Faculty Reappointment/Review, Promotion, and Tenure

Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook contains the policies governing faculty reappointment, promotion, & tenure for all schools reporting to the Provost with the exception of the School of Law. A practical elaboration of these policies as well as the Provost’s statement of general expectations for personnel dossiers can be found on the Provost’s Faculty Affairs website. The user will note that, although the structure of all personnel dossiers is basically the same, some important differences do exist. They are noted in the instructions. The unique procedures of the School of Law are described in the “Rules and Policies Section Four” on the Law School’s web page.

Finally, departments and schools may develop additional procedures as long as they respect the principles described in the Faculty Handbook and on the Faculty Affairs website. The unit’s bylaws, on file in the Dean’s office as well as in the Provost’s office, will clearly outline any additional procedures.

Regular Rank Tenure Track

Reappointment/Review

Renewal of the initial tenure track appointment for a second term which may extend through the end of the probationary period will be made only on the basis of a careful departmental or school review and of approval by the Dean.

The purpose of this comprehensive review is to develop a judgment as to the faculty member’s probable suitability for tenure at Duke.” (pp. 3-1 through 3-2) The structure of this dossier will resemble all others with the exceptions that the school or Dean requires no external evaluations (Schools may choose to place such a requirement in their bylaws).

Once a final, positive decision, the Chair is directed to share with the candidate a copy of the reappointment review summary submitted with the dossier, making any changes directed by the Dean. This summary should inform the candidate of the vote outcome (positive or negative) but not reveal the vote count. See Sample Reappointment Review Summary Appendix B 8.

Promotion with Tenure

The Faculty Handbook says this about tenure:

Tenure at Duke University, whether awarded to a faculty member currently on the Duke faculty or offered to a scholar who is being recruited for the Duke faculty, should be reserved for those who have clearly demonstrated through their performance as scholars and teachers that their work has been widely perceived among their peers as outstanding. Persons holding the rank of associate professor with tenure are expected to stand in competition with the foremost persons of similar rank in similar fields and to show clear evidence of continuing excellence in scholarly activity in their years at the university. Good teaching and university service should be expected but cannot in and of themselves be sufficient grounds for tenure. The expectation of continuous intellectual development and leadership as demonstrated by published scholarship that is recognized by leading scholars at Duke and elsewhere must be an indispensable qualification for tenure at Duke University.” (Excerpts from Chapter 3, Faculty Handbook)

The accomplishments of a Duke faculty member being considered for promotion with tenure will be assembled by the relevant faculty group (department, division, school) and considered, using the instructions on the Faculty Affairs website.

Promotion to Full Tenured Rank

The Faculty says this about promotion to full tenured rank:

“Full professors play a critical role in determining the intellectual quality of the university. Thus the rank of professor should be reserved for those who have clearly met the criteria for tenure and have demonstrated their continuous intellectual development and leadership. It should be clear that appointment to associate professor does not necessarily imply eventual promotion to full professor. Promotion to full professor should be reserved for those who have an academic record documenting a continuous high-quality performance level in at minimum two of the following three required components of scholarly productivity--research, teaching and service--together with a good performance record in the third required component. Length of service alone should not produce an expectation for promotion.”

The accomplishments of Duke faculty being considered for promotion to full tenured rank will be assembled by the relevant faculty group (department, division, school) and considered, following the instructions on the Faculty Affairs website.

Promotion without Tenure (Tenure Track)

Promotions to the rank of untenured Associate Professor are rare in some schools, e.g., Arts & Sciences, and common in others, e.g., Fuqua. In schools where such promotions are rare, the Chair must consult with the Dean before undertaking a promotion review. The Dean, in turn, will obtain the Provost's permission to conduct the review prior to its being launched. The procedures for promotions not conferring tenure are the same as that for PROMOTIONS CONFERRING TENURE, except that the Provost does not seek the advice of APT.

Regular Rank, Non-Tenure Track

Reappointment/Review

Annual formative reviews

Annual reviews of regular rank non-tenure track faculty will be conducted by the director or program chair, or dean or institute director, or an appropriate delegate for the purpose for providing direction and advice to the faculty member regarding their progress at Duke.

Periodicity of formal evaluative reviews

Initial appointments to regular rank non-tenure track appointments will be reviewed for reappointment (and, when appropriate, promotion) in the penultimate year of the current contract, except under conditions as requested by the dean and granted by the provost. Subsequent review will typically be conducted at least every five years. The dean or institute director may approve an interval as long as 10 years for a faculty member at the level of (full) Professor of the Practice, Research Professor, or Clinical Professor. Reviews for initial appointments, the first review after appointment, and reviews for promotion should be detailed; reviews for subsequent reappointment may be less detailed. For cases where annual reviews demonstrate that the faculty member clearly exceeds the standards required for reappointment the school or director may authorize an expedited review process for reappointment at the same rank. The dean or director of each school or institute, in collaboration with the faculty, shall determine what materials are required for an expedited or less detailed review, as well as any limitations or restrictions on when faculty are eligible for it.

Responsibilities of the Department, Institute, or School

Each unit with hiring authority, such as a program or department (in schools with departments) or school or institute is permitted—and expected—to establish criteria and procedural guidelines for evaluating candidates for appointment, reappointment, and promotion in regular, non-tenure track ranks, which are appropriate to its discipline. These criteria and guidelines must be generated in partnership between the faculty and the unit Chair, and be submitted in writing to the dean (for schools with departments), the governing faculty body of that School or institute, and provost for approval. Criteria should be more rigorous for each higher level of faculty rank and should be equally rigorous, though not identical to, those used for tenure track faculty. In the case where criteria differ among hiring units or departments, the dean or institute director is responsible for assuring that the criteria are equally rigorous for equivalent ranks in different departments. The provost is responsible for review of and approval of the guidelines assuring appropriate and equally rigorous criteria are applied in different schools and institutes. Criteria and guidelines for each department or school must be made readily available to faculty, preferably through posting on a unit website, and criteria will be consistent for similar cases within a given unit. Annual reviews will provide an opportunity to evaluate progress relative to these criteria. Components of the review process can be found here in Appendix 21.

Continuance after an unfavorable review

In the event of an unfavorable review, regular rank non-tenure track faculty members will be allowed to continue in their position to the end of their current contract.

University policy requires external letters of evaluation only in the case of appointment or promotion to the level of (full) Professor of the Practice, Research Professor, or Clinical Professor. Departments may choose to place a broader requirement in their bylaws. These dossiers do not require a ranking of the candidate among the tenured faculty. The Provost will not review the dossiers for reappointment at the Assistant Professor of the Practice, Assistant Research Professor, or Assistant Clinical Professor level.

The intent of an ongoing contractual relationship is a requirement for all regular rank positions. Some regular rank non-tenure track positions may be connected to limited-term grants or specific instructional needs. Thus it is important to maintain a distinction between review and contract renewal. Whether the review is for an initial appointment, reappointment, or promotion of full-time faculty in regular, non-tenure track ranks, the review process will focus on evaluating an individual's qualifications for a specific faculty title. Successful review is not necessarily synonymous with contract issuance or renewal, since this may depend upon funding support or curricular need. Before authorizing a review, the Dean or Institute Director should consider carefully the intention for an ongoing contractual relationship between the faculty member and the University, and the availability of funding support to determine the ongoing status of the position. Contract periods should be synchronized with appointment periods. However, when funding is not ensured for the duration of the contract, the contract should make this clear. Furthermore, in the event of impending termination, faculty must be notified no later than one year before the termination. Termination of external funding will not result in termination of the Duke affiliation specified in the contract, but it may result in termination of compensation absent other sources of funding. Until a contract expires, the faculty member can apply for additional external funding as a Duke faculty member.

Promotion

General Expectations

It is the expectation, at both the provostial and decanal levels, that the time line for promotions of faculty holding regular rank, non-tenure track appointments should be comparable to that for faculty in the tenure track ranks. Normally reviews for promotion from the assistant to the associate professor level should be expected to occur no sooner than the end of the second four-year appointment. Similarly faculty in the associate-level ranks are expected to serve for a number of years before being reviewed for promotion to the full level. As with tenure-track faculty, there may be situations where an early promotion review is warranted. However, such promotions will be the exception. It would be prudent for Chairs to discuss anticipated early promotion reviews with the Dean before starting them.

Minimum expectations for faculty holding the rank of [full] Professor of the Practice:

Professors of the Practice are faculty members "engaged principally in teaching in a degree granting unit of the University. This 'obvious instructional component' will be written as a term of appointment in their contract with the University, and verified and evaluated in the review process for renewal of contract." [from the Nomenclature Committee's Report, December 15, 1988] In addition, these faculty will be widely known for the outstanding quality of their performance, as opposed to the quality of their research. An example could be a journalist who is widely recognized for the exceptional quality of her contributions as a practitioner and for her influence in world culture or political affairs, in contrast to Duke's tenured Full Professors who are recognized for their continual innovative research accomplishments and influence in their disciplines.

Minimum expectations for faculty holding the rank of [full] Research Professor:

Research Professors are faculty members "engaged principally in research, but whose professional activities also include an 'obvious instructional component' that is written as a term of appointment in their contract with the University, and verified and evaluated in the review process for renewal of contract." [from the Nomenclature Committee's Report, December 15, 1988] In addition, these faculty conduct original research at a level and quality equivalent to that of Duke's tenured Full Professors.

Voting Eligibility & Voting Procedures

Chairs' votes

Chairs vote only when the vote of faculty present at the meeting has resulted in a tie. Chairs are encouraged, but not required, to reveal the numerical vote to the faculty present and voting. Department bylaws should address this issue directly. (See this manual, Appendix A, SAMPLE BYLAWS for a model of departmental bylaws.)

Proxy votes

University policy does not permit proxy votes on personnel cases, that is, votes cast by one faculty member on behalf of another faculty member.

Absentee votes

University policy does permit absentee votes. A faculty member who is unable to be present when the vote is cast may leave a written ballot with the Chair. When the Chair reports the results in the letter to the Dean, that officer will tally all absentee votes separately. Thus, the Chair will report that XX faculty were present and voting (naming them) and that the vote was Y in the affirmative and N in the negative. The Chair will next report that ZZ faculty were absent and voting (naming them) and that the vote was Y in the affirmative and N in the negative. Notwithstanding this general policy, it is advised that departments state their policy concerning absentee ballots in their bylaws. (See this manual, Appendix A, for a model of departmental bylaws.)

In all cases, faculty are free to write letters to the review committee to be inserted in the file and shared with the entire faculty present and voting, or to write directly to the Chair, for the benefit of the Chair and the upper administration, or to write directly to the Dean, or to write directly to the APT Committee, or to write directly to the Provost.

Regular rank voting eligibility

While some schools’ policy permits all regular rank faculty to vote on search committee reports, department bylaws may modify this policy. Bylaws should describe departmental voting policy in detail. (See this manual, Appendix A, for a model of departmental bylaws.)

For initial appointments at the senior ranks (both tenure track and non-tenure track), the process requires a formal review after the Dean has approved the initial recommendation to review a candidate for appointment. In these appointment reviews for non-tenure track faculty, only faculty at the equivalent or superior rank (tenure track and non-tenure track) have access to the file and may vote. In these appointment reviews for tenure track faculty, only tenure-track faculty at the equivalent or superior rank have access to the appointment/tenure review file, and only they may vote.

For all cases of internal reappointment, promotion, or tenure involving tenure-track faculty, only tenure-track faculty of the appropriate rank (described above) have access to the file, and only they may vote on the recommendation.

Notwithstanding the general policies described above, departments may restrict the right to vote more severely in their bylaws.