Changes to Tenure and Promotion Bylaws

The changes came from the following sources: 

• Recommendations from the Faculty Senate Social Justice Committee 
• Recommendations from the Clinical/Research Faculty Working Group  
• Conversations with shared governance/leadership  

The Faculty Senate Social Justice Committee’s work began in 2021-22 and was moved forward by the committee in December 2023. The committee’s contributions include: 

• Adding alignment of the promotion and tenure system with the university’s mission, vision and values 
• Identifying and including principles governing the system including equity, inclusion, ethics and integrity 
• Adding cycles of review for colleges and academic units 
• Expanding definitions and examples of valid forms of teaching, scholarship, research and artistry, and service  

The work of the Clinical/Research Faculty Working Group (composed of five clinical faculty members, a tenured faculty member and a dean) began in academic year 2022-23 and was moved forward through the Faculty Senate Personnel Committee in November 2023. The group’s work focused on incorporating a process for promotion of clinical/research faculty into the bylaws. Specific contributions are: 

• Including clinical practice as part of evaluation for clinical faculty 
• Allowing research faculty to prioritize scholarly inquiry, research and artistic production 
• Requiring all clinical/research faculty to receive annual written evaluations of progress toward promotion 
• Including promoted clinical/research faculty in the process for evaluating clinical/research faculty for promotion, when possible 

Discussions with shared leadership groups, university working groups and taskforces, as well as ongoing shared governance conversations, helped expand definitions of valid evidence of productivity and excellence across all categories.  

Equity is a guiding principle of the academic personnel process, along with inclusion, ethics and integrity. In the bylaws, equity refers to recognizing as valid and valued the varied ways faculty can demonstrate excellence, which may differ by position (e.g., clinical, research, tenured/tenure track), discipline and responsibilities. This is operationalized in the introduction to Article 8: “As such, it is recognized that what constitutes excellence can vary among faculty based on discipline, responsibilities, and commitments.”​ 

The updated bylaws better reflect the values in Article 9.2 of the NIU Constitution, which requires equal treatment of members of the NIU community based on “factors unrelated to their scholarly or professional performance.” As this does allow for variation based on factors related to scholarly/professional performance, the updated bylaws recognize that performance expectations can vary based on role, responsibilities and commitments. For example, clinical faculty can have different promotion guidelines than tenure-track/tenured faculty, and disciplines can have varied scholarly/professional performance expectations. ​ 

Given the principle of retaining local decision-making, what changed centrally? ​ 

The principle of local decision-making acknowledges differences across academic units and disciplines and is well established at NIU. The updated bylaws address both centralized (tight) aspects and decentralized (loose) aspects of the tenure and promotion system. Many stakeholder groups helped determine what was considered tight/loose and developed the bylaw changes. 

Tight aspects relate to the system’s direction, guidelines and principles. Examples include: 

• Aligning the process with NIU’s mission, vision and values  
• Ensuring shared principles guide the process at all levels (academic unit, college, university) 
• Recognizing faculty show effectiveness in different ways based on role, responsibilities and discipline  
• Requiring a path to promotion for clinical/research faculty  
• Requiring communications about progress toward tenure/promotion 
• Requiring a consistent policy review process at the college level 

Loose aspects allow for local decision-making processes to operationalize the system. Examples include:  

• Aligning the promotion process with clinical/research faculty roles, responsibilities and expectations, which may vary by college/discipline 
• Aligning the local tenure and promotion evaluation process for tenured/tenure-track faculty with shared principles and NIU’s mission, vision and values 
• Identifying examples of service, teaching/librarianship and scholarship/research/artistry and determining relative value in evaluation

The principle of local decision-making acknowledges differences across academic units and disciplines and is well established at NIU. The updated bylaws address both centralized (tight) aspects and decentralized (loose) aspects of the tenure and promotion system. Many stakeholder groups helped determine what was considered tight/loose and developed the bylaw changes. 

Tight aspects relate to the system’s direction, guidelines and principles. Examples include: 

• Aligning the process with NIU’s mission, vision and values  
• Ensuring shared principles guide the process at all levels (academic unit, college, university) 
• Recognizing faculty show effectiveness in different ways based on role, responsibilities and discipline  
• Requiring a path to promotion for clinical/research faculty  
• Requiring communications about progress toward tenure/promotion 
• Requiring a consistent policy review process at the college level 

Loose aspects allow for local decision-making processes to operationalize the system. Examples include:  

• Aligning the promotion process with clinical/research faculty roles, responsibilities and expectations, which may vary by college/discipline 
• Aligning the local tenure and promotion evaluation process for tenured/tenure-track faculty with shared principles and NIU’s mission, vision and values 
• Identifying examples of service, teaching/librarianship and scholarship/research/artistry and determining relative value in evaluation 

These changes were intended to remove barriers to service, recognize the value of service and better align the document. They also allow flexibility for the colleges and academic units to make determinations at the appropriate levels about service expectations related to tenure and promotion.  

The specific language isn’t related to tenure or promotion decisions, just to annual merit evaluations. The language was changed to remove a disincentive for engaging in high service loads in a particular year — if not accounted for, the impact of heavier service on effectiveness in other areas could dissuade participation. These changes will hopefully remove this barrier to participation in heavier service loads in a given year.​ 

The language was changed to clarify what service can impact, rather than where it should be done. The bylaws now accept impact on academic/professional field as a valid example of “efforts to support and improve programs.” Expectations for service activities at each level are still allowed by the new language. Section 8.2.1.7 C includes examples of how service to the university community and profession can be demonstrated through service at all levels of the university.​ 

While the updated bylaws are in effect now, college/department procedures are unlikely to be impacted in academic year 2023-24. Per Article 8.4, “the criteria to be used for the evaluation shall be those guidelines for tenure most recently published by the academic unit in which the applicant holds a tenure-track appointment or, for faculty with joint appointments, the appointment details and expectations codeveloped at the point of hiring.” So, formal changes are unlikely to occur prior to academic year 2024-25. ​ 

The following supports are being developed: 

• Campus communications: Informational items, resources to guide local conversations and updates, and other supports will be provided. 
• Visits with colleges and academic units: Please reach out to the Faculty Senate president if there’s a particular date/location that works for your college/academic unit. ​ 
• Faculty Affairs website: Resources and information will be posted as available. ​ 

• Questions to assist with self-assessment of college guidelines/policies: Faculty Senate will coordinate the development of a set of recommended self-assessment questions​. 

​Efforts are underway to identify additional supports based on campus needs​. Faculty Senators have been asked to gather information from their constituents and report it via a Qualtrics survey. Deans and associate deans will also be asked to share their support needs. 

Individual feedback can be sent to Faculty Senate President Ben Creed (bcreed@niu.edu), or reach out to schedule time to talk. 

As feedback is received, the Faculty Senate president will develop/share additional support in collaboration with various groups (Executive Vice President and Provost, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, Vice President of Outreach and Engagement, etc.).​