Post-tenure Review
Department of Psychology
College of Liberal Arts
University of Minnesota
Original document approved December 13, 1999
Changes made October 12, 2000, November 6, 2000, May 7, 2001
Changes Approved by Faculty May 7, 2001
PROCEDURES STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 7a.2 AND 7a3 OF THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING FACULTY TENURE
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
This document is an implementation of Sections 7a.2 and 7a.3 of the University of Minnesota's Regulations Concerning Faculty tenure (September 12, 1997) (hereafter Tenure Regulations) as required by the Rules and Procedures for Annual and Special Post-tenure review approved by the Tenure Subcommittee January 5, 1998 and revised by the tenure Subcommittee March 5, 1998. For a complete perspective, the reader is advised to review Section 7a of the Tenure Regulations in its entirety. This document (Goals and Expectations for Tenured Faculty and Post-tenure Review Procedures) was approved as an addendum to the Department of Psychology's Statement of Standards for Promotion and Tenure by the faculty of the Department of Psychology on December 13,1999.
II. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE
The primary purpose of post-tenure review is to build a stronger department by helping tenured faculty meet department goals and expectations for research, teaching, and service. Care must be taken to ensure that post-tenure review not be used to attack or erode standards of academic freedom. By emphasizing the importance of faculty involvement in the post-tenure review process, the Department of Psychology hopes to safeguard the standards of academic freedom.
III. GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS FOR TENURED FACULTY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
The Department of Psychology's Goals and expectations for tenured faculty are based upon standards for research, teaching and service given in the department's Statement of Standards for Tenure and Promotion. Specifically, tenured faculty are expected to contribute to the Department's mission in research, teaching and service. To support the Department's commitment to flexibility, however, there must be some allowance for individual variation across faculty, whereby at times exceptional contributions in one domain would compensate for failure to meet expectations in another. Differences among faculty in the their contributions across these three areas could reflect a stage of professional development, as well as the unique talents or skills of individual faculty. The Goals and Expectations in each of the three areas are as follows:
1. RESEARCH
Faculty members are expected to achieve excellence in their scholarship and to maintain an active ongoing program of independent research. An important indicator of research productivity is publication in peer-reviewed journals. Although excellence of scholarship is more important than the absolute number of publications, faculty members' research productivity is expected to be "substantial" by the standards of that area. Research excellence will be judged by substantive content of research publications, the originality of the research, the impact and recognition of the work, and the prominence of the journal or series in which it appears. Research productivity and excellence will also be evaluated by: books (as author or editor), book chapters, scholarly presentations, scholarly awards, and research grants or contracts. Achievement of recognition in the field on the basis of scholarship (as indicated by, for example, editorships and memberships on national research advisory committees) is also taken into consideration.
2. TEACHING
Faculty members shall demonstrate continued success in the teaching of both undergraduAugust 13, 2007, responsible handling of teaching duties, and success in advising graduate student research. Effectiveness will be evaluated by: number and progress of graduate student advisees, service on graduate student examining committees, review of courses taught at the graduate and undergraduate level, teaching awards and grants, number and progress of undergraduate advisees, textbooks published, and student course ratings and evaluations.
3. SERVICE
Faculty members are expected to be involved in service to their discipline, the profession, and the university, college or department, as appropriate. Service contributions include committee work, holding office in the department, college, university, and profession, editorial activities, grant review, and other professional service to the discipline.
IV.POST-TENURE REVIEW PROCEDURES
1. Annual Review:
In conjunction with annual reviews for merit increases, the Chair of the Department of Psychology will identify tenured faculty members who the Chair judges to be substantially and consistently below departmental expectations as indicated by an overall evaluation of the faculty member's research, teaching, and service contributions over the previous three years. The Chair will communicate this evaluation along with supporting documents (e.g., Faculty Activity Report, Curriculum Vitae) in confidence to the tenured members of the Department's elected Executive Committee. If a majority of the tenured elected members of the Executive Committee concur with the Chair's evaluation, then the Chair will provide each faculty member so identified with a summary, in writing and in a meeting, of the specific performance deficiencies that led to the negative evaluation. At this time, the identified faculty member may respond orally and in writing to the Chair. If the Executive Committee includes less than 3 tenured faculty, a special committee will be constituted for the purpose of this evaluation. It will consist of the tenured faculty from the current and immediately previous Executive Committees.
2. Plan to Improve Performance:
The Chair will explore with the faculty member ways to improve his or her performance. This may involve a temporary reallocation of effort across research, teaching and service. The Chair and faculty member will meet annually for the next three years to review progress and reassess strategies for improving productivity.
Referral for Special Review: If at the end of the three-year period, the designated faculty member is still judged by the Chair and a majority of the tenured members of the Executive Committee to be substantially and consistently below departmental goals and expectations for a tenured faculty member, then the case will be referred for discussion and vote by all department faculty at the full professor rank. If at least 2/3rds of the eligible voting Full Professors concur with the judgment that the faculty member's performance is substantially and consistently below department's goals and expectations, then the case will be referred to the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts for "special review." This referral will include a letter from the Chair summarizing the case along with all relevant votes and supporting documents. The special review will be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in Rules and Procedures for Annual and Special Post-Tenure Review approved by the Tenure Sub-committee January 5, 1998 and revised by the Tenure Sub-committee March 5, 1998.