b. Faculty Curricula Vitae. All faculty members being reviewed should provide to

the departmental committee an updated curriculum vitae. Curricula vitae should

follow the format provided in Appendix I. A curriculum vitae should be updated

at each stage of the review process.

c. External Peer Review. To substantiate the quality and significance of a faculty

member’s scholarship, a representative sample of an individual’s most scholarly

work should be evaluated by peers and other multiple and credible sources (e.g.,

authoritative representatives from a faculty member’s field, students, community

participants, and subject matter experts). External peer reviews must accompany

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

recommendation for tenure and for promotion to associate and full professorships.

For faculty to be reviewed for one of these personnel decisions, a list of potential

external reviewers, which when appropriate should include members of the

community able to judge the quality and significance of scholarship shall be

compiled in the following manner.

i. The department chair will ask the faculty member for a list of reviewers (at

least four) from outside the University. The faculty member may also provide

a list of possible reviewers perceived as negative or biased; although inclusion

of a name on this list will not preclude a request for evaluation, the faculty

member’s exception will be included as a matter of record, if an evaluation is

requested.

ii. At least three additional external reviewers will be selected by the department

chair or the chair of the departmental committee. The chair will send the list to

the Dean for review and the Dean may add names to the list.

iii. The chair of the promotion and tenure committee will select evaluators from

the combined list of outside reviewers. A sample letter of solicitation is

provided in Appendix II. (Please note, as suggested in the sample letter, the

evaluator should be advised that the letter is not confidential and will be

available for the faculty member’s review.) Requests for external evaluations

shall include a copy of the University and departmental criteria for promotion

and tenure. The faculty member being reviewed, in consultation with the

departmental promotion and tenure committee, shall choose which samples of

the faculty member’s work shall be sent to external reviewers. Upon receipt of

the evaluations, the chair of the department will send them to the

departmental committee. A complete evaluation file must include at least three

letters from external reviewers. In cases when promotion or tenure decisions

are deferred, external evaluations may be used in subsequent considerations

for a period of three years.

2. Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee Establishment and Authority

All recommendations for promotion and tenure originate with formally established

departmental committees; for example, an elected advisory committee, or an elected

committee on promotion and tenure. The department as a whole shall determine the

composition of the committee and the method of selection of its members and

chairperson. Student participation in the consideration of promotion and tenure is

mandatory. When a faculty member has been involved in interdisciplinary teaching

and/or research, the departmental promotion or tenure committee will include a

faculty representative from a mutually agreed upon second department or program.

Since the department chair is required to make a separate evaluation of the

department faculty, the chair cannot be a member of the committee. The committee

may invite other faculty members to participate in its deliberations. This committee

acts as an independent reviewer of the performance of department faculty and

initiates recommendations for all department faculty except the department chair.

Committee members being considered for promotion or tenure shall not participate in

the committee review of their cases.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

Upon notification of the status of eligible faculty from the department chair, the

committee will review and evaluate the curriculum vitae of faculty members eligible

for tenure or promotion in accordance with the appropriate Department and

University P&T Guidelines (as selected by the faculty member under review), and

where required, external peer evaluation. Faculty members being evaluated may

submit pertinent materials to the committee, but such data may not be included as a

part of the committee’s recommendations unless fully evaluated within the committee

report.

3. Committee Decision and Narrative Report

The Committee’s report to the department chair will be in the form of a written

narrative for each affected faculty member. The report must address the following

areas: contributions to knowledge as a result of the person’s scholarship (whether

demonstrated through the scholarship of research, teaching, or community outreach),

effectiveness in teaching, research, or community outreach when it is part of a faculty

member’s responsibilities, and governance and professionally- related service.

The departmental committee must make one of four decisions for each member of the

department being considered and the votes of each voting member of the committee

must be recorded on the recommendation form (Appendix III).

a. Ineligible: This decision is appropriate for faculty who do not have minimum time

in rank or who are on fixed term appointments. The committee may also provide a

written evaluation of faculty on fixed term appointment.

b. Deferral: This decision is appropriate for faculty who have met the minimum time

in rank to qualify for promotion but who request not to be considered, and for

faculty whose requests for promotion are not accepted. A request for deferral by a

faculty member should not be accepted by the committee without consideration.

The committee should indicate, in writing, that such a discussion was held.

Deferrals for faculty who have requested evaluation for promotion must be

accompanied by a written report.

The committee must review each faculty member on annual tenure and prepare a

written report for the department chair evaluating the progress of the faculty

member in meeting the standards for the award of indefinite tenure in accordance

with the Department and University P&T Guidelines selected by the faculty

member (if the faculty member has not previously made a selection, or if the

annual review is prior to the decision point for the selection of the guidelines

above, the committee will utilize the approved Department and University P&T

Guidelines in place at the time of hire). A deferral vote related to a tenure decision

is normally appropriate for faculty members being reviewed in the first five years

of an annual appointment. However, for a faculty member in the sixth year of an

annual appointment, the committee must make a positive or a negative

recommendation.

c. Positive Decision: This decision is appropriate for faculty whose attainments

warrant promotion and/or tenure. For faculty members recommended for tenure,

the committee’s evaluation report should survey all years being counted toward

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

tenure, including years of prior service that have been extended to the faculty

member in his or her original letter of offer. For faculty members recommended

for promotion, the committee’s evaluation should survey the faculty member’s

years at Portland State. Where a positive recommendation is being made, a

written report following the format in Appendix III must accompany the

recommendation form.

d. Negative Decision: This decision is appropriate for faculty on annual tenure when

in the committee’s judgment, termination should be recommended. If in its review

of a faculty member on an annual appointment, even within the first five years of

such an appointment, the committee does not find that a faculty member is

making satisfactory progress toward tenure, the committee may indicate a

negative decision. Negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written

report following the format in Appendix III.

4. Responsibilities of Department Chair

The department chair must be satisfied that the departmental committee has followed

the appropriate departmental guidelines and that the appraisals are complete and in

proper form. Department chairs are to make a separate recommendation for each

member of the department and take the following actions:

a. confirm that all eligible faculty have been considered

b. provide an evaluation to faculty on fixed term appointments;

c. review justification for deferral at the faculty member’s request and decision for

deferral made by the committee. For faculty on annual appointments who have

been deferred for tenure, the department chair should review the committee’s

report, add any additional evaluation, and discuss the report with the faculty

member; and,

d. review positive and negative recommendations and the curriculum vitae and

supporting materials of the faculty member in question. The chairs will make a

separate recommendation, adding their own written narrative to the committee’s.

(The narrative must address the following areas: contributions to knowledge as a

result of the person’s scholarship (whether demonstrated through the scholarship

of research, teaching, or community outreach), effectiveness in teaching, research,

or community outreach when it is part of a faculty member’s responsibilities, and

governance and professionally-related service. It should also address the general

expectations of your discipline’s promotion and tenure guidelines and for the

candidate in relation to these expectations. Discuss the specific contributions of

the candidate to the Departmental curriculum, i.e. upper and lower division

courses taught, difficulty of courses, major requirements, enrollments. If the

recommendation of the chair differs significantly from the committee’s

recommendation, the chair shall state in writing the reason for specific difference.

The department chair informs each faculty member in a timely manner in writing of

the departmental committee’s and of his/her own recommendations (ineligible,

deferred, recommended for promotion and/or tenure, or termination). The faculty

members should be given the opportunity to review their files before they are

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

forwarded to the Dean/Provost and should indicate they have done so by signing the

“Appraisal Signature and Recommendation Form.” A copy of the complete appraisal

and any additional material added by the department chair, should be in the file for

review by the affected faculty member. The department chair must discuss with a

faculty member, when requested, the reasons for the recommendations by the

departmental committee and the department chair.

If a department member questions either departmental recommendation, he/she may

request a reconsideration of that recommendation.

4. Procedures for Reconsideration of Department Decision

Within two weeks of receipt of written notice of department action, the faculty

member must give written notice of intent to request a reconsideration of the

recommendation. If the request is for reconsideration of the departmental committee

recommendation, both the committee chair and the department chair must be notified,

and the department chair must return all appraisal materials promptly to the

committee chair. Otherwise, only the department chair need be notified in writing.

The review may be requested on the basis of procedural or substantive issues. The

faculty member should prepare whatever supportive material is pertinent. The

supportive materials must be submitted to the committee chair, or department chair,

as appropriate, within two weeks of written notification of intention to request the

reconsideration.

All materials submitted by a faculty member shall become part of the appraisal

document. The departmental committee and/or department chair, as appropriate, shall

consider the materials presented by the faculty member. The committee chair and/or

department chair may attach to the appraisal additional documentation or statements

with their recommendation(s). The department chair shall forward the appraisal,

which shall then proceed through the normal administrative review procedure in a

timely manner.

5. Chair’s Report to the Dean

The department chair must submit the following to the Dean:

a. statement of assurance that all eligible faculty have been reviewed;

b. recommendation form for each faculty member; and,

c. the committee’s and the chair’s written narratives for all faculty members who

have received positive or negative recommendation for promotion and tenure.

Upon receipt of the Dean’s recommendation, the chair must inform the faculty

member of that recommendation in a timely manner.

B. Responsibilities of the Dean or Equivalent Administrator

The Dean shall use an advisory group for review and evaluation of the recommendations

from the department chairs and departmental committees. The size and composition of

this group shall be at the discretion of the Dean.

All actions taken by the Dean must be reported in a timely manner to the appropriate

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

department chair and chairperson of the appropriate promotion and tenure committee. If

the department chair or the chairperson of the promotion and tenure committee requests a

conference with the Dean, within five days of being notified by the Dean, a conference

shall be held before the Dean’s recommendations are forwarded. If the Dean’s

recommendation should differ from the recommendation of either the departmental

committee or department chair, the Dean must notify the affected faculty member in

writing of action taken at the college/school level and state the reason for specific

difference. The Dean shall provide the affected faculty member with a copy of any

material added to the file. The affected faculty member may attach a statement in

response to the action of the Dean. This statement shall be forwarded to the Provost at the

same time as the recommendations go forward.

Individual files of faculty reviewed for promotion and/or tenure shall be assembled by the

Dean’s office, following the format specified in the Promotion and Tenure Checklist and

submitted to the Provost.

The Dean initiates recommendations for promotion of department chairs. The Dean’s

recommendations shall be forwarded to the Provost only after consultation with

departmental committees.

C. Responsibilities of the Provost

The Provost makes all recommendations for promotion and tenure to the president for

final approval according to the following process:

The Provost shall review the appraisals forwarded from the various colleges, schools, and

other units. In doing so, the Provost shall determine whether recommendations are in

conformity with the Administrative Rules, consistent with the institutional guidelines,

reasonably uniform with regard to University standards, and in accordance with required

procedures. If questions arise concerning a recommendation, the Provost shall consult

with the Dean and may consult with other appropriate persons.

After reaching a decision, the Provost shall notify the affected faculty member, in

writing, of his or her recommendation. A faculty member who wishes to request a

reconsideration of the Provost’s decision must schedule a conference with the Provost

within ten days of the notification and may add additional evidence to the file. Only after

a requested conference is held shall the Provost make a final recommendation to the

president.

Copies of the Provost’s recommendation shall be sent to the Dean and department chair.

Upon receiving the Provost’s recommendation and a summary of the outcome of any

reconsideration requested by a faculty member, the president shall make a final decision.

Appeals of the president’s decision should follow the grievance procedure found in the

Administrative Rules of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education (OAR 577-42-

005).

NON-TENURE TRACK INSTRUCTIONAL POSITIONS- PROMOTION

A. Departmental Authority and Responsibility

The department as a whole shall establish its general guidelines in writing, including the

criteria to be used for recommendations for promotion, and shall ensure that these

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

guidelines fulfill the minimum standards of the University guidelines, which have

priority. The responsibility for evaluating and documenting an individual faculty

member’s performance rests primarily with the department. The procedures and criteria

to be used for promotion must be consistent with university and college or school policy,

approved by the Dean and Provost, and must be formulated early enough to allow

maximum time for making decisions.

Approval of departmental procedures and criteria by the Dean and Provost is required. If

a Dean disapproves newly revised departmental criteria, then he/she will submit both

departmental recommendations and his/her objections or amendments to the Provost for

resolution.

After approval by the Provost, the guidelines must be in writing and be distributed to all

members of the department faculty and to the academic Dean. Department chairs should

distribute these guidelines to new non-tenure track faculty upon their arrival at Portland

State University.

Guidelines should be clear and unambiguous and include a calendar for a cycle of

reviews. Department chairs must distribute these guidelines to new non-tenure track

faculty with their appointment letter.

Reviews must take account of job-relevant evaluation criteria in keeping with those

specified in the letters of appointment. Faculty may submit all relevant materials to the

evaluators. Departments shall require the use of quantitative summaries of student

evaluations to assure the confidentiality of student responses. To aid review committees

in their evaluation, departments shall require a narrative or self- evaluation from each

member under review. Faculty must have reasonable notice of their evaluations.

The results of a review must be provided in writing and in sufficient time that one who is

reviewed is able to meet with at least one of the reviewers and to respond to the review

by submitting a statement or comments that shall be attached to the review. Departments

with more than one non-tenure track faculty member shall require that at least one non-

tenure track faculty member shall be on the non-tenure track faculty review committee.

Faculty may request a review if one has not been provided in the time period provided in

the guidelines.

In cases where a non-tenure track faculty member’s appointment is equally divided

between two or more departments, there shall be a written agreement as to which

department is to initiate personnel actions and the faculty member is to be so informed. In

cases where a faculty member is involved in interdisciplinary teaching and/or research,

evaluation must be solicited and provided by all appropriate academic departments.

When a faculty member’s research has clear impact on members of the external

community, including civic groups, practitioners or others, evidence of the value of this

work should be solicited from those most affected.

1. Procedures for Faculty Evaluation

a. Notification. The department chair notifies the chair of the appropriate

departmental committee of those non-tenure track faculty who are eligible for

review. Faculty members on sabbatical or other approved leaves of absence shall

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

be given equal consideration for promotion in rank with faculty members who are

on campus.

b. Faculty Curricula Vitae. All non-tenure track faculty members being reviewed

should provide to the departmental committee an updated curriculum vitae.

Curricula vitae should follow the format provided in Appendix I. A curriculum

vitae should be updated at each stage of the review process.

c. Peer Review. Although non-tenure track faculty positions do not carry

expectations for scholarly research, departments may require that candidates for

promotion be evaluated by peers and other credible sources (e.g., authoritative

experts) who are in a position to comment on the candidate’s activities that are

required of their position when such evaluations are deemed by the faculty

member and the appropriate departmental committee as relevant to the faculty

member’s contribution as assigned by the University. For non- tenure

representatives from a faculty member’s field, students, community participants,

and subject matter faculty to be reviewed for promotion, a list of potential

evaluators outside the department which when appropriate should include

members of the community able to judge the quality and significance of the

candidate’s professional activities, shall be compiled in the following manner:

i. When the use of outside evaluators is deemed relevant, the department chair

will ask the faculty member for a list of at least four evaluators from outside

the department. The faculty member may also provide a second list of

possible evaluators perceived as negative or biased. Although inclusion of a

name on this list will not preclude a request for evaluation, if an evaluation is

requested of someone on the second list the faculty member’s exception will

be included as a matter of record,

ii. When the use of outside evaluators is deemed relevant, additional evaluators

from outside the department may be selected by the department chair or the

chair of the departmental committee. The chair will send the list to the Dean

for review and the Dean may add names to the list.

iii. When the use of outside evaluators is deemed relevant, the chair of the

promotion and tenure committee will select evaluators from the combined list

of evaluators from outside the department. A sample letter of solicitation for

letters of support for non-tenure track faculty is provided in Appendix II.

Please note, as suggested in the sample letter, the evaluator should be advised

that the letter is not confidential and will be available for the faculty

member’s review. Requests for external evaluations shall include a link to

University and departmental criteria for promotion. The faculty member

being reviewed, in consultation with the departmental promotion and tenure

committee, shall choose which, if any, samples of the faculty member’s work

shall be sent to external evaluators. Upon receipt of the evaluations, the chair

of the department will send them to the departmental committee. A complete

evaluation file (when deemed relevant) must include at least three letters

from evaluators outside the department. In cases when promotion decisions

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

are deferred, external evaluations may be used in subsequent considerations

for a period of three years.

2. Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee Establishment and Authority

All recommendations for promotion of NTTF Instructional Faculty members

originate with formally established departmental committees; for example, an elected

advisory committee, or an elected committee on promotion and tenure. The

department as a whole shall determine the composition of the committee and the

method of selection of its members and chairperson. When a faculty member has

been involved in interdisciplinary teaching and/or research, the departmental

promotion and tenure committee will include a faculty representative from a mutually

agreed upon second department or program. Since the department chair is required to

make a separate evaluation of the department faculty, the chair cannot be a member

of the committee. The committee may invite other faculty members to participate in

its deliberations. This committee acts as an independent reviewer of the performance

of department faculty and initiates recommendations for all department faculty except

the department chair. Committee members being considered for promotion shall not

participate in the committee review of their cases.

Upon notification of the status of eligible faculty from the department chair, the

committee will review and evaluate the curriculum vitae of faculty members eligible

for promotion, and where required, external peer evaluation. Faculty members being

evaluated may submit pertinent materials to the committee, but such data may not be

included as a part of the committee’s recommendations unless fully evaluated within

the committee report.

3. Committee Decision and Narrative Report

The Committee’s report to the department chair will be in the form of a written

narrative for each affected faculty member. The report must address the following

areas: effectiveness in teaching, effectiveness in research, and/or effectiveness in

community outreach whenever each is part of a faculty member’s responsibilities;

and governance and professionally- related service. The departmental committee

must make one of three decisions for each member of the department and the votes of

each voting member of the committee must be recorded on the recommendation form

(Appendix III).

a. Ineligible: This decision is appropriate for faculty who do not have minimum time

in rank.

b. Deferral: This decision is appropriate for faculty who have met the minimum time

in rank to qualify for promotion but whose requests for promotion are not

accepted. Deferrals for faculty who have requested evaluation for promotion must

be accompanied by a written report.

c. Positive Decision: This decision is appropriate for faculty whose attainments

warrant promotion. For faculty members recommended for promotion, the

committee’s evaluation should survey the faculty member’s years at Portland

State. Where a positive recommendation is being made, a written report following

the format in Appendix III must accompany the recommendation form.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

4. Responsibilities of Department Chair

The department chair must be satisfied that the departmental committee has followed

the departmental guidelines and that the appraisals are complete and in proper form.

Department chairs are to make a separate recommendation for each member of the

department and take the following actions:

a. confirm that all eligible faculty have been considered

b. review justification for deferral at the faculty member’s request and decision for

referral made by the committee

c. review positive and negative recommendations and the curriculum vitae and

supporting materials of the faculty member in question. The chairs will make a

separate recommendation, adding their own written narrative to the committee’s.

The chair’s narrative must address the following areas: effectiveness in teaching,

effectiveness in research, and/or effectiveness in community outreach insofar as

each is part of a faculty member’s responsibilities; and governance and

professionally-related service. It should also address the general expectations of

the department’s promotion and tenure guidelines and the candidate’s activities

with regard to these expectations, including the contributions of the candidate to

the departmental curriculum, i.e. upper and lower division courses taught,

difficulty of courses, major requirements, and enrollments. If the recommendation

of the chair differs significantly from the committee’s recommendation, the chair

shall state in writing the reason for the specific differences.

The department chair informs each faculty member in a timely manner in writing of

the departmental committee’s and of his/her own recommendations (ineligible,

deferred, recommended for promotion). The faculty members should be given the

opportunity to review their files before they are forwarded to the Dean/Provost and

should indicate they have done so by signing the “Appraisal Signature and

Recommendation Form.” A copy of the complete appraisal and any additional

material added by the department chair, should be in the file for review by the

affected faculty member. The department chair must discuss with a faculty member,

when requested, the reasons for the recommendations by the departmental committee

and the department chair. If a department member questions either departmental

recommendation, he/she may request a reconsideration of that recommendation.

5. Procedures for Reconsideration of Department Decision

Within two weeks of receipt of written notice of department action, the faculty

member must give written notice of intent to request a reconsideration of the

recommendation. If the request is for reconsideration of the departmental committee

recommendation, both the committee chair and the department chair must be notified

and the department chair must return all appraisal materials promptly to the

committee chair. Otherwise, only the department chair need be notified in writing.

The review may be requested on the basis of procedural or substantive issues. The

faculty member should prepare whatever supportive material is pertinent. The

supportive materials must be submitted to the committee chair, or department chair,

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

as appropriate, within two weeks of written notification of intention to request the

reconsideration.

All materials submitted by a faculty member shall become part of the appraisal

document. The departmental committee and/or department chair, as appropriate, shall

consider the materials presented by the faculty member. The committee chair and/or

department chair may attach to the appraisal additional documentation or statements

with their recommendation(s). The department chair shall forward the appraisal,

which shall then proceed through the normal administrative review procedure in a

timely manner.

6. Chair’s Report to the Dean

The department chair must submit the following to the Dean:

a. statement of assurance that all eligibigle non-tenure track faculty have been

reviewed

b. recommendation form for each faculty member; and,

c. the committee’s and the chair’s written narratives for all faculty members who

have received positive or negative recommendation for promotion.

Upon receipt of the Dean’s recommendation, the chair must inform the faculty

member of that recommendation in a timely manner.

B. Responsibilities of the Dean or Equivalent Administrator

The Dean shall use an advisory group for review and evaluation of the recommendations

from the department chairs and departmental committees. The size and composition of

this group shall be at the discretion of the Dean.

All actions taken by the Dean must be reported in a timely manner to the appropriate

department chair and chairperson of the appropriate promotion and tenure committee. If

the department chair or the chairperson of the promotion and tenure committee requests a

conference with the Dean within five days of being notified by the Dean, a conference

shall be held before the Dean’s recommendations are forwarded to the Provost. If the

Dean’s recommendation should differ with the recommendation of either the

departmental committee or department chair, the Dean must notify the affected faculty

member in writing of the action taken at the college/school level and state the reason for

specific difference. The affected faculty member may seek a meeting with the Dean prior

to the finalization of any report that differs with the recommendation of the departmental

committee. The Dean shall provide the affected faculty member with a copy of any

material added to the file. The affected faculty member may attach a statement in

response to the action of the Dean. This statement shall be forwarded to the Provost at the

same time as the recommendations go forward. Individual files of faculty reviewed for

promotion shall be assembled by the Dean’s office, following the format specified in the

“Promotion and Tenure Checklist” and submitted to the Provost.

The Dean initiates recommendations for promotion of department chairs. The Dean’s

recommendations shall be forwarded to the Provost only after consultation with

college/school committee.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

C. Responsibilities of the Provost

The Provost makes all recommendations for promotion to the President for final approval

according to the following process:

The Provost shall review the appraisals forwarded from the various colleges, schools, and

other units. In doing so, the Provost shall determine whether recommendations are in

conformity with the Oregon Administrative Rules, consistent with the institutional

guidelines, reasonably uniform with regard to University standards, and in accordance

with required procedures. If questions arise concerning a recommendation, the Provost

shall consult with the Dean and may consult with other appropriate persons.

After reaching a decision, the Provost shall notify the affected faculty member, in

writing, of his or her recommendation. A faculty member who wishes to request a

reconsideration of the Provost’s decision must schedule a conference with the Provost

within ten days of the notification and may add additional evidence to the file. Only after

a requested conference is held shall the Provost make a final recommendation to the

President.

Copies of the Provost’s recommendation shall be sent to the Dean and Department Chair.

Upon receiving the Provost’s recommendation and a summary of the outcome of any

reconsideration requested by a faculty member, the president shall make a final decision.

Appeals of the President’s decision should follow the grievance procedure found in the

Administrative Rules of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education (OAR 577-42-005).

NON-TENURE TRACK INSTRUCTIONAL POSITIONS –

CONTINUOUS APPOINTMENT RELATED EVALUATIONS

This section describes the process through which eligible non-tenure track (NTT)

instructional faculty may be considered for continuous appointment and are evaluated and

may be considered for continuous employment. This document covers NTTF hired after

September 16, 2016. For NTT instructional faculty hired prior to this date, see also the

Implementation Plan.

A. Departmental Authority and Responsibility

The department as a whole shall establish its general guidelines, including the criteria to

be used for evaluation of faculty for continuous appointment, prior to continuous

appointment and after continuous appointment, and shall ensure that these guidelines

fulfill the minimum standards of the University guidelines, which have priority. The

responsibility for evaluating and documenting an individual faculty member’s

performance rests primarily with the department. The procedures and criteria to be used

for evaluation of faculty for continuous appointment, to include the evaluations before

and after continuous appointment, must be consistent with university and college or

school policy, approved by the Dean and Provost, and must be formulated early enough

to allow maximum time for making decisions.

Approval of departmental procedures and criteria by the Dean and Provost is required. If

a Dean disapproves newly revised departmental criteria, then he/she will submit both

2016-2019 CBA, LOA #5

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

departmental recommendations and his/her objections or amendments to the Provost for

resolution.

After approval by the Provost, the guidelines must be distributed to all members of the

department faculty and to the academic Dean. Department chairs should distribute these

guidelines to new non-tenure track faculty upon their arrival at Portland State University.

The guidelines must be in writing and be distributed to all members of the department

faculty. Guidelines should be clear and unambiguous and include a calendar for a cycle

of reviews. Department chairs must distribute these guidelines to new non- tenure track

faculty with their appointment letter.

B. Initial Appointment

Initial appointments of NTT instructional faculty are not the responsibility of a sole

administrator. Where possible, a committee of at least three faculty including at least one

NTT instructional faculty shall seek qualified applicants and forward a recommendation

to the chair.

C. Type of Appointment

Initial appointment of NTT instructional faculty may be either probationary or fixed term.

In making an appointment of a non-tenure track instructional faculty member, the

appointing unit must specify whether the appointment is probationary or fixed term.

D. Faculty Offer and Position Descriptions

The University will provide template letters of offer for non-tenure track instructional

appointments. For non-tenure track instructional appointments, 1.00 FTE will include

no more than 36 course credits of assigned teaching per academic year. Assigned

university/community/professional service and scholarly work shall not exceed ten

percent (10%) of an instructional non-tenure track faculty member's workload

without a reduction in instructional load.

The template letter of offer will include a position description. Taken together, a letter

of offer and position description for non-tenure track instructional appointments will

include the following information: whether the appointment is eligible for continuous

appointment or fixed- term, appointment start date, appointment end date (for fixed-

term appointments only), the reason warranting the fixed-term appointment (for

fixed-term appointments only), FTE, annual salary rate, actual salary, teaching

assignment (including, where possible, the list of courses to be taught and the location

of those courses if not on the downtown University campus) whether the appointment

is renewable, and any expectations for research and scholarly work, university

service, professional service, or other responsibilities. Bargaining unit members shall

have an opportunity to review the letter of offer and position description and will

affirm their acceptance of the offer of employment by signing and returning to the

University a copy of both the letter of offer and the position description.

The University will direct departments to complete letters of offer and position

2015-2019 CBA, Article 18.

2015-2019 CBA, Article 18, Sec. 4.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

descriptions at least 30 days prior to the start of work for the initial term of

employment of any nontenure track instructional faculty member so that employment

documents are forwarded to the Office of Human Resources according to the

published payroll deadline schedule.

E. Annual Review

NTT instructional faculty members are to be evaluated annually through a

developmental review process during years one through five of the probationary

period.

The review should document and evaluate faculty contributions and provide

developmental feedback and guidance in preparation for the Milestone Review for

Continuous Appointment. This review should be consistent with the faculty member’s

letter of appointment.

Prior to the implementation of this annual review process, each department/academic

unit shall establish and maintain guidelines for review of NTT instructional faculty

members that are consistent with the guidelines developed by the Faculty Senate.

Nothing in this provision affects or alters the Association's ability to file a grievance, as

provided in Article 28, that alleges a violation of such guidelines.

In the event that an NTT instructional faculty member has had annual contracts with

more than one unit during the probationary period, the department chairs or equivalents

and the employee will mutually decide which unit will be responsible for the evaluation.

In the event that a mutual decision cannot be made, the Dean or designee of the relevant

college, or Provost or designee in the case of multiple colleges, will make a

determination.

The departmental guidelines must, at a minimum:

• be in writing and be made available to members;

• require each department to identify the committee(s) responsible for the evaluations;

• establish job-relevant evaluation criteria and require the criteria to be in writing;

• provide that the results of the review be in writing and provided to the member;

• provide that the member is entitled to meet with the reviewers;

• provide that the member is able to respond to the review by submitting a statement or

comments, which shall be attached to the review;

• provide that the member may submit relevant materials to the reviewers;

• provide that the member may request a review if one has not been provided within the

time period provided for by the guidelines;

• provide that the member is to have reasonable notice of the evaluation;

• in a department with more than one NTT instructional faculty member, provide that at

least one NTT instructional faculty member will be on the review committee; and

• in the event a department has only one NTT instructional faculty who is being reviewed,

the department will add an NTT instructional faculty member from another unit in the

school or college, or another school or college if necessary.

2015-2019 CBA, Article 18, Sec. 2c.

2015-2019 CBA, Article 18, Sec. 6a.

2015-2019 CBA, Article 18, Sec. 6b.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

The departmental guidelines must provide that Annual Review Submission Materials

submitted by the faculty member should, at a minimum, include the following:

• an annual self-appraisal that reflects the areas of work as described in the NTT

instructional faculty member’s job description and that highlights activities and

achievement;

• current curriculum vitae following applicable sections of the PSU Promotion and

Tenure format approved by the Provost;

• appropriate and relevant quantitative and/or qualitative summaries of student

evaluations as defined for this purpose by the department (i.e., mean and standard

deviation, or median and interquartile range), or appropriate assessments of teaching

since the last review;

• syllabi and/or other pedagogical materials from the review period.

The departmental guidelines must provide that Annual Review Submission Materials

submitted by the faculty member may include, but are not limited to:

• peer evaluation of teaching and curricular innovation;

• description of professional development activities intended to advance job

performance;

• a reflective analysis of student and/or peer evaluations of teaching;

• evidence of scholarly activities, beyond the classroom, as defined by the discipline;

• evidence of ability to work effectively with individuals from and topics related to

diverse populations;

• evidence of service activities related to unit mission.

F. Timing for Continuous Employment Consideration and Appointment

In year six (6) of the probationary period, NTT instructional faculty members are to be

evaluated for continuous appointment through a Milestone Review. Prior to the end of the

final academic year of the probationary period, a NTT instructional faculty member is to

be awarded a continuous appointment or provided twelve (12) months’ notice of

termination of employment.

G. Milestone Review for Continuous Employment

Milestone reviews provide a way to honor and reward a sustained record of commitment

and achievement. A milestone review that looks both backward and forward is

appropriate when considering the award of a continuous appointment. When the review

is clear and consistent, it supports academic freedom and contributes to academic

quality.

Each department/academic unit shall establish and maintain guidelines for Milestone

Review for Continuous Appointment of NTT instructional faculty members that are

consistent with the guidelines developed by the Faculty Senate. Nothing in this provision

affects or alters the Association's ability to file a grievance, as provided in Article 28,

which alleges a violation of such guidelines.

2015-2019 CB Letter of Agreement, Nov. 5, 2015.

Letter of Agreement, Nov. 5, 2015.

2015-2019 CBA, Article 18, Section 6a.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

The departmental guidelines must, at a minimum:

• be in writing and be made available to members;

• require each department to identify the committee(s) responsible for the evaluations;

• establish job-relevant evaluation criteria and require the criteria to be in writing;

• provide that the results of the review be in writing and provided to the member;

• provide that the member is entitled to meet with the reviewers;

• provide that the member is able to respond to the review by submitting a statement or

comments, which shall be attached to the review;

• provide that the member may submit relevant materials to the reviewers;

• provide that the member may request a review if one has not been provided within the

time period provided for by the guidelines;

• provide that the member is to have reasonable notice of the evaluation;

• in a department with more than one NTT instructional faculty member, provide that at

least one NTT instructional faculty member will be on the review committee; and

• in the event a department has only one NTT instructional faculty who is being reviewed,

the department will add an NTT instructional faculty member from another unit in the

school or college.

A significant factor in determining an NTT instructional faculty member’s performance

is the individual’s accomplishments in teaching, mentoring, and curricular activities,

consistent with the faculty member’s contractual responsibilities. Teaching activities are

scholarly functions that directly serve learners within or outside the university. Scholars

who teach must be intellectually engaged and must demonstrate mastery of the

knowledge in their field(s). The ability to lecture and lead discussions, to create a variety

of learning opportunities, to draw out students and arouse curiosity in beginners, to

stimulate advanced students to engage in creative work, to organize logically, to evaluate

critically the materials related to one’s field of specialization, to assess student

performance, and to excite students to extend learning beyond a particular course and

understand its contribution to a body of knowledge are all recognized as essential to

excellence in teaching. Teaching scholars often study pedagogical methods that improve

student learning.

The Milestone Review of teaching and curricular contributions should not be limited to

classroom activities. It also should focus on a faculty member’s contributions to larger

curricular goals (for example, the role of a course in laying foundations for other courses

and its contribution to majors, or contributions to broad aspects of general education or

interdisciplinary components of the curriculum).

In addition, the Milestone Review

should take into account any documentation of student mentoring, academic advising,

thesis advising, and dissertation advising. The Review Committee shall take into account

any variations in the letters of appointment during the probationary period.

The departmental guidelines must provide that the Milestone Review Submission

Materials submitted by the faculty member should, at minimum, include the following:

2015-2019 CBA, Article 18, Section 6b.

Policies and Procedures for the Evaluation of Faculty for Tenure, Promotion, and Merit Increases, 2014, Sec.

II.E.3.

Policies and Procedures for the Evaluation of Faculty for Tenure, Promotion, and Merit Increases, 2014, Sec.

II.E.3.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

• a cumulative self-appraisal that reflects the areas of work as described in the NTT

instructional faculty member’s job description and highlights activities and

achievement;

• current curriculum vitae following applicable sections of the PSU Promotion and

Tenure format approved by the Provost;

• appropriate and relevant quantitative and/or qualitative summaries of student

evaluations as defined for this purpose by the department (i.e., mean and standard

deviation, or median and interquartile range) or appropriate assessments of teaching

since the last review;

• representative syllabi and/or other pedagogical materials from the six- year review

period.

The departmental guidelines must provide that the Milestone Review Submission

Materials submitted by the faculty member may include, but are not limited to:

• peer evaluation of teaching and curricular innovation;

• description of professional development activities intended to advance job

performance;

• a reflective analysis of student and/or peer evaluations of teaching;

• evidence of ability to work effectively with individuals from and topics related to

diverse populations;

• evidence of service activities related to unit mission;

• the annual self-appraisals prepared by the faculty member.

Departmental guidelines must provide that the following additional items may be

included in the evaluation of teaching and curricular accomplishments, to the extent

consistent with a faculty member’s letter of appointment:

• contributions to courses or curriculum development;

• materials developed for use in courses;

• results of creative approaches to teaching methods and techniques, including the

development of software and other technologies that advance student learning;

• results of assessments of student learning;

• accessibility to students;

• ability to relate to a wide variety of students for purposes of advising;

• mentoring and guiding students toward the achievement of curricular goals;

• results of supervision of student research or other creative activities including theses

and field advising;

• results of supervision of service learning experiences in the community;

• contributions to, and participation in, the achievement of departmental goals, such as

achieving reasonable retention of students;

• contributions to the development and delivery of collaborative, interdisciplinary,

University Studies, and inter-institutional educational programs;

• teaching and mentoring students and others in how to obtain access to information

resources so as to further student, faculty, and community research and learning;

• grant proposals and grants for the development of curriculum or teaching methods

and techniques;

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

• professional development as related to instruction, e.g., attendance at professional

meetings related to a faculty member’s areas of instructional expertise;

• honors and awards for teaching.

H. Procedures for Milestone Review

1. Notification

The department chair notifies the chair of the appropriate departmental committee of

those non-tenure track faculty who are eligible for review.

2. Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee Establishment and Authority

All recommendations for continuous appointment originate with formally established

departmental committees; for example, an elected advisory committee, or an elected

committee on promotion and tenure. The department as a whole shall determine the

composition of the committee and the method of selection of its members and

chairperson. When a faculty member has been involved in interdisciplinary teaching

and/or research, the committee will include a faculty representative from a mutually

agreed upon second department or program. Since the department chair is required to

make a separate evaluation of the department faculty, the chair cannot be a member

of the committee. The committee may invite other faculty members to participate in

its deliberations. This committee acts as an independent reviewer of the performance

of department faculty and initiates recommendations for all department faculty except

the department chair. Committee members being considered for continuous

appointment shall not participate in the committee review of their cases.

3. Committee Decision and Narrative Report

The Committee’s report to the department chair will be in the form of a written

narrative for each affected faculty member. The report must address and review all

areas of the dossier submitted by the faculty member in application for continuous

appointment. The departmental committee must make one of two recommendations

for each member of the department and the votes of each voting member of the

committee must be recorded on the recommendation form.

a. Denial: This decision is appropriate for faculty whose requests for continuous

appointment are not accepted. Denials of continuous appointment must be

accompanied by a written report.

b. Approval: This decision is appropriate for faculty whose attainments warrant

continuous appointment. Where a positive recommendation is being made, a

written report following the format in Appendix III must accompany the

recommendation form.

4. Reponsibilities of Department Chair

The department chair must be satisfied that the departmental committee has followed

the departmental guidelines and that the appraisals are complete and in proper form.

Policies and Procedures for the Evaluation of Faculty for Tenure, Promotion, and Merit Increases, 2014, Sec. II,

E3.

PSU P&T Guidelines Updated July 2024

Department chairs are to make a separate recommendation for each faculty member

under review and take the following actions:

a. confirm that all eligible faculty have been considered

b. review positive and negative recommendations and the supporting materials of the

faculty member in question. The chairs will make a separate recommendation,

adding their own written narrative to the committee’s. The Chair’s narrative must

address and review all areas of the dossier submitted by the faculty member. If the

recommendation of the chair differs significantly from the committee’s

recommendation, the chair shall state in writing the reason for the specific

differences.

The department chair informs each faculty member in a timely manner in writing of

the departmental committee’s and of his/her own recommendations. The faculty

members should be given the opportunity to review their files before they are

forwarded to the Dean and should indicate they have done so by signing the

“Appraisal Signature and Recommendation Form.” A copy of the complete appraisal

and any additional material added by the department chair, should be in the file for

review by the affected faculty member. The department chair must discuss with a

faculty member, when requested, the reasons for the recommendations by the

departmental committee and the department chair. If a department member questions

either departmental recommendation, he/she may request a reconsideration of that