The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Policy # [####]
Faculty Promotion (FAC 5)

Original Issuance Date: MMMM DD, YYYY
Last Revision Date: MMMM DD, YYYY
Next Review Date: MMMM DD, YYYY

1. PURPOSE

2. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

3. SCOPE

4. BACKGROUND

5. DEFINITIONS

6. POLICY STATEMENT

FAC 5.0. Incorporation of College Personnel Materials.

Please note that substantive requirements relating to faculty appointment, renewal, tenure, promotion, and merit may be found in materials developed at the college or department level. College-specific information has been included as an appendix to this material.

Part A Introduction

FAC 5.A.1. Overview.

The promotion policy which is stated here applies to all persons with faculty rank, both teaching and non‑teaching. The criteria set forth minimum levels of experience, preparation, and performance. Possession of the minimum requirements may not necessarily lead to recommendation and/or promotion. Possession of minimum requirements should be viewed by all participants in the promotion process merely as a qualifying basis for defining candidacy for promotion. Positive recommendations should be made only for those candidates who show evidence of contributions to raising the quality of education and service offered by the University.

Throughout this document “initial level of review” is used to refer to “program cluster,” “program,” “interest area,” “department,” or other unit which is agreed upon by the faculty of the college or non‑collegiate unit and the Dean or equivalent administrative officer and is consistent with the bylaws which are applicable to the college or non‑collegiate unit as the appropriate body to be first in considering any promotion.

The candidate in preparing his/her papers should stress facts with supporting evidence of these facts. (Editorial comment and evaluation of facts is the responsibility of the reviewing levels.) The candidate should clearly indicate which duties that are listed are part of his/her assigned job and which are really extra effort.

The faculty member has the right to withdraw his/her papers from the review at any time in the process by stating in writing to her/his Dean that further consideration of the promotion papers is to stop.

After the promotion process has been completed, the faculty member will be given upon written request to the Chancellor a copy of all “reasons for action” and “summaries and evaluations” which were added to his/her papers during the review and decision process.

FAC 5.A.2. Combined Promotion and Tenure Process.

This section applies only to faculty whose tenure was approved upon or after September 5, 1997. As a general rule, faculty who have not already attained the rank of Associate Professor will be promoted to that rank with the approval of tenure (as prescribed in Chapter 4).

(1) Faculty members will be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor at the time tenure is approved by the Board of Regents, or as soon as possible thereafter providing that they meet the appropriate degree, time in rank, and experience criteria.

(2) Faculty members whose tenure is approved but who did not meet the degree, time in rank, or experience criteria for Associate Professor at the time tenure was approved will be promoted to that rank as soon as possible after they meet those criteria.

(3) For subsections (1) and (2), immediately above, the process for implementing these promotions shall be by administrative action of the Offices of the Provost and Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor

(4) Individuals cannot apply separately for promotion to Associate Professor during the academic year of their tenure decision.

(5) Candidates should carefully review the criteria for both tenure and promotion since the information submitted for tenure consideration also serves as the material under review for promotion to Associate Professor.

(6) Prior to its review of the tenure and promotion application, the initial level of review will ascertain whether the candidate has satisfied the degree, time in rank and experience criteria for promotion to Associate Professor. This determination shall be verified by the Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor, based upon a review of the individual’s official personnel file.

(7) All simultaneous tenure and promotion applications will be reviewed and considered through the regular renewal process, as prescribed in Chapter 4.

(8) The effective date for all promotions will be the time of formal approval by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.

Part B Criteria and Evidence

FAC 5.B.1. Overview.

Each candidate has the responsibility to prepare the proper forms and to submit evidence for the granting of promotion. (Forms are available in the office of the deans and the Provost and Vice Chancellor) All assertions concerning teaching, scholarship, or service must be documented. Data which concerns highest degree earned, years of experience, and years in rank must agree with official University records ‑‑ these may be verified by the head of the initial level of review.

Evidence which is submitted by candidates for promotion should be as specific and detailed as possible. Candidates should submit all pertinent evidence with comprehensive documentation since the last promotion. Material should be arranged in chronological order. Whenever possible, the material should be summarized. Original copies of teaching evaluations, publication, or other voluminous or bulky materials should be submitted to the initial level of review as appendices to the promotion form but should not be ordinarily transmitted to the next level of review. Candidates may submit evidence of writings which have not been published as evidence of professional and scholarly growth. (These should be clearly labeled and the initial level of review should carefully evaluate such writing.) The next level of review should receive complete summaries and evaluations of such materials and they, as well as other review levels in the promotion process, may review the original documentation upon request to the head of the initial level of review. Candidates should provide information which would make each activity or reference meaningful (i.e., candidates are encouraged to define the importance of each activity or reference). Materials and/or additional information may not be added to the promotion folder after the initial level of review.

Each review level should expect differences of performance for each rank to which candidates may be aspiring. (For example, teaching effectiveness which is expected in order to be promoted to professor should be higher than that which is expected to be promoted to assistant professor.)

Levels of review shall not use criteria which are not specified by the promotions document or other university regulations.

The normal minimum requirements for promotion are indicated below in four categories: FAC 5.B.2. Degree, Experience, and Time in Rank; FAC 5.B.3. Teaching Effectiveness; FAC 5.B.4. Professional and Scholarly Growth; and FAC 5.B.5. Institutional and Extra-institutional Service. (Special Promotions Criteria in Performing Arts, Libraries and Learning Resources, Social Work, and Journalism appear at end of document.)

FAC 5.B.2. Degree, Experience, Time in Rank (General).

[For experience and time in rank requirements, do not count the present year.]

(1) Instructor.

Degree: Master’s.

Experience: No minimum.

Time in Rank: No minimum.

(2) Assistant Professor.

Degree: Doctorate. [Faculty who acquire the doctorate will be automatically promoted to this rank if official notice that the degree has been granted is submitted to the Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office by January 1. Rank will become effective as of the following July 1.]

Other Degree Options: In some areas a two-year advanced degree beyond the master level will be considered. In some instances thirty (30) semester hours of work beyond a master degree or all course work and residence requirements for a doctorate plus commitment to the terminal degree will also be considered. These options will require regular promotion procedures.

Experience: With a doctorate, no minimum. For other candidates, four years including at least one year of college teaching.

Time in Rank: With a doctorate, no minimum. For other candidates, one year as an instructor at this university.

(3) Associate Professor.

Degree: Doctorate.

Experience: A minimum of five years of college teaching.

Time in Rank: A minimum of two years as an Assistant Professor at this university.

(4) Professor.

Degree: Doctorate.

Experience: A minimum of ten years.

Time in Rank: A minimum of four years as an Associate Professor at this university.

Evidence: The immediate supervisor shall document that data is consistent with university records and that evidence on degree completion is on file in the Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office.

FAC 5.B.3. Teaching Effectiveness.

Consistent with the mission of this university, the most important criterion is teaching effectiveness which is a necessary, but not sufficient, basis for promotion. Under most circumstances only individuals demonstrating effective teaching should receive favorable consideration for promotion. An exception to this criterion would be an unusual circumstance in which an individual whose teaching ability is only satisfactory would be recommended for promotion because of sustained professional and scholarly achievements of high quality which directly and significantly contribute to the strength of the educational program and/or the stature of the university.

For faculty with no teaching assignments, performance or professional responsibilities which are directly related to their assignment shall be the most important criterion for promotion. (Faculty whose responsibilities are primarily non‑teaching but who also teach will be evaluated for classroom performance as well as for professional assignments.)

Evidence: For the guidance of candidates, some sources of evidence of teaching effectiveness which may be submitted are indicated below. Except for student evaluations, no other single source is required. However, candidates are urged to prepare and submit as much relevant evidence concerning teaching effectiveness as possible. The list is not ranked in priority order:

(1) Student Evaluations – Candidates must obtain student evaluations of teaching ability. This evidence should be presented in summary form by class. A copy of the evaluation device together with data which clearly define the relevant population should be submitted (along with norms, when available). Evaluations from a minimum of 5 classes are sufficient. Limitations in validity and reliability which are recognized by the initial level of review should be taken into account by each subsequent level of review.

(2) Peer evaluations obtained by classroom visitations and/or in other appropriate teaching situations.

(3) Evidence of the development of new courses or improved teaching techniques (such as course proposal forms, descriptions of improved techniques, and grant proposals with evidence of funding if obtained).

(4) Original materials which were prepared for classroom use such as original exercises and visual aids. (Publications of textbooks or workbooks is regarded as evidence for scholarly growth.)

(5) Scientific instrumentation which was prepared and modified for classroom use.

(6) Citations or awards for teaching excellence.

FAC 5.B.4. Professional and Scholarly Growth.

Professional and Scholarly Growth is to be given equal weight with Institutional and Extra‑Institutional Service. Individuals should demonstrate excellent performance in either Scholarly and Professional Growth or in Institutional and Extra Institutional Service and satisfactory performance in the other in order to receive favorable consideration for promotion.

The following activities are considered to be in the domain of Scholarly and Professional Growth. (It is recognized that the specific activities in which an individual participates will vary from one discipline or professional field to another):

(1) Work which involves the expansion of ideas, theories, and principles or which adds to the interpretation of developed knowledge in the individual’s field. This may be unpublished work which is recognized by qualified peers in the field in a direct communication or some other type of written acknowledgment. Published work is preferred.

(2) Articles in scholarly and professional journals of international, national, regional, state, or local significance.

(3) Published books including textbooks, workbooks, or musical manuscripts which make a contribution to the candidate’s academic or professional field.

(4) Papers relevant to one’s field given at academic and professional meetings as well as participation in colloquia and symposia at the national/international, regional, state, and local levels.

(5) Published multi‑media packages.

(It is recognized that the above five categories must be assessed relative to the particular field. A multi‑media package which is used by other universities or external agencies or an art work or a musical composition may be defined as a publication. Acceptance for publication is easier in some fields than in others. The initial level of review should indicate the relative significance of journals in which articles are published.)

(6) Participation in professional/scholarly activities which are relevant to one’s area may include but need not be limited to the following:

(a) Appearance of art work in a show of high caliber.

(b) Musical, theatrical, or other public performance.

(c) Receiving commissions and/or contracts to do art, music, theater, writing, or other relevant creative work of high quality.

(d) Taking lessons from a prestigious teacher in the field or attending workshops.

(e) Selection as a consultant by agencies outside the university.

(f) Developing and modifying scientific research instrumentation primarily for research.

(7) Holding office in professional and scholarly associations or serving as editor at the international, national, regional, state, or local level.

(8) The winning of awards, prizes, and other forms of recognition of achievement which are relative to one’s field (such as selection by peers or prestigious external agencies to judge artistic, literary, or athletic competition or to conduct workshops or tournaments) at the international, national, regional, state or local level.

(9) Preparing grant proposals. (Added importance will be given to those that are funded from non‑university sources.)

Evidence. Professional and scholarly growth is most appropriately evaluated at the initial level of review. Therefore, the amount of materials concerning professional and scholarly growth will be greater at the initial level of review.

Candidates may include copies of materials and evidence which are related to professional and scholarly growth in their folders for initial level of review without restriction. All members of the initial level of review who vote on promotion should be thoroughly familiar with the contents of each folder and be prepared to make a professional judgment on the quality and quantity of such work. Before forwarding the folders to the next level of review, committees should prepare a written statement which clearly assesses the quality and quantity of such work. Attention should be given to such assessment factors as the quality of journals or exhibits.

Folders which are forwarded from the initial level of review should not contain complete copies of documents and materials which are related to professional and scholarly growth (i.e., books, journals, tapes, or slides). Each level shall review evaluations of these materials and decide if, in any instances, they should wish the original documents forwarded to them; then they should record their own assessment on the promotion form.

FAC 5.B.5. Institutional and Extra‑Institutional Services.

Institutional and Extra‑Institutional Service is to be given equal weight with Professional and Scholarly Growth. Individuals should demonstrate excellent performance in one of these two areas and satisfactory performance in the other to receive favorable consideration for promotion.

(1) Faculty are expected to make available their services to the governance of the university. Institutional service consists of service which is rendered on the initial, college, and university levels. Both the quality and the quantity of service are important. Evaluations will include comments on the acceptance of a reasonable amount of responsibility, the exercise of initiative and leadership, the ability to work effectively with colleagues in a collegial environment, and the efficiency with which tasks are performed in areas such as special assignments, elected or appointed positions, committee work, or service to student organizations.

Evidence. Included should be a listing of activities and, in summary form, a description of the scope of accomplishments such as new approaches or programs and their implementation, leadership responsibilities, estimations of time involved, and dates of service. Evidence may include statements from those in charge of the service activity which reflect the relative excellence of performance.

(2) Extra‑Institutional Service is that service rendered the broader community which is related to the special academic or professional competencies of a faculty member.

Evidence. Evidence of extra‑institutional service should show sustained participation with particular emphasis on service which has been completed since the candidate’s last promotion. The candidate should describe in summary form the nature of the service, scope of accomplishments, leadership responsibilities, estimates of time spent, and dates of service.

Part C Procedures

FAC 5.C.1. Timetable.

Dates are determined each year according to administrative calendar. Contact the Provost and Vice Chancellor’s office for a copy.

FAC 5.C.2. General Procedures.

Each initial level of review shall have a promotions committee which is composed of faculty members from within that initial level. Within a college there may be as many review units as the faculty of the college deem appropriate and are approved by the Dean of that college. There may be as little as one review body of faculty before the Dean’s review if the faculty of the college so decides (i.e., only a College Promotions Committee is required before the Dean’s review).

Members of each faculty committee are eligible to vote only on candidates of lower rank than themselves. Members of committees beyond the original review level are not eligible to vote or participate in the discussion of candidates upon whom they have previously had the opportunity to vote at earlier review levels.

Each individual or committee involved in the promotion process shall insert in each folder at the appropriate stage in the process a written recommendation for promotion/non‑promotion and the reasons for that recommendation.

FAC 5.C.3. Detailed Procedures.

(1) Initial Level of Review Committee.

The function of the Initial Level of Review Promotions Committee is to nominate candidates for promotions and appraise their performance in the three major areas‑‑ teaching, professional and scholarly growth, and institutional and extra‑institutional service. The results of the appraisal, which is to include the specific number of votes, shall be attached to the candidate’s credentials for use by the other review levels. The membership of the Initial Level of Review Promotions Committee is determined by faculty of that level according to any applicable bylaws. The only restriction is that any person who renders a review decision on this committee’s decision should not (in order to ensure independent judgment) attend committee sessions during its deliberations or voting but may meet with it afterwards to discuss its recommendation. The candidate shall be given written notification of the action of the committee and the reasons therefor within three working days of the decision. (A faculty member who is not nominated may request the chairperson of the review committee that the nomination form be forwarded to the next review level and shall attach reasons to it that he/she feels are reasons why he/she should be nominated.) Nominations are forwarded to the next review level.

Faculty who have split assignments shall initiate their promotion papers through the unit in which their assignment is greatest. In the event the assignment is evenly divided or varies from year to year, the faculty member may choose which unit he/she wishes to consider the promotion initially. It shall be the candidate’s responsibility to have forwarded to the Initial Level of Review Promotions Committee an assessment of performance from all other supervisors who have administrative or academic responsibility for the faculty member.

(2) College Promotions Committee (this may be the Initial Level of Review Committee‑‑if so, see above).

College Promotions Committees are composed of individuals who are directly elected by the faculty of the colleges. In all colleges, procedures for election should be followed which will prevent significant imbalances of faculty member’s expertise. Deans or other persons who render independent decisions on the candidate should not (in order to ensure independent judgment) sit with promotions committees during their deliberations or voting but may meet with them afterwards to discuss their recommendations. If the College Promotions Committee is not the Initial Level of Review, it should not attempt to preempt the academic judgments of the Initial Level of Review but should provide for the equitable evaluation of all candidates in terms of the formal criteria previously delineated as they may specifically apply to that college. In other words, the College Committee evaluates procedure and ascertains that criteria have been met as claimed. Recommendations of the College Promotions Committee shall be forwarded to the Dean. The candidate and all previous levels of review, if applicable, who acted on the promotion shall be given written notice of the action of the committee and the reasons therefor.

(3) Dean.

The Dean shall review the forms which were submitted, attach his/her recommendation, and forward the information to the Provost and Vice Chancellor. The candidate and all previous levels of review shall be given written notice of the action of the Dean and the reasons therefor.

(4) Provost and Vice Chancellor.

The Provost and Vice Chancellor shall review the forms and forward his/her recommendations to the Chancellor; then the Provost and Vice Chancellor shall also give written notification of action to the candidate and all previous levels of review and the reasons therefor.

(5) Chancellor.

The Chancellor shall approve or disapprove the recommendations which were sent to him/her and then forward the list of approved candidates directly to the Board of Regents office at budget time. The Chancellor shall notify all candidates and all previous levels of review in the promotion of her/his actions and the reasons therefor. It is recommended that the Chancellor or the Provost and Vice Chancellor discuss reasons with the faculty member for any action contrary to the positive recommendations of all previous levels of review.

(6) As soon as the action of the Board of Regents is known, adequate publicity shall be given to the list of authorized promotions.

(7) The above procedures shall apply with the modifications described in this paragraph to all persons whose assignments are to non‑college units. Promotion recommendations for non‑teaching faculty with no college affiliation shall originate within their assigned units. Such recommendations are then sent to the administrative head of that unit for his/her recommendation and shall then proceed in the usual fashion from that level of review. It will be left to the administrative officer at this level to determine, according to applicable bylaws and university policies, if a promotion committee composed of non‑teaching faculty should be formed at this level. If there is to be a promotions committee at this level, it shall be formed by the administrative officer after consultation with appropriate members of the unit. Such proposals then proceed in the normal manner which is described above under the same time schedule. Faculty whose responsibilities are divided between academic and other assignments may be nominated for promotion by the unit in which they have their major responsibility, with assessment statements in writing provided by all individuals who have supervisory responsibilities for the faculty member. These must be considered by the initial level of review.

(8) Promotion recommendations from each campus go to the Board of Regents once annually in the spring. Therefore, all promotions that are contingent upon degree completion should be filed at this time. They will become effective in the fall if acted on favorably and contingency requirements are met. Faculty who applied for promotion contingent upon completion the previous year and failed to complete the degree by the appropriate date will need to apply again in the current year.

(9) All committees must observe the Open Meetings Law (see Section 19.81 et seq. Wis. Stats.)

(10) Faculty who are not nominated for promotion by the Initial Level of Review Committee have the right to request reconsideration by the Initial Level of Review Committee. Such a request shall be made in writing within five days of the receipt of written notification by the faculty member who was not nominated for promotion by the Initial Level of Review Committee. If this reconsideration does not change the previous recommendation to deny promotion, the candidate may still request that their credentials be forwarded to the next level of review.

Faculty who were nominated by the Initial Level of Review and who subsequently are not recommended for promotion at a higher level of review have the right within ten days after receiving notice of nonpromotion from the Chancellor, sent by first class mail, to request reconsideration by the level first recommending nonpromotion.

If, after reconsideration, the original recommendation is reaffirmed, the process will end and the faculty member will be so informed with reasons therefor.

If the Promotions Committee or administrator recommends recision of the nonpromotion as a result of reconsideration, the faculty member and the next review level will be so informed with the reasons therefor. The written statement submitted by the faculty member shall also be sent forward to the next level of review.

The next level shall, as a result of the information from the previous level, conduct a reconsideration meeting with the faculty member following the procedures outlined above. The process shall end if any review level, including the Chancellor, affirms the original recommendation of nonpromotion, or the Chancellor, as the last step in the process, decides on promotion. Reasonable timetables (but in no case more than 15 working days‑‑while school is in session‑‑this can be extended at the request of the review committee) shall be established by all promotion committees or administrators involved with the reconsideration of nonpromotion.

In the event a faculty member has reason to believe there was a procedural error in the consideration of his/her application for promotion, the UW‑Oshkosh grievance procedures may be followed.

Part D Special Promotions Criteria

FAC 5.D.0. Incorporation of College Personnel Materials.

Please note that substantive requirements relating to faculty appointment, renewal, tenure, promotion, and merit may be found in materials developed at the college or department level. College-specific information has been included as an appendix to this material.

FAC 5.D.1. Performing Arts Criteria.

(1) Degree Requirements.

(a) Instructor: One year master’s degree.

(b) Assistant Professor: One year master’s degree. Also, a minimum of one year of additional intensive study in applied fields with eminent teachers. This does not apply where the earned doctorate or where the two-year MFA is the normal terminal degree.

(c) Associate Professor: One year master’s degree and a minimum of two years of intensive study in applied fields with eminent teachers, or the two‑year MFA degree in certain fields: studio artist, creative writer, etc. This does not apply where the earned doctorate is the normal terminal degree.

(d) Professor: Earned doctorate, or exceptional qualifications beyond those listed for associate professor.

(2) Time in Rank and Experience – No change from the general requirements listed above.

(3) Teaching Ability – No change from the general requirements listed above.

(4) Professional and Scholarly Growth – Evaluations of professional growth must necessarily be partially subjective but must also be based on objective, tangible criteria when possible. An essential test for such growth in the creative fields is the faculty member’s success in holding the respect and esteem of his/her students and colleagues. For the creative artist, his/her professional growth should be measured by his/her experience and competence determined by recognized authorities in his/her field. It should be understood that all criteria listed below need not apply to each individual.

(a) Creative Studio Artist.

Has demonstrated reputable creative achievement as a performing artist by appearance of work in individual and juried shows of high professional caliber where the artist is in competition with other professional artists.
Has received professional acclaim in the form of awards, commissions, and critical reviews.
Has shown continual evidence of creative work of aesthetic merit other than competitive shows.
Has received competitive grants for travel or study.
Has shown substantial evidence and experience as an above average teacher in studio courses.
Has studied or is studying with eminent teachers who may or may not have been affiliated with schools of higher learning.
Has made recognized contributions to the literature of the individual’s field through publications or research.
Has received recognition by ranking departmental associates, especially of superior rank, of the individual’s competency in his/her field.
(b) Creative Musician.

Demonstrates reputable creative achievements as a performing artist, as evidenced by concerts or recitals or published compositions or research materials of high professional quality.
Has had substantial experience and success as a teacher in a specialized applied field and so recognized by the academic associates.
Has studied or is studying with eminent teachers who may or may not have been affiliated with schools of higher learning.
Shows evidence of continued study and professional growth.
Has received an award of a scholarship or fellowship at an advanced level‑‑e.g., Fulbright, Guggenheim, Danforth, Ford, etc.
Has achieved recognition by colleagues, especially of superior rank, of the individual’s high achievement in his/her area of specialization.
(c) Creative Writing.

Reasonably frequent publications of critical or creative work in printed periodicals or, more important still, in book form by a reputable publisher (one book would receive significant attention).
Awards, commissions, publicity, and published critical comments arising therefrom.
Continual evidence of creative work of artistic merit other than publication.
Awards from competitive grants for travel and study.
Advanced study in creative writing work camps.
Evidence of effective teaching of creative writing through the success of students in getting their work published.
Recognition by colleagues, especially of superior rank, of the individual’s competency in his/her field.
(d) Creative Speech.

Has demonstrated reputable creative achievement as a performing artist as evidenced by theater productions, radio productions, television productions, and the like, or publication of pertinent critical or creative works of a high professional quality.
Has received professional acclaim in the form of critical reviews and awards.
Has shown effectiveness as a teacher or otherwise indicated competence in communicating the elements of his/her art to others.
Has continued to give indications of professional growth.
Has been awarded competitive scholarships or fellowships or grants for further study in his/her field.
Has studied beyond basic levels with eminent teachers in the area of specialization or cognate areas.
Has received recognition by colleagues, especially of superior rank, of the individual’s high achievement in his/her area of specialization.
(5) Institutional and Extra-Institutional Services. No change from the general requirements listed above (FAC 5.B.5.).

FAC 5.D.2. Libraries & Learning Resources Criteria.

(1) In general the procedure for promotion of librarians shall follow the same pattern as for members of the teaching faculty, with modifications in respect to academic degrees and emphasis on other evaluative criteria. Promotion is based on merit rather than seniority. Merit is determined by:

(a) Professional competence as assessed by responsibilities held on the staff, participation in professional activities, advanced study, or efforts toward personal and professional growth.

(b) Teaching effectiveness, either direct or indirect, which is judged either by formal teaching or by effectiveness in the development and use of library technical operations.

(c) Service to the University as weighed by committee service, supervision of library personnel, or other demonstrated administrative ability.

(d) Creativeness as evaluated on the basis of publications, high‑level administrative studies, or any other creative activities.

(e) Public service as appraised either by community service or by participation in state or national professional activities.

(f) Character and personality as adjudged by tolerant, honest, and fair dealings with students, faculty, and fellow librarians.

(2) Degree, Experience, Time in Rank — No change from the general requirements listed above.

(a) Instructor.

Degree: Bachelor’s degree plus a graduate library degree or equivalent graduate degree in other professional or scholarly fields where appropriate.

Experience: No minimum.

(b) Assistant Professor.

Degree: Same as Instructor.

Experience: A minimum of five years as a librarian or in another profession or discipline. He/she must demonstrate competence in reference or bibliographic work and give creative direction to some area of library service and/or administrative responsibility.

(c) Associate Professor.

Degree: Same as Instructor plus a sixth year library degree or master’s degree in a subject field.

Experience: At least ten years of outstanding professional achievement. The faculty members should have demonstrated exceptional competence in reference or bibliographic work and exhibited proven leadership ability.

(d) Professor.

Degree: Preferably a doctor’s degree. In exceptional instances subject specialization or an additional graduate degree, professional research or publication, specialized training and/or experience, creative leadership, and demonstrated supervisory or administrative responsibility where appropriate may be considered in lieu of the doctor’s degree. The rank should be reserved for persons of proven stature in the library field or in a field of specialization.

Experience: At least ten years of outstanding professional achievement. The faculty member should have demonstrated exceptional competence in reference or bibliographic work and exhibited proven leadership ability.

FAC 5.D.3. Social Work Criteria.

(1) Degree [Social Work Faculty with doctoral degrees follow the normal requirements as outlined in this document.], Experience, Time in Rank [Normalperiods of service as established by the Administration and Faculty Senate shall apply. The same factors apply as to Teaching Ability, Professional and Scholarly Growth, and Institutional and Extra-Institutional Service as are outlined in this document.]

(a) Instructor.

Degree: M.S.W. and ACSW Eligibility, i.e., Academy of Certified Social Workers, requiring:

Graduate from a school of social work accredited by the Council on Social Work Education–two years of study leading to the M.S.W. degree; and also
Two years of successful practice experience while under the guidance of an ACSW supervisor.
Experience: Four years of Social Work Practice after the M.S.W.

(b) Assistant Professor.

Degree: Same as Instructor.

Experience: Six years Social Work Practice and one year college-level social work teaching, after the M.S.W.

(c) Associate Professor.

Degree: Same as Instructor.

Experience: Six years Social Work Practice and five years college-level social work teaching, after the M.S.W.

(d) Professor.

Degree: The earned doctorate or exceptional qualifications beyond those listed for associate professor and M.S.W., ACSW eligibility.

Experience: Six years Social Work Practice and 8 years college-level social work teaching, after the M.S.W.

FAC 5.D.4. Journalism Criteria.

(1) Procedures for promotion of journalism faculty will recognize the value of past and continuing professional experience in the field of journalism. Journalistic endeavors which would be considered in evaluating a faculty members performance would include contributions such as publishing in newspapers and magazines, consulting, receiving awards in recognition of professional service or published work, with a highly respected individual or institution in the field, making recognized contributions to knowledge in the field through non‑academic publication and participating in conferences and institutes.

(2) Degree [Faculty with Ph.D. degrees follow normal requirements set by the university except where noted.]

(a) Assistant Professor.

Degree: Master’s or Doctorate.

Experience: Doctorate: Two years appropriate professional experience.

Master’s: Five years appropriate professional experience.

(b) Associate Professor.

Degree: Master’s or Doctorate.

Experience: Doctorate: A minimum of five years of college teaching.

Master’s: A minimum of ten years of experience including at least five years of appropriate professional experience and two years of college teaching.

(c) Professor.

Degree: Master’s or Doctorate.

Experience: Doctorate: A minimum of ten years.

Masters: A minimum of fifteen years, including at least five years of appropriate professional experience and five years of college teaching.

 

7. REFERENCES

8. PROCEDURES

9. REVISION HISTORY