Red Book

These sections include material created by others, such as reviews by relevant committees and administrators, external review letters, and internal review letters. The Dean (or Dean’s designee) is responsible for assembling Sections 01-05 of the final dossier.

The Candidate’s Statement should begin with an introductory statement describing the candidacy (promotion to what rank and/or tenure, as appropriate), containing a clear indication of the candidate’s chosen area(s) of excellence. This statement reflects the candidate’s own self-assessments of accomplishments in teaching, research and creative activity, and service. Prospects for continued development in these areas must be addressed. The Candidate’s Statement is where the candidate demonstrates how she or he meets school and university criteria for promotion and/or tenure. This very important part of the dossier is where the candidate “states her or his case” and refers to the evidence in the rest of the dossier that supports that case. The candidate is encouraged to write a well-organized, concise narrative statement of no more than seven single-spaced pages, with a minimum font of 10pt. Candidates have the option to limit the Candidate’s Statement to five pages and include two single-spaced pages, addressing the area of excellence, as a section introduction in the chosen area of excellence (either Teaching, Research, or Service). Candidates are cautioned to describe their work in clear language that can be understood by readers from other disciplines.

• The candidate’s statement should contain five sub-sections: an introductory section; sections entitled evaluation of teaching, evaluation of research and scholarly activities, and evaluation of service; and a summary section. The introduction may contain a discussion about the candidate’s professional philosophy or perhaps an elaboration about the candidate’s area of excellence. The candidate should also mention any extenuating circumstances that may pertain to his or her candidacy. (For example, a candidate may have received some years toward tenure at Indiana University due to previous teaching experience as negotiated with the Dean at the time of employment.) In the introduction and the section related to the claimed area of excellence, the candidate should strive to make the strongest possible case for excellence, as this is usually the most essential judgment that dossier reviewers at any level must make.
• The Candidate’s Statement should address the interrelated aspects of a whole, integrated career. Few candidates make sharp distinctions among the various aspects of their work as they do it, and the statement should indicate how the candidate views the integration of these aspects, even while assessing achievements in each. Special attention should be given to work that cuts across specializations and disciplines and that helps integrate and apply knowledge to broad patterns of intellectual activity.
• Candidates engaged in interdisciplinary work, or team science, should make every effort to represent their contribution to collaborative scholarship clearly as well as the significance and value of any interdisciplinary approach they are pursuing. Candidates should carefully document their individual contributions within this context and should also demonstrate some level of independent research beyond the team science work.
• Candidates should be careful to provide clear and sufficient information about their individual roles in collaborative projects, publications, presentation, or grants.
• The sub-sections of the candidate’s statement related to the areas of teaching, service, and research and scholarly activities should be as concise, specific, and pointed as possible in demonstrating how the candidate meets or exceeds school and university criteria for promotion or tenure. The candidate should avoid meaningless or insignificant items that do not add to the case. She or he should, however, mention everything that is necessary to show excellence in the area selected for excellence, and satisfactory performance in the other areas. For Integrative Cases, the candidate should demonstrate how their contributions in teaching, research and service are integrated. The candidate should indicate where in the rest of the dossier relevant evidence may be found. These sub-sections should also contain information about the candidate’s future plans, particularly in the area of excellence, as appropriate. Whenever possible, tenure-track faculty members should state specific plans for a research or creative activity agenda, for a plan to enhance teaching effectiveness, and for continued participation through professional service in their profession, the campus, and community.
• In the summary section, candidates may wish to address their compatibility with the needs and mission of the school and university. The candidate’s statement should be signed and dated by the candidate.

Objective documentation of the candidate’s activities and accomplishments is extremely important. Sections 07, 08, and 09 of the dossier contain core evidence to support claims made in the candidate’s statement regarding teaching, research and service, respectively. These sections are an integral part of the dossier and move forward through all levels of review. Any additional supporting materials should be placed in Appendices (see Section 11, below). More details about the elements of core evidence and evaluative criteria are contained in subsequent sections of the Red Book addressing Teaching, Research, and Service, respectively.

Each section of core evidence should be carefully organized. The candidate may include an introductory statement of no more than 2 pages in the section regarding the candidate’s area of excellence, briefly describing the items of evidence included and explaining any contextual information necessary for the reader to interpret the evidence. Wherever feasible, the candidate should include self evaluations of performance and incorporate the results of evaluation efforts by others. For example, within the evaluation of teaching section, statistical analyses of ratings on student evaluations during the period under review should be presented. As part of the process of preparing summary analyses of raw evaluation data, it is often helpful to ask a colleague to review the data and its analysis to ensure accuracy. Clearly presenting results of statistical analyses in numerical terms or in the form of graphical representations may help committee members better understand the relevance of evaluation statements made in the candidate’s statement.

Refer to section VII of this document regarding the criteria and sources of evidence to document teaching. Candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of teaching.

Refer to section IX of this document regarding the criteria and sources of evidence to document service. Candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of service.

This section is prepared by the candidate and the primary level reviewers/administrators. This section contains the following documents which should be placed in the dossier in the exact order listed below:

• An assessment of the dissemination outlets in the candidate’s area or excellence (or in all areas for a balanced case). In the School of Social Work, this is typically prepared by the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. It is NOT prepared by the candidate, although the candidate should provide the Chair with preliminary information related to the stature of journals in which publications appear (e.g., acceptance rates or published rankings of journals). The Chair, however, must validate such information before preparing this assessment.
• A copy of the candidate’s current curriculum vita prepared in accord with the current IU Indianapolis standard format for curricula vitae, as shown in Section X of this document. Publications should be organized on the CV by teaching, research, and service. Templates for the IU Indianapolis CV format can be obtained from the Office of Academic Affairs’ list of P&T resources.

Contain additional material supporting the core evidence. As with all other aspects of the dossier, the candidate is urged to limit appendix materials to those related to the criteria the candidate addresses in making their case. Subfolders for appendix content have been added in eDossier in the Research/Creative Activity, Teaching, and Service Engagement sections.

A few examples may help clarify the distinction between core evidence and other materials. Consider a candidate whose claim to excellence rests in part on a few major publications discussed in the candidate’s statement. Copies of select publications or selections from them should be included as core evidence in Section 07, 08, or 09 (depending upon whether the publications are relevant for teaching, research or service claims, respectively). Copies of the candidate’s other publications should be included in an appendix. As another example, the candidate may include as core evidence selected letters from colleagues or others supporting a particular claim made in the candidate’s statement; additional relevant letters may be placed in an appendix. Please note that these letters are those that the candidate may have received directly over the years, or letters specifically requested by the candidate. These are not the same as internal review letters solicited by the Dean and entered by the Office of the Dean into Section 05 of the dossier. As a final example, a candidate seeking promotion on the basis of excellence in teaching may choose to present as core evidence a summary table or chart highlighting relevant aspects of student course/instructor evaluation. (Note that the candidate should not submit all raw evaluation forms, even in the appendix).

Candidates should review the website used by the campus Promotion and Tenure Committee which indicates the expected content of the 11 sections.

Teaching is a scholarly function that is vital to this school. The candidate should make a special attempt to identify quantitative and qualitative teaching contributions. The collection of data on teaching as a scholarly endeavor and service requires considerable attention. The collection of such data should be ongoing. Areas of important information related to teaching include: teaching load; quality of teaching and courses; curriculum development efforts; participation in educational projects and programs; and advising and field liaison activities. In order to document teaching performance, the faculty member should keep detailed records of teaching activities. Those quantitative and qualitative aspects of teaching which the file reflects will serve to distinguish among excellent, highly satisfactory, and satisfactory performance levels. Faculty members should therefore regularly update their teaching activities files in order to maintain a complete and current data base. The file, then, can serve as a basis for each tenure track faculty member’s preparation of the annual reports for the dean and the promotion and tenure committee. The file also, of course, serves as an aid in the preparation of promotion and/or tenure dossiers.

Since teaching is both a technology and an art, its excellence is not totally quantifiable nor can it be narrowly defined. The following broad guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion and tenure. The items below should guide faculty as examples of useful ways to document positive work in teaching, but should not be used as a checklist for which every item should be checked. In addition to the criteria shown in this document, candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of teaching.

Satisfactory Performance (Required if teaching is not designated as the area of excellence.)

• Quantitative and qualitative information from the candidate, students, and peers indicating that instruction has been satisfactory in fostering appropriate learning outcomes
• Teaching load (e.g., classroom, online, service-learning, field) is clearly documented and contextualized
• Evidence of development as a teacher (e.g., improvement in educational materials, approach, or effectiveness over time)
• Evidence of new course development or significant course revision (e.g., use of technology, service learning) presented with evidence on effectiveness
• Mentoring or advising load is clearly documented and contextualized
• Evidence of student satisfaction (including but not limited to end-of-semester student learning/course evaluation surveys)
• Evidence of a satisfactory impact on student learning and achievement
• Evidence of some local dissemination of good practice and/or SoTL
• Record of seeking development as a teacher, such as conference or workshop attendance, teaching experimentation, or reading on teaching
• Reflective commentary on candidate’s own teaching
• Peer assessment on effectiveness of efforts toward personal growth in teaching

Highly Satisfactory Performance (Required for a “balanced case” application)

• Quantitative and qualitative information on teaching and learning outcomes that make the case for effective and innovative instruction
• Nature of course or curricular development clearly reflects an informed knowledge base, clear instructional goals, and assessment of the outcomes
• Important impact and student achievement documented
• Evidence of regular and significant local dissemination of good practice and recognition of high quality of teaching
• Grants or awards at the department or campus level (For clinical and lecturer categories, this level constitutes excellence)
• High level of activity in examining practice, seeking new ideas, obtaining feedback, and engaging in dialogue on teaching with campus or disciplinary peers
• Positive peer assessment of the teaching experiments in the above category (For clinical and lecturer categories, this level constitutes excellence)
• Indications of substantial positive impact on colleagues through mentoring, committee work, or other work

Excellent Performance (Required if teaching is designated as the area of excellence.)

As noted in the preamble, the level of documentation varies in relation to the rank being sought. Normally, candidates applying for tenure or for promotion to Associate Professor with teaching as an area of excellence are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they are well on the way to establishing an emerging national reputation for excellence in teaching. Candidates for Full Professor are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they have established such a national and/or international reputation. Typically, such a reputation is evidenced by publications related to teaching in highly regarded national and/or international journals, success in generating external funding related to teaching activities, participation in national and/or international conferences, hearings or review committees and by major invited presentations at a national and international level.

The following are required if teaching is designated as the area of excellence.

• Documentation of extraordinarily successful teaching and learning outcomes. Generally, student evaluations should be at or above 4.0 on the School’s 5-point measures on the School’s Instructor and Course Evaluation Forms. Such scores, however, are not in themselves sufficient to demonstrate student learning outcomes.
• The case for teaching excellence is grounded in a sophisticated teaching philosophy
• Evidence of innovative and reflective teaching practice
• Evidence of the production of effective course and curricular products
• Evidence of dissemination of ideas within the profession or generally through publication, presentation or other means. This is critically important in making a case for excellence in teaching. Accordingly, any peer-reviewed products that are related to teaching must be clearly indicated as such, both in Section 07 of the dossier and in the curriculum vita.
• Evidence of impact (that is, the work has been adopted by others locally, nationally or internationally)
• Evidence of a scholarly and reflective approach to mentoring and advising
• Demonstrated impact on accomplishments of students, advisees, and mentees
• External peer review clearly demonstrates the attributes of scholarly work associated with mentoring or advising, including peer refereed presentations and publications and national and/or international recognition of the quality of work
• Positive departmental evaluations of the stature of the published work (e.g., journals)
• Peer review supporting the quality of the publications, presentations or other dissemination methods
• National or international awards for teaching or dissemination of scholarly teaching, or significant funding for teaching projects
• Extensive record of participation in experimentation, reflection, pursuit of conceptual and practical knowledge of teaching and learning
• Membership in communities of practice at the campus, national, or international level
• Evidence of contribution to, leadership in, and impact upon curriculum development and improvement
• Participation in dissemination of good practice
• Peer reviews of teaching and its impact (including but not limited to two or more peer reviews of teaching, at least one in advance of third-year reviews, if applicable, and another in advance of the submission of promotion or tenure dossiers; at least one of which must reflect excellence).

In preparation of the section entitled “Evaluation of Teaching,” the candidate should select evidence that supports the specific criteria the candidate is using to make her or his case. This section counts towards the 50-page limit on the dossier. The following areas should be considered as possible documentation for teaching:

1. Include courses that were both individually and team-taught during the period upon which promotion or tenure is based. Describe teaching roles and degrees of input in the development of the team-taught courses. Identify specific course numbers, titles, number of students, and the required or elective nature of course. Syllabi, bibliographies, exams, handouts, and other pertinent course materials should be included as appendices arranged by course number and semester in chronological order.
2. Give data on teaching load including number of courses taught and whether new or repeat, numbers of advisees, number of field placements made, number of field liaisons.
3. Include reports from peer reviews of classroom teaching. It is preferable that a formal classroom evaluation be done by the staff of the Center for Teaching and Learning. However, this can also be done by asking other faculty members to sit in on the candidate’s class to identify the strengths and areas for improvement in conducting the class as well as to review syllabi, assignments, etc.
4. A candidate seeking promotion on the basis of teaching should show student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching arranged by course and semester in chronological order for at least the past five years or time in rank, whichever is less. Present tables and/or charts summarizing and comparing at least three years of data from formalized teaching evaluations. Include summaries and discuss the educational/instructional implications of the quantitative evaluative data presented. Candidates may find it helpful to discuss the patterns and trends related to specific dimensions of the student quantitative evaluations (e.g., items related to course content, items related to instructor effectiveness, items related to course objectives).

Additional, important information as to the performance of the candidate can be derived from measures of central tendency (i.e., means, medians and modes) and measures of dispersion (i.e., standard deviations, quartiles) in comparison to those from other sections of the same courses taught by others. Raw data from all student evaluations need not be submitted, but should be available to the Promotion and Tenure Committee upon request.

1. Give evidence of degree of satisfaction and performance related to field instruction as well as field liaison for students. Include information on activities and contributions in the area of field instruction, e.g., internships developed, supervision, etc.
2. Give evidence of degree of satisfaction and performance related to advising from students and other sources.
3. Include assessments of performance by former students who indicate the beneficial relationship as to what they are doing professionally as this relates to what they learned from the instructor.
4. Provide evidence that courses taught contribute to overall student learning outcomes and evidence that students have met or exceeded course or curricular learning objectives.

• • The role of the faculty member in assisting students to meet learning objectives should be documented and assessed. This may be captured through peer review or through systematic assessment of student achievement or from standardized, nationally-normed profession-related tests.
  • Faculty who teach undergraduate students should also address how their courses and scholarship of teaching contribute to learning outcomes and the Principles of Undergraduate Learning (PULs) in the statement they submit for this section.
  • At the graduate and graduate professional levels, comparable assessment measures for student learning should be developed if they do not yet exist and the Principles of Graduate and Professional Learning (PGPLs) should be addressed.

1. Show contributions to course development including innovations in and/or the improvement of instructional materials (textbooks, laboratory manuals, handouts used for guiding learning, audiovisual materials, etc.) and experimentation with different teaching methods and techniques.
2. Show contributions to curriculum development. Include documents or materials produced.
3. Identify special activities that have contributed to teaching effectiveness. Note attendance and documentation thereof at university institutes, workshops, courses and programs. Note role as presenter, participant or attender.
4. Indicate special awards or other forms of recognition received from students, colleagues or organizations that afford evidence of impact on students and/or the curriculum. Give specific information on the nature of such awards whether school, university, local, state or national. Identify awarding organization.
5. Include comments by other faculty members in other departments/schools of the University whose students have been in the candidate’s classes.
6. Include videotapes of classes demonstrating use of special skills.
7. Include the development of research on teaching methods and techniques as well as materials, including such resources as textbooks, films, and television tapes that demonstrate contributions to teaching in the candidate’s subject area.
8. Identify positions, roles and activities that relate to teaching in conferences, programs and meetings of professional educational organizations.
9. Identify the roles and contributions in guiding students and colleagues in their doctoral and master’s research.
10. Identify the roles and contributions to student recruitment and retention.
11. Identify the roles in orientations of students and other activities related to facilitating the socialization and adjustments of new students.
12. Identify roles in obtaining teaching grants for the School.
13. Identify roles and contributions to professional teaching organizations.
14. Identify publications and presentations related to teaching.
15. Identify activities related to mentoring new faculty in their teaching roles.

As discussed in the Preamble to the Guidelines for Promotion & Tenure, “scholarship” may be thought of as falling into four general categories that are at once distinct, yet interdependent in nature: 1) the scholarship of discovery; 2) the scholarship of integration; 3) the scholarship of application; and 4) the scholarship of dissemination (teaching). The following section refers to all forms of scholarship and assumes that faculty will submit tangible documents in support of the various forms of scholarship cited in their promotion and tenure materials. It is essential that claims of excellent, highly satisfactory, and satisfactory performance in the areas of teaching, research or service be accompanied by documentation that allows for peer review.

Social Work and Labor Studies are applied disciplines. Therefore, in the Indiana University School of Social Work, scholarly activity necessarily covers the gamut of knowledge building from recognition and definition of a condition or a problem through assessment of need, development and evaluation of interventions, to formal theory development, testing and application of theory. The development and testing of basic theory for the profession has high priority but valid and effective scholarship leading to demonstration and evaluation of a practice innovation or new data on the differential needs of specific groups or communities is also recognized as of great importance to the profession.

As indicated above, at the time the candidate formally notifies the promotion and tenure committee of her or his candidacy, all scholarly products prepared during the period upon which the case for promotion or tenure is based should be submitted to the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Given the wide range of media available, candidates may submit copies of books, published or unpublished papers, grant proposals, audio‑visual productions, computer programs, etc. However, evidence of scholarship must be submitted in a form which allows members of the review committees an opportunity to evaluate or to arrange for evaluation of the scholarly products.

As is the case with teaching and service, research and scholarly production are not totally quantifiable. In social work and labor studies, research and scholarship cannot be narrowly defined. However, because the scholarly products themselves are available for review there exists a greater opportunity for objective evaluation. The following guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion and tenure in relation to research and scholarly activities. The items below should guide faculty as examples of useful ways to document positive work in teaching, but should not be used as a checklist for which every item should be checked. In addition to the criteria shown in this document, candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of research.

Satisfactory Performance (required if research and scholarly activities is not designated as the area of excellence)

• Candidate has performed research that is appropriate to the discipline/profession and reflects standards of good practice or candidate has performed research as part of a cross-disciplinary effort that highlights the contributions of the professional discipline in addressing challenging social problems
• Candidate has disseminated the results of research in scholarly journals and other appropriate venues; all scholarly products are readily accessible for review. Accordingly, any peer-reviewed products that are related to research and scholarship must be clearly indicated as such, both in Section 08 of the dossier and in the curriculum vita.
• Research program is clearly articulated
• Evidence and results of attempts to secure internal grants and/or external support; proposals reflect scholarship and show potential for future success
• Evidence of the peer review of scholarly products
• Peer review of the nature and stature of journals and the significance of the candidate’s research publications
• Evidence of the candidate’s plans for continued research
• Evidence of at least local dissemination of scholarly production and research findings
• Evidence of recognized good practice in the area of research and scholarship
• In the School of Social Work, during the period of time under review, the candidate should average at least:
  • One publication of a peer reviewed journal article or acquisition of funded support every other year, and
  • A conference presentation of a peer reviewed paper or poster, a written report on unfunded research, submission of a grant proposal, or publication of a book chapter, monograph, etc. every other year.

Highly Satisfactory Performance (Required for a “balanced case” application)

• Candidate’s research and scholarly production has attracted favorable peer reviews and comments that refer to quality and reflect strong evidence of potential for future productivity
• Candidate has secured internal grants and/or external support and provides evidence of continuing efforts to secure more
• Evidence of regular local and external peer review of research and scholarly production
• Evidence of regular and significant dissemination of scholarly production and research findings
• In the School of Social Work, during the period of time under review, the candidate should average at least:
  • One publication of a peer reviewed journal article or acquisition of funded support every other year, and
  • A conference presentation of a peer reviewed paper or poster, a written report on unfunded research, submission of a grant proposal, or publication of a book chapter, monograph, etc. every other year.

Excellent Performance

As noted in the preamble, the level of documentation varies in relation to the rank being sought. Normally, candidates applying for promotion to Associate Professor with research as an area of excellence are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they are well on the way to establishing an emerging national reputation for excellence in research. Candidates for Full Professor are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they have established such a national and/or international reputation. Typically, such a reputation is evidenced by publication in highly regarded national or international journals, membership on the editorial boards of scholarly journals, success in generating external funding for one’s area of scholarship, participation in national conferences, hearings or review committees and by major invited presentations at a national and/or international level. The following are required if research is designated as the area of excellence.

• Evidence of significant research contributions to the knowledge in and impact upon the field that clearly demonstrate attributes of scholarly work associated with research, including peer refereed presentations and publications and and/or international  recognition of the quality of research and scholarship
• Candidate has secured external support and makes significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work associated with obtaining external support, including the degree to which evaluation processes were competitive
• Expert external peer review clearly demonstrates the attributes of scholarly work associated with research, including peer refereed presentations, grants, and publications
• Evidence of national and/or international recognition of and an emerging reputation for the high quality of work (for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor)
• Evidence of a national and/or international recognition of and an established reputation for the high quality of work (for promotion to the rank of Professor)
• Evidence of a program of scholarly activities that have contributed to the discipline’s knowledge base and improved the work of others
• Internal and external recognition of the stature and impact of the research and scholarly work
• In the School of Social Work, during the period of time under review, the candidate should average at least:
  • One publication of a peer reviewed journal article or acquisition of funded support every year; and
  • One or more of any combination of the following each year: a conference presentation of a peer reviewed paper or poster; a written report on internally funded or unfunded research; submission of a grant proposal; or publication of a book chapter, monograph, an additional journal article, etc.

In preparation of the section entitled “Evaluation of Research and Scholarship,” the candidate should select evidence that supports the specific criteria the candidate is using to make her or his case. This section counts towards the 50-page limit on the dossier. The following areas should be considered as possible documentation for research and scholarship:

1. Professional texts or other books published by a reputable publisher together with comments by prepublication reviewers and by comments or reviews from the profession.
2. Papers published in generally available professional journals, which are refereed by her or his peers. The comments of peers through the refereeing process and through citations to the published work, ultimately establish the significance of the work.

When joint papers are referenced, the contribution of the faculty member under consideration should be identified. The bibliographic references should include the authors’ names in the same order as in the original paper with an explanation of the significance of the ordering of the names. If there is a senior or principal author, he or she should be indicated by an asterisk.

1. Papers or chapters published in an independently edited book but not previously published in a refereed journal together with comments upon the contribution and upon the book as a whole.
2. Papers accepted by a refereed journal but not yet published together with evidence of acceptance for publication. Comments by referees or editors may be included.
3. Computer software and multi-media productions than can be used by others in education or training. Recognition by others of the utility and benefits of these technological innovations should be included.
4. Substantial presentations at respected professional conferences or meetings. Ordinarily such a presentation will be presented in the form of a completed paper to be presented to the Promotion and Tenure Committee. The candidate should explain whether the presentation was invited or refereed. Include a discussion of the significance and impact of peer reviewed presentations, including status of the venue, competitive acceptance rates (where available), number of attendees and any retrievable evidence of the presentation.
5. Because social work is an applied profession, its theory building and research is often focused on practice issues and may be published within the format, for example, of a manual or monograph. Such work may be submitted if the scholarly contributions to the overall work are clearly indicated. Such publication is valuable within the profession but is less often refereed or critiqued. Evidence of acceptance and use within the profession could be submitted for review purposes.
6. External grant proposals that reflect intellectual, conceptual, and scholarly effort may be submitted for critical evaluation even if the grant itself was denied, whether or not the proposal has been funded. All funded grants should include the dollar amounts awarded.
7. Internal grant proposals that reflect a scholarly effort. Include dollar amounts for all funded grants.
8. Papers which have been submitted to journals but not yet accepted for publication should be identified as to the journal or journals to which they have been submitted. The status of the submission should be indicated and a copy of the paper should be provided to the Promotions and Tenure Committee.
9. Papers in preparation are not meaningful for the purposes of tenure and promotion and should not be included in the final dossier. However, current scholarly activity may be described within the narrative section in order to support the ongoing nature of a candidate’s research interests. If an adequate draft has been completed, such manuscripts may be submitted in order to reflect a continuation of the process of development or to gain the critical assistance of the committee members as partial evidence in support of the candidate’s identified scholarly agenda.

In higher education three broad categories of activities have come to be labeled service. These include university service (committee or other governance activities internal to the school or university related to program development and institutional policy), professional or disciplinary service (committee, editorial, or other work for local, regional, national, or international professional or disciplinary associations), and community service (activities other than basic research and teaching involving direct relationships with groups external to the academic and professional communities).

The Indiana University School of Social Work is uniquely positioned, as a result of having a mission and philosophy which not only supports but expects its social work and labor studies faculty to be engaged in professional service, to provide leadership to the University. In an era where there is widespread public support for the University to contribute to the well-being of the broader community, the contributions made by the faculty in the area of service take on added significance in the overall assessment process.

Service is not totally quantifiable, nor can it be narrowly defined. Therefore, the following broad guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion and tenure. The items below should guide faculty as examples of useful ways to document positive work in teaching, but should not be used as a checklist for which every item should be checked. In addition to the criteria shown in this document, candidates are also urged to consult the Appendix of the IU Indianapolis Dean of Faculties’ Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers for detailed charts summarizing how and where to document performance and suggested standards for evaluation in the area of service.

Satisfactory Performance (required if service is not designated as the area of excellence)

Minimal service expectations include acceptable service in at least one of the areas below.

• University Service (includes service to campus, school, and educational program)
  • Evidence that candidate fulfills routine, required, and expected school and program service functions in a satisfactory manner (e.g., active participation in faculty senate, school or educational program committees)
• Service to Profession or Discipline
  • Evidence that candidate fulfills routine, required, and expected service functions associated with the profession or discipline; and does so in a satisfactory manner
• Service to Community
  • Evidence that the candidate engages in professional or discipline related service in the community

Highly Satisfactory Performance (Required for a “balanced case” application)

Minimal service expectations include acceptable service in at least two of the areas below.

• University Service (includes service to campus, school, and educational program)
  • Accompanied by independent testimony of value of work (e.g., letter from the committee chair; acceptance by Faculty Council; “wrote a policy that was approved by committee”) that is above and beyond what is “required or expected”
  • Played a major role in initiative over a period of time that contributed to campus, school, or educational program goals, with independent evidence of significance, role, impact, and effective communication to others
• Service to Profession or Discipline
  • Accompanied by independent evidence of success, impact (e.g., ratings by participants; “organized a workshop series for conference that was successfully offered”)
  • Played a major role in an initiative over a period of time that contributed to discipline’s goals or organization’s mission, with independent evidence of significance, impact, role, and effective communication to others
• Service to Community
  • Accompanied by independent evidence of impact (e.g., “chaired a subcommittee of the board that accomplished X, Y, & Z”; “played a leadership role in developing the capacity of a community-based organization”)
  • Played a major role in an initiative over a period of time that contributed to community goals, with independent evidence of significance, role, impact, and effective communication to others

Excellent Performance

Minimal service expectations include excellent performance in two of the areas below and highly satisfactory performance in one.

As noted in the preamble, the level of documentation varies in relation to the rank being sought. Normally, candidates applying for promotion to Associate Professor with service as an area of excellence are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they are well on the way to establishing an emerging national reputation for excellence in service. Candidates for Full Professor are expected to provide evidence to support a claim that they have established such a national and/or international reputation. Typically, such a reputation is evidenced by publications related to service in highly regarded national and/or international journals, service leadership beyond the local level, participation in national and /or international  conferences, hearings or review committees and by major invited presentations at a national level. Any peer-reviewed products that are related to service must be clearly indicated as such, both in Section 09 of the dossier and in the curriculum vita. Note that excellence in the area of service requires evidence of accomplishments beyond exemplary performance of assigned administrative responsibilities. The following are required if service is designated as the area of excellence. University Service may include service to the university, campus, school, and educational program.

• Service to the University
  • Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work, including peer-reviewed presentations and publications and national recognition of the quality of work
  • Awards and recognition that reflect on the significance and academic nature of the work have been received
  • Evidence of the impact of one’s university service (e.g., adoption of a policy, revision of a program, procedure, or process, etc.)
• Service to Profession or Discipline
  • Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work, including peer-referred presentations and publications and national and/or international recognition of the quality of work
  • Awards and recognition that reflect on the significance and academic nature of the work have been received
  • Evidence of the impact of one’s professional or disciplinary service (e.g., adoption of a policy, revision of a program, procedure, or process, etc.)
• Service to Community
  • Significant contributions that clearly demonstrate the attributes of scholarly work, including peer-referred presentations and publications and national and/or international recognition of the quality of work
  • Awards and recognition that reflect on the significance and academic nature of the work have been received
    • Evidence of the impact of one’s community service (e.g., adoption of a policy, revision of a program, procedure, or process, etc.).

In preparation of the section entitled “Evaluation of Service,” the candidate should select evidence that supports the specific criteria the candidate is using to make her or his case. This section counts towards the 50-page limit on the dossier. The following areas should be considered as possible documentation for service:

1. Documents indicating service as a reviewer or editor for a manuscript, newsletter, or textbook.
2. Copies of reports of school or university committees.
3. Records of activities and accomplishments as a result of administrative assignments, such as chair or coordinator.
4. Faculty Annual Summary Reports.
5. Logs of student recruiting, counseling and advising.
6. Records of advising student organizations.
7. Programs or announcements of organized colloquia, seminars, continuing education programs, conferences, workshops or special events.
8. Copies of publications produced as a result of one’s service (describe nature and extent of contribution) including school or university bulletins, brochures, as well as grant proposals.
9. Records of public relations activities with accrediting agencies, trustees, news media, legislative bodies or representatives.
10. Letters of recommendation from committee chairs, deans, or other administrators in the University.
11. Letters of acknowledgment or recommendation from groups, offices, or agencies in the private or public sector.
12. Letters of acknowledgment or recommendation from alumni or students.
13. Announcements of honors or awards received for service.
14. Announcements of grants received for the development or implementation of service activities.
15. Records of consultations with various organizations and the benefits to the University which accrued from such activity.
16. Documents indicating leadership in professional societies.
17. Documents indicating editorship of professional journals.
18. Copies of public statements or testimonies given in areas of service.

If applicable, the candidate should communicate information regarding unusual circumstances (including illness, special workload assignments, problematic situations, etc.) affecting workload and performance.

The Candidate’s Statement should begin with an introductory statement describing the candidacy (promotion to what rank and/or tenure, as appropriate), containing a clear indication of the candidate’s chosen area(s) of excellence. This statement reflects the candidate’s own self-assessments of accomplishments in teaching, research and creative activity, and service. Prospects for continued development in these areas must be addressed. The Candidate’s Statement is where the candidate demonstrates how she or he meets school and university criteria for promotion and/or tenure. This very important part of the dossier is where the candidate “states her or his case” and refers to the evidence in the rest of the dossier that supports that case. The candidate is encouraged to write a well-organized, concise narrative statement of no more than seven single-spaced pages, with a minimum font of 10pt. Candidates have the option to limit the Candidate’s Statement to five pages and include two single-spaced pages, addressing the area of excellence, as a section introduction in the chosen area of excellence (either Teaching, Research, or Service). Candidates are cautioned to describe their work in clear language that can be understood by readers from other disciplines.

• The candidate’s statement should contain five sub-sections: an introductory section; sections entitled evaluation of teaching, evaluation of research and scholarly activities, and evaluation of service; and a summary section. The introduction may contain a discussion about the candidate’s professional philosophy or perhaps an elaboration about the candidate’s area of excellence. The candidate should also mention any extenuating circumstances that may pertain to his or her candidacy. (For example, a candidate may have received some years toward tenure at Indiana University due to previous teaching experience as negotiated with the Dean at the time of employment.) In the introduction and the section related to the claimed area of excellence, the candidate should strive to make the strongest possible case for excellence, as this is usually the most essential judgment that dossier reviewers at any level must make.
• The Candidate’s Statement should address the interrelated aspects of a whole, integrated career. Few candidates make sharp distinctions among the various aspects of their work as they do it, and the statement should indicate how the candidate views the integration of these aspects, even while assessing achievements in each. Special attention should be given to work that cuts across specializations and disciplines and that helps integrate and apply knowledge to broad patterns of intellectual activity.
• Candidates engaged in interdisciplinary work, or team science, should make every effort to represent their contribution to collaborative scholarship clearly as well as the significance and value of any interdisciplinary approach they are pursuing. Candidates should carefully document their individual contributions within this context and should also demonstrate some level of independent research beyond the team science work.
• Candidates should be careful to provide clear and sufficient information about their individual roles in collaborative projects, publications, presentations, or grants.
• The sub-sections of the candidate’s statement related to the areas of teaching, service, and research and scholarly activities should be as concise, specific, and pointed as possible in demonstrating how the candidate meets or exceeds school and university criteria for promotion or tenure. The candidate should avoid meaningless or insignificant items that do not add to the case. She or he should, however, mention everything that is necessary to show excellence in the area selected for excellence, and satisfactory performance in the other areas. For Integrative Cases, the candidate should demonstrate how their contributions in teaching, research and service are incorporated. The candidate should indicate where in the rest of the dossier relevant evidence may be found. These sub-sections should also contain information about the candidate’s future plans, particularly in the area of excellence, as appropriate. Whenever possible, tenure-track faculty members should state specific plans for a research or creative activity agenda, for a plan to enhance teaching effectiveness, and for continued participation through professional service in their profession, the campus, and community.
• In the summary section, candidates may wish to address their compatibility with the needs and mission of the school and university. The candidate’s statement should be signed and dated by the candidate.

Throughout the candidate statement and CV, and supported by dossier materials, readers should be able to discern these features:

Integrative:  The candidate has intentional and interrelated activities as an IU Indianapolis faculty member who demonstrates integration of their work in teaching, research, and service that is mutually intertwined.

Impact: The impact of the candidate’s work should be measured beyond the standard criteria of publication, teaching evaluation, grants, and committee work. In addition to these important criteria, candidates should be evaluated by the impact of their work in promoting the school, campus, university, and program level, as well as the impact of their work on local communities and the field of social work. The candidate may also demonstrate how their work impacts students, faculty and community members in areas such as retention of under-represented students and faculty, mentoring of under-represented groups and individuals, and promotion of community work and collaborative projects that further the causes of diversity, equity and inclusion.

Activities that benefit students, faculty, staff, and community partners such as:

• Community-Engaged Research
• Mentoring
• Community Organizing
• Training, workshops, organizing conferences, etc.
• Affectual Labor
• Serving on committees, boards, etc.

Independence:  Candidate will have been an essential and generative actor within diversity initiatives; sole-author or sole-PI are not the only indicators of this, as long as co-worker attestation is present.

To achieve associate rank excellence consists of:

• Benefits to the university are taken as a whole, clearly valuable, impactful and exemplary and overall activities illustrate an  emerging national reputation.
• Activities across teaching, scholarship/creative activities, and service should be more than minimally satisfactory (according to unit and campus criteria).

To achieve full rank excellence consists of:

• Candidate should have sustained accomplishment over time especially in the five years prior to submission (some periods of greater or lesser accomplishments are to be expected)
• A national and/or international level of visibility and participation in the discipline or other relevant venues

In preparation of the sections entitled “Evaluation of Research,” “Evaluation of Teaching,” and “Evaluation of Service,” the candidate should select evidence that supports the specific criteria the candidate is using to make their integrative case. This section counts towards the 50-page limit on the dossier. The areas listed under “Evidence/Supporting Materials” in the sections of Research, Teaching, and Service in the Red Book may be considered as possible documentation of evidence and supporting materials OR candidates may choose to prepare their documentation in a fully integrated way without relying on the silos of Research, Teaching, and Service. Candidates are not limited to those listed areas of possible documentation in the Red Book to make their integrative diversity, equity, and inclusion case.

The nature of scholarly work that promotes an Integrative Case may be diverse and time-intensive. The evidence to support it may differ from traditional forms of scholarship. Non-traditional activities, products, dissemination outlets, and alternative metrics should be acknowledged as acceptable forms of documentation. Scholarly outcomes may include community projects, documentation of activism, community resources, student-focused initiatives, exhibits, websites, interdisciplinary work and other non-traditional products or communication. An Integrative Case may or may not involve community engagement. Review of integrative scholarship must take into account the faculty members’ investment in activities such as building community relationships, engaging in action that promotes equity, engaging in reciprocal learning and project definition, experimenting with inclusive and collaborative methods, and writing grants to support collaboration with faculty, students, and stakeholders.

Candidate statement:

• Presents a philosophy of and competence in the body of work that is carried out in activities and achievements (similar to a teaching philosophy spells out, when necessary, specific targeted areas or relevant public scholarship, community engagement, and/or other activities.).
• Articulates how the candidate’s activities and achievements are interrelated.
• Shows that the candidate’s work is intentional and coherent.
• Addresses:
  • Contributions to scholarly discourse (peer-reviewed dissemination)
  • Participation of community partners
  • Local / stakeholder impact
• Establishes both independence and initiative—articulates the candidate’s own role in multi-person endeavors and shows how the candidate leads in initial conception, execution, or expansion.
• Ties work to the unit, campus or university mission.

Not every item on a candidate’s CV is expected to be part of one’s focused work, but a substantial and interrelated set of items should be. Where a candidate’s work occurs sporadically or occasionally, the candidate should choose a different type of case.

Dossier evidence:

Material in the dossier’s main sections exists to provide details, context, and confirmation of assertions in the candidate’s statement.

• Description of teaching, research, and service (including administrative) load throughout the time in rank.
• Discussion of teaching: reflection on the following sources of evidence to demonstrate continual growth (mentoring is a form of teaching):
  • Peer evaluations
  • Student evaluations; for mentoring or other non-course teaching, the chair / director should arrange for anonymous feedback.
  • Student learning evidence
  • Professional development activities
  • If teaching involves non-IU students (community members), feedback from recipients.
• Scholarly communication: contributions to the national, and /or international discourse in the form of peer-reviewed dissemination.
  • Discussion of 3-5 key publications, presentations, creative works, or alternative products and activities, etc.
  • Attestation of individual role in multi-author works (confirmation from co-PIs, co-authors, etc.)
• Evidence detailing community involvement and impact
  • Documentation of collaboration activities.
  • Assessment of projects by community partners
  • Evaluation of quality and impact, e.g. input from recipients; program/outcomes evaluation.

Overall, readers should be able to see evidence of teaching, scholarship/creative activity, and service.

The integrative CV has the following format.  All grants/fellowships are combined; all awards are combined; administrative roles are separated; all publications are combined.

Candidates should use the * symbol to indicate Integrative Case items.

Education

Appointments

Administrative roles

Past appointments

Licensure, Certification, Specialty Board Status

Professional Organization Memberships

Professional Development

Teaching Assignments

Mentoring (letters of support)

Other teaching [includes curriculum development]

Grants funded or not funded

Awards

Other activities or roles.

Campus/university citizenship (roles, dates.)

Community projects and activities (candidate role; organizations involved; scope (time period, budget, and/or number of participants or recipients.)

Connect to grants and publications by use of numbers.

Publications [NOT divided by area]

Refereed

Non-refereed

Recommendations

• Overlapping activities should count in various domains of faculty life as applicable.
• The generation of examples is a developmental process, open to incremental contributions as new activities arise.
• An Integrative Case that demonstrates excellence and impact should exhibit a wide range of activities.
• Work that spans different categories of faculty work should be marked visibly in the CV, with a symbol (e.g., *) or organized in a separate section (even if duplicative).
• Work should be assessed through annual reviews and weighted differentially as a measure of value.
• Ensuring accountability of faculty work is a demonstration of institutional responsiveness to ongoing student demand.

1. In September of the candidates’ third year, the Dean will tell the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee who will be doing a third-year review during the spring semester. The chair will give each candidate the third year review schedule.
2. Faculty whose promotion and tenure decisions are made on IU Northwest can request that the IUSSW Promotion and Tenure Committee do a third year review by notifying the chair of the IUSSW Promotion and Tenure Committee no later than December 1 of their third year.
3. The third-year dossier is due on March 1, during the spring semester of the candidate’s third year. The dossier should be turned into the Office of the Dean. All materials must be organized into a searchable PDF portfolio consisting of the following PDF files: a signed curriculum vita prepared using the standard CV format as it appears in the Red Book Section X; a narrative, no longer than five, single-spaced pages, discussing teaching, research, and service, identifying the area of excellence; a copy of all publications; syllabi of all courses taught; unsolicited letters of support from students and/or colleagues (optional); and a statement of plans related to teaching, research, service, and professional development for the next few years. Products referenced in the narrative such as peer review summaries, reports of creative teaching practices, etc. should also be included as PDF files. The emphasis should be on work done since coming to the School. For help with constructing a searchable PDF portfolio, see the link on p. iii for Instructions for Creating PDF Portfolios or contact UITS or the CTL as they may be able to provide one-on-one help.
4. The third-year dossier will be turned into the Office of the Dean who will record the time and date of submission and then file the materials. The dossier will be reviewed to assure that the materials listed in #3 above have been included. The Office of the Dean will arrange for appropriate, secure, confidential storage of the dossiers during the review process and will provide access to the dossier to members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.
5. The Promotion and Tenure Committee Report will be completed by no later than April 15. It will be given to the Office of the Dean, where it will be held in a secure location until all promotion and tenure committee members have signed it. A copy of the signed report will be given to the Promotion and Tenure Committee Chair, to the Dean, and to the candidate.
6. The Dean will also provide a written assessment of the candidate’s third-year review dossier. The Office of the Dean will submit this letter, the committee report, and the dossier to the Executive Vice Chancellor’s Office by May 1.
7. The candidate will be invited to meet with the Promotion and Tenure Committee to discuss the report, preferably by the end of the spring semester. If the candidate’s Third-Year Review raises significant issues, the candidate is encouraged to seek a fourth-year review.
8. All deliberations of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will be confidential.
9. Observing this schedule assures that the Promotion and Tenure Committee will have adequate time to review each dossier and the candidate will have time to complete the work necessary to be successful at the time of promotion and/or tenure. Any variation to this schedule must be requested in writing at least one week before the deadline. These written requests should be sent to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.

Note: If specified dates fall on weekends or holidays, the next business day should apply. Persons or entities underlined in the items below are those responsible for initiating actions.  Candidates for promotion to Senior Lecturer follow the same submission timeframe as candidates for P&T.

1. 1. The Eligible Candidate Reports from the Faculty Records Office will be forwarded from the Dean to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee by January 15. If any of these dates falls on a weekend, the materials will be due at 5:00 pm on the following Monday.
   2. By no later than February 1, the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will inform the candidates of their eligibility for tenure and/or promotion as well as the promotion and tenure schedule.
   3. Candidates will send written notification of their intention to stand for promotion and/or tenure to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee by no later than March 1 in the year when the dossier will be uploaded. The Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will give the Dean a list of people who intend to stand for promotion and/or tenure by no later than March 7.
   4. Although normally candidates are not supposed to recommend possible external reviewers, if a candidate believes that the Dean and members of the P&T Committee may not be aware of leading scholars in the candidate’s area of expertise, the candidate may submit a list of up to twelve possible external reviewers to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee no later than March 15. For each possible external reviewer the candidate will identify why this person would be qualified to review the materials; how this person meets the “arm’s length” independence criteria regarding the relationship the candidate has to the external reviewer; and the name, address, phone number, and e-mail address of the possible reviewer. The candidate may also submit a list of individuals who he or she would definitely not want to have considered as an external reviewer to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, also no later than March 15.
   5. The Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will submit a prioritized list of potential external reviewers for each candidate to the Office of the Dean no later than April 1. If the Promotion and Tenure Committee members have been unable to identify eight external reviewers for a candidate, they will consider the names suggested by the candidate for inclusionon this list. They will not include those identified by the candidate as not For each possible external reviewer the Chair will identify why this person would be qualified to review the materials; what relationship the candidate has to the external reviewer; and the name, address, phone number, and e-mail address of the possible reviewer.
   6. Promotion and Tenure candidates should notify the Office of the Dean when all of their materials have been uploaded on eDossier.
   7. Each candidate will submit an electronic (pdf) version of their External Review packet to the Office of the Dean no later than April 1^st. External Review packets generally include the candidate’s curriculum vita, candidate’s statement, and core evidence (see Guidelines, throughout, for definition and examples of core evidence). External review packets will be emailed to the external reviewers. Reviewers will be given the option to request a hard copy.
   8. The Dean will write a letter soliciting each external review that will be emailed with the candidate’s packet of information. This letter will explain our promotion and tenure guidelines, identify the candidate’s area of excellence, request a letter evaluating the candidate, ask for a copy of the external reviewer’s resume or curriculum vita, and remind the external reviewer that their letter must be sent back by June 1. In addition to the materials provided by the candidate, the materials emailed to the external reviewers will also include copies of the School and Campus criteria for promotion and tenure, and an External Reviewer Form, to be completed and returned by the external reviewer. Letters and packets of material will be emailed by the Office of the Dean by May 1.
   9. When the external evaluation letters are returned, the originals will be scanned and included in Section 04 of the candidate’s dossier by the Office of the Dean. Hard copies of the letters and completed External Review Forms will be filed in the candidate’s paper files by the Office of the Dean. The Office of the Dean will notify the Dean of any letters that have not been received by June 10. By June 30, the Dean will either send a reminder letter or make a telephone call to any external reviewers who have not sent an evaluation letter, resume or curriculum vita, and completed External Reviewer Form. Candidates may not request to see the external review letters until the final submission of the complete dossier to the Faculty Records Office on the last Friday in October.
   10. One copy of each resume or curriculum vita from the external reviewers will be made by the Office of the Dean. The original curriculum vita will be filed with the rest of the candidate’s material in a separate file identified as curriculum vita related to (name of the candidate). The copies of the curriculum vita for external reviewers related to each candidate are not sent forward with the candidate’s dossier.
   11. The Office of the Dean will include a brief description of each external reviewer in the beginning of Section 04 of the completed dossier, followed by the letters from the external reviewers and the completed External Review Forms, placed in the order they appear in the expertise statement list.
   12. By May 1, each candidate who chooses to have students surveyed will give the Office of the Dean a copy of class rosters from the last five years. This option is a choice for candidates whose area of excellence is research or service or who are presenting a balanced case, but even for them, it is optional. By June 1, the Dean will write a letter to students soliciting either letters of support or completion of an evaluation form. This evaluation form will be developed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Some system of random selection will be used to decide which fifty students should be asked for letters. When the letters are sent in, they will be filed by the Office of the Dean along with other material related to the candidate in a file titled letters of support from students for (name of the candidate). Note: to protect the confidentiality of the students and the integrity of the process, candidates will not have access to these individual letters or surveys.
   13. By May 15, each candidate has the option to give the Office of the Dean a list of colleagues and professionals who are familiar with the candidate’s work and might be willing to write a letter of support. For candidates whose area of excellence is service, obtaining these letters is particularly important to document the candidate’s service achievements. By June 1, the Dean will write a letter asking these people for letters of support to be returned by July 15. When the letters are sent in, they will be filed by the Office of the Dean along with other material related to the candidate in a file titled solicited letters of support for (name of the candidate). The Office of the Dean will prepare Section 05 of the candidate’s final electronic dossier, beginning with a sample of the internal reference solicitation letter, followed by the internal letters received. Note: candidates may not request access to these solicited letters of support until the final dossier has been submitted.
   14. The final dossier sections prepared by the candidate (Sections 06-11) must be uploaded into eDossier by the first day of classes for the fall semester on the IU Indianapolis campus.
   15. The candidate may request to see receive copies of the external review letters once the final dossier  has been submitted to the Faculty Records Office on the last Friday in October.
   16. The Office of the Dean will arrange for appropriate, secure, confidential storage of P&T materials during the review process.
   17. When the candidate submits his or her portions of the dossier to the Office of the Dean, the Office of the Dean will begin to assemble the final dossier, including the sections not prepared by the candidate (see Section IV.B of this document for a list of dossier sections and who is responsible for preparing them).
   18. By September 15, the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will tell each candidate about any materials added to or deleted from the dossier that will be sent forward to the campus committee.
   19. If extenuating circumstances exist, no later than September 20, the Candidate may submit a written request to the Dean and to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee to extend the time to submit the dossier. Under no circumstances will the deadline to submit dossiers extend beyond the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. If approved by the Dean, the Office of the Dean will forward the extension request by September 30 to the Assistant Dean of the Faculties for FAA. Within one week of the extension being approved, the Office of the Dean must send the following information for each candidate electronically to ofaa@iu.edu: (First, Middle and Last name; University ID Number; Area of Excellence; Type of Review (promotion, tenure or both); and Title sought (does not apply to tenure only candidates).
   20. The Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will submit to the Office of the Dean the Promotion and Tenure Committee’s written recommendation containing its evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, research, and service performance to later than October 1. This report will be signed by all committee members. The original will be scanned for inclusionin Section 02 of the candidate’s electronic dossier, and two hard copies of the report will be made by the Office of the Dean. The original hard copy will be placed in Section 02 of the appropriate candidate’s paper dossier to be retained by the School. One copy of the signed report will be given to the Promotion and Tenure Committee Chair. The second copy of the Promotion and Tenure report will be given to the candidate no later than October 1.
   21. The Dean’s report containing his or her recommendation regarding promotion and tenure and a summary evaluation of the candidate’s professional activities must be dated, signed, and printed on School letterhead, no later than the last Friday in October. The original will be scanned for inclusion in Section 02 of the candidate’s electronic dossier. A copy of the Dean’s report will be given to the candidate no later than the last Friday in October.
   22. The Office of the Dean is responsible for insuring that the candidate’s final dossier is complete and organized as required prior to submitting the electronic dossier to the Faculty Records Office. The Office of the Dean is responsible for assembling Sections 01-05 of the dossier (note that School of Social Work dossiers to be submitted to the IU Indianapolis campus will not have a Section 03, Departmental level review) and the front part of Section 10 containing the assessment of the quality and stature of journals or other dissemination vehicles containing the candidate’s publications. The Dean will inform the Promotion and Tenure Chair when the dossiers are complete.
   23. No later than the last Friday in October, the Office of the Dean will submit the edossier for each candidate to the Faculty Records Office for the IU Indianapolis Promotion and Tenure Committee.
   24. All deliberations of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will be confidential.
   25. Observing this schedule assures that the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Dean will have adequate time to process each application. In the case of extenuating circumstances, a candidate may request in writing an extension of a deadline. These written requests should be sent to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.
   26. If deadlines are not met by the candidate, the Promotion and Tenure Committee has the authority to not act on the candidate’s application.

Dean’s Office informs P&T Chair which faculty are in their third year.

P&T Chair provides candidates a Third-Year Review schedule and other materials.

The P&T Committee submits its review and recommendation letter to the Dean’s Office and to the candidate.

The Dean provides a written assessment of the candidate’s dossier. The Dean’s Office submits the dossier, committee report, and Dean’s assessment to the Office of Academic Affairs.

Candidates have the option of meeting with the P&T Committee to discuss the report.

Dean’s Office provides list of eligible candidates to P&T Chair.

P&T Chair informs candidates of their eligibility.

Candidates give notice of intent to stand for P&T.

P&T Chair provides list of P&T candidates to Dean’s Office.

Candidates provide list of 12 potential external reviewers (see Section V).

P&T Chair submits final list of selected external reviewers to the Office of the Dean.

Candidates submit their External Review packet as a single pdf to the Office of the Dean. The External Review packet should contain the candidate’s cv, narrative, and some sample publications.

Dean’s Office emails packets to external reviewers, including External Referee Form and School and Campus criteria.

Candidates who choose to may submit a list of colleagues and professionals for solicited letters to Dean’s Office.

If requested by candidate, Dean’s Office solicits support letters from professionals/ colleagues.

External review letters and completed External Referee Forms due.

Reminder letter/call to external reviewers (as needed).

Solicited letters due to Dean’s Office.

Candidate uploads all P&T materials into the eDossier.

The Dean, in consultation with the Chair of the P&T Committee, provides an assessment of the dissemination outlets in the candidate’s area of excellence (or in all areas for a balanced case), such as the quality of journals, peer-reviewed conferences, and venues of presentations or performance.  This assessment will be uploaded into the eDossier.

P&T Chair informs the candidate of any dossier materials added/deleted.

If a candidate wishes to request a time extension to submit a dossier due to extenuating circumstances, the Candidate may submit a written request to the Dean and to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee no later than September 20 to extend the time to submit the dossier.

If extenuating circumstances exist, a request for a time extension to submit a dossier to the Dean of the Faculties through OFAA should be sent by the last Friday in September to the Assistant Dean of the Faculties. Within one week of the extension being approved, the following information for each candidate must be sent electronically to ofaa@iu.edu:  (First, Middle and Last name; University ID Number; Area of Excellence; Type of Review (promotion, tenure or both); and Title sought (does not apply to tenure only candidates).

Office of the Dean assembles Sections 01-05 of the dossier, as well as the front section of Section 10 (assessment of the quality of journals or other dissemination outlets).

P&T Committee Reports submitted to the Office of the Dean.

P&T Committee Reports, Dean’s report and external review letters given to candidates.

Deadline for Candidate option to withdraw.

For campus level review, units/schools need to route the candidate’s materials through eDossier to the Dean of the Faculties through OFAA no later than the last Friday in October.

Under no circumstances will the deadline for the Office of the Dean to submit completed dossiers extend beyond the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Dossiers submitted late after that date or not submitted in accord with these guidelines may be returned and consideration deferred until the following year.

Campus committee reviews dossiers and forwards recommendations to the Dean of Faculties and the Chancellor.

Dean of Faculties and Chancellor review dossiers and make recommendations to the University President and Board of Trustees.

Action by Board of Trustees.

Official announcement of decisions.

(12 month faculty): Promotion takes effect.

(10-month faculty): Promotion takes effect.

Tenure takes effect.

Appointment to the rank of Clinical Assistant Professor is based on documented educational and clinical preparation.  Promotion in rank to Clinical Associate Professor or Clinical Professor is based on both past achievement and future potential.  Accordingly, examples listed under criteria at each rank are meant to exemplify expected behavior/performance at the time of appointment to each rank.  For example, promotion to the rank of Clinical Associate would necessitate documentation of those behaviors/accomplishments described under that rank at the time of promotion.  It is important to note that exemplars listed under each criterion are just that; they are neither exhaustive nor exclusive.

Promotion in clinical rank requires documentation of excellence, as designated by the rank applying for, in either teaching or service, and satisfactory performance in the other.  Although faculty in clinical rank are not evaluated on research/scholarship, participation in those activities, especially as they contribute to teaching and/or service excellence, are not precluded.  Promotion in clinical rank follows the same procedure as all other college/campus promotion and tenure cases.

Candidates for Clinical Associate Professor and Clinical Professor follow the same timeline as tenure track candidates.

The baseline for effective teaching is pedagogic skill and competency in the faculty member’s subject matter. Below is a non-exhaustive and non-exclusive list of examples and characteristics displayed by excellent teachers:

• Being professionally active in curriculum development, policies and procedures related to implementation of curriculum, oversight and monitoring of course implementation, teaching development, mentoring of other faculty and individual, small group, and/or classroom instruction with students;
• Being committed to and facilitating student achievement of learning outcomes;
• Linking social work education to social work practice in the community;
• Teaching in interactive ways as partners in the learning experience and providing opportunities for life-long learning;
• Respecting individuals, individual differences of opinions, and adapting teaching methods to a variety of student backgrounds and learning styles;
• Effectively utilizing technology, where appropriate, to enhance the learning experience;
• Being readily available for consultation with students at times convenient to students;
• Using multiple and fair measures to assess student work, and providing ongoing, clear feedback to students;
• Participating in peer reviewed scholarly work (presentations, articles, book reviews, manuscripts appearing in peer reviewed journals, etc.) to disseminate information regarding teaching.

Faculty must provide periodic documented peer review of teaching, good or excellent curriculum development, individual, small group, and/or classroom instruction with students. Evidence could include surveys of liaisons, field instructors, educational partners, prospective students, current students, former students, and internal letters of support.

NOTE ABOUT TIMELINE: The procedure for application for promotion from Clinical Assistant Professor to Clinical Associate Professor or Clinical Professor shall follow the same procedures and timeline as that for other promotions.

Criterion 1: Demonstrates competency and increasing levels of expertise in facilitating student and educational partners learning through formal and informal instruction in a variety of settings including one on one, small group, traditional classrooms, presentations, publications, manuals, online or hybrid delivery modes, within the school, university or professional organizations.

Exemplars for Criterion #1

Clinical Assistant Professor

• Participates in curriculum development or revision, incorporating technology and/or other instructional methods as appropriate, to enhance the quality and effectiveness of instruction.
• Participates in policy & procedure development or revision, to enhance the quality and effectiveness of curriculum implementation & instruction.
• Utilizes evidence informed or best practices for teaching and learning as applied to a variety of settings.
• Works collaboratively with program faculty to ensure high quality learning experiences for students and educational partners.
• Intentionally infuses learning experiences for students and educational partners with content and pedagogical practices that reflect respect for differences and creates safe learning environments that are inclusive of differing opinions.
• Instructional activities net favorable reviews (e.g., good to excellent) by students and educational partners.

Clinical Associate Professor

• Leads curriculum development and/or revision, incorporating technology and/or other instructional methods as appropriate, to enhance the quality and effectiveness of instruction.
• Leads policy & procedure development or revision, to enhance the quality and effectiveness of curriculum implementation & instruction.
• Systematically evaluates outcomes of evidence informed or best practice teaching/learning strategies applied in a variety of settings.
• Acts as a consultant, collaborator or mentor to new, other or adjunct faculty in teaching, course or curriculum development.
• Serves as a mentor, consultant or collaborator in supporting faculty or adjunct faculty with content and/or pedagogical practices that reflect respect for differences and create safe learning environments that are inclusive of differing opinions.
• Instructional activities net favorable reviews (very good to excellent) by students and educational partners.

Clinical Professor

• Leads curriculum development and/or revision and evaluation and utilizes evaluation data for curricular improvement. Evaluates the impact of the use of technology and/or other instructional methods, as appropriate, and uses evaluative results to improve curricular delivery.
• Leads policy & procedure development and/or revision and evaluation and utilizes evaluation data for policy & procedural improvement.
• Utilizes outcome evaluations of evidence informed or best practice teaching and learning strategies to inform course development, revision and/or curriculum development applying theory and research in teaching/learning settings.
• Serves as an education leader for curriculum development and/or delivery for students, community groups, and educational partners in local, regional, state or national venues.
• Serves in a leadership capacity within the school, field and/or external communities to advance practices that reflect respect for differences.
• Instructional activities are rated as excellent and are recognized by students and educational partners.

Suggested Evidence:

Evidence submitted should describe the quality of the candidate’s teaching as completely as possible and provide documentation of impact on student learning and/or professional development. Evidence may derive from course evaluations including ratings and narrative feedback, external reviews, course syllabi, outcomes from workshop delivery to external or internal constituents, letters from students and/or community partners including but not limited to clinical agencies, letters from colleagues, adjunct faculty or mentees.  Peer reviewed evidence could include surveys of liaisons, field instructors, educational partners, prospective students, current students, former students, and internal letters of support.

Unusual Circumstances

If applicable, the candidate should communicate information regarding unusual circumstances (including illness, special workload assignments, problematic situations, etc.) affecting workload and performance.

The baseline for effective service is professional and public service that involves a high level of skill in communicating and applying the knowledge of one’s professional competence to the university, the profession, and/or the community. Service may be both inside and outside the university and may be rendered to the academic unit, department, community, professional organizations, governmental bodies and other institutions. Satisfactory service requires consistent activity, good citizenship, and an equitable contribution. Below is a non-exhaustive and non-exclusive list of examples and characteristics displayed by excellent service:

• Linking community understanding of social work practices and social work education
• Being readily available for consultation with university, professional, and/or community partners, and publishing and keeping liberal office hours at times convenient to community partners;
• Using multiple and fair measures to assess university, professional, and/or community partner work, and providing ongoing, clear feedback to partners;
• Engaging in community outreach to provide context for service in areas such as: presentations, trainings, and continuing education;
• Participating in peer reviewed scholarly work (presentations, articles, book reviews, manuscripts appearing in peer reviewed journals, etc.) to disseminate information regarding service;
• Serving in interactive ways as partners in the learning experience and providing opportunities for life-long learning;
• Inclusive service reflects differences among individuals, organizations and communities;
• Effective utilization of technology to enhance service and community collaborations;
• Providing documented peer review of service. Evidence of good or excellent service could include: Surveys of liaisons, field instructors, community partners, prospective students, current students, former students, internal letters of support, and donor development;
• Serving on school, campus, university, and/or organization committees and boards.

Criterion 2: Service

Demonstrates competency and increasing levels of expertise in service within the university, the profession or in local, regional, national or global organizations.

Exemplars for Criterion #2

Clinical Assistant Professor

• Participation in collaborative professional or public service.
• Utilizes evidence informed/based practices to guide, professional or public service activities aimed at enhancing service to the university, profession, or community.
• Effectively utilizes relevant and appropriate technology to support professional or public service projects.
• Demonstrates consistent service to the university, the school, program (BSW/MSW), program campus, profession, and to local regional, national or global communities.

Clinical Associate Professor

• Plays a lead role in collaborative professional or public service.
• Utilizes and assists others collaboratively in utilizing evidence informed/based practices to guide professional or public service to enhance service to the university, profession, or community.
• Collaborates with others to make most effective and efficient use of technology to guide professional/public service projects.
• Demonstrates consistent and active collaborative efforts aimed at professional or public service  within the contexts of  the university, the school, program (BSW/MSW), program campus, profession and to local regional, national or global communities

Clinical Professor

• Principal role organizing professional or public service.
• Serves as a project lead/consultant in introducing, implementing and evaluating evidence informed/based activities designed to enhance service to the university, profession, or community.
• Demonstrates leadership in guiding university/community partners on use of appropriate technology to enhance project development, implementation and/or outcome evaluations.
• Assumes leadership roles in active engaged service to the school, program (BSW/MSW), program campus, profession, and to local regional, national or global communities.

Candidates applying for promotion to Senior Lecturer are expected to provide evidence of excellence in teaching, and evidence of satisfactory performance in university and professional service.  They are required to have two independent peers external to IUSSW conduct peer reviews of the case. Candidates are expected to demonstrate evidence of publicly disseminated and peer-reviewed scholarship in teaching. In accordance with the guidelines from the Dean of Faculties (p. 38), some level of national, peer-reviewed dissemination is required for advancement to Senior Lecturer. The scholarship can either be in the subject area in which the person teaches or scholarship of teaching and learning.

An annual review is required during which guidance and discussion about potential promotion to senior lecturer can and should be discussed.  Since lecturers are non-tenured faculty, a three-year review is not required. Dossiers for promotion to Senior Lecturer are to be submitted to the Dean’s Office by the first day of the fall semester in August and will be processed along the same timeframe as P&T dossiers.

Like all faculty, a minimum of 6 letters of review must be sought. However, these can be external to the department or school or discipline as long as an objective assessment of teaching and professional service can be provided (see page 28 of the IU Indianapolis guidelines.  Other pages to consult include 4, 19, 23, 27, 31 and 41).  See More

Sample senior lecturer dossier: 

An Adobe connect program on promotion to senior lecturer:

Candidates for Senior Lecturer follow the same timeline as tenure track candidates.

Teaching is a scholarly function that is vital to this school. The candidate should make a special attempt to identify quantitative and qualitative teaching contributions. The collection of data on teaching as a scholarly endeavor and service requires considerable attention. The collection of such data should be ongoing. Areas of important information related to teaching include: teaching load; teaching goals; continual professional development, use of exemplary teaching methods, quality of teaching and courses; curriculum development efforts; evidence of student learning; scholarship of teaching and regional or state leadership, departmental, community or university recognition, participation in educational projects and programs; advising and field liaison activities and mentoring.

In order to document teaching performance, the lecturer should keep detailed records of teaching activities. Those quantitative and qualitative aspects of teaching which the file reflects will serve to distinguish among excellent, satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance levels. Lecturers should therefore regularly update their teaching activities files in order to maintain a complete and current data base. The file, then, can serve as a basis for each lecturer’s preparation of the annual reports for the Associate Dean and also for the dossier when seeking promotion to Senior Lecturer.

Since teaching is both a technology and an art, its excellence is not totally quantifiable nor can it be narrowly defined. The following guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion to senior lecturer. Candidates for senior lecturer should demonstrate excellence in the activities of teaching, which is signified by excellence in instruction, in mentoring and advising, and in contributions to pedagogy.

Excellent Performance.  Candidates should provide evidence for each of the five core elements of Excellence in Teaching:

Instruction

1. Documentation of successful teaching and learning outcomes, such as in course evaluations and unsolicited letters and emails from students. The student evaluations should generally be at or above 4.0 on the School’s five point scale on  the end-of-semester Student Course Evaluations.
2. Two peer reviews of teaching and its impact, preferably with one peer review by the second year of teaching. (If the peer review does not reflect evidence of excellence, the candidate’s narrative must document professional development related to the areas noted on the evaluation.)
3. Significant record of participation in professional development related to teaching and learning
4. Evidence of innovative and reflective teaching practice as referenced in a coherent teaching philosophy
5. Products of dissemination of ideas related to teaching and learning within the profession or generally through publication, presentation or other means. Peer review supporting the quality of the publications, presentations or other dissemination methods.

Candidates should provide evidence of some of the following supplemental elements of Excellence in Teaching.  The items below should guide faculty as examples of useful ways to document achievement in these areas, but should not be used as a checklist for which every item should be checked.

Mentoring and advising

1. Evidence of a scholarly and reflective approach to mentoring, advising, and/or field liaison
2. Demonstrated impact on accomplishments of students, advisees, and mentees as noted by observations from peers and letters from students
3. Scholarly work associated with mentoring or advising, including presentations and publications, that arise from interactions with students

Contributions to pedagogy

1. Evidence of contribution to, leadership in, or impact upon curriculum development and improvement
2. Evidence of impact (that is, the work has been adopted by others) at the school or campus level or beyond
3. Evidence of the production of effective course and curricular products

Description

In higher education three broad categories of activities have come to be labeled service. These include: university service (committee or other governance activities internal to the school or university related to program development and institutional policy); professional or disciplinary service (committee, editorial, or other work for local, regional, national, or international professional or disciplinary associations); and community service  (activities involving direct relationships with groups external to the academic and professional communities).

The Indiana University School of Social Work is uniquely positioned, as a result of having a mission and philosophy which not only supports but expects its social work and labor studies faculty to be engaged in professional service, to provide leadership to the University. In an era where there is widespread public support for the University to contribute to the well-being of the broader community, the contributions made by the lecturer in the area of service take on added significance in the overall assessment process.

Criteria

Service is not totally quantifiable nor can it be narrowly defined.  Therefore, the following broad guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion to Senior Lecturer. The items below should guide faculty as examples of useful ways to document positive work in service:

Satisfactory Performance

Minimal service expectations include service in at least one of the areas below.

University Service (includes service to campus, school, and educational program)

Evidence that candidate fulfills routine, required, and expected school and program service functions in a satisfactory manner (e.g., active participation in faculty senate, school or educational program committees)

Service to Profession or Discipline

Evidence that candidate fulfills routine, required, and expected service functions associated with the profession or discipline, and does so in a satisfactory manner

Service to the Community

Evidence that the candidate engages in professional or discipline related service in the community, such as training initiatives, pro bono work, or other technical assistance; and does so in a satisfactory manner such as membership in professional organizations or other communities of practice

Description

Teaching is a scholarly function that is vital to this school. The candidate should make a special attempt to identify quantitative and qualitative teaching contributions. The collection of data on teaching as a scholarly endeavor requires considerable attention. The collection of such data should be ongoing. Areas of important information related to teaching include: teaching load; teaching goals; continual professional development, use of exemplary teaching methods, quality of teaching and courses; curriculum development efforts; evidence of student learning; scholarship of teaching and regional or state leadership, departmental, community or university recognition, leadership in educational projects and programs; advising and field liaison activities and mentoring.

In order to document teaching performance, the lecturer should keep detailed records of teaching activities. Those quantitative and qualitative aspects of teaching which the file reflects will serve to distinguish among excellent, satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance levels. Senior Lecturers should therefore regularly update their teaching activities files in order to maintain a complete and current data base. The file, then, can serve as a basis for each Senior Lecturer’s preparation of the annual reports for the Associate Dean and also for the dossier when seeking promotion to Teaching Professor.

Criteria

Since teaching is both a technology and an art, its excellence is not totally quantifiable nor can it be narrowly defined. The following guidelines are provided to assist faculty members in determining their readiness for promotion to teaching professor. Candidates for teaching professor should demonstrate excellence in the activities of teaching, which is signified by excellence in instruction, in mentoring and advising, and in contributions to pedagogy.

Excellent Performance.  Candidates should provide evidence for each of the core elements of Excellence in Teaching:

Standards for Excellence in Advancement to Senior Lecturer:

• Documented student learning
• Distinct teaching philosophy
• Achievement of excellence in a teaching-related domain
• Achievement of excellence in instruction (see below)

Standards for Excellence in Advancement to Teaching Professor:

• Record of publicly disseminated and peer reviewed scholarship in teaching
• Documented student learning
• Distinct teaching philosophy
• Achievement of excellence in a teaching-related domain, sustained over time
• Achievement of excellence in instruction (see below)

Documentation of Student Learning:

• Student learning outcomes (e.g., at course, program levels)
• Student input into teaching (e.g., student evaluations)
• Peer evaluations of teaching

Documentation of Distinct Teaching Philosophy:

• Teaching philosophy statement
• Reflection on input from student learning outcomes, student evaluations, and peer evaluations

Excellent achievement in Instruction and also in at least one of the other domains (course or curricular development, mentoring/advising, service in support of teaching/learning), depending on responsibilities.

The IUSSW P&T Committee will consist of 14 members who have been promoted and/or awarded tenure:

• a. Non-Tenure Track Sub-Committee: 7 Senior Lecturers, Teaching Professors, Clinical Associate Faculty
• b. Tenure Track Sub-Committee: 7 Social Work and/or Labor Studies faculty

The Co-Chairs (one tenure track, one non-tenure track) will be responsible for overseeing and organizing the P&T Committee’s work.  The Co-Chairs will work collaboratively in establishing the committee agenda. The Co-Chairs will be selected from within each sub-committee.

All tenured Social Work and Labor Studies Faculty and all non-tenure track faculty who have been promoted are eligible to be placed on the ballot except for:

• a. Administrators with evaluative functions (Dean, Associate Dean for Academics, Director of Field)
• b. Those already serving out a term on the P&T Committee
• c. Those who plan to retire during the coming academic year
• d. Those approved for a sabbatical in the coming academic year
• e. Those serving as Chair or Secretary of Faculty Senate
• f. Those just recently tenured or promoted in the past year
• g. Those going up for Full Professor in the coming academic year
• h. Those who are completing 4 consecutive years of service

Tenure-track faculty (both Social Work & Labor Studies) will vote to fill any open tenure-track positions.  Non-tenure track faculty will vote to fill any open non-tenure track positions.

The Secretary of Faculty Senate will run the elections as needed, typically at the end of the spring semester or as needed to fill vacancies.

Elected members will serve a two year term.  Members may be reelected for a second consecutive term (for a total of 4 consecutive years).  A faculty member voted onto the committee as a replacement for a member who had to leave the P&T Committee will serve for the remainder of that term.

Tenure-track faculty will vote on tenure track candidates. Non-tenure track faculty will vote on non-tenure track candidates.