Quick Reference
Balanced Integrative DEI Case type for Tenure Track Faculty
Note: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion can take many forms. The candidate will articulate a specific area of focus for their work. In all cases, candidates show that their focus supports the mission of their unit.
Key evidence (provided by candidate):
- A CV.; candidates use an Integrative CV type, not the 'binned' IUPUI P&T CV. Items reflecting ‘direct impact’ activities can be listed in the style of a business resume—name the activity, describe its goals, and provide evidence of outcomes.
- Candidate statement
- Make clear the chosen focus of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
- Within the narrative, identify 3-5 signature accomplishments.
- Address research/creative activity, teaching, and service. This does NOT mean the statement must be organized by these areas. Candidates may address specific research, service, and teaching accomplishments within sections dedicated to projects or sub-topics.
- The rest of the dossier:
- More details (where details would disrupt the flow of the candidate statement)
- External evidence of quality and impact (letters from constituencies service, metrics, reports; copies of awards)
- External confirmation of the candidate’s individual role in joint projects
- For teaching (at least): evidence from and reflection on student evaluations, peer evaluations, and evidence of student learning.
Elements that are like any other case:
- Independence and initiative. Regardless of any publication author-order conventions, readers must be able to understand the candidate’s personal and unique contribution to work--publications, grants, projects, etc. This is described in the candidate statement and should be confirmed, for at least the signature items, by co-worker/co-author statements.
- Future plans.
- Scholarly impact. Please note that the absolute quantity of scholarly output will NOT be the same as in a research-excellence case. The focus should be on quality, not quantity, and evidence that the items themselves have had impact, not just that they have appeared in competitive venues.
Innovative elements
- Diversity, equity, and inclusion. There is no one required definition but readers should understand how the candidate's chosen focus connects to their unit's mission, any national definitions or standards, and it guides the candidate’s work. IUPUI readers: this is very similar to an expectation that a research-excellence candidate will have a guiding ‘focus’ to their work or that teaching-excellence people have a distinct teaching philosophy.
- Integrative work. This has two manifestations: the candidate shows how their most important work is interrelated, and, individual items may blend aspects of research, teaching, and service.
- For schools and programs where grant funding is considered essential to mission success, grants may take the form of student support, research support, community-oriented activities, or any useful combination of these.
- Direct impact: “Direct” impact items are those where individuals or groups directly benefit. The candidate should outline goals, activities, and relevant outcomes.
- This type of measurement is sometimes called “program” evaluation, often reported in terms of inputs, outputs, and outcomes.
- “Process” can be an essential element in some activities, especially in areas connected to community engagement where an inclusive process is definitional, with impact all on its own.
- Scope, difficulty, creativity, success, and adoption by others can all be considered as markers of excellence.
External reviewers:
Taking into account the above items (the DEI focus, independence, innovation, scholarly impact, direct impact, future plans), a reviewer should provide an overall assessment of the candidate’s value to IUPUI as a faculty member.
External reviewers will have special importance when assessing the quality of the scholarly impact--publicly-disseminated works--but are also encouraged to comment where they have expertise in the direct impact activities.
Because this is an innovative approach to promotion and tenure, external reviewers should not compare candidates to research-only cases. Instead, the candidate will have explained how their work advances the mission of their unit, and given the external reviewer’s knowledge of typical university goals, they can affirm or critique that contribution.
Internal reviewers:
Internal reviewers should be able to determine quickly from the CV and statement that the candidate performs at least satisfactorily in:
- Research/creative activity (including some level of peer-evaluated dissemination)
- Teaching
- Service
The next steps:
- Determine that the candidate has provided a clear description of their work and focus, its importance to their unit, and how it organizes and drives their work; evidence of independence, innovation, scholarly impact and direct impact, and a reasonable plan for the future.
- Considering all activity, particularly those items identified as signature accomplishments, assess whether the candidate’s total contribution is overall ‘excellent’ (of ‘comparable worth’ as a single-area-of-excellence candidate.)
Committees may vote in this way: yes/no for at least satisfactory research, teaching, and service; and, yes/no for overall excellence considering all of the candidate's accomplishments. The only "vote" that is recorded is the overall assessment. For any "no" votes, reviews should be clear about exact deficiencies.
EXAMPLE Accomplishments:
Research, single area of excellence candidate:
- 10 articles, 6 conference presentations.
- 1 external grant providing summer salary, hourly student labor, and lab consumables.
- Member of department admissions committee; attends school council; reviews 2-3 articles for journals per year.
- Teaches regular load.
Integrative DEI scholar, focusing on employment gender disparities:
- 4 scholarly articles, all co-authored with community participants; 3 invited presentations at other universities and 10 community presentations. [research activity; scholarly impact]
- Consultant to community organization in securing a major program grant for XXX (critical assistance confirmed by partner) [service activity; direct impact]
- Program involved 30 business leaders and reached 900 community participants; 12% of participants recorded specified outcomes and 86% expressed satisfaction.
- Four business partners hosted 13 summer sessions and 10 paid interns. [teaching activity also service; direct impact]
- Candidate led city-wide XXX Internships Working Group. ["led" = independence; service activity]
- Candidate completely revised program internship organization, requirements, and outcomes. [teaching activity; innovation]
Reviewed and revised 3/22/2023.