Faculty Governance

Revised March 2024 

1. Duties of the Dean

The Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies is led by its Dean, who appoints associate and assistant deans, and designates their functional and academic responsibilities. The Dean serves as the chief administrative officer of the School and appoints professional staff as needed to administer, promote, and underwrite the mission and curriculum of HLS. The Dean will be advised by the HLS Policy Committee, the Faculty Advisory Board, the Chairs and Directors, and other advisory boards as may be established.

1. Faculty Appointments, Tenure and Promotion: Matters of hiring, tenure, and promotion will be resolved by the Dean of HLS. Specifically,
2. Appointments: In consultation with the faculty and heads of units within HLS (Department Chairs, and Center, Institute, and Program directors), the Dean shall set priorities with respect to faculty recruitment, hiring, and FTE transfers. Offer letters for faculty positions originate with the Dean.
3. Tenure and Promotion: The composition of the HLS Tenure and Promotion committee reflects a balance among units in the Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. Four members of the Tenure and Promotion Committee are HLS faculty members appointed by the Dean of HLS; the remaining three are members of the College of Arts & Sciences Tenure Committees invited by the HLS Dean to join the deliberations.

The Dean of HLS presides over the Tenure and Promotion committee. After the HLS Tenure or Promotion Committee records its evaluation and recommendation, the HLS Dean prepares a letter evaluating the candidate’s research/creative activity, teaching, and service, together with a recommendation (vote) on tenure and/or promotion. The HLS Dean will submit the letter and recommendation to the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs by November 1 for tenure dossiers and December 1 for promotion to full. Guidelines in effect as of August 2015 are reported in Appendix A, which also describes the process for evaluating candidates for tenure and promotion.

1. Appointment, Reappointment, and Dismissal of Chairs and Directors. The Dean has authority to appoint and reappoint chairs and directors after consultation with members of the unit. Chairs and directors report to the Dean and serve at the Dean’s discretion. The Dean will schedule regular reviews of the performance of chairs and directors and will consult with unit faculty and the Policy Committee.
2. Budget: The Dean shall have budgetary authority for the School, including funds raised through development efforts, tuition revenue, indirect cost returns, appropriations from the university, and other sources. The Dean will engage in fundraising, and maintain and enhance relationships with alumni, donors, foundations, corporations, government funding agencies, and other School constituencies inside and outside of the University.
3. Strategic Planning: In consultation with HLS faculty and the Policy Committee the Dean may develop strategic plans for HLS, with an eye to cultivating and promoting HLS’s stature as a leader in global and international studies.
4. State of the School. The Dean shall report to the HLS faculty and directors at least once per year on the state of the School.
5. Faculty Membership
6. HLS Faculty and Directors

1.HLS Faculty: HLS Faculty eligible to vote in school-wide elections are those tenure/tenure-track faculty and NTT faculty with at least 0.50 FTE in the School or one of the School’s academic departments as well as those with 0.25 FTE as of Fall 2015. As of this date, those departments include: Central Eurasian Studies, East Asian Languages and Culture, International Studies, and Near Eastern Languages and Culture. HLS Faculty members have voting rights in accordance with University and BFC faculty governance policy. Faculty seeking FTE in HLS should seek the approval of the respective HLS unit and the Dean of HLS.

2. HLS Directors: HLS Directors are faculty with current appointments as heads of HLS Centers, Institutes, and Programs. Faculty Directors participate in the governance of the School as outlined below and consistent with campus guidelines. (A current list of HLS Centers, Institutes, and Programs is at Appendix B.)
3. Affiliated Faculty: HLS seeks to foster and benefits from close cooperation with departments and units in the College of Arts and Sciences and schools and units campus- and University-wide. HLS welcomes individuals across the University, whose work speaks to issues that are global and international. In this way, we can better highlight IU’s existing strengths, bring these individuals to the attention of interested students and peers, and encourage collaboration across campus to the benefit of all. Such collaboration takes a number of different forms, including joint research projects, supervision of graduate students, and offering of courses that support one or more the School’s undergraduate, Master’s and PhD programs.

Affiliated Faculty refers to those faculty members at Indiana University who seek and are granted affiliation with the School or one of the School’s departments and units, consistent with the approved governance structure of each unit. Units shall have the right to invite colleagues to affiliate with them based on their own rules and procedures consistent with HLS policies and guidelines. Such faculty will be considered affiliated with HLS.

1. Transfers of budgetary FTE into or out of HLS units must be authorized by the Dean of HLS, in consultation with the HLS Policy Committee, described below. Transfers of FTE entirely within HLS shall be reviewed by the Policy Committee and approved by the Dean. Transfers between HLS units and a unit not in HLS shall be reviewed by the HLS Policy Committee and the relevant decision-making committee in the transferring unit and approved by the Dean of HLS and Dean of the transferring unit.

III. School Governance

1. The HLS Policy Committee is the principal advisory and policy-making committee for the Dean. A member elected by the committee serves as committee chair. The HLS EAD attends committee meetings by invitation of the committee to serve as a line of communication between the committee and the dean-level administration of the school.
2. The Policy Committee represents HLS faculty and advises the Dean on the formulation of HLS policies and the monitoring of their impact. It may advise the Dean and the faculty on matters concerning the School including facilities and budgets.
3. The Committee makes recommendations to HLS faculty on matters requiring faculty action and to the Dean on matters that are to be handled by administrative action. This includes promotion and tenure guidelines at the School level, and within departments of HLS. It also includes transfers of units or individual FTEs into HLS, within HLS, or out of HLS.
4. The Committee considers questions and proposals that are referred to it by the Dean, by other committees, by members of the faculty, and by students. It may also consider matters on its own initiative.
5. The HLS Policy Committee consists of five faculty members, none of whom are directors, chairs or deans in HLS. Each serves a two-year term, and the terms are staggered to ensure continuity. The committee shall comprise one member each from the four HLS academic departments and one member that represents HLS’s non-departmental institutes, centers, and programs. The members representing the four departments shall be selected within each department according to the governance rules of each. All HLS centers and institutes may then nominate one candidate for the other committee position. After this nomination process, the full HLS faculty will vote to select one of the candidates. Those eligible for committee membership in either category shall have at least 0.5 FTE in HLS. Faculty with at least 0.25 FTE in HLS are eligible to vote in school-wide elections. The committee shall vote in its first meeting of each year to elect one member to serve as committee chair for that academic year.
6. The HLS Curriculum Committee consists of five HLS faculty appointed by the Dean. The HLS Executive Associate Dean chairs the committee in an ex officio capacity. The committee will review curricular proposals initiated by the faculty of departments or the school prior to submission for curricular review at the campus level. It may initiate, either on its own or with faculty recommendation, proposals for school-wide requirements, courses, certificates, minors, degrees, online courses and degrees, and joint degrees with other units on campus. The committee will articulate educational program goals appropriate for students completing HLS courses or degrees and review staffing and scheduling requirements to meet enrollment and pedagogical goals.
7. The HLS Tenure and Promotion Committee will be appointed by the Dean of HLS in accordance with procedures outlined in Appendix A. Committee membership will be announced to the HLS faculty each year prior to the start of the academic year.
8. The HLS Diversity and Inclusion Committee (HLSDC) shall comprise nine (9) voting and non-voting members selected from among faculty, students, and staff of HLS in accordance with procedures described in Appendix B. Through monitoring, investigation, and initiatives, the HLSDC promotes an environment of diversity, equity, and inclusion for all members of the HLS learning and research communities, including faculty, students, and staff in the context of HLS hiring, curricular offerings, work environments, and career trajectories. HLSDC will meet at least two (2) times per semester. It coordinates with the HLS Diversity Officer to provide required reports on diversity to university- and campus-level offices. Its members will make themselves available at regular intervals and upon request for consultation by HLS students, faculty, and staff upon request. They will make regular reports on HLSDC activities to students and staff and during HLS all-faculty meetings.
9. Unit Governance

Consistent with HLS Policy Committee Guidelines and the requirements of the Dean of HLS, each unit within HLS operates under a formal statement of its governance structure, which will be shared with its faculty and staff and approved by the Dean of HLS.

Among the elements to be included in this statement are:

1. A listing of key leadership positions in the unit, along with brief descriptions of each position and its responsibilities; a statement of who is eligible to hold each position, and the process for selecting office holders; and specification of who may participate in the selection process;
2. Voting rights within the unit (if any) for affiliated or NTT faculty or staff;
3. Formal procedures for evaluating faculty for tenure and promotion, as well as guidelines for evaluating NTT faculty for renewal or promotion;
4. Formal guidelines for performing merit evaluations and annual reviews for faculty whose salary is set within the unit;
5. Procedures used to decide upon requests for adjunct or affiliated status in the unit; and
6. Procedures used to decide curriculum requirements for degree objectives offered by the unit.

Appendix A
Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies
Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Department Guidelines
Revised March 2024

1. Procedures

Preamble

Promotion and tenure procedures are governed by procedures and guidelines at multiple levels of the institution. A digest of official policies regarding promotion and tenure that have been endorsed by the Bloomington Faculty Council (BFC) and the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty & Academic Affairs can be found at: https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-affairs/tenure-promotion/index.html

This document presents more specific guidelines for promotion and tenure decisions in the Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies (HLS).

1. Faculty Reviews
2. The Tenure-Probationary Periods
3. Annual Reviews

Each tenure-track faculty member will be reviewed annually by the Chair of the Department during their probationary period. These annual reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the faculty member is progressing towards a favorable tenure decision and offer departments an opportunity to bring potential problems to the candidate’s attention in a timely fashion. A written summary of the annual review must be provided to the faculty member before the end of the academic year.

1. Midterm Reappointment Review

No later than the third year of the probationary period, each tenure-track faculty member will receive a midterm reappointment review. The midterm review is a thorough review that involves a departmental review (personnel) committee report, vote of eligible department faculty, and review by the Chair of the Department. This is an opportunity for senior colleagues to learn more about each junior colleague’s work, provide mentorship, and evaluate the progress towards meeting the criteria towards tenure. In the case of a decision not to reappoint, candidates may appeal the decision following BFC policy (https://bfc.indiana.edu/policies/policies-process/index.html). In the case where reappointment is made, it is important to emphasize that this decision does not guarantee tenure. For guidance, consult Midterm Pre-tenure Review: https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/cpc-committee/college-policies/policies/tenure-and-promotion/midterm-pre-tenure-review.html

1. Review Period

A candidate is normally reviewed for tenure and promotion before the seventh year of the tenure probationary period. An early tenure review can occur in an unusually meritorious case or when prior service at another institution warrants such consideration. Work produced since the tenure candidate’s first appointment at IUB is assumed to be a better predictor of future productivity than earlier work. Work conducted prior to a candidate’s first appointment to IUB (e.g., scholarly or scientific publications) may be taken into consideration as additional evidence of pace, future trajectories, and continuity or change in research interests.

The University has Family Leave and Medical Leave policies that can affect the timing of promotion by “extending the probationary period” for a pre-specified and contractual period of time. Faculty members considering such leaves should consult with the Associate Executive Dean and the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. Faculty members should discuss the timing of the leave and its relation to the promotion and tenure process with the Chair of the Department who will also consult with the Executive Dean’s office and receive approval from the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs to ensure that there is appropriate and clearly written documentation of leave agreements (using the “Understanding on Probationary Status” form, found at: https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/doc/understanding-on-probationary-status.pdf).

1. Peer evaluations of teaching

The School expects chairs (or their designees) to arrange for faculty to receive regular peer evaluations of teaching during the probationary period, with a minimum of one peer evaluation each academic year. A written summary of the peer evaluation must be provided to the faculty member within one month of the review. When teaching assignments allow, a combination of peer evaluations that allow comparisons across courses (especially lower- v. upper-level undergraduate and undergraduate v. graduate) as well as comparisons within a specific course over time are preferred.

2. Promotion from Associate to Full Professor
3. Annual reviews

Each tenured associate professor will be reviewed annually by the Chair of the Department. These annual reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the faculty member is progressing towards a favorable decision on promotion to full professor. A written summary of the annual review must be provided to the faculty member before the end of the academic year.

1. Review period

Associate professors may apply for promotion to full professor at any time. However, because emphasis in the promotion decision is placed on accomplishments in rank, candidates must remain in rank long enough to assemble a record of new, significant contributions to research, teaching, and service. For that reason, promotions to full professor within three years of promotion to associate professor are rare.

1. Peer evaluations of teaching

The School expects chairs to arrange for associate professors to receive regular peer evaluations of teaching prior to consideration for promotion to full professor, with a minimum of one peer evaluation every other academic year. A written summary of the peer evaluation must be provided to the faculty member within one month of the review. As for probationary faculty, when teaching assignments allow, a combination of peer evaluations that allow comparisons across courses (especially lower- v. upper-level undergraduate and undergraduate v. graduate) as well as comparisons within a specific course over time are most helpful to review committees.

1. Evaluative Categories
2. Rating Categories

Candidates for tenure and promotion to associate professor and for promotion to full professor are rated in research/creative activity and service as excellent, very good, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. Evaluations of teaching use the categories of excellent, very good, effective, or ineffective.

2. Basis for Promotion

A candidate must decide the basis for promotion, in consultation with the Department chair. Both for tenure and promotion to associate professor and for promotion to full professor, the basis for promotion in most departments and in most cases is excellence in research or creative activity. Promotion to full professor based on excellence in teaching or service/engagement, or on a balanced case is less common but may be justified in certain specific cases. In all cases, dossier materials must be evaluated on the basis chosen by the candidate. The dossier must also demonstrate at least satisfactory/effective performance in the areas not selected as a basis for promotion. The most effective dossiers will provide multiple, independent indicators of contributions and impact.

3. Rating Performance Areas
4. Research/Creative activity

Research/creative activity is the default basis for promotion for most units in the School.

• For tenure and promotion to associate professor, to receive a rating of excellent, the candidate must have achieved, or be well on the way to achieving, a position of national and/or international leadership, based on a record of scholarly accomplishment and distinction appropriate to their field(s). Because tenure is a forward-looking decision, candidates should also provide evidence of an ongoing program of research or creative activity.
• For promotion to full professor, to receive a rating of excellent, the candidate must have achieved a position of leadership in a substantial field based on a documented and robust record of achievement and distinction.
• To receive a rating of very good for tenure and/or promotion, the candidate must present evidence of high-quality and significant contributions to the field(s), although those contributions may not yet have resulted in the same degree of progress toward establishing a national and/or international reputation that is expected for a rating of excellent.
• To receive a rating of satisfactory for tenure and/or promotion, the candidate must present evidence of sustained scholarly or creative activity that is positively evaluated while in rank.

1. Teaching

Tenure and promotion based on excellence in teaching will be considered only in very specialized cases in the School.

• For tenure and/or promotion to full professor, a rating of excellent in teaching requires the candidate to provide evidence of outstanding classroom instruction as well as broad teaching impact beyond the campus. The candidate’s accomplishments in classroom instruction should be comparable to those of the most effective teachers at this institution. Candidates for tenure based on teaching should also have achieved or be well on the way to achieving a national and/or international reputation for teaching impact. Candidates for promotion to full professor based on teaching should provide evidence of having achieved a national and/or international reputation as a leader in the practice or study of teaching. Examples of broad teaching impact include, but are not limited to, development of instructional/curricular materials that are used or referenced by instructors in the candidate’s field; leadership positions in regional, national, or international organizations concerned with pedagogy; pedagogical publications or presentations; and regional, national, or international teaching awards.
• A rating of very good requires evidence of outstanding classroom instruction as well as significant contributions to teaching outside the classroom. Such contributions can include, but are not limited to, mentoring and advising that has had a demonstrable impact on student achievement; direction of the studies of undergraduate or graduate students through independent studies, research experiences, or thesis or dissertation advising; and HLS or campus teaching awards; as well as the examples given for teaching excellence.
• A rating of effective is appropriate for candidates who provide evidence of high- quality instruction in their own classes and a commitment to student success.

1. Service/Engagement

Tenure and promotion based on excellence in service/engagement will be considered only in very specialized cases in the School.>

• For tenure, to achieve a rating of excellent in service, candidates must provide evidence that they have achieved or are on their way to achieving a position of service-related leadership that is nationally or internationally recognized. For promotion to full professor, candidates must provide evidence of having achieved national/international visibility and stature resulting from service activities.
• For promotion at either rank, a rating of very good requires evidence of significant impact beyond one’s home unit on the university, the discipline, or public, private, professional, or civic organizations and institutions.
• A rating of satisfactory is appropriate for candidates who meet the general expectation that all faculty contribute meaningful service to the institution throughout their careers. To receive a rating of satisfactory, candidates for promotion to full professor should demonstrate increased contributions to the effective operations of their units, school, the university, and/or their discipline over time.

1. Balanced case

Successful promotion based on a Balanced Case requires a candidate to be rated “Very Good” in all three performance categories. Overall, the candidate's contribution to the university must be shown to be comparable in excellence to that of a candidate with a single primary area.

1. Satisfactory service and good citizenship

Regardless of a candidate’s basis for promotion, it is also expected that all candidates will make a positive contribution to the professional environments of their departments and will make a positive service contribution to the University and profession. Service is an expected and essential responsibility of all faculty and satisfactory performance is expected both for tenure and promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor and for promotion from Associate to Full Professor.

1. Continued excellence

There should be strong indications in the dossier that the candidate will maintain and enhance the level of performance on which the awarding of tenure and promotion is based.

4. Comparison group

The populations within which candidates for tenure and promotion are to be evaluated in regard to research, creative activity, and teaching are those who have recently received tenure/promotion or who will soon be considered for tenure/promotion at major research universities.

5. Additional considerations

With the growth of interdisciplinary research and with the emergence of new fields, not all research/creative activity fits comfortably into traditional “disciplinary” expectations or understandings. The world of scholarly and scientific publishing also is undergoing significant change. New forms of digital scholarly communication (e-journals, moderated websites, blogs) continue to emerge and grow. In response to the developments, IUB Tenure and Promotion Guidelines include three additional areas for consideration:

1. Interdisciplinarity: Candidates for tenure and promotion are encouraged to pursue innovation wherever it seems promising, even at the edges of disciplinary boundaries or between them. Reviewers at all levels should be open to the possibility that work “on the edges” or straddling two fields may eventually transform research agendas in fundamental ways not always easily recognized by the home unit. A candidate’s interdisciplinarity may require that home units adapt their expectations/criteria and procedures. For example, practices for assembling review committees and soliciting external referees may need to be altered in order to ensure that all aspects of research/creative activity are assessed by properly knowledgeable evaluators.
2. New Scholarly Communications: Reviewers at all levels should consider that the best new research/creative activity may not necessarily appear in the top traditional disciplinary journals or in books published by the historically most prestigious publishing houses. Peer reviewed publications are given greater weight than those that are not. Candidates assume responsibility for providing evidence of the value of their publication outlets.
3. Impact on Diverse Communities. In assessing the impact of research/creative activity, reviewers should consider the variety of communities – inside the academy and beyond – which may be transformed in significant ways by a candidate’s work. The emergence of “public scholarship” expands the range of audiences to whom a scholar/artist may direct their research/creative activity, and sometimes the best of this work does not appear in narrowly-defined professional outlets. Candidates should describe how their research/creative activity targeted for non- academic audiences intersects with work targeted to a scholarly community. Public scholarship will not supplant expectations for publications targeted to peer professional communities, but it may supplement that work. Evidence for “public scholarship” includes panel/commission and other technical reports, policy white papers, and strategic plans for community/civic groups.
4. Department Procedures for Tenure and Promotion Reviews
5. External Referees

In the spring semester prior to the year when the tenure or promotion case is to be considered, the Chair of the Department will consult with members of the department and, when appropriate, members of any research institute/center with which the faculty member is affiliated, and prepare a list of external referees who will be invited to evaluate the record of the candidate. Subsequently, the candidate will be asked to submit a list of potential external referees to the Chair of the Department. Each list must include 6 names and should be submitted together to the HLS Executive Associate Dean for approval and selection. The candidate and department lists must be developed independently and chairs must include embedded links to prospective referee web pages on the lists they submit to the HLS Executive Associate Dean. If the department’s list of recommended external referees overlaps with the candidate’s list of recommended external referees, these referees’ names will count as candidate-recommended referees. This process is followed to ensure the department’s list is independent of the candidate’s list. Once the external letters arrive, candidates may request to see them, and departments must oblige by allowing the candidate to read the letters. However, it is generally recommended that the candidate not read the letters at least until after the dossier has left the department.

External referees should generally be from comparable or more highly regarded institutions. Ideally, they should be Full Professors who have the appropriate expertise to evaluate the candidate’s record. Dissertation advisors, close personal friends, collaborators, former students, or other individuals who might be viewed as having a conflict of interest are not to be asked to serve as external referees. The expectation is that there will be six letters in the file: normally three from the candidate’s list and three from the department’s list.

There may not be fewer than six letters. However, all requested letters that are received by the department must be included in the dossier. Thus, on occasion there may be more than six letters if additional letters are requested in an effort to ensure that the six-letter minimum is achieved and more than six ultimately are submitted by the referees. All solicited letters should be included in the candidate’s dossier prior to the departmental vote, so that all voting faculty members have access to this information. External referees are usually asked to submit their letters by mid-August.

2. Internal Letters

The chair of the department may also solicit on-campus letters only from those who have been asked to observe the candidate’s teaching, those who are in a position to comment knowledgeably on the candidate’s contributions to their collaborative projects, and those from outside the department who may comment on the candidate’s service contributions elsewhere (e.g., directors of programs, institutes, or centers). In all other instances, solicited or unsolicited letters from other faculty members (especially those in the home department) are discouraged.

3. Candidate’s Statement

Candidates are required to complete and submit a draft of their personal statements no later than May 15th prior to tenure and promotion consideration. The research statement should embed the listing of publications on the CV in a narrative trajectory, highlighting finished projects, current work, and future plans. A succinct statement is most effective. Candidates’ personal statements also should include a section describing their teaching programs, indicating courses taught, pedagogical objectives and methods, and any past, present, or future course development activity. It should also contain a discussion of service activities for the department, the school, the university, the profession, and the community. The personal statement should be accessible to several audiences, including external referees, fellow department members, other university colleagues, and administrators. Thus, the personal statement should strike a balance between communicating with experts in the field and those who are not members of the discipline and who may not be familiar with the candidate’s area of research. Candidates are encouraged to seek advice on their personal statements from recently tenured and/or senior colleagues. It is recommended that the candidate’s personal statement be included in the information sent to external referees.

4. Joint Appointments

Faculty with joint appointments will have a Memorandum of Understanding that identifies the tenure home and describes the procedures for tenure and promotion consideration.

5. Dossier

The Chair of the Department is responsible for ensuring that the dossier is compiled correctly; no tenure or promotion candidate should be expected to prepare their own dossier without the assistance of departmental staff or the oversight of the chair. Tenure and promotion dossiers are electronic. Access to the dossier is password-controlled and only eligible faculty and administrators have access to the dossier. The chair of the department is responsible for identifying those in the department who should have access to the dossier once it is uploaded and ready for review.

The dossier must include all materials listed in the General section and all other items under Research/Creative Activity, Teaching, and Service/Engagement that apply to the candidate:

General

• Department and School Criteria/Expectations for Tenure/Promotion
• Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae (indicate peer reviewed publications; list separately publications to be considered research, teaching or service; for promotion to full, indicate work done since appointment as associate professor)
• Candidate’s Statements on Research/Creative Activity, Teaching, Service/Engagement
• External Letters
• List of Referees Selected (indicating those who did/did not respond and reason for non-response)
• Department List of Prospective Referees (including brief summary of credentials and relationships with candidate)
• Candidate’s List of Prospective Referees (including credentials and relationships with candidate)

Research/Creative Activity

• Copies of Publications and/or Evidence of Creative Work (including scholarly presentations)
• Reviews of Candidate’s Books, Creative Performances and Exhibitions
• List of Grants Applied for/Received (include cover sheet/abstract; funding source; amount; PI)
• Copies of Manuscripts or Creative Works in Progress
• Evidence for the Impact/Influence of Publications or Creative Works (e.g., citations)
• Evidence for the Stature/Visibility of Journals, Presses or Artistic Venues
• Awards and Honors for Research/Creative Activity
• Candidate’s Contributions to Collaborative Projects (with letters from collaborators)

Teaching

• List of Courses Taught (chronologically by semester, number of students enrolled, grade distribution)
• Sample of Course Materials (syllabi, exercises, assignments, exams, student work)
• Graduate Training (PhD and Masters—committee member or chair; dissertation titles)
• Student Awards, Honors, Collaborative Publications, Achievements
• Undergraduate Research Experiences and Mentoring
• Student Course Evaluations (including summary of quantitative data; all qualitative responses)
• Solicited/Unsolicited Letters from Former Students
• Evidence of Student Learning Outcomes (assessment strategies; data; pedagogical adjustments)
• Peer Evaluations of Teaching
• Curricular Development (including new courses; evidence of impact)
• Professional Pedagogical Development (workshops; learning communities, master classes)
• Teaching Publications (including scholarship of teaching and learning; textbooks)
• Teaching Awards, Honors, Grants, Fellowships

Service/Engagement

• Evidence of Service to the University, School and Department
• Evidence of Service to the Profession (including book reviews)
• Evidence of Engagement with Non-Academic Communities and Agencies

All vote-eligible faculty have the right and responsibility to review the dossier prior to the departmental vote.

6. Promotion and Tenure Committee and Report

The School recommends that during the spring semester prior to the deadline by which the tenure and/or promotion case will be submitted, the Chair works with the candidate and an elected faculty committee as defined by departmental faculty governance procedures to select a review committee that has the appropriate rank and expertise to evaluate the dossier. The departmental review committee should include no fewer than three faculty members. If there are an insufficient number of appropriately ranked faculty members in the department to constitute a review committee, the Chair of the Department should work with the candidate and the elected faculty committee to select appropriate committee members from faculty in other related departments with guidance from the HLS Executive Associate Dean. Departments may propose alternative procedures that must be approved by the HLS Executive Associate Dean.

The review committee is charged with submitting a written report to the department faculty evaluating the candidate’s case for promotion. In particular, the committee report will include:

• an evaluation of the candidate’s research/creative activity;
• an evaluation of teaching consisting of a discussion of teaching metrics that include the numerical student evaluation scores, written comments, and peer evaluations, as well as a narrative that provides an assessment of such factors as breadth, content, and innovation; and,
• an evaluation of department, university, professional, and community service (local, national, and international
• reports written in the fall should provide a summary and evaluation of the external referees’ assessments and of any internal letters; otherwise the summary and evaluation should be covered in the chair’s letter (see p. 13).

The review committee report must conclude with a recommendation to the department regarding tenure and promotion on the basis chosen by the candidate (i.e., research/creative activity, teaching, service) or as a balanced case. The committee report must provide a recommendation in all three areas—research/creative activity, teaching, and service—as well as an overall recommendation. The committee report will be made available to all tenured faculty of appropriate rank for review prior to the department meeting. This is a confidential document that cannot be shared outside the eligible voting members prior to the department vote and it is formally included in the dossier.

The review committee report should not be edited in response to the departmental deliberation and vote. The chair’s letter must describe the discussion and deliberation in the department meeting and vote, capturing the range of assessments presented at the meeting of the voting-eligible faculty, giving later reviewers a better understanding of the grounds for both positive and negative votes (if any).

Both tenured Associate and Full Professors are eligible to vote in tenure and promotion cases, but only Full Professors are eligible to vote for promotion from Associate to Full Professor. Departmental governance documents must establish which faculty members with FTE less than 1.0 are eligible to vote. An overall vote on tenure and/or promotion must be taken, as well as separate votes in each of the three performance areas, using campus-wide evaluative categories.

If a candidate has appointments in multiple units (i.e., a split appointment), one unit is designated as the “tenure home.” For split appointments, the tenure home is now identified in a Memorandum of Understanding. Non-tenure-home units send their review reports and recommendations to the chair/dean of the home unit, who includes them in the dossier for consideration by the home unit.

7. Department Meeting and Vote

The Department will hold a meeting early in the fall semester to consider its promotion and tenure recommendation for the candidate, at which the chair presides. Voting members meet and discuss the committee report and the case. Faculty are eligible to vote only if they have been “materially engaged” in the review process, as evidenced (for example) by their familiarity with the dossier or attendance at meetings where the case is discussed. No proxy votes are allowed. The departmental recommendation must be based on the ballots from three or more vote-eligible faculty members, not including the chair.

Following discussion, members vote by secret ballot on whether to recommend tenure and/or promotion on the stated basis (i.e., research/creative activity, teaching, service) or as a balanced case. Prior to the vote, the chair will review campus criteria and requirements for a vote in support of the candidate. For the categories of research and service, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. For the category of teaching, the four options on the ballot are excellent, very good, effective, and ineffective. The chair must make clear at the meeting that in order to register a positive vote for tenure and promotion, the ballot must indicate excellence in the primary area of consideration and at least satisfactory/effective in the other two areas (except in a balanced case, in which all areas must be ranked very good). All other votes will register as a negative vote. Faculty members have the right to abstain. Absences and abstentions do not register as a vote on the ballot. The chair’s letter should provide an account of any absences or abstentions.

When all ballots have been submitted, the votes will be tallied by an appropriate senior staff member specified in the faculty governance documents, and the chair will inform the vote- eligible faculty members of the results. The anonymity of the individual votes will be maintained, although the ballots will be kept in a secure location by the Chair of the Department in case they are requested by the Hamilton Lugar School Dean or the Provost. The Chair of the Department does not vote on the departmental ballot, but rather records their vote as part of the chair’s review on the vote record in eDossier.

8. The Department Chair’s Review

After the department vote, the Chair of the Department writes a separate statement. The statement includes a description of the department’s deliberations, including any unique characteristics of the discipline that may bear on the case (e.g., books versus articles, extent of co-authorship, significance of order of names on publications, etc.) and an accounting of the discussions in the meeting that might explain the vote, particularly in the case of negative votes, abstentions, absentees and faculty who fail to vote. The Chair is responsible for presiding at the meeting and for ensuring that there is ample time to discuss the case; the Chair should remind faculty it is their obligation to express their views whether positive or negative, but it is particularly important if they do not plan to support the case for tenure and/or promotion. The Chair also offers an independent recommendation regarding tenure and/or promotion; this recommendation is not bound by the department vote. The Chair’s statement, the departmental review committee report, and the recorded vote are added to the dossier. It is strongly recommended that the chair meet with the candidate in a timely fashion to discuss the vote. The completed file is then forwarded to the Hamilton Lugar School through the eDossier system. The deadline for submission of the file to the School is generally in the middle of September for tenure cases, and late September for promotion to Full Professor, Clinical Associate and Clinical Full Professor cases, and Senior Lecturer and Teaching Professor cases.

9. Degree of Candidate Access to File

According to Indiana University policy, all dossier materials including external reference letters must be shared with the candidate upon request at any time in the review process. Candidates may add new material to the dossier at any time during the review process and should do so if new information becomes available (e.g., an acceptance of a manuscript or article) that would improve the case for tenure.

1. School and Campus Procedures

• 1. Hamilton Lugar School Tenure and Promotion Committee: Once the file leaves the department, it goes to the Hamilton Lugar School Tenure and Promotion Committee. The Committee has seven (7) members. Five members are HLS faculty appointed by the HLS Dean to reflect a balance among the School’s units. The remaining two are faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences who have served on the College’s tenure and promotion committees at some point during the prior four academic years and are invited by the Hamilton Lugar School Dean to join the Hamilton Lugar Tenure and Promotion Committee.
  
  The HLS Dean or her/his designee presides over the Tenure and Promotion Committee. The participation of the HLS Dean is limited to an organizational and procedural role to ensure that the vote of the Committee represents an independent evaluation of the dossier, free from the direct influence of the Dean. The committee reads the file and writes a report evaluating the candidate’s research, teaching, and service. If a member of the candidate’s department(s) is serving on this committee, s/he is recused from discussion and voting. The committee members vote by secret ballot following the same procedures as a department (see Section I.B.13). It is important to note that at no stage in the process (i.e., the Department, Tenure and Promotion committees, Dean, etc.) may the basis for a positive recommendation differ from the original basis on which the case was presented by the department and the candidate. The committee vote is advisory to the HLS Dean and is included in the report that goes into the candidate’s eDossier.
  
  Hamilton Lugar School Dean’s Office: After the file leaves the Committee, the HLS Dean writes a letter evaluating the research/creative activity, teaching, and service record of the candidate based on the contents of the dossier and indicates whether the School supports or does not support tenure and/or promotion. The HLS Dean or her/his designee will consult with the Executive Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences before the School’s submission of the dossier to the Vice Provost’s Office. Following consultation, the HLS Dean’s letter is uploaded and her/his vote is recorded in eDossier before routing the dossier to the campus committee in early to mid-December.
• 2. Campus Committees: After the file leaves the Hamilton Lugar School, it goes either to the Campus Tenure Advisory Committee or the Campus Promotion Advisory Committee. The Campus Committee members also read the file and write a report evaluating the candidate’s research, teaching, and service. The committee members vote on whether the candidate should be promoted and, if appropriate, receive tenure. The Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs (VPFAA) prepares the final substantive evaluation and recommendation for the “executive level” (Provost and President), who in turn make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. A decision on tenure and/or promotion is communicated in campus mail once approved by the Board of Trustees prior to July 1.
• 3. Reconsideration: A faculty member may request a reconsideration upon receiving a negative tenure or promotion decision from the executive level if they believe that there were unjustifiable judgments of professional competence or judgments based on erroneous information. That request entails the preparation of a written rebuttal and the addition of new material germane to the deliberations. If the candidate chooses to request additional external letters, they must be obtained following the same procedures used to obtain the initial set of letters. When the rebuttal materials are completely prepared, they are included in the dossier, which is sent in its entirety back to the first level of review that made a negative recommendation (and then it is reviewed again by all subsequent levels). The reconsideration process will not add time to the candidate’s tenure probationary period, even if those deliberations extend into the seventh probationary year. Rebuttal materials must be submitted by the candidate for review within two months following notification of the negative decision.
• 4. Appeal Process: If the above reconsideration results in a negative decision or if the candidate foregoes the reconsideration opportunity, the candidate has the right to file a grievance (after the executive level decision) with the BFC Faculty Board of Review (FBOR) on procedural grounds only. The Board will decide whether evidence supports the conclusion that procedural irregularities had consequences for the legitimacy of the outcome, and if so, suggests remediation to the Provost (who decides whether the review needs to be redone, all or in part). A grievance will not in itself extend the tenure probationary period (unless so requested by the Provost). The candidate must submit materials to the FBOR within two months following notification of the negative decision by the executive level, or within one month following completion of the reconsideration process.

1. Guidelines for Department Tenure and Promotion Documents

The School requires each department to have a document that describes its promotion and tenure procedures, consistent with the following guidelines. The guidelines must be aligned with and detail the faculty governance procedures associated with sections 11-14 in the Hamilton Lugar School Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Guidelines document above.

1. Preamble

All department guidelines must include the following preamble: “These guidelines outline the criteria for promotion and tenure in the Department of XXXX. They provide a specific departmental context within the general university framework for promotion and tenure of faculty. If the department’s criteria for tenure change during the period of candidacy, the faculty member may choose to be evaluated for tenure under the criteria in force at the time of hiring; promotion reviews are grounded in current expectations.”

Promotion and tenure procedures are governed by procedures and guidelines at multiple levels of the institution. A digest of official policies regarding promotion and tenure that have been endorsed by the Bloomington Faculty Council (BFC) and the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty & Academic Affairs can be found at: https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-affairs/tenure-promotion/index.html. This document describes procedures and guidelines that departments must follow for promotion and tenure.

2. Research/Creative Activity

Department guidelines must explicitly state that excellence in research/creative activity is required for a standard tenure and/or promotion case in which research/creative activity is the basis. The department guidelines must also specify that research/creative activity must always rise to the level of Satisfactory for tenure and/or promotion when research/creative activity is not the basis. It is essential that the department guidelines specify the standards for excellence or minimum effectiveness in research/creative activity in the context of the discipline; the standards must be consistent with the broad definitions provided on the VPFAA website (https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-affairs/tenure-promotion/index.html). Department guidelines should address the relative weight and importance of the following in evaluating research/creative activity:

• i. Books, articles, book chapters, and other creative work;
• ii. The role of quantity versus quality in publications or creative activity, mindful of the campus-level expectation that quality is considered more important than quantity alone;
• iii. The role of professional standing and “impact” on the field, where what constitutes evidence of professional impact is important;
• iv. The role of external grant funding and, in particular, whether it figures into research excellence directly or indirectly through the publication of articles;
• v. The role of conference attendance and other professional activities that are signs of professional regard (e.g., editorial activities)

The department guidelines must state that, in order for book manuscripts to be considered published research, they must be accepted by a publisher, and irreversibly “in production.” Book manuscripts are considered “in production” when all creative and scholarly work has been completed by the author. Similarly, articles and book chapters must either be “in press” or “forthcoming” in order to be considered published research. “Forthcoming” means that an article or book chapter has been accepted for publication and requires no further creative or scholarly revisions. A letter to this effect from a journal editor or editor of a volume for each “forthcoming” publication is recommended. Department guidelines must state that books that are “in production” and articles/chapters that are “in press” or “forthcoming” at the time the dossier is considered by the external referees will be given greater weight in the decision than material under review or merely under contract.

Candidates are expected to establish independent lines of research/creative activity. For that reason, it is vital to establish the autonomous role played by the candidate in collaborative publications and grant proposals. Candidates must describe their roles in the research statement. Letters from collaborators describing the contributions of the candidate to co-authored work are expected in the dossier.

3. Teaching

Department guidelines must explicitly state that excellence in teaching is required for a promotion case where teaching is the basis. The department guidelines must also specify that teaching must always rise to the level of minimum effectiveness for tenure and/or promotion when teaching is not the basis. For guidance, consult Evaluation of Pedagogical Practices at: https://intranet.college.indiana.edu/faculty/tenure-promotion.html  

It is essential that the department guidelines specify what excellence or minimum effectiveness means in teaching in the context of the particular department; the standards must be consistent with the broad definitions provided on the VPFAA website (https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-affairs/tenure-promotion/index.html). The guidelines should address the relative contribution and importance of the following:

3. Teaching

• i. Numerical student course evaluations;
• ii. Student written evaluations;
• iii. Peer evaluations. VPFAA Promotion and tenure guidelines state that peer reviews of teaching should be ongoing (annually for pre-tenure faculty and periodically for tenured faculty). In the case of promotion to full professor, the general expectation in the School is that a peer evaluation will be conducted at least every other year.
• iv. Graduate student supervision and committee work;
• v. Undergraduate supervision;
• vi. Post-doc supervision;
• vii. Teaching awards;
• viii. Teaching publications;
• ix. Curricular/pedagogical development;
• x. Awards received by students.

4. Service/Engagement

Department guidelines must explicitly state that excellence in service/engagement is required for a tenure or promotion case where service is the basis and that service plays an important role in the promotion process when research/creative activity or teaching is the basis. It is essential that the guidelines clearly specify what an effective service record looks like and how service expectations increase from consideration for promotion to Associate versus Full Professor.

Candidates seeking tenure and/or promotion on the basis of Excellence in Service/Engagement must provide evidence for national/international visibility and stature resulting from service activities (even abundant local committee work is insufficient). The key is to demonstrate that the candidate’s efforts have been sustained and transformative, for a professional association, government agency, or non-academic community.

Technical competence and professional skills are indispensable for coping with the complexities of contemporary society. Faculty members are encouraged to make service contributions to diverse communities outside of the academy, from local neighborhood groups to national and international advisory panels.

Specific issues to address:

• i. The role of department service.
• ii. The role of School and university service.
• iii. The role of professional service.
• iv. The role of community service.
• v. The role of national and international service.

Appendix B
Current List of
Centers, Institutes, and Programs in the Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies

African Studies Program

Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies

Center for the Study of Global Change

Center for the Study of the Middle East

Center for Languages of the Central Asian Region

Dhar India Studies Program

East Asian Studies Center

Inner Asian and Uralic National Resource Center

Institute for European Studies and European Union Center

Institute for Korean Studies

Islamic Studies Program

National African Languages Resource Center

Polish Studies Center

Russian and East European Institute

South East Asian Studies Center

Summer Language Workshop

Arabic Flagship Center

Chinese Flagship Center

Appendix C
Faculty Advisory Board

The Faculty Advisory Board helps to foster collaboration between HLS and academic units on campus and university-wide. Membership consists of one member elected by each department and others from inside and outside the School as appointed by the Dean. The Board will advise the Dean on a wide range of issues and opportunities. The Dean may appoint members to working groups and committees as needed.