Below is the "Criteria for Promotion & Tenure” at the University of Michigan iSchool (which consists of a multidisciplinary faculty). These promotion and tenure guidelines, like the guidelines of most universities, address the broader issues that must be considered in the tenure and promotion process. Quantitative-based criteria are far too simplistic to be the basis for the incredibly important task of making judgments on the qualifications of scholars at various levels in their academic careers.
School Of Information
University of Michigan
Criteria for Promotion and Tenure
Adopted by the School on June 7,
1999 (modeled after an earlier
version that was originally adopted on October 22, 1970, and revised on April
12, 1973, March 15, 1979, and February 16,
1984; Revised December
21, 2011).
The faculty of the School of Information at the University of Michigan seeks to be a community of scholars in
which the use of creative
intelligence is rewarded. In making decisions on the retention and advancement of members of this community, the major
criteria are excellence in research, teaching, and service. The usual expectation is that achievement in these areas is sustained throughout
the period of time under review, but
special consideration can be given to unusual accomplishments with high impact.
In each of these areas the candidate
is asked to provide a summary of
his/her goals, accomplishments, and most significant contributions.
In addition, input on all areas is requested from faculty colleagues, students, administrators, and
external reviewers.
I.
Research and Publication
The University of Michigan is a
research institution, and research that results in peer-reviewed publication is
essential for consideration for promotion
and tenure. In evaluating a faculty member’s
research efforts and the resulting
publications, careful attention is
given to the quality of the work and the relationship to the School’s goals and
objectives. Evidence of an integrated
program of work leading to a
significant impact on the field is
particularly important. Such judgments
are made on the basis of the work
itself and evidence of its originality and significance as assessed through
internal and external evaluations.
The quality of this research is
evidenced by articles in refereed publications of established quality, books
and chapters that receive sufficient critical acclaim, graphic and aural media
of recognized significance, software or other technical accomplishments
judged by peers as original and intellectually important, grants from agencies
that employ peer review, and invited
presentations at major professional meetings.
Membership on editorial boards
of major journals, participation in
the peer review process at federal funding agencies, major prizes or awards for research accomplishments, and attainment of office in research societies
constitute collateral evidence of excellence in research. A significant element of the evaluation is letters from external reviewers at peer
institutions, and others who are recognized authorities in the area of
research.
The School of Information intends to support collaborative
research by its faculty. Such research often results in co-authored papers and
grants with multiple PIs. Evidence will be sought from collaborators and from external reviewers that the faculty member
has been a major contributor to the
collaboration.
Promotion
from Assistant to Associate Professor
requires the establishment of a
national reputation in research, while promotion
from Associate Professor to Professor requires achieving
national and international prominence.
In other words, to be promoted
to Associate Professor one needs to achieve a substantial reputation, whereas
to be promoted to Professor one needs
to achieve leadership in one’s field.
II. Teaching
A faculty member’s contribution
to teaching at the School of Information
is necessary for promotion and
tenure. Teaching refers to the broad
spectrum of activities that involve
working with students, including formal
classroom teaching, advising students, mentoring
doctoral students, the development of
courses, curricular planning, instructional innovation, and academic outreach.
Teaching effectiveness will be measured in a variety of ways. Formal instruction will be assessed through
formal course evaluations, classroom visits by colleagues, and invited commentaries from past and present
students. Advising and mentoring effectiveness will be assessed through evidence of the number of students, their progress, and
invited commentaries. Course development, curriculum planning, and instructional innovation is demonstrated through course materials and related documentation.
Teaching awards or other comparable
recognition would also be important. Feedback on teaching effectiveness will also
be sought through internal and external peer review.
III. Service
Service to the School, the
University, and to one’s profession, as well as relevant service to society,
are important in assessing the
overall contribution of the faculty member.
Service contributes to the School’s development, the enhancement
of the University, the furtherance of one’s profession, and the University’s impact on society.
The quality of one’s service is especially important, but there are different expectations at varying points in
one’s career. In general, an Assistant
Professor is expected to serve on important
School committees, whereas an
Associate Professor is expected to lead such School committees, serve on University committees,
and assume significant
responsibilities in one’s profession.
Professors are expected to attain leadership positions in most of these areas.
The quality of service can be
assessed through accomplishments of bodies in which one has served, commentaries from associates or chairs of committees,
letters that document significant
appointments or accomplishments,
awards for service accomplishments, and comments by internal and external evaluators.
IV. Expression
of Views
A faculty member’s expressions of
criticism internal to the school or
university, or public expression of personal views on any matter, are not appropriate considerations
in the tenure review.