Skip to main content
WVU Home

Proposed Changes to University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines

This page provides access to documents and information related to the proposed changes to the University Procedures for Faculty Appointment, Annual Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure. These procedures were last updated in the 2014-15 academic year.

Summary of Changes

The proposed updates to faculty evaluation procedures aim to expand recognition of faculty contributions, ensure consistency across units, and enhance accountability and transparency. A more detailed summary of changes may be found in the current draft of proposed changes, linked below. 

Expansion
  • Broadens recognized contributions in teaching, research, and service.
  • Increases required teaching documentation to include peer and narrative evaluations.
  • Recognizes public engagement, interdisciplinary work, and DEI contributions.
Alignment & Consistency
  • Standardizes evaluation processes across all faculty tracks.
  • Clarifying that external reviews are not required for teaching, service, library, and clinical track faculty seeking promotion to any rank.
  • Clarifies tenure eligibility and credit for prior experience.
  • Establishes clear policies on evaluation committees and promotion expectations.
Accountability & Transparency
  • Clarifies steps following an “Unsatisfactory” evaluation.
  • Refines language on tenure-track non-renewal and promotion denial policies.
  • Shifts promotion criteria to focus on absolute standards rather than peer comparisons.

Current Draft and Related Information

Brief History

  • In fall 2022, the Office of the Provost presented a draft of proposed changes to the 2014-2015 University Procedures for Faculty Appointment, Annual Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure.
  • Following an open comment period and more than 25 faculty town hall meetings, the proposed changes underwent significant revision. The final version was presented to the Faculty Senate on November 15, 2022.
  • The Faculty Senate voted to table the matter pending action from the University Assembly, which petitioned for a meeting to vote on the proposed changes. The University Assembly met on January 18, 2023, and voted against approval.
  • In spring 2024, Faculty Senate leadership, with the support of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, launched an initiative to modernize the University Procedures. Using the November 15, 2022, draft as a foundation, they focused on modifying the areas faculty had identified as most concerning.
  • The Faculty Senate Faculty Welfare Committee was charged with collection faculty feedback and suggesting further revision in fall 2024, delivering a feedback report to the Executive Committee in February 2025.  
  • On February 24, 2025, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee approved sending the draft document linked below to the Faculty Senate for consideration. The Faculty Senate formally received the document at its meeting on March 10, 2025.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why are changes to the current guidelines necessary?

The proposed changes provide much-needed updates, including:

  • Codifying procedures for the promotion and tenure evaluation process that were previously absent, ensuring a more consistent and transparent process.
  • Expanding the types of faculty contributions that count toward teaching, research, and service, while clarifying how those efforts may be documented.
  • Providing detailed guidance on the processes and procedures related to non-retention and non-continuation of faculty, which was previously lacking.

2. What process was used to develop these revisions?

The Faculty Senate Executive Committee reviewed the 2022 document along with faculty feedback gathered through surveys, town hall sessions, and Faculty Senate discussions. After drafting a revised version, the Executive Committee collaborated with the Office of the Provost to ensure the proposed guidelines were consistent with BOG rules and would be upheld if approved. Additional details on this process are provided in the executive summary (pages 1-2) of the "clean" document linked above.

3. Why are specific examples missing in some areas of evidence or evaluation?

Because this is a university-wide document, certain guidelines and methods are left to individual colleges and departments. This allows units to tailor practices in ways that are most relevant to their faculty.

4. The tables in the document appendices don’t reflect my situation or efforts.

The examples and tables are intended as guiding tools for both faculty and those conducting evaluations. They are not mandatory and do not represent an exhaustive list of possible contributions.

5. Does this change the process for those seeking promotion and/or tenure early?

No, not directly. During the fourth year a faculty member may still petition their Dean to bring the critical year forward by one year.