Promotion Guidelines for Awarding Promotion to Research Professor

Scope of Guidelines

These guidelines specify criteria and procedures for the School of Public Service (SPS). They govern the promotion procedures for research faculty. The SPS Guidelines for research faculty promotion are aligned with University Research Faculty Policies and Procedures (Policy 5010) and with University Policy 7000 (Position Definition for Research Faculty). According to Boise State policy 7000 2.2.1E, Research Faculty positions are defined as follows:

A faculty position in which the primary responsibility is research.
A member of the research faculty contributes to the research mission of the university through the development of vigorous research programs involving projects that are of specified duration and operate under the terms of grants and contracts awarded to the university.
Members of the research faculty are not eligible for tenure, may or may not have instructional responsibilities, and may serve on a wide range of academic or governance committees subject to policies of the department or research unit, the college, and the university.
Titles in this category are assistant research professor, associate research professor, research professor, and distinguished research fellow.

Promotion decisions should be clearly tied to research faculty workloads. Research faculty workloads are determined by the research faculty’s supervisor, in consultation with the SPS Dean and SPS Faculty Director/s, who track all SPS faculty workloads for the School. Candidates applying for promotion to Research Professor must demonstrate a record of distinction in research and at least one more area of evaluation in their workload such as teaching, service, or administration, as relevant. Definitions of distinction for each of the substantive categories are defined below and within the category.

I. Scholarly, Creative, and Research Activity

According to University Policy 5010, the position of Research Professor:

is a rank of high distinction for an individual regarded as a national authority in the relevant discipline. A sustained record of regular contributions to the peer-reviewed literature, steady external funding to support a vigorous research program, leadership in program building and group research efforts, participation in professional service at the national level, and (in some disciplines) marketable intellectual property are some easily recognized hallmarks. External letters of evaluation from recognized leaders in the relevant discipline are used to document achievements commensurate with this rank.

In addition to these university-level requirements, SPS encourages research success using an expanded definition of scholarship (see below). SPS includes a community of scholars who use varied modes of inquiry, communication, dissemination, and outreach. Successful candidates for promotion to Research Professor are encouraged to demonstrate substantive achievements under the expanded definition of scholarship. There must also be clear indications that success in research will continue and expand.

An Expanded Definition of Scholarship

SPS considers peer-reviewed research to be the foundational building block of a productive research career. Research Faculty in SPS must therefore be engaged in peer-reviewed research. The School of Public Service also values, encourages, and rewards high-quality public and professional scholarship. The college subscribes to an expanded definition of scholarship based in part on Ernest L. Boyer (1990) ^[1], who articulated the value of both scholarship of discovery (i.e., peer-reviewed research), and engaged scholarship (i.e., public service research). The School also recognizes a third category, that of “professional” scholarship. These three categories of scholarship are defined below.

Categories of Scholarship Defined

Peer-reviewed research is work evaluated by scholars prior to publication. The principal audience of this work consists of academics, students, and policy experts (e.g., civil servants in federal, state, and international agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Products typically include peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, grant proposals, and books (this may include scholarship of teaching and learning; see Appendix 4 for examples).

Public service scholarship is defined as work that has an intended audience outside of academia and includes community-engaged research. The principal audience of this work includes civil servants, elected officials, citizens, NGOs, and other publicly engaged officials. Such scholarship may include work with community organizations, governmental agencies, or private sector organizations to address community problems or deficiencies. Products of public service scholarship may include program or policy evaluations, economic forecasting, interactive dashboards, opinion surveys, new administrative procedures, or provision of technical assistance, among other products. Evaluation of public service scholarship may include impact on the agency and/or community, scope of the project, originality of design and methodology, generalizability of the results, connection to a broader literature and/or theoretical frame, and visibility gained for the researcher, program, and School. It is the candidate’s responsibility to provide documentation to support such assessments.

Professional scholarship is defined as work done that advances an individual’s profession. This typically involves the publication of textbooks (aimed at students), as well as books and book chapters that are not peer-reviewed. Other evidence of professional research may include grant proposals, encyclopedia entries, law review articles, editorial reviews or introductions, conference proceedings, book reviews, and conference presentations.

Across disciplines, there are often differing conventions and norms for different types of publications and scholarly activities. It is incumbent upon the faculty member to articulate why certain forms of scholarship matter, or are counted in particular ways, in their area of study.

Criteria for Assessment in Scholarly, Creative, and Research Activity

The School of Public Service has specific standards for each of the categories of scholarship defined above. For peer-reviewed research, Research Faculty promotion committees will weigh the number of publications, the quality of the venue where the research is published, and/or the impact of the publication on the subfield/field. For public service and professional scholarship, promotion committees will weigh the number and quality of technical reports; and/or the impact on policy-making, administrative practice, and/or the visibility of the work. They will also consider other metrics of social impact (see Appendix 3 for ways to consider and address scholarly, research, and creative impact).

Peer-reviewed scholarship is required by university policy and expected in the School. Public service and professional scholarship are not a university requirement but are also encouraged, valued, and consistent with the mission of the School. Therefore, while public service and professional scholarship can be used as evidence of research productivity, a candidate for promotion to Research Professor cannot be found to be distinguished in research with scholarship in these two categories alone. Each faculty member’s combination of peer-reviewed, public service, and professional scholarship sits at different points on a continuum with no two combinations looking exactly alike.

Research activity also includes internal and external funding, including funded proposals and contracts and unfunded proposals. Promotion committees will weigh the number of proposals, the impact of the project, the amount of the award, the competitiveness of the funding partner, and the connection to the candidate’s scholarly identity. Furthermore, promotion committees will also consider funded proposals that cover the candidate’s salary (either partially or completely), cover salaries of other faculty and professional staff, provide for summer salary for faculty and create research opportunities for students (undergraduate and/or graduate, e.g.: paid internships with a center or institute, GA’s, etc.). While unfunded proposals should be recognized for the time and effort it takes to make a long-term case for funding, funded proposals and contracts are most heavily weighted. Candidates applying for promotion to Research Professor must demonstrate a sustained record of securing extramural grants and contracts since their promotion to Associate Research Professor.

The School recognizes that there is no single model that faculty members follow in pursuit of their professional goals. It is expected that faculty members’ discipline, subfields, career stages, and professional interests will influence their research agenda. SPS Research Faculty will have different scholarly identities, strengths, and interests. It is the responsibility of the Research Faculty member in consultation with their mentoring committee to clearly define their scholarly identity and how it translates through their work, impact, and contribution. If affiliated with an institute or center in the school, candidates applying for promotion to Research Professor must identify how their research activity aligns with and promotes the mission of the institute or center as well as the School and the University.

Candidates applying for promotion to Research Professor can demonstrate a record of distinction in research through a sustained record of:

publications since promotion to Associate Research Professor that includes peer-reviewed publications and may also include public service scholarship/community based research and/or professional scholarship, based on the candidate’s job description and/or workload.
securing extramural grants and/or contracts since their promotion to Associate Research Professor.

Candidates can strengthen their research portfolio through a combination of the following:

Research awards or nominations for a research award.

A pattern of meeting or exceeding expectations for research in annual evaluations.

A pattern of satisfactory assessments for research in Promotion Committee annual evaluations.

Other evidence of research effectiveness

II. Teaching

Research Faculty may have teaching as a part of their workload. If teaching is determined to be part of a Research Faculty’s base workload, then this section should be used by promotion committees to evaluate teaching.

Teaching in SPS is defined as traditional classroom instruction, online instruction, the direction of independent studies (undergraduate and graduate), the supervision of directed readings (undergraduate and graduate), the supervision of internships/field work (undergraduate and graduate), the overseeing/chairing of graduate student theses and dissertations, and serving on dissertation and thesis committees (see Appendix 2). As such, any credit-bearing course (either in a traditional classroom or a non-traditional classroom environment as listed above) constitutes teaching in the SPS, though not all teaching counts towards one’s base workload (see SPS workload policy).

Criteria for Assessment in Teaching

Candidates applying for promotion to Research Professor can demonstrate a record of distinction in teaching through a combination of the following:
A pattern of positive official student evaluations, including quantitative scores and qualitative comments.
A pattern of positive alternative teaching evaluations, including those completed by peers, program leads, and Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) trained staff.
A pattern of meeting or exceeding expectations for teaching in annual evaluations.
A pattern of satisfactory assessments for teaching in Promotion Committee yearly evaluations.
Annual faculty reports indicating efforts to improve teaching effectiveness (e.g., through use of innovative teaching designs, learning activities or technology use).
Evidence of effective and/or innovative classroom and teaching tactics and strategies, including (but not limited to) syllabi, exams, assignments, etc.
Teaching awards or nominations.
Student’s ability to successfully complete a project (e.g., thesis, dissertation, community project) that results in the student graduating or in a community impact.
Other evidence of teaching effectiveness.

Commitment to teaching may be demonstrated through the following:

Flexibility in accepting teaching assignments.
Continuing professional development (e.g., participation in teaching conferences and workshops, development of technology skills pertinent to teaching, etc.).
Academic mentoring (e.g., graduate students, McNair Faculty Mentor, Student Research Program Mentor, etc.).
Self-assessment of teaching or a clearly defined plan to continually improve, through F180 self-assessments or other means.
Willingness to develop new courses and/or to refine existing courses for individual programs, school-wide offerings, and university general education.

III. Service

Research Faculty may have service as a part of their workload. If service is determined to be part of a Research Faculty’s base workload, then this section should be used by promotion committees to evaluate service.

The School of Public Service recognizes three areas of service: professional service to the discipline, institutional service, and public or community service and outreach.

Candidates applying for promotion to Research Professor may demonstrate a record of distinction in service through a record of sustained, effective service and explain in their application for promotion how that service is related to University or School goals (see Appendix 5). Examples of service activities related to the three areas are as follows.

Professional Service to the Discipline includes contributions to discipline-related organizations at the local, regional, national, and international levels. Such activities may include:

Holding office in a professional organization, organizing conferences or sessions, chairing sessions, and membership on a committee, task-force, or board.
Editorial or referee activities undertaken in the context of work done by professional organizations or by other academic institutions (e.g., editing a professional journal; reviewing manuscripts; serving as an external reviewer for promotion, tenure, or scholarship applications).
Serving as a team member on a program review (accreditation or certification).

Institutional Service may include committee, student recruitment, and advising work done on the Program, School, and University levels. Such activities may include:

Serving on Faculty Senate
Serving on the SPS or University Curriculum Committee
Participating in Program Assessment Review
Chairing and/or serving on search committees

Public or Community Service and Outreach may include work that grows out of institutional programs and has the potential for positive effects on the community, the region, or beyond. Public or community service and outreach activities may include:

Community engagement activities that involve the faculty member in partnerships with the community (e.g., jointly developed, financed, and administered projects that address issues of mutual concern and contribute to regional growth and development).
Consulting work or technical advice (paid or unpaid) that benefits the community, University, School, and/or the discipline.
Community outreach and service (e.g., discipline-related work in public education or awareness; referee work for community museums, galleries, publications, or competitions; discipline-related work with local schools; serving on local task forces or boards).
Media contributions and public communication that involve the candidate in sharing their expertise with reporters from television, podcasts, blogs, newspapers, radio, and other media outlets who use that information to educate their respective communities about public and civic issues.

IV. Administration

Candidates for promotion to Research Professor may also serve in leadership positions within the School or University, depending on their workload agreements. Occupying administrative positions, such as those listed below, though not required for promotion to professor, should be taken into account in the promotion application if it is part of workload.

In SPS, administration includes leadership positions such as faculty directors, program lead, research director, program coordinators/directors, center and institute directors, director of survey research, and so on. Administration may also include leadership positions outside of SPS. This administrative category is separate from other service activities to align with SPS processes, including workload formation, goal setting, and evaluation activities.

Candidates applying for promotion to Research Professor may demonstrate a record of distinction in administration by outlining their administration responsibilities, providing supervisor evaluations of their administrative work, and identifying the ways they have promoted the mission of the school and the university. Such administrative work may include:

Managing a budget
Managing faculty, staff, and/or student workers

V. Procedure and Process for Promotion

Composition of the Mentoring Committee and Role

Each Associate Research Professor will be assigned a mentoring committee by their supervisor in consultation with the SPS Faculty Director(s) based on disciplinary or area expertise and program affiliations. The mentoring committee for all research faculty will consist of three SPS faculty members who are tenured Full Professor or Research Professor. If a faculty member’s work suggests a non-SPS mentor would be of value, a fourth non-voting member may be added to the committee.

The mentoring committee will fulfill two tasks. First, the committee will monitor the faculty member’s progress and provide advice and encouragement toward promotion. There are a variety of activities that the mentoring committee could engage in, including but not limited to:

Mentoring on how to identify and apply for external funding from different sources, in line with the position description
Guidance on how to communicate the contribution and impact of their scholarly activity, and how to develop a medium- and long-range plan for developing a research portfolio
Making introductions to potential research partners and collaborators across campus or external to the university
Mentoring on how to conduct peer reviewed scholarship, public scholarship, and professional scholarship
Sharing expertise on how to work with community partners and to manage partnerships
Feedback on strategies for journal targeting and placement
Providing guidance on how to write promotion letters highlighting SPS and university policy
If teaching, service, or administration is part of the faculty member’s workload, the mentoring committee may also provide guidance in those areas.

Second, the mentoring committee will provide formal Progress Toward Promotion (PTP) reviews of the faculty member’s progress toward promotion. The faculty member should meet with their committee for two review sessions before going up for promotion. The mentoring and evaluation functions will both happen during mentoring meetings and through the mechanism of the PTP review itself, which includes feedback from full professors (with research in their workload) in the School, as noted in the Procedure section below.

Review Materials

Faculty being reviewed will keep their electronic profile up to date (see below)—the system will be used to provide the mentoring committee with materials demonstrating the following (when applicable): scholarly/creative/research activities, teaching effectiveness and professional commitment to teaching (including teaching evaluations), service activities, or administrative responsibilities.

Promotion-eligible faculty have been assigned Mentoring Committee folders in Google Drive; these folders can be accessed by the faculty member, Mentoring Committee members, Faculty Director(s), and/or Supervisor. In general, the requested materials align with what the candidate will submit for promotion so as to create efficiencies and to save time. These folders should include the following, organized by sub-folder, and as PDFs:

CV and position description (see Boise State policy 5010, 2.8.4).
A 3-4 page cover letter, double-spaced, that details the faculty member’s scholarly profile, including their research philosophies and how their work contributes to their Center or Institute (if relevant), the research community, as well as one other area of evaluation of the candidate’s choice (teaching, service, or administration). Cover letters can be updated or removed at the discretion of the promotion-eligible faculty member.
Yearly evaluations from Supervisor(s) that include feedback based on workload assignments.
Previous Mentoring Committee letters, particularly letters written after promotion to associate research professor
Faculty 180 self-evaluations
Research publications should be organized into sub-folders marked “peer-reviewed scholarship,” “professional scholarship,” and “public service scholarship.”
Summary list of competitive funding proposals, including title of award, funding body, award amount, award status, year of award, and role in the project. Appendix 1 provides guidance for how this information may be formatted.
Student course evaluations if teaching is a part of workload. Appendix 2 addresses formatting of evaluations.
Additional evidence of research productivity, teaching effectiveness, evidence of participation in service activities, and evidence of administrative responsibilities and accomplishments, if relevant. All documents may be kept in Google Drive from year to year, and updated as necessary.
Two internal letters of support from Boise State colleagues (tenured professors or research professors) and two letters of support from external reviewers (tenured professors or research professors). See VI. Timeline for Promotion to Research Professor below.

Mentoring Committee Letters

Progress Toward Promotion (PTP) reviews shall be both summative and formative in nature, and will review the faculty member’s accomplishments and future plans in relation to Boise State University Policy 5010 and 7000, SPS’s Promotion to Research Professor Faculty, and the faculty member’s individualized workload as guided by the electronic system for annual reviews.

The committee will prepare a substantive, thorough, and detailed assessment of progress toward promotion, including formative and summative assessments and feedback from other SPS full professors. This will be submitted to the faculty member, with a copy forwarded to the Faculty Director(s) and/or supervisor for inclusion in the faculty member’s personnel file.

The Faculty Director(s) or supervisor will review this assessment and the faculty member’s submitted materials, and provide feedback in writing before forwarding the materials to the Dean’s Office. The faculty member may attach a written response to this assessment, which shall also be placed in the personnel file if desired.

Mentoring Committee Chairs (assigned by the Faculty Directors) should place all Mentoring Committee letters in the Drive so that they are easily accessed by the Faculty Director(s), the promotion-eligible faculty member, and Mentoring Committee members. If weaknesses in the candidate’s profile are identified by the mentoring committee, then the committee will work with the candidate’s supervisor to assist the faculty member with developing and implementing a plan of improvement. The Faculty Director(s) are responsible for forwarding a copy of the PTP review (and any faculty member response) to the Dean’s office.

Procedure

Associate research professors need not meet yearly with their Mentoring Committee. They are in charge of communicating with the Faculty Director(s) regarding when they would like to begin Mentoring Committee meetings and how frequently they would like to meet (yearly, every other year, just twice before coming up for promotion, etc.). It is expected that candidates for promotion will have met at least twice with their Mentoring Committee before coming up for promotion, including one meeting that happens the year before the application for promotion is submitted. For those years, the following timeline applies:

Fall Semester: Mentoring Committee has informal mentoring meeting with faculty member.

Spring Semester: Sequential steps are taken to populate the faculty member’s Google Drive folder and complete relevant evaluative steps as outlined here:

Faculty member populates Google Drive with review materials.
Mentoring Committee reviews materials and drafts PTP
Mentoring Committee chair electronically circulates the faculty member’s 1) CV, 2) Cover letter, and 3) the draft Mentoring Committee PTP review to all full professors who have research in their workload in SPS.
Full professors meet and discuss the PTP review during the annual T&P review meeting. If this meeting is the final meeting to be held before the school-wide promotion review, then a vote of all full professors will occur.
Mentoring Committee incorporates feedback from full professors , including results from the vote (when relevant) and drafts final PTP.
Mentoring Committee meets with faculty member to review the PTP.
Mentoring Committee submits final PTP review to Faculty Director(s).
Faculty Director or Supervisor writes brief responses to Mentoring Committee PTP. The PTP review and Faculty Director response are then forwarded to the Dean’s office, which will manage the School-level promotion review process.

VI. Timeline for Promotion to Research Professor

The following guidelines are drawn from University Policy 5010 and SPS promotion procedures. As per University policy 5010, for promotion to Research Professor, eight years of full-time experience as a research faculty is required.

Years of service from a previous institution may be accepted by the SPS Dean at the time of appointment; a maximum of two years of professional (nonacademic) experience may also be substituted for a maximum of two years of the required total years of experience.

Promotion folder. Candidates for promotion will submit all the relevant materials to the electronic system (RPT). The Provost’s office also sends out guidance regarding timelines and process to all candidates applying for promotion.

Promotion committee. The SPS Promotion Committee for Research Faculty is composed of the existing Tenure and Promotion Committee for SPS, plus one Research Faculty of at least Associate Research Faculty rank from SPS, if possible. This Research Faculty member is a voting member on all Research Faculty promotion cases.

Timeline:

Spring before promotion:

By April 1, candidate informs SPS Faculty Director(s)/supervisor of plans to come up for promotion.
April-May. Faculty Director(s) reach out to the candidate and mentoring committee asking each to provide 2 names of research professors or tenured full professors (or equivalent) as possible external reviewers and two names of Boise State colleagues (tenured professors or research professors) as internal reviewers. Faculty Directors then select 2 external and 2 internal unbiased and highly qualified reviewers from the submitted lists, one external and internal reviewer from the mentoring committee list and one external and internal reviewer from the candidate’s list. Reviewers will receive 1) the candidate’s CV with links to publications, 2) the School’s Promotion policy for Research Faculty, and 3) a letter from the candidate explaining their scholarly identity and impact and contributions in other workload area/s. The letters are due at the start of the upcoming fall semester.

Fall of promotion:

By September 15: Candidate submits promotion folder to the electronic system (RPT). Mentoring committees get access to materials through RPT.
By October 1: Mentoring committees meet to discuss candidates, draft their letter, and meet with relevant faculty to discuss draft letters and get feedback. The mentoring committee votes on the application for promotion and submits their letter to the RPT system.
By October 15: Faculty Directors will consult with relevant program leads, Center or Institute Directors, or others familiar with the research faculty’s work while conducting their own review. FD submits their final letters to the RPT system.
Between October 16 and December 1: SPS P&T Committee meets to discuss candidates, makes decisions, and drafts letter.
By December 1: SPS P&T Committee finalizes decision and submits its recommendation to the candidate’s case in the electronic system, and the candidate shall be notified of the recommendation.
Between December 1 & December 15: Candidates may appeal the decision within 5 working days of the notification.
By December 15: The SPS P&T committee shall move the candidate’s case forward to the Dean.
By January 15: the Dean shall submit their recommendation to the candidate’s case in the electronic system, and the candidate shall be notified of the recommendation.
Between January 15 & 31: Candidates may appeal the decision within 5 working days of the notification.
By January 31: the Dean shall move the candidate’s case forward in the electronic system to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.
By March 1: the President shall notify each candidate of their decision. Candidates may appeal the decision within 5 working days of the notification.

Appendix 1: Funded Research

Appendix 2: Teaching Activities*

Below is the format template for presenting teaching evaluation quantitative results. A copy of this excel template will be placed in promotion eligible faculty member’s Google Drive folder.

Appendix 3: Ways to Demonstrate and Communicate the Impact of Peer-Reviewed Scholarship, Public Service Scholarship, and/or Professional Scholarship*

Cite impact or influence of the candidate’s scholarly work within their own disciplinary field through journal ranking, impact scores, and other metrics.
Ability to capture awarded grants and contracts whether via internal or external funding.
Show impact on advancing knowledge, new methodologies or significant changes to existing methods, public benefits of the research, and communication with and validation by peers (e.g., peer-reviewed articles).
Show public scholar identity through a substantial profile of media coverage in areas of expertise.
Document research and community engagement awards from academic, professional, government agency, and non-academic community.
Demonstrate candidate’s efforts have been sustained and transformative for a professional association, government agency, or non-academic community.
Evaluate one’s own public service research to include potential or actual impact on policies and practices.
Provide quantitative evidence (e.g., increased production or widespread adoption of a product or technique) and/or qualitative evidence (e.g., reviews by knowledgeable scholars/critics and expressions of benefit or value by stakeholders and community partners).
Describe evidence of candidate’s impact and/or contribution on clients, partners, or other collaborators (e.g., local or regional adoption of work, recommended best practices).
Demonstrate impact of work that helped create new businesses, jobs, promotions, or leadership opportunities.
Connect to teaching effectiveness in formats and settings outside the classroom, including the impact of learning on practice, application, and policy.
Connect to service effectiveness in formats and settings outside the classroom.
Describe mutually beneficial community-university partnerships that address critical community needs.
Document one’s contributions to large scale projects and grand challenges.
Explain how interdisciplinary approaches helped address societal problems and challenges.

*This list is illustrative but not exhaustive. It is adapted from the University of Georgia’s Guidelines for Appointment and Promotion for Public Service and Outreach Faculty and from Boise State’s Human-Environmental Systems T&P Guidelines.

Appendix 4: Scholarly, Creative, and Research Activities*

Appendix 5: Service Activities*