Skip Navigation

Florida Tech community: Please view the Florida Tech Safe website for important COVID-19 information and "Return to Learn" plan details.


FH Appendix 2 Promotion Guidelines: College of En...

Effective Date Jan 1, 2015

FH Appendix 2: Promotion Guidelines: College of Engineering

Reviewd and approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, January 8, 2015
Revised by the College of Engineering College Council and approved by the College of Engineering Faculty, April 30, 2009; added guidelines for faculty review and faculty evaluation forms, January 2015


The College of Engineering (COE) Council reviewed current COE Faculty Promotion Guidelines and presented suggested revisions to the COE faculty for approval. These guidelines are used by the COE to evaluate faculty for promotion. The dean, with advice from the Faculty Development Committee (FDC) will review and comment on submitted faculty dossiers, relative to faculty promotability. With advice from the FDC, the dean will suggest to faculty areas of improvement in the event that it is assessed they do not meet the criteria for promotion. Documents in support of promotion should be submitted to the dean by November 20.

The criteria address the need for and importance of scholarly contributions including excellence in teaching, research and service. Significant weight is placed on such activities as publishing in refereed publications and book projects, competing for and receiving contract and grant support, demonstrated excellence in the classroom and teaching laboratories, student production, contributions to one’s profession on national and international levels, and awards and special citations received. The candidate’s sustained accomplishments at Florida Tech will be weighted more heavily in this process than previous career achievements.

College of Engineering Promotion Guidelines

The following paragraphs provide guidelines for COE recommendation for promotion to associate and full professor at Florida Tech. COE recommendation for promotion to the rank of associate professor will be based on successful completion of enough of the goals outlined here to suggest the candidate is at least halfway along the path to full professorship. Special cases for associate professor may also be considered under exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, these guidelines serve to introduce a new assistant professor to the goals and tasks required for a successful career path in academia.

These guidelines should be used by a potential candidate to decide whether or not the candidate should be presented to the university for promotion. Promotion need not be contingent on successful completion of all components stated herein. A typical candidate, however, would have few exceptions and would be well above the minimum requirements in a number of areas. True excellence in one of the three broad categories described below will also be viewed favorably with sufficient achievement in the other areas. A candidate may be considered for promotion to associate professor after a minimum of five years as an assistant professor or equivalent. Similarly, a candidate may be considered for promotion to professor after a minimum of five years as an associate professor. There is no maximum time limit. In some cases, associate professor may be the terminal rank.

The areas for evaluation are consistent with those specified in a memo of November 2, 1998, from the associate provost and include "Teaching and Related Activities," "Research and Scholarly Activities" and "Service Activities." Scholarly activities and research have traditionally been the primary focus for promotion at U.S. universities; however, outstanding performance in the teaching and service areas are also important in the present climate of higher education in America and will be given appropriate recognition.

Teaching and Related Activities

The candidate for promotion will have a record of performance that includes many of the activities specified below:

  1. A consistent record of teaching excellence, versatility and student production at either or both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
  2. Published or made significant contributions to a textbook in the candidate’s field.
  3. Served as the major advisor for M.S. or Ph.D. graduates in programs offering the Ph.D.
  4. Served as faculty representative (advisor) to student clubs, societies or organizations.
  5. Served on M.S. and Ph.D. committees in own or for other academic departments.
  6. Been an active member of regional and/or national educational societies/organizations.
  7. Introduced new courses into the curriculum, developed new academic programs or made significant modifications to an existing academic program at the undergraduate and/or graduate level.
  8. Received funding from outside agencies or foundations for curriculum development and revisions, enhancing teaching laboratories, etc.
  9. Developed and introduced innovative pedagogical techniques that may include the incorporation of technology into the curriculum.
  10. Generation of significant number of student awards at the regional, state or national level under candidate’s direction.

Scholarly Activities and Research

The candidate for promotion will have a record of performance that includes many of the activities specified below:

  1. A consistent record in peer-refereed publications during the years preceding promotion. In cases of joint authorship, i.e., with other colleagues, indicate nature and extent of candidate’s contribution for each such publication.
  2. Published or made significant contributions to a scholarly book or textbook.
  3. Served on the editorial board of a recognized journal.
  4. Served as reviewer of journal articles, research proposals of federal agencies and/or research-level books or monographs.
  5. Served on national committees that relate to support of research, e.g., review boards, national societies.
  6. Served as chair or as part of the organizing committee for national or international science/engineering society meetings.
  7. Developed a list of citations of the candidate’s research papers published by other researchers in the field.
  8. Given presentations pertaining to pedagogy or research at regional, national and international meetings of professional societies, including invited lectures/presentations.
  9. Received grant and/or contract support for research and scholarly activities from federal, state or industry sources with some regularity.
  10. Received recognition for research and scholarly activities from regional, national and/or international organizations.
  11. Contributed to advancement of the candidate’s discipline through research activities. This may be in the form of a patent, invention, design methodology, pedagogy, analysis, math model, computer software, etc.

Service Activities

The candidate for promotion will have a record of performance that includes many of the activities specified below:

Service to University

  1. Participated on departmental, college and university-wide committees.
  2. Assumed an active role as an officer in the Faculty Senate at Florida Tech.
  3. Assumed administrative functions within the department.
  4. Represented the university in regional, national or international organizations (committees) related to university affairs.
  5. Served on a national review or accreditation committee.
  6. Contributed to university-sponsored programs, short courses, etc., for prospective university students.
  7. Contributed to university-related outreach projects.

Service to Profession

  1. Served as the external member on M.S. and/or Ph.D. committees at another university.
  2. Served as an officer of, or received recognition by, a professional, engineering or scientific society at the local, regional, national and/or international level.
  3. Acted as a consultant in his/her area of technical expertise for industry, other universities or national laboratories.
  4. Organized/taught short courses or seminars on special topics in science or engineering for the scientific/engineering community.
  5. Evaluated textbooks or ancillaries to textbooks.
  6. Achieved professional recognition in the form of registration, if applicable to field.
  7. Participation in the authorship or evaluation of national or state exams.

Amendments or modifications to the “College of Engineering Promotion Guidelines” require a two-thirds vote of COE Faculty voting, with a quorum being present.

Edward H. Kalajian, Ph.D.
Chair, College of Engineering College Council
Associate Dean, College of Engineering

College of Engineering Faculty Review Guidelines

The purpose of this document is to help COE faculty understand the goals and objectives of the COE faculty review process, and to help make it productive for both the reviewer and the person undergoing the review.

All adjunct faculty will be evaluated based on their teaching performance and service to the students and their departments.

The goal of the review process is to provide feedback to faculty and their direct managers regarding what is working well and what is not with respect to job performance. Done correctly, the review should be a valuable experience, and consist of a two-way conversation, allowing both the department head and the faculty member to give and receive feedback about how to make the Florida Tech workplace more efficient.

This iteration of the review process introduces the idea that faculty should provide evidence of their performance in each of the key evaluation areas (service, research, teaching). As every faculty member is unique, an “Other” category is included so issues outside these areas can be addressed, if desired. Evidence and expectations can and should vary from department to department. For example, in one department, $200,000 of funded research under contract might be considered outstanding, and in another department such a level of expenditure is considered “at expectations.” Thus, each department is encouraged to create a set of guidelines that describes examples of expectations and evidence a faculty member might consider providing to assist with the review.

In terms of level of review, everyone should understand that “at expectations” means exactly that: a faculty member who is performing their job in an acceptable way would be rated “at standard.” With respect to faculty at the Assistant or Associate level, faculty should note that promotion requires faculty to be above expectations in at least one of the three designated areas. Used correctly, the evaluation forms should become a set of notes providing feedback to both the department head and the faculty member regarding promotion and goals for the upcoming academic year.

College of Engineering Faculty Evaluation form