14.0 PROMOTION

14.1.1

Promotion offers an opportunity for the faculty to demonstrate and gain recognition for their achievements over a period of time. As with tenure, promotion is based on demonstrable academic grounds. Promotion also presents the challenge of further accomplishments.

14.1.2

Promotion affirms the primacy of academic excellence in support of the University’s mission. Academic freedom guarantees that academic quality is the basis of academic personnel decisions. Promotion implies selectivity and choice; it is awarded for evident scholarly and professional merit, not for seniority or length of service.

14.1.3

The evaluation of merit involves the application of academic and professional judgment by peers, which takes place within a framework of collegiality, shared responsibility, accountability and authority along various levels of review among the faculty, and between faculty and administrators. Faculty members share in the exercise by providing solid evidence of merit and by acting as peer reviewers.

14.1.4

As the faculty and the University develop, the standards of performance should change. If a faculty member’s accomplishments do not keep pace with current standards, the individual may not be promoted. It is not appropriate to argue that faculty members should be promoted because they meet the performance standards previously in effect, by which some of their colleagues were measured and promoted. Scholarly development means adherence to ever higher standards of performance.

14.1.5

The breadth and variety of academic and professional fields in the University make the development of a detailed set of promotion criteria, applicable equally to all fields, inappropriate. However, the overriding values and standards are the same: demonstrable academic achievement in teaching, scholarly or creative work, service, and professional growth.

14.1.6

Individual units may impose more stringent standards as long as these are consistent with the intent and framework of the System-wide standards, applied consistently within the unit and made clear to the unit’s faculty.

14.1.7

Units are advised to specify their promotion requirements (in writing) for the guidance of the faculty based on the principles, general evaluation criteria and procedures and indicators on pages 20-26 of Shaping our Institutional Future: A Statement of Faculty Tenure, Rank and Promotion, UP System Manual Series 2. A separate set of guidelines for promotion of faculty administrators is on pages 27-30 of the System Manual.

14.1.8

All faculty members are expected to perform the minimum duties and expectations as prescribed in the University rules and policies and the Unit’s promotion requirements. The extent to which these expectations are surpassed shall be the basis of upward movement within a rank or promotion to a higher rank.

14.1.9

The number of faculty to be promoted as well as the number of steps of promotion shall largely be determined by each Constituent University (CU) and the priorities set by the departments/units/colleges/CU.  [OVPAA, 2014, Guidelines on the 2014 Merit Promotions for the Regular Faculty and Research Faculty]

14.1.10

A cap on promotion and priority categories for promotion may be imposed by the constituent university and/or the System, owing to budget constraints. It is incumbent on the individual units to prioritize their recommendations.

14.1.11

The promotion process should rigorously respect the disciplinal criteria based on research output, creative work, mentoring, teaching evaluation, extension work and public service, and the point system duly approved in the respective colleges, and recommendations arising thereof. Metrics that vary greatly across disciplines, such as journal impact factors and h-indices, should not be used for promotions on top of the college-approved criteria. [Statement on General Principles for Merit Promotions, UC meeting, 5 September 2016]

14.1.12

There should be no further changes made to the college-approved criteria once the promotion evaluation has started. There should be a clear and transparent process, especially regarding appeals, at all level of implementation of merit promotion. [Statement on General Principles for Merit Promotions, UC meeting, 5 September 2016]

14.2.1

Faculty shall be evaluated on the following categories: teaching, scholarly or creative work, service to the University and the public, and professional growth.  

14.2.2

The weights for each category are differentiated according to the nature of the unit. Graduate units (i.e., without undergraduate programs) are expected to place at least equal emphasis on teaching and scholarly work, while purely undergraduate units may give greater value to teaching (see Table 14).

14.2.3

Faculty administrators who devote at least half of their time to administrative work shall be evaluated using the criteria and their corresponding weights specified in Table 14. The constituent university shall formulate concrete criteria and the corresponding point or value system using said weights and categories. The Chancellor shall make these measures known to the faculty. (See next section for details on the promotion of faculty administrators)

14.2.4

Within the range specified in Table 14, individual units may decide on the mix of weights to be applied, unless the constituent university adopts a uniform system. The aspects to be assessed, indicators, items, and activities to be evaluated for each category are generally worded so that academic units can further define them.

14.2.5

Units shall endeavor to assess not only quantity, but more importantly, quality and significance of contributions. However, units may impose quantitative requirements as part of the operational basis of their evaluation.  

14.2.6

Faculty members are evaluated based on accomplishments reckoned from the date of the University’s last promotion.

14.2.7

The parameters provided in the Table on evaluation standards for tenure-track faculty found in the chapter on Tenure are also useful as guide in evaluating the performance of faculty being considered for promotion.

14.3.1

Teaching ability and performance, and conscientiousness in undertaking teaching duties may be measured in terms of these standards:

(a)

A faculty member must possess a mastery and command of subject matter;

(b)

A faculty member must have the ability to convey subject matter clearly to students;

(c)

A faculty member must have the ability to translate material into a form that is organized, comprehensible, appropriate and interesting to students;

(d)

A faculty member must be accessible to students for consultation;

(e)

A faculty member’s syllabus and teaching materials must be subject to constant review and improvement; and

(f)

A faculty member must apply teaching strategies that invite learning initiatives by the student.

14.3.2

Effective teaching may be gauged through student evaluation, peer evaluation, and the faculty member’s teaching portfolio.

14.3.3

Items to be considered in the teaching portfolio or other activities evaluated under the teaching category include, but are not limited to, these components:

(a)

Production and publication of teaching materials like textbooks, course (student and teaching) modules, laboratory manuals;

(b)

Use of updated, research-based syllabi, course materials, and teaching innovations;

(c)

Performance as research supervisor, thesis and dissertation adviser; and

(d)

Teaching load, class size, number of preparations.

14.4.1

Published research in reputable refereed journals, academic books or other prestigious publications, and creative work that has been made available to peers for independent assessment, such as well-acclaimed juried or invited exhibitions or performances for the visual and performing arts, are the main indicators of accomplishment in this category. As such, they are given the highest weight.

14.4.2

Vanity (self-published or self-produced) publications, exhibitions, or performances and unpublished papers that have never been read in conferences shall not be given credit.

14.4.3

Other scholarly outputs that may be given credit include, but are not limited to these achievements, all of which must be considered by peers to be of academic worth:

• Technological innovations,
• Varieties/strains,
• Patents,
• Software and computer programs,
• Significant policy papers,
• Media productions,
• Recordings,
• Editing of published books and journals, and
• Presentation of scholarly/technical papers and research findings in conferences and other academic fora.

14.4.4

Faculty members must submit documented evidence of publication and other creative output for evaluation by peers.

14.4.5

Publications and presentations in popular venues or works outside the discipline (e.g., articles in newsletters or bulletins, advocacy papers) shall not be considered part of research but may be considered under the category of service.

14.5.1

Service to the University is measured in part by one’s involvement in department/college/ University activities and committees (e.g., degree of participation, effectiveness).

14.5.2

Faculty members who hold administrative positions, especially heads of units, carry important and demanding responsibilities in serving the University. Acknowledging that heavy administrative workload might limit teaching and scholarly output, a separate set of guidelines for faculty administration is provided in Section 14.6.

14.5.3

Contributions to community service in the public sector or civil society or as a public intellectual are an important part of extension work.

14.5.4

These items or activities that may be examined and given credit in this category:

• Service rendered as coordinator, trainer, resource speaker, organizer of training programs, conferences, symposiums, and workshops related to one’s discipline,
• Technical assistance to government and other agencies,
• Training programs for other universities and educational institutions, local communities and non-government organizations,
• Service publications (popular training manuals, monographs, bulletins, etc.),
• Popular presentations and popularized lectures on topics within the discipline, and
• Contributions as public intellectual to the intelligent discussion of issues of national or global concern.

(a)

Additional formal training in the discipline (academic studies or specialty training, as in the case of medical doctors)

(b)

Professional recognition (awards in recognition of research/creative work/teaching/service)

(c)

Attendance in local and international symposia, conferences within one’s discipline

(d)

Leadership positions in academic or professional organizations and societies here and abroad

(e)

Membership in international organizations of an academic nature

(f)

Membership in editorial or advisory boards of journals

(g)

Membership in technical panels

(h)

Research fellowship or visiting professor appointment in a reputable foreign university

(i)

Invitation to review or referee published articles, research output/creative work within the discipline

(j)

Invitation to sit in other review bodies (such as those that award grants or awards)

14.7.1

Only administrators with administrative load credit of six or more units are covered by this section.

14.7.2

The evaluation of faculty administrators shall take into account these considerations:

14.7.2.1

The evaluation of faculty administrators takes into account the nature of the administrative position and its concomitant responsibilities.

14.7.2.2

It looks into the faculty administrator’s teaching load (if any) and performance, scholarly or creative work, service and professional growth during the period of administrative service.

14.7.2.3

It considers the length of time served by the faculty member as an administrator prior to and during the period under review.

14.7.3

The evaluation categories to be used and their corresponding weights are specified in Table 14.

14.7.3.1

For faculty with 12 units of administrative load credit, professional growth may include teaching, scholarly or creative work, or extension. For the rest, it may include extension work.

14.7.3.2

The constituent university shall formulate concrete criteria and the corresponding point or value system using the categories and weights in Table 14. The Chancellor shall make these measures known to the faculty.

14.7.4

In consideration of academic and scholarly criteria, no faculty may cross rank solely on the basis of performance as administrator.

14.7.5

This set of criteria is used for evaluating administrative service:

(a)

Accomplishment of goals that support the mission of the unit and the University;

(b)

Responsible leadership and management of human, physical, and financial resources;

(c)

Promotion of the interest, and sensitivity to the needs, of the entire, diverse University community;

(d)

Innovations introduced in policies, guidelines, procedures, and services aimed at upgrading standards and improving performance; and

(e)

Ability to make decisions and act decisively and fairly.

14.7.6

Faculty administrators may opt to be evaluated according to the instrument for faculty who are not administrators, provided that their administrative performance is at least satisfactory.

14.7.7

When evaluating the faculty administrator, the criteria for faculty (Sections 14.2 – 14.6) and for administrators (Section 14.7) shall be prorated according to the length of time the faculty member served as an administrator during the period of evaluation.

14.7.8

The evaluation procedure for the promotion of faculty administrators is discussed in Section 14.11.2.

14.9.1

A faculty member who obtains from a reputable institution a Ph.D. or its equivalent, in a field relevant to the unit to which the faculty member belongs, shall be given automatic promotion in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board of Regents. [990^th BOR meeting, 28 August 1986]

14.9.2

A faculty member with the rank of Instructor or Assistant Professor who obtains a Ph.D. degree from a reputable university shall be promoted in accordance with the following schedule subject to the provisions above. [OP Memorandum No. FN 01-34: Revised Rules on Automatic Promotions for Obtaining Ph.D., 25 April 2001]

14.9.3

The rules on automatic promotion require faculty who obtain their Ph.D. at the rank of Assistant Professor 3 and above to show proof of merit – apart from their Ph.D. degree – in order to be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor. [1147^th BOR meeting, 21 December 2000]

14.9.4

Automatic promotions will be made effective upon the faculty’s completion of their degree and return to duty, provided that there is a certification from appropriate officials of the University concerned that all the requirements for the doctoral degree have been met. [825^th BOR meeting, 26 October 1972; 1147^th BOR meeting, 21 December 2000; OP Memorandum No. FN 01-34: Revised Rules on Automatic Promotions for Obtaining Ph.D., 25 April 2001]