Appendix A to the SPHHP Bylaws: Procedures for Appointment and Promotion of Faculty in Qualified Academic Ranks

Faculty appointed to qualified ranks make an essential contribution to the overall instructional, research, and service missions of the School of Public Health and Health Professions (SPHHP). This document is intended for the guidance of SPHHP faculty who are appointed to Qualified Academic Ranks and for faculty and administrators who conduct reviews of faculty performance. Qualified ranks are used primarily to designate faculty members whose primary contributions will be in one area of academic activity. For example, the "Research" prefix is appropriate for faculty members whose activities are primarily in research. "Clinical" for those teaching in a clinical or practice environment (including athletic training, exercise science, nutrition, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and public health practice) as part of an established academic program. A less common, but equally important primary role occurs when clinical faculty serve in administrative capacities, such as program or clinical education directors, or a more balanced teaching and research role. “Adjunct" is for those with appropriate professional qualifications who perform teaching or research in connection with an academic program. These positions may be full-time, part-time, or voluntary. The lecturer is also a qualified title used primarily for appointments restricted to teaching. These appointments do not lead to consideration for continuing appointment.

Appointment or promotion to any faculty rank with a qualified title is recognition of significant accomplishment and is never a reward merely for years of service. As required by the University at Buffalo’s Policies, Procedures, and Criteria for Faculty Personnel Actions, the appointment to or promotion in qualified rank will be carried out with the same care, using the same criteria and the same standards applied to unqualified academic ranks as relevant in the applicable area of academic activity or service.

This document provides specific guidance for Clinical Faculty and Research Faculty. Policies, criteria, and procedures for the appointment and promotion of Visiting or Adjunct Faculty should appropriately adapt those described here for Clinical faculty. Should any statements in this Appendix be found that contradict statements in the current SPHHP Bylaws, the statements in the Bylaws shall be followed.

Although the particular duties and responsibilities of clinical faculty vary across SPHHP departments, the promotion criteria that the candidate is evaluated on should reflect the expectations and workload (e.g., annual teaching load) from their offer letter. If those expectations have changed over time, these changes should be stated in the Chair's promotion letter.  In general, candidates should demonstrate a commitment to, and philosophy of, education compatible with the goals and educational mission of the Department, School, and University. Candidates should also demonstrate the potential for ongoing growth as academicians. Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor rank will require exemplary performance in at least one category, which will most likely be teaching along with at least meritorious performance in the other two categories. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor will require exemplary performance in at least two areas.

a.  Clinical Lecturer and Instructor

These ranks shall be used for a candidate who has completed the appropriate entry level degree for clinical practice or research. If professional licensure or certification is required for practice, the candidate would be expected to be licensed or certified to engage in professional practice in the State of New York, with a minimum of two years of professional experience. There must be clear evidence to support strongly the prediction that the individual will be a good practitioner and teacher and will participate actively in professional and public service.

b.  Clinical Assistant Professor

In addition to satisfying the criteria applicable to the rank of clinical lecturer or instructor, the candidate would be expected to have attained a terminal degree for their profession and, as relevant, present positive evidence of potential for a high level of performance as an applied professional, and/or evidence of didactic skills and ability (as appropriate to the position). Clear evidence should be presented of a commitment to high professional standards, and the potential for effective participation in professional and public service. Service to the School or University in a prior academic role (e.g., clinical lecturer or instructor) would count favorably towards appointment as a clinical assistant professor.

c.  Clinical Associate Professor

Faculty being considered for appointment/promotion to the rank of clinical associate professor must meet the criteria of excellence as a clinical assistant professor. The candidate must demonstrate professional growth and achievement commensurate with the associate rank and the promise of continued professional growth. Typically, clinical assistant professors should be in rank a minimum of five years before being considered for promotion. Comparable service of up to three years at the University at Buffalo or another institution can be counted as part of the five years of time in rank. However, service in SPHHP should be for at least 2 years.

Promotion criteria include expectations for performance in teaching, service, and research or scholarly activities.  Teaching load and research expectations should be clearly stated in the offer letter, but if this is not the case, the candidate's statement and the Chair's letter should clarify these issues. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the offer letter, at least a modest level of scholarly activity is expected.

The candidate must show clear and sustained evidence of highly effective teaching. Relevant evidence could include ratings collected from students on teaching effectiveness, samples of work from students, formal assessments of student performance, statements from former students regarding the professional and personal impact of the faculty member, evaluations by department chairs, program directors, direct observations of teaching, and teaching awards and recognitions. In the case of teacher effectiveness ratings from students, the sample should be collected from courses with a reasonable proportion of responses from enrolled students at or above the average participation rate for SPHHP.

With regard to service, clinical faculty can contribute to Departmental, School, University, Community or Professional service. Teaching-related service  may include (but is not limited to): the development of innovative teaching methods and pedagogical tools; curriculum development; leadership responsibilities for a particular educational program in the department/school; participation in professional meetings or panels involving teaching and learning; service learning contributions to the Department, School, University, or community; mentoring and/or advising of individual students and student groups; representation of the Department, School, or University in student outreach or events; and specific administrative activities that assist the Department, School, or University in meeting educational goals.

Contributions in research can include participation in research grants; authorship or co-authorship of peer-reviewed publications; serving on Thesis and Dissertation committees, and service as a reviewer of manuscripts for professional journals, abstracts for professional meeting, and grant applications. Grant funding as principal investigator is not a requirement for promotion to clinical associate professor. Research expectations should reflect the teaching load of the faculty member. Unpublished research on teaching can be considered as evidence of meritorious service.

In all cases of proposed appointment as a Clinical Associate Professor, the candidate must have demonstrated a continued high level of professional performance.

d.  Clinical Professor

Faculty being considered for promotion to Clinical Professor must have achieved a sustained level of excellence commensurate with this rank. Typically, Clinical Associate Professors would be in rank a minimum of five years before being considered for promotion. For appointment as a Clinical Professor, the criteria for Clinical Associate Professor must be met. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the offer letter (or explained in the Chair's promotion letter), the scholarly activity is expected to exceed the level achieved when promoted to Clinical Associate Professor. In addition, candidates should have a documented record of excellence in teaching. Candidates should exhibit leadership in service responsibilities within the Department, the School, University and/or Profession.

Also, candidates should be visible and highly regarded in their discipline or field with state, national and/or international recognition. Such visibility could come, for example, from involvement in state, national, or international professional organizations, awards or honors, provision of workshops and seminars, invitations to speak, and/or research. If applicable, candidates must have demonstrated the ability to supervise students in their respective programs. As in the case of appointments at all other ranks, the recommendation for an appointment at the rank of clinical professor should present clear and strong evidence that exemplary performance as an applied professional has been demonstrated and can be expected to continue. There should be evidence of specific innovations in the performance of one's duties as well as the initiation and/or development of programs and policies that have had a demonstrable impact upon the quality of training. 

In most cases, research faculty members are expected to engage in scholarly activities, teach/mentor, and perform service. If no teaching is expected, this should be specifically stated in the offer letter. Promotion to Research Associate Professor will require exemplary performance in scholarship, with meritorious performance in teaching and service. Promotion to Research Professor will require exemplary performance in research scholarship and in at least one of the other two areas.

a.  Research Assistant Professor

Candidates for appointment to the rank of Research Assistant Professor will have attained a terminal degree in a relevant field of study and presented positive evidence of the ability to independently conduct high-quality research. Clear evidence of the potential for a high level of performance as a researcher should be demonstrated. Such evidence could include student awards, peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, grant funding and service as a peer-reviewer of submitted manuscripts for professional journals and of submitted abstracts for scientific meetings/conferences. There must be a commitment to expanding the evidence base of the field of study, incorporating the highest professional standards. There must also be a willingness to contribute to the educational mission of the department and school and to participate effectively in department, school, university, professional, and public service.

b.  Research Associate Professor

Faculty being considered for promotion to the rank of research associate professor must meet the criteria of excellence as a research assistant professor. The candidate must demonstrate professional growth and achievement commensurate with the associate professor rank and the promise of continued professional growth. Typically, research assistant professors should have been in rank for at least five years before they are considered for promotion. Comparable service of up to three years at the University at Buffalo or another institution can be counted as part of the five years of time in rank. However, service in SPHHP should be for at least two years.

Promotion criteria include expectations for outstanding performance in scholarly activities. The candidate must show clear and sustained evidence of scholarship. Such evidence should include the establishment of a substantial and independent body of research; successful grantsmanship, including funding as principal investigator; increasing quantity and quality of peer-reviewed journal articles (many as first or senior author); and presentations at national or international conferences. Additional criteria for success could include invited lectures or workshops.

Criteria regarding service include professional contributions such as participation in scientific peer review for journals, professional meetings (e.g., abstract reviews), grants, and other organizations, and editorial service for journals. With regard to service within UB, the candidate should, if required by the offer letter, participate in committees on the departmental, school and/or university levels.

Promotion criteria related to teaching should include serving as an instructor for courses in the candidate’s discipline and mentoring master’s and doctoral students, including service as a member or chair of student committees. Research faculty could further contribute to the department’s academic mission by leading journal clubs for master’s and doctoral students, leading and/or actively participating in work-in-progress seminars, and otherwise facilitating the professional development of research-oriented students.

c.   Research Professor

Faculty being considered for promotion to Research Professor must have achieved a sustained level of excellence commensurate with this rank. Typically, Research Associate Professors will have been in rank for five years to be considered for promotion. The criteria for appointment as a Research Professor build upon those for promotion to Research Associate Professor. Candidates for Research Professor will have demonstrated continued professional growth in the research metrics described for Research Associate Professors and will have a national/international reputation in their field. Research leadership is required. For example, candidates will have funding as principal investigator on federal and/or foundational research grants, published high impact work, and consistently interacted with other thought-leaders in the field, in venues such as major research projects and national or international advisory boards. Other evidence of growth as a leader includes receipt of external honors and awards, service in editorial roles for leading journals, being asked to make invited presentations (some of which could involve plenary lectures), leading symposia at national and/or international conferences, and serving on grant review panels.

In addition, candidates should have a documented record as an accomplished educator and clear evidence of research leadership in the areas in which they teach. Mentorship should be demonstrated by the candidate chairing Masters’ theses and/or Doctoral dissertations. Candidates should exhibit leadership in service responsibilities within the Department, the School, and/or the University. Professional service could include appointment or election to leadership roles in professional societies.

Membership:

1.  The Committee Chair shall be elected by the voting members of the committee by a simple majority vote.

2.  General membership:

a.  There will be two faculty representatives per department. Each departmental representative will be a member of the Voting Faculty, in an unqualified (tenured) or qualified (Clinical, Research) line holding at least the rank of Associate Professor. If feasible, at least one departmental member will be at the rank of Professor. The term limits for each representative will be 3 years, and this term is renewable but in non-consecutive terms. As stated in the Bylaws approved in spring, 2021, two sequential terms are allowed while transitioning from the previous Bylaws to the current Bylaws, and term extensions are allowed if there are no other members of the Department qualified (or willing) to serve on the School Qualified Promotions Committee.  

i.  Voting membership on the SPHHP Qualified Promotions Committee is limited to those Voting Faculty who are at or above the rank of the candidate being considered for promotion, in tenured or qualified positions.  

b.  Five faculty members (chosen from the pool of ten elected to the School Promotion Committee: two faculty members per department) from departments other than the candidate’s department will vote at the school level. Each department (other than the candidate's department) will have a voting member on the committee, and the representative from the candidate's department will be replaced by an eligible member from another department. If necessary, for a specific case, the Chair of the committee and the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will confer to select one or more ad hoc faculty member(s) to serve for that specific case.

c.  The Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs (ex-officio). The ex-officio member will not cast a vote.

3.  Efforts should be made by Department Chairs and the Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs to have several voting committee members that hold qualified rank. For votes on faculty being reviewed for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor (qualified), there should be a mix of both Associate Professors and Professors. All committee members shall be Full Professors when considering an applicant for the rank of Full Professor.

 Responsibilities:

1.  Review dossiers of candidates who are being considered for promotion in their qualified titles. The evaluation of a qualified faculty member must consider the performance expected in relation to the responsibilities assigned to the candidate in their offer letter(s). Formal or informal changes to the candidate’s responsibilities outside of the offer letter(s) must be stated in both the Chair's letter and the Candidate's statement.

2.  Make recommendations to the Dean for all candidates for promotion, which includes the results of the committee’s closed ballot vote.

3.  Follow the School’s Bylaws (Article VI) for qualified title promotion and in accordance with University promotion guidelines (Office of the Provost, Policies, Procedures, and Criteria for Faculty Personnel Actions, Sections II and III).

 Meetings:

1.  Meetings will be held when there is a candidate to consider.

Procedures for Promoting Clinical and Adjunct Faculty

1.  An annual meeting between the faculty member and the Chair might include discussion of procedures for promotion and if the faculty member is ready or what more is needed before promotion can be considered.

a. Department Chairs will let the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs know of candidates who will be going up for promotion that academic year by September 15^th.

2.  Required Dossier Documents:

From Candidate:

a.  A full Curriculum Vitae

b.  A personal statement, which will describe the candidate’s teaching, service, and scholarly activities emphasizing the candidate’s strengths. The length of the personal statement should follow the page guidelines specified in Office of the Vice Provost of Faculty Affairs document: “Policies, Procedures, and Criteria for Faculty Personnel Actions, which specifies: no more than 3 pages for the research statement, no more than 2 pages for the service statement, and ~3 pages for the teaching statement. The candidate’s responsibilities, as outlined in their offer letter(s), should drive the relative contribution to each component. Changes to the candidate’s responsibilities over time should be clearly noted in the candidate's personal statement and in the Chair's Letter.

• The teaching component of the statement will describe the candidate’s philosophy of teaching, teaching experiences and contributions referencing materials in the teaching portfolio, and plans for future teaching development.
  
• The service component will describe the candidate’s professional service, department/school/university service, and community service.
  
• The scholarship component will include a description of the candidate’s area(s) of research interest, scholarly productivity, important findings, grantsmanship (if applicable), and plans for future work.
  

a.  Examples of evidence

Teaching

i.  Full student Course Evaluations (as pdf’s), including student comments, from (at a minimum) the most recent administration of courses taught as a primary instructor (since coming to UB or since last promotion) must be included. Candidates may use the summary tables at the end of this document as templates to summarize data (including trends in course evaluation ratings since coming to UB, or since the last promotion).

ii.  For faculty whose major responsibility is teaching, more extensive teaching portfolio materials should be included. Teaching materials should clearly demonstrate the impact of the candidates teaching on students' learning. Examples may include but are not limited to: syllabi, lecture slides, examinations, labs or assignments, rubrics, examples of grading student work, exemplar student work, integration of scholarship, curriculum development, service-learning, integrating research or scholarship into curriculum, teaching commendations, and evidence of student appreciation (e.g., handwritten notes or letters, emails, etc.) which demonstrate the impact made on mentees, and development of innovative teaching methods. It is desirable that peer reviews of teaching performance should be performed for all clinical faculty whose primary responsibility is teaching, and this should be performed by either the Department Chair or a faculty member with considerable teaching experience.  Faculty are encouraged to include evidence of training they have attended or other strategies they have utilized to continually improve their teaching (e.g., CEI training or workshops). Promotion candidates are encouraged to address any poor ratings they might have received by explaining what they have changed, or will change, for that course.

iii.  The length of the teaching portfolio should not exceed 25 pages. Materials can be physical copies or electronic, which may include videos, websites or other electronic media.

iv.  Optional documents (not counted toward the page limit):

·  Mentoring Impact Letters (up to 2 letters from mentors or mentees).

·  Collaborating letters (up to 2 for research projects that involve other institutions).

Service

v.  Examples of service may include (but not limited to): active participation on department, school, and/or the university committees; advising of individual students and student groups, clubs, or committees; research-related service (e.g., grant reviewer, manuscript reviewer, abstract reviewer, etc.); editorial service for journals; or non-research professional service (e.g., serving on committees, or as a member of the board of directors) to the community, non-governmental organizations, or non-profit professional organizations.

Scholarship

 vi.  Contributions in research or scholarship, may include participation in the application for external grants, execution of research grants; authorship or co-authorship of peer-reviewed publications or book chapters; conducting research; invited lectures; conference presentations; service as a reviewer of manuscripts for professional journals, abstracts for professional meeting; research mentoring; editorial service for journals; active participation in works-in-progress seminars; serving as a chair or committee member on theses and dissertations; student awards; or otherwise facilitating the professional development of research-oriented students.

b.  Faculty are encouraged to highlight diversity and inclusion contributions in their CVs, statements, and teaching portfolio. Examples might include, but are not limited to, committee service, attending relevant workshops/trainings, mentoring students from diverse backgrounds, incorporating inclusive pedagogy practices, and course material that represents and/or supports varied perspectives.

c.  COVID pandemic impact statement: It is recognized that the effects of the pandemic might extend beyond one year. In anticipation of possible longer term COVID-19 consequences, candidates may include up to a 1-page statement describing how the COVID pandemic has impacted teaching effectiveness, scholarship productivity, and service. Candidates are encouraged to discuss substantial disruptions and their consequences. Limitations may include research spending freezes or restrictions, cancelled conferences affecting attendance and presentations, slowed publication process, data collection (e.g., resource, personnel, and subject availability), service, psychological impact of the pandemic, mentoring, and teaching (new courses, shifting learning modes, student enrollment per class, etc.). This statement is designed to assist the committee in contextualizing and understanding unavoidable disruptions giving way to aberrant trajectories in productivity or effectiveness. The COVID pandemic may have longer-term (> 1 year) effects on faculty productivity in all three categories. Any candidate whose teaching or research was impacted by the COVID pandemic may include this statement.

d.  An advocate should be identified at the outset of the promotion process by the candidate and the department chair but not asked to write an advocate letter unless requested to do so.

    3. Departmental Review: The Dossier:

a.  Offer letter(s) showing candidates’ responsibilities with sensitive information redacted.

b.  Chair solicits, from rank-on-rank or higher ranked reviewers, at least two letters from UB faculty members and at least three letters from unconflicted reviewers from other universities at an equivalent position with similar responsibilities (e.g., administrative duties such as program director or clinical education director, research expectation, teaching load, etc.). Having tenure is not a requirement. The chair is encouraged to consult with Departmental or other faculty (but not the candidate) to identify individuals who should or should not be asked for these letters. The candidate can also tell the chair if there are internal or external faculty that they do not want to be asked to write letters.  The candidate is allowed to suggest the names of possible reviewers who have served as collaborators or mentors/mentees, and these letters will be considered 'internal' letters. 

c.  The department Chair will send all eligible faculty members the candidate's promotion materials. Eligible faculty members are those at or above the academic rank the candidate is being considered for, both Qualified and Unqualified rank. The promotion materials (at a minimum) will include the candidate's vitae, personal statements, teaching portfolio, as well as all internal and external letters. Subsequently, all eligible faculty will meet to discuss the dossier and the candidate and have a closed ballot after calling the question as to whether to approve the promotion. Once the balloting is completed, the department Chair tells the faculty attending the meeting the results of the ballot and subsequently informs the candidate.

d. The Chair’s letter should include at least (1) the results of the department vote and synopsis of the departmental review discussion, (2) any changes to candidate’s responsibilities, (3) candid evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, (4) potential for continued excellence, and (5) whether they (the department Chair) support the promotion.

e.  All dossier materials are put in a single pdf document that follows the guidelines specified for Tenure and Promotion in the UB document "Policies, Procedures, and Criteria for Faculty Personnel Actions", and forwarded to the SPHHP Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs. The Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs reviews the dossier to ensure it meets SPHHP guidelines, and if it does not, provides feedback to the Departmental Chair on how to rectify any non-compliance issues.

1. The procedures and required documentation for promoting Research Assistant Professors are very similar to those utilized for promoting Clinical Assistant Professors. The procedures for promoting Research Associate Professors are not. Specifically, for promotion to Research Professor, once the promotion dossier is forwarded to the Dean, the dean writes a letter regarding his/her support (or lack thereof) for promotion, which is forwarded, along with the dossier, to the President’s Review Board (PRB), and from there to the Provost and then the President of UB. In this regard, promotion to Research Professor more closely follows the procedures used for Unqualified Faculty than for Qualified Faculty.
   
   
2. Materials to be submitted by the candidate when considered for promotion to Research Associate Professor or to Research Professor are similar to those specified are similar to those specified for clinical faculty promotions, with the following differences:

a.  An extensive teaching portfolio (as required for Clinical Faculty dossiers) is not required. Complete student experience surveys (as pdf’s) with all student comments from the initial teaching of each course by the candidate and the most recent administration of courses taught as a primary instructor (since coming to UB or since last promotion) must be included. A summary of these data from all courses taught as a primary instructor (since coming to UB or since last promotion) should also be included in tabular form. Candidates may use the summary tables at the end of this document as templates.

b.  A minimum of two internal (to UB) letters are required for promotion to either Research Associate Professor or Research Professor. A minimum of three external letters are required for promotion to Research Associate Professor. These external letters must come from faculty holding the appropriate academic rank at research-intensive universities (i.e., AAU, R1 or R2). For promotion to Research Professor, at least four external letters from non-conflicted faculty holding the rank of Professor. All (or at least 3 of 4) of these letters should come from faculty with position at AAU Universities, although one can come from a faculty member at an R1 or R2 University if the choice of this person is justified in the department Chair's letter. Their letters shall comment on the applicant’s scholarship, and informed comments related to teaching and service are welcome.

 Responsibilities:

1. Non-voting faculty include both faculty with a primary appointment in the School of less than 50% FTE and any voluntary appointments.
2. Department Chairs recommend the rank for the initial appointment of non-voting faculty. For faculty with their primary appointment in other UB departments, (including the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center), the rank offered is almost always the rank the person holds in their home department.
3. When faculty members are promoted in their home departments, they will also be changed to the same rank for their School appointment, by the recommendation of the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and the Chair of the SPHHP Promotions Committee for Faculty with Qualified Titles. For those faculty who are not appointed in another department, the Department Chair makes a recommendation based on the qualifications of that faculty member.
4. The Chair of the Promotions Committee for Faculty with Qualified Titles and the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs review the recommendation of the Department Chair and make a recommendation to the Dean about approving the promotion.
5. The Dean reviews and must approve every non-voting appointment for rank and expected contributions to the department and School.

As stated in the Spring 2021 SPHHP Bylaws, to revise Bylaws appendices, the School Faculty Council will form and charge an ad hoc committee of the Faculty Council to review and potentially revise the Bylaws, and/or revise one or more appendices of the Bylaws. The ad hoc committee will determine whether revisions are required, and if so, make these revisions.

Amendments. Amendments to this appendix to the Bylaws must be approved by a simple majority of participating eligible voters. Voting may take place during a legally constituted meeting of the Voting Faculty or by paper or electronic balloting. Regardless of the voting procedure, amendments must be made available to the members of the voting faculty at least 15 workdays prior to the meeting date or deadline for voting on changes. If approved, amendments to the Bylaws shall become effective immediately, unless otherwise noted. However, established committee membership in both the school faculty council and operating standing committees shall continue until the end of the academic year.