|Definition:||Standards governing retention, tenure, and promotion process for faculty in the Global Studies Department.|
|Authority:||The collective bargaining agreement between the California State University and the California Faculty Association.|
|Scope:||Eligible Global Studies Department faculty at California State University San Marcos.|
|Responsible Division:||Academic Affairs|
|Signature Page/PDF:||View Signatures for Retention, Tenure and Promotion Standards for Global Studies Department|
This document elaborates on the CSUSM Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion and the College Standards and Procedures for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion. It provides guidance to faculty members concerning the Global Studies Department's expectations, and it is also intended to clarify for review committees outside the department the standards by which our interdisciplinary department evaluates the successes of our faculty members.
Faculty are evaluated on the basis of their accomplishments in the areas of Teaching, Research and/or Creative Activity, and Service. Each faculty member must develop a Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) which complies with the guidelines set forth in the University-level and college-level RTP Documents. Faculty are encouraged to seek advice and assistance from more senior colleagues regarding ways to meet these expectations.
The Department expects the WPAF to demonstrate active engagement of the faculty member in their role as a university professor. This may be shown in a variety of ways, depending upon the interests and strengths of the faculty member, the faculty member’s rank and experience, and the needs of the Department, College, University, and community. Nonetheless, each faculty member is expected to be actively engaged in each of the three RTP evaluation areas. Review committees at all levels will assess the quality and quantity of achievement based only on information provided in the WPAF.
Although the areas of evaluation are the same for all levels, expectations differ for assistant, associate, and full professors. Retention recommendations will be based on evaluation of potential and accomplishments of the faculty member in the three areas. Tenure and promotion recommendations will be based upon evaluations of the overall record of the faculty member in the three areas during the review period. Faculty members' accomplishments that were part of the record at the time of hiring or prior promotion are not relevant to subsequent evaluations except as evidence of performance continuity, unless service credit was awarded at hiring. At every review, probationary faculty in tenure-track lines should be able to clearly demonstrate their progress toward the standards for tenure and promotion, as described below. Additionally, faculty are expected to respond explicitly in subsequent WPAFs to feedback offered in prior reviews when submitting the file for subsequent evaluations.
One of the strengths of our interdisciplinary community is a rich variety of intellectual traditions, pedagogies, and methods, from humanities, arts, and social science traditions. It is the responsibility of each faculty member under review to describe their activities in language that is clear and accessible to those outside their field of study, and to minimize, where possible, jargon or terminology that is highly specialized. If such jargon cannot be avoided, the faculty member under review should explain the meaning of the terminology used.
Global Studies values the unique contributions that are made by joint appointments. The Department has several joint appointments and may continue this practice into the foreseeable future. Faculty with joint appointments must include in their WPAF a copy of the MOU describing the terms of their joint appointment.
Recognition must be made in all evaluations that joint appointments are designed to satisfy the needs of both units in accordance with the MOU between the two units. The faculty member is only expected to meet the standards of each unit related to the percentage of the appointment in that unit. The Global Studies Department is committed to collaboration and working with other departments/units on campus, and assisting faculty in meeting the requirements of their appointments. Faculty should clearly explain in their narrative the percentage of their appointment designated to each unit and how their contributions meet those requirements.
II. STANDARDS FOR TEACHING
Faculty in the Global Studies department place high value on the design, delivery, and maintenance of high quality and challenging learning environments, as well as on academic freedom, course innovation, and student engagement. All faculty in the department are expected to maintain the quality of their courses and, as feasible, they are encouraged to develop new courses to assist with the delivery of the Global Studies curriculum. All faculty are expected to demonstrate effective teaching, per section 3 below. Effective teaching is multifaceted. Some of the practices and attributes that characterize effective college teaching include the possession and continuing development of discipline-specific and pedagogical knowledge; the development of pedagogical approaches that incorporate interdisciplinary as appropriate; the use of varied instructional techniques; the planning, implementing, assessing, and revising of pedagogies to achieve learning objectives; and the reflection on feedback (e.g. student evaluations; WPAF review letters).
A faculty member’s narrative must connect their teaching philosophy to activities within particular courses. The reflective statement should make clear how particular items in the WPAF serve as evidence of teaching effectiveness and demonstrate the nature and evolution of pedagogical practices. We recognize the importance of experimentation and the labor involved in constructing, employing, assessing and modifying curriculum. The faculty member under review should interpret qualitative and/or quantitative evaluations in order to provide the greatest insight into their teaching effectiveness.
B. Teaching Expectations:
1. Workload: While the number of courses offered by a faculty member may vary, all faculty are expected to teach courses on a regular basis and to teach courses that serve the needs of the department. In cases of a joint appointment, the MOU will be taken into consideration.
2. Pedagogy: Faculty are encouraged to develop a range of pedagogical strategies to reach various learners and to increase interaction with and among students on an ongoing basis. Faculty are encouraged to utilize the Faculty Center to enhance their pedagogical practices, where appropriate.
3. Teaching expectations across the career path: While the department generally holds the same expectations for all faculty, regardless of rank, in the area of teaching, each level of review may see different developmental stages in a career.
a. Probationary Period:
i. The Department expects probationary faculty to engage in frank, critical self-reflection
about pedagogy and to embrace a process of development and improvement.
ii. We expect faculty to enhance and expand the curriculum in the Department, where appropriate.
b. Promotion to Associate Professor, Promotion to Full Professor, Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty:
i. We expect a record of continued contributions to curriculum development that demonstrates
a strong understanding of the needs of the Department and various student constituencies.
ii. We expect a sustained and ongoing commitment to best pedagogical practices.
C. Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness:
1. Teaching Philosophy: It is incumbent upon all faculty to define their teaching style and link it to an overarching pedagogical philosophy in their narrative statement. Faculty under review should provide additional detail about their classroom strategies and teaching style beyond their teaching evaluations and student comments.
2. Syllabi: The file shall include representative syllabi from courses taught during the period under review. Syllabi should conform to university syllabus guidelines.
3. Student Evaluations: Student evaluations for all courses taught during the period under review shall be included in the file. Both the course evaluations and the comparison report will be included in the WPAF. It is expected that faculty will discuss in their narrative statements how their pedagogy is evolving in light of the patterns and trends apparent in their course evaluations. However, course evaluations are only one piece of evidence of teaching success.
4. Classroom Observation: Faculty may request a peer evaluation of their teaching and the written assessment may be included as evidence in the WPAF.
5. Other Evidence: In order to demonstrate teaching effectiveness, evidence beyond the required elements described above must be included and discussed in the WPAF. Examples of such evidence include, but are not limited to:Samples of graded assignments, papers, and/or exams (with student name removed)
• Samples of assignments, online discussions, papers, and activities
• Examples of assessment techniques and rubrics;
• Lecture outlines, handouts and/or slides;
• Additional classroom observations;
• Effective use of guest speakers, videos, performance, field trips, etc.
• Examples of changes made in pedagogy based on feedback, assessment, additional training, etc.;
• Participation in teaching-related workshops and/or training/professional development with evidence of how the new information was used in teaching;
• Student feedback other than in course evaluations;
• Teaching awards or nominations;
• Video or audio recording of teaching;
• Invited guest lecture
III. RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITY
Research/creative activities can take many forms in Global Studies. Global Studies is a relatively young discipline within the Academy in the United States and given the paucity of Ph.D. programs as of this date, the department recognizes that faculty members may choose to pursue research/creative activity in traditional disciplinary areas with a global emphasis in addition to taking advantge of expanding opportunties for scholarship/creative activity directly in the growing field of Global Studies. The forms of scholarship/creative activity may include, but are not limited to qualitative, quantitative, and applied scholarly research and creative activity conducted both individually and collaboratively.
These activities may be disseminated in print or in digital form and may be produced for the scholarly and policy communities as well as for the general public. The department particularly values scholarly activity which includes student and/or public engagement.
In the realm of scholarship, the Department holds three primary expectations of its faculty at all ranks: 1) a clear research agenda leading to 2) sustained, effective scholarly results and 3) significance to each faculty member’s respective area of study.
A. Assessment of Scholarly Research/ Creative Activities
1. General Standards
Candidates will be assessed on the quality of the evidence provided, the evidence of sustained scholarship and a research plan that extends beyond the period under review, and the totality of their work, as defined in paragraph 1 of this section (D. Research/Creative Activity). A variety of types of work must be provided including peer reviewed publication. The candidate’s body of work will be evaluated holistically, as described above. In all cases, the scholarly reputation of the dissemination venue (e.g., journal or publisher) and/or meeting will be considered when evaluating the contribution.
2. Tenure and/or Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
a. At least three items (or equivalent, as demonstrated by the candidate in the file, and explained in the narrative) from Category A
b. At least three items (or equivalent, as demonstrated by the candidate in the file, and explained in the narrative) from Category B
3. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor*
a. At least three items (or equivalent, as demonstrated by the candidate in the file,
and explained in the narrative) from Category A
b. At least three items (or equivalent, as demonstrated by the candidate in the file, and explained in the narrative) from Category B
*Only items not considered in the last promotion may be considered.
4. When multiple authors are present on scholarly research and creative activities, candidates shall specify their role in, describe their contributions to and note the conventions of their field for determining the order in which authors are listed on the final product.
5. Research and Teaching: Effective teaching is multifaceted. Some of the practices and attributes that characterize effective college/university teaching include the continuing development of discipline-specific knowledge and research. The statement on teaching should address the relationship between teaching and candidate’s discipline-specific research.
6. As Global Studies develops as its own discipline in the Academy, departmental faculty face the challenge of being members of an interdisciplinary department that still bears many hallmarks of a multidisciplinary one, where fundamental aspects of a given discipline might not be evident to another department member. As such, it is incumbent upon each candidate to write about their disciplinary interests as though readers are not practitioners of their discipline.
B. Areas of Achievement
The PRC’s evaluation of scholarly research/creative activities will focus on understanding the contribution, benefit, and impact of the candidate’s work on the field. The candidate should explicitly present their research plan, including their short- and long-term goals. The candidate’s research productivity will be evaluated by holistic or comprehensive consideration of the candidates’ reflective statement, scholarly work, and selected items that candidates believe best reflects their progress, as described in the University RTP document and further illustrated below. Candidates will demonstrate effective scholarly effort by identifying and providing evidence of both major scholarly achievements (Category A), and additional achievements (Category B).
Category A: Major achievements – these are not listed in any order that implies preference for a particular kind of achievement or the superiority of any listed type of achievement over another.
1. Peer-reviewed journal articles on which a faculty member’s contribution was substantial, and which are published or accepted for publication. The narrative should explain the contributions of the candidate and significance of the publication.
2. Peer-reviewed book chapters published or accepted for publication to which the candidate’s contribution was substantial. The narrative should explain the contributions of the candidate and significance of the publication.
3. Papers published in refereed proceedings. Candidate should demonstrate the significance of the conference and its published proceedings to their discipline.
4. Scholarly monographs authored or edited by the faculty member. The narrative should explain the contributions of the candidate and significance of the publication.
5. Digital Media projects in which the faculty member’s contribution was substantial. The narrative should not only explain the relevance and contribution of the project to the discipline but, given the still evolving nature of digital scholarship, should also (to the extent possible) explain the project’s subject in terms of the traditional approaches to scholarship in the discipline.
6. Publication or performance of a creative work where the faculty member’s expertise in an artistic or performance-based discipline is directly related to their faculty appointment in Global Studies.
7. Successful external funded major grant.
8. Publication of a comprehensive textbook, anthology or source-book that synthesizes scholarship in the field. The narrative should explain the contribution of the candidate and significance of the publication.
9. Publication of a policy study or working paper by a recognized national or international organization, foundation or institute. The narrative should explain the relationship of the candidate with organization, their contribution and the significance of the publication.
Comment regarding major achievements: The Department recognizes that in many academic disciplines or fields the value of a single published scholarly book or monograph is considered to be of equal or greater significance than the standard of three items established here. It is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to clarify the value of the book and their contribution to the book (as in the case of co-authorship.).
We recognize that other items may be considered major scholarly achievements or that an item from the list above should, in some cases, be considered as having greater weight in the candidate’s scholarly profile than other achievements. In these cases, it is expected that the faculty member will provide evidence and arguments that make the case that an item belongs in this category. We suggest that the faculty member consult with senior faculty in the Department of Global Studies if there are questions about the most appropriate category for an item.
Category B: May include, but is not limited to:
1. Papers published in proceedings
2. Presentations at professional meetings
3. Editor-reviewed articles published in journals, newspapers, magazines, and other media
4. Published book reviews
5. Session discussant at a professional meeting
6. Invited keynote or speaker at a professional meeting
7. Special recognition and awards for research/creative activities
8. Funded regional or internal grants for scholarly research/creative activity work (e.g., local organizations, University Professional Development, etc.)
9. Self-published books (related to candidate’s field of study)
10. Workshop leader at scholarly or professional meeting (e.g. NEH summer seminar)
11. Unfunded peer reviewed external grants for scholarly research/creative activity work
12. Submitted papers
13. Sponsored or contract research
14. Technical reports
Comment about other scholarly/creative achievements: We recognize that other items not explicitly included in Categories A or B may be considered scholarly achievements. In these cases it is expected that the faculty member will provide evidence and arguments that make the case that an item belongs in this category. We suggest that the faculty member consult with senior faculty in Global Studies if there are questions about the most appropriate category for an item.
A. Service and Participation
Service activities are highly valued and are an essential component of retention, tenure and promotion evaluations. In addition to routine service (as defined below) that is required by each tenure-track faculty member, we expect that all faculty will participate in further service that is impactful and meaningful. The college has a strong tradition of faculty governance, which requires ongoing participation by a wide range of faculty; this means that faculty should plan to be active participants, which includes attending all-faculty meetings and becoming involved in governance committees at all levels.
Assistant Professors are encouraged to concentrate on departmental level service during their first two years at the university. In the third year of the probationary period, Assistant Professors are encouraged to begin engaging in service at the college or university level; however, Assistant Professors should avoid taking on heavy service commitments (e.g., chairing shared governance committees, serving as a program coordinator/director) that could limit their success in meeting standards for tenure in teaching and research. By the time that a candidate for tenure submits their file it is expected that they will have completed at least two years of college- or university-level service.
Associate Professors are expected to perform levels of departmental and college/university service greater than during their probationary period as Assistant Professors. Associate Professors are encouraged to engage in service leadership roles (e.g., chairing college- and university-level committees) in support of college- and/or university-level shared governance.
Full Professors are expected to continue performing regular departmental and college/university service. Full Professors are also expected to perform major service responsibilities for which only Full Professors are eligible (e.g., Promotion and Tenure Committee), or are strongly encouraged (e.g., Department Chair).
Documentation of service should be accompanied by a discussion in the narrative of the impact of the service on the Department, College, University, community, or profession. A narrative of service impact may include a description of the nature of the work, the roles played on committees, and the outcomes of the work. Faculty should convey how the service activity is making a difference on campus, in the community, and/or in the profession. Please see point #3 below for further guidance on documentation about service.
B. Levels of Engagement – Routine and Major Service Activities
Service activities should reflect increasing levels of engagement throughout the candidate’s career trajectory. The Department values service which coheres with candidates’ broader goals and visions across the career trajectory, and which feeds into and supports candidates’ teaching and research goals. The narrative should be used to explicate the service philosophy and to show these links. The narrative should also include discussion and evidence of service at the routine and major service levels (described below).
1. Routine service: Routine service is significant and expected of every tenure track faculty member regardless of commitments outside of the Department or University. Global Studies faculty are expected to participate in routine service as part of their standard workload (15 WTUs, three of which are for routine service). Faculty who are not teaching due to grant work or outside service commitments are still expected to routinely participate in Department activities (unless on sabbatical or other professional leave). On occasion, routine service might be considered more major service. For example, work on the Department curriculum committee may be quite extensive one year; that would not be considered routine service. It is up to the individual to explain the impact and importance of the service. The following tasks are considered routine service in the Department and are expected of all faculty throughout their careers. Performance of routine service alone does not meet the requirements for retention, tenure, or promotion:
• Attendance at Department meetings
• Attendance at Departmental retreats
• General academic advising
• General mentoring of junior and PT faculty
• Ongoing curriculum maintenance (e.g., catalogue review, updating courses, etc.)
• Participating in regular program assessment activities
• Participating in the program review process
• Participating in tenure-track search process (not a search committee member)
• Attendance at the department graduation celebration
• Attendance at the annual University commencement ceremony
• Other activities may also count as routine service
2. Major service: These activities are expected of tenure-track faculty members but are typically above and beyond routine service. Over time, service activity should be at the department, college and University or community levels, but may vary depending on the year and the faculty members’ commitments and interests. It is expected that tenure-track faculty will take increasing leadership within these activities as they progress in their career. Examples of major service include but are not limited to:
a. Department level
• Department chair
• PRC membership
• Search committee membership
• Program or curriculum development beyond routine changes
• Developing a major new departmental initiative
• Assessment Coordinator
• Peer classroom evaluations
• Program review activities beyond basic assessment activities
• Website maintenance
• Coordinating the graduation celebration
• Social media coordinator
• Student club advisor
• Other activities may count as major department service
b. College/University level:
• Chair or member of College or Academic Senate committee (e.g., FDC, CAPC, HAPC,
FAC, APC, UCC, etc.), including Executive Committee roles
• Chair of the College Faculty
• Task force participation
• Faculty Mentoring Program participant
• Special event chair (e.g., organizing a conference)
• Serving as external member on thesis committee
• Serving as external member on faculty review committees (e.g.., PTPE, Full Professor), or administrator review committees
• Chairing a search committee
• Serving on a search committee outside of home department
• Development of Extended Learning or other non-departmental curriculum
• Other activities may count as major College/University service
c. Community/Professional Service level:
• Speaker, community event
• Reviewer for journals, conferences, grants
• Professional presentations to university or community organizations
• Officer or committee member professional society
• Journal editor
• Board member of a journal
• Board member of an organization
• Other activities may count as major Community/Professional service
C. Importance of Narrative and Supporting Evidence
The most important articulation of the scope and goals of a candidate’s service activities takes place in the narrative. Candidates can provide supporting evidence which further demonstrates their service commitment in a number of ways, which may include the following:
• Committee reports where the candidate was a significant contributor
• Handouts/slides/notes from presentations
• Programs/event handouts from events which the candidate planned/helped to plan
• Copies of reviews
• Curricular forms
• Other documentation may count as an item to show significant participation in service activities