Faculty Promotion

The Boston University Faculty Handbook contains the authoritative outline of the basic university-wide criteria, processes, and timetable for faculty promotion, in the Tenure and Promotion on the Charles River Campus section. The information provided below describes the internal practices MET follows in order to meet those standards.

Candidates for promotion should develop the habit of keeping well-organized documentation of their professional accomplishments in research, teaching, mentoring, and professional service. This includes keeping an updated academic curriculum vitae. They should seek guidance and advice from their mentors, senior colleagues, and members of their field as they develop their careers and compile their materials for review.

Because external evaluators increasingly refer to Google Scholar metrics, candidates are strongly encouraged to create and curate their own Google Scholar profile to ensure that all of their published works are included and that no works by other authors with the same or a similar name are included.

Service Requirements, Criteria, and Timelines for Promotion, by Rank

Assistant Professor to Associate Professor

Associate Professor to Professor

Associate Professor of the Practice to Professor of the Practice

Professorial faculty with ranks modified by ‘of the Practice’ are distinguished practitioners who primarily provide undergraduate and graduate teaching, service and mentoring, informed by their experience as working professionals in the fields from which they have been recruited to join the University.

Service Requirement:

While there is no rigid timeline for promotion, progress towards promotion should be a topic during each annual performance evaluation meeting between Associate Professors of the Practice and the Chair. Under normal circumstances, Associate Professors of the Practice are eligible for promotion after serving 5-7 years in rank. Consideration may occur outside this timeframe, depending on individual circumstances.

Criteria:

The criteria for promotion to Professor of the Practice includes excellence in teaching, which usually is supported by strong teaching evaluations, peer observations, and leadership in course or curricular design. The candidate should also have a strong record of mentoring students with interests in the profession represented by the candidate; service to the School or College, University and the profession; and significant continuing achievement in professional activities, advancement of professional standing, and/or relevant professional experience leading to an international or, as appropriate, national reputation in the candidate’s field.

Timeline:

Promotions from Associate Professor of the Practice to Professor of the Practice are generally reviewed by the Provost during the faculty merit review process. They should be submitted to the Provost’s Office by May 1.

September: Discussion with the Department Chair

September-January: Generating Evaluation Materials (Candidate). All materials should be finalized by January 31.

September-January: Soliciting External Evaluations (Department Chair and Office of the Dean). Promotion cases at this level require the college to collect at least 6 external evaluation letters from experts in the candidate’s field and broader discipline, at least half of which must be arms-length. Evaluators will be asked to address these specific questions:

What of [Name’s] professional work has earned [their] national or international recognition?
How do [Name’s] professional accomplishments compare to those of other professionals at similar stages in their careers?
What is your assessment of [Name’s] potential as a teacher?
[FOR ACADEMIC REFERENCES: If your institution has a comparable rank, would [Name] be so appointed?]

February: Department Review and Vote

March: College APT Review and Vote

April: Dean Review. If the Dean recommends promotion, the case is forwarded to the Provost by May 1 for final approval.

May-July: University Level Review (Provost). The candidate is informed of the decision by July 1.

Salaried Lecturers (Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, or Senior Lecturer to Master Lecturer

A salaried Lecturer is a faculty member appointed primarily to provide instruction for a stated term of full-time or part-time service, as specified in the appointment letter. The basic qualifications and standards expected of the lecturer vary among the University’s Schools and Colleges but the title reflects strong teaching ability and a relevant basis of scholarly work or professional expertise and achievement. A Senior Lecturer or Master Lecturer generally meets the requirements for appointment as a Lecturer, and has demonstrated excellence in teaching for at least five or ten years, respectively.

Service Requirement:

Salaried Lecturers who plan to apply for promotion need to meet the time eligibility criteria before their application will be reviewed. To be eligible to apply for promotion to the rank of Senior Lecturer, candidates will have held salaried Lecturer appointments at Boston University for at least five years, including at least eight semesters of full-time teaching.

If a Lecturer has held a per-course/per-semester part-time appointment prior to being appointed as a salaried lecturer, then the following full-time service equivalent will be used: Lecturers who have previously served at Boston University in a per-course capacity receive a one-year service credit for every eight course sections taught within the past ten years, for a maximum full-time service equivalent of 2 years.

Senior Lecturers are eligible to apply for promotion to Master Lecturer after teaching full-time for five years as a Senior Lecturer for a total of ten years of full-time teaching service at the University.

Criteria:

Promotion criteria for salaried lecturers are based on multiple factors that include demonstrated excellence in teaching, contribution to course and curriculum development, and service to the college. Though not required, relevant scholarly work or professional achievement is regarded favorably during the promotion process.

Applications based on experience or years in the rank alone are not enough to meet review criteria. Although essential, excellence in teaching alone cannot be provided as proof of accomplishment, as other relevant criteria are also important for promotion. Additionally, while promotion takes into account the candidate’s accomplishments over the years leading up to the application for promotion, it is also a review of their future potential in terms of performance, output, and impact.

Teaching
- Continuous and consistent excellence in teaching
- Successful academic advising and mentoring
- Supervision of Master’s Thesis and Independent Study Projects
Program and Curricular Development and Innovation
- Coordination of Curriculum in a Concentration Area
- Training and Mentoring of Other Faculty
- Course Revision and New Course Development
- Program Revision and New Program Development
- Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes as part of Curriculum Development
- Student Advising, Recruitment and Retention Support if applicable
Service
- This category includes all aspects of citizenship such as engagement and presence within the department and college, service on committees and working groups, institutional service, service to the profession, public/constituency relations, serving as faculty advisor to student organizations, etc. Participation on ad-hoc committees created by departments and colleges, initiative shown in participating in open houses (departmental, corporate outreach or marketing) are also taken into account.
Scholarship and Professional Achievements (not required, though regarded favorably)
- Publication of books, research articles, presentations
- Funded Research
- Service on editorial, Advisory or Review Boards
- Relationship with Industry and/or Professional Community

Criteria Specific to Promotion to Senior Lecturer: The candidate must demonstrate consistent and sustained excellence in all the categories of teaching, program and curricular development, and service. Their contributions should have impact beyond the classroom, to at least the departmental or program level.

Criteria Specific to Promotion to Master Lecturer: Senior Lecturers may seek promotion to the rank of Master Lecturer. Candidates should meet all of the above criteria at a higher level in terms of the scope or impact of their teaching, service and professional activities, beyond those that led to promotion to Senior Lecturer. Their contributions should have impact beyond the department, whether that is at the college, university, national, or international level.

Beyond teaching excellence, the candidate should provide evidence that they are a pedagogical leader in their field of expertise. In addition to consistent program and curricular development, the candidate should show that they have introduced innovative curricular changes, and/or materially advanced student program learning outcomes or other strategic planning priorities of the department, College, or the University. The candidate for Master Lecturer should also show leadership in terms of service and professional development activities.

In general, the review for promotion will focus on candidate’s accomplishments since their last promotion or appointment at the university, taking also into consideration the potential for their future impacts and contributions to the College.

Timeline:

The promotion review for lecturer-rank faculty is a year-long process. Lecturer-rank promotions are generally reviewed by the Provost during the merit review process every year. They should be submitted to the Provost’s Office by May 1.

September: Discussion with the Department Chair

September-January: Collecting Documentation (Candidate). All materials should be finalized by January 31.

Current CV
Statement of Accomplishments – This should include a summary of the candidate’s teaching, service and contributions in the areas of curricular development or innovation. Examples of such accomplishments may consist of:
- Courses taught (course number, name, number of students enrolled)
- A narrative description of any new courses or methods of instruction developed
- Instructional Materials Published and/or Adopted by Others (Textbooks, Case Reports, Study Guides, Instructional Manuals and other teaching materials, etc.)
- Graduate Thesis or Dissertation Supervised
- Contributions as an academic advisor outside of the direct supervision of individual students
- Professional Service outside of the University (work as a paid consultant, memberships)
- Service Activities at Boston University (committee assignments, administrative responsibilities)
- Honors, awards, prizes or professional recognition
- Summary of Service and Contribution
- Examples of curricular excellence or innovation, such as blended or online course development, assessment of learning for continuous improvement, pedagogical techniques, development or use of educational technology
- Future Plans for Teaching and Mentoring, Service, Development, and Research or Creative Work
Supporting Materials
- Examples of excellence in teaching such as syllabi, teaching materials, advising materials, etc.
- Examples of professional accomplishments or presentations, or publications, if available

February: Department Review and Vote

March: College APT Review and Vote. For the review of promotion cases for full-time Lecturers, the MET APT Committee will consist of the appointed professorial faculty as outlined in the MET Constitution, plus an additional member of the full-time Lecturer faculty. The full-time lecturer should preferably be of at least the rank to which the candidate is applying. If a lecturer at that rank is not available, the member must be of a rank at least equivalent to the current rank of the candidate for promotion.

April: Dean Review. If the Dean recommends promotion, the case is forwarded to the Provost by May 1 for final approval.

May-July: University-Level Review (Provost). The candidate is informed of the decision by July 1.

A candidate whose request for promotion has not been approved can apply again for promotion during the second academic year following the denial decision.

Review Stages in Faculty Promotions

While the stages of review for faculty promotions can vary depending on the intended change in rank, each promotion that uses a given stage will be reviewed with the same method for that stage. Please see the review stages required for your particular case outlined in the categories above.

Discussion with the Department Chair

Generating Evaluation Materials

Several months will be spent collecting the full dossier of materials that the college- and university-level reviewers will use to make their determination about the candidate’s promotion. These steps are happening simultaneously, but all materials should be finalized by the start of the month in which the department review takes place. The candidate will work with the Assistant Dean for Faculty Actions and the Manager of Faculty Actions to begin to collect their materials.

Mini-dossier for external evaluators: The initial focus should be on collecting a mini-dossier of materials that external evaluators will be asked to examine in their review of the promotion. This mini-dossier should include:

An up-to-date copy of the candidate’s CV
A research statement
A teaching statement
5-10 significant publications
2-3 syllabi or other samples of teaching materials

Candidate’s Vitae report: The Candidate’s Vitae report serves as the direct and primary report from the candidate of their accomplishments to date (or since their last promotion if moving from Associate to Full Professor). It is easiest to think of this as an expanded version of your regular CV, and it should provide exhaustive detail about your teaching, scholarship, grant, and service activities, as well as your future plans. Every section should be answered, even if the answer is simply ‘not applicable’ or ‘none’ where necessary.

Supporting Materials: The supporting materials dossier holds the candidate’s documentary evidence of their accomplishments. The candidate will work with the Assistant Dean for Faculty Actions and the Manager of Faculty Actions to collect supporting materials in a shared digital folder. While the candidate is responsible for providing the materials and ensuring that items are identifiable, the Office of the Dean team will assist with labeling and organizing the final dossier in preparation for review. The supporting materials should include:

Publications: A PDF copy of all publications (scholarly articles, conference proceedings, reviews, etc.). If the candidate has published books, they may include links to the e-book version, or physical copies. Works under review and/or in progress should be included, with an indication as to their status and expected publication date.
Grant Materials: Include copies of all grant abstracts (not the full application), peer reviews, amount of funding requested or received, and information about whether the grant is pending, was awarded, or denied. Grant pre-proposals can also be included in this section.
Teaching Materials: Include course syllabi from all courses taught (the most recent version if a course has been taught multiple times). If substantial revisions have been made over time, the candidate may include multiple versions of the syllabus. It is also recommended that the candidate include a representative sample of course materials from courses taught that demonstrate the quality of teaching and mentoring of students. These might include exams and assignments, lecture slides, study guides, or other materials. It can be helpful to include a selection of current materials and materials from previous years.
Course Evaluations: The Office of the Dean will provide all course history and student evaluation data and student comments. If peer evaluations of the candidate have been completed (should be by faculty higher in rank than the candidate), these evaluations should also be included in the review materials. If letters of evaluation from current or former students have been solicited, they must be included. They should represent students from different courses and teaching and mentoring situations. Candidates are encouraged to suggest students to be asked for letters, but in order to obtain a more objective reading of student opinions, the department should not rely only on students chosen by the candidate.
Service Materials (optional): Candidates may include any documentation that supports or further explains the institutional or professional service activities listed on the candidate’s CV, although these materials are not required. These may include letters recognizing the candidate for his/her service, conference programs, etc. Letters from chairs/directors from secondary departments/programs are not considered part of this section of materials, but should be included as part of the Chair’s Report.

Soliciting External Evaluations

Department Review and Vote

Faculty holding a rank higher than that of the candidate are entitled to vote in departmental decisions about promotion. For unmodified faculty ranks, only unmodified faculty are eligible to vote. Faculty who are eligible to vote but who are not present for the departmental discussion and vote should be recorded as absent. The Chair’s Report may include comments about communications from absent colleagues, but because reasoned, collective deliberation is critical to the ability to cast a fully informed vote, only those present have their views counted in the vote.

All voting members of the department are expected to review the documentary evidence as responsibly as possible to prepare themselves for the deliberation, discussion and vote. They must protect confidentiality and ensure that the candidate cannot access any confidential materials (external evaluation letters) contained in their dossier. Departments may choose different ways of organizing the discussion and deliberation of cases. The discussion of and vote on promotion cases must remain strictly confidential. It is unprofessional and unacceptable to discuss any aspect of the deliberation and vote with anyone who was not present or eligible to participate.

The exact vote—positive, negative, and abstentions—is recorded on the Part I: Unit Actions/Vote Sheet, as well as the number of absent faculty. The Chair should count themselves in the vote tally. Recusals due to conflicts of interest should be counted as absences. The vote should also be stated in the Chair’s report.

The Chair’s Report should provide (a) an accurate and judicious reflection of the department’s assessment of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion as discussed in the full range of the departmental deliberation of the case, (b) an accurate explanation of the reasons for the final decision where there were differences of opinion, and finally, (c) any additional reflections by the chair, clearly distinguished as such. The report should help the reviewers at later stages of the process understand the department deliberation and decision. A constructive and credible report should not merely advocate for or against the candidate. Rather, it should thoughtfully address both positive aspects of the case and shortcomings in a specific and convincing way, providing a careful and accurate reflection of major department assessment of the various elements of the case (teaching, research, and service), and the case as a whole. The report should reference, but not solely rely on, praise or criticism from the external evaluators.

Teaching: In the section on teaching, the Chair’s Report should include a table containing all teaching evaluation scores for each course taught by the candidate and average teaching scores across the department for undergraduate and graduate courses, respectively. It can also be helpful for the teaching section to address the candidate’s performance in specific courses that have been taught by others in the department. As MET places a high value on innovative course development, the chair should also address substantive contributions the candidate has made to the addition and revision of courses and curriculum in the department.

Research: In the review of research and scholarship, the Chair’s Report should emphasize the impact of the candidate’s work and level of scholarly productivity. It should provide a succinct overview of the substantive, theoretical, and/or methodological contributions of the scholarly work, as well as an evaluation of the candidate’s productivity in relation to norms in their field. Context is especially important when the information about the relative value of refereed journals versus conference proceedings, or any other field-specific considerations, might be valuable to others involved in the review process.

Colleagues present at the meeting should have access to the Chair’s Report in a timely way to allow them to write dissents if they believe that the report does not accurately express the minority opinions stated at the meeting. Any minority statements should be submitted at the same time as the Chair’s report.

The chair should promptly inform candidates in writing of the recommendation forwarded by the department. Under no circumstances should the candidate be given the final vote tally or any indication of how/if the vote was split. The votes of specific individuals and their views expressed during the deliberation must be protected as strictly confidential. The Office of the Dean will provide a redacted copy of the Chair’s report to the candidate. Candidates who find factual errors in the redacted Chair’s report may submit corrections in writing to the Assistant Dean of Faculty Actions within five business days of receipt. If a candidate’s response goes beyond corrections of error, the response will be edited by the Dean’s or Provost’s office to eliminate all but the corrections of fact.

If a department makes a negative decision with regard to promotion, the case is forwarded for review at the College level in the usual way unless the candidate withdraws their application following the department review.

College APT Review and Vote

The MET Appointment Promotion and Tenure committee is composed of senior members drawn from across the disciplines at the college. The MET APT has access to all materials used at the departmental level for review, plus the departmental report and vote and any updates the candidate has submitted. The APT may request that the department chair or candidate provide additional information or further clarification of the dossier when they believe information is missing or unclear. It will make these requests through the Assistant Dean of Faculty Actions.

The APT should reach its judgment on the basis of all evidence available to it including reviewing the major research materials. The Chair of the APT prepares a report summarizing the Committee’s review and the Committee’s vote. This report is added to the dossier and made available to the Dean for review.

Teaching: The APT’s evaluation of teaching is an evaluation of the overall quality of a candidate’s teaching. The ultimate measure of excellence in teaching is the degree to which students have learned and developed academically, intellectually, and personally, as a result of their experience with that teacher. The APT review of teaching should consider all forms of relevant evidence – the quality of the construction of the candidate’s courses and the materials and learning experiences provided to the students, such as those evidenced by syllabi and other teaching and learning aids; any unique pedagogies or pedagogical tools; and the quality of the assessment tools. Finally, the APT should consider the quality of teaching in the context of standards and any unique aspects of the discipline and the demands and challenges it poses for teaching.

Research: The goal of the research review is to determine whether the candidate has a sufficient record of high quality, independent, original research and scholarship to merit promotion. Sufficient should include: quality as judged by the faculty on the APT, quality as judged by the external evaluators, comparative amount of peer reviewed work, whether the work is original and/or independent from previous knowledge, whether the work is impactful (citations), whether it conforms to norms of ethical and professional conduct, and whether it conforms to norms of standards in the field. The research record must also offer a high level of confidence that the candidate will remain research-active at the highest levels through the future.

Service: MET faculty are frequently engaged in a high level of service in their department, at the college-level, and at the university level. The APT should review whether the candidate is meeting the standard expectation for service at their current rank (generally at the department level and sometimes at the college level).

The Office of the Dean will provide a redacted copy of the APT’s report to the candidate. Candidates who find factual errors in the redacted APT’s report may submit corrections in writing to the Assistant Dean of Faculty Actions within five business days of receipt. If a candidate’s response goes beyond corrections of error, the response will be edited by the Dean’s or Provost’s office to eliminate all but the corrections of fact.

If the MET APT makes a negative decision with regard to promotion, the case is forwarded for review by the Dean in the usual way unless the candidate withdraws their application following the APT review.