Promotions -- Faculty
Winthrop University promotes faculty based upon merit and in accord with the policy on Academic Rank, which identifies performance expectations for each rank.
Applies to faculty members hired with academic rank, in consultation with the Faculty Bylaws and subject to review by Academic Leadership, Faculty Conference, and Senior Leadership. Not included in this process are non-tenure track, multi-year, visiting, and adjunct faculty.
| Policy Number: | 2.2.27 |
| Effective Date: | 10/07/2019 |
| Date Reviewed: | 10/29/2019 |
| Last Review Date: | Jul 1 2012 12:00AM; 04/19/2021 |
| Responsible Official: | Chief Academic Officer |
| Responsible Office: | Academic Affairs |
| Contact Information: |
Academic Affairs (803)323-2220 academicaffairs@winthrop.edu |
1.0 Specific meanings of bold terms seen throughout this policy can be found within the University's policy definition glossary by following the link below.
Promotions are granted at Winthrop on a merit basis. The criteria for promotions are the same as those required for appointment with academic rank. Standards and suggested evidence for meeting the criteria for Academic Rank are discussed the Academic Rank Policy. A promotion in rank is associated with the academic discipline and should be informed by performance related to the academic discipline as well as on the assigned roles at Winthrop University. This does not preclude promotion of faculty holding administrative duties, provided that judgments can be made in matters relevant to the academic discipline.
1.0 Timelines The timeline for submitting promotion portfolios are provided by the Chief Academic Officer at this timeline link.
2.0 Portfolio Preparation and Submission Cases are submitted via the electronic platform. When a faculty member is applying for tenure and for promotion concurrently, a single supporting electronic portfolio for both processes will be used and must include the materials indicated in 2.1 (below). The letters of application from the faculty member, recommendations from the chair and the dean, and all committee recommendations must address tenure and promotion separately and must be submitted separately, as the review processes for tenure and promotion will occur independently.
2.1 A faculty member standing for promotion who is not also applying for tenure must submit a portfolio to the electronic platform that follows academic unit guidelines and contains all materials indicated below. Further, it is the responsibility of the faculty member to organize the portfolio in such a way as to facilitate review at all levels.
2.1.1 A cover sheet containing the following information:
• date employed at Winthrop,
• rank at original appointment, and
• prior service credit granted at employment.
2.1.2 An application letter which includes an analysis/statement by the candidate explaining how he/she met the qualifications of promotion.
2.1.3 A current vita.
2.1.4 Annual reports (including student evaluation data, chair/immediate supervisor evaluations, and dean evaluations) beginning with the year of appointment or the last promotion (whichever applies.) If it has been longer than five years since the appointment/last promotion, at least the most recent five years are required.
• Arrange in chronological order.
• The semester/year should be clearly indicated on teaching evaluations.
2.1.5 A statement or report of activities associated with Student Intellectual Development, Scholarly Activity, and Professional Stewardship as defined by the college.
• This should be accompanied by the additional departmental explanation (where applicable).
• Evidence of the candidate’s scholarship should be included. This may include copies of articles, other publications, video recordings, etc.
• Each category should include tables or lists clearly outlining activities.
• The faculty member is encouraged to describe any noteworthy accomplishments and to describe activity where the impact or time needed may not be apparent to reviewers.
2.1.6 Syllabi from all courses taught during the evaluation period.
2.1.7 Peer evaluations, if available.
2.1.8 Supporting documents pertinent to the review.
2.1.9 A statement of the faculty member’s goals and plans for involvement and development over the next six years.
3.0 Promotion Review Committees The membership of all reviewing committees will be made known to the candidate and appropriate administrators upon formation. Each review body, whether faculty or administrator, will forward its recommendations to the next level of review.
4.0 For units that include department-level review committees, a committee of no fewer than five tenured faculty, of whom a majority will be tenured within the faculty member's department or college (if possible), will be formed (as specified by the college) and convened at the request of the department chair to review the portfolio and to determine whether to recommend the faculty member for promotion. If there are not a sufficient number of tenured faculty members within the department or college, then tenured faculty outside the department or unit will serve as members of the committee.
5.0 In the case of a department chair's consideration for promotion, the dean will appoint a committee of no fewer than five tenured faculty, which must include at least one member of the department but may include a majority who are tenured outside the chair's department. Should there be no tenured faculty member in the department, the dean will appoint the committee members from tenured faculty outside the department.
6.0 The portfolio review process for promotion will focus exclusively on materials contained within the portfolio and on the recommendations of the various review bodies.
7.0 Neither the department chair nor dean may serve on a review committee for a faculty member for whom they are a supervisor. However, any committee may request to meet with the chair or dean for clarification of information.
8.0 Department level committees review and uploads to the electronic platform a letter responding to the portfolio with a recommendation to the department chair or direct supervisor. This letter must outline reasons for the recommendation addressing all appropriate areas of review (Student Intellectual Development, Scholarly Activity, Professional Stewardship, and academic responsibility) as appropriate for the rank to which the candidate has applied. When the decision of the committee is not unanimous, the letter should indicate the areas of disagreement. If a single letter cannot adequately represent the evaluation of committee members, a minority letter must be submitted along with the letter of recommendation. All committee members must sign either the letter of recommendation or minority letter. It is the role of the departmental committee to clarify any discipline-specific information concerning Scholarly Activity or Professional Stewardship that is provided in the faculty member’s portfolio for reviewers unfamiliar with the norms of the discipline. At this juncture no material may be deleted from the portfolio. If requested by the department committee, material missing from the above list in section 2.1 may be requested from the candidate via the department chair and may be added to the portfolio prior to the department committee’s sending a recommendation to the department chair.
8.1 Candidates for promotion will be allowed to review the department committee letter of recommendation via the electronic platform and will have an option to respond to the letter prior to consideration by the chair. If there is a minority letter, names will be redacted from both the majority and minority letters. A candidate will have three business days from uploading of the department committee’s letter(s) to write and upload to the electronic platform a response letter addressed to the department chair. Letters received after this time period will not be considered. The response letter shall not exceed 1000 words. The response letter is to be a direct response to issues raised by the department committee in order to clarify the candidate’s original portfolio submission or correct factual errors in the department committee and/or minority letter. The candidate’s response letter must be included with all other evaluation letters as the case advances.
9.0 The department chair reviews all materials. If requested by the department chair, new material from the candidate may be added to the portfolio prior to the chair’s sending a recommendation to the unit committee. No further supporting evidence may be added after this point.
9.1 The department chair uploads to the electronic platform a letter of recommendation addressed to the academic unit (college or library) committee. This letter must outline reasons for the recommendation addressing all appropriate areas of review (Student Intellectual Development, Scholarly Activity, Professional Stewardship, and academic responsibility). The chair may clarify faculty member claims with regard to the discipline and department norms that may not be evident to a reviewer from another unit or discipline.
9.2 Candidates for promotion will be allowed to review the department chair’s letter of recommendation via the electronic platform and will have an option to respond to the letter prior to consideration by the unit committee. A candidate will have three business days from uploading of the department chair’s letter to write and upload to the electronic platform a response letter addressed to the unit committee. Letters received after this time period will not be considered. The response letter shall not exceed 1000 words. The response letter is to be a direct response to issues raised by the chair in order to clarify the candidate’s original portfolio submission or correct factual errors in the department chair’s letter. The candidate’s response letter must be included with all other evaluation letters as the case advances.
10.0 The unit committee reviews all materials and uploads to the electronic platform a letter of recommendation addressed to the dean. The unit committee letter must include a clear statement indicating the recommendation and must highlight pertinent information or clarification for subsequent review bodies. The unit committee recommendation can refer to previous letters from the department committee, chair, and/or candidate. When the decision of the committee is not unanimous, the letter should indicate the areas of disagreement. If a single letter cannot adequately represent the evaluation of committee members, a minority letter must be submitted along with the primary letter. All committee members must sign either the primary or minority letter. In the case of academic units without department level review committees, the unit committee may clarify faculty member claims with regard to the discipline that may not be evident to a reviewer from another unit or discipline.
10.1 Candidates for promotion will be allowed to review the unit committee letter(s) via the electronic platform and will have an option to respond to the letter(s) prior to consideration by the dean. If there is a dissenting opinion that cannot be integrated into the majority’s recommendation, committee members’ signatures will be redacted from the majority and minority letters. A candidate will have three business days from uploading of the unit committee’s letter(s) to write and upload to the electronic platform a response letter addressed to the dean. Letters received after this time period will not be considered. The response letter shall not exceed 1000 words. The response letter is to be a direct response to issues raised by the unit committee letter(s) in order to clarify the candidate’s portfolio submission or correct factual errors in the unit committee letter(s). No evidence of new activities is permitted in the candidate’s response letter in any circumstances. Any evidence of a completed activity must be added to the portfolio prior to the chair’s letter being sent to the unit committee. The candidate’s response letter must be included with all other evaluation letters as the case advances.
11.0 The dean reviews all materials and uploads a letter of recommendation to the electronic platform. The dean’s letter must include a clear statement indicating the recommendation and must highlight pertinent information or clarification for subsequent review bodies. In most cases, a rationale pointing to previous reports is sufficient. In cases of disagreement within and among the review bodies, the dean must clarify and address the issues of disagreement.
11.1 Candidates for promotion will be allowed to review the dean’s letter of recommendation via the electronic platform and will have an option to respond to the letter prior to consideration by the chief academic officer. A candidate will have three business days from uploading of the dean’s letter to write and upload to the electronic platform a response letter addressed to the chief academic officer. Letters received after this time period will not be considered. The response letter shall not exceed 1000 words. The response letter is to be a direct response to issues raised by the dean in order to clarify the candidate’s portfolio submission or correct factual errors in the dean’s letter. The candidate’s response letter must be included with all other evaluation letters as the case advances.
11.2 At any time up to this point, the candidate may choose to withdraw the promotion application.
11.3 The chief academic officer provides access to all promotion portfolios, letters of recommendation, and any candidate responses to the university-level Faculty Personnel Committee for review on the electronic platform. The Faculty Personnel Committee reviews all materials and uploads a letter of recommendation to the electronic platform. In cases of agreement, a brief rationale pointing to previous letters is sufficient. In cases of disagreement within and among the review bodies, the Faculty Personnel Committee must clarify and address the issues of disagreement in support of its recommendation.
11.4 The chief academic officer may convene the Faculty Personnel Committee to discuss the tenure recommendations, as needed. The Faculty Personnel Committee recommendations are shared with the candidate via the electronic platform.
12.0 The chief academic officer uploads a letter of recommendation to the electronic platform. In cases of agreement, a brief rationale pointing to previous letters is sufficient. In cases of disagreement within and among the review bodies, the chief academic officer must clarify and address the issues of disagreement in support of her/his recommendation. The chief academic officer’s recommendation is shared with the candidate via the electronic platform.
12.1 The chief academic officer forwards a single report with all recommendations from each level of review to the President and provides access to any needed materials on the electronic platform to inform the President’s final recommendation.
13.0 Notification of Promotion Decision The President, acting as agent of the Board of Trustees, shall then determine whether to grant promotion to the faculty member in question. Based upon the recommendations of the chief academic officer and all reviewing bodies, the President decides upon promotion and shares his/her recommendations with the Board of Trustees. All candidates for promotion shall be notified in writing by the President (transmitted by the chief academic officer) no later than fifteen business days prior to May 15. The faculty member to whom promotion is to be awarded will be promoted effective on the start of their appointment in the subsequent academic year. The President or designee reports to the faculty on the status of promotions by submitting for publication the names of those faculty who have been promoted. The names will be published by the University.
14.0 Grievance Policy Any promotion candidate who has reason to suspect discrimination may file a grievance using the procedure articulated by the Winthrop University policy on Grievances and Appeals—Faculty and in compliance with South Carolina Code of Laws 8-17-380.
Portfolio Preparation Guidelines
College Alignment Statements/Personnel Policies:
· College of Arts and Sciences
· College of Business Administration
· College of Visual and Performing Arts
College Faculty Handbooks:
· College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Handbook
