Faculty Evaluation Plan, Department of Sociology
To articulate the standards and procedures for the annual evaluation of faculty within the Department of Sociology.
Faculty within the Department of Sociology
The faculty of the Department of Sociology at the University of Kansas is expected to demonstrate commitment to effective teaching, advising, and mentoring both in the classroom and with individual undergraduate and graduate students; to engage in professional research; and to provide service to the Department, College, and University, to local, national, and international communities, and/or to disciplinary and interdisciplinary organizations, and to work in a collegial and professional manner with Department colleagues, staff, and students.
Statement of Performance Expectations
Below are the general expectations for performance for Sociology Department faculty in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Departmental allocation of effort follows College and University guidelines which are: 40% teaching/advising, 40% research, 20% service.
Members of the faculty are expected to teach four courses during the academic year. Since the Department has a number of required classes and is expected to support multiple College-wide programs that require commitments on the part of the Department, all faculty must be willing to contribute to these efforts. For each course, faculty members are expected to supply students with a syllabus indicating the requirements for the course, a reading list, assignments, and other pertinent information, including the faculty members' office hours. Faculty members are expected to meet and conduct each class; or to make other arrangements when certain professional duties prevent their attendance. In rare cases, it may be necessary to cancel a particular class meeting, but this should be an infrequent exception (e.g., in the event of illness). Advising and mentoring are also central teaching activities in the Department of Sociology. Every faculty member is expected to maintain regular, posted office hours each week in accordance with established departmental standards. Undergraduate advising and mentoring may include counseling students enrolled in courses taught by the faculty member, students who are making enrollment decisions, and students majoring in Sociology. Teaching may involve supervising students enrolled in internships and/or students who are working on research projects and honors theses.
The Department expects faculty members to serve on Master’s and Ph.D. level committees and Ph.D. dissertation committees, and to engage regularly in mentoring and graduate advising. The Department also encourages faculty members to offer independent studies/readings courses when appropriate.
All faculty members are expected to engage in scholarly research and/or to disseminate scholarly findings. Every scholar has a responsibility to transmit findings and conclusions to colleagues and/or to the public at large. Journal articles, books, book chapters, internal and external grants, scholarly presentations, reviews, and workshops are typical means to disseminate scholarly work. The weighting of these activities is dependent upon a variety of factors such as the nature and quality of the scholarly activity, the goals of the faculty member, and the stage of career development.
All faculty members are expected to carry out service duties necessary to facilitate the efficient operation of the Department of Sociology. Such service may entail membership on standing departmental committees, such as the Graduate Studies Committee, Undergraduate Studies Committee, Personnel Committee, Executive Committee, and Colloquium and Communications Committee. Faculty members may also provide service at the College and University levels, at regional, national, and international professional levels, or in the community.
2.Standards for Acceptable Performance for Faculty Members
We recognize that faculty members in the Department of Sociology have different strengths and goals and that these may vary at different points in their careers. All faculty performance evaluations are made in the context of a three calendar year window of evaluation. Below is a statement of the acceptable (minimum) level of performance that meets faculty academic responsibilities in teaching/advising, research, and service.
For each course assigned to the faculty member: 1) Meets and conducts all classes unless excused for reasons of illness, emergency, or professional duties; 2) provides a syllabus for each class indicating the requirements for the course, a reading list, assignments, and other pertinent information, including faculty member's office hours; 3) is available for undergraduate and graduate student advising and mentoring; 4) receives at least a 2.5 overall average on items 1-9 on the Student Survey of Teaching form for each course taught (Appendix A); and 5) accumulates at least 80 points on the Annual Activities Report Form (Appendix B) in the area of teaching activity. Any annual evaluation on teaching activity which fails to meet all five of these minimum requirements will signal a significant weakness in performance in that area.
Demonstrates evidence of scholarly activity such as some combination of: 1) publication or acceptance for publication of journal articles, book chapters, books, or reviews; 2) presentations at professional conferences; 3) submission of grant applications; 4) submission of articles, book chapters, or book manuscripts for publication review. A faculty member must accumulate at least 80 points on the Annual Activities Report Form (Appendix B) in the area of research. Any annual evaluation on research activity which falls below 80 points will signal a significant weakness in performance in that area.
Serves regularly on departmental committees and provides service at the College, University, and community, regional, national, or international level. Examples of such service might include, but are not limited to, College or University committees, University Governance, community or professional committees, reviewing professional manuscripts or grant applications, serving as editors or on editorial boards, organizing sessions for professional meetings, serving on committees or holding office in professional associations. Any annual evaluation in service activity that falls below 20 points for Assistant Professors and 30 points for Associate and Fulls will signal a significant weakness in performance in that area and may result in the creation of a Performance Improvement Plan.
If it is determined during the course of the Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation that the faculty member has failed to meet the minimum acceptable level of performance expectations in any one area of teaching/advising, research, and service (as described above) then the Department Chair and the individual faculty member will work together to develop a specific plan for improving performance in areas of weakness over the next calendar year. Such a plan will include a review of the performance expectation, a clear statement of the areas needing improvement, identification of the support and resources that will be provided to assist in meeting the expectations, a specific time frame for the evidence of improvement, and possible consequences if performance standards are not met. Three consecutive years of failure in any one area constitutes a sustained failure to meet the minimum acceptable level of performance.
3.Differential Allocation of Effort
The Department of Sociology expects faculty to devote equal attention to teaching and research. When evaluating faculty performance, the department applies the weights of 40 percent for teaching, 40 percent for research, and 20 percent for service to the university, profession and community. These weights are the same for tenured and non-tenured faculty, although the department recognizes that the specific contributions of faculty members to the department’s mission will differ depending on career stage.
Changes in the standards 40/40/20 allocation of effort for a set period of time can be initiated by the tenured faculty member or department chair. These changes can be short- or long-term and must correspond to changes in work-load not just evaluation criteria. Reasons for alterations can include short term items such as funded research or longer term career-stage issues. Faculty members are not allowed to reduce their teaching or research to less than 10 percent on permanent DAE agreements. Departmental needs take precedent over individual needs when making decisions to alter a faculty member’s allocation of effort; such redistribution must be consistent with the best interests of the unit. The most likely occasion for consideration of such changes is in discussion between the chair and the individual faculty member following annual performance evaluations, or sooner so that appropriate arrangements may be made at the unit level for the coverage of course offerings. Any individualized changes in faculty allocation of effort will be negotiated with the chair and documented in the faculty member's personnel file.
For short-term DAE agreements (one academic year or less), the DAE is ultimately approved by the unit director or chairperson, with a copy of this endorsement sent to the contact associate dean. For long-term DAE agreements (lasting one year or beyond), approval must also be sought from the appropriate contact dean in the college. All DAEs are reported annually to the College Dean’s Office. Agreements for long term DAEs must be reviewed every three years, although either the faculty member or chairperson/director may request an earlier review in response to changed circumstances or performance. At that time, the agreement may be revised, terminated, or continued.
The selection among these options should be made following the guidelines and process for approval of long-term DAEs contained in the University Policy on Differential Allocation of Effort (DAE).
Annual Evaluation System
Faculty members in the Department of Sociology vote each year to have the annual faculty evaluation conducted by the Department Chair or by an elected Faculty Performance Evaluation Committee. Each faculty member's portfolio is reviewed in the context of his or her work during the past three calendar years. As an outcome of the Faculty Performance Evaluation, faculty members are evaluated in terms of their relative excellence for purposes of merit salary allocation and whether or not they have met minimum acceptable performance standards.
Each Chair/committee uses a portfolio of information to conduct the annual review (see section B below). In January of each year, faculty members submit this portfolio for review, which is conducted early in the spring semester, and feedback on the performance evaluation is provided to the faculty member in writing by the end of March. Non-tenured members of the faculty are given a more extensive annual evaluation during their progress toward tenure review; this progress toward tenure review is conducted by the Department's Personnel Committee in consultation with the Chair. Any disagreements about the evaluation not resolved can be pursued by the faculty member as outlined below in Section E.
2.Portfolio or Annual Report Preparation
The portfolio provided by the faculty to the Chair/committee must include, but is not limited to, an updated curriculum vitae and an Annual Activities Report Form (AARF) (Appendix B) which assigns points for activities which reflect the Department’s expected distribution of effort of 40-40-20: teaching/advising, research, and service. (For faculty with partial appointments, points are proportionately assigned.) Faculty may submit any additional information that they deem relevant to their review.
3.Portfolio or Annual Report Review and Evaluation
The Chair/committee reviews and assesses the activities of each faculty member based on the Annual Activities Report Form and other material submitted in the portfolio. The AARF details the range of responsibilities and activities that each faculty member may participate in and is awarded evaluation points based on the quality, quantity, significance, and impact of the following variables:
The faculty member demonstrates evidence of teaching effectiveness and mentoring though multiple sources of information, including the “Student Survey of Teaching” data and comment sheets, peer reviews of their classroom teaching, but also by winning teaching awards, developing new courses, chairing and serving on graduate and undergraduate student committees, and mentoring students enrolled in independent study, thesis, or dissertation hours.
The faculty member demonstrates evidence of scholarly activity by the publication or acceptance for publication of journal articles, book chapters, books, or reviews, presentations at professional conferences, submission of grant applications, and submission of articles, book chapters, or book manuscripts for publication review. Copies of these publications and scholarly work in progress are also made available to the Department Chair/committee.
The faculty member demonstrates evidence of active service by their regular service on departmental committees and provides service at the College, University, and community, regional, national, or international level. Examples of such service might include, but are not limited to, College or University committees, University Governance, community or professional committees, reviewing professional manuscripts or grant applications, serving as editors or on editorial boards, organizing sessions for professional meetings, serving on committees or holding office in professional associations.
4.Annual Evaluation of Feedback Process
The Department Chair/committee reviews the portfolio material early in the spring semester and writes an evaluation letter which the faculty member receives by the end of March. The letter outlines the evaluation of the faculty member's performance in teaching and mentoring, research, and service, and indicating, depending on the faculty member involved, areas for praise and congratulation, areas that have been the successful focus of faculty development and improvement, any information on progress toward tenure and/or promotion reviews, or areas for continued development and improvement. Faculty members are invited to schedule a meeting with the Department Chair to discuss their evaluation and their plans for the upcoming year. A copy of the written evaluation is maintained in the faculty member’s personnel file.
Data gathered as part of the annual faculty evaluation process later becomes part of the basis for the allocation of merit salary funds by the Department Chair/committee.
5. Post-tenure Review and Integration into the Annual Evaluation Process
This section includes information for faculty members undergoing Post-tenure Review.
- For the Department of Sociology, the post-tenure review will be conducted separately from the annual evaluation, but the post-tenure review file is incorporated into the documentation for the annual evaluation.
- The Post-tenure Review committee will provide a copy of their report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the chair for his or her review. If the chair agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the post-tenure review file. If the chair disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee.
- Unit procedures for how Post Tenure Review will be integrated into the Annual Evaluation Process are outlined below in #6.
Additional information can be found in the Unit’s Post-tenure Review Policy.
6.Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation
The evaluation process of the Department of Sociology, seen in all its aspects, yields multiple outcomes. It acknowledges faculty accomplishments or shortcomings and makes them matters of record. It initiates discussions that influence the planning of both individual career development and unit evolution. It assists in the identification of opportunities for faculty improvement and renewal. It provides annual as well as cumulative data for merit-salary recommendations, sabbatical-leave and grant applications, tenure and promotion decisions, post-tenure review, and reassignments of responsibilities. And it provides documentation that may be used, at extremes, in support of either recognition or dismissal.
These strategies will be used to integrate the annual evaluation process and the following:
- Department and individual goals: When the faculty member meets with the Chair to discuss the most recent evaluation, a part of that discussion will be on the long range goals of the faculty member. Similarly, the Department Chair will discuss with the faculty member the long range goals and directions of the Department. Through this discussion, both the faculty member and the Department Chair can coordinate teaching, advising, research, and service to further both the individual's goals and those of the Department.
- Faculty renewal, and development, promotion & tenure, post-tenure review decisions: Although faculty renewal and development is an ongoing process, the annual evaluation process offers an opportunity for the Department and Chair to assist in faculty renewal and development. Outcomes of this discussion might include altering the faculty member's allocation of effort profile, or might involve encouraging and assisting a faculty member who is seeking outside funding for research, or might involve arranging for post-graduate specialized instruction in a methodology or content area. Of special importance is the mentoring of untenured faculty and those faculty members building a portfolio for promotion to Full Professor.
- Merit salary decisions: The faculty evaluation process is linked to the allocation of merit salary monies. Data gathered as part of the annual faculty evaluation process and the construction of faculty portfolios will become a part of the basis for the allocation of merit salary funds by the Department Chair/committee as described above. Merit points accumulated by the faculty member are entered into a quantitative formula that calculates each person’s proportional share of the merit pool allocated to the Department by the university.
Procedures for developing performance improvement plans
If the chair ascertains that a faculty member's performance seems to be failing to meet academic responsibilities, the administrator and the faculty member shall develop a written plan of methods to improve the faculty member's performance. The plan may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as campus opportunities for faculty continued renewal and development, or for other appropriate interventions. The chairperson may call upon the University administration for assistance in constructing such a plan, including provision for additional resources, where needed. A faculty member may reject any plan recommended to aid performance levels, but the faculty member must understand that a sustained overall failure to meet academic responsibilities is a basis for dismissal.
Procedures for addressing failure to meet academic responsibilities
Faculty members who wish to appeal their evaluation are encouraged first to discuss their disagreements with the Department Chair. The faculty may submit any additional information to the Department Chair/committee for this purpose of review.
If a faculty member has been informed that his/her performance fails to meet academic responsibilities, the faculty member may request a review by a faculty committee designated to hear such matters in the College. The review committee will issue a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion to the unit administrator. The administrator may change the evaluation after receiving the committee's decision, or may choose not to do so. In any event, the report of the committee will become a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel file within the academic unit and shall be available to the faculty member.
Department chairs shall consult annually with the dean, and the dean shall consult annually with the Provost on the progress of any faculty member who fails within this category of failure to meet academic responsibilities.
Sustained failure to meet performance expectations
Based upon the judgment that there has been a sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, the Dean may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed. In making this determination, the Dean shall consider the nature of the failure to meet academic responsibilities, the reason or reasons for this failure, the number of years that the faculty member has failed to meet academic responsibilities, the level of discernible improvement in the faculty member's performance after being notified of any failure in performance, and the extent to which the faculty member has complied with the terms of any plan developed to improve the faculty member's performance. The Provost will review the case and, if the Provost agrees with the Dean's recommendation, the Provost will recommend to the Chancellor that the faculty member be dismissed. If the Chancellor agrees and recommends dismissal, this recommendation will go to the Faculty Rights committee.
Should any recommendation to dismiss be brought against a tenured faculty member based exclusively or in part on grounds of sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, both the report(s) of the review committee(s), the annual written evaluation(s) of the unit administrator concerning the faculty member, any outside evaluations, and any germane written response by the faculty member to the charges shall be made available to the Faculty Rights Board.
7.Faculty Development Initiatives
The Department of Sociology encourages all faculty members to acquire knowledge and skills that allow faculty to grow professionally and to perform at a higher level of proficiency in research, teaching, and service/advising. All faculty members are encouraged to engage in developmental activities appropriate to the stage of their careers.
We assign two senior faculty mentors to each untenured staff member to offer guidance and experience in the areas of teaching, research, and service performance in an informal, confidential, and non-evaluative manner.
Within the Department, there are a variety of opportunities to improve research and teaching such as: sitting in on classes taught by Department colleagues, many of whom are award-winning teachers; consulting and collaborating with colleagues on new or ongoing research projects; presenting research and preliminary findings at the Department’s colloquia series for feedback; applying for support from instructional technology funds to purchase media devices or teaching materials; or participating in the editing of academic journals often housed in the Department.
Research Intensive Semesters (RIS): CLAS offers all junior faculty members in good standing a reduced teaching responsibility at some point during the faculty member’s pretenure employment. Faculty members will be released from classroom teaching duties for up to one semester, depending upon the relevant departmental teaching expectations, and will be expected to concentrate on research intensive activities. Faculty members are eligible for a research intensive semester assignment up to and including the spring semester before their publication dossiers are sent out to external reviewers in June, with the latest possible Research Intensive Semester (RIS) assignment typically being the second semester of the fifth year. Faculty members in good standing who have stopped their tenure clock remain eligible for a RIS assignment. The actual decision of which year/semester the individual is assigned a research intensive semester will be made in consultation with the department chair. Note that paid leaves and fellowships do not take the place of a RIS. Once the unit director approves the RIS for the junior faculty member, the details concerning the RIS should be confirmed to the faculty member in writing and documented in their personnel file. The unit director also provides a copy of this authorization to the College Dean’s Office so that RIS data can be tracked. Faculty members who are granted a RIS are expected to continue to meet their usual duties regarding departmental advising and other service activities.
In an effort to support Associate Professors seeking promotion to Full Professor, the Personnel Committee, in coordination with the Department Chair, encourages a Mid-Career Promotion Planning process. This suggested planning process is to facilitate ongoing, intentional career development with a goal of promotion to Full Professor. Recommended steps:
- In the fall following promotion to Associate Professor, faculty will be invited to participate in a promotion planning process.
- Those who wish to participate will work with the Personnel Committee to identify a committee member to coordinate the faculty member’s promotion plans and to decide whether to include other faculty members, inside or outside the department, in developing a promotion strategy.
- As a first step, the faculty member will be encouraged to consider the topics included in the “Reflection and Assessment” (see below). These can serve as the basis for beginning the planning discussion.
- In the fall of subsequent years, the coordinator will ask to meet with the faculty member to assist in ongoing promotion planning.
Suggested Topics for “Reflection and Assessment”
Articulate Career Goals: What do you want your next several years to look like? What are the specific research, teaching, and service goals you would like to achieve? Be realistic, but don’t be modest! Think about a timeline.
Identify the Promotion Criteria in your department/unit and College; attend any Faculty Forum offered by CLAS/KU. Compare your understanding of the promotion criteria with your mentors, members of the Personnel Committee, and department chair.
Conduct a Self-Assessment and identify strengths, barriers, and needs: What works in your professional life (e.g., what you enjoy, feel competent at, would like to pursue), what does not seem to be working and might be keeping you from achieving your goals (e.g., what you do not like doing, takes up too much time, detracts from your goals), and what you need to succeed (e.g., change in teaching or committee assignments, support or feedback on teaching or research).
Design a Mid-Career Development Plan: Sketch a broad outline of how and when you will position yourself to be promoted to Full Professor. It should include specific strategies for how you will address the issues raised in #3.
Meet with Personnel Committee Coordinator: Review and discuss the above with your coordinator. Identify other faculty members, inside or outside the department, whom you might invite to assist you in the planning process.
Implement the Plan: Put your plan into effect. The Personnel Committee Coordinator will ask to meet with you annually in subsequent years to revisit your plans and assist in updating your strategy for promotion.
See Faculty Development Programs for information about additional faculty development opportunities.
Appendix A – Student Evaluation of Teaching
Instrument(s) used in the evaluation of student teaching: the Department of Sociology utilizes the University’s “Student Survey of Teaching” form as this instrument. In addition, the department utilizes a “Comment Sheet.” The department has voted to use these comments in the evaluation process.
Department of Sociology Comment Sheet
Instructor Course Title
Instructors incorporate multiple strategies in designing a course, including readings, assignments, lectures, discussion, in-class exercises, films, and so on. Thinking of the strategies this instructor used:
Which seemed most effective in promoting your learning? Which seemed least effective in promoting your learning? Additional Comments:
Appendix B – ANNUAL ACTIVITIES REPORT FORM
ANNUAL ACTIVITIES REPORT FORM
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY1
CALENDAR YEAR 20XX
RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP2
80 points for research book or monograph published (add 10-point premium for university press)
50 points for “major” peer-reviewed article published (add 20-point premium for “top-tier” outlet; evidence for this distinction may include an ASA sponsored journal or top disciplinary association, the ISI Impact Factor ranking of journal, Google Scholar Metrics, etc.).
50 points for edited book published
40 points for published chapter/article in edited volume (peer-reviewed; not just by editor)
30 points for published chapter/article in edited volume (non-peer reviewed)
30 points for an encyclopedia entry or handbook contribution of more than 8,000 words
30 points for published textbook
20 points for review-essay (multiple books) in Contemporary Sociology or top interdisciplinary book review journal
20 points for an encyclopedia entry or handbook contribution 5,000 to 8,000 words
20 points for revised edition of monograph (case can be made regarding the % of work revised)
15 points for review-essays in journals other than Contemporary Sociology or equivalent
15 points for revised edition of textbook or edited volume
10 points for an encyclopedia entry or sociology handbook contribution of 2,000 to 5,000 words
10 additional points for article or chapter with student co-author
10 points for regular book review
10 points for a substantial final grant report (or equivalent grant-related outcome) prepared (indicate length)
10 points per new completed chapter of an in-progress book
5 points per new completed chapter of an in-progress textbook
5 points for article reprinted in an edited volume
10 points for any book or article accepted for publication
5 points for a book proposal accepted by a publisher
2 points for book review accepted for publication
5 points for any book submitted for publisher's review
10 points for any article or book chapter submitted for publication or revised and resubmitted
10 points for paper presented at ASA or top interdisciplinary meeting
8 points for paper presented at other national or international meeting
5 points for paper presented at regional meeting or invited presentation at another university (e.g., colloquium)
5 points for invited non-course-related presentation on campus (excludes presentations as guest lecturer in another faculty member's course which are included under teaching; professional presentations to the community are included under service)
3 points for invited presentation off-campus at local professional-level forum
20 points for book or article award
30 points for overall research award
60 points for external grant or fellowship awarded ($50,000+) for first year; 30 points each year thereafter for multi-year grants
40 points for external grant or fellowship awarded ($10,000-$50,000)
20 points for any other external grant or fellowship awarded (under $10,000)
10 points for GRF or other internally funded grant, fellowship or sabbatical awarded
30 points for external grant or fellowship submitted ($50,000+)
20 points for external grant or fellowship submitted (funding $10,000-$50,000
10 points for any other external grant or fellowship submitted (under $10,000)
5 points for GRF or other internally funded grant, fellowship, or sabbatical submitted
5 points for each student supported 1/4-time or less per semester or summer (2 semester @1/2-time - 20 points)
5 points for a letter of intent (LoI) submitted seeking invitation to submit a full grant proposal
2 points for participation in professional development activities, including attendance at professional meetings or attending research or technical workshops
60 points for teaching your normal course load and engaging in student advisement
50 points for dissertation chair of completed Ph.D. dissertation
20 points for committee membership of completed Ph.D. dissertation
20 points for chair of Ph.D. Oral Comprehensive Exam
10 points for participation in Ph.D. Oral Comprehensive Exam
25 points for chair of area specialization dossier with critical review essay
10 points for committee membership of area specialization dossier with critical review essay, or written preliminary examinations in other Ph.D. programs.
15 points for chair of area specialization dossier
5 points for committee membership on area specialization dossier
20 points for chair of completed M.A. thesis
10 points for chair of completed terminal M.A. committee
5 points for committee membership on completed M.A. thesis or completed terminal M.A.
10 points for chair of completed undergraduate Honors thesis
5 points for committee membership on completed undergrad Honors thesis
10 points for teaching required course (undergrad or grad)
10 points for overall (average of item 1-9) student feedback score exceeding 4.8 for graduate seminar, 4.5 for upper division course, and 4.0 for lower division course
10 points for complete teaching portfolio demonstrating student learning in each class
20 points for teaching a class with more than 75 students
20 points for developing new course
5 points for teaching core course
5 points for teaching development activity (i.e., ASA teaching workshop)
2 points for each student enrolled in independent study, thesis, or dissertation hours course, athletic advisor, mentor, McNair and University Scholar, etc. (please list only those seen 2 or more times per semester)
2 points for presentations as guest lecturer in a KU faculty member's class
30 points for teaching award
20 points for student-related recognition or awards (other than teaching)
10 points for nomination for teaching or other student-related awards
20 points for Associate Department chair, Director of Graduate Studies Committee, Director of Undergraduate Studies Committee
30 points for Chair of Personnel Committee (currently no administrative supplement attached)
10 points for work on any departmental or university committee (5 points per semester)
10 points for supervision of teaching seminar
5 points for Executive Committee membership
15 points for serving as Director of a KU Research Center or an interdisciplinary or honors program
2 points for serving as an associated or affiliated faculty member of an interdisciplinary or honors program
2 extra points for each one-time departmental or university service activity
30 points for presidency of a national sociological association (ASA, SSSP, SSSI, etc.), or, of the top interdisciplinary or international journal in your field
25 points for presidency of a regional sociological, interdisciplinary, internationalist, or specialty association
25 points for serving as the program chair for a major annual meeting
10 points for vice presidency, secretary, or treasurer of a national sociological, interdisciplinary, internationalist, or specialty association
10 points for outside promotion and tenure review
10 points for review of another department
10 points for ASA Section Chair
7 points for membership on a committee or council of a national or international sociological or specialty association
5 points for vice presidency, secretary, treasurer, or state director of a regional sociological, interdisciplinary, internationalist, or specialty association
5 points for member of a committee, council, or other office in a regional association
5 points for committee chair for any professional association
5 points for session organizer or discussant at ASA meetings
5 points for session organizer or discussant at other professional meetings
50 points for editorship of AJS or of an ASA journal, or of the top-tier interdisciplinary, internationalist, or specialist journal in your field (subtract 5 points if co-editor)
40 points for editorship of a second-tier sociology or other interdisciplinary, internationalist, or specialist journal (subtract 5 points if co-editor)
25 points for editorship of any other journal (subtract 5 points if co-editor)
15 points for editorial board service on ASR, AJS, or a top interdisciplinary or internationalist journal
10 points for editorial board of other journal
10 points for editorship of a book series
5 points for review of a scholarly monograph or text for a publisher
2 points for each journal or professional meeting paper referee activity excluding papers refereed as part of session organizer role or papers reviewed for a journal for which you are on the editorial board Grant Referee Activity:
5 points for long review of major external grants
2 points for short review of minor external grants
PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICE:
5 points for each professional presentation, unpaid consultant activity, or other professional activity related to local or state service
1 Note: For multi-authored scholarship, these guidelines apply: 1st and/or corresponding author 100% of points; co- author with 2 authors, 70%; co-author with 3 authors, 50%; co-author with 4+ authors, 30%. For any activity that does not appear to fit in category, describe the activity including the time commitment in your report.
2 Research Minimum: Demonstrates evidence of scholarly activity such as some combination of: 1) publication of “major works” of research including peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and authored and edited books; 2) publication of “minor works” of research and research-related materials including publications such as review essays, book reviews, reports, encyclopedia entries; 3) submission and awarding of internal and external grant and fellowship proposals; and 4) presentation and dissemination of research findings at disciplinary and interdisciplinary professional conferences and research symposia. Any annual evaluation on research activity, which falls below 80 points will signal a significant weakness in performance in that area and may result in the creation of a Performance Improvement Plan.
3 Teaching/Advising Minimum: For each course assigned to the faculty member: 1) Meets and conducts all classes unless excused for reasons of illness, emergency, or professional duties; 2) provides a syllabus for each class indicating the requirements for the course, a reading list, assignments, and other pertinent information, including faculty member's office hours; 3) demonstrate effectiveness of teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels in four courses during the academic year (with the exception of approved leaves or reduced teaching responsibilities); 4) contributes to teaching at least one required undergraduate or graduate class per year; 5) receives at least a 2.5 overall average on items 1-9 on the Student Survey of Teaching form for each course taught; and 6) accumulates at least 80 points on the Annual Activities Report Form in the area of teaching activity. Any annual evaluation on teaching activity that fails to meet all five of these minimum requirements will signal a significant weakness in performance in that area and may result in the creation of a Performance Improvement Plan.
4 Service Minimum: Demonstrated evidence of active professional service activity includes some combination of:
1) membership on standing departmental committees, such as the Graduate Studies Committee, Undergraduate Studies Committee, and Colloquium and Communications Committee; 2) Membership on committees at the College and University levels; 3) membership on professional committees, reviewing professional manuscripts or grant applications, serving on editorial boards, organizing sessions for professional meetings, serving on committees; and 4) professional presentations, unpaid consultant activities, or other professional activity related to local or state service. Any annual evaluation in service activity that falls below 20 points for Assistant Professors and 30 points for Associate and Fulls will signal a significant weakness in performance in that area and may result in the creation of a Performance Improvement Plan.
University of Kansas
1415 Jayhawk Blvd. Room 716
Lawrence, KS 66045-7556
11/04/2021: Converted from PDF to live text page.
12/09/2019: Updated policy.
04/16/2018: Updated policy.
12/06/2016: Converted to PDF policy page.
09/28/2015: Fixed Promotion and Tenure Guidelines link to open in new window.
09/25/2015: Added PRO statement to Section III.B. Portfolio or Annual Report Preparation.
06/25/2015: Removed “Under the University’s post-tenure review policy” language as unit has separate PtR policy.
04/02/2015: Fixed broken link to Board of Regents Policy Manual.
12/17/2014: Fixed broken BoR link.
11/20/2014: Technical edit to BoR link.
07/09/2014: Technical edits - added outline formatting, updated links, standardized method of notation for dates in Review, Approval & Change History.
05/20/2014: Approved by the Provost.
04/15/2014: Approved by the Dean of the College.
11/20/2013: Approved by the faculty of the Sociology Department.