School of Nursing

For Faculty
Introduction to Promotion and Tenure
712 Statements
School of Nursing

Guidelines for Departmental Statements Required by Section 7.12 of Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure

March 3, 1987: Approved by P&T Committee
June 12, 1987: Adopted by School of Nursing General Assembly
July 15, 1987: Approved by Academic Affairs
March 1995: Revisions approved by Faculty Evaluation Committee
March 22, 1995: Adopted by School of Nursing General Assembly
August 15, 1995: Approved by Academic Affairs
March 22, 1995: Retyped
September 12, 1997: Correction made to Introduction, Faculty Tenure Policy date and the Procedures date per Central Administration Review Committee's recommendation
August 1999: Language updated: quarter to semester
April 10, 2000: Language and updateing General Assembly
October 30, 2000: Approved by Review Committee (C. Carrier, VP for Human Resources; M. Dempsey, Tenure Subcommittee Chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs; R. Jones, Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Personnel)
May 7, 2001: Approved by Faculty Evaluation Committee
May 14, 2001: Adopted by School of Nursing General Assembly
November 1, 2001: Revisions approved by School of Nursing Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty
May 21, 2004: Approved by School of Nursing Regular Faculty
July 9, 2004: Revisions approved by Central Administration Review Committee

I. Introduction
This document describes with more specificity the standards and indices which will be used to evaluate whether candidates meet the general criteria in Section 7.11 of the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure (September 12, 1997).

(7.11 General Criteria.  The basis for awarding indefinite tenure is the determination that the achievements of an individual have demonstrated the individual's potential to continue to contribute significantly to the mission of the University and to its programs of teaching, research, and service over the course of the faculty member's academic career.  The primary criteria for demonstrating this potential are effectiveness in teaching and professional distinction in research; outstanding discipline-related service contributions will also be taken into account where they are an integral part of the mission of the academic unit.  The relative importance of the criteria may vary in different academic units, but each of the criteria must be considered in every decision.)

This document also describes the standards and indices which will be used to evaluate candidates for promotion, and is intended as a supplement to University Procedures for Reviewing the Performance of Probationary Faculty (September 12, 1997).  For a complete perspective, the reader is advised to read Section 7 and the Procedures in their entirety.

II. School of Nursing Mission Statement
The mission of the School of Nursing includes teaching, research/scholarship, and service as defined in Section 7.11 of the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure.  To be awarded indefinite tenure, a faculty member will be expected to have demonstrated teaching effectiveness, research and scholarly productivity, service to the community or profession, and participation in governance of the School and University.  The primary criteria are teaching effectiveness and research/scholarly productivity.  The specific criteria for promotion and tenure are provided on pages 9-12.

III. Criteria for Tenure

A. Teaching Effectiveness

1. Standards
The standards for teaching effectiveness include current, in-depth knowledge in area(s) of responsibility, the promotion of student learning in the classroom and/or clinical laboratory, and the differentiation and implementation of appropriate academic expectations for different educational levels.  Competence in research advisement and program advisement is expected.  Contribution to the educational mission of the School is expected through participation in developing and evaluating various aspects of the curriculum with respect and consideration for the viewpoints and expertise of others.

2. Procedures for Documenting Teaching Effectiveness
Evaluation of the candidate's achievement of these standards will be based on a review of evidence of the following activities during the probationary period:

a. teaching
b. advising
c. curriculum development

Each faculty member will assume responsibility for obtaining documentation of teaching effectiveness annually.

3. Presentation of Evidence
A presentation of evidence about the candidate's teaching effectiveness includes the following:

a. Teaching Narrative
The narrative should include a brief description of the candidate's accomplishments and whether the teaching relates to the candidate's area of research.

b. A Chart representing year-by-year teaching responsibilities
The chart should indicate the semester and year each course was taught, its title and level, the enrollment, and the course format (lecture, lab, discussion, seminar, etc.). It should be prepared by the Associate Dean's office and reviewed by the candidate.

c. Peer Evaluation
Two teaching evaluations should be included in the teaching portfolio annually.  Both must be from tenured faculty senior in rank with at least one faculty from the School of Nursing.  The same tenured faculty member cannot be selected again for three years.  Peer review needs to include assessment of an instructor's classroom performance via personal visit or videotaping of the class.

d. Student Evaluation
Student evaluation should be submitted annually for all courses using the standard forms.  A table should be prepared which includes comparative data on teaching evaluations the probationary period.

e. Curriculum Development (Optional).
A candidate may submit documentation of new course development and/or participation in overall development of the curriculum for a program or an area of study, including participation on the Curriculum Coordinating Committee.

f. Advising
The candidate should list number of advisees, indicating the thesis or Plan B titles of students completing the program and year.  A list of the number of examining committees (e.g., Reader for Plan Bs, theses, dissertations) should also be submitted.

g. Additional documentation to support the candidate's record may include:

1) selected copies of teaching or testing materials developed.
2) self-evaluation of teaching and advising effectiveness and development.
3) optional (non-scheduled) evaluations of teaching.
4) unsolicited student or peer evaluations of teaching or advising effectiveness.
5) list of products developed by advisees which have been published or have received recognition.
6) list of teaching or advising awards.

B. Research/Scholarship

1. Standards
The standards for research/scholarship include recognition as a scholar in identifiable area(s) by nationally known experts in the area, significant scholarly products, and sustained contributions to a program of research or theory development.

2. Procedures for Documenting Scholarship
Evaluation of the candidate's achievement of these standards will be based on review of:

a. self-evaluation of scholarly productivity completed annually until decision year and cover entire probationary period in decision year.
b. list of scholarly publications with an indication of which are refereed and which are data-based..
c. external reviewers' evaluations of scholarly products.
d. internal (U of M) reviewers' evaluations of scholarly products in decision year only.
e. list of research proposals, the agencies, status of each grant (e.g., submitted, funded, approved, not funded), and candidate's role.
f. list of scholarly presentations by level (e.g., local, regional, national, etc.).
g. research awards.

NOTE: The candidate's role in projects, publications, and presentations with multiple authorship should be described.

C. Service

1. Community and Profession

a. Standards
The standards for service are consistent contribution of academic or professional expertise to the community and profession, and recognition by state, regional, or national organizations for professional contributions.

b. Procedures for Documentation of Service to Community and Profession
Evaluation of the achievement of these standards will be based on review of a list of the candidate's service to the community or profession, including offices held in professional organizations.  Documentation may include:

1) consultations or technical assistance provided.
2) letters describing the individual's contribution to professional organizations, health care system, or community activities.
3) reviewer of grants and abstracts.
4) evidence of providing visibility for nursing in the community, state, or nation.
5) reviewer/editor of journal.
6) evidence of service to organizations or universities in area(s) of expertise.
7) continuing education programs for clinical agencies, other organizations, etc.
8) examples of new mechanisms for serving the community (e.g., new products, organizations, interactions).

2. School and/or University Service

a. Standards
The candidate is expected to participate in School of Nursing and University governance activities, and to do so in a manner consistent with School of Nursing and University policies and procedures.  The candidate is expected to demonstrate a sustained record of effective participation and communication in school and University governance activities, showing respect and consideration for viewpoints and expertise of others.  A strong record of service will strengthen a recommendation for tenure or promotion. Documentation will include a list of appointed or elected positions in governing bodies.

b. Procedures for Documenting Services to School/University
Documentation may include letters describing the individual's contributions and self-evaluation of service to the School and University.

IV. Promotion

A. To Associate Professor
Promotion to Associate Professor with tenure is based on achieving standards for tenure.

B. To Professor
In addition to continuing to meet the standards for Associate Professor, promotion to Professor requires that the candidate is nationally acknowledged as a leading scholar in her/his field of study, and has made a sustained and substantive contribution to the missions of the School and University over the course of the candidate's career and especially since last appointment.  The candidate's leadership in curriculum and instructional matters, professional organizations, and School or University governance is considered.

Documentation for achievement of these standards will include letters from authorities in the candidate's field assessing the candidate's contributions, particularly to determine whether the candidate is among the leaders in her/his field.  Additional documentation may include:

1. evidence of leadership in development of research mission of the school.
2. a list of invitations to national symposia, election to prestigious scientific organizations, or the holding of office in national societies.
3. evidence of leadership in the development and evaluation of the School's educational programs.
4.  evidence of providing collegial leadership in determining future direction of the School, Academic Health Center or University.

V. General Procedures in the School and University
These procedures are adopted in accordance with sections 7.4, 7.61, and 16.3 of the Procedures for Reviewing the Performance of Probationary Faculty, and are supplemental to that document.  This document covers additional elements of the tenure-granting and review process specifically for the School of Nursing.

A. Definitions
Unless indicated otherwise, "Department" and "College" refer here to the School of Nursing.  Likewise, "head of the department" and "dean of the college" refer to the Dean or Dean's designate of the School of Nursing.  "School" refers to the School of Nursing in these procedures.

B. At the Beginning of a Probationary Appointment
Early in the probationary period, the Dean will meet with the candidate and review the terms of the appointment.  The Dean must make a written summary of this meeting and include it in the candidate's tenure file, which is accessible to tenured faculty, so that matters relevant to an eventual tenure decision may be taken into consideration at each annual review.

C. Annually During the Probationary Period
Beginning with the first year of the probationary period, the School will compile the candidate's file on a yearly basis.  Each year the Dean will inform the candidate of the schedule for annual review.  The candidate will submit an annual report, an updated vitae, and supporting materials documenting activities for the past year.  The Dean/designee will assemble the file and make it available for tenured faculty to review.

A meeting will be set for review of probationary faculty by tenured faculty.  A decision on whether a vote will be taken on recommendation for tenure or termination will be decided at the time of the review session.

For the faculty review session, one member of the Faculty Evaluation Committee will be assigned to be thoroughly prepared regarding the candidate's file, and during the review will point out aspects of the candidate's performance not otherwise noted in the faculty discussion.  That Faculty Evaluation Committee member will write a summary of the candidate's review session that will include recommendations of the faculty and results of vote taken (if any).  The summary will be reviewed by tenured faculty and revised, if necessary, and approved by the Faculty Evaluation Committee.

The schedule for annual review and tenure and promotion decisions includes a timetable for the following activities:

1. tenured faculty will have an opportunity to review the summary of the faculty review prior to its being sent to the Dean for administrative review.
2. the division head will meet with the probationary faculty member to review the evaluations of progress toward tenure.
3. the candidate may submit a supplementary statement, if desired.
4. the Dean's report will be made available to tenured faculty.

D. Early Tenure Decision and Change of Status
A tenure decision may be made at any time.  Early in spring semester, the Dean will send letters to faculty on regular appointment requesting nominations of candidates for early decision on tenure and/or change in status of rank.  The Faculty Evaluation Committee will distribute a copy of the candidate's curriculum vitae to the appropriate faculty, and ask for a recommendation regarding whether a review should be instituted.  The appropriate faculty are designated in the University's Procedure.  Only members of the tenured faculty vote on tenure decisions, and only members of the regular faculty senior in rank to the candidate vote on promotion decisions.  The Faculty Evaluation Committee will notify the candidate and the candidate's nominator of the collegial group's recommendation.  If the collegial group's recommendation is negative, and if the candidate insists on a review, the Faculty Evaluation Committee will arrange for a review following the regular tenure and promotion decision procedures.

E. Tenure and Promotion Decision Procedures
During spring semester, the candidate in the decision year for tenure, or recommended for promotion or early decision for tenure, will identify an area of scholarship and compile a list of at least five nationally recognized experts in this area as possible reviewers external to the University of Minnesota.  The reviewer need not know the candidate.  All reviewers need not be nurses, but at least one must be a nurse.  The panel of reviewers should be able to address the breadth of the candidate's scholarship, and should not include the candidate's dissertation advisor.  Reviewers' names  may be obtained from appropriate regional and national directories.  The Faculty Evaluation Committee members (and Dean) may add other reviewers to the list.  The Faculty Evaluation Committee will select a minimum of four reviewers, three of whom must be from the candidate's list; the Dean may select additional reviewers.

The Dean will contact selected reviewers to seek their participation and solicit their evaluations of the candidate's scholarly products.  If an adequate number of reviewers from the candidate's list do not agree to serve, the Dean will consult with the candidate for names of additional reviewers and forward their names to the Faculty Evaluation Committee.

The candidate will also compile a list of three School of Nursing tenured faculty as possible internal reviewers.  The Dean will select at least two internal reviewers who will be asked to evaluate the candidate's scholarly products and provide a written review.  Only faculty qualified to vote on the promotion decision may serve as internal reviewers.

The Dean, in cooperation with the candidate, selects the materials to send to the internal and external reviewers, including a curriculum vitae, summary statement, and a representative sample of the candidate's scholarly work.  The Dean's office will distribute materials to the reviewers in July.

By the end of September, the Dean or Dean's designate assembles the candidate's file with assistance from the candidate as suggested in Section 7.4a of the University Procedures for Taking Formal Action.  Data should include the annual report, updated vitae, summary report and documentation for the entire probationary period or since last promotion.  The candidate may add materials to the file until December 1.

F. Review by Faculty on Leave of Absence
At the beginning of fall semester, the Dean's office will send a letter to faculty on leave of absence to ask if they want to participate in the review.  For those faculty who wish to participate in the review, the Dean's office will send representative materials from the file along with an absentee ballot.

G. Voting on Decisions
In all action regarding continuation, tenure, or promotion, a recommendation will require a simple majority of those voting.

Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Criteria

April 20, 2000: Adopted by General Assembly
May 7, 2001: Approved by Faculty Evaluation Committee
May 14, 2001: Adopted by General Assembly