Faculty may seek promotion or tenure review at any time. It is recommended that the faculty member seek guidance from mentors, her/his Division Chair, senior faculty and/or APT Committee members regarding “readiness” for promotion review given the established APT criteria. It is also recommended that faculty pursue professorial advancement one rank at a time (i.e., from the assistant professor rank to associate professor rank, and from the associate rank to the professor rank).
To begin the promotion or tenure review process, the faculty member should review, prepare and submit the dossier materials indicated on the APT Dossier Checklist along with the Division Chair Faculty Promotion Review Sheet to the Division Chair. Once the Division Chair has reviewed the dossier and signed the checklist, the faculty member submits the full dossier and signed checklist to the Director of Faculty Affairs via email. At this point external, internal and student letters are solicited that will be added to the dossier.
For faculty candidates who transfer to the School of Nursing from another Duke school at the associate or professor rank, in most cases the APT Committee will review the candidate’s CV, intellectual statement, teaching evaluations, selected publications and solicit external review letters.
For Track I APT reviews, at least six letters are needed from individuals external to Duke who are qualified to write on behalf of the candidate’s contributions, with no more than three external letters coming from the list of individuals provided by the candidate and no more than two from the same institution. Internal letters are optional for Track I reviews.
For Track II and Track III APT reviews, a total of six letters are needed from individuals who are qualified to write on behalf of the candidate’s contributions and of these six, at least three must be external and three may be internal; or all six can be external plus any additional internal letters to supplement the six.
The process for appointment, promotion or tenure at the associate professor and professor ranks, which includes external reviews, is usually completed within one (1) year from the time the dossier is submitted to the Faculty Affairs Office. Appointments at the assistant professor rank usually occur in less time.
The Office of Faculty Affairs can update the faculty member as her/his case advances through each APT review stage.
The graphics below detail the timeline and the roles of the different committees in an APT review.
The intellectual statement is a critical component of a faculty member’s dossier in the appointment or promotion review process and in peer reviews. The statement should clearly describe the impact and significance of a faculty member’s contributions in her/his area of scholarship as they relate to the development of the science of nursing and health care, transformation of nursing education, innovation and quality improvement in care delivery, and/or advancement of the nursing profession. Many examples of how significance and impact are assessed are displayed within the APT Criteria for each track.
The intellectual statement should be a well-organized synthesis of the faculty member’s professional accomplishments, the impact and significance of these accomplishments, and should conclude with a summary of future plans for advancing her/his work. A well-organized intellectual statement is more than a summary of professional accomplishments, courses taught, and committee memberships. It is not a chronological list of activities from the CV. Instead, the intellectual statement should illustrate linkages between grants/projects and publications, new teaching strategies, and dissemination of research/project results in the faculty member’s focused area of work. The intellectual statement should have themes that describe the faculty member’s contributions. Further, as the themes of a faculty member’s work are described, the faculty member should illustrate the impact and significance it has had on a focused field of science, clinical practice, education and/or policy.
The statement is ideally four, no more than five, pages in length (single-spaced, 12 font) and focuses on a faculty member’s contributions relevant to her/his track. In developing the statement, one should refer to research, publications, teaching, clinical or service activities to link the statement with evidence shown on the CV. For example, with respect to research and scholarship, one would highlight scholarly works that show significance and impact; the section on teaching activities would address development of new pedagogy, successful and recognized educational strategies as well as special recognitions in this area; service activities would include participation in academic enterprises and university life or professional leadership, etc.
It is recommended that the faculty member work with a mentor, her/his Division Chair, senior faculty and/or APT Committee members (who are at the rank or higher for which the faculty member will be reviewed) in preparing the intellectual statement and to review and provide feedback on the statement.
- Intellectual Statement Structure: Track I & III
- Intellectual Statement Structure: Track II
- Intellectual Statement Presentation
Track changes are an exception, rather than the rule, for faculty progression. These rare faculty track changes may be accomplished only with the mutual agreement of the faculty member and the Dean. A faculty member should also discuss her/his desire to change appointment tracks with her/his Division Chair.
Because a change in an appointment track may have implications for the School’s resources, particularly when a change to Track I (tenure track) is considered, the Dean will review all requests for track changes.
In addition, a faculty member who requests to transfer from Track II or Track III (non-tenure earning tracks) to Track I within the School will accrue time toward tenure as defined by Track I guidelines, and the tenure clock would begin on the date of the appointment to the prior track. The APT Committee reviews and makes recommendations for the appropriate rank for a faculty member’s track change request as outlined in the process below.
After discussion with her/his Division Chair, a faculty member forwards a written request to change tracks to the Dean for consideration. The request will include a detailed rationale for the change in appointment tracks, the faculty member's CV and intellectual statement. If the Dean supports the track change action, the Dean will advise the faculty member of this support and forward the requested materials to the APT Committee, via the Director of Faculty Affairs.
The APT Committee will review the request and based on the current APT criteria, make a recommendation for rank on the requested track, and convey its recommendation to the faculty member. The faculty member can accept or decline the rank recommendation. If the faculty member accepts the APT Committee's recommendation, the appropriate review process will begin.
If the APT Committee recommends rank at the assistant professor level, a letter of support from the Dean is required to effect the change in track to the assistant professor rank. If the APT Committee recommends a rank at the associate professor level or higher, a full external review of the dossier will be initiated. In either case, the faculty member remains in her/his current rank and track until the review process is completed and the change in track/status has been approved by the Board of Trustees. The faculty member will receive formal notification of the change once approved.