Agenda
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
December 9, 2014
Cedar/Maplewood Rooms, MSC
2:30 – 4:30 P.M.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Call to Order (Chair, Nelu Ghenciu)
Roll Call – Sign Attendance Sheet
Minutes of November 18, 2014 (Attachment 1)
Administration Reports
1. Chancellor’s Report
2. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ Report
V. Announcements
1. Other
VI. Unfinished Business
1. Discussion/Decision Items
a. Miscellaneous Business
VII. New Business
1. Budget Model Presentation by Phil Lyons
Budget https://www.uwstout.edu/admin/asls/intranet/Budget-Model-Review.cfm (intranet
login required)
2. Perceptions of the Culture. Productivity, & Dissemination of Research at UW-Stout
(Attachment 2) – Elizabeth Buchanan
3. 2016-2017 Academic calendar by Educational Activities Committee-Daniel Kelsey
(Attachment 3)
4. David Ding as Representation for the Policy Elimination Review Committee of the
Advanced Deposits for International Students Policy #83-37 (Attachment 4)
5. Petre (Nelu) Ghenciu as Representation of the Inauguration Committee Member
(Attachment 5)
6. Representative for the Student Center Advisory Committee (Attachment 6)
7. Other
VIII. Information Items
1. Faculty Senate Dashboard (Attachment 7)
2. Other
IX. Adjournment
Attachment 1
Agenda
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
November 18, 2014
Ballroom A, MSC
2:30 – 4:30 P.M.
CHAIR: Petre Ghenciu
VICE CHAIR: Ana Vande Linde
SECRETARY: Kevin Drzakowski
PRESENT: Amanda Barnett, Lopa Basu, Michael Bessert, Amanda Brown, Kathleen Deery, David Ding, Kevin
Drzakowski, Barb Flom, Bert Fraher, Petre (Nelu) Ghenciu, Gene Gutman, Ted Harris, Anne Kerber, Matthew Kuchta,
Virginia Lea, Eun Joo Lee, Leni Marshall, Kate Maury, Brian Oenga, Marlann Patterson, Christine Peterson, John
Schultz, Jeffrey Sweat, Kevin W. Tharp, Loretta Thielman, Ana Vande Linde, Keith Wojciechowski
ABSENT: Glenda Jones (excused), Adam Kramschuster (excused), Esuvat Mollel, Forrest Schultz, Steve Terry,
Cameron Weaver, Dean Wirtanen and Julie Zaloudek (excused)
GUESTS: Glendali Rodriguez, Doug Mell and Doug Stevens
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Call to Order (Chair, Nelu Ghenciu) Meeting called to order.
Roll Call – Sign Attendance Sheet
Minutes of October 28, 2014
Motion to approve: (Vande Linde/Kuchta) Discussion: The program name listed under
Administrative Reports should be changed to read, B.S. Digital Marketing Technology, not
B.S. Web Technology.
Motion passed with five abstentions.
Administration Reports
1. Chancellor’s Report. Chancellor Meyer is in another meeting today.
2. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ Report. Associate Vice Chancellor Rodriguez
reported.
 The BFA degree for Game Design and Development in Art will be on the upcoming Board
of Regents agenda for approval.
 The Diversity Leadership Team (DLT) is working on initiatives building on a diversity
workshop that took place on campus in October. Approximately150 people attended three
workshops with approximately 70 responded to survey. The workshop was well received.
 The Polytechnic Summit’s theme is Innovative Collaborations. UW-Stout will host the
Polytechnic Summit in 2015. The date is June 24-26, 2015. More information will be
forthcoming to the campus. A steering committee is comprised of Stout representatives,
business representatives, and technical school representatives. Planning for this event is
ongoing.
 The Office of International Education Director Search is now underway.
 The Provost has announced that the decision on the Graduate School leadership model will
be made by December 1. Rodriguez is part of a task force examining feedback from across
campus on this issue.
 Information to department chairs has been sent on student assistance for instructors setting
up their personal web pages.
Announcements
1. Other.
 The Chancellor is scheduling two town hall meetings in the coming weeks. The dates
are: Tuesday, November 25th, 2:30 p.m. and Tuesday, December 9th, 11:15 a.m. The
discussion will be informal. Spread the word for all faculty and staff to attend. This is
VI.
a great opportunity to share thoughts and ideas with Chancellor Meyer. The dates and
times will be available in a memo being sent out tomorrow. There will be means to
participate online. Doug Mell encouraged senators to alert their constituents about
these meetings.
 The Chancellor’s inauguration will take place on April 2nd. Chancellor Meyer wants
the inauguration as minimal as possible, but it will be a celebration. More information
will be shared as it’s available.
New Business
1. Resolution on Racism and Hate Speech (11/17/14) Virginia Lea drafted a resolution in
response to Chancellor Meyer’s email.
Motion to approve: (Sweat/Basu) Move to accept the Resolution.
Discussion:
 There seems to be a lack of transparency on campus.
 There are excellent programs/committees already on campus.
 Contact the Affirmative Action Committee for feedback.
 The resolution will show support of our students on campus.
 Edits were recommended and to shorten the resolution to a brief paragraph.
Virginia Lea will make the edits and forward on to Borofka to share with the full senate.
2. UW-Stout Online Accreditation Results by Doug Stevens.
 Stevens presented the United States Distance Learning Association’s (USDLA)
certification of UW-Stout.
 Stout Online applied for the accreditation in order to publicize Stout’s successes in
online education and identify areas for improvement.
 Representatives from the USDLA reviewed Stout’s application and examined Stout’s
standards of practice, visiting Stout’s campus.
 The report from the USDLA is available on Stout Online’s website. The report
granted certification for five years to Stout.
 Renewal is contingent on implementing recommendations from the report. There are
approximately 108 recommendations for improvement. Some of the
recommendations do not apply to UW-Stout.
 A subcommittee is responsible for identifying which groups would best be able to
respond to the various recommendations.
 Areas of improvement include required training for online instructors, possible
accelerated courses, incentives and compensation for developing online courses and
possibly incorporating a standardized piece in the syllabi.
 A final report will be sent back to the USDLA in February, detailing how we will
respond to the recommendations. Stevens presented examples of ways in which
campus administrators and offices will be involved in implementing these
recommendations.
 Doug will forward the electronic presentation to Borofka to share with the full senate
as there were technical difficulties in the room’s projector.
3. FOCUS 2020 Feedback for Goal Statements
Chair Ghenciu solicited feedback on the three draft goal statements for UW-Stout’s longterm goals which were shared during the Engagement Sessions.
Goal 1 – Instructional Models:
 This goal is broad.
 The goals need to be able to be measured.
 Student evaluations are not consistent by department or college in how they are valued
and assessed.
 Recommended edits to the goal included removing “To” to the second bullet.
Goal 2 – Applied Learning:




Do students need all three experiences?
How do they manage and track the experiences.
The goal seems confusing and the two separate points may be better if switched.
Will the student be responsible for measuring the outcome, or will the
program/department?
 Encourage equitable inclusion.
Goal 3 – Relationships:
 Remove “centralized” from first bullet and possibly change it to “coordinate”.
 Discovery Center and STTI are already on-campus, but do they communicate and
share what they’re working on?
 Discovery Center does not align with all majors on campus.
Goal 4 – Possible added goal:
 Do not have any goals addressing the cost structure on campus.
 Goal of faculty salaries and average of CUPA could be addressed.
 Possibly including a goal to address the future budget issues of tuition freezes, budget
cuts and focus on cost reduction.
 Growth structure is not consistent with growth of students, programs and faculty
instruction. Enrollment has increased, with larger class sizes, etc.
 Look into ways for additional instruction support on campus. Possibly have
administrators teach a section from their discipline.
Chair Ghenciu will share comments with the Strategic Planning Group.
4. Banking Relationship Evaluation Committee Member
Motion (Vande Linde/Basu) to Appoint Thielman as a representative. All approved.
5. CEHHS Position Statement on Graduate School Leadership.
 Peterson spoke on the reasons for her college drafting a statement.
 The statement includes support and concerns for the future leadership.
 Restructuring the role and responsibilities of the leadership, but not splitting the
assignments of the program directors was recommended.
 Other colleges might consider writing statements detailing what they wish to see in the
graduate college leadership.
 Feedback to the Provost’s Office on the Graduate School Leadership is due by the end
of November.
 Provost Weissenburger will be making a decision by December 1st.
5. Discussion/Decision Items
a. Other.
VII. Information Items
1. Other.
 Department representatives were asked whether academic staff, including emergency
hires, can vote in their department meetings. In some departments, academic staff
members outnumber faculty members, which may lead to issues where temporary staff
members have a greater voice than permanent staff members. Some departments feel
this may be excluding instructional academic staff which may allude to a form of
bullying. Chair Ghenciu will communicate with SAS Chair James. This is a possible
item for PPC to take on in the future.
VIII. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Attachment 2
1
Perceptions of the Culture, Productivity, and Dissemination of Research
at the University of Wisconsin-Stout
Markie L. C. Blumer, Ph.D.
Center for Applied Ethics Scholar
Elizabeth A. Buchanan, Ph.D.
Endowed Chair and Director Center for Applied Ethics
Jenny Klucarich, MA.
Center for Applied Ethics Graduate Assistant
June 2014
2
Background
The genesis of this study was faculty initiated and emerged from the University of WisconsinStout (UW-Stout) Engagement Sessions on Opening day of the Fall 2013 semester, which
focused upon the idea of the university as an “emerging research institute”. The principle
investigator, particularly as a new faculty member, became curious about the existent research
culture and integrity practices in the context of the university being identified as an emerging
research institute, and how the overall research culture may change (or remain unchanged) via
this change in institutional classification. More specifically, the principle investigator was
interested in the research culture and expectations at this university, as over the last two decades
there has been more focus on the conducting of research, and a push towards obtaining external
funding and dissemination of research across almost all institutional types (Blackburn, Bieber,
Lawrence, & Trautvetter, 1991; Prince, Felder, & Brent, 2007). This classification change
seemed to be, at least in part, a reflection of such changes. In addition, it has become the case
that junior faculty are now expected to obtain tenure not merely on good to excellent
instructional ratings, but also on their scholarly record (Blackburn et al., 1991; Prince et al.,
2007). Thus, more information regarding the research expectations are helpful for faculty in this
ever-growing research-intensive university environment.
To the investigators’ knowledge, this is the first study of its kind at this university. This study
was made possible through grant-funding via the UW-Stout Center for Applied Ethics.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained in February of 2014 based upon its status as
exempt. The survey study took place between March and April of 2014. Participation in this
survey study was voluntary. The survey instrument was housed via Qualtrics and was
disseminated to UW-Stout populations via weblink to university email addresses from the
investigators. Participants agreed to informed consent before starting the survey. They were
given the option to not answer any query or to exit the survey at any time. Individuals are not
being identified in the reporting and only group data is being reported (e.g., the analysis includes
only aggregate data of any numbers in categories where there are less than 10 participants). All
data attained has been de-identified to the highest degree possible.
Survey items were of both a quantitative (75 items) and qualitative (10 items) nature making this
a mixed data survey study (Blumer, Hertlein, & Haider, 2013, in review; Gambrel & Butler,
2013). Queries included on the instrument were based upon relevant scholarly literature (Blumer,
Green, Murphy, & Palmanteer, 2007; Mumford et al., 2007; Thrush et al., 2007). This survey
study was also vetted by academic staff, administrators, students, and faculty in the Research
Services Office, the Center for Applied Ethics, and the Office of Planning, Assessment, Research
and Quality prior to dissemination. The survey was composed of the following sections: sample
demographics, research culture, research productivity, research collaboration, research
dissemination, and research integrity. Being reported in this summary is information from the
following sections: research culture, research productivity and research dissemination.
3
Sample Demographics
Overview
The researchers asked about sample demographics at the end of the survey. Data was collected
for myriad demographics. Reported here is information regarding position in the university,
division affiliation, length of time at the university, racial/ethnic background, sexual orientation,
gender identity, and age. Data was collected and is being reported for the campus community as
a whole (e.g., faculty, staff, administrators, students). This was an intentional decision by the
investigators in hopes of fairly representing the campus research culture as a whole, and also in
the context of the institute being a polytechnic university where not only faculty, staff, and
administrator feedback is highly valued, but student feedback is as well. This is contrary to most
of the previous research regarding the study of research culture and integrity practices in
university settings, as typically information is gathered and/or reported from only students or
faculty/staff/administrators within the university, and not all of these groups in totality.
Findings
1,002 surveys were 1returned representing the following:
 9.4% response rate2. Responses for UW-Stout by position were faculty/staff (40%), and
students (60%)
 Responses by UW-Stout division affiliation were 27% College of Education, Health, &
Human Sciences, 25% College of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics,
16% College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, 11% College of Management, 8%
Administrative and Student Life Services, 6% Graduate School, 5% Academic and
Student Affairs, 3% Chancellor’s Division
 Range of years at UW-Stout ranged from 6 weeks-40 years with a mean amount of time
of 7.4 years
 11% People of Color3; 89% European American or White
 12% of people identified as having an alternate sexual orientation (meaning gay, lesbian,
bisexual, questioning, or another self-identified orientation), 88% of people identified as
having a heterosexual sexual orientation
 61% identified as women, 37% as men, 1% as having an alternate gender identity
(meaning intersex, transgender, or another self-identified identity)
 Range of ages was 19-66 years of age with a mean age of 37.49 years
1
Response rate does not sum to 100% for multiple questions, because there were questions where: 1) responses
were dependent on previous response, 2) multiple responses were allowed, 3) only students responded, 4) only
faculty responded, and 5) an answer was not ipsative. In cases where the sum does not total 100% one of these
reasons will be articulated. Throughout the demographic data collection, responses were not ipsative so the
responses ranged from the total number of respondents to roughly 600 responses.
2
Caution is suggested in generalizing results with significantly lower response rates. In general, the results provided
here reflect participant’s beliefs and concerns with regard to the research culture.
3
While recognizing the vastly different experiences of people of various racial identities (e.g., Hispanic American
versus African-American or Native American versus Asian-American), and those experiences within these
identity categories (e.g. Hmong versus Chinese), it was necessary to collapse some of these categories to conduct the
analyses due to the small numbers of respondents in each of the individual categories.
4
Summary
The researchers believe the demographic sample is representative of the larger UW-Stout
community. First, the demographics are comparable to those reported by UW-Stout for the Fall
2013 enrollment numbers, which included the following: student enrollment totaled 9,286,
employment enrollment totaled 1,402 employees, 12% persons of color and 88% White or
Caucasian, gender representation ranged from 30% male- and 70% female-identifying amongst
graduate students and 50% male- and 50% female-identifying amongst the university as a whole.
The sample demographics attained in the current study are also similar to those reported in the
2011 Campus Climate Index Study results in which the following were reported: 9% people of
color and 88% White, 8% non-heterosexual and 92% heterosexual, 58% female- identifying and
41% male- identifying and <1% transgender-identifying (Kwaterski, Burton, & Mans, 2011).
Finally, our number of respondents ranged from 1,002 at its highest to 104 at its lowest, which
means that statistically speaking our confidence in our findings ranges from a 95% confidence
interval with less than a 3% sampling error to a 95% confidence interval with less than a 10%
sampling error (Sullivan, 2001).
Perceptions of Campus Research Culture
Overview
The first part of the survey study explored the research culture of the university. The research
culture was explored via queries in the following areas: definition of research of the university as
an emerging research institute, research endeavors of the university as a polytechnic institute,
experience in the role of researcher by campus members, benefits and drawbacks to engaging in
research as a researcher, ways the university can support and reward research activity, and the
degree to which faculty are able to balance teaching, research, and service.
Definitions and endeavors of research
During the 2013-2014 academic year a university-based committee was formed to explore the
university as situated as an “emerging” or “applied research institute.” Members of this
committee were from a variety of colleges and disciplines across the campus. One of the tasks
charged to this committee was to define what it means for UW-Stout to be an “emerging research
institute.” Toward this end, the definition of research at this university4 that was agreed upon was
the following, “The original, uniquely human endeavors that contribute intellectually or
creatively to a discipline.” This definition was included in the survey to determine its fit with the
perceived research culture of UW-Stout. Participants5 were given the definition and asked if this
definition of research conceptually aligns with their own. In answering this question, 91% (n =
907) reported “yes” and 9% (n = 90) reported “no” [see Figure 1. Alignment with proposed
definition of research at UW-Stout].
4
Source: Emerging Research Committee: Bomar, C., Lume, C. M., Wynn, S., Fanta, F., Brey, E., Budd, D.,
Neidmyer, G., Surdick, R., Lui, J., Gundala, R., Blumer, M. L. C., & Nold, S. (2014). Linking scholarly activities
and the mission of a polytechnic university: UW-Stout as an emerging research institute. Menomonie, WI:
University of Wisconsin-Stout.
5
Participation was not ipsative.
5
Yes
No
Fig 1. Alignment with proposed definition of research at UW-Stout
The committee6 was also tasked with articulating the research endeavors of UW-Stout in the
context of being a polytechnic. Toward this end, the committee stated that “…as a polytechnic
institution it is important that research endeavors at UW-Stout include:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Broad dissemination
Student involvement
Faculty, staff, student, and/or administrator participation
A focus on addressing societal and/or community needs
Support from the institution”
These endeavors were provided to participants to assess their fitness as part of the perceived
research culture of UW-Stout. Participants7 were given all of the forestated research endeavors,
as well as an “other” category, and asked to select all that apply. The responses of participants
from most to least frequent to this question, “…as a polytechnic institution, it is important that
research endeavors include…” were the following: 82% faculty, staff, student, and/or
administrator participation, 80% student involvement, 78% support from the institution, 66% a
focus on addressing societal and/or community needs, 50% broad dissemination, and 7% other [see
Figure 2. Research endeavors important at UW-Stout as a polytechnic institute].
6
Source: Emerging Research Committee: Bomar, C., Lume, C. M., Wynn, S., Fanta, F., Brey, E., Budd, D.,
Neidmyer, G., Surdick, R., Lui, J., Gundala, R., Blumer, M. L. C., & Nold, S. (2014). Linking scholarly activities
and the mission of a polytechnic university: UW-Stout as an emerging research institute. Menomonie, WI:
University of Wisconsin-Stout.
7
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, and participation was not
ipsative.
6
Broad Dissemination
Student Involvement
Faculty, Staff, Student, and/or
Administrator Participation
A Focus on Addressing Societal
and/or Community Needs
Support from the Institution
Other
Fig 2. Research endeavors important at UW-Stout as polytechnic institute
Experience as a researcher
Another part of exploring the research culture of the campus was inquiring about participation in
research. Most respondents8 indicated that they had not participated in research in the role of
researcher at this university (62%, n = 623). A little more than half (50.5%, n = 506) reported
that they would have interest in participating in research in the role of researcher at this
university in the future, with a number fewer than half (49.5%, n = 496) reporting that they
would not have interest in participating in research in the role of researcher.
Benefits and drawbacks of participating in research as a researcher
Those participants9 who had experience as a researcher were given the opportunity to respond to
questions regarding the benefits and drawbacks of research. The responses of participants from
most to least frequent to the question, “What do you believe are some of the benefits to engaging
in research activity…” were as follows: 81% advances one’s field of study, 79% encourages
critical thinking in oneself and one’s students, 78% opportunity for scholarly collaboration and
networking, 74% professional responsibility, 70% makes a contribution to the community or has
more global implications, 62% enhance one’s teaching style and content, 48% helps secure future
grant-funding, 43% essential in the promotion and/or tenure processes, 24% promotes competition,
and 5% other. The responses of participants from most to least frequent to the query, “What do you
believe are some of the drawbacks to engaging in research activity”…were the following: 36%
requires additional training, knowledge, skills, and/or experience, 31% dislike of conducting
research, 31% lack of support from university, 25% promotes competition, 20% distracts from
one’s teaching style and content, 20% other, 17% lack of support from college/division, and 15%
lack of support from department.
8
Participation was not ipsative.
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, and participation was not
ipsative.
9
7
University reward and support for research activity
Those participants10 who had experience as a researcher were given the opportunity to respond to
a query regarding the ways in which they believe the university can best support or reward
engagement in research activity. Their responses from most to least frequent were as follows:
64% offer more resources for research (e.g., equipment, staff, graduate assistantships, etc.), 57%
promote a culture of research, 52% release time, 49% merit pay (e.g., bonuses distributed to
faculty/academic staff who exceed scholarly expectations), 42% dissemination of more scholarly
awards and recognition, 42% provide more information to faculty/academic staff on funding
opportunities that focus on higher dollar awardings, 36% encourage scholars to disseminate their
work, and 10% other.
Balancing of research, teaching, and service commitments
Participants11 were given the opportunity to respond to the following scaling question (scale of 15, with 5 being strongly agree, 3 being neither agree nor disagree, and 1 being strongly disagree),
“Faculty members at this university on average seem able to balance their teaching, research, and
service commitments.” See Graph 1: Ability of faculty to balance teaching, research, & service
commitments, below.
Faculty members at this university on average seem
able to balance their teaching, research and service
commitments.
5. Strongly Agree
81
4
164
3. Neither Agree Nor Disagree
203
2
85
1. Strongly Disagree
66
0
50
100
150
200
250
Graph 1. Ability of faculty to balance teaching, research, & service commitments
Summary
The participants in this study support the broad definition of research that was proposed by
Bomar et al., (2014) in the context of this university being defined as an emerging or applied
research institute. This definition, as well as the university support of it, is also supported by the
scholarly literature. For instance, an outcome from an extensive review of the literature on
teaching and research with regard to recommendations on how to help improve what is a weak
correlation between faculty research and improvements in undergraduate teaching is the
10
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, and participation was not
ipsative.
11
Participation was not ipsative.
8
broadening of the definition of research and scholarly activity (Prince et al., 2007). Specifically,
it was recommended that the definition be broad enough to include research on teaching and
learning, including methods of instruction, evaluation of student learning, and then that these
studies be used to improve one’s course outcomes, and be disseminated widely so that other
instructors can improve their teaching (Prince et al., 2007). Furthermore, the valuing of student
involvement and participation in research with faculty and staff has been demonstrated in the
literature to improve undergraduate student retention (Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, Hippel, &
Lerner, 1998; Prince et al., 2007). Thus, the support for research endeavors at this university
being highest for faculty, staff, student, and/or administrator participation (82%), as well as
student involvement (80%) is supported in the literature as well.
How to best support or reward scholarly and research activity was also included in attending to
the research culture of this university. Generally speaking, there is virtually no research
examining faculty research and scholarship practices (Blackburn et al., 1991). In the little
existent literature, there a strong correlation between salary and scholarly dissemination in the
form of number of articles published (Tuckman & Leahey, 1975). However, other scholars have
found that such institutional incentives do not correlate with faculty behavior (Finkelstein, 1984).
In their review of the literature Prince et al., (2007), provided the following recommendations to
support and reward the scholarly activity of faculty: recognize faculty members who integrate
teaching and research, establish faculty development programs in research and teaching and the
ways to integrate the two, and recognize and reward academic departments and programs that
promote, recognize, and encourage the integration of teaching and research. Relatedly, findings
in the current study indicate that faculty believe that the way the university can best support or
reward their research activity is primarily by offering more resources (64%), promoting a culture
of research (57%), and providing release time (52%).
Lastly in terms of summarizing the findings around the research culture at this university, the
majority of all participants reported having interest in participating in research in the role of
researcher (50.5%). However, often members of university communities like faculty, report the
drawbacks of conducting research include the the time it takes and the difficulty balancing
research, with teaching and service responsibilities (Blackburn et al., 1991). In our study, the
majority of participants agreed that faculty members seem able to balance their teaching,
research and service responsibilities at present. The difficulty will be as the university shifts to
being defined as an “emerging” or “applied research institute” being able to meet the research
expectations that may come with such a redefinition. In addition, there were drawbacks to
conducting research that were identified by participants and would need to be addressed in order
for this change to be viable. The most frequently reported drawbacks included: the requirement
of additional training, knowledge, skills, and/or experience (36%) to conduct research, lack of
support from the university (31%), and a disliking of conducting research (31%). These
drawbacks and potential barriers have been noted previously in the literature (Blackburn et al.,
1991; Prince et al., 2007). One way to address the requirement of additional training, knowledge,
and skills is to offer research mentoring, student and faculty research workshops, more
opportunities for research collaborations between more senior and junior level university
members, as well as more opportunities for continuing education focused upon conducting
research (Prince et al., 2007).
9
Research Productivity
Overview
The second section of the survey explored research productivity. Participants who indicated they
had participated in research in the role of researcher had the option to answer a series of
questions regarding research productivity. The research productivity of the university was
explored via the following topical areas: composition of research teams, number of publications,
presentations, and grants authored, and perceptions and expectations regarding productivity.
Composition of research engagement
Of the participants12 who had participated in research in the role of researcher, the bulk (62%, n
= 80) reported that the majority of their research experience has been conducted collaboratively,
team based, and/or with others. In contrast, only 38% (n = 50) reported that the majority of their
research experience has been conducted independently, solely, and/or on one’s own [see Figure
3: Composition of research engagement].
Independent, Sole, On
my Own
Collaborative, TeamBased, With Others
Fig 3. Composition of research engagement
Participants13 whose research experience was primarily team-based had the opportunity respond
to a query regarding who were commonly members of their research teams. Their responses
from most to least frequent were as follows: 65% students, 46% inter-university faculty, 41%
departmental faculty, 33% intra-university, 24% college/division faculty, 19% community
members, and 11% academic staff or administrators [see Figure 4: Composition of research
team].
12
Participation was dependent on previous response, and participation was not ipsative.
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, and participation was not
ipsative.
13
10
Students
Departmental Faculty
College/Division Faculty
Intra-University Faculty
Inter-University Faculty
Academic Staff or
Administrators
Community Members
Fig 4. Composition of research team
Faculty presentation, publication, and funding productivity
Faculty and academic staff participants14, who had engaged in research, reported their total count
of presentations, publications, and secured grant funding in the last calendar year (2013
respectively). In terms of presentations, participants reported the following breakdown from
most to least frequent venues: 70% national professional conferences, 41% university
professional conferences, 37% international professional conferences, 34% regional professional
conferences, and 33% state professional conferences. For publications, participants reported the
breakdown from most to least frequent venues as follows: 57% peer-reviewed journal article.
36% other (e.g. workbook, curriculum), 33% book chapter, 27% journal article, 21% newsletter,
18% video/web-cast, and 14% book or monograph. See “Graph 2: Sources of grants applied for
and secured” for responses regarding the numbers and sources of grants and applied for and
secured, below.
14
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, participants did not include
students, and participation was not ipsative.
11
160
138
140
122
120
100
80
60
60 59
40
51
Applied
42
27 21
Secured
20
0
UW-Stout
Grants
UW-System External to
Grants
the University
and University
System Grants
Total
Graph 2. Sources of grants applied for and secured
Perceptions and expectations around productivity
Participants15 answered a series of scaling questions (scale of 1-5, with 5 being strongly agree, 3
being neither agree nor disagree, and 1 being strongly disagree), focused upon perceptions and
expectations around productivity16. See Table 1: Perceptions and expectations around
productivity, below.
Statistic
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Standard
Deviation
Total Responses
15
On average,
students at this
university are
productive (e.g.,
publishing,
presenting,
securing research
grant-funding,
etc.).
Expectations
around publishing
for students are
clearly
communicated by
faculty members.
Expectations
around presenting
for students are
clearly
communicated by
faculty members.
Expectations
around grantwriting
activity for
students are
clearly
communicated
by faculty
members.
1
5
2.69
1.11
1
5
2.37
.82
1
5
2.80
1.10
1
5
2.22
.91
1.05
.90
1.05
.95
124
118
120
116
Student and non-student participants answered queries related to students and only non-student participants
answered queries related to faculty/academic staff, and participation was not ipsative.
16
Queries based upon Thrush, C. R., Putten, J. V., Rapp, C. G., Pearson, L. C., Berry, K. S., & O’Sullivan, P. S.
(2007). Content validation of the organizational climate for research integrity survey. Journal of Empirical Research
on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 2(4), 35-52.
12
Statistic
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
On average,
faculty/academic
staff members at
this university
are productive
(e.g., publishing,
presenting,
securing
research grantfunding, etc.).
Expectations
around
publishing for
faculty/academic
staff are clearly
communicated at
all levels of this
university.
Expectations
around
presenting for
faculty/academic
staff are clearly
communicated at
all levels of this
university.
Expectations
around grantwriting activity
for
faculty/academic
staff are clearly
communicated at
all levels of this
university.
1
5
3.21
1.21
1.10
128
1
5
2.50
1.44
1.20
124
1
5
2.62
1.48
1.22
125
1
5
2.48
1.37
1.17
126
Table 1. Perceptions and expectations around productivity
Summary
In the current study, the majority of participants reported conducting research collaboratively
(62%) and with the most common members of their research team being students (65%). Such
collaborative research practices are supported and called for in the literature. Researchers have
shown that it is essential that undergraduate students have an opportunity to conduct research,
and that faculty play an active part in mentoring them through the research process (Prince et al.,
2007). Researchers have also shown that when undergraduate students have an opportunity to
collaborate with faculty on research it improves student retention (Nagda et al., 1998; Prince et
al., 2007). The retention effect tends to be strongest for African American and sophomore level
students (Nagda et al., 1998). Positive retention trends have also been demonstrated for Hispanic
and White American students (Nagda et al., 1998).
Faculty and academic staff participants who engaged in research activity reported their total
number of publications, and presentations in the last calendar year (2013). The venues through
which they disseminated were the following (in order of most to least frequent): national
professional conferences (70%), peer-reviewed journal articles (57%), university professional
conferences (41%), international professional conferences (37%), other (e.g., workbook,
curriculum) (36%), regional professional conferences (34%), state professional conferences
(33%), book chapter (33%), journal articles (27%), newsletter (21%), video/web-cast (18%), and
book or monograph (14%).
For a point of comparison, the principle investigator reviewed the 2013 Scholarly Activity
section of StoutQuest: The Journal of Research at the University of Wisconsin-Stout 2013-2014
(Weissenburger, Foxwell, & Poling, 2013). The scholarly activity reported in StoutQuest
included the following: 93 reports of scholarship in totality with 60 presentations (65%) and 33
publications (35%). Of the 60 presentations the dissemination from most to least frequent was as
follows: national professional conferences (34%), state professional conferences (23%),
international professional conferences (15%), university professional conferences (15%), and
13
regional professional conferences (13%). Of the 33 publications the breakdown was as follows:
peer-reviewed journal articles (55%), journal articles (15%), other (15%), book chapter (9%),
newsletter (3%), and book or monograph (3%). From these two sources, it would seem that
faculty at this university are most frequently disseminating their research via national
professional conferences and peer-reviewed journal articles.
Research Dissemination
Overview
The fourth section of the survey explored research dissemination. Participants17 who indicated
they had participated in research in the role of researcher had the option to answer a series of
questions regarding research dissemination. Research dissemination was explored via the
following topical areas: benefits of dissemination, barriers of dissemination, and the perceptions
of the value and expectations regarding research at the university.
Benefits of and barriers to research dissemination
Participants18 who participated in research in the role of being a researcher had the chance to
answer queries related to their perceptions of the benefits of and barriers to disseminating
research. In relation to the benefits of disseminating research, participant responses from most to
least frequent were as follows: 94% sharing of knowledge, 81% advancing one’s field of study,
73% opportunity for scholarly collaboration and networking, 68% university recognition, 65%
makes a contribution to the community or has more global implications, 65% essential in the
promotion and tenure processes, 56% help secure future grant-funding, 53% opportunity for
peer-reviewing, 48% self-promotion, 46% departmental recognition, 44% college/division
recognition, and 26% team promotion. In relation to the barriers to dissemination of research,
responses from most to least frequent were the following: 72% lack of support from university,
46% lack of support from college/division, 44% lack of support from department, 30%
uncertainty about or inexperience with the disseminating process, 28% self-promotion (e.g., fear
of appearing boastful or prideful), 19% experiencing of imposter-syndrome (e.g., difficulty
internalizing accomplishments, feelings, of one’s success, feeling underserving of one’s
achievement, etc.), 14% other, and 13% team-promotion (e.g., fear of appearing boastful or
prideful or disagreement on how to disseminate as a team).
Value, expectations, and acknowledgment around dissemination
Participants19 answered a series of scaling questions (scale of 1-5, with 5 being strongly agree, 3
being neither agree nor disagree, and 1 being strongly disagree), focused upon the value and
expectations regarding research, as well as the acknowledgment of research productivity at this
university20. See Table 2: Values, expectations, acknowledgement, and dissemination, below.
17
Participation was dependent on previous response, and participation was not ipsative.
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, and participation was not
ipsative.
19
Student and non-student participants answered queries related to students and only non-student participants
answered queries related to faculty/academic staff, and participation was not ipsative.
20
Queries based upon Thrush, C. R., Putten, J. V., Rapp, C. G., Pearson, L. C., Berry, K. S., & O’Sullivan, P. S.
(2007). Content validation of the organizational climate for research integrity survey. Journal of Empirical Research
on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 2(4), 35-52.
18
14
Statistic
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Statistic
Research and
dissemination are
highly valued at this
university.
Student publications
are publicly
acknowledged at this
university.
Student
presentations are
publicly
acknowledged at
this university.
1
5
3.16
1.43
1.19
116
1
5
3.69
0.93
0.96
110
1
5
3.74
0.97
0.98
110
Grant-funded
projects by students
are publicly
acknowledged at
this university.
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Statistic
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Disseminating research
Disseminating
through presenting is research through
expected in order to
publishing is
achieve tenure and/or
expected in
promotion at this
order to attain
university. Publications
tenure and/or
by students are
promotion at this
publicly recognized at
university.
this university.
1
5
3.61
1.23
1.11
104
1
5
3.68
1.31
1.14
108
1
5
3.82
1.34
1.16
113
Faculty/academic
staff publications
are publicly
acknowledged at
this university.
Faculty/academic staff
presentations are
publicly
acknowledged at this
university.
Grant-funded
projects by
faculty/academic
staff are publicly
acknowledged at
this university.
1
5
3.20
1.41
1.19
115
1
5
3.17
1.43
1.19
113
1
5
3.58
1.44
1.20
113
Table 2. Values, expectations, acknowledgment and dissemination
Summary
In the current study, participants who had engaged in research reported the following as the top
benefits for the dissemination of research: sharing of knowledge (94%), advancing one’s field of
study (81%), opportunity for scholarly collaboration and networking (73%), and university
15
recognition (68%). Previous literature has shared that one way to successfully integrate and
support research in institutions is through recognition of such efforts at the individual faculty
level, as well as at the departmental and programmatic levels (Prince et al., 2007). This
information corroborates those of this study with regard to the benefit of research being related
to recognition.
Previously researchers have examined data from faculty across eight different institutional types
in terms of efforts towards research and dissemination (Blackburn et al., 1991). Across all
institutional types, the researchers found that self-valuation (i.e., self-competence and selfefficacy) significantly accounted for the bulk of the predictive behaviors towards faculty
engagement in research and related dissemination (Blackburn et al., 1991). This variable was
more predictive across institution types than others examined in the study, which including such
variables as gender, career age, career rank, quality of graduate school attended, consensus and
support, and colleague commitment to research. This previous finding corroborates ours’ around
identification of some of the barriers to disseminating research—namely uncertainty about or
inexperience with disseminating process (30%), self-promotion (28%), experiencing of impostersyndrome (19%). Although these barriers to research dissemination in our study were identified
to a lesser extent than others (i.e., lack of support from university (72%), lack of support from
college/division (46%), etc.)—they were still noted as areas of concern.
References
Blackburn, R. T., Bieber, J. P., Lawrence, J. H., & Trautvetter, L. (1991). Faculty at work: Focus
on research, scholarship, and service. Research in Higher Education, 32(4), 385-413.
Blumer, M. L. C., Green, M. S., Murphy, M. J., & Palmanteer, D. (2007). Creating a
collaborative research team: Feminist reflections. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy:
An International Forum, 19(1), 41-55.
Blumer, M. L. C., Hertlein, K. M., & Haider, A. (2014, in review). Exploration of marriage and
family therapy web-based supervision: A mixed data survey. The Clinical Supervisor.
Bomar, C., Lume, C. M., Wynn, S., Fanta, F., Brey, E., Budd, D., Neidmyer, G., Surdick, R.,
Lui, J., Gundala, R., Blumer, M. L. C., & Nold, S. (2014). Linking scholarly activities
and the mission of a polytechnic university: UW-Stout as an emerging research institute.
Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stout.
Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American Academic Profession: A Synthesis of the Social
Scientific Inquiry Since Worm War H. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
Gambrel, L. E., & Butler, J. L. (2013). Mixed methods research in marriage and family therapy:
A content analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39, 163-181.
Kwaterski, J., Burton, J., & Mans, J. (2011). University of Wisconsin-Stout Campus Climate
Study. Menomonie, WI: UW-Stout Applied Research Center.
Mumford, M. D., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., &
Devenport, L. D. (2007). Environmental influences on ethical decision making: Climate
and environmental predictors of research integrity. Ethics and Behavior, 17(4), 337-366.
Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S. R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., & Lerner, J. S. (1998).
Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. Review of
Higher Education, 22, 55-72.
16
Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve undergraduate
teaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergies. Journal of Engineering
Education, 96(4), 283-294.
Sullivan, T. J. (2001). Methods of Social Research. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.
Thrush, C. R., Putten, J. V., Rapp, C. G., Pearson, L. C., Berry, K. S., & O’Sullivan, P. S.
(2007). Content validation of the organizational climate for research integrity survey.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal,
2(4), 35-52.
Tuckman, H. P., & Leahey, J. (1975). What is an article worth? Journal of Political Economy,
83(5), 951-967.
University of Wisconsin-Stout. (2013). Facts about UW-Stout. Retrieved on June 25, 2014 from:
http://www.uwstout.edu/about/facts.cfm
Weissenburger, J., Foxwell, S., & Poling, J. (Eds.). (2013). StoutQuest: The Journal of Research
at the University of Wisconsin-Stout 2013-2014, 7. Menomonie, WI: UW-Stout Provost
Office.
Attachment 3
The first week of the contractual year (beginning Monday, August 22nd) is set aside for New Instructor
Workshops and the business related thereto. For existing faculty this week is set aside as self-directed
time. No faculty meetings (college, department, program, etc.) are to be held during this first week.
During the second week of the contractual year (beginning Monday, August 29th), Professional
Development Week will be held, in addition to any faculty meetings (college, department, program,
etc.).
During the third week (beginning Monday September 5th), regularly scheduled classroom instruction will
begin.
Semester I, 2016
Monday, August 22
Beginning of Contractual Year (For Faculty/Instructional Academic Staff)
Monday, August 29
Professional Development Week Activities Begin
Monday, September 5
Labor Day, No Classes
Advisement and Orientation
Tuesday, September 6
Advisement and Orientation
Wednesday, September 7
Classes Begin
Saturday, October 8
Homecoming
Monday, October 24
End of First Quarter
Tuesday, October 25
Advisement Day
Wednesday, October 26
Beginning of Second Quarter
Wednesday, November 23
Thanksgiving Break Begins, No Classes
Monday, November 28
Classes Resume
Tuesday, December 13
Classes End/End of Second Quarter
Wednesday, December 14
Evaluation Week Begins
Saturday, December 17
Commencement
Tuesday, December 20
Evaluation Week Ends
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Contractual Semester Ends (For Faculty/Instructional Academic Staff on Semester Contract)
WinTerm, 2017
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
WinTerm Classes Begin
Monday, January 16
Martin Luther King Day, No classes
Saturday, January 21, 2017
WinTerm Classes End
Semester II, 2017
Friday, January 6
Contractual Semester Begins (For Faculty/Instructional Academic Staff on Semester Contract)
Monday, January 9
Professional Development Week Activities Begin for Faculty/Staff
Monday, January 16
Martin Luther King Day, No classes
Monday, January 23
Classes Begin
Friday, March 10
End of Third Quarter
Friday, March 10
Spring Break begins at 5:00 pm
Saturday, March 11 - Sunday, March 19
Spring Break Week, No Classes
Monday, March 20
Classes Resume
Monday, March 20
Beginning of Fourth Quarter
Wednesday, March 29
Advisement Day
Friday, May 5
Classes End/End of Forth Quarter
Saturday, May 6
Commencement
Monday, May 8
Evaluation Week Begins
Friday, May 12
Evaluation Week Ends
Sunday, May 21
End of Contractual Year (For Faculty/Instructional Academic Staff)
Summer Session, 2017
Monday, May 29
Memorial Day, No Classes
Tuesday, May 30
Pre-Session Classes Begin
Sunday, June 11
Pre-Session Classes End
Monday, June 12
First Four-Week Session Begins
Eight-Week Session Begins
Tuesday, July 4
Independence Day, No Classes
Sunday, July 9
First Four-Week Session Ends
Monday, July 10
Second Four-Week Session Begins
Sunday, August 6
Second Four-Week Session Ends
Eight-Week Session Ends
Monday, August 7
Post-Session Classes Begin
Sunday, August 27
Post-Session Classes End
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Student Centers Advisory Committee
Purpose
The Student Centers Advisory Committee provides guidance, advice, direction and support to the direction of the
programs, services and facilities of the Memorial Student Center and Merle M. Price Commons. The committee is
advisory to the Director in matters relating to the mission, guidelines, budget and capital planning. The committee will
be an important link between the centers and the university community in identifying and responding to the needs and
interests of students, faculty and staff.
Charge
To advise the Director in matters relating to meeting the needs and interests of the university community.
To review and make recommendations relative to MSC/Commons guidelines, procedures, operations, marketing, hours,
services and activities.
To serve as liaison between the MSC/Commons and the users of the facilities and services.
To annually review the MSC/Commons budgets.
Membership
The committee shall consist of the following members:
Students:
1 Executive member of SSA as nonvoting co-chair
2 student senators appointed by SSA
1 University Dining Service student employee, appointed by the Director of University Dining Service
1 student appointed by Blue Devil Productions
1 student appointed by RHA
1 Student Center student employee, appointed by MSC staff
Staff:
1 faculty member appointed by Faculty Senate
1 academic staff member appointed by Academic Staff Senate
Director of the Memorial Student Center as nonvoting co-chair
Ex Officio:
Assistant Vice Chancellor of Student Life Services
The committee shall be co-chaired by the Director of the Memorial Student Center and his/her designee and the
Executive member of SSA or his/her designee.
Length of Term:
Members of the Student Centers Advisory Committee will be appointed early in the fall semester and serve for the
remainder of the academic year.
Meetings
The committee shall meet up to three times per semester during the fall and spring semesters. Other meetings may be
called as needed by the co-chairs of the committee. The co-chairs shall compile an agenda and make arrangements for
minutes to be taken during meetings and distribute after the meeting.
T:\1 - Faculty Senate\2014-2015\a - FS Agenda Attachments\2014 12 09\Student Centers Advisory Committee.docx
FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2014-2015
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good) , Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
Charges/Other
Staff Responsible
Charge Requested
Campus Climate Survey Review
Policies
Request Approved by
FS
Staff Responsible
Policy Requested
Greg Bard
8/1/2013
Nagesh Shinde
Submitted Nagesh
Shinde - 9/23/14
Staff Responsible
Task Start
Professorships Timeline, Application, Marketing Plan
Update Credit Hour Policy
Academic Calendar 2016-2017
Professorships Recommendations
PPC Charge - Alternate Perf. Object. Due Date
PPC Charge - Ed Prep Code
PPC Charge Guidelines for Membership of Admin.
Search Committees
University Committee Work
Engagement Session - Emerging Research Institution changed to "Applied Research Institution"
Budget Model Review Committee (102 allocation
model) - Phil Lyons
Elections
All University Promotion Committee
Fall Elections - Professorship, Senators, Standing
Committees & University Committees
Spring Elections - Senators, Standing Committees,
University Committees
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Recommendation
Implemented
Request Approved by
FS
Draft or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Policy Added to Website
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Recommendation
Implemented
DUE 02/27/2015
Non-All-University Policies
Standing Committee Work
Results or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
10/21/2014
All-University Policies
Advanced Deposits for Intnl. Students Policy #8337 (Policy Elemination Review Committee
Advertising by Establishments that Serve Alcohol (new
process)
Ideentiy & Publication Standard Policy #90-52
Attachment 7
DRAFT DUE 12/1/2014
Request Approved by
FS
Results or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
DUE 3/1/2015
Due 05/30/2015
Results or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Recommendation
Implemented
Distribute Ballots
Collect Ballots
Count Ballots
Send Congratulations
Letters
8/27/2014
Done 9/5/2014
Done 9/9/2014
Sent 9/11/14
Sent 10/20/2014
Done - 10/31
Done - 11/3/2014
Done 11/5/2014
10/15/2014
EAC
EAC
Graduate ceremony on
Friday night?
PPC
PPC
9/30/2014
9/30/2014
9/30/2014
Staff Responsible
Task Start
Request Approved by
FS
Charged to Provost
Forrest Schultz &
Stephen Salm
DUE 5/16/2014
10/18/2013
12/9/2014
Confirm Elections
Communicate
Call for Nominations
Needed - Request list
Upcoming Elections
from HR
8/12/2014
8/1/2014
Done 9/10/2014
Due 10/1/2014
DONE
12/3/2014
Page 1
FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2014-2015
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good) , Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
NOTES/LEGEND:
(1) Request dates are typically during FS Executive Meetings, otherwise on regular FS Meeting dates or closest date
(2) Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
(3) Approved All-University policies – policies that either already exist as university policies (on this website: http://www.uwstout.edu/parq/policies-sequential-index.cfm) or policies that the Chancellor has indicated
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
12/3/2014
Page 2
COMPLETED ITEMS - FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2012-2013
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
Charges/Other
Staff
Responsible
Charge
Requested
Final
Request
Results or
Approved by Recommendation Recommendation
Approved by FS
Presented to FS
FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Recommendation
Implemented
Policies
Staff
Responsible
Policy
Requested
Request
Draft or
Approved by Recommendation
FS
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Policy Added to
Handbook
Request
Results or
Approved by Recommendation
FS
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Request
Results or
Approved by Recommendation
FS
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Administrative Procedures
Standing Committee Work
Staff
Responsible
Staff
Responsible
Task Start
Task Start
Professorships Timeline, Application,
Marketing Plan
Update Credit Hour Policy
Academic Calendar 2014-2015 & 20152016
EAC
EAC
Graduate
ceremony on
Friday night?
Sabbatical Recommendations for 201516
Sabb.Leave.Re
v.
Started
Sabbatical Application Review
Sabbatical Recommendations for 201516
Professorships Recommendations
Recommendation
Implemented
Recommendation
Implemented
10/15/2014
Bryan Beamer,
PPC
Sabb.Leave.Re
v.
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
Due 05/30/2015
10/28/2014
Deadline for
app. Is
9/26/14
Started
12/3/2014
3
COMPLETED ITEMS - FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2012-2013
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
Promotion Timeline 2015-2016
Sabbatical Timeline 2014-2015 for
2015-2016
Tenure Timeline 2015-2016
Bryan Beamer,
10/17/2014
PPC
Bryan Beamer,
10/17/2014
PPC
Bryan Beamer,
10/14/2014
PPC
Faculty Senate Pilot Research Fellows
Selection Committee
University Committee Work
Staff
Responsible
Elections
Confirm
Elections
Needed
10/28/2014
10/28/2014
10/28/2014
List of
awardees
due to
10/15/2014
Chancellor by
11/19 Awards approved by Chancellor due 11/21 - Completed - final letters to awardees
Submitted
Request
Results or
Final
Recommendation
Recommendation
Task Start Approved by Recommendation Recommendation
Approved by
Implemented
FS
Presented to FS
Approved by FS
Chancellor
Communicat
Call for
e Upcoming
Nominations
Elections
Distribute Ballots
Collect Ballots
Count Ballots
Send Congratulations
Letters
NOTES/LEGEND:
(1) Request dates are typically during FS Executive Meetings, otherwise on regular FS Meeting dates or closest date
(2) Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
policies that the Chancellor has indicated via a memo requesting that the policy review team be appointed (for example, service animals policy and non-discrimination for
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
12/3/2014
4
COMPLETED ITEMS - FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2012-2013
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
12/3/2014
5
COMPLETED ITEMS - FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2012-2013
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
sent 12/2/14
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
12/3/2014
6
Charges/Other
Staff
Responsible
Results or
Request
Recommendat
Charge
Approved by
ion Presented
Requested
FS
to FS
Program/Course Review
Procedure
John Kirk
Action for Any GE
Category Course
Emeritus Perks
Etextbook Subcommittee Progress Report
Course Evaluations
School vs Dept Bylaw,
Article II.2
Sexual Harrassment Policy
91-53
Engagement Session Admission Requirements
(new charge issued
5/28/2014 by Chancellor)
9/20/2011 11/15/2011
May, 2012
Robin Muza,
CIC
na
na
3/6/2012
Ruth Nyland,
PPC
11/1/2011
11/15/2011
3/6/2012
Barb Flom, EAC
10/2/2012
Preliminary
Report
2/19/2013
Loretta
Thielman, Ad
hoc Committee
Diane Olson,
Bob Atwell
4/9/2013
10/18/2011
4/9/2013
Appt. by FS
Chair
Progress
Report DUE
to SPG
DUE May 22,
January 2015
2015
5/7/2013
12/13/2011
Final Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Recommendation
Implemented
4/11/2012
There was a recent policy
change that needs to be
updated in the
handbook.
Talked to John Kirk on
03/29/2013 and he said
it is not being worked
on and can be removed
from dashboard.
no action taken
4/3/2012
3/6/2012
Continue to work on in the
fall.
12/13/2011
sent to Pete Schlosser
06/13/2013
Rescinded by Chancellor
RESCINDED VIA CHANCELLOR MEMO DATED 10/152014