Guidelines for Awarding Promotion to Professor

Guidelines for Awarding Promotion to Professor and Mentoring Guidelines for Associate Professors

Date Approved: 12/01/21 (originally approved May 22, 2017)

Scope of Guidelines

These guidelines specify criteria and procedures for the School of Public Service and apply to all faculty whose appointment is in the School of Public Service. They govern the awarding of promotion to Full Professor.

The SPS Guidelines for Promotion to Full Professor are in accordance with University Policy on Faculty Tenure and Promotion Guidelines (#4340). Policy #4340 describes the eligibility requirements for promotion in section 4.2.3. In addition, according to Boise State policy (BSU 4340, I(c)), “When a faculty member seeks tenure and promotion, his/her record should be viewed in light of the workload policies developed by his/her department, college, and the university. The specific role that the individual has negotiated and/or been assigned within the department, college, and university must be considered in the decision to award tenure and/or promotion.”

As such, promotion to Full Professor is tied to both workload and annual evaluations. While successful candidates for promotion meet standards set forth in teaching, research, service, and, when relevant, administration, the relative percentage of time devoted to each criterion is based on a faculty member’s agreed-upon workload in these areas.

Criteria for promotion to the rank of professor include all of the criteria for tenure and promotion to associate professor, but go beyond that to demonstrate distinction and recognition. According to university policy #4340,

The rank of professor represents the highest academic achievement and should be reserved for individuals who are truly and demonstrably outstanding among their peers. Thus, a candidate for professor is expected to have achieved additional distinction clearly above that of an associate professor, including clear national and international recognition for their work. Evidence supporting this distinction might include letters of support, national and international journal publications and conference proceedings, and/or academic and professional awards and recognitions (section 4.2.3).

Granting tenure and promotion to associate and promotion to full professor implies a commitment by the institution to defend the academic member’s intellectual endeavors. Likewise, the faculty member who is awarded tenure and promotion or promotion to full professor makes an equally strong commitment to serve the students, the profession, and the institution in a manner befitting an academician.

Further guidance on how the School of Public Service evaluates teaching, research, service, and administration is provided below.

I. Teaching

Teaching in the School of Public Service 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 1). As such, any credit-bearing course (either in a traditional classroom or a non-traditional classroom environment as listed above) constitutes teaching in the School of Public Service, though not all teaching counts towards one’s base workload (see SPS workload policy).

Criteria for Satisfactory Assessment in Teaching
Specific expectations for teaching in the School of Public Service pertain to teaching effectiveness and commitment to teaching. Candidates for promotion to full professor may show evidence of teaching effectiveness and commitment to teaching in the ways indicated below.

Teaching effectiveness may be demonstrated through 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 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.
Evidence that students/advisees have successfully completed a project (e.g. theses, 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.
Willingness to develop new courses and/or to refine existing courses for individual programs, school-wide offerings, and university general education.

II. Scholarly, Creative, and Research Activity

The School of Public Service includes a community of scholars who use varied modes of inquiry, communication, dissemination, and outreach. Successful candidates for promotion to full professor must demonstrate substantive achievements under this expanded definition of scholarship, and there must be clear indications that success in research will continue and expand.

An Expanded Definition of Scholarship
The School of Public Service considers peer-reviewed research to be the foundational building block of a productive research career. When faculty members become recognizable experts, relevant public agencies are more likely to seek them out to help understand and solve pressing social problems. Peer-reviewed research may also lead to, or be supported by, grants and contracts and can augment teaching and advising activities. As such, high-quality peer-reviewed research and high-quality public scholarship are often mutually reinforcing.

Thus, the School of Public Service subscribes to an expanded definition of Boyer scholarship based in part on Ernest L. Boyer’s (1990) work, which articulates 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 or grant funding. The principal audience of this work consists of academics and policy experts (e.g., high ranking 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 3 for examples of the types of scholarship described in this section).

Public service scholarship is defined as work that has an intended audience outside of academia. 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 or governmental agencies to address community problems or deficiencies. Products of public service scholarship may include program or policy evaluations, opinion surveys, new administrative procedures, grant or contract proposals, or provision of technical assistance. 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 his or her area of study.

Criteria for Satisfactory 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, promotion committees may 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 may weigh the number and quality of publications submitted to agencies; and/or the impact on policy-making, administrative practice, and/or the visibility of the work; or other metrics of social impact (see Appendix 2 for ways to consider and address scholarly, research, and creative impact).

Research activity also includes internal and external funding, including funded and unfunded proposals and contracts. Promotion committees may weigh the number of proposals, the impact of the project, the competitiveness of the funding partner, and the connection to the candidate’s scholarly identity. While unfunded proposals and contracts should be recognized for the time and effort it takes to make a long-term case for funding, funded proposals and contracts are more highly weighted.

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. Peer-reviewed scholarship is required by university policy and expected in the School, and according to university policy, candidates for promotion to full professor must demonstrate that they have 1) clearly achieved distinction beyond that of the associate professor rank, and 2) established national and international recognition for their work. 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 full professor cannot meet expectations 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. SPS tenure-line faculty will have different scholarly identities, strengths, and interests. It is assumed that candidates at the associate professor level already have practice communicating their scholarly identity and the impact of their work. As such, Mentoring Committees serve to guide associate professors in clearly articulating how they have achieved distinction meriting promotion to full professor, and in building and communicating their national and international reputations. Candidates should pay attention to Mentoring Committee feedback and annual performance reviews to indicate progress towards promotion, including what changes should be made, if any.

III. Service

In accordance with University policy on faculty tenure and promotion (BSU 4340), the School of Public Service recognizes three areas of service: professional service to the discipline, institutional service, and public or community outreach.

Criteria for Satisfactory Assessment in Service

Candidates must demonstrate a record of sustained, effective service and explain in their promotion portfolios how that service is related to University or School goals (see Appendix 4). 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 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 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 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 (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

Faculty at the associate professor level may make contributions to the School and the University by taking on administrative positions. These positions are clearly outlined in the School of Public Service Academic Leadership Position Descriptions. While administrative service is not required for promotion to full professor, if a candidate has engaged in administrative work as part of their workload, this work should be considered and evaluated as part of their promotion packet.

Criteria for Satisfactory Assessment in Administration
Candidates can demonstrate a record of administrative leadership and explain in their promotion portfolios how that service is related to University or School goals. In particular, candidates should draw closely from the position descriptions outlined in the Academic Leadership Position Descriptions to enumerate their responsibilities and contributions in this area. Candidates may also consider including letters of support and/or other evidence of excellence and success in administrative leadership.

Mentoring Committee Guidelines for Promotion

Overview
The School of Public Service has adopted a Mentoring Committee model for the promotion of tenured associate faculty to the rank of full professor. This model was adopted because the School is organized around program and thematic areas, rather than departments, and increasingly faculty are working across programs, or are interdisciplinary scholars. The Mentoring Committee aims to balance support of tenured associate faculty with rigorous analysis of their work. It also seeks a balance of input from a small group of invested senior faculty who serve as mentors, with broader feedback from all full professors in the School.

These mentoring guidelines are in accordance with the University Policy on Faculty Tenure and Promotion Guidelines (#4340): https://www.boisestate.edu/policy/academic-affairs-faculty-administration/policy-title-faculty-promotion-guidelines/. Please note that this set of guidelines and procedures is distinct from the State Board of Education-mandated annual review process.

According to policy #4340 (4.2.3),

Criteria for promotion to the rank of professor include all of the criteria for tenure and promotion to associate professor, as well as five (5) full years of service as Associate Professor at an accredited institution of higher learning. (Note that promotion to professor is not assumed to be automatic after any time period.) A faculty member may apply for promotion no earlier than during their third full year of employment at Boise State University, except under extraordinary circumstances.

A detailed timeline of the Mentoring Committee review process, including information about the external review process, can be found below.

Composition of the Mentoring Committee and Role
The Faculty Director(s) oversee the School-wide tenure-line faculty mentoring program, form the Mentoring Committees, and identify Mentoring Committee Chairs. The Faculty Director(s) will consider factors such as disciplinary or area expertise, program affiliations, service loads, program lead input, and mentee input. Mentoring Committees consist of two full professors in or affiliated with (when possible) the faculty member’s program(s), and a third full professor from another program in SPS. Mentoring Committees will consist only of SPS faculty. 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. Replacement or substitute mentor appointments are also governed by the same process, and promotion-eligible faculty will be notified of these changes at the start of the academic year when possible.

A Program Lead, Mentoring Committee member, or the faculty member may request changes to a faculty member’s Mentoring Committee by contacting the Faculty Director(s). A Faculty Director, who must not already serve on the committee, will approve or deny the request. Changes will be made in the best interests of the faculty member and based on conversations among all relevant parties. If prevented from making a desired change to the committee, a faculty member has the right to send a written appeal detailing the issue to the Associate Dean.

The Mentoring Committee will fulfill two tasks: First, the committee will provide advice and encouragement toward promotion. There are a variety of activities that the Mentoring Committee could engage in, including but not limited to:

Planned, informal visits to each other’s classrooms
Mentoring on how to apply for external funding
Making introductions to potential research partners and collaborators across campus or external to the university
Mentoring on how to conduct public service scholarship or how to make public service connections (e.g., inviting to a community stakeholder meeting)
Mentoring the faculty member on how to identify and communicate a scholarly identity, especially to national and international audiences
Advising the faculty member on how to demonstrate the impact of their work (e.g., see Appendix 2)
Providing ideas about how to strengthen disciplinary connections or participate in activities that shape a field or subfield
Troubleshooting issues around research, teaching, and service
Sharing experiences for improving teaching pedagogy and practice
Feedback on strategies for increasing the impact of one’s research, teaching, or service
How to position one’s administrative accomplishments as part of the promotion file

Second, the mentoring committee will provide formal Progress Toward Promotion (PTP) reviews of the faculty member’s progress toward promotion; such reviews can begin as soon as the faculty member’s second year at the associate level, but need not begin until requested by the faculty member. They need not occur every year, but the faculty member should meet with their committee for two review sessions before going up for promotion. The mentoring and evaluation functions both will happen during mentoring meetings and through the mechanism of the PTP review itself, which includes feedback from full professors in the School, as noted in the Procedure section below.

Review Materials
Faculty being reviewed will update their electronic profile prior to their Mentoring Committee meetings—the system will be used to provide the Mentoring Committee with materials demonstrating teaching effectiveness and professional commitment to teaching (including teaching evaluations), scholarly/creative /research activities, service activities, and (when applicable) administrative responsibilities.

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

CV
A 3-4 page cover letter, double-spaced, that details the faculty member’s scholarly profile, including their research and teaching philosophies and how their works contribute to academia and public service. Cover letters can be updated or removed at the discretion of the faculty member.
Yearly evaluations from Faculty Director(s)
Mentoring Committee evaluation letters written after promotion to associate professor
Faculty 180 self-evaluations
Student course evaluations. Appendix 3 addresses formatting of evaluations.
Publications. These should be organized into sub-folders marked “peer-reviewed scholarship,” “professional scholarship,” and “public service scholarship.”
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.

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, when appropriate, in relation to Boise State University Policy 4340, the School of Public Service’s Promotion & Tenure Guidelines, 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) for inclusion in the faculty member’s personnel file.

An annotated sample evaluation letter can be found in Appendix 7.

The Faculty Director(s) 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. If a Faculty Director is a member of a faculty member’s mentoring committee, the Faculty Director will excuse themselves from this step and the other Director(s) will perform the review. If only one person fulfills the Faculty Director position, that person should not sit on any mentoring committees. 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 should place all Mentoring Committee letters in the Drive so that they are easily accessed by Faculty Director(s), the promotion-eligible faculty member, and Mentoring Committee members.

If weakness in the candidate’s teaching, scholarly/creative/research activities, service, or administrative duties are identified by the Mentoring Committee, the Faculty Director(s) shall 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 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.
Full professors meet and discuss the PTP review during the program’s 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(s) write 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.

SPS Dean’s Office Role in Mentoring
The Dean and Associate Dean will meet semi-regularly with promotion-eligible faculty as part of the SPS mentoring program. These meetings may be question-answer sessions, relevant workshop sessions, and/or SPS mission and vision sessions.

SPS-level T&P Committee
The Dean’s office manages the School-level promotion review process. They appoint the school-wide committee from a list of recommendations that the Faculty Director(s) provide. The committee is composed of tenured and tenure-eligible faculty. At least 1/3 of the committee must serve for a period of two consecutive years to ensure and maintain a sense of continuity within the committee. Once the committee is chosen, the Dean’s Office will convene relevant meetings and provide the charge and directive for the review process. The committee then reviews the promotion-eligible candidate’s materials and makes a recommendation to the Dean’s office.

Appendix 1: Teaching Activities*

University Level	School Level	Program Level	Experiential
Foundational studies	SPS undergraduate core	Courses in program appointments	Skills learning workshops and courses
Venture college	SPS graduate methods sequence	Interdisciplinary teaching	Service learning
Guest lectures at Boise State (e.g., Osher Institute)	Guest lectures	Guest lectures	Capstones with community partners and projects
Guest lectures at other universities or colleges		Content and skills workshops	Study abroad
		PhD dissertation and thesis advising	Field schools
		Master’s thesis/final project advising
		Independent studies
* Illustrative but not exhaustive

Appendix 2: 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 his/her 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
Demonstrate impact of faculty member’s efforts to promote equity, inclusion, and diversity.
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 3: Scholarly, Creative, and Research Activities*

Peer-Reviewed Research	Public Service Scholarship	Professional Scholarship
Journal articles (e.g. field, discipline, pedagogy)	White papers, policy briefs, issue memos, technical reports	Journal articles, not peerreviewed (e.g. field, discipline, pedagogy)
Books	Books (i.e., trade books or books for popular audience)	Books, not peer-reviewed
Book chapters	Book chapters	Book chapters, not peerreviewed
Edited books	Edited books	Edited books, not peerreviewed
External funding: Funded or unfunded grants or contract proposals (e.g., NSF, DARPA, NEA, NIJ)	External funding: Funded or unfunded grant or contract proposal (e.g. city, state, federal, international contracts)	External funding: Funded or unfunded grant or contract proposals (e.g., professional organization grants)
Academic conference presentations
	Academic or professional conference proceedings	Academic or professional conference proceedings
	Local, regional, state, national, or international conferences on public issues	Book reviews
	Online articles	Encyclopedia entries
	Surveys/polls
	Program or policy evaluations
	Technical assistance, instruction, or training, Consulting
*Illustrative but not exhaustive; This typology can be fluid and work could exist across multiple forms (e.g., technical report on a program evaluation can subsequently be presented at an academic conference and later be published in a peer-reviewed journal).

Appendix 4: Service Activities*

Professional Service to the Discipline	Institutional Service: University	Institutional Service: School	Institutional Service: Program	Public or Community Outreach
Article/book reviews	Foundational Studies	SPS Research committee	Assessment and/or accreditation	Media events and coverage
Conference discussant/ moderator/ panel organizer	Faculty Senate and related sub-committees	SPS core evaluation committees	Curriculum development	Advisory boards and commissions
Search committees	Search committees	Search committees	Search committees	Selection and/or search committees
Team member of a program review (accreditation or certification)	Internal Review Board	SPS Curriculum Committee	Internship	Blog posts
Student recruitment	Student recruitment	Student recruitment	Student recruitment	Student recruitment
Journal editor	University Curriculum Committee	Mentoring committees	Undergraduate student advising	Expert testimony
External reviewer for tenure and promotion			Graduate student advising	Guest lectures or invited talks/ panels
Interests groups			Concurrent enrollment	Osher Institute teaching
*Illustrative but not exhaustive

Appendix 5: Ways to Demonstrate and Communicate the Impact of Peer-Reviewed Scholarship, Professional Scholarship, and/or Public Service Scholarship

Cite impact or influence of the candidate’s scholarly work within his/her own disciplinary field through journal ranking, impact scores, and other metrics.

Ability to capture awarded grants and contracts whether its internal or external funding partners.
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 applied 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 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 innovation on clients, partners, or other end users (e.g., local or regional adoption of work or 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
Demonstrate impact of faculty member’s efforts to promote equity, inclusion, and diversity.

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 not exhaustive. It is adapted from the University of Georgia’s Guidelines for Appointment and Promotion for Public Service and Outreach Faculty (http://outreach.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017-Promotions-Guidelines.pdf) and from Boise State’s Human-Environmental Systems Tenure & Promotion Guidelines.

Appendix 6: Teaching Evaluation Formatting

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