Tenure and Promotion Program Standards

Bachelor of Science in Public Health (BSPH) &
Master of Public Health (MPH)

2024 Revision

1.0 PREAMBLE

1.1 As a nationally ranked public liberal arts university, Stockton University is committed to
high standards of faculty performance that will sustain and extend the excellence we have
achieved. This commitment embodies the teacher-scholar model central to the liberal arts
tradition. In turn, the dynamic relationship between teaching and scholarship is part of
maintaining the currency of the University’s approach to interdisciplinary learning. While
much of this policy focuses on evaluation of individual faculty members, this policy also
affirms that interdisciplinary, liberal arts education is not the work of an individual, but
necessarily involves purposeful collaboration in order to achieve the University’s mission.
1.2 The status of faculty members changes as they earn reappointment, tenure and promotions,
advancement, or move from part-time, temporary, teaching/clinicalspecialist or visiting
employment to a tenure- track position. As one’s status changes, so do expectations and, in
some cases, the method of evaluation.
1.3 Although formal evaluation processes take place on varied cycles, the University expects
the highest level of professionalism at all times. Faculty are expected to perform their roles in
a manner that reflects positively on themselves and on the University. Education is a shared
enterprise that entails the ability to work well with colleagues and others on campus and to
contribute to institutional, School, and Program goals.
1.4 University expectations of faculty performance fall into two broad areas: those areas of
faculty responsibility traditionally used by institutions of higher education to judge
performance and the continued development of their faculty, and those expectations that
reflect obligations of faculty as University employees.
1.5 Throughout this policy, the term “faculty” shall mean teaching faculty and the term
“library faculty” shall be used to refer to librarians covered under Article XVII of the Master
Agreement. For the purposes of communicating expectationsfor evaluation, reappointment,
and advancement only, the use of the term “faculty” applies to adjuncts, part-time, and nontenure-track professionals as well.
This policy covers all members of the faculty in the Bachelor and Master of Science in Public
Health (BSPH & MPH) Programs. This includes tenured, tenure-track, and part-time faculty;
non-tenure track teaching, or clinical and/or other professionals (including Levels I, II and III
specialists); adjunct faculty; and visiting faculty. This policy has been developed to elaborate
upon the unique efforts of faculty in the BSPH & MPH Programs which may distinguish them
from faculty in other college schools. Consistent with university policy and negotiated 
agreements, such distinctions should be incorporated into the faculty evaluation procedure. As
such, these standards are subject to periodic review and revision as the needs of the program
evolve.
6.0 ELABORATION OF UNIVERSITY STANDARDS FOR TEACHING FACULTY
6.1 Teaching
6.1.1 Educating students, both inside and outside the classroom, studio, or laboratory is the
Program’s primary purpose. Therefore, performance in teaching carries the greatest weight in the
evaluation of faculty. All aspects of teaching, including preceptorial teaching as applicable, will
be evaluated in order to gain a clear understanding of each faculty member’s performance.

6.1.1.1 The BSPH & MPH Programs encourage the faculty to demonstrate teaching
effectiveness by a variety of methods. Each individual faculty member is guided by a
unique pedagogical philosophy. The pedagogical philosophy should be reflected in
instruction and in instructional materials such as syllabi.

6.1.2 In broad terms, excellence in teaching is characterized by:

6.1.2.1 A thorough and current command of the subject matter, teaching techniques
and methodologies of the disciplines one teaches. As defined by the nature of the
BSPH & MPH Programs, a current command of subject matter, teaching techniques,
and methodologies may include (but is not limited to): evidence of continuing
education in one’s discipline, evidence of knowledge or application of current
methodologies appropriate for interprofessional education in public health, and/or
application of sound pedagogical methods of instruction appropriate for both
theoretical and experiential coursework. Some examples of additional evidence of
maintaining current knowledge in the field may include a variety of activities,
including:
6.1.2.1.1 Maintenance of professional certification
6.1.2.1.2 Evidence of current clinical practice and/or educational activities
related to the discipline, certification, licensing, or professional practice of the
faculty member. Such practice should suggest that the faculty member is engaged
in current, evidence-based practice.
6.1.2.1.3 Maintenance of professional licensure by a state or federal agency (e.g.
Department of Education, State Licensure Board).
6.1.2.1.4 Recognition of continuing education credit by a professional
organization.
6.1.2.1.5 Participation in local, state, and national professional development
activities related to the faculty member’s discipline or clinical practice, or to
interprofessional collaborative practice.

6.1.2.2 Sound course design and delivery in all teaching assignments – whether
program or General Studies, introductory or advanced offerings – as evident in clear
learning goals and expectations, content reflecting the best available scholarship or
artistic practices, and teaching techniques aimed at student learning. The process of
sound course design and delivery may include a variety of student assessment methods
and the revision of course design based on the information gathered from those
assessments.
6.1.2.3 The ability to organize course material and to communicate this information
effectively. The development of a comprehensive syllabus for each course taught,
including expectations, grading, and attendance policies and the timely provision of
copies to students.
6.1.2.4 Demonstration of respect for students as members of the academic community
through timely feedback and responses to student communications.

6.1.3 Where appropriate, additional measures of teaching excellence are:

6.1.3.1 Ability to use technology in teaching.
6.1.3.2 The capacity to relate the subject matter to other fields of knowledge. This
includes conveying to students the importance of evidence-based practice and
encouraging students in the area of scholarly inquiry and critical thinking.
6.1.3.3 Seeking opportunities outside the classroom to enhance student learning of the
subject matter.
6.1.3.4 The ability to lead, promote, and/or participate in successful credit-bearing
experiences in community engagement, service-learning, faculty-sponsored/mentored
research, and global education. The BSPH & MPH Programs encourages the inclusion
of service-learning activities, experiential learning, independent studies, and study
abroad, and recognizes the additional time and effort required by faculty to
incorporate these activities into teaching.
6.1.3.5 Ability to create an inclusive and respectful environment.
6.1.3.6 In the BSPH & MPH Programs, NTTP faculty assigned alternate assignments
related to instructional delivery (e.g., organization of patient simulations, maintenance
of education laboratories, internship coordination, etc.) will have those activities
recognized as contributing to excellence in teaching. NTTP faculty in the BSPH &
MPH Programs who are assigned additional responsibilities related to precepting, in
lieu of teaching, will have those activities recognized as contributing to excellence in
teaching. 

6.1.4 Measurement tools used to evaluate teaching effectiveness (as described in items 6.1.2 and
6.1.3) must include (but are not limited to):
6.1.4.1 Results and reflection about student evaluation tool results, this may include the
IDEA or small class evaluation instrument. Evaluation requirements should follow the
current MOA requirements for student evaluation of teaching and be based on the
position/rank of the individual faculty member.
6.1.4.2 Results and reflection on the currently used Preceptor Evaluation Form.
6.1.4.3 A teaching portfolio may include: statement of educational philosophy; samples
of course syllabi; samples of course assignments, tests, class activities, or assignments;
evaluation tools used to evaluate teaching effectiveness and/or areas of strength and
weakness in course design; recorded sample segments of instructional practice;
correspondence from students or faculty related to instruction.
6.1.4.4 Written reports generated through peer observation; the number of peer
observations of teaching should follow current MOA guidelines appropriate to the
specific faculty member’s position/rank.
6.1.4.5 Evidence of professional development activities related to excellence in teaching
and learning.
6.1.4.6 Additional assessment instruments or other methods to ascertain students’
feedback regarding professor’s teaching pedagogy and practices.
6.1.4.7 As stated, the above is not an exclusive list and the program will be open to
additional reasonable suggestions from the candidate regarding methods of evaluation.

6.2 Scholarly and Creative Activity

6.2.1 The teacher-scholar model recognizes that a serious and continuing commitment to
engaging in scholarship or creative activity of one’s disciplinary and/or interdisciplinary work
consistent with rank and/or assigned responsibilities, enriches teaching and is the foundation
of sustained excellence within the classroom.

6.2.1.1 Scholarship expectations for promotion to Assistant Professor includes the
development of a scholarly research agenda.
6.2.1.2 Scholarship expectations for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor
includes the progression of a scholarly agenda with a consistent record of research that
is disseminated through a variety of venues; this must include at least one peer-reviewed
scholarly publication and at least one oral or poster presentations.

6.2.1.2.1 In addition, there must be further evidence of other scholarly activities,
which may include items such as: additional peer-reviewed publications;
additional oral or poster presentation; grants; book(s) or book chapter(s); invited
publications; invited presentations; panel discussions; policy statements;
curriculum; community-based educational publications; and related professional
scholarship. Additional descriptions of scholarly activities are found in section
6.2.4.6.
6.2.1.2.2 There are many options for the dissemination of research. The BSPH &
MPH programs recognize that scholarship that has been through a peer-review
or referred process has a higher value as compared to non-peer reviewed
scholarship. Additionally, venues for presentations, posters, and/or grants may be
local, state, regional, national, or international; some venues may be supported
by professional organizations. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to
document the impact or value of the venue. In cases where there is co-authorship,
the faculty member is expected to provide details about their specific
contributions to the scholarly work(s).
6.2.1.3 Scholarship expectations for promotion to Professor include a well-defined
scholarly agenda that demonstrates a consistent record of research that is disseminated
through a variety of venues; this must include at least three first author peer-reviewed
scholarly publications; or 4 more peer-reviewed journal articles, with at least one first
author; and / or a published book (or accepted contract for publication and completed
manuscript).
6.2.1.3.1 In addition, there must be further evidence of other scholarly activities,
which may include items such as: additional peer-reviewed publications;
additional oral or poster presentation; grants; book(s) or book chapter(s); invited
publications; invited presentations; panel discussions; policy statements;
curriculum; community-based educational publications; and related professional
scholarship. Additional descriptions of scholarly activities are found in section
6.2.4.6.
6.2.1.3.2 There are many options for the dissemination of research. The BSPH &
MPH programs recognize that scholarship that has been through a peer-review
or referred process has a higher value as compared to non-peer reviewed
scholarship. Additionally, venues for presentations, posters, and/or grants may be
local, state, regional, national, or international; some venues may be supported
by professional organizations. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to
document the impact or value of the venue. In cases where there is co-authorship,
the faculty member is expected to provide details about their specific
contributions to the scholarly work(s).

6.2.2 Publications and creative work in support of reappointment and tenure are those
achieved during the tenure candidate’s probationary period. Activity in support of a posttenure promotion or range adjustment is that work completed since the most recent promotion
or range adjustment. The BSPH & MPH Programs recognize the period for evaluation to
begin as starting from the date of the file submission of the last positive personnel action as it
relates to the area (teaching, scholarship/creative activity, or service) that was evaluated.
6.2.3 The BSPH & MPH Programs recognize a wide variety of scholarly vehicles:
disciplinary or interdisciplinary research, pedagogical research, applied research, integrative
scholarship, community engagement and service-learning, artistic or creative activity, and
grant writing. Scholarly or creative activities may take many forms and use different vehicles
to communicate with the broader academic community.
6.2.3.1 The BSPH & MPH Programs recognize that the time and effort required to
complete scholarly or artistic projects may vary markedly among disciplines and subdisciplines. Such variance is addressed in these Program standards.
6.2.4 The burden is always on the candidate to document the excellence of one’s work. In
cases of shared or multiple authorship, clarification of the degree of one’s participation is
expected. In cases of conference presentations or proceedings, clarification should be
provided with regard to the selectivity of the review process.
Typically, central to judgments regarding scholarly and creative activity are:
6.2.4.1 The capacity to bring scholarly or creative projects to completion.
6.2.4.2 A mix of scholarly activities appropriate to one’s appointment e.g., in some
cases scholarly activity will be primary, in others creative activity. The BSPH & MPH
Programs recognize that this may include interdisciplinary collaborative practice and
other scholarly activities that relate to multidisciplinary healthcare and academic
settings.
6.2.4.3 Judgments of the worth and significance of the work by those qualified to make
such judgments. These may include disciplinary peers, professional organizations, ad
hoc groups, such as evaluation, judging, or refereeing panels.
6.2.4.4 Documentation of the impact of one’s work
• with students
• within the scholarly area
• within higher education generally
• on documented standards of best practices in pedagogy
• in the application of one’s work
• as evident in citations of one’s work
• on public policy or institutions
• in the artistic/cultural realm
• or in an educational setting

6.2.4.5 Just as in the case of traditional scholarship involving the discovery of new
knowledge, when one’s work consists of pedagogical, integrative, or applied
scholarship, its significance may be documented by demonstration of clear goals,
adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation,
and reflective critique. Presentation before peers and colleagues and advancing the
discipline are also expectations of alternate forms of scholarship.
6.2.4.6 The University understands excellence in a variety of scholarly or creative
activities to embody the following:
6.2.4.6.1 Books should be published by reputable academic or trade presses
and reviewed in appropriate journals.
6.2.4.6.2 Articles, essays, reviews, and other forms of writing should be
published in appropriate scholarly/creative journals or venues, whether print or
electronic. Some assessment should be made as to the quality of the journal in
which the piece appears, in particular, its scholarly/creative reputation and
whether or not the journal or proceedings are peer reviewed. Publications in
newsletters or as professional educational articles can be considered scholarly
work if the publication includes a peer-review and/or editing process.
Publications emphasizing interprofessional collaborative practice and
pedagogical practices are considered valuable venues.
6.2.4.6.3 Scholarly and creative activity that involves students as co-presenters,
co-participants, or co- authors.
6.2.4.6.4 A presentation should be evaluated on the quality of its content and on
the prestige of the meeting where it was delivered. Qualitative judgments are
best made when copies of presentations are made available. National and
regional meetings should rank higher than local meetings in most instances.
Scholarly presentations should be ranked more highly than non-scholarly ones.
Competitive selections as well as presentations receiving disciplinary
acknowledgement for excellence should be noted. In most disciplines a record
of scholarship based on presentations alone will not be evaluated as highly as
one including refereed publications.
6.2.4.6.5 Work in the arts may be evaluated by a number of different measures:
assessment of its quality by peers or professional critics; the reputation of the
gallery, museum, or other artistic venue where it is shown or presented; the
respect afforded the organization for which it is performed or under contract;
or some other measure of its success or impact (e.g. royalties, awards, or impact
on public debate or on other artists).
6.2.4.6.6 Other forms of scholarly or creative activity that may appear in
emerging scholarly or artistic media may be included as well, provided that
comparable standards of peer review can be applied to them.

6.2.4.6.7 Where reviews are included in a file as evidence of the worth of a
candidate’s scholarly or artistic work, attention should be given to the
professional credentials of the reviewer and the reputation of the journal or
publication as specified in School and/or Program standards. Reviews that
relate to the candidate's professional expertise, credentialing organization,
area of research, and/or interdisciplinary collaborative practice are
recognized to be a higher value contribution as compared to other reviews.
6.2.4.6.8 Professional activities undertaken as a practitioner or consultant are
considered scholarly activity when they go beyond the routine application of
knowledge to the creation of new knowledge and the development of new
standards for practice. Such qualities distinguish between scholarship and
professional service. Those making the judgments regarding the standards for
applied research necessarily involve more than clients and include academic
peers familiar with the area of practice under consideration. In the PUBH &
MPH Programs, professional achievement and recognition in the health
sciences can be considered as evidence of scholarly activity if such recognition
is based at least in part on one’s scholarly work. Examples could include
specialty or board recognition, recognition as a “Fellow,” or other special
award or recognition as defined by the profession, where such recognition is
typically based on peer-reviewed scholarly achievement along with other
criteria. It is the candidate’s responsibility to document this.
6.2.4.6.9 In those disciplines with strong expectations of practice to maintain
current competency, appropriate standards for determining the significance of
this work will be developed at the Program level and approved through the
standard procedure. In the BSPH & MPH Programs, evidence of disciplinary
work and achievements will be considered as scholarly activity if such
recognition is based at least in part on exceptional scholarly activity. Examples
include specialty or Board recognition, recognition as “Fellow” or other special
award or recognition as defined by the profession or by an interprofessional
forum.
6.2.4.6.10 Grants or monetary awards that are funded or reviewed as fundable
from governmental or non- governmental organizations are considered
examples of scholarship if those grants and awards are subject to external peer
review. The BSPH & MPH Programs recognize that substantial regional,
national, or international grants require significant time and effort and will
recognize successful obtainment of grant funding as equivalent to a peerreviewed publication.
6.2.4.6.11 Faculty engaged in community outreach can make a difference in the
communities and beyond by defining or resolving relevant social problems or
issues, by facilitating organizational development, by improving existing
practices or programs, and by enriching the cultural life of the community. 

Scholarship may take the form of widely disseminating the knowledge gained
in community-based projects in appropriate professional venues in order to
share its significance with those who do not benefit directly from the project.
6.2.4.7 Although NTTPs are not typically responsible for scholarly and creative
works, it may be required by individual program accreditation standards in the School
of Health Sciences. In those cases, the School recognizes scholarly activity as
contributing to the faculty member’s overall performance. The BSPH & MPH
Programs do not require NTTP faculty to engage in scholarship as part of their
evaluation process.

6.3 University and Community Service
6.3.1 The faculty role includes contributions to the achievement of the University’s mission
through effective participation in governance activities, including leadership roles at the
Program, School, or University-wide levels. These contributions may require the capacity to
work collaboratively with other members of the University community, including activities
related to alumni and the University Foundation.
6.3.2 Faculty may also contribute in broader arenas such as state, regional, national or
international organizations and disciplinary/professional associations. In addition, faculty may
contribute to the University’s public mission, including its commitment to diversity, equity,
inclusion, and belonging, through service to our community, region, state or country. Per the
Carnegie definition, community engagement and service-learning that enriches scholarship,
research, and creative activity; enhances curriculum, teaching and service-learning; prepares
educated, engaged citizens; strengthens democratic values and civic responsibility; addresses
critical societal issues; contributes to the public good enriches scholarship. Community
engagement and service-learning is particularly valued at Stockton.
6.3.3 The University expects faculty in their first five years of service to serve the University
and community at levels commensurate with their rank. Faculty who are tenured, have multiyear contracts, and/or are of senior rank would be expected to have more substantial records in
this area, as demonstrated by achievements in leadership on campus, in the community, to their
disciplines, and to professional organizations. The BSPH & MPH Program recognizes that
engagement in program assessment, program curriculum development, program curriculum
assessment, and general studies or non-BSPH/ MPH program course development holds
significant value to the program, school, and/or university. Probationary faculty should also
demonstrate service at the program, and school or university level, and external service (to
their community or professional organization(s).
6.3.4 Evaluation of achievements in this area focuses on the significance of participation, the
impact of service, the scope of responsibilities, the effectiveness of participation, and
contributions to the functioning, administration, and development of the University and other
entities. Clear goals, adequate preparation and appropriate methods of providing service,
significant results of the service, and reflection on the contribution and its use to improve the
quality of future service are all aspects of documenting achievement in campus or community
service. Sustained service is expected to meet the minimum requirement of this responsibility.
Compensated service is generally notsufficient to meet the minimum requirements. However,
expectations for how it can be used to demonstrate excellence may be conveyed in School and
Program standards. The BSPH & MPH Programs recognize that letters of support that detail
the candidate’s individual contributions may be the most effective way to communicate the
degree and impact of the service.
6.3.5 Evidence of effectiveness in University or community service may include such items
as:
6.3.5.1 One or more instances when one has used one’s professional skills or
knowledge for the benefit of the University, or of a non-University group or
individual.
6.3.5.2 Contributions to professional organizations that are focused on service or
professional responsibility as opposed to scholarship, research, or artistic/creative
work. For example, an officership or service on a professional board may be more
appropriately listed here, whereas editing a special issue of a journal may be more
appropriately listed under the section on scholarship.
6.3.5.3 General civic or community activities to which one has contributed one’s
professional skills or a significant amount of time, talent, energy, and involvement
beyond that which might be expected by the usual citizen or member.
6.3.6 In the School of Health Sciences, NTTP faculty assigned alternate assignments related to
program administration or other service to the program will have those activities recognized as
contributing to excellence in service.
6.3.6.1 Alternate assignments that relate to service will be evaluated as in-load
contributions. NTTP faculty are expected to contribute to service beyond an alternate
assignment that involves assigned service duties. For the evaluation of service (beyond the
contractually assigned alternate duties), the BSPH & MPH Programs expect that NTTP
faculty will be predominantly involved in service to their program.
6.3.6.2 NTTP faculty may choose to engage in service beyond the program level. This may
include service to their School, University, community, and/or professional organization.