October 12th, 2017


Although teaching is described as the most important duty of an instructional faculty member, research duties are given significant weight in tenure and promotion decisions. This is similarly true for specialists with research as an assigned duty. As a Research I university, UHM places high value on faculty accomplishments in scholarship.  Given that teaching duties (including clinical supervision) for instructional faculty, or professional duties for specialist faculty, consume much of faculty workload, it is often challenging to establish a strong record of scholarship. Excellence in teaching or professional duties, however, is necessary but not sufficient, to be granted tenure and promotion at UHM: a well-formulated and successful record of scholarship is also required. Scholarly activities should be focused in the faculty member’s area of expertise, and clear lines of inquiry should be apparent.  Refereed publications carry the most weight in evaluating research accomplishments of instructional faculty. In most fields of education, books and book chapters are considered less important than refereed publications because they are not subject to blind peer review. For specialist faculty, greater latitude (beyond refereed publications) is sometimes given when scholarship is a required duty.

Activity #8 (complete by 10/27/17): UHM Human Studies Program

Visit the UHM Human Studies Program website. Review the content of the website, including guidelines for submitting an application to the Institutional Review Board.

Activity #9  (complete by 10/27/17): Follow-up with COE mentor

Contact your COE mentor again and discuss the next step(s) of your joint scholarship activity. Using the Discussion Forum on the Laulima site for the New Faculty Orientation, post a paragraph or two on the status and challenges of initiating the new research endeavor.  Respond to one or two posts of your colleagues in the Laulima Forum on this topic.


Tenure and Promotion Criteria Associated with Research

What follows are the UHM criteria concerning research, specific to the matter of tenure, and then specific to promotion. The criteria include general comments about each (with embedded criteria), and then specific criteria.

Tenure Criteria

General Comments: Reasons for Granting Tenure (I- & S- faculty)

  • Productive and valuable member of your department, school/college, and campus
  • Pattern of continuing professional growth is positive,
  • The University anticipates a long-term need for your professional specialty and services.
  • “Unless there is a clear case for tenure, the practice is not to recommend tenure.”
  • Greatest weight given to accomplishments and performance during the period since your initial hire at UH and your pattern and rate of professional growth.

Specific Tenure Criteria Associated with Research

  • Present and long-term need for a faculty member with the particular combination of qualifications,  expertise, and abilities
  • Level of scholarly achievement appropriate to the rank at which tenure is sought in comparison with peers active in the same discipline (community of scholars active at major research universities)
  • Well on the way to becoming an established scholar in his or her discipline (I-Faculty or S-Faculty)
  • An established contributor to the standards, techniques, and methodology of the profession (S-Faculty)


  • Publication in a form that involves review by independent referees is of first importance; (evaluation by peers outside the University are also important)

Promotion Criteria

General Comments on Granting Promotion (I- and S- faculty)

  • Meet the minimum qualifications established by the Board of Regents for the rank to which promotion is sought
  • Meet additional criteria of the department/unit, school/college and campus
  • Level of academic achievement and reputation commensurate with the rank sought as found at major research universities in the US
    • Mere satisfaction of minimum qualifications does not guarantee promotion
    • Promotion not granted to recognize “satisfactory” performance
    • Competent or even superior performance in one area of activity or responsibility is not sufficient to justify promotion

Specific Criteria Associated with Research for Promotion to Associate Professor (I-Faculty)

  • Level of scholarly achievement appropriate to the rank at which promotion is sought in comparison with peers active in the same discipline
  • Well on the way to becoming an established scholar in his or her discipline


  • Not just a listing — an analysis of the quality and value of your research
  • The proportion of time among given tasks and functions in research and/or writing
  • The total proportion of time and effort in the research or publication
  • Peer evaluations of contributions; All relevant external reviews
    • published reviews
    • grant reviewers’ comments
    • letters to the editor
    • readers’ comments of manuscripts submitted for publication
    • unsolicited letters from peers in response to publication
  • Confidential external reviews

General Criteria Associated with Research for Promotion to Assistant Specialist (S-3) and Associate Specialist (S-4)


  • Includes research, evaluation, and professional development
  • Utilize research and evaluation to ensure that programs and services are relevant and meeting student, institutional and client need
  • Keep current with developments in the field of specialization, improve and enhance skills and techniques, and continuously expand basic knowledge in order to better serve students, the institution, and the community


Specific Criteria Associated with Research for Promotion to Assistant Specialist (S-3)

  • Competent performance of duties

Specific Criteria Associated with Research for Promotion to Associate Specialist (S-4)

  • Competent performance of duties
  • Increasing professional maturity
  • Level of scholarly achievement appropriate to the rank at which promotion is sought in comparison with peers active in the same discipline
  • Well on the way to becoming an established scholar in his or her discipline

Evidence (for promotion to Assistant or Associate Specialist)

  • Not just a listing — an analysis of the quality and value of your scholarship
  • Needs  and  interest assessments  of  targeted  service  groups
  • Formal evaluation of success, effectiveness, user satisfaction, utilization of program or service
  • Formal  inquiry  into  a  topic  through  accepted  means  (reviewing literature, generating hypotheses, collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data)
  • Planning,  presenting,  and/or  editing  written/oral  reports  of  results  of research/evaluation
  • Presentation of materials for publication in relevant journals, books, monographs, etc.
  • Applying  for  and  receiving  fellowships,  grants,  and/or  awards  for research/evaluation purposes
  • Presenting papers or poster sessions at a professional conference, colloquium, seminar
  • Conducting research or other studies in field of specialization
  • Creating documents/tools, maintaining facilities/equipment that assist in research being conducted by others
  • Engaging in professional activities that enhance research visibility and prominence of the unit/institution

Professional Development

  • Being selected and making presentations, participating in a panel or discussion group at a professional conference/seminar
  • Engaging in formal study, workshops, meetings, seminars and conferences in order to improve professional competence
  • Studying for/completing requirements for advanced degree, license, diploma, certification, etc., in a field relevant to the position involved
  • Remaining current with literature and professional associations relevant to area of expertise (e.g., professional society membership, contributions to professional activities)

“Appendix A,” OVPAA, UH Executive Policy

Duties & Minimum Qualifications of I-4 (Associate Professor) in Research

Duties and Responsibilities

  • Conduct research or undertake comparable scholarly activity

Minimum Qualifications

  • Doctorate
  • Increasing professional maturity
  • Scholarly achievement judged competent and adequate for the rank in comparison with peers active in the same field at major research universities
  • Continued evidence of participation in the scholarly and academic affairs of a university or other appropriate organization

In Written Statement of Endeavors:

  • Collaborative research and joint and shared publications
    • Departments (or applicants) should include a discussion of authorship conventions – including the significance of authorship order
    • The significance should be described
    • Co-author or researcher concurrence or an independent report on such contributions
  • Separate your scholarship into two major sections, “Prior to Hire” and “Since Hire”
  • Within the major sections of  “Prior to Hire” and “Since Hire,” separate your published works, conference presentations, and manuscripts into appropriate groupings:
    • Articles in international or national refereed journals
    • Articles in other periodicals
    • Unpublished work, accepted for publication (with documentation: submitted, conditionally accepted, in press, etc.)
    • Internal reports and other unpublished work
    • Published abstracts
    • Books of original scholarship–author/co-author
    • Chapters in books
    • Edited volumes
    • Textbooks
    • Other scholarly products (such as major software, video or film)
    • Invited conference presentations
    • Refereed conference contributions
    • Departmental seminars
    • Grants (indicate funded, approved but not funded, submitted but not approved, etc.)
  • Within each category, list in order of publication or completion, most recent first
  • For each item, give complete citation
  • Make  clear distinction between authorship and editorship
  • For all jointly authored and edited works,  indicate extent of contributions

Confidential External Reviewers

  • Generally solicited by Department Chair (may work with DPC chair)
  • An evaluator should be at, or above the rank aspired to by the applicant
  • External evaluators should be professionally capable to assess the applicant’s work objectively and comment on its significance in the discipline
  • Normally, the applicant is asked to provide in writing three to five names and addresses of respected scholars in related fields who are not at the University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa (letters from 2-3 of these people are solicited, and a comparable number of letters from known scholars proposed by the Department)
  • Applicants should not contact possible external evaluators
  • Applicant’s curriculum vita will be included with the letter to reviewers, and if possible, copies of reprints of the applicant’s major publications, if practical.
  • The purpose of the request is to obtain an opinion about the scholarly contributions which the applicant has made and not to determine whether or not the applicant would receive tenure/promotion at another institution.
  • The confidentiality of such evaluations is of great concern.
Comments are closed.