PROMOTION and TENURE GUIDELINES
FOR TEACHING FACULTY
IN THE COLLEGE OF ARTS and SCIENCES
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL PHILOSOPHY .............................................................................................. 1
THE PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEW PROCESS ................................................ 1
Making the Case for Promotion and Tenure ............................................................... 2
Roles of the Review Committees ................................................................................. 2
GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING HIGH QUALITY TEACHING ..... 3
Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor .................................................... 3
Promotion from Associate to Full Professor .............................................................. 4
Table of Teaching Evidence ......................................................................................... 4
GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH, SCHOLARLY, AND CREATIVE
ENDEAVORS. ................................................................................................................ 6
Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor .................................................... 7
Promotion from Associate to Full Professor .............................................................. 7
Table of Scholarly/Creative Contributions .................................................................. 8
GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING HIGH QUALITY SERVICE ........ 9
Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor .................................................... 9
Promotion from Associate to Full Professor .............................................................. 9
Table of Service Contributions .................................................................................. 10
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
2
Promotion and Tenure Guidelines For Teaching Faculty
In The College of Arts and Sciences
The College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) tenure and promotion guidelines are written to
provide assistance to candidates in the creation of effective dossiers and also to provide guidance
to committees evaluating these documents. The CAS guidelines are intended to present a
uniform set of instructions for both candidates and reviewers. These guidelines may be further
modified at both the division and departmental level to be more applicable to specific disciplines.
However, the general format must remain the same to allow for consistency in the review
process. The division and departmental changes should be made to the CAS document rather
than producing separate documents and the title should be changed accordingly (Tenure and/or
Promotion Guidelines College of Arts and Science, YYYYY Division, Department of YYYYY).
This single unified document should be included as an appendix in the candidate’s dossier so
reviewers have ready access to the appropriate evaluation guidelines.
GENERAL PHILOSOPHY
Tenure-track faculty candidates in the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) are normally
reviewed in the three traditional areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Under most
circumstances, candidates for promotion and tenure should expect to present strong records in
teaching and scholarship.
CAS follows the general outline presented in the Tenure and Promotion Handbook that
shows how teaching, scholarship and creativity, and service may be met in the following ways:
1
High quality teaching, and
2
High quality teaching, and
3
High quality teaching and
High quality contributions in
scholarly/creative activities,
and
High quality contributions in
service, and
A balance of contributions in
scholarly/creative activities
and service that substantially
exceeds the minimum
requirements of demonstrated
competence.
Demonstrated competence in
service
Demonstrated competence in
scholarly/creative activities
CAS recognizes the importance of both classroom teaching and student research mentoring to
the core mission of undergraduate education at UH Hilo. Accordingly, high quality
contributions to undergraduate education may be made through excellence in classroom
teaching, excellence in mentoring/teaching students to conduct research, or a combination of
these.
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
1
THE PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEW PROCESS
In order to encourage consistent evaluation of all candidates, the CAS subscribes to the
following general requirements for tenure and promotion. It should be recognized that these are
only guidelines developed to give faculty candidates a clearer understanding of the criteria for
promotion and/or tenure. Academic organizations are dynamic units, and as such, the minimum
standards for promotion and tenure may change over time. At the same time, the CAS adheres to
the rules of fair play, and significant deviations from the expressed standards must be the result
of collaboration between faculty and administration and must be clearly communicated to faculty
when such departures from the standards are instituted. With these points in mind, faculty
candidates are urged to make every effort to exceed the minimum standards expressed in the
guidelines.
Making the Case for Tenure and Promotion
Faculty candidates are reminded that it is their responsibility to “make their case” in the
preparation of their dossiers. That is, faculty should write clear and concise teaching, research,
and service endeavor statements, effectively organize materials that support their application,
and include any and all material that provide the strongest argument for promotion and/or
tenure. The burden is on the faculty candidate to clearly and succinctly make their case for
tenure and/or promotion in their dossier. Faculty candidates are also encouraged to write a
summary statement at the beginning of their endeavor’s section that outlines their case for tenure
and/or promotion. Candidates should be aware that their dossier will be reviewed by members of
several committees and by administrators that may have little or no background in their
discipline, much less in their specialty. The burden is on the faculty candidate to clearly and
succinctly make his/her case for tenure and/or promotion in the dossier.
Evidence and contributions to Teaching, Scholarly/Creative activities, and Service have
been ranked by importance into three categories: Primary, Substantial, and Supporting. The
order within a category has no significance, although items have been grouped by type of
contribution where possible. In most cases, the candidate will be required to have at least one
contribution from the Primary category, although a preponderance of Substantial contributions in
Scholarly/Creative and Service may be deemed satisfactory to meet Tenure and Promotion (e.g.
see category three in table above). Likewise, multiple Supporting contributions may be counted
by reviewers as equivalent to a Substantial contribution.
Roles of the Review Committees
Faculty candidates, especially those applying for tenure, should also keep in mind that the
role of the Division/Departmental Personnel Committee (DPC) in a tenure decision is somewhat
different than when the candidate is applying for contract renewal. In considering contract
renewal, the DPC role is to judge whether adequate progress has been made and to make
constructive criticisms and suggestions to assist the candidate in attaining tenure and promotion.
In most cases, when candidates are applying for tenure and promotion, the DPC role is less
judgmental and the DPC often serves as an advocate for the candidate’s tenure and/or promotion.
The DPC is the review committee most likely to understand the candidate’s discipline and
therefore is best suited to write an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses that is supportive of
the tenure and/or promotion application. The Tenure and Promotion Review Committee (TPRC)
is the faculty review committee with the strongest influence in this process and is composed of
senior faculty drawn from across the university. Thus, it is highly unlikely that any of the
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
2
members will have the background necessary to make detailed interpretations of the candidate’s
area of specialization. It is incumbent on the candidate to clearly outline the importance and
depth of his/her accomplishments. Ultimately, the quality of both the DPC and TPRC
recommendations depends on the quality of the candidate’s accomplishments and accompanying
explanatory material.
GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHING HIGH QUALITY TEACHING
In recognition of UHH’s primary mission of providing a quality liberal arts education to
its students, excellence in teaching is a critical standard which every successful candidate for
tenure and/or promotion must achieve. All faculty members must administer the University’s
Perceived Teaching Effectiveness (PTE) survey in all their classes. Though it is not required,
faculty are strongly recommended to use the results of the PTE to support their case for high
quality teaching. If faculty so choose, they can use Table 4.2 to provide a summary for questions
18 and 19 along with class size data and class grade point averages. When teaching evaluations
are presented, candidates are encouraged to make graphs of these and other data (along with
college or division means for comparison) from the survey and to clearly explain any long term
trends or deviations. Reviewers commonly compare the candidate’s scores and course grades to
their college or division averages as a means of assessing the teaching evaluations. Candidates
should make sure that a thoughtful discussion of the evolution of their teaching effectiveness and
style is included in the Endeavors section. Likewise, the candidate should discuss how feedback
from teaching evaluations, peer reviews, and other sources has been incorporated into their
teaching including improvements and changes that were made based upon the feedback.
Data derived from the surveys provide a method for uniform evaluation of faculty based
on student responses. However, recognizing that student feedback is only one method to
evaluate teaching effectiveness, CAS encourages candidates to submit other forms of evidence –
e.g., faculty peer evaluations, evidence of substantial research mentoring, curriculum
development, digital websites, etc. – to support their teaching effectiveness, and that the Division
(or Department) Personnel Committee (DPC), the Division (or Department) Chair (DC), and the
UHH Tenure and Promotion Review Committee (TPRC) give substantial credence to these other
sources of evidence. Any or all of these additional lines of evidence should be used to support
data in your teaching evaluations. If the candidate wishes less reliance to be placed upon
teaching evaluations, the candidate should make sure the other means of evaluation are
increasingly robust. If faculty peer evaluations are used as primary evidence of teaching
effectiveness, they should be done by multiple faculty members, cover most or all courses
taught, and occur over a long enough period of time to establish trends and improvements.
Likewise, if research mentoring is used as a primary form of evidence, it should involve a large
number of students over the period in question and include evaluations from both faculty peers
and students as to the effectiveness of these efforts.
Candidates wishing to establish their credentials for teaching excellence are advised to
write thoughtfully about their teaching philosophy and the application of this philosophy in the
classroom. Reviewers will pay significant attention to this document and to any discussion of
efforts the candidate has made to improve teaching effectiveness.
Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor
The excellence in teaching requirements for advancement from Assistant Professor to
Associate Professor require at that at least one of the Primary Evidence items clearly and
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
3
thoroughly establish teaching excellence. If the candidate chooses to base their case for teaching
excellence on items other than teaching evaluations, it is incumbent on the candidate to make
sure they present sufficient evidence for the committee to assess teaching excellence. The
candidate should also have contributions from the substantial and supporting lists that provide
additional evidence of high quality teaching.
Promotion from Associate to Full Professor
The excellence in teaching requirements for advancement from Associate Professor to
Full Professor require at that at least one of the Primary Evidence items clearly and thoroughly
establish teaching excellence. If the candidate chooses to base their case for teaching excellence
on items other than teaching evaluations, it is incumbent on the candidate to make sure they
present sufficient evidence for the committee to assess teaching excellence. The candidate
should also have contributions from the substantial and supporting lists that provide additional
evidence of high quality teaching.
Items cannot be reused from prior promotions, but the candidate is encouraged to
compare their current teaching with past teaching performance to establish the trend of continued
excellence in teaching. Candidates for Full Professor are expected to have contributed more
significantly in developing curriculum, certificates, programs, new degrees, and assessment
methodology than candidates for Associate Professor (see Substantial contributions marked with
* for examples).
Evidence of High Quality Teaching
Primary Evidence:
● Standard institutional student course evaluations for the previous two academic years
showing above average teaching performance, as indicated by such appropriate
measures as high scores on student evaluations, overwhelmingly positive student
comments, or other relevant comparisons.
●
●
●
Peer evaluations for courses within at least the last two academic years based on
classroom observations, team teaching, or invited lectures must show a high degree of
teaching excellence. Candidates are free to choose the peer evaluators, but tenured
faculty are preferred. In addition if peer evaluations are to be used as the major source
of evidence for teaching excellence, there should be several reviewers, each of whom
attend and evaluate multiple courses over several years. Unscheduled “drop-in”
evaluations are preferred over “scheduled” evaluations as they give a better
representation of the candidates daily lecture style and preparation.
An ongoing track record of supervising numerous students in research/creative
scholarship that results in either competitive recognition or scholarly/academic
publications. Candidates desiring recognition in this category must provide evidence
that student mentoring is an ongoing and consistent aspect of their approach to
education (provide numbers of independent studies, theses supervised, evaluations by
students etc.)
Teaching awards or recognitions from the UH System, UHH or external organizations
that result from nomination by either students or colleagues.
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
4
●
Consistent narrative student course evaluations for the previous two academic years
demonstrating positive acknowledgement of the applicant’s classroom, HITS or online
teaching abilities.
Substantial Evidence:
○ Measured qualitative improvement in an area of instruction demonstrated by
consistent measured improvement in subsequent teaching of the same course as
evidenced by the result on standard institutional student course evaluations.
Candidate will provide both below average evaluations from an earlier semester as
well as evaluations from a subsequent semester or semesters for the same course
showing improvement in perceived teaching quality over time.
○
Qualitative improvement of instruction in subsequent teaching of the same course as
evidenced by the comments on narrative student course evaluations. Candidates will
highlight negative student comments from an earlier semester. They will also provide
student comments about the same course from a subsequent semester or semesters
which are absent the previous criticisms or which contain compliments regarding the
previously criticized behavior.
○
Evidence writing, receiving, or participating in major teaching-related grants (e.g.
NSF STEM, US DOE, etc.)
Creation of a teaching innovation (such as videos, slide presentations, on-line
applications, computer simulations, etc.) with evidence of positive application
outcomes
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Documentation of an innovative tool or method to improve course outcomes,
including those resulting from attendance at conferences or teaching workshops.
Development of a new course.
Developing or converting a course or courses for alternative formats, e.g. HITS, online, learning communities, etc.
Institutional and small grants received (e.g. Educational Improvement Fund Grants)
for teaching innovation.
Evidence of student awards in the instructor’s subject area.
Production of teaching products (lectures, on-line materials, etc.) that are used by
other teachers or distributed for use by other media.
Record of publications or presentations on pedagogy.
Evidence of extraordinary efforts advising and mentoring of students.
Evidence of teaching facility or equipment improvement and/or management.
Mentoring of other faculty members to improve quality of teaching at the institution.
This would include working with teachers one-on-one or conducting workshops on
teaching techniques and/or new technologies.
Initiation or refinement of ongoing service learning or internship programs which
allow students to learn while contributing to the community.
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
5
○
Major contribution to the successful development and institutional approval of a new
department or program including (if applicable) identifying and securing funding from
the system, the legislature or other external sources. Candidates should provide both
documentation regarding the evolution of the new department or program and letters
from witnesses attesting their contribution to the outcome. (*)
○
Development and implementation of a new academic certificate either within the
instructor’s department or involving courses from a number of different departments
or institutions. (*)
○
Major contribution to the development of academic assessment programs at the
department or institutional level. Candidates should provide both documents from the
assessment program and letters from witnesses attesting their contribution to the
outcome. (*)
*Pertains especially to candidates for promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor.
Supporting Evidence:
◊ Documentation of rigorous student performance standards and appropriate assessment.
◊ Procedures, such as course syllabi, exams, and/or examples of student work.
◊ Instruction of writing-intensive courses (WI).
◊ Service as advisor to discipline-specific student organization.
◊ Advisor to students enrolled in discipline-specific directed readings or independent
study projects
◊ Guest presentations in academic classes, workshops on teaching-related activities, etc.
◊ Evidence of impact on students outside of classes, including evidence of students’
postgraduate success.
◊ Examples of innovative teaching methods,
◊ Evidence of training or upgrading to maintain currency in pedagogy and in the
discipline,
◊ Supporting contributions to the successful development and institutional approval of a
new department or program including identifying and securing funding from the
system, the legislature or other external sources.
◊
Supervision of service learning opportunities which allow students to learn while
contributing to the community.
GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH, SCHOLARLY, AND CREATIVE ENDEAVORS.
Research/Scholarly/Creative contributions can be the most difficult for reviewers to judge
as there are rarely qualified experts in the candidate’s field on the committee. Therefore, it is
extremely important that the candidate craft a Scholarly Endeavors essay that explains clearly in
plain English the importance and the impact of the candidate’s work. Published works should
also show how much the candidate contributed to them and the nature of the contribution.
Generally, works where the authorship position is second, third etc. will count less than those
works that are first authored. The exception to this would be a paper first authored by a student
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
6
at UHH, where the candidate is second author. These are considered to be equivalent to first
authored papers due to the extra contribution of mentoring and publishing students.
Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor
For promotion to Associate Professor, faculty in the CAS should show consistent and
regular productivity over the course of the review period. While the quantity and frequency of
scholarly or artistic products are important, the quality and impact of the scholarly or artistic
products, are ultimately more important in evaluating the scholarly or artistic productivity of a
faculty member going up for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor. Faculty should
present evidence of the quality and impact of their scholarly work. In cases of documented
exceptional impact, fewer publications could satisfy the requirement for tenure and/or promotion
in the area of scholarship.
Tenure and Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor requires the candidate
accomplish multiple items from the Substantial/Supporting lists to establish high quality
scholarly contributions. The time, effort and quality required to accomplish any of the items on
the Primary list are such that they may stand as de facto evidence of the applicant’s research
contributions so long as the applicant demonstrates that they are part of his or her ongoing
research agenda documented by other lesser contributions (for example a record of conference
presentations, etc.).
Quality and the value to science/discipline are important. Candidates may argue that
items on the Supporting list are of unusually high quality, impact, or value in which case that
item may be considered as a substitute for the requirement for activities from the Substantial list,
at the request of the applicant. For example, if one of the candidate’s Supporting products is
widely cited or receives unusually wide recognition, the candidate may argue that its impact is
similar to that of a Substantial product. Similar arguments can be made for contributions on the
Substantial list that the candidate feels are equivalent to a Primary contribution.
A single research product will only be counted once. For example, if the candidate
presents a scholarly paper at a research conference and the paper is subsequently published in the
proceedings of the conference, only the proceedings would count.
To be relevant, each of these activities must be shared with a larger community. The
community may be local, state, national, and/or international: (a) Academic groups, (b)
Professional groups, (c) Collegial groups, and/or (d) Registered community service groups.
Promotion from Associate to Full Professor
For promotion to Full Professor, the same kinds of evidence for promotion from Assistant
to Associate Professor should be presented to show competence or excellence in research,
including a consistent record of productivity during the years after promotion to Associate
Professor. Tenure and Promotion from Associate to Full Professor generally requires the
candidate accomplish at least one item from the Primary list accompanied by a number of
contributions from the Substantial/Supporting lists to document high quality scholarly
contributions. In addition, the candidate should show, through methods indicated above, that he
or she has achieved a significant reputation in the field. This can be demonstrated through
citations, letters from experts in the field, or special recognition by one’s professional
organization. Research output used for one promotion may not be presented in support of a
second promotion.
Quality and the value to science/discipline are important. Candidates may argue that
items on the Supporting list are of unusually high quality, impact, or value in which case that
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
7
item may be considered as a substitute for the requirement for activities from the Substantial list,
at the request of the applicant. For example, if one of the candidate’s Supporting products is
widely cited or receives unusually wide recognition, the candidate may argue that its impact is
similar to that of a Substantial product. Similar arguments can be made for contributions on the
Substantial list that the candidate feels are equivalent to a Primary contribution.
A single research product will only be counted once. For example, if the candidate
presents a scholarly paper at a research conference and the paper is subsequently published in the
proceedings of the conference, only the proceedings would count.
To be relevant, each of these activities must be shared with a larger community. The
community may be local, state, national, and/or international: (a) Academic groups, (b)
Professional groups, (c) Collegial groups, and/or (d) Registered community service groups.
Scholarly/Creative Contributions.
Primary Contributions: (Note: items on this list require external review or evaluation.)
● Author of a book or equivalent published by a recognized academic publishing house,
based on original research or creative activity that makes an original contribution to the
profession’s literature.
● Author of a published textbook that is adopted for use in classrooms other than the
instructor’s own.
● Published video, feature film, computer simulation, or equivalent that is accepted by a
juried film festival, contracted to air on a commercial or public network television
station and/or distributed commercially for use in classrooms, interpretive or industrial
instruction.
● Publication as first author of an original research/scholarly/creative article in a journal
recognized to be top tier in the author’s discipline. The candidate should supply
evidence of the journal’s standing within their discipline.
● Full article published in peer reviewed conference proceedings of a major national or
international organization recognized to be top tier in the author's discipline. The
candidate must supply evidence that conference proceedings are considered to be an
important venue for publication (e.g.—in the Computer Sciences where ideas and
platforms are evolving very rapidly).
● Securing a major, new, multiyear federal grant that allows the candidate and the
institution to enhance their standings and reputations in the national and international
scholarly communities.
Substantial Contributions:
○ Short story, poetry, or play published in a book or journal.
○ Article published in a refereed journal (traditional or on-line.)
○ Chapter published in a refereed book.
○ Author of the published proceedings of a professional conference.
○ Grants from local or state agencies
○ Major art exhibit, reading, or equivalent performance.
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
8
○ Editor of a major book or journal.
○ Published Field Guide,
○ Fellowships,
Supporting Contributions:
◊ Conference presenter, panel or seminar participant, or workshop convener/planner.
◊ Article, short story, poetry, or play published in a non-refereed journal, magazine, or
newspaper.
◊ Chapter published in a non-refereed book.
◊ Technical report based on original research or creative activity in either print or online
format depending on the standards of the discipline.
◊ Editor or member of the editorial board for a book or journal.
◊ Merit or achievement awards from professional societies in recognition of scholarly
activity, research, or creative endeavors,
◊ Grant proposals for research or creative activities, articles, book chapters, short stories,
poetry, or plays submitted for review, or other evidence of scholarly effort.
◊
◊
Published study guide.
Book or database review published in a book or journal.
GUIDELINES
FOR ESTABLISHING EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE
Contributions to the university and to one’s profession are considered important aspects
of membership within the UHH academic community. In order to create a successful
undergraduate learning environment in a small university setting, all members need to make
significant contributions. Candidates should make sure that they highlight the quality and
quantity of their service contributions in their Endeavors discussion, a simple listing of service
contributions is insufficient. Candidates must describe the frequency of the service as well as
specific accomplishments while serving in that position. For example, review committees will
look much more favorably on a candidate who, as a member of the UHH Congress, initiated
improvements in academics, operations, etc. than on a candidate simply attending the meetings.
Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor
Candidates for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor must demonstrate a record of
reliable and consistent competence in service activities documented by a combination of primary
and substantial contributions to our institution, the university system and affiliates, professional
associations, neighborhood, city, county, and/or state communities, and national and
international organizations. Tenure with Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor
requires multiple contributions from the substantial/supporting lists below or a contribution(s)
from the primary list coupled with lesser contributions from the substantial/supporting lists to
establish high quality service.
Promotion from Associate to Full Professor
Candidates for promotion to Professor should demonstrate a record of reliable and
consistent excellence in service documented by a combination of primary and substantial
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
9
contributions to our institution, the university system and affiliates, professional associations,
neighborhood, city, county, and/or state communities, and national and international
organizations. Promotion to Professor requires multiple contributions from the primary list and
additional contributions from the substantial/supporting lists below to document high quality
service. In no case may service achievements for one promotion be presented in support of a
second promotion.
Service Contributions.
Primary Contributions: (* marks positions that may require tenure)
● Chairing a committee or special project at the campus or system level
● Officer of UHH Congress
● Chair of Research or Graduate Councils at UHH (*)
● Member or Chair of CAS Academic Policy Committee or Curriculum Review
Committee
● Administrative service as department chair (*) or program director (*)
● Administrative service as division chair (*) or associate dean (*)
● Advisor to a student club or organization
● Extraordinary service as academic and/or career advisor to UHH students
● Organizer or convener of a workshop or event at UHH
● Collective bargaining committee chair (or other UHPA leadership position)
● Serving as Editor or Editorial Board member for a professional journal or publisher
● Service on Federal grant review panels (e.g. NSF, NIH, CDC, FDA, etc.…)
● Officer or board member in national professional association
● Officer or board member of a registered national service organization
● Chairing a committee or special project in a professional association
● Planning conferences, seminars, and workshops for a national professional association
● Production of research reports for professional association
● Consulting to a professional association, e.g., program evaluations at other institutions
● Trainings or certification activities on behalf of a professional or licensing association.
● Appointed member of a State-level task force or commission
Substantial Contributions: (* marks positions that may require tenure)
○ Member of UHH Congress
○ Participation on personnel committees, e.g. contract renewal, tenure or promotion of
UHH faculty (*)
○ Participation in standing committees, search committees or special projects for UHH
○ Significant administrative duties at or above the department level (planning, decisionmaking and implementation, including securing funding)
○ UHH liaison or adjunct to other programs or organizations
○ Presenter or panelist for a professional workshop or event at UHH
○ Service as academic and/or career advisor to UHH students
○ Service as a faculty development consultant, who conducts instructional peer
evaluations or other services for UHH faculty or staff
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
10
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Service as a faculty mentor who provides institutional information and advising
services to new faculty
Participation in the selection and evaluation of adjunct faculty and lecturers
Other consulting services to faculty at UHH
Reviewing manuscripts for a peer-reviewed national or international journal
Special presentation or workshop for members of a professional organization
National television or other public presentation in support of UHH or profession
Participation in a panel discussion (community, state, national, or international)
separate from a research presentation
Author of newsletters, articles, newspaper articles, columns, or magazines
Expert testimony at legislative and public hearings, or meetings while serving as a
representative of the university in area of expertise
Providing service to volunteer organizations in area of expertise
Significant administrative duties on behalf of a non-UHH entity related to your field
Uncompensated consulting to local government agencies, in area of expertise
Supporting Contributions:
◊ Serving on advisory boards or equivalents for community associations
◊ Planning community events
◊ Uncompensated consulting to the community associations/agencies, in area of
expertise
◊ Editorial work for a community publication
◊ Local television or other public presentation in support of UHH or profession
◊ Presenter or panelist for a local workshop or event at UHH
Draft 4/15/2010 CAS APC
11