Policy on Faculty Rank & Status*

Although a faculty member may participate in only a portion of the following and other citizenship activities, evaluation of citizenship should consider the following evidence: D. Participation in activities that strengthen the university.

4. Active participation in the intellectual life of the department, School, and university.
5. Willing participation in citizenship, leadership, and governance activities in the department, School, and the university.
6. Collaboration with colleagues.
7. Mentoring colleagues.
8. Service to the profession, including holding offices and committee assignments in professional associations, organizing professional meetings and panels, editing journals and newsletters, serving on editorial boards, and serving as a referee of scholarship. Such service may include, but should extend beyond, strictly local and regional venues over a faculty member’s career.
9. Employment of professional expertise in service to the community or the Church.
10. Attendance at department and School meetings, devotionals, forums, convocations, etc.
11. Collaborative participation in international and service learning activities and other activities that enhance BYU’s approved outreach efforts.

Review Letters of Citizenship Activities
The Chairs and department review committee may solicit letters evaluating a faculty member's citizenship activities from those who have closely observed these activities. Such letters should address the quality, quantity, and significance of the service.

Return to Top

Teaching

The Teaching Standard
High quality education of students is, and should be, the most important activity of Brigham Young University faculty. Good university teachers are themselves eager learners who imbue their teaching with the excitement of learning. They care about their students. They are enthusiastic about sharing their knowledge with students and helping them learn. They have high standards, set clear expectations, and hold students to high levels of academic performance. They are well prepared and well organized, and they make good use of class time. They prepare well designed syllabi, course materials, assignments, and examinations. They provide helpful evaluations of student work in a timely manner. They are consistently available to help students at least during reasonable designated consultation hours outside class. They are always engaged in the process of improving their teaching. They master the content of their courses and stay current with the literature and techniques of their disciplines. They are mentors and role models to students. They provide an education that is spiritually strengthening, intellectually enlarging, character building, and leading to lifelong learning and service. (See The Aims of a BYU Education.)

Assessment of Teaching
In assessing a faculty member’s overall performance, evaluators should be sensitive to teaching loads, the number of preparations required, extra time spent working with students individually, and similar factors. Although faculty may participate in only a portion of these and other teaching activities, evaluation of teaching should consider evidence such as:

1. Description of teaching activities and quality, including:
   1. List of courses taught by semester, with enrollment numbers.
   2. New courses developed.
   3. Supervision of independent study and research.
   4. Supervision of academic internships, and service learning experiences.
   5. Supervision of graduate students as a committee chair or member.
   
   
2. Student evaluations, including:
   1. University student evaluation forms.
   2. Written or oral comments solicited by the department review committee from a representative sample of students.
   
   
3. Peer evaluations
   Peer evaluation is as important for teaching as it is for scholarship. The department review committee will obtain at least two substantive confidential peer evaluations of teaching from BYU faculty members qualified to make evaluations of the faculty member’s approach to pedagogy and their teaching activities and materials. The faculty member may recommend peer reviewers, but the department review committee and the department chair are responsible for selecting the reviewers. Additionally, candidates may initiate non-confidential peer evaluations for formative purposes. These evaluations may be included in the file. The faculty member will assemble a teaching portfolio containing syllabi, textbooks, handouts, multimedia materials, assignments, exams, learning exercises, and other course materials. The peer evaluations should concentrate on a review of the teaching portfolio, and classroom visits are strongly recommended. Ideally, the classroom visits should be conducted over several semesters prior to the faculty member’s third- and sixth-year reviews.
   
   
4. Description of steps taken to evaluate and improve teaching, including:
   1. Staying current in one’s discipline.
   2. Performing self-evaluations of teaching.
   3. Studying teaching techniques.
   4. Obtaining assistance from the Faculty Center.
   5. Presenting at, or attending seminars, workshops, and conferences on teaching.
   6. Involving students or peers in improvement efforts.
   7. Appropriately implementing instructional innovations, including technology.
   8. Participating in course or curriculum development.
   9. Writing textbooks, supplements, or other instructional materials.
   10. Receiving grants aimed at improving teaching.
   11. Taking professional development leaves to improve teaching.
   12. Engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning.
   
   
5. Other evidence of quality teaching, such as:
   1. Teaching awards and honors received.
   2. The quality of text materials used.
   3. Information about the faculty member’s availability to students.
   4. Effectiveness in implementing innovative teaching methods, including technology.
   5. Effectiveness in mentoring students.
   6. Other evidence of positive impact on students including working with students in mentored learning environments.
   
   
6. Products of high quality teaching and mentoring, including:
   1. Evidence of student achievement (e.g. test scores, papers, and products).
   2. Honors and masters theses and Ph.D. dissertations supervised.
   
   
7. Example course materials, such as:
   1. Course materials prepared for students, including syllabi, handouts, multimedia materials, assignments, and examinations
   2. Materials developed for on-campus, online, or distance education courses.

Return to Top

Scholarship

Purpose of Scholarship
The highest purpose of scholarly and creative work (collectively referred to in this policy as “scholarship”) is to serve God and humanity. Scholarship should contribute to the university mission. It should achieve one or more of the following objectives: improving the education of the minds and spirits of students, contributing to the expansion of truth throughout the world, facilitating the solution of pressing world problems, and enhancing the quality of people’s lives. Scholarship extends the university’s influence and reputation, which benefits our students, serves our local and worldwide communities, and makes friends for the university and the Church. Scholarship should infuse and inspire the faculty member's teaching both directly and indirectly.

Forms of Scholarship
Scholarship includes, among other things, the discovery of new knowledge and original insights that add to the world's body of knowledge and understanding; the application of existing knowledge to the solution of practical problems; the integration of existing knowledge through interdisciplinary work; and studying and improving the presentation of existing knowledge.

The Scholarship Standard
Professorial faculty (and professional faculty whose responsibilities include scholarship) are expected to demonstrate consistent productivity of high quality scholarship over their entire careers. The scholar's record shows a growing body of works that have stood the test of exposure to and evaluation by other scholars in the discipline. Quality, quantity, and impact are relevant in assessing a faculty member’s scholarly record. It should be recognized that one truly exceptional scholarly or creative work may be more important than several others. It should also be recognized that a faculty member may choose to work in an area in which progress is exceptionally difficult and in which results submitted for peer review are necessarily few and infrequent. The expected level of quality must always be high.

Assessment of Scholarship
Criteria. The following criteria are relevant in evaluating scholarship:

1. There must be evidence of an established program of scholarship.
2. It should contribute to a faculty member's overall effectiveness as a teacher.
3. It should be of high quality and contain some element of originality, either in the form of new knowledge, new understanding, fresh insight, or unique skill or interpretation.
4. It should be subjected to on going peer review.
5. The reputation and selectivity of scholarly presses and journals are relevant in evaluating the quality and impact of scholarship. Generally, faculty are encouraged to publish in nationally and internationally recognized peer-reviewed scholarly presses and journals in the discipline. The further removed that scholarship is from this format, the greater the responsibility of the faculty member and the department to provide for a critical evaluation that verifies the quality of the work.
6. Generally, publications count in the rank and status process when they are accepted for publication.
7. The same criteria that apply in evaluating scholarship published in paper formats (quality, peer review, publisher’s reputation and selectivity, etc.) also apply to scholarship published in electronic formats. Consideration of citations is appropriate.
8. Generally, course materials that are used primarily inside the university and that are not disseminated in the wider discipline count in the category of teaching rather than in the category of scholarship.

Evidence of Scholarship
Evidence should emphasize work performed at BYU since the last rank advancement. Since it is in the department’s interest to establish and maintain a culture supportive of scholarship and inquiry, faculty members should be engaged in collaborative studies as well as in projects that result in single-authored publications.

Evidence of scholarship includes but is not limited to the following items, which are organized into two levels of priority. It is the candidate’s responsibility to establish the status of a work.

Highest priority is given to:

1. Scholarly books (works grounded in one or more of three types of scholarship: discovery, integration, and application. Thus, a textbook may be scholarly).
2. Publications in peer refereed scholarly journals.
3. Peer refereed book chapters.
4. Grants for research resulting from a competitive process of peer review.

Second priority is given to:

1. Textbooks, monographs, book chapters (non refereed).
2. Presentations at professional meetings and conferences.
3. Publications in state and regional journals.
4. Technical reports and abstracts.
5. Published book reviews.

Return to Top

Continuing Faculty Status Reviews

Initial and Final Reviews
The first six years of service after appointment in a continuing faculty status track until continuing faculty status is granted are a probationary period during which a faculty member's performance is reviewed annually by the department chair (through the stewardship report and interview). New faculty members should receive mentoring during this period. To receive continuing faculty status, a faculty member must pass two formal university reviews. During the winter semester of the third year, an initial review will occur to assess progress and to decide whether to advance the faculty member to candidacy for continuing faculty status. If the candidate continues to meet expectations during the probationary period, a final continuing faculty status review will occur beginning fall semester of their sixth year. A faculty member may withdraw from the process at any stage, but withdrawal constitutes a resignation from the university at the end of the contract year.

Purpose of the Reviews
The purpose of the continuing faculty status reviews is to assure the present and future fulfillment of promise sufficient to warrant a permanent commitment to a faculty member by the university. Granting continuing faculty status creates a long-term relationship that significantly affects the quality of the university, its ability to fulfill its mission, and the lives of its students over many years. The principal reasons for the continuing faculty status reviews are to provide the best education for our students, to assist in faculty development, and to establish ongoing expectations for faculty. Assessments and recommendations by reviewers at all levels should be as candid, honest, and complete as feasible within the guidelines specified in this policy. Strengths and weaknesses of faculty members should be fully discussed by reviewers, and specific reasons for positive or negative recommendations should be clearly stated.

Initial (Third-Year) Review
The initial review will include an assessment of the faculty member's performance and promise in citizenship, teaching, and scholarship (or citizenship and professional service, for professional faculty). Essentially the same procedures apply to initial and final continuing faculty status reviews, except that external reviews of scholarship are not required in initial (third-year) reviews. Faculty who are progressing satisfactorily will be granted candidacy for continuing faculty status. The University Faculty Council on Rank and Status will draft comments to the faculty member indicating areas for praise and concern to help the faculty member prepare for the final review. The letter will be placed in the faculty member’s university and departmental personnel file and included in the final review file. Faculty who are not progressing satisfactorily and who do not become candidates for continuing faculty status will be notified that they will not receive another contract after the existing contract period ends. The university, at its sole discretion, may grant such an individual a one-year temporary position while the person seeks employment elsewhere. The normal calendar for initial reviews is:

Candidate portfolio to department:	February 1
Department reviews to School:	March 1
College reviews to university:	March 20
Final decisions to faculty:	June 1

Final (Sixth-Year) Review
The final continuing faculty status review will include an assessment of the faculty member’s performance and promise in citizenship, teaching, and scholarship (or citizenship and professional service, for professional faculty). To receive continuing faculty status, faculty must clearly demonstrate by their performance that they meet or exceed the department, School, and university standards as set forth in their rank and status documents. Faculty who are not granted continuing faculty status will be notified that they will not receive another contract after the existing contract period ends. The university, at its sole discretion, may grant such an individual a one-year temporary position while the person seeks employment elsewhere. The normal calendar for final reviews is:

Candidate portfolio to department:	September 15
Department reviews to School:	November 1
College reviews to university:	December 1
Final decisions to faculty:	April 30

Delay of the Continuing Faculty Status Reviews
Professional development leaves taken during the first six years count as part of the six-year probationary period. By contrast, personal leaves (including leaves for illness or other significant extenuating circumstances) do not count as part of the six-year probationary period, and therefore delay the continuing faculty status reviews. A faculty member who is unable to work full-time should request a full-time or part- time personal leave. Extenuating family circumstances may also justify postponing a review. During the probationary period, a faculty member may request a one-time, one-year delay in the schedule of rank and status reviews because of specific extenuating family situations such as, pregnancy, childbirth, special parenting needs, family illnesses, or other unique family responsibilities, without taking a personal leave if able to meet their normal full time teaching or other professional assignments. Delays of continuing faculty status reviews are exceptional, and must be approved by the chair, the dean, and the academic vice president in writing.

Return to Top

Rank Advancement for Professorial Faculty

For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor with continuing faculty status the candidate must:

1. Have a record of high quality performance in each of the three traditional areas of teaching, citizenship and scholarship.
2. Have six years in service as an assistant professor to demonstrate over time the faculty member’s proficiency in citizenship, teaching, and scholarship. Therefore, the review for rank advancement will normally occur during the faculty member’s sixth year of service as an assistant professor, and rank advancement would take effect fall semester of the following year. (In rare and exceptional cases, extraordinary faculty members may be considered for advancement before the six-year minimum.)

For promotion from Associate to Full Professor the candidate must:

1. Have an established and consistent record of high quality performance in teaching and citizenship.
2. Have an established program of scholarship and a record of sustained scholarly production resulting in a national reputation for quality scholarship supported by several influential publications as judged by peers.
3. Have served for at least five years as an associate professor to demonstrate over time the faculty member’s proficiency in citizenship, teaching, and scholarship. Therefore, the earliest that a review for rank advancement could occur is during the faculty member’s fifth year of service as an associate professor, and rank advancement would take effect fall semester of the following year. (In rare and exceptional cases, extraordinary faculty members may be considered for advancement before the five-year minimum.)

Calendar for Rank Advancement Reviews
The normal calendar for rank advancement reviews is the same as for final continuing faculty status reviews. A nomination for rank advancement, even though it accompanies a nomination for continuing faculty status at the time of the sixth-year review, must be considered and evaluated as a separate proposition. All reviewing bodies must make a recommendation regarding rank advancement separate from the recommendation regarding continuing faculty status.

Return to Top

Professional Faculty

Definition of Professional Faculty
Professional faculty are faculty who have specialized responsibilities. Professional faculty include teaching faculty, research faculty and clinical faculty. Professional faculty enjoy the same basic privileges as professorial faculty. They may receive continuing faculty status and rank advancement. They may vote in departmental decisions regarding faculty appointments, continuing faculty status, rank advancement, and all other matters. They may serve as chairs or deans, on committees, and in other administrative assignments, and they are eligible for university awards.

Evaluation of Professional Faculty
Professional faculty are evaluated in citizenship and professional service. In both the third- and sixth-year reviews, the department review committee should solicit review letters of a faculty member’s citizenship and professional service from those who have closely observed those activities. In the sixth-year review external review letters should be sought when a faculty member’s citizenship or professional service has extended beyond the university. A sample letter to external reviewers is attached as Appendix E. The department review committee needs to obtain external review letters of scholarship only if scholarship is a primary area of the faculty member’s professional service.

Citizenship
The standards and assessment evidence for citizenship for professional faculty are the same as those for professorial track faculty.

Professional Service
Professional service encompasses work in the specific university assignments given to a professional faculty member. Specific expectations regarding a professional faculty member’s assignments should be set forth in the position description or in the department or School rank and status policy, and should be included in the file prepared for the rank and status review. Faculty should be evaluated according to those expectations and the standards in this policy.

Rank Advancement for Professional Faculty
Academic ranks for professional faculty include:

1. Assistant teaching professor, associate teaching professor, and teaching professor.
2. Assistant research professor, associate research professor, and research professor.
3. Assistant clinical professor, associate clinical professor, and clinical professor.

Return to Top

Procedures for Continuing Faculty Status and Rank Advancement Reviews

Overview
Initial and final continuing faculty status reviews and rank advancement reviews include evaluations at the department, School, and university levels. Essentially the same procedures apply to initial and final continuing faculty status and rank advancement reviews, except that external review letters of scholarship are not required in initial (third-year) reviews. Faculty preparing for third- and sixth-year reviews are solely responsible for their preparation, including preparation of their files. Failure of others to communicate with or to assist the faculty member being reviewed is not an excuse for lack of preparation or grounds for appeal of the president’s decision.

Materials to Include in the File
The faculty member is responsible for developing a file that is professional and complete as defined in this document. In the file to be sent to the School, the department chair will place, copies of letters generated by annual stewardship reviews, and for a final review, a copy of the letter from the third-year review. A copy of the file prepared for the third-year review should be retained by the department and made available, if requested, for review during the sixth-year review.

Examples of Scholarship
Only the best three examples of scholarship will be included in the file. The faculty member will include a brief explanation why each was selected. The faculty member will make available in the department office copies of all other written scholarship and evidence of all other creative work to be considered in the review. This work will be sent to subsequent review levels only if requested.

Size of the File
The faculty member should be selective about what to include in the file, because the file itself is an indication of professional maturity. A concise file that emphasizes the best evidence is more persuasive than a file cluttered with documents. Although personal letters from students to the faculty member should not be included, candidates may insert quotes from these letters in their self-evaluations. Plastic page protectors should be avoided (copies of certificates should be used instead of originals). Generally, with the exception of books submitted as examples of scholarship, the file should fit in a two-inch binder.

Additional Information
Reviewers at any level may request, receive, or obtain additional information from the faculty member or others. Such additions include but are not limited to documents indicating the acceptance of additional publications, additional student evaluations, and late arriving external review letters. Documents that strengthen the file need not be shared with prior review levels that made positive recommendations, and documents that weaken the file need not be shared with prior review levels that made negative recommendations, since those documents would not change the recommendations. If the School or university review committee adds documents to the file that materially affect the committee’s recommendation, it is recommended that the documents be shared with the dean, the department chair, and the School and department review committees so that they can consider whether to change their recommendations. In any case, if documents in addition to those normally required by the review process, or those generated by the normal procedures of the review process, such as responses to requests for additional information from deans or other review bodies, are added to the file at any level, and these documents weaken the file, the faculty member will be informed in writing of the substance of the documents added, and given an opportunity to respond in writing. The response will be added to the file which goes forward to the next level of review.

Return to Top

Department Review

Department Review Committee
The department review committee is composed of all faculty holding continuing status and with equal or higher rank to that being sought by the candidate under consideration. The department chair appoints the committee chair.

Timeline and File
The department chair, in consultation with the candidate and the committee chair will establish both a timeline for the collection of review artifacts and a department review file for each new faculty member.

Waiver
The department review committee chair will request the faculty member to sign a waiver of access to reviews solicited from students, faculty, external peers, and others. (See Appendix C.)

Review Letters of Citizenship Activities
The department review committee may solicit review letters evaluating a faculty member's citizenship activities from those who have closely observed these activities. Review letters should address the quality, quantity, and significance of the service.

Student Evaluations of Teaching
In initial and final continuing faculty status reviews, the department review committee will include in the file the summary report generated by Testing Services of all student evaluations for each class taught and a typescript of all student comments from all classes. The department review committee will have a department secretary prepare the typescript. The candidate will ensure that student evaluation summaries and student comments for each course are made available to the committee. Similarly, in rank advancement reviews, the file will include all student evaluations conducted during the past several years and a typescript of all student comments from those classes. Trends in ratings as well as the types of classes (e.g., large or small, undergraduate or graduate) should be considered. The department review committee may also solicit written or oral comments from a representative sample of students.

Peer Evaluations of Teaching
The department review committee will obtain written peer evaluations of teaching and include them in the file.

External Reviews of Scholarship
In final continuing faculty status and rank advancement reviews, the department review committee will obtain external reviews of the body of the faculty member’s scholarship from at least three faculty members at well-regarded academic institutions who have achieved reputations in the relevant field. The faculty member may recommend reviewers, but the department review committee and the department chair are responsible for selecting the reviewers. Generally, reviewers should hold equal or higher rank to that being sought, and they should be persons whose personal association with the candidate would not be expected to bias the reviews. The committee report will describe how the reviewers were selected, the reasons they were chosen, their stature in the field, and any relationship they may have with the faculty member. The committee will send the reviewers the faculty member’s curriculum vitae, information about the faculty member’s teaching assignment, samples of scholarship from the file, and a summary of the university and department standards for assessing scholarship. Appendix D is a sample letter to external reviewers. For professional faculty, the department review committee will obtain external review letters of scholarship only if scholarship is a primary area of the faculty member’s professional service. Department chairs and department review committees should allow adequate time for selecting and contacting potential reviewers, conveying materials, and receiving review letters.

Review Letters of Citizenship and Professional Service for Professional Faculty
For professional faculty, the department review committee should solicit review letters of the faculty member’s citizenship and professional service from those who have closely observed those activities. External review letters should be sought when a faculty member’s citizenship or professional service has extended beyond the university. A sample letter to external reviewers is attached as Appendix E.

Availability of Committee Report and File
Before the department vote, the committee report and the file will be available to all continuing faculty status faculty and all continuing faculty status track faculty in the department except the faculty member being reviewed. Exceptions to this provision, allowing a department to restrict access to the file, must be approved by the dean and the academic vice president. The contents of the file and all recommendation letters are strictly confidential. Faculty may not make copies of documents in the file, and faculty should not discuss the contents of the file except in appropriate settings with other department faculty members. The chair’s report, copies of annual stewardship reports, the letter generated from the third-year review, the results of the faculty vote, the School committee’s report, and the dean’s report will be available only to successive reviewing bodies.

Department Review Committee Procedures and Candidate Representation
Not less than one month prior to the scheduled Department Review Committee meeting, the department chair, after consultation with the candidate, will appoint from among committee members, one who will serve as the candidate’s representative in committee deliberations and a second who will present the case to the committee and write the draft letter. Both must be thoroughly familiar with the file and with the case. During deliberations the candidate representative will have the special responsibility of assuring that departmental guidelines are adhered to and that standards of fairness and accuracy of presentation are met.

Department Review Committee’s Vote and Report
After evaluating the faculty member’s performance, the department review committee will, by majority vote, recommend to grant or deny candidacy, continuing faculty status, or rank advancement. The vote, by secret ballot, will be conducted following a thorough discussion within the committee of the candidate’s file. It is expected that all committee members will have read the file. The committee chair counts the ballots and reports the results of the vote to the committee. Not more than one week from the date of the vote, a draft letter will be written reporting the results of the discussion and the vote. Sealed draft copies of this letter, which will be kept in strictest confidence, will be distributed to committee members in advance of a second committee meeting to be scheduled in timely fashion during which, by majority vote, a final version of the letter will be approved. Within two working days of the meeting of the final letter will be forwarded to the department chair for inclusion in the candidate’s file. A copy will also be sent to the candidate who may respond in writing if he or she wishes to correct factual errors or errors of interpretation. A candidate’s response will also be included in the file.
The committee’s letter should be signed by the committee chair for the committee and include a listing of all committee members who participated in the discussion. A minority report may also be sent to the chair for inclusion in the file.

Department Chair’s Report
After the department vote, the department chair will write an independent evaluation of the faculty member’s citizenship, teaching, and scholarship (or citizenship and professional service, for professional faculty) and include it in the file. The report will also assess the faculty member’s progress in addressing concerns raised in past annual and rank and status reviews. The chair will then forward the file to the School committee.

Informing the Faculty Member of a Negative Recommendation
If the department faculty or the department chair recommends to deny candidacy, continuing faculty status, or rank advancement, the department chair will inform the faculty member to allow the faculty member to withdraw the application. The department chair will explain the reasons for the decision. The withdrawal of an application for candidacy or continuing faculty status constitutes notice of resignation from the university at the end of the contract year. If the faculty member elects not to withdraw the application, it will be forwarded to the School review committee.

Return to Top

Appendices

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E