Following section C31.5 of the Faculty Handbook, the department head will determine "when a tenured faculty member's overall performance falls below the minimum acceptable level." The research and teaching guidelines proposed herein shall guide the department head's decision in this regard.

Minimum Acceptable Levels for Research

It is expected that faculty members provide evidence of scholarship on a regular basis. A faculty member in the Department of Economics will have met the minimum acceptable level of productivity with regard to research when he or she has documented the requisite degree of both effort and performance in conducting economic research. At a minimum, this requires that:

(R1) The individual has submitted or re-submitted a research paper for publication, or presented a paper at a professional conference, or submitted a major grant proposal in the last two years; and has satisfied at least one of the following:

(R2) The individual has published or had accepted for publication one refereed article (or substantive note or communication) in a quality general interest or field journal in the last three years, or two such papers in the last five years. The default criterion is that the journal be listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Unless the journal is listed in the SSCI, the faculty member bears the responsibility for demonstrating that the journal is viewed highly in the economics profession or that it is a respected outlet for teaching scholarship.[See the Statement of Terms and Conditions at the end of this document.]

(R3) The individual has published or had accepted for publication a scholarly book or research monograph in the last three years. (Acceptable publications include first edition textbooks, book chapters, and edited volumes.)

(R4) The individual has secured an external contract or extramural funding in the last three years that contributes to scholarship and the financial well-being of the university in a manner of some significance.

(R5) Faculty members may be granted a one-year extension at the discretion of the department head for (R2), (R3), or (R4) under certain conditions. These conditions include, but are not strictly limited to, at least one of the following:

(1) The faculty member develops a new course or substantially restructures an existing course that is equivalent to a new course. This may include, for example, development of a distance learning course, a course taught over the Internet, or a course that involves extensive computer laboratory time. In addition, faculty members who teach a disproportionately large number of graduate classes and/or who teach graduate classes in place of faculty members who are on leave and/or who are teaching a graduate class for the first time may qualify for this extension.

(2) The faculty member is writing a study guide, test bank, or revising a textbook. This extension may be granted only if the scholarly work does not satisfy the requirements of R3.

(3) The faculty member is engaged in some other scholarly pursuit that is expected to enhance the overall reputation of the department, the college, or the university.

(4) The faculty member has supervised a relatively large number of doctoral dissertations in the past three years.

The Committee recommends the following exceptions/qualifications to the above-stated requirements:

(i) New faculty members, who are working on completing their degrees or who have received the Ph.D. within the last calendar year, will be granted one free year before the above conditions apply. This means that new faculty members who qualify will have three years from the effective date of their appointment to satisfy R1 and four years from the effective date of their appointment to satisfy R2, R3, or R4. [See the Statement of Terms and Conditions at the end of this document.].

(ii) Faculty members may be granted extensions and/or exceptions from the above specific requirements upon a showing that (1) The faculty member is submitting papers to top-tier general interest and field journals with particularly long notification lags; or (2) The faculty member has compiled evidence of exemplary research performance in the past. Evidence of such exemplary research performance may be documented by extensive citations to the author's work in the economics literature, or by his/her appointment to the editorial board of a quality general interest or field journal. [The default criterion is that the journal be listed in the SSCI.] These activities, though important in their own right, should not serve to substitute indefinitely for a consistent record of quality research performance.

(iii) The minimum research requirements listed above should be changed proportionately for faculty members with a reduced research weight.

Students have a right to expect:

1)  courses that contain current material
2)  comprehensible and accurate presentation of material
3)  objective and accurate evaluation of their performance
4)  reasonable access to faculty for help and consultation
5)  respectful treatment

Faculty are also expected to:

1)  conduct classes in a competent and professional manner
2)  assess student performance with thoughtfully prepared examinations, assignments, and other relevant criteria
3)  hold students accountable to reasonable standards of performance
4)  foster student learning
5)  hold regular office hours
6)  meet classes at their scheduled times
7)  The Department head should consider course materials, evidence that classes demonstrate the appropriate level of rigor, and 8)  student feedback before concluding that a faculty member has failed to meet minimal acceptable productivity in teaching.

A faculty member in the Department of Economics will have met the minimum acceptable level with regard to service if he or she satisfactorily performs all committee assignments.

Minimum Overall Acceptable Levels

A faculty member will have failed to meet minimum acceptable levels of productivity overall if the faculty member fails to meet minimum acceptable productivity in a major area of responsibility. A major area of responsibility is defined as an area of teaching, research, or service in which the faculty member has a weight of 20 percent or more.

As indicated in section C31.7, the department head and the faculty member may agree to a reallocation of the faculty member's time so that he/she has a reduced weight in the area of deficient performance and increased weight(s) in other areas. For example, a faculty member deficient in research may increase his/her teaching load and/or service responsibilities. The initial revised set of area weights should provide a faculty member with a reasonable opportunity to return to the standard 40-40-20 weights for teaching, research, and service, respectively.

The department head will determine when a faculty member's overall performance has "failed to meet minimum acceptable levels of productivity." The head will also indicate in writing a suggested course of action to improve the performance of the faculty member, and the head and faculty member will meet together with the goal of agreeing on an appropriate course of action to improve performance to an acceptable level. While this document does not preclude any particular way that the head and faculty member may come to an agreement, one way of reaching an agreement may be for the faculty member to accept a revised set of area weights. In subsequent evaluations the faculty member will report in writing on activities aimed at improving performance and provide any evidence of improvement, and this will become part of the documentation for subsequent evaluations. If the department head determines that the faculty member has fallen below minimum acceptable levels of productivity in the subsequent year's evaluation or in the third such evaluation within a five year period, then, unless the faculty member does not wish it, a meeting of the department's tenured faculty will be held to review the department head's decision. Before the tenured faculty vote, the head will present documentation supporting the findings of the failure of the faculty member to meet minimum acceptable levels of productivity, and the faculty member being considered will also be able to present an oral and/or written appeal to the tenured faculty. At a subsequent meeting, the department head's evaluation will be validated if approved by a majority vote of the appeals committee (tenured faculty excluding the department head and the individual faculty member in question). Voting will be by secret ballot. If validated, the name of the faculty member who is determined to have failed to meet minimum acceptable levels of productivity will be forwarded to the dean.

If the department head rejects the tenured faculty vote, so that the head proposes to forward to the dean the name of the faculty member as not having met minimum acceptable levels of productivity, the head, before forwarding the name, will submit in writing to the individual in question and the tenured faculty his/her reasons for rejecting the tenured faculty decision. Also, the head, in transmitting his/her

recommendation to the dean, will report the vote count by the tenured faculty. In addition, the faculty member being considered will have the right to transmit his/her appeal to the dean, in writing. The faculty member has the right to forward the assessment of the appeals committee to the dean.

1. The appeals committee is comprised of all tenured faculty members excluding those faculty members filing appeals. In addition, the department head will recuse himself or herself from any vote of the appeals committee that involves an appeal of the department head's decision.

2. A tie vote of the appeals committee shall be decided in favor of the faculty member filing the appeal.

3. The appeals committee should determine the minimum requirements necessary for a faculty member to be re-instated at the default weightings subject to the following two guidelines: (1) The faculty member must demonstrate a commitment to research that exceeds the minimum acceptable levels of productivity outlined above; and (2) There should be no more than one change in any faculty member's percentage weightings in any given academic year.

4. Evidence that a publication appears in quality research outlet may include, but is not strictly limited to the following: (1) The editorial board is comprised of scholars with established reputations in the economics discipline; (2) The publication is refereed; (3) The publication is cited with some frequency in the reference sections of articles that appear in publications listed in the SSCI; and (4) Economists at top twenty universities or with significant name recognition in the field have published in this journal within the last five years.

5. Sabbaticals are irrelevant to the process of administering these guidelines for the purpose of satisfying the minimum research requirements. The teaching and service requirements are not applicable. Faculty leaves without pay should be treated as grace periods for a time period not to exceed the length of the leave. For example, a one year unpaid leave would provide the faculty member with a maximum additional year to satisfy the specific requirements.

6. For the purposes of administering the guidelines in this document, sole-authored articles will be counted the same as multiple-authored articles, and the order in which the authors' names appear on the article will be of no consequence.

7. The faculty member may satisfy the R1 research requirement by demonstrating satisfactory progress on a first edition textbook. Satisfactory progress on a first edition textbook may be demonstrated by a letter of commitment or signed contract from the publisher.

8. The faculty member must resort to the appeals process in order to satisfy the R1 research requirement for study guides, test booklets, and later edition textbooks. See also the qualifying statement on time extensions for satisfying the research requirements under R5(2).

9. In administering the evaluation guidelines in this document it is important to maintain an appropriate balance between fairness to faculty members and meaningful standards that enable the department to realize its full potential.

10. The following time line is set forth for implementing the minimum acceptable levels of productivity for performance described in this document: (1) Faculty evaluations for teaching and service should be based on the standards set forth in this document beginning in the year 1998 based on the faculty member's performance in the year 1997; (2) Faculty evaluations for the R1 research requirement should be based on the standards set forth in this document beginning in the year 1999 based on the faculty member's performance in the years 1997 and 1998; (3) Faculty evaluations for the R2 - R4 research requirements should be based on the standards set forth in this document beginning in the year 2000 based on the faculty member's performance in the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. Prior to the effective date of the new evaluation standards, the existing evaluation standards will remain in effect.

11. The requirements for tenure are independent and likely exceed the minimum acceptable levels of productivity for performance listed here. Hence, no inferences should be drawn about the likelihood of a particular faculty member being awarded tenure or being continued in employment during the probationary period given that he or she has satisfied the minimum expectations for performance set forth in this document.

12. Amendments to this document may be proposed at any time. A majority vote of the faculty is required to pass any amendment.

13. This document should be reviewed in its entirety by a departmental committee at least once every five years.

14. Once officially approved, this document becomes part of the broader document, Faculty Evaluation Criteria, Department of Economics.