Lecturer Promotion

Full-time Lecturers who by August 31 of their review year will have held full-time Lecturer appointments at Boston University for five years of full-time teaching are eligible for promotion to Senior Lecturer. Senior Lecturers who by August 31 of their review year will have held full-time Senior Lecturer appointments at Boston University for five years of full-time teaching are eligible for promotion to Master Lecturer. Academic years or semesters where a salaried lecturer’s effort was below 100% will be accounted for on a pro-rated basis until the lecturer has reached the equivalent of 5 years of full time teaching

A candidate who has been turned down for promotion to Senior Lecturer or Master Lecturer by the Lecturer Promotion Committee or Dean first becomes eligible to apply again for promotion in the second academic year following the unsuccessful application.

Demonstrated excellence in teaching is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for promotion to Senior Lecturer and for further promotion to Master Lecturer. Other relevant professional accomplishments are also necessary for the distinction of promotion. Promotion is in no case based simply on experience or years in rank. Promotion responds to past accomplishments, but its purpose is oriented toward the future. It is based on expectations about the candidate’s future accomplishments and impact. Thus, it is an investment in the future.

Promotion to Senior Lecturer: Among the criteria beyond excellence in teaching that build a case for promotion to Senior Lecturer are noteworthy academic leadership, especially in curriculum development, planning, and oversight; mentoring and/or training of other professionals in the field; professional service; sustained participation in programs for professional development; and scholarship, as demonstrated in public presentations and publication insofar as they are directly relevant to the candidate’s work as a Lecturer. This academic leadership should have been exercised over a period of years that provides a sufficient basis for evaluating impact to date, as well as the candidate’s potential for enhanced leadership if promoted to the rank of Senior Lecturer.

Promotion to Master Lecturer: Candidates for promotion to Master Lecturer will be considered under the same criteria, but must meet appropriately higher expectations in terms of the scope, range, or impact of professional activities, in addition to demonstrating ongoing growth as excellent teachers. Pedagogical initiatives that are informed by developments in the field, reach beyond individual classrooms, and materially advance student program learning outcomes and/or other strategic planning priorities of the department, College, or university will weigh heavily. Evidence of effective leadership, e.g., in curriculum design or mentoring of more junior teachers, is also important. While not required, excellence in publications or scholarly work, especially as relevant to the teaching mission, is regarded favorably. Review for promotion to Master Lecturer will focus primarily on the candidate’s accomplishments in the years since appointment at the rank of Senior Lecturer, with attention also paid to specific plans for the next phase of his/her career trajectory.

Units may nominate any number of eligible Lecturers or Senior Lecturers for promotion, but they must be sure to develop appropriately high standards for promotion and use these standards in a clear and fair process of nomination. Because the criteria for promotion are stringent, departments and programs should refrain from nominating candidates who do not have a demonstrable and sustained record of outstanding teaching as well as other professional excellence as outlined above.  Candidates may request to be considered for promotion by their department.

Each fall the Office of Faculty Actions will forward to department chairs/directors a list of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers who are eligible for promotion according to length of service.  Chairs/directors should notify eligible Lecturers about the opportunity, deadlines, and procedures for promotion within one week of receiving the list.

The department/program, through the Chair/Director, is responsible for the quality of the nomination dossier. It is important to be sure that the dossier includes all necessary information and documentation in as clear and accurate a manner as possible.

Each department/program should establish a transparent and fair process for reviewing eligible candidates who wish to be considered for promotion. Whether or not a departmental subcommittee is used for initial review and presentation of candidates’ materials, that process must include a discussion and vote on promotion by all eligible members of the department/program: tenure-track, tenured, and “of the practice” faculty, as well as faculty in the Lecturer track at a rank higher than those under consideration. In preparation for the departmental discussion, all eligible voters should have access to materials including, at a minimum, the candidate’s CV, statement, and student and peer teaching evaluations, as detailed under “Nomination Dossier” below. When a department/program decides to forward a nominee for consideration at the College level, the chair’s/director’s report details the results of the departmental vote on promotion, including an acknowledgement and explanation of any concerns that resulted in negative votes.

If a candidate was previously considered for promotion but was turned down by the Lecturer Promotion Committee and/or Dean, the promotion dossier should address the main concerns raised in the previous reports of the Lecturer Promotion Committee and/or Dean.

If the department/program decides against promotion, the chair/director should inform the candidate and the Tenure & Promotion Coordinator. In the event of a negative decision, the case does not proceed forward and is considered closed unless the candidate appeals the negative decision. Please see the section below on appeals for more information on this process.

Units should work with candidates to ensure that the best possible case is presented.

Chairs and Directors are responsible for sharing information on the nomination process and dossier with candidates, and for ensuring that the candidates understand how to present the best possible case for their promotion.

Departments/programs will submit one complete dossier for each nominee to a password-protected server located here. Only the Chair/Director and administrator from each unit can be given access to the server.

A dossier should consist of the following items:

• A statement from the department outlining the departmental promotion process and the criteria the department/program uses to define and measure excellence in teaching and other achievements when considering candidates for promotion. Each department/program should have distinct criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer versus promotion to Master Lecturer. This statement should be identical in the dossiers of all nominees for promotion to the same rank within a department/program (max. 500 words, apportioned between the two ranks of senior lecturer and master lecturer).

• The nominee’s up-to-date CV, following standard academic format (i.e. education, positions held, awards, publications, talks and presentations, professional service, academic service, courses taught, etc.) with the relevant dates clearly indicated. (Submitted by the candidate to the department)

• A statement by the nominee about his/her professional accomplishments and plans for the future that are relevant to consideration for promotion (max. 1,000 words, submitted by the candidate to the department). Candidates are welcome to include a link to their professional website in their statement, although the committee is only required to review materials submitted as part of the official dossier (as outlined in this section).

• A detailed departmental report including the faculty’s vote on promotion and discussing the nominee’s strengths and weaknesses in light of the criteria for excellence defined by the department and with specific reference to the nominee’s record (max. 1,000 words). The report should describe in full those elements of the nominee’s dossier that may not be self-evident to committee members from other fields (e.g., departmental service assignments and tasks). The report should also provide a departmental perspective on the nominee’s future professional development and expected post-promotion contributions.A redacted version of the department’s report will be supplied to the candidate by the Dean’s Office as soon as possible. To facilitate this, please send a word version of the final report to the Tenure & Promotion coordinator. Candidates who find factual errors in the redacted report may submit corrections in writing to the Tenure & Promotion coordinator within five business days of receipt. Candidates should not write general “responses” or answers to reports, but only correct errors of fact. Candidates should not write to disagree with the conclusions or interpretations of the report, or argue that they have placed the wrong weight on different elements of the case, or incorporate any other information or argument that is not, strictly speaking, a correction of fact.
• Supporting materials related specifically to teaching, advising, and curricular accomplishments including syllabi, letters from students, and other relevant materials (max. 35 pages). 
• Student teaching evaluations from the most recent two years of teaching, including statistical summaries. For the Fall 2023 promotion process, we strongly recommend including three years’ worth of course evaluation data, rather than the standard two years, in order to include pre-remote learning/LfA teaching data. (department/program responsibility).

• Peer teaching evaluations from the most recent two years of teaching (min. of two, and max. of three evaluations; it is the department/program’s responsibility to conduct these evaluations). Peer teaching evaluations should not be a minute accounting of the class visit, but rather a deeper assessment of all aspects of the teaching in terms familiar to faculty in other disciplines. Peer class observations should be completed by faculty higher in rank than the candidate. If no such faculty are available in the department, please consult the tenure and promotion coordinator.

• Other relevant supporting materials documenting professional accomplishments, including representative publications, if appropriate (max. 35 pages, except books).

• A brief blurb (50-100 words) that describes the subjects taught by the candidate, their area(s) of expertise, curricular or pedagogical advances, and/or scholarly or professional accomplishments should also be emailed to the Tenure & Promotion Coordinator. This will be used by the college to announce successful promotions.

Please note: No external letters of evaluation or support for Lecturer Promotion nominees will be solicited by the College or Committee, and the Lecturer Promotion Committee does not conduct classroom visits.

Each candidate should seek guidance on constructing and compiling the parts of the dossier for which he/she is responsible, and should consult directly either with the Chair/Director of the unit, or with an appropriate senior member of the faculty who can act as a mentor and assist in the compilation of a sound dossier.

CV:

Candidates should consider tailoring the CV to the lecturer promotion process, specifically outlining the timeline of their development as a Lecturer, and accurately listing when service contributions took place. An article on structuring a professional CV can be found here.

Personal Statement:

Candidates should keep the CAS and department/program criteria for promotion in mind as they write their personal statement. It should not simply be a summary of candidates’ teaching, service, research and professional experience over the last few years because much of this is listed on the CV. The personal statement is an opportunity for candidates to discuss their philosophy and approach to teaching and education, the strategies they have used for success and professional development; their unique skills and contributions; and their professional aspirations and strategies for the future.

Other Documents:

Candidates should give careful thought to what other documents to submit in connection with their consideration for promotion. Each document should contribute significantly to demonstrating professional accomplishment and reputation.

The CAS Lecturer Promotion Committee will advise the Dean of CAS or Pardee, who will make the final decisions about promotions in each round. The CAS Lecturer Promotion Committee will consist of nine members chosen from among CAS professorial faculty and Master Lecturer faculty. Committee members will be recused from reviews of members of their own department. Alex Bellan from the office of Faculty Actions will provide staff support for the lecturer promotion process.

A redacted version of the committee’s report will be supplied to the candidate when the Dean’s final decision is announced. Candidates who find factual errors in the redacted report may submit corrections in writing to Alex Bellan within five business days of receipt. Candidates should not write general “responses” or answers to reports, but only correct errors of fact. Candidates should not write to disagree with the conclusions or interpretations of the report, or argue that they have placed the wrong weight on different elements of the case, or incorporate any other information or argument that is not, strictly speaking, a correction of fact.

In the event of a negative report, candidates are encouraged to speak to their department Chair/Director. In the event that further information is still required, candidates should schedule a meeting with the appropriate Associate Dean: Arianne Chernock (Social Sciences), Joseph Bizup (Core Curriculum and Writing Program), Alice Tseng (Humanities), Sean Mullen (Natural Sciences), and John Byers (Mathematical & Computational Sciences).

If you have a question about the process, please contact Gina Halabi (ghalabi@bu.edu).

Appealing Department’s negative decision

Lecturers or Senior Lecturers who are denied promotion by the Department can appeal this decision to the Dean. The Dean’s process is modeled after the process for appeals at the University level, outlined in the University Faculty Handbook policy on Tenure and Promotion on the Charles River Campus, in Section I: Appeals Process for Negative Decision, With or Without Tenure.

1. The candidate must file an appeal of a negative recommendation within 30 calendar days after being notified in writing of the negative recommendation. If a request is filed after the 30-day time period, the Dean may deny the appeal as untimely.

2. The appeal of a negative recommendation must be based on one or more of the following grounds: (a) the candidate has met all criteria for promotion and the decision was erroneous on the merits; (b) the promotion review process was marred by procedural errors or deviations from standard processes that were significant enough to substantially affect the outcome of the decision; or (c) the promotion review process was affected by bias or discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, ethnic origin, age, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other unlawful basis that was significant enough to substantially affect the outcome of the decision. When filing an appeal, the candidate must identify all grounds on which it is based, as the candidate will be afforded only one opportunity to request a review of a negative recommendation.

3. The Dean will assess appeals based on merit and/or determine whether the candidate has articulated claims of procedural errors or unlawful discrimination that, if ultimately supported by the evidence, would provide a basis to re-examine the negative recommendation.

4. The Dean’s review process may include review of documents, including the promotion dossier, as well as review by an ad hoc faculty committee, appointed by the Dean, to aid in determination of relevant facts, witness interviews, and consultation with other University personnel including the Equal Opportunity Office, as appropriate. Any witnesses will be given advance notice as to the nature of the appeal prior to the interview. The candidate may select a faculty member advisor who may accompany the candidate to any appearance before the ad hoc committee for purposes of providing support, but who may not directly participate in the review. The Dean’s decision is final.

5. This review process, including the identity of the members of the ad hoc committee, information obtained in the review process, and information disclosed to witnesses consulted by the committee should be kept confidential by all participants, including the candidate and witnesses. The ad hoc committee will not disclose to the candidate the identity of any individual evaluation letters or direct quotations from letters which are submitted in confidence.

Appealing Dean’s negative decision

Lecturers or Senior Lecturers who are denied promotion by the Dean can appeal this decision to the Provost, as outlined in the University Faculty Handbook policy on Tenure and Promotion on the Charles River Campus, in Section H1: Promotion for Faculty Holding Lecturer Titles: Appeals Process for Lecturer Promotions and Section I: Appeals Process for Negative Decision, With or Without Tenure. Please note that although the Faculty Handbook policy on Lecturer Promotion does not apply to Lecturers and Senior Lecturers in the collective bargaining unit, CAS has adopted the appeals portion of the policy for members of the collective bargaining unit.