FACULTY GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT*
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
AMES, IOWA
* This governance document passed by Faculty vote January 17, 2007.
** Revised October 2, 2007.
*** Revised March 5, 2009
**** Revised April 20, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Mission Statement and Preamble ........................................................................... 1-2
II.
Administration of the Department............................................................................. 2-6
A. Department Chair ................................................................................................. 2
B. Sociology Council ................................................................................................. 3
C. Coordinators ......................................................................................................... 3
III.
Organization............................................................................................................. 6-7
A. Departmental Business ......................................................................................... 6
B. Faculty Committees .............................................................................................. 6
IV.
Hiring for Regular, Lecturer and Adjunct Positions ..................................................... 7
V.
Guidelines for Faculty Evaluation, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure ........... 8-14
A. Departmental Criteria ............................................................................................ 8
B. Criteria of Performance ......................................................................................... 9
1. Assistant Professor .......................................................................................... 9
2. Associate Professor ......................................................................................... 9
3. Professor ....................................................................................................... 12
VI.
Records, Documents and Written Reports ................................................................ 14
VII.
Departmental Code of Ethics for Human Relations................................................... 14
VIII.
Amendment Procedure ............................................................................................. 14
Departmental Procedures Handbook .......................................................................... 16-28
I.
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….16
II.
Administration of the Department.............................................................................. 16
A. Review of the Chair ............................................................................................ 16
B. Selection of the Chair………………………………………………………………….17
C. Sociology Council Election Duties & Procedures ................................................ 18
III.
Organization.............................................................................................................. 18
A. Departmental Business ....................................................................................... 18
IV.
Hiring for Regular, Lecturer & Adjunct Positions ....................................................... 19
A. Regular Faculty Positions ................................................................................... 19
B. Lecturers ............................................................................................................. 20
V.
Guidelines for Faculty Evaluation, Reappointment, Promotion & Tenure ................. 21
A. Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 21
1. Procedure ...................................................................................................... 21
2. Evaluation of Full & Associate Professors ..................................................... 22
3. Evaluation of Assistant Professors ................................................................ 23
4. External Peer Evaluations.............................................................................. 25
B. Appeal Procedures ............................................................................................. 25
1. Internal Appeal ............................................................................................... 25
2. Independent Appeal ....................................................................................... 26
VI.
Records, Documents & Written Reports ................................................................... 26
A. Departmental Records ........................................................................................ 26
1. Minutes of Faculty Meetings .......................................................................... 26
2. Minutes of Sociology Council Meetings ......................................................... 26
3. Minutes of Standing Committees ................................................................... 26
4. Records of Dispute Resolution Committees .................................................. 26
5. Record of Recruitment Committees ............................................................... 27
6. Standard Vita of Faculty................................................................................. 27
7. Evaluation Vita & Supporting Materials .......................................................... 27
8. Personnel Files .............................................................................................. 27
9. Use of Discretionary Funds ............................................................................ 27
FACULTY GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT
Department of Sociology
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
I.
MISSION STATEMENT AND PREAMBLE
This document is a guideline for operating the shared governance of the Department of Sociology
at Iowa State University. It consists of two parts. The first part, the Faculty Governance Document
lays out the mission, overview and philosophy of governance while the second part, the
Departmental Faculty Procedures Handbook, provides detail and procedure for day-to-day
operations.1
As a department of sociology in the first land-grant university, the core mission of the institution and
the department has not changed since the founding of the university in 1858:
Iowa State University of Science and Technology is a public land-grant institution serving
the people of Iowa, the nation, and the world through its interrelated programs of instruction,
research, extension, and professional service. With an institutional emphasis upon areas
related to science and technology, the University carries out its traditional mission of
discovering, developing, disseminating, and preserving knowledge.2
In keeping with its land-grant tradition, the mission of the Sociology Department is to create and
disseminate knowledge that advances the well being of all people, especially the people of Iowa.
To this end, the Department seeks to:



prepare students to lead fulfilling careers and lives through critical thinking and analysis of
pressing issues;
conduct exemplary basic and applied sociological and interdisciplinary scholarship; and
communicate knowledge via high-quality professional venues and through excellence in
service, teaching, and outreach.
Achievement of our mission is evidenced by national, international, state, and university recognition
for relevant and effective teaching, research, and outreach.
Values. The core values of the departmental governance document are the following: the necessity
of truly shared governance; the ideals of professionalism and personal responsibility; the values of
a community of scholars and the pursuit of individual and collective excellence. The Department of
1
All tenured, tenure-track or permanent adjunct employees with a budget base in the Department are
“faculty” in this document. This includes those in what the American Association of University Professors call
“tenure-like” positions. Their full Faculty membership and voting rights are maintained until the effective date
of resignation or termination of appointment.
2
Iowa State University Mission Statement, Copyright 1997-2003, Office of the President, Iowa State
University.
Sociology at Iowa State University is committed to the values of the open forum wherein all matters
of community concern may be discussed without rancor or repercussion, where matters are
decided by simple majority votes whenever possible and where orderly meetings allow minority
opinions to be expressed and dissent to be heard.
Structure. The Legal Code of the State of Iowa vests the ultimate decision-making powers for the
conduct of the Regent’s system of higher education in the hands of the Iowa Board of Regents who
are nominated by the Governor and approved by the Legislature. However, two areas are
specifically carved out as the domain of the faculty at the Regent’s institutions, those being the
academic curriculum and the selection of professional peers through recruitment, hiring and
promotion and tenure procedures. It is of the utmost importance that nothing in the governance of
the department or in departmental administration in any way impedes those core activities. Beyond
those two domains, the Board of Regents leaves the mechanics of departmental structures and
procedures largely to the community of scholars in a given area. The goal of such a system is to
both efficiently and effectively facilitate the departmental mission. It is toward these goals that this
governance document is written.
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide a democratic framework in which the members of the
department can work together to meet their teaching, research, extension, and service obligations.
The document identifies roles and specifies procedures to be followed in formulating decisions and
in implementing policies. It is an apparatus for establishing and putting into practice the will of the
faculty.
II. ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT
A. Department Chair
1. General Responsibilities
The Chair represents the Department to the colleges, the university and to relevant
external organizations. The Chair should provide leadership in the development of the
Departmental strategic plan. The Chair should work with coordinators and standing
committees to ensure that the appropriate curriculum is in place for graduate and
undergraduate education and that responsibilities of faculty, staff and the department are
met. The Chair is responsible for a variety of administrative and supervisory functions in
the department including, but not limited to annual performance evaluations,
management of departmental budgets, responsibility for the departmental inventory, and
the maintenance of personnel and administrative files.
Other roles of this officer include: chairing faculty meetings, carrying out university
personnel regulations, communicating college and university policies to the department;
appointing and supervising of coordinators, the Administrative Assistant and head
Secretary; appointing of committee members; as well as allocating release time. In the
interest of a collegial and productive workplace, the Chair may attempt to mediate, offer
advice or intervene in faculty or personnel disputes that do not fall under the clear
purview of other agencies or policies of the university.
2
2. Department Chair Selection, Term of Office and Review
The Deans of the College of Liberal Arts (LAS) and Sciences and College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences (CALS) appoint the Department Chair for a term of three to five
years. The Deans of the LAS and CALS are responsible for the final selection of the
Department Chair. The Deans will appoint a search committee to screen candidates for
the position with the majority of the committee members from Department of Sociology
faculty.
B. Sociology Council
1. Selection/Composition
The Sociology Council is composed of the four department coordinators: Teaching
Coordinator, Research Coordinator, Director of Graduate Education, and Extension
Coordinator. Their appointment and terms are defined in Section C, Coordinators. Their
terms on the Sociology Council will coincide with their terms as coordinators. The
Council will select its Chair.
2. Responsibilities
The Sociology Council is an advisory body for the department chair and also represents
the faculty's voice regarding strategic issues pertaining to the Department’s future. The
Council will undertake more intensive consideration of policies and programs than would
be feasible for the faculty as a whole and will advise the Department Chair on matters
that do not warrant discussion by the faculty as a whole. The Department Chair may call
on the Council for preliminary discussion of plans and issues prior to discussing them
with the faculty as a whole.
The Council manages all changes to the governance document in accordance with
section VIII of this document.
The Council is in charge of periodic external reviews in coordination with the Department
Chair.
The Council annually conducts an election to fill vacant positions on the Assistant
Professor Evaluation Committee, Senior Professor Evaluation Committee, Faculty
Senate, and LAS Representative Assembly, and is responsible for filling temporarily
vacated positions in these committees. The Council also initiates "review and nomination
procedures for the position of Department Chair" in accordance with section II.A.2. of
this document
The Chair of the Council is the Chair of faculty meetings in the absence of the
Department Chair.
C. Coordinators
There are four coordinators: Teaching Coordinator, Research Coordinator, Director of
Graduate Education and Extension Coordinator. Coordinators are appointed by the
Department Chair and serve a term that is mutually agreeable to them and the chair.
Compensation to coordinators will be decided by the chair in consultation with the
3
coordinators. Compensation will be distributed equitably across the coordinators. All
coordinators must be aware of role responsibilities.
1. Teaching Coordinator Responsibilities
The Teaching Coordinator serves as an ex officio member of the graduate and
undergraduate curriculum committees and implements policies of the department,
college, and faculty senate curriculum committees.
This coordinator works with the Teaching Secretary in instruction-related matters,
changes in appointments, schedule changes, and enrollment changes. The Teaching
Coordinator replies to faculty, graduate students’, and lecturers’ questions about
teaching appointments. In consultation with the Department Chair, the coordinator
reviews applications and corresponds with applicants for lecturer positions.
This officer confers with instructors, the undergraduate advisor, and the chair about
pre-enrollment tallies, adding or dropping classes and sections as needed.
The Coordinator polls faculty each fall regarding the courses they would prefer to teach
during the next academic year and the times and places they would prefer to teach
them. With the assistance of the Teaching Secretary, the Coordinator determines the
rooms and times of each sociology course to be taught. In carrying out this function, an
effort should be made to match faculty preferences, curriculum requirements, and
available time and space.
Using the aforementioned poll and in consultation with faculty, the Coordinator plans and
allocates teaching assignments of faculty to courses. An effort should be made to
ensure that whenever possible faculty may teach courses they want to teach and that a
minimal number of new preparations are required of any faculty member. New
preparations for pre-tenure faculty should be minimized.
With other coordinators and the chair, the Teaching Coordinator makes graduate student
teaching assistant (T.A.) assignments. The Coordinator also recommends lecturer
appointments to the chair. Additional duties include polling faculty and graduate
students about courses they prefer to teach during the summer sessions and
recommending summer appointments to the Chair, monitoring T.A. appointments,
consulting with TAs, and meeting with prospective students about TA assignments and
expectations.
2. Research Coordinator Responsibilities
The Research Coordinator presents the departmental research program, research
assistantship opportunities, and research policies to interested parties, and carries out
occasional special research-related assignments such as preparation of promotional
materials communicating research accomplishments.
With the assistance of the Administrative Assistant and appropriate faculty, the
Coordinator manages preparation of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
research report, Agriculture Experiment Station (AES) progress/termination reports, and
other institutional research reports as necessary.
4
The Coordinator is responsible for preparation and review of AES research projects.
The Coordinator assigns research assistantships in coordination with the other
coordinators, the faculty, and the Chair, and conducts an annual evaluation of research
assistants’ job performance.
Other duties include informing faculty and graduate students about opportunities for
research funding, soliciting annual budget requests for AES current expense funds and
making allocations in consultation with AES researchers and the Chair.
3. Director of Graduate Education Responsibilities
The Graduate Coordinator is responsible for the overall coordination and administration
of the graduate program and serves as the Director of Graduate Education (DOGE). The
Coordinator coordinates the Graduate Recruitment and Graduate Curriculum
subcommittees. The Coordinator provides oversight and continuity among Program of
Study (POS) committees with respect to meeting university, college and departmental
requirements for admission, degrees, preliminary examinations, funding, and continued
enrollment in the program.
The Coordinator plans the content of Soc 591 (Orientation to Sociology) and teaches it
in Fall semester, works with the graduate secretary to prepare the Orientation Notebook,
and provides a short orientation session for students entering the program in the spring.
The Coordinator assists the registration of new graduate students, and assists new
students in forming P.O.S. committees until students select major professors. The
Coordinator also works with the graduate secretary to coordinate the scheduling of fall
and spring written preliminary examinations, and area two papers.
In situations where students are making adequate progress in the program but do not
yet have a major professor, the Coordinator writes letters to request a release of the hold
placed on registration, letters to request admission status change, and letters when their
governments require reports on their academic progress. Letters for admission status
change should be signed by the graduate coordinator on behalf of the Chair.
In consultation with the Chair, the Coordinator provides information to external
organizations about the graduate program. Additional duties include soliciting and
coordinating recommendations concerning honors and awards for graduate students,
meeting with prospective graduate students, and soliciting other faculty members to
meet with prospective graduate students to discuss the graduate programs in sociology.
4. Extension Coordinator Responsibilities
The Extension Coordinator manages sociology faculty and staff efforts to produce an
integrated and coherent outreach/extension program that take into account stakeholder
needs, university strategic plan, and department research-extension resources. Toward
this end, the Coordinator manages extension reports and program documentation, works
with faculty and staff to develop the departmental component of the extension strategic
plan, and coordinates work preparation, implementation, and evaluation.
5
The Coordinator serves as liaison to university extension programming units including
Extension to Community and Economic Development and Agriculture and Natural
Resources, works with department chair to manage the extension budget, and works
with sociology faculty without formal extension appointments to extend their research
findings and applications to communities and leaders of Iowa.
III. ORGANIZATION
A. Departmental Business
The Department conducts most of its business during faculty meetings that are generally
held twice per month and as the agenda demand. The Sociology Council works with the
Department Chair to prepare an agenda that is circulated the week before the meeting.
Matters of informational or similar nature are communicated electronically. Additional details
about departmental procedures are in the Department Faculty Procedures Handbook.
B. Faculty Committees
1. Standing Committees
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. Composed of three faculty members and one
undergraduate student appointed by the Department Chair. The teaching and advising
coordinators serve as ex officio members. The committee elects its own Chair. The
committee is responsible for (1) undergraduate curriculum development and (2)
development and implementation of recruitment, retention, advising and placement of
undergraduate students.
Graduate Committee. Composed of six faculty members, the Graduate Coordinator,
and two graduate students appointed by the Department Chair. The Graduate
Coordinator will Chair the committee. The Teaching Coordinator will be an ex-officio
member of the committee. The committee will be divided into two subcommittees, one
for graduate curriculum development and the other for graduate recruitment and
admission. Each subcommittee will elect its own Chair.
Faculty Developmen Committee. Composed of three faculty members appointed by the
Department Chair, plus other faculty as needed to meet college and university
requirements. The committee elects its own Chair. The committee is responsible for:
(1) recommendations concerning faculty improvement leaves, travel grants, and other
professional development programs; and (2) promotions to associate or full
membership of the graduate faculty. Its members should strive to inform and assist
faculty to take full advantage of development opportunities including the university’s
mentorship program and grant writing workshops.
Sociology Development Committee. Composed of three faculty members, one graduate
student, and one undergraduate student appointed by the Chair. The committee elects
its own Chair. The committee is responsible for: (1) communications with alumni, retired
faculty, and other relevant audiences for the development of the department, and (2)
fund raising for the Sociology Development Fund.
Sociology Council. (See section II. on Sociology Council)
6
The Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee and Senior Professor Evaluation
Committees). (See section V. on promotion and tenure)
Honors and Awards Committee. Composed of three faculty members, one
undergraduate student, and one graduate student appointed by the Chair. The
committee elects its own Chair. The committee is responsible for (1) identifying students
and faculty eligible for awards, and (2) assigning responsibility for the preparation and
submission of the required nomination materials.
2. Ad hoc Committees
Position Responsibility Statement Dispute Resolution Committee. Where disputes
concern position responsibility statements, the Department follows university procedure
wherein each disputant appoints a representative from the faculty. The Chair of the
Senior Professor Evaluation Committee is the faculty representative in position
responsibility disputes provided that person meets all other specified requirements in
university procedures. If the Chair of the Senior Professor Evaluation Committee is a
participant in the dispute, the remaining members of the Senior Professor Evaluation
Committee will elect the faculty’s representative from among their members.
Faculty Recruitment Committee. (See Hiring Procedures for Regular and Adjunct
Positions, section IV)
Other Ad hoc Committees, coordinators, and liaisons are appointed as needed, by the
Chair.
IV. HIRING FOR REGULAR, LECTURER, AND ADJUNCT POSITIONS
To meet the University's requirement for filling regular or adjunct faculty positions (See Types of
Appointments in the current version of the Faculty Handbook), the following procedures will be
followed:
A. Regular Faculty Positions
The Chair will appoint a Faculty Recruitment Committee to identify and evaluate candidates
for the position. The committee will be composed of three faculty members, with the Chair
appointed by the Department Chair. One faculty member must be from a program area
outside the area of the position. One graduate and/or undergraduate student(s) may be
appointed to the committee by the Chair as deemed appropriate.
The committee will follow the University's Search Procedures (Part III in The Affirmative
Action Handbook). Any details not specified in the University's Search Procedures will be
decided by the committee in consultation with the Chair and with the faculty when
necessary. The committee must keep the faculty informed about the progress of the search.
B. Lecturers
The Teaching coordinator, one other coordinator, and the Department Chair will review
applications for lecturer positions with terms of less than three years and will hire lecturers.
7
An ad hoc committee of three faculty will be appointed to review applications for three year
lecturer positions. The ad hoc faculty committee working with the department chair and
teaching coordinator will review applications and hire lecturers with three-year
appointments. Review and advancement evaluation of lecturers will be conducted following
the procedures outlined in the Departmental Procedures Handbook.
C. Adjunct Faculty
See procedures for hiring, evaluating, and renewing Adjunct Faculty in Section 3.3.2 of the
Faculty Handbook.
V. GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY EVALUATION, REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND
TENURE
A. Departmental criteria for faculty evaluation, reappointment, promotion, and tenure
decisions are consistent with policies and procedures described in the Faculty Handbook,
the Policies and Procedures on Promotion and Tenure (P&T)) in the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences, and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Promotion and Tenure
Document. These include the Good Practices Document found on the ISU Provost’s web
page and the P&T policies for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College
of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Procedures for evaluation are described in the Departmental
Procedures Handbook.
Faculty are evaluated in accordance with their individual position responsibility statements.
Faculty appointments in the Department of Sociology may have considerable variation in the
proportion of responsibilities assigned to: (1) teaching; (2) research; (3) extension and
professional practice; and (4) service. It is the obligation of those being reviewed to submit
materials for their evaluation to the appropriate committee (Senior Professor Evaluation
Committee or Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee) at least one week before a
scheduled review.
Each faculty member has a written position responsibility statement maintained at the
departmental level against which performance shall be evaluated. The position
responsibility statement will list the assignments of the individual’s position as outlined in the
position-hire statement and/or modified by mutual agreement of the Chair and the individual
involved. The Position Responsibility Statement will be written and maintained in
accordance with the guidelines established for Evaluation of Faculty Members within the
Faculty Handbook.
Faculty in the Department of Sociology typically have position responsibilities within these
areas: (1) teaching, (2) research, (3) extension and professional practice, and (4) service.
The relative weight assigned to each of these performance areas is determined by the
stipulated position responsibilities since appointment or last promotion.
If faculty have joint appointments with other departments or programs (e.g., Statistics,
Women’s Studies) there should be a clear specification of the proportion of the faculty role
and related performance expectations associated with each unit. If the evaluation of certain
position responsibilities (e.g., teaching, research) for the promotion and tenure process is
split between units, evaluation criteria should be consistent between the two units.
8
`B. Criteria of Performance
1. Assistant Professor.
An assistant professor should have a strong academic record and have been awarded
the doctorate. S/he should have the potential for scholarship in their assigned areas of
responsibility and competent professional skills appropriate to the position. The
assistant professor rank is recognition that the faculty member has exhibited the
potential to grow in an academic career. Annual evaluations and contract renewal
deliberations will provide early assessments and feedback on the manner and degree to
which the assistant professor is on a trajectory toward promotion to associate professor
based on the specified promotion criteria including assessment of specified teaching,
research, extension and service obligations.
Assistant professors are not encouraged to take on significant service obligations. Thus,
a satisfactory level of performance would be demonstrated by active participation in
departmental committees and by membership and participation in professional
organizations at the regional and national level.
2. Associate Professor
The Department of Sociology typically links recommendations for promotion to the rank
of associate professor with the recommendation that tenure be granted. Thus, the
qualifications for promotion to associate professor and for granting tenure are the same.
Initial appointments at the associate professor level may be made without accompanying
tenure.
An associate professor should have a solid academic record and show promise of
further development and productivity in his or her academic career. The candidate must
demonstrate scholarship that establishes the individual as a significant contributor to the
field or profession, with potential for national distinction, effectiveness in areas of
position responsibilities, and satisfactory institutional service. Furthermore, a
recommendation for promotion to associate professor and granting of tenure must be
based upon an assessment that the candidate has made contributions of appropriate
magnitude and quality and has a high likelihood of sustained contributions to the field or
profession and to the university. The review of the candidate’s materials typically will
place a greater emphasis on the most recent five years.
Teaching. Candidates for promotion to associate professor who have a portion of their
role assigned to teaching must demonstrate successful performance in regularly
scheduled courses. Performance in classroom teaching will primarily be assessed using
department-administered student evaluations and peer observation and evaluation of
teaching. Course syllabi, instructional materials, and other evidence of teaching
approaches and innovation may also be submitted. There should not be any significant
deficiencies in the candidate’s teaching performance. The candidate must also have
exhibited satisfactory performance in graduate advising and served as a member of
graduate POS committees.
9
Outstanding scholarship in teaching includes contributions beyond student and peer
ratings of superior classroom teaching. There should be evidence of scholarship in
teaching, such as the publication of peer-reviewed work on student learning, teaching
techniques, and the publication of high quality instructional materials or textbooks. There
should be evidence of participation in teaching-related presentations, workshops, or
similar activities in professional meetings at the regional and national level. The
candidate should be recognized by peers, both within and external to the university, as
an authority on effective teaching.
Research. Candidates for promotion to associate professor who have a portion of their
role assigned to research must demonstrate an established research program with
clearly documented research products. Typically, for basic research products, this will
be evidenced through high quality, programmatic research that is published in major
academic journals and major academic presses appropriate to the candidate’s specialty
area. Applied research should also demonstrate programmatic activity that is supported
with clearly specified research products and outcomes.
Publication in referred journals is a typical method for demonstrating research
productivity. Because the quality and rigor of the peer review process varies across
journals, additional evidence of scholarly impact (e.g., citations, journal review
procedures, journal citation impact scores) should be submitted. Ultimately, assessment
of the quality of journal articles will rest on peer review by departmental faculty and
external reviewers.
Authored books, reporting original research findings, are another high impact area of
research. As with other research products, the assessment of the quality of this form of
scholarship will rest on peer review by the faculty and external reviewers. Other
evidence, including positive book reviews in leading specialty and disciplinary journals
and the scholarly reputation of the publisher, may be submitted to support the
assessments of quality and potential impact.
Edited books, chapters in edited books, non-refereed research monographs, and related
products may also be presented as evidence of an active, programmatic, line of
research. It is important that these research products are accompanied by some
evidence of quality and impact (e.g., citations, positive reviews, quality of press).
Candidates are typically expected to have made research presentations at regional and
national meetings of professional associations, and to have served as reviewers for
professional journals.
For applied research roles, the products that provide evidence of an active,
programmatic, line of research may also include applied research reports and
presentations to non-professional audiences or to professional groups outside of
academic settings.
Outstanding scholarship in research includes contributions beyond quantity and type of
research products. The critical issue is whether the candidate’s work contributes
significantly to advancing the discipline in the candidate’s research area. External
reviewers and departmental faculty will evaluate the overall quality of the research
product. Additional indicators of scholarship in research will typically include measures
of journal quality (e.g., disciplinary prestige rankings, journal citation impact scores),
citations to the candidate’s work, membership on editorial boards of scholarly journals,
10
major grant funding, invitations to make research presentations, and awards and
recognition for research. Journal impact factors and citation counts may not be the most
appropriate indicators of the impact of a specific candidate’s research. A researcher
may supplement these traditional measures of impact with evidence that their work is
cited or otherwise influential among the leading national and/or international scholars
working in this research domain. Likewise, for faculty with a portion of their role
allocated to applied research, the evaluation of productivity and impact may have more
emphasis on external peer assessment of the applied research products and activities.
There is no singular guideline for quantity of research publications or related products.
As noted in the discussion of basic and applied research, faculty in the Department of
Sociology have diverse roles with varying mixes of research. It is expected that the
quantity and type of product would be related to the proportion of position responsibilities
allocated to research. Faculty with a larger allocation of responsibilities assigned to
research are expected to produce proportionately greater evidence of research products.
It is important, however, to emphasize that the primary criterion for evaluation of
research is quality rather than quantity. Publishing a specific number of refereed
articles, books, or producing equivalent research products, is neither a necessary nor a
sufficient condition to demonstrate scholarship in research.
The diversity of research roles in the Department of Sociology implies the use of
somewhat variable measures of the quality and impact of scholarship. In instances
where the indicators proposed do not involve external peer review, the candidate must
provide clear, unbiased, indicators of the scholarly assessment and impact of this work.
In addition, in these situations, the assessment of the external reviewers may have
greater relative weight in the evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship.
Extension and Professional Practice. Candidates for promotion to associate professor
who have a portion of their role assigned to extension/professional practice must
demonstrate effective use of their professional expertise to disseminate information or
provide services to specified clients. Performance in extension/professional practice will
be assessed using a combination of client evaluations and peer assessment of the
candidate’s ability to instruct, inform and assist clientele. Educational materials,
innovative and creative approaches to information dissemination, and related work
products (e.g., reports, publications, media presentations) may also be submitted as
evidence of performance.
Faculty who excel in extension and professional practice will demonstrate skill in using
their professional expertise to provide information and help improve the knowledge and
skills of clientele. They display leadership and initiative, are creative in the practical
application of knowledge, and are effective in using their sociological expertise to
instruct, inform, and assist clients.
Faculty with extension appointments serve a diverse clientele: extension field staff; the
citizens who attend programs or training; professionals in local, national and
international organizations that use extension information and support; and his or her
peers in the discipline. Faculty with other forms of professional service appointments
may serve a narrower range of clients (e.g., faculty and staff needing technical
assistance with statistical or methodological issues). In either case, an important
component of the evaluation will be assessment of peers, both within and external to the
university, regarding the effectiveness of the candidate in using disciplinary perspectives
11
and knowledge to meet the needs of clientele. This would include written evaluation of
performance by individuals in charge of the work in these areas if it is someone other
than the Department Chair.
Service. As stated in the discussion of Assistant Professors above, a satisfactory level
of service performance for promotion to Associate Professor would be demonstrated by
active participation in departmental committees and by membership and participation in
professional organizations at the regional and national level. Additional service
responsibilities beyond those expected of Assistant Professors are required of Associate
Professors, but the level of service demanded varies and may be specified in position
responsibility statements.
3. Professor
A professor should be recognized by his or her professional peers within the university,
as well as nationally and/or internationally, for the quality of the contributions to his or
her discipline. The candidate must demonstrate: national distinction in scholarship, as
evident in candidate’s wide recognition and outstanding contributions to the field or
profession, effectiveness in areas of position responsibility, and significant institutional
service. Furthermore, a recommendation to professor must be based upon an
assessment, since the last promotion, that the candidate has made contributions of
appropriate magnitude and quality and has demonstrated the ability to sustain
contributions to the field or profession and to the university.
Teaching. Candidates for promotion to professor must demonstrate a successful record
of offering well-evaluated courses at the undergraduate and graduate level. Faculty
seeking promotion to professor should have been actively involved in the development
of courses, taken an active role in the development of curricula in the department, and
performed satisfactorily as an advisor of undergraduate and/or graduate students.
Candidates must also have a record of satisfactory performance in serving as a member
of the graduate faculty including serving on POS committees, participating as a member
of one or more graduate concentrations in the department, and serving as a major
professor for Masters and Ph.D. students. There should be evidence of an increasing
level of mentoring and informal teaching at the graduate level (e.g., supervising
independent study, thesis, and dissertation hours).
In addition to outstanding student ratings and highly favorable reviews by peers who
have observed the candidate’s classroom teaching, scholarship in teaching requires that
the faculty member be recognized by peers as a leading authority on effective teaching.
Normally, this requires that there be significant scholarship in the teaching area that has
been validated by peers, such as the publication of high quality scholarship on student
learning and the publication of high quality instructional materials. Additional indicators
of scholarship in teaching include receipt of university or external awards for teaching
excellence, having significant responsibilities in a non-departmental teaching mission of
the university, and recognition as an outstanding mentor or supervisor of undergraduate
and graduate students.
Research. Candidates for promotion to professor who have a portion of their role
assigned to research must demonstrate a continuing active program of research
resulting in a sustained record of publications and other research products appropriate to
their position responsibilities. While publication in major refereed journals and major
12
presses appropriate to the candidate’s specialty area continue to be a primary indicator
of research product at this level, other types of research activities that represent the
cumulative contributions of the candidate to a research topic and/or new research
initiatives are also relevant indicators (e.g., peer-reviewed grants). There should be
evidence of increased quality and reputation of the candidate’s research and scholarly
work.
Scholarship in this area is defined as having a national or international reputation. The
critical issue is whether the candidate’s work contributes significantly to advancing the
discipline in the candidate’s areas of specialization. Regardless of areas of
specialization, research at this level should demonstrate broader scope with clear
linkages to the disciplinary core. This may be demonstrated in a number of ways,
including, but not limited to, publications in high prestige social science journals,
research books in major presses, number and patterns of citations (e.g., citations to
candidate’s work in the publications of other researchers in the specialty area), and work
that indicates an integrative command of their specialty through publication of review
articles, chapters and related research products. As with promotion to associate
professor, there is no singular guideline for quantity of research publications or products.
The quantity and type of product would be related to the proportion of position
responsibilities allocated to research. It is not always easy to quantify research
products. Certain products, such as books (original research monographs and edited
volumes) and funded extramural research grants, each may represent a proportionately
greater product than a journal publication. For promotion to full professor, there should
be a primary emphasis on the quality and programmatic impact of this research.
Publishing a specific number of refereed articles, books, or producing equivalent
research products, is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to demonstrate
scholarship in research.
External reviewers and departmental faculty will evaluate the quality, scope, and
influence of the candidate’s research and scholarly products. Letters from external
reviewers at major universities should indicate that the candidate has a national or
international reputation as a leading scholar in the candidate’s area of research and that
that she or he has contributed significantly to progress in the field.
Additional indicators of scholarship in research include having served on editorial boards
and review panels, receipt of competitive grants or contracts, invitations to make
research presentations at national and international conferences, serving as an editor of
a research journal, serving as a consultant on major research projects, receiving awards
and recognition from professional organizations for research contributions, and serving
on scientific review panels.
Extension and Professional Practice. Candidates for promotion to professor who have a
portion of their role assigned to extension and professional practice must demonstrate a
continuing active program of support and consulting activities appropriate to their
position responsibilities. While effective use of their professional expertise to
disseminate information or provide services to their specified clients remains the central
evaluation criteria, other types of professional practice activities that represent the
cumulative contributions of the candidate should also be reviewed (e.g., innovative
programs, books, applied or demonstration grants). There should be evidence of
increased quality, quantity and reputation of the candidate’s research and scholarly
work.
13
Scholarship in this area is defined as providing outstanding support to the specified
clientele and having developed a national or international reputation for his or her work
in this area. The critical issue is whether the candidate’s work provides effective and
innovative means for meeting the client’s support needs. Regardless of the particular
clientele served, extension and professional practice at this level should demonstrate
broader scope and impact. The scholarship resulting from extension and professional
practice activities is documented through typical disciplinary means (e.g., refereed
articles, book chapters, educational and training materials, and funded grants). External
reviewers and departmental faculty will evaluate the quality, scope, and influence of the
candidate’s extension and professional practice work. Letters from external reviewers at
major universities should indicate that the candidate has a national or international
reputation as a leading scholar in the candidate’s area of professional practice and that
that she or he has contributed significantly to progress in the field.
Service. Candidates for promotion to professor typically have made significant
contributions beyond the department level through service on major college and
university committees. In addition, there should be the continuation of involvement in
professional organizations at the regional and national level as well as evidence of
increased visibility and leadership roles.
VI. RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND WRITTEN REPORTS
It is imperative that accurate records of organizational decisions be maintained and made
available. The department keeps records of its meetings and other procedures under varying
levels of security in its main office. The vita of faculty members also are stored there. The
availability and procedures for maintaining these records and others are outlined in the
Departmental Procedures Handbook. Brief annual reports are to be written and kept by the
Department’s standing committees and the Sociology Council. These reports document the
work the committees have done. Copies of these reports are available to the faculty upon
request.
VII. DEPARTMENTAL CODE OF ETHICS FOR HUMAN RELATIONS
(Approved by Faculty, May 7, 1991; Amended by Faculty, December 10, 1991, November 9,
1993). Revised October 2, 2007.
A. The Department affirms the University's commitment and policies to provide a professional
and educational environment that is free from discriminatory, harassment and inappropriate
and disrespectful conduct or communication in accordance with University policy on
Discrimination and Harassment.
B. The Department prohibits any form of discrimination and/or harassment and affirms that
such behavior will not be tolerated.
VIII. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE
This document, "Faculty Governance Document of the Department of Sociology," may be amended
by majority vote at any duly called regular or special meeting of the sociology faculty, provided the
text of the proposed amendment is distributed to the sociology faculty at least seven days prior to
14
the meeting. The same procedures are required to amend or change the Departmental Procedures
Handbook for carrying out the governance described herein.
15
DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES HANDBOOK
I. INTRODUCTION
This document supplements the Faculty Governance Document of the Department of Sociology
and requires the same procedures as the department’s governance document for modification or
amendment. It specifies procedures for applying the structure of governance in that document. All
procedures followed in the Department of Sociology must comply with all Iowa State University
policies and procedures as well as with policies and procedures specified in the Iowa State Faculty
Handbook. Procedures are presented following the structure of the Department of Sociology’s
Governance Document and major headings (I-VIII) are numbered according to the section numbers
in that document.
II. ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT
A. Review of the Chair
By April 1, during the next to last year of the Chair's term, the Chair will notify the Sociology
Council in writing of his/her willingness to be considered for another term. If interest in
reappointment is expressed, an evaluation of the Chair shall be conducted by the end of the
current spring semester. An evaluation will not be conducted in the event that the
incumbent does not wish to be considered a candidate for another term. In this case, the
outgoing Chair would be evaluated as other faculty as specified in the Guidelines for Faculty
Evaluation, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure section of this document.
Evaluation of the Chair shall be conducted by an ad-hoc evaluation committee comprised of
the chairs of the department’s non-elected standing committees and subcommittees with the
exclusion of the Chair, chairs appointed by the chair, and members of the Sociology
Council. A secret ballot shall be sent to each faculty member that includes the following
question: "Do you prefer the current Chair to continue as Chair?" Selection options on the
ballot shall include ‘Yes,’ ‘No’ and ‘Abstain.’ Reasons for support or opposition shall be
requested. The ballot shall be returned through a double envelope system.
The ad hoc committee will provide a numerical tabulation of the results and the verbatim
comments as a confidential document to the Deans. The numerical tabulation shall be
reported to the chair and to the faculty. If at least half of the returned ballots indicate
preference for the current Chair to continue in the position, the recommendation to the
Deans shall be for reappointment for another term. If less than half of the returned ballots
support the incumbent, the recommendation to the Deans shall be to initiate the search
procedure for a new chair.
An evaluation of the Chair will also occur in the event that a petition requesting such an
evaluation has been signed by a minimum of one-half of the faculty and submitted to the
Sociology Council. Such a petition may be circulated at any time. Names of faculty who
sign the petition shall be considered confidential.
Evaluation procedures as outlined above shall be undertaken in the event of a petition. The
Deans shall be informed of the petition and the pending ballot. In the subsequent petition
initiated recall vote, if a simple majority of the returned ballots indicate preference for the
Chair to complete his/her term, the recommendation to the Deans shall be for continuation.
16
A recall vote resulting in less than one-half support of the incumbent must also be reported
to the Deans.
B. Selection of the Chair
Iowa State University policies (“Guidelines for Administrative Searches”
http://www.provost.iastate.edu/office/searches.html) provide the guidelines and procedures
for selecting and hiring department chairs.
The policies state that when forming committees to hire administrators, “the hiring officer
should try to make it as representative as possible of the groups that have a significant
interest in the position to be filled.” Policies also indicate that “the various constituencies
should be given the opportunity to nominate persons to represent them on the committee,
but the administrator in charge of the search should make the final selection. This allows the
administrator the latitude to form a committee that is diverse with respect to gender, race,
ethnic group, and any other characteristics important to that particular search.”
To ensure proper input, an ad hoc committee comprised of the chairs of the department’s
non-elected standing committees with the exclusion of the Sociology Council will solicit
nominations for potential Sociology Department faculty representatives to the Recruitment
Committee for Department Chair. All tenure-track, tenured, and adjunct faculty may be
nominated or self-nominate. All faculty members who are nominated will be contacted by
the ad hoc committee to determine whether they are willing to serve on the Chair search
committee (if asked to do so by the Deans of the CALS and LAS). The ad hoc committee
will prepare a ballot of all nominated faculty members who wish to be considered. Faculty
who are nominated but who do not wish to serve on such a committee may decline to be
listed on this ballot. Paper ballots will then be distributed to all faculty members. Each
faculty member will then vote for the one (1) person they would most like to represent the
faculty on a Department Chair Recruitment Committee. Ballots require no faculty signature,
but the ballot will be returned in an envelop that has the faculty member’s name on it. The
votes must be turned in within 5 working days to the Sociology Department Office
coordinator. The number of votes received by each faculty member on the ballot will then be
forwarded directly to the Deans by the ad hoc committee.
Unless otherwise requested by the Chair of the Chair Recruitment Committee, the following
procedure will be implemented by the department to evaluate the candidates:
1. Once the initial slate of candidates has been compiled, there shall be two secret ballots
by the faculty. The first ballot shall contain the initial slate of applicants with the
question: "Would (person) be an acceptable Chair?" Each faculty member may vote
yes, no, or abstain on each nominee. Results shall be reported to the Chair of the
Recruitment Committee.
2. The second ballot shall include all applicants who received at least sixty percent "yes"
votes on ballots returned in the initial voting. The faculty preference(s) among the
finalists will be determined by polling the faculty (and other relevant parties) and asking
for each of the candidates, Are they (1) highly acceptable, (2) acceptable, (3)
unacceptable.
3. The number of votes received by each candidate on the second ballot along with written
17
comments from ballots shall be sent to the Chair of the Recruitment Committee. The
number of votes will be reported to the faculty.
C. Sociology Council Election Duties and Procedures
1. Each year, in March, the Sociology Council will identify all elected positions in the
Department of Sociology that will be vacated at the end of that academic year. The
Sociology Council will then, in writing, solicit nominations from the faculty of eligible
candidates for each of these positions. Signatures of all faculty being nominated must be
obtained to confirm that the nominees have agreed to serve if elected. Names of all
faculty who are nominated and agree to serve will be placed on the ballot. It is the intent,
but not requirement, that two or more candidates be identified for each open position.
2. Each year, in April, the Sociology Council will distribute a ballot listing all of the faculty
who have been nominated for each of the vacant positions. This ballot will be returned to
the Secretary of the Chair for tabulation. The names of faculty receiving the largest
number of votes for the vacant positions will be publicly announced by the Chair no later
than May 1.
Election Procedures
1. For all elected positions, if an incumbent anticipates being unable to fulfill his/her duties
(because of personal illness, absence from campus, or another reason) for a period of
three or more consecutive months, (not including summer), this must be promptly
communicated in writing to the Sociology Council, which will then immediately implement
procedures to temporarily fill that position. All anticipated vacancies of less than three
months will be handled by the affected committees/delegates and may involve no
actions or securement by the affected committees/delegates of temporary faculty
replacements.
2. The procedures for selecting faculty for temporarily-vacated positions are as follows: (a)
all persons eligible to vote on a temporarily-vacated position will be informed (in the premeeting agenda) that eligible electors will convene following the next regularly
scheduled faculty meeting, (b) following the faculty meeting, all eligible electors will
caucus and select a temporary replacement to fill the vacated position, (c) this caucus
will be Chaired by a representative of the Sociology Council who is not among the
eligible electors; such Chairperson to be selected by majority vote of the Sociology
Council, (d) following this caucus, the name of the replacement will be announced in a
memo to the entire faculty, (e) faculty elected to fill temporarily-vacated positions will
serve only the period of the term specified at the time of the election.
III. ORGANIZATION
A. Departmental Business
1. Regular faculty meetings (meetings for faculty as defined in the beginning of this
document, see page 2) will be held monthly as needed, with dates announced at the
beginning of each semester. Meetings are conducted in accordance with Roberts Rules
of Order in order to insure the protection of minority views and an open process.
2. The Sociology Council will appoint a faculty member to take minutes on a rotating
18
basis. The Sociology Council will be responsible for ensuring that a copy of the minutes
is distributed and posted in the main office area as soon as possible after the faculty
meeting. Minutes will be placed in a permanent file. The first order of business at
faculty meeting will be approval of minutes. Disagreements about the accuracy of the
minutes will be brought to the faculty for a final decision as to how the minutes should
read. Corrections to the minutes will be kept in the permanent file.
3. Special faculty meetings may be called by the Chair of the Sociology Council or the
Chair. A petition by five or more faculty members requires the convening of a special
faculty meeting. One week's notice must be given.
4. The agenda for a special faculty meeting must be distributed at least 3 working days in
advance of the meetings, otherwise the deliberations are not binding.
5. A quorum shall consist of a minimum of 50% of the regularly-budgeted faculty plus one
faculty member (currently not on leave) present at any meeting, otherwise the
deliberations and decisions at that meeting are not binding.
6. Approval of the agenda will be the first item of business. A simple majority vote is
required to add, delete, or reorder agenda items.
7. The Chair and the Chair of the Sociology Council will consult in preparing the agenda.
Persons must submit agenda items to either the Chair or the Chair of the Sociology
Council a week before the next regular meeting.
8. Faculty meetings may be conducted as an informal committee of the whole at the
discretion of the person chairing the meeting. A request for a more formal process using
parliamentary procedure must be honored.
9. At the discretion of the person chairing the faculty meeting, voting may be conducted by
either voice vote or show of hands. A request for a secret (written) ballot must be
honored. A mailed ballot will be used if voted by a majority of the voting members
present. No proxy or absentee votes will be allowed.
10. Except for recall of elected committee members, a simple majority vote will decide an
issue, including changes in the governance document and the agenda. A two-thirds
vote will be required for recall of elected committee members.
IV. HIRING FOR REGULAR, LECTURER AND ADJUNCT POSITIONS
A. Regular Faculty Positions
1. A file with vita, letters of recommendation, and other supporting material will be kept for
each candidate. The committee and the faculty will review the candidates’ qualifications.
Typically faculty evaluate a select number of files designated by the committee.
2. Based upon a review of the candidates, the Chair in consultation with the committee will
decide which candidates will be invited for interviews. To provide for transparency in the
selection process, the results of the faculty vote and the committee deliberations will be
19
provided to the faculty. Normally three or more candidates from among the applicants
will be invited to campus for interviews and seminar presentations.
3. To recommend to the Chair preferences on the interviewed candidates, the faculty will
vote based upon their review of the candidates. The vote will be a confidential unsigned
ballot submitted electronically. Ballots will be submitted by the voting members of the
faculty to the secretary assigned by the Chair. Ballots must contain numeric rankings of
candidates provided by the search committee, but may contain other information. The
total number of first place rankings for candidates as well as points assigned in a Borda
voting system must be submitted as part of the vote count. Additional information from
ballots, including written comments, may be used to evaluate candidates.
4. The Chair will report the results of the vote to the faculty.
5. There may be three exceptions to the procedure of an open search conducted in the
Sociology Department:
a. To further the university's goal of diversity among its faculty and its commitment to
affirmative action, when opportunities arise to employ members of underutilized
minorities or other protected groups, the department may consider abbreviating the
search process. This must be approved by the Office of Equal Employment
Opportunity and Diversity and Dean. As these unique or special arrangements
develop, they need to be documented with the full understanding of all parties
involved, including the faculty, concerning what is being provided by whom and the
duration of such provisions. The hiring should correspond with departmental needs.
This does not preclude hiring of underutilized minorities through the open search
process.
b. The second exception involves a shift of a person from a position in one department
at ISU to a position in the Department of Sociology. This shift would involve a
transfer of funds and has to be agreed upon by the relevant parties involved in the
university (e.g., Provost, Dean(s), Chairs).
For both 1 and 2 the department will follow the procedures previously specified
except that there will not be an open advertised search for that position.
c. In the case of university administrative positions that involve the expectation of rank
and/or tenure in this department (e.g., an incoming Dean may desire rank and tenure
in the Sociology Department), it is expected that the university will conduct the
search including advertising the position both externally and internally, appointing a
committee, and reviewing the files. The decision to grant rank and/or tenure in the
Sociology Department will, however, be voted upon by the faculty.
B. Lecturers
1. Lecturers appointed for one semester will be reviewed at the end of the semester by the
chair, the teaching coordinator, and one other coordinator and be considered for
renewal. Student course evaluations will be consulted and satisfactory performance of
teaching duties will be required.
20
2. Lecturers appointed for one year or more but less than three years will be reviewed at
the end of each year and considered for renewal at the end of their appointment by the
teaching coordinator, the department chair, and one other coordinator. Student course
evaluations will be consulted and satisfactory performance of teaching duties will be
required.
3. Lecturers appointed for three years will be evaluated by the departmental promotion and
tenure committee (P & T). The P & T committee will consider their renewal at the end of
the first semester during the third year.
4. Senior lecturers will be reviewed by the P & T committee every three years. They will
receive notice by April 15 of the third year of their appointment of intent to renew or not
renew.
Advancement
1. After six years of accumulated service, Lecturers/Clinicians are eligible for advancement
to Senior Lecturer/Senior Clinician. Normally this review will take place during the fifth
year. Recommendations for advancement to Senior Lecturer/Senior Clinician are based
upon classroom performance and the staffing needs of the department. The Assistant
Professor Evaluation Committee, in collaboration with the Teaching Coordinator, will
review the candidate's materials and make recommendations to the departmental chair.
2. According to university policy, Lecturers/Clinicians are not eligible for employment
beyond their six years of accumulated service unless they have been advanced to the
rank of Senior Lecturer/Clinician.
3. The rank of Senior Lecturer/Senior Clinician is achieved only through the advancement
from the rank of Lecturer/Clinician after completion of six years of service and a formal
review.
4. The criteria for advancement to Senior Lecturer/Senior Clinicians are: 1) demonstrated
excellence in teaching; 2) satisfactory evidence of on-going professional development
related to teaching; and 3) evidence of teaching-related institutional service.
5.
The Chair must approve advancement to Senior Lecturer/Senior Clinician prior to
forwarding them for College and University approval.
V. GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY EVALUATION, REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND
TENURE****
A. Evaluation
1. Procedure
Each spring, the Department Chair will prepare a list of faculty members who are to be
evaluated. All assistant professors will be evaluated each year. Normally, associate
professors will be evaluated every five years and full professors every seven years,
although they may request earlier evaluations. While faculty may not decline to be
21
evaluated at the regularly scheduled intervals, they may request that no decision be
made with regard to promotion and/or tenure.
The Department Chair will inform staff members if their evaluation involves decisions
related to promotion, tenure, and/or contract renewal. Assistant professors will only be
offered four year contracts. Evaluation of an assistant professor for his/her second (twoyear) contract will be made during the spring semester of the third year of employment.
If the candidate is not awarded an additional probationary contract, then the last year of
the initial contract is terminal. If during the sixth year of the probationary period an
assistant professor is not awarded tenure, the candidate will be granted a one-year
terminal contract for the seventh year of employment. Candidates may be considered
for promotion and/or tenure prior to the sixth year.
The Department Chair will request faculty who are to be evaluated to supply a standard
vita and the supporting documentation as requested by the college P&T committees.
2. Evaluation of Full and Associate Professors
A Senior Professor Evaluation Committee will be elected to evaluate associate and full
professors. This three member committee will be elected from and by all full professors
in the department at the time of the election. All members will be elected "at large." The
election will be held each year in the spring semester. The length of term will be three
years. Those elected will not be eligible for another term until two years after completing
that term. A member of the Senior Professor Evaluation Committee will be released
from the committee for extenuating circumstances. An election will be held to fill the
remainder of the term in such a situation. The committee will elect a Chair for a term of
one year. Any member of the Senior Professor Evaluation Committee who has a conflict
of interest with a faculty member being evaluated (e.g., relative, history of personal
altercations) will excuse him/herself from any Senior Professor Evaluation Committee
discussions regarding the individual.
The faculty member being evaluated is responsible for submitting an evaluation vita; the
current position responsibility statement and any prior statements for the period
under review; a faculty portfolio, which contains supplementary materials provided by
the candidate related to the four areas of faculty activity; and for those being
considered for promotion, the names of potential references. (See Faculty
Handbook Section 5.3.1 for additional information, including information about the
format of the material.)
The Senior Professor Evaluation Committee will be responsible for:
a. examining the materials presented by the candidate;
b. meeting with the candidate (or the candidate's spokesperson if the candidate so
chooses) concerning the materials presented and any other items raised by the
candidate or committee members; and
c. presenting a written summary of their entire evaluation of the candidate to the
Department Chair and the candidate within 10 official class days of the meeting with
the candidate.
22
If the candidate is not requesting consideration for promotion, this procedure will end the
evaluation. The candidate may request a discussion of the written summary with the
Senior Professor Evaluation Committee. The Senior Professor Evaluation Committee
may revise the written summary after this discussion. The Senior Professor Evaluation
Committee's written summary (or the revised version if that occurs after a discussion
with the candidate) will be placed in the candidate's file.
For associate professors requesting review for promotion, in addition to the three items
listed above, the Senior Professor Evaluation Committee Chair will call a meeting of all
full professors in the sociology departmental budget base that year at which the
Committee will present an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.
Professors present may ask questions or provide information; no votes will be taken at
this or any other meeting. Any full professor in the sociology departmental budget base
that year who has a conflict of interest with the candidate being evaluated will not
participate in this discussion or in any subsequent voting regarding this person.
Within three official class days following this meeting, full professors in the sociology
departmental budget base that year will submit their completed ballots (one per
candidate) to the Department Chair's secretary, who will transmit them to the
Department Chair. The ballots will ask for the selection of "yes" "no" or “abstain” on
promotion plus reasons supporting this vote. The Department Chair and a senior
representative on the Senior Professor Evaluation Committee will tabulate the ballots.
The Department Chair will report the results to the full professors at a meeting to be held
within three official class days of the due-date of the ballots. The Department Chair will
give this information to the candidate within three official class days of this meeting. A
majority of all votes must be positive for the candidate to be recommended by the full
professors for promotion. If more than one candidate is recommended for promotion in
a college, the full professors will place the candidates in rank order only if this is
demanded by the college.
At the time the recommendations are reported by the Department Chair to the full
professors in the sociology departmental budget base that year and within five official
class days of this date, the Department Chair or any member of the full professors may
request that recommendations be reconsidered at a meeting called for this purpose.
This request needs to be in the form of a motion and needs majority support (of a
quorum of full professors) in order to be carried. A single reconsideration per candidate
will be permitted. Voting will proceed in the manner indicated in previous paragraphs.
Individual votes may be changed only at the time of reconsideration.
The Department Chair may forward a nomination to the appropriate dean for any person
irrespective of the action of a Senior Professor Evaluation Committee.
3. Evaluation of Assistant Professors
An Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee will evaluate assistant professors who will
be evaluated each year. This six-member committee will consist of the Senior Professor
Evaluation Committee plus three associate professors elected from and by all those
tenured at that rank in the department at the time of the election. All associate
professors will be elected "at large." The election will be held each year in the spring
semester. The length of term for associate professors will be three years. Those
23
elected will not be eligible for another term until two years after completing that term. A
member of the Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee will be released from the
committee for extenuating circumstances, including faculty improvement leaves and
leaves without pay. An election will be held to fill the remainder of the term in such a
situation. The term of an associate professor that is promoted to full professor while
serving on the Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee will end when the newly
appointed rank begins; another associate professor will be elected to complete the
remainder of the term, if any. The elected Chair of the Senior Professor Evaluation
Committee will serve as the Chair of the Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee. As
with Senior Professor Evaluation Committee, any member of the Assistant Professor
Evaluation Committee who has a conflict of interest (e.g., relative, history of personal
altercations) with a faculty member being evaluated will excuse him/herself from any
Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee discussions or votes regarding the individual.
The faculty member being evaluated is responsible for submitting an evaluation vita; the
current position responsibility statement and any prior statements for the period
under review; a faculty portfolio, which contains supplementary materials provided by
the candidate related to the four areas of faculty activity; and for those being
considered for promotion, the names of potential references. (See Faculty
Handbook Section 5.3.1 for additional information, including information about the
format of the material.)
The Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee will be responsible for:
a. examining the materials of the candidate;
b. meeting with the candidate concerning the materials presented and any other items
raised by the candidate or committee members;
c. presenting their entire written evaluation of the candidate to the Department Chair
and the candidate within 10 official class days of meeting with the candidate; and
d. reporting the complete results of their evaluation to senior faculty at a faculty
meeting.
The candidate may request a discussion of the written summary with the Assistant
Professor Evaluation Committee. The Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee may
revise the written summary after this discussion. The Assistant Professor Evaluation
Committee's written summary (or the revised version if that occurs after a discussion
with the candidate) will be placed in the candidate's file. If the candidate is not up for
extension of contract, promotion, and/or tenure consideration, this will end the
evaluation.
For candidates up for extension of contract, promotion, and/or tenure, in addition to the
items listed in the previous paragraph, the Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee will
inform all full and tenured associate professors in the sociology departmental budget
base that year of their evaluations at a meeting called by the Committee Chair. The
Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee will provide strengths and weaknesses of the
candidates relevant for extension of contract, promotion, and/or tenure decisions. After
the committee presentation, the full and tenured associate professors present may ask
24
questions or provide information; straw votes will not be taken at this or any other
meeting. The Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee may revise the written
summary after this discussion. The Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee's written
summary (or the revised version if that occurs after a discussion with the candidate) will
be placed in the candidate's file.
Any professor who has a conflict of interest with the candidate being evaluated will not
participate in the discussion or in any subsequent voting regarding the individual.
Within three official class days following this meeting, associate and full professor
members will submit their completed ballots to the Department Chair's secretary, who
will transmit them to the Department Chair. The ballots will ask for a selection of “yes”,
“no” or “abstain” on extension of contract, promotion, and/or tenure plus reasons
supporting the vote. The Department Chair and a senior member of the Assistant
Professor Evaluation Committee will tabulate the votes and report the results to the
associate and full professors at a meeting to be held within three official class days of
the due-date of the ballets. The Department Chair will give this information to the
candidate within three official class days of this meeting. A majority of all votes must be
positive for the candidate to be recommended by the associate and full professors for
promotion. If more than one candidate is recommended for promotion in a college, the
Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee will place the candidates in rank order only if
this is demanded by the college.
Within five official class days after the recommendations are reported by the Department
Chair to the full and associate professors, the Department Chair or any member of the
associate and full professors may request that recommendations be reconsidered. This
request must be made at a meeting of the full and associate professors and needs to be
in the form of a motion. It requires majority support to be carried. A single
reconsideration per candidate will be permitted. Voting will proceed in the manner
indicated in previous paragraphs. Individual votes may be changed only at the time of
reconsideration.
The Department Chair may forward a nomination to the appropriate dean for any person
irrespective of the action of the Professor Evaluation Committee (page 22 of the Faculty
Handbook).
4. External Peer Evaluations
External evaluations will be solicited for any individual recommended for promotion,
whether to the rank of associate or full professor. The Department Chair, in consultation
with the candidate and other relevant faculty, will construct a list of six persons deemed
appropriate to conduct such a review. There will be two chosen from the candidate’s list.
The Chair will send a description of the candidate's role within the Department and
his/her evaluation materials to each person on the list along with a request for a frank
appraisal of whether the individual's record of performance warrants promotion.
Reviewers will be assured that their evaluations will be treated as confidential to the
extent allowed by law. The list of reviewers and all evaluations received will be
forwarded to the college as part of the package of materials submitted by the
Department with regard to the candidate.
25
B. Appeal Procedures
The choice of the appeal procedures is up to the faculty member involved. Here are two
procedures, which may be used separately or sequentially.
1. Internal Appeal
a. A faculty member who wishes to appeal the recommendation of the Assistant
Professor Evaluation Committee or Senior Professor Evaluation Committee should
do so in writing to the Department Chair within two weeks after being notified.
b. The candidate will present his/her own appeal or may select a spokesperson to
present his/her appeal. If a spokesperson is selected, the spokesperson will meet
with the faculty member and solicit additional information.
c. The candidate or his/her spokesperson will present the appeal and any additional
information to the Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee or Senior Professor
Evaluation Committee for re-evaluation of the person.
d. Re-evaluation will take place using the same voting procedures as described in the
Procedures subsection of this section.
e. The Department Chair will notify the faculty member making the appeal in writing
about the Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee or Senior Professor Evaluation
Committee recommendation.
2. Independent Appeal
Appeals outside the department should follow procedures as specified in the current ISU
Faculty Handbook.
VI. RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND WRITTEN REPORTS
A. Departmental Records
1. Minutes of Faculty Meetings
a. The Secretary to the Chair is responsible for posting a copy of the faculty meeting
minutes in the main office area and for placing a copy in the permanent departmental
file on the Monday after the faculty meeting.
b. The Chair of the Sociology Council is responsible for keeping a separate record of all
votes and outcomes of these votes to append to the minutes.
2. Minutes of Sociology Council Meetings
The Chair of the Sociology Council is responsible for making sure a copy of minutes of
the Sociology Council is placed in a permanent departmental file within a week of the
meeting. Minutes of the Sociology Council are open to departmental faculty.
26
3. Minutes of Standing Committees
The Chairs of the standing committees are responsible for maintaining a record of their
respective committee's work. This record will be transferred to succeeding Chairs of the
individual committees.
4. Records of Position Responsibility Statement Dispute Resolution Committees
A record of committee work, along with appropriate documents, will be placed in a
departmental file. The file will be open to members of the Dispute Resolution
Committee, the faculty’s representative (see Section III B 2 of the Governance
Document), the Department Chair, and principal persons in the dispute. The content of
these files are confidential.
5. Record of Recruitment Committees
A record of committee work (minutes and appropriate documents) shall be maintained
by the committee Chair. Upon completion of the recruitment process, these materials
will be placed in a departmental file.
6. Standard Vita of Faculty
Each faculty member will maintain an annually updated copy of his or her standard vita
in the departmental office. It will be placed in a file open to the University community.
Departmental members will be notified when their vita have been provided to persons or
offices outside the department.
7. Evaluation Vita and Supporting Materials
Materials prepared and submitted by the candidate for reviews for promotion, tenure,
and/or retention will be maintained in the departmental office. The files will be open to
faculty members in the department.
8. Personnel Files
Personnel files for each faculty member will be maintained under the supervision of the
Department Chair. Along with other appropriate materials, this file will include
performance reviews by the Chair and the Assistant Professor Evaluation Committee
and by both Evaluation Committees. The personnel file is open only to the individual
faculty member, the Chair, and other college and university administrators. The faculty
member may submit documents to be a part of his or her personnel file, and may
remove such submitted documents when the faculty member thinks the issues they
cover are resolved or they no longer serve a purpose. Materials entered and retained in
personnel files will adhere to the University's Office Procedure Guide and Uniform Filing
System Retention Schedule. The Chair has the responsibility to decide what
correspondence (other than that officially mandated by the University) will be placed in
the personnel file. Personnel files must be provided in their entirety upon faculty
member request.
27
9. Use of Discretionary Funds
Faculty receive funding from a variety of sources that goes into discretionary spending
accounts (e.g., funds received as research incentive, funds from teaching on-line
courses, funds from journal editorships). The faculty accounts that these funds go into
are “discretionary” in that faculty members have a great deal of autonomy in how to
spend these funds. These are less restricted than funds received specifically for foreign
travel (ISU foreign travel grant) or funds received as part of one of the Sociology
department’s “Umbrella Projects” (Ag Experiment Station).
It is proposed that faculty may use discretionary funds for any scholarly or academic
purpose as they wish as long as it conforms to university regulations regarding such
funds. Possibilities for use of these funds include travel to professional meetings,
collaboration, or for research; purchasing books, software and equipment; and funding
graduate and undergraduate students as teaching and research assistants. This
practice would contribute to the Sociology Program by enabling graduate and
undergraduate students to work more closely with faculty and to gain funding while doing
so.
28