Quick Reference Balanced-Integrative DEI Case-Clinical Faculty

Balanced Integrative DEI Case type for Clinical 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 teaching and service.  This does NOT mean the statement must be organized by these areas.  Candidates may address specific teaching and service 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.  Reviewers must be able to understand the candidate’s personal and unique contribution to work, whether projects or publications.  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 dissemination.  All clinical faculty at IUPUI need some peer-reviewed dissemination for promotion.  This scholarship could involve teaching or service or a blend of the two.  

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 teaching-excellence candidate 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 teaching and service; service may be campus, community, or professional.  
  
• 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 dissemination, direct impact, future plans), a reviewer should provide an overall assessment of the candidate’s value to IUPUI as a clinical faculty member. Clinical faculty members cannot be evaluated on "research" but reviewers can consider  how their scholarship contributes to the teaching and service mission of their units.  

External reviewers will have special importance when assessing the quality of publicly-disseminated works and are also encouraged to comment where they have expertise in the direct impact activities. 

Internal reviewers:

Internal reviewers should be able to determine quickly from the CV and statement that the candidate performs at least satisfactorily in:

• 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 dissemination 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 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: 

Teaching, single area of excellence candidate:

• 5 articles, 3 conference presentations.
• 1 external grant as part of a collaborative curriculum initiative.
• Member of department curriculum committee; attends school council; serves on state professional conference planning committee. 
• Teaches regular load.

Integrative DEI clinical faculty member, focusing on gender disparities within the profession:

• 3 scholarly articles, all co-authored with students; 3 invited presentations at other universities and 10 high school presentations.
  
• Four organization partners hosted 13 summer sessions and 10 paid interns. 
  
• Candidate completely revised program recruitment system through diverse applicants to in-program support and subsequent career success [teaching activity; innovation]

Reviewed and revised 3/22/2023.