I. Key passages of Policy 6-303, regarding criteria and standards [emphasis added]. https://regulations.utah.edu/academics/6-303.php

 

“Each department … shall formulate … a statement of criteria, standards and procedures to be used in ... ("RPT") reviews…. shall address the qualifications of candidates with respect to the areas of (1) teaching, (2) research and other creative activity, and (3) University, professional, and public service. … shall include the rationale for the criteria and standards, and… a description of departmental procedures where University Regulations permit departmental variation…. ” U-Policy 6-303-III-A-2-a

“Criteria.Teaching, research/creative activity, and service shall be assessed … in terms of both the quantity and quality of work achieved. Departmental RPT Statements shall identify means of assessing quantity and quality appropriate to the discipline or profession. Any departmental expectation of accomplishment of or potential for obtaining external funding support (and the rationale for imposing such expectation) shall be described with particularity in the departmental statement.

In carrying out their duties in teaching, research/other creative activity and service, faculty members are expected to demonstrate the ability and willingness to perform as responsible members of the faculty, as defined in the Code of Faculty Rights and Responsibilities (Policy 6-316). Assessments of teaching, research/other creative activity and service may consider the candidate’s conduct as a responsible member of the faculty.” U-Policy 6-303-III-A-2-b

 

“Standards. Insistence upon the highest attainable standards ... is essential …. Departmental RPT Statements … shall emphasize … the achievement and maintenance of academic excellence.

i. Teaching and research/other creative activity. For granting of tenure, it is indispensable that there be a cumulative record demonstrating sustained effectiveness in each of the two areas of teaching and research/other creative activity, and additionally, excellence in a combination of those areas. This set of requirements may be met through articulation and application of departmental standards that require either (i) effectiveness in one area and excellence in the other, or (ii) effectiveness in each area and combined achievements in the two areas that taken overall constitute excellence. Departments shall select, clearly articulate, and apply the selected standards in a manner that is appropriate to the characteristics and standards of the discipline and the intended roles of faculty members within the department [see explanation and examples below]. A department may select standards higher than these minimum requirements if clearly described in the departmental RPT Statement.

For retention during the probationary period, the record for the two areas must demonstrate reasonable potential for meeting the standards established for tenure.

For promotion in rank, the record for the two areas must demonstrate continuing professional growth at a level appropriate to the particular rank. Departmental RPT Statements shall clearly describe the standards applicable for each rank.

ii. University, professional, and public service. Recognition shall be accorded faculty members for the quality and extent of their public service. Demonstration of effective service at a level appropriate to rank is essential for retention, promotion, and tenure. A department may select higher standards if clearly described in the departmental RPT Statement.” U-Policy 6-303-III-A-2-c.

 

II. Guidance on the meaning of terminology—criteria, standards, evidence as distinct but related concepts within Policy 6-303.

 

A. Criteria.    

At the broadest level there are the three universal criteria of (i) Teaching, (ii) Research/Other Creative Activity, and (iii) Service, representing the three broad categories of work performed by tenure-line faculty at a research university. Every departmental RPT statement must include these. In addition, the Statement must provide a description of the department’s selected, discipline-specific sub-criteria within those broad categories. What constitutes teaching expected of a tenure-line faculty member in one discipline might be very different from another discipline. The sub-criteria of types of research/other creative activity can vary greatly across disciplines (e.g., peer-reviewed published descriptions of laboratory experiments, philosophical treatises, oil paintings, or dance choreography). Policy 6-303 does not attempt to elaborate on these sub-criteria, but requires each department to provide the needed description tailored to that department and discipline. The description must be sufficiently detailed to educate “outside” readers who typically will not have an “insider” familiarity with the norms of a department’s discipline—including central administrators and members of the University Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee (UPTAC), who have important roles in RPT proceedings.

 

B. Standards.

For each major criterion category, the Statement must articulate what standard of achievement the department has selected, for each progressive step in the RPT system: mid-probationary Retention, granting of Tenure (and any linked Promotion), and Promotion not linked to tenure. Policy 6-303 establishes universal minimum standards, phrased in very broad terminology. Each department must then articulate the particular standards it has selected. A well-crafted Statement will first quote from the crucial passages of 6-303 to demonstrate recognition of and adherence to the parameters created by 6-303, and then build on that foundation by articulating the choices of more specific standards the department has selected for each criterion (and sub-criterion if appropriate), for each major RPT step.

 

C. Evidence.

6-303 provides that work achievements “shall be assessed… in terms of both the quantity and quality” and “RPT Statements shall identify means of assessing quantity and quality appropriate to the discipline or profession” for each criterion-area. Each decision as to whether a candidate has or has not achieved the specified standard within each criterion area at each major RPT step must be based on evidence, and the evidence must be documented in the candidate’s permanent RPT file. Items of evidence are particular information sources. A description of evidence will typically coincide at least partially with a description of the RPT file contents. Policy 6-303 does not attempt to identify the numerous types of evidence which might be appropriate for a particular discipline. The RPT Statement should describe the particular types of evidence expected for proving attainment of each specified standard (level) as to each criterion (or sub-criterion) for a particular RPT step. For example, evidence of teaching performance would typically include specified outcomes of the various methods of evaluation of teaching—including course evaluations, peer review analyses, teaching awards, etc., with documentation of each included in the RPT file. For research/other creative activity, descriptions would include the qualitative type and quantity of publications, artistic performances, etc.

 

III. Guidance on articulating RPT standards.

 

A. Tenure standards.

For the awarding of tenure (“the University’s most critical personnel decision”), 6-303 sets up parameters—a range of options of standards that will satisfy University requirements, and requires that each department “articulate” in the RPT Statement its selected specific standards from within those parameters. The Policy sets two minimum standards. Statements must articulate and apply a standard of “excellence” (or one synonymous), and a standard of “sustained effectiveness” (or one synonymous). Not expressed, but implicit in 6-303, is a third level—of “not-effective.” As an absolute minimum, departments must articulate and apply a “sustained effectiveness” standard for each/all of the three major criteria-areas, and an “excellence” standard for some combination of the teaching and research/creative activity criteria-areas. The options available that will satisfy those requirements may best be clarified by the use of the following examples.

 

1. Examples:

(a) Excellence in teaching, sustained effectiveness in research/creative activity, and effectiveness (or a higher standard) in service.

 

(b) Excellence in research/creative activity, sustained effectiveness in teaching, and effectiveness (or a higher standard) in service.

 

(c) Excellence in either teaching or research/creative activity, sustained effectiveness in the other, and effectiveness (or a higher standard) in service. (This option, chosen by many departments, allows for some of the department’s candidates to meet the excellence requirement in the area of teaching, and others to do so in the area of research, depending on a particular candidate’s interests and skills and role within the department.)

 

(d) Achievements clearly exceeding sustained effectiveness in each criteria-area of teaching and research—with combined achievements in the two constituting overall excellence, and effectiveness (or a specified higher standard) in service. The 2010 revision of 6-303 added this #d to the available options, based on indications that it would be found by some departments to be most realistic for their circumstances and missions. In order to choose this option, a department must formulate and describe an additional standard-level that is not named or mentioned within 6-303, one which lies between the two standards expressed in 6-303 (i.e., between “sustained effectiveness” and “excellence”).

For example, one department which adopted this #d option developed the hierarchy of (1) effective, (2) “meritorious,” and (3) excellent, and adopted these requirements for tenure: “i) excellent in research and at least effective in teaching and service, or (ii) meritorious in research, teaching, and service, or, (iii) excellent in teaching, and meritorious in research and at least effective in service.”

 

(e) Excellence in both teaching and research, and effectiveness or a specified higher standard in service.

 

2. Higher standards. Note that the final example in the above list of examples reflects the principle stated in 6-303 that a “department may select standards higher than these minimum requirements if clearly described in the departmental RPT Statement.” The URPTSC does advise that a department contemplating a choice of standards higher than those required by 6-303 should be very careful to understand fully the consequences of adopting such higher standards. RPT standards articulated in a departmental RPT Statement are not mere expressions of aspiration. Once finally approved, they become legally enforced requirements—to be applied, consistently and uniformly, in every individual RPT case. They govern the decisions made by every level of decision-maker (department, college, UPTAC, and central administration). In that light, the chosen standards must be realistic. The written standards should reflect requirements that are appropriate and feasible to be actually enforced in all RPT cases. [1]

 

3. Differing and synonymous terminology. Note also that 6-303 does not require a department to use the precise words “effectiveness” and “excellence”—and so a department might choose to adopt different but synonymous terminology for describing the standards. When a department does choose to use the same particular words as are used in 6-303, it is important that the department use the words in a way fully consistent with the meanings those words have within 6-303. And when a department chooses to adopt different words to describe its chosen standards, the Statement must include an explanation as to how those other words compare/relate to the terms used within 6-303. For example, if a department chooses to use a different word to represent a standard that is equivalent to excellence, it is necessary to include a “translation” explanation. If a department adopts a hierarchy of standards with more levels than those contemplated in 6-303, the Statement should include some explanation of how those levels compare with the 6-303 standards.

 

B. Formal Retention Standards.

Although the primary focus of a departmental RPT Statement should be clear articulation of standards for formal reviews for tenure, the Statement must also describe the standards applicable in formal reviews for retention during the probationary period (mid-probationary formal reviews). Policy 6-303 sets the baseline requirements that a candidate’s record as to (i) teaching, and (ii) research/creative activity “must demonstrate reasonable potential for meeting the standards established for tenure,” and demonstration of (iii) “effective service at a level appropriate to rank is essential for retention… .” U-Policy 6-303-III-A-2-c. A well-crafted Statement will include such a baseline passage, and then articulate the departmental-specific standards, guided by the underlying purposes for formal retention reviews, which include “to provide [to candidates] constructive feedback on their academic progress, and to terminate the appointment of those who do not meet the standards of the department and the expectations of the University after their initial appointments.” U-Policy 6-303-III-A-1-a.

 

C. Separate descriptions of Tenure Standards and Promotion Standards.

In departments which ordinarily make initial appointments at the assistant professor rank, it is typical that granting of tenure and promotion to associate professor occur simultaneously, and so it is common for Statements of such departments to articulate identical and often entirely joined standards applicable for the tenure decision and that usually-joined promotion decision (and then the only separate description of standards is for the promotion to full professor).

However, there sometimes arise cases in which the tenure decision and the usually-joined promotion decision do occur separately. Most commonly such cases involve a candidate who was initially appointed at a rank higher than the usual entry-level appointment, but without tenure, and then after a probationary period must be reviewed for tenure.

When such cases arise, there must be guidance in the RPT Statement on the standards RPT decision-makers are to apply in making that separate tenure decision.

The URPTSC has long recommended this phrasing to account for such situations, and many departments have incorporated it into the Statement descriptions of the standards for the tenure decision:

“In the event that a person is hired at or promoted to the rank of associate professor before achieving tenure, the subsequent conferral of tenure requires that the faculty member has provided convincing evidence that he or she will continue to achieve the standards expected of an associate professor and is likely to achieve the standards expected for promotion to the rank of professor. In the event that a person is hired at or promoted to the rank of professor before achieving tenure, the subsequent conferral of tenure requires that the faculty member has provided convincing evidence that he or she will continue to achieve the standards expected of a professor.”