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