Department of History and Government
Guidelines for Departmental Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure
Adopted by the Department of History and Government Faculty, February 9, 2009
Revised and adopted by the Department of History and Government Faculty,
December 11, 2009
Approved for use during the 2010-2011 academic year by John McArthur, Vice
President for Academic Affairs, September 23, 2010
Revised and adopted by the Department of History and Government Faculty,
December 10, 2010
(Note: New faculty hired after the adoption and approval of these guidelines will be
required to follow them. Faculty who are already teaching at Cameron but who are
untenured at the time of the adoption and approval of these guidelines may apply for
promotion to Associate Professor and tenure under these guidelines OR under the Faculty
Handbook as written at the time of their application for promotion and tenure).
I.
Overview
These guidelines are designed to supplement and clarify the general policies and
procedures regarding faculty evaluation, promotion, and tenure in the Cameron
University Faculty Handbook for faculty in the Department of History and Government.
Faculty in the Department of History and Government should consult the Faculty
Handbook for all general questions regarding deadlines, procedures, and policies
associated with evaluation, promotion, or tenure, and refer to the guidelines in this
document only for clarification of university policies within the department.
Definition of Terminal Degrees
Within the Department of History and Government, terminal degrees are defined
exclusively as earned doctorates from regionally accredited universities in the United
States or their equivalent in other countries.
II.
Evaluation Criteria and Procedures
General university criteria and procedures for faculty evaluation are detailed in section
4.2 of the Faculty Handbook, and it should be noted that the handbook indicates that
“University standards for tenure and promotion are considered to be minimum
standards,” and that academic departments must identify their own objectives, activities,
and performance standards required to meet them (see Section 4, “Departmental
Standards).
1
In the Department of History and Government, the evaluation of non-tenured, full time
faculty will be conducted annually by the Department Chair and by The Peer Support
Committee. Tenured and adjunct faculty will be evaluated by the chair, and may request
evaluation (and are encouraged to do so) by the Peer Support Committee if they wish.
Evaluation by the Chair
General university procedures for annual faculty evaluations are detailed in section 4.2.2
of the Faculty Handbook.
To clarify and simplify the process of weighting faculty performance in Teaching,
Research and Creative/Scholarly Activity, Professional and University Service and Public
Outreach, and Performance of Non-Teaching or Administrative Duties (applicable only
when a faculty member has assignments that reduce their teaching load), department
faculty should refer to the guidelines listed below.
Guidelines for Teaching/Advisement, University Service and Public Outreach, and
Research and Creative/Scholarly Activity Responsibilities on an Annual Basis
Teaching/Advisement (Minimum Commitment = 50%): The Faculty Handbook
precludes weighting teaching below 50% of a faculty member’s responsibilities. That
50% is considered the primary responsibility of all regular Cameron faculty, and is
usually satisfied by excellence in teaching four courses at a level appropriate for a
regional university, consistently keeping office hours and being available to students, and
providing excellent advisement for an equitable (based on the number of majors in a
given program) number of students. Faculty who receive any sort of teaching load
reduction below four classes per semester or any advisement reduction must compensate
in other areas, typically with some sort of administrative or special duties.
In keeping with this responsibility, faculty should strive to constantly improve their
teaching, and when practicable update their courses, rewrite their lectures, experiment
with new classroom technology and teaching methods, consider new assignments, review
possible new books for classroom assignment, and devote considerable time to student
advisement.
The quality of faculty teaching is ultimately the responsibility of the department chair,
who will conduct regular classroom evaluation of untenured and adjunct faculty, and
select classroom evaluations of tenured faculty as needed. The chair will be assisted by
the Peer Support Committee, as detailed below. Both the chair and Peer Support
Committee will review student course evaluations of instruction as a part of their
evaluations, but will never depend upon them exclusively. Student course evaluations of
instruction, rather, will be one among several tools (including review of syllabi,
classroom visits, discussions with the faculty member being reviewed, review of course
grades and student work, etc.) used to help improve the quality of instruction at Cameron
University.
2
It is the responsibility of the chair to notify faculty when they are not meeting university
teaching standards, and to attempt to help them improve their performance.
University Service and Public Outreach (Minimum Commitment = 10%):
Faculty members are expected to play an active role in departmental, university, and
public service, and are required to sit on at least one university or departmental
committee a year.
Faculty who seek greater responsibility in this area may consider serving in a major
leadership position on campus (developer of a new degree program, or head of a special
project such as an accreditation report, hosting a conference, sponsoring events on
campus attended by outside groups, etc.) or in their discipline (editor of a professional
journal, officer in a professional organization, etc.), or serving on multiple committees at
the department or university level. Faculty may also serve as student organization or club
sponsors, and/or conduct significant public outreach.
As stipulated in the Faculty Handbook, all Public Outreach will be performed pro bono.
Activities that involve an honorarium are permissible, but may not fall under the category
of Public Outreach.
Research and Creative/Scholarly Activity (Minimum Commitment = 10%):
All faculty members are required to demonstrate some level of excellence in research and
scholarship. Note that the Faculty Handbook indicates that:
“Research is generally defined as a systematic search for knowledge through
active inquiries or investigations carried out by an individual or group that
generates new products, knowledge, concepts, skill, methods, or artistic
accomplishment. More specific criteria may be determined within each
department (italics added). For purposes of evaluation of faculty performance,
research is equated to other activities comprising the broader category called
‘scholarship.’” (Section A.5)
With that in mind, faculty are required to attend at least one conference every two years
sponsored by a professional academic association or body and present at least one
conference paper once every three years. They are also required to publish at least two
peer-reviewed articles or book chapters prior to going up for tenure. Publication of a
scholarly book with a reputable press will also satisfy the publication requirement. The
department encourages research and publication in pedagogy as well as discipline
specific subjects, and peer-reviewed works published in either realm will satisfy the
department standard.
Annual Planning and Evaluation Meetings with the Chair
Because the minimum commitment levels listed above total only 70%, faculty will
negotiate how they commit the remaining 30% of their efforts annually in meetings with
the chair. The chair is expected to balance the needs and wishes of individual faculty with
3
the needs of the department and the university, and faculty are expected to understand
that the needs of the department and the university must come first. With that in mind,
however, the chair is also expected to make every effort to provide a support structure
within the department that will allow individual faculty to pursue their interests and to
maximize their talents.
Notification of Progress Toward Tenure from the Chair
As part of their annual evaluation, Regular Tenure-Track faculty will be notified in
writing by the chair whether they appear to be on track for tenure. A positive indication
will not represent a guarantee of tenure. It will only indicate a general sense that the
faculty member is progressing adequately at a given point in time.
The Peer Support Committee
The Peer Support Committee will be comprised of four tenured faculty selected by the
department chair from at least two disciplines (when possible).
At least two members of the Peer Support Committee will observe each non-tenured
regular faculty member a minimum of once annually (with additional observations if
necessary) in a classroom setting, and will review online courses taught by non-tenured
regular faculty at least once annually as applicable. The primary purpose of the
committee is to make observations regarding teaching effectiveness, and to offer
constructive criticism that will assist in the professional growth of our junior faculty.
That criticism will address all pertinent issues, including subject matter mastery; course
and curriculum development/design; organizational skills; delivery of instruction; selfassessment and improvement; availability to students; pedagogy; reading and writing
assignments; skill at interacting with students; effective use of technology or creative
teaching methods; grading scales and methods; course syllabi; and fulfillment of
instructional administrative responsibilities such as advisement, etc.
The Peer Support Committee will also serve as an aid for all tenure-track regular faculty
by examining their curriculum vitae at least once annually and offering feedback
regarding their level of scholarly production and service.
Upon completion of their classroom visitation, online course review (when applicable)
and vitae review, the Peer Support Committee will prepare a brief written summary
indicating faculty strengths and weaknesses, and offering specific suggestions for
improvement. A copy of that summary will be delivered to the department chair.
Note that while the Peer Support Committee has a critical evaluative task to carry out, the
context in which it operates is not adversarial and the goal of its recommendations is to
help fellow faculty become more effective in all aspects of their profession and to
promote a culture of regular, open discussion regarding teaching, scholarship, and
4
service. Moreover, it is a recommending body only. All formal evaluations for the Dean
of the School of Liberal Arts will continue to be completed by the chair.
Note also that the Peer Support Committee is meant to provide a mechanism both for
assisting junior faculty in their professional development and for exposing senior faculty
to their colleagues in a classroom setting. It is meant to be a part of a relatively open
evaluation process in which it is hoped departmental faculty will reach broad consensus
regarding the performance of their peers. However, because only the chair is exposed to
all facets of a faculty member’s performance there will inevitably be cases in which the
chair’s recommendations regarding a particular faculty member do not reflect the
majority opinion of the department, and in which privacy laws restrict the ability of the
chair to share certain pieces of information with his/her colleagues. In those situations the
chair is responsible for acting in what he/she perceives to be the best interests of the
department and the university, in consultation with the dean and other university officials
as needed.
III.
Criteria for Recommending Tenure
General university criteria for recommending tenure are detailed in section 4.5 of the
Faculty Handbook. However, it should be noted that a recommendation of tenure is a
very high honor and not a right. It carries with it an implicit indication that the faculty
member in question has demonstrated a high level of excellence in teaching, service, and
scholarship; that the senior faculty believe he/she will continue to exhibit that excellence
for the duration of their career; that he/she will always serve Cameron students with
distinction; that he/she is a worthy public servant who will earn their taxpayer and student
funded salary; and that he/she is deserving of what in practice is often an employment
guarantee spanning several decades. Indeed, the decision to recommend or not
recommend tenure is typically the most important personnel decision any faculty member
will make, and should be reached only after extreme diligence.
In the Department of History and Government, we are committed to excellence in all
areas of professional accomplishment, and no amount of excellence in one field can erase
an unreasonable dearth of accomplishment in any other. Moreover, we recognize that
there are professional considerations involved in the decision to recommend tenure that
go beyond the categories listed above. Those considerations are often grouped together
under the category of “collegiality,” and are critically important when considering a
request for tenure. Collegiality includes general professionalism in demeanor and
appearance; a willingness to work with faculty, staff, and students on collective
endeavors; a consistently demonstrated level of responsibility that includes prompt
responses to e-mail, telephone calls, and written correspondence, the submission of
required administrative information, data, or reports on time, regular and prompt
attendance at department or university meetings, knowledge of and adherence to all
university policies, and a clear understanding of the proper professional line that should
be drawn in faculty interactions with students. We also recognize that while there are
often peaks and valleys in professional performance, excellence is best demonstrated
consistently over a long period of time rather than in episodic bursts.
5
We therefore commit ourselves to supporting tenure-track faculty as strongly as possible
in order to provide them with every opportunity to succeed, to earn tenure, and to serve
our students with distinction. We also commit ourselves to being good stewards of the
university and the public trust, and to make decision regarding tenure based on as many
considerations as possible and only after long and serious deliberation.
IV.
Criteria for Recommending Promotion
General university criteria for promotion to Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and
Professor are detailed in sections 4.4 and B.1 of the Faculty Handbook.
The decision to recommend a faculty member for promotion to Associate Professor and
to grant their request for tenure will normally go hand in hand, though there could
conceivably be circumstances in which that will not be the case. Should they arise, those
circumstances will be addressed by the department chair and the chairs of the promotion
and tenure committees in their recommendations to the dean.
V.
Evaluation During Periods of Reassignment
Because faculty members may be reassigned for either short or long periods of time, for
such a wide array of reasons, and from teaching, advisement, service, or scholarship, their
evaluation during those periods will almost always be specific to their particular
situation. However, provided that each reassigned faculty member’s duties have been
approved by all of the appropriate university officials, certain broad parameters will be
followed whenever possible:
1. Academic reassignment time, whether a sabbatical or a reduction in teaching load,
service, administrative, or advisement responsibility, etc., will be evaluated by the
department chair and integrated into annual evaluations. The Peer Support
Committee will also evaluate the faculty member in question during periods of
reassignment, provided the faculty member teaches at least one course during that
time.
2. Partial administrative reassignment time will be integrated into annual evaluations
by the department chair, particularly if it is associated with any reduction in
normal faculty responsibilities. During these periods the faculty member in
question will be evaluated at the department level on the courses he/she is still
teaching, the scholarship he/she produces, and the academic service he/she
performs by the chair and the Peer Support Committee, as appropriate.
Evaluations of the faculty member’s performance of special administrative duties
will normally be performed by their administrative supervisor.
3. Full administrative reassignment time will effectively stop all evaluation of a
faculty member’s performance at the departmental level. Their annual evaluations
will become administrative in nature, and will be conducted by their
administrative supervisor. In most cases the faculty member’s tenure, promotion,
6
and post-tenure clock will stop during periods of full reassignment, and will
resume only when they return to their home academic department.
4. The responsibilities and work distribution for faculty with release time are as
follows:
Faculty with 12 Hour Teaching Loads
Teaching
Scholarship
Service
50-80%
10-40%
10-40%
Faculty with 9 Hour Teaching Loads
Administration
Teaching
Scholarship
Service
25%
40-60%
10-30%
10-30%
Faculty with 6 Hour Teaching Loads
Administration
Teaching
Scholarship
Service
VI.
50%
25-40%
5-20%
5-20%
Tenure and Promotion Packet Guidelines
These guidelines are meant to assist tenure-track faculty in planning for and assembling
their tenure and promotion packets. They are not meant to be comprehensive, and
following them is, of course, no guarantee of a successful application for tenure and
promotion. They do reflect, however, the cumulative experience of faculty who have
successfully applied for tenure and promotion, and can be utilized by junior faculty in
conjunction with consultations with the chair and/or the dean in their long range
planning.
Overview
Tenure and promotion packets should be thorough and yet still as concise as possible.
They should include enough information to convey the broad sweep of a faculty
member’s accomplishments over a given period of time without including insignificant or
redundant minutiae. Thus, student evaluations can be included, but summaries and select
examples are usually sufficient and generally preferred over the inclusion of every
evaluation a faculty member ever received. Packets should include hard copies of all
7
refereed published works, and copies or examples of other significant scholarship and
service.
Specific Suggestions
1. Three ring binders are an excellent way of organizing tenure and promotion
packets. They allow faculty to divide their materials into topical sections with
dividers, protect and reduce the chance of documents being lost, and are easily
transportable. The latter is an important factor, as packets travel between
reviewing faculty and then go from the department chair to the dean of the School
of Liberal Arts and on to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and back again
over an extended period of time.
2. The most critical documents (such as vitas and off-prints) should be placed in
plastic slip-covers, which are also excellent for documents and materials of
unusual size or shape (newspaper articles, pamphlets, posters, etc.).
3. Binders should prominently feature the name of the faculty member requesting
tenure and promotion on the outside. They should also clearly indicate that they
are part of tenure and promotion packets, and, if more than one binder is
necessary, the binders should be numbered in the order in which reviewers should
examine them.
4. Materials should be placed within each binder in order of relative importance.
Thus, documents at the front of the first binder will be the most critical, while
those at the end of the last binder will be less crucial to reviewers.
5. The suggested order of materials is as follows:
a. A copy of the memorandums to the department chair requesting tenure
and promotion.
b. A detailed self-evaluation addressing how effectively the faculty
member in question has met the Faculty Handbook Criteria for Tenure
and for Promotion to Associate Professor.
c. Documents indicating the faculty member’s eligibility for tenure and
promotion, including relevant transcripts.
d. An up to date curriculum vitae.
e. Syllabi from all courses taught by the faculty member at Cameron
University.
f. Copies of all significant publications, including books, chapters in
books (copies of the chapter in question and the title page of the host
publication is sufficient), refereed articles, book reviews, etc.
g. Professional Reviews of the faculty member’s published works.
h. Copies of presented conference papers.
i. Copies of conference programs indicating the faculty member’s
participation as presenter, discussant, panel chair, etc.
j. Copies of material related to significant service, including reports,
studies, conference hosting, project direction, etc.
k. Significant press releases or news stories related to faculty service or
scholarship. Faculty should use discretion in this area. There is no
need to include every press release related to their work.
8
l. Student evaluations, divided between summaries and, when judged to
be particularly enlightening, select raw data.
m. Miscellaneous.
6. As noted above, these guidelines should not be seen as exhaustive. Questions
about promotion and tenure will naturally arise and faculty members should feel
free to ask them. Questions of any kind related to the tenure and promotion
review process should, in the first instance, be directed to the department chair,
and, when appropriate, to the Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and/or to the
Vice President for Academic Affairs.
VII.
Criteria for Post-Tenure Review
General university criteria for post-tenure review are detailed in section 4.6 of the Faculty
Handbook.
9