Anthropology Handbook - Full

  1. Matters of Department Governance and related procedures

    1. Preamble

      This department handbook (hereinafter “Handbook”) contains the operational policies and procedures for the Department of Anthropology (hereinafter “Department”) within the College of Arts and Sciences (hereinafter “College”).  The policies and procedures contained in this Handbook shall not conflict with any University, Administrative and Operational Policy of Kent State University, any applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, or any federal, state and local law.

    2. Definition of the Faculty

      The terms "Faculty", "members of the Faculty", and "Faculty members" used in this handbook are defined as full-time faculty of academic rank who hold tenured or tenure-track appointments at the University and who, therefore, are members of the bargaining unit as defined in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Unless otherwise specified voting rights on departmental matters are restricted to the Faculty.  The CBA provides that the tenured and tenure-track Faculty of the Department may decide whether and to what extent full-time non-tenure (NTT) track faculty shall be represented on the Faculty Advisory Committee. 

    3. Administrative and Service Positions

      The Department's non-academic staff includes all classified and unclassified staff positions within the Department including but not limited to the Administrative Assistant and secretarial staff.  Each position has specific duties as defined in the applicable position description.

      1. Department Chair

        The Department Chair (hereinafter “Chair”) is the chief administrative officer of the Department (See, Appendix I of this Handbook) and reports directly to and is accountable to the Dean of the College (hereinafter “Dean”).  The Chair is responsible for recording, maintaining, and implementing the policies and procedures stated in this Handbook through regular and thorough consultation with the Department faculty and the Department’s various committees as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

        The Chair is an ex officio, non-voting member of all Department committees, and may make appointments as necessary and permitted to Department committees and to the various administrative and service positions in the Department.

        The selection, review, and reappointment of the Chair are the responsibility of the Dean, who consults with the Department faculty on such matters. Procedures for the selection, review and reappointment of the Chair are included in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.

      2. Graduate Coordinator

        The Graduate Studies Coordinator (GSC) is appointed by the Chair after consultation with the Graduate Faculty and the FAC. The GSC must be a full member of the Graduate Faculty holding the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. The term of service is established by the Chair in consultation with the FAC, but may be terminated by the Chair, in his/her sole discretion. The GSC chairs the Graduate Studies Committee and oversees the operation and development of the Department's graduate programs. The specific duties and responsibilities of the Graduate Coordinator are determined by the Chairperson in consultation with the Graduate Faculty and FAC. The duties shall be specified in a letter of appointment and departmental operating procedures document and referenced in the description of workload equivalents (see Section IV F.Faculty Workload and Workload Equivalents) contained in this handbook.

      3. Additional Administrative Appointments

        1. Department Committees

          All Department committees are advisory and recommendatory to the Chair.  The membership, structure, and function of some of the Department's committees are governed by University, Administrative and Operational Policies and the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.  The Chair may establish other departmental standing and ad hoc committees in consultation with the FAC.  The Chair will welcome requests from faculty members for positions on the Department’s various committees.  The Chair, when making appointments to Department committees, will be mindful of the diversity of disciplines within the Department and will consider the expertise and interests necessary for the effective functioning of specific committees.

          1. The Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC)

            The FAC is structured and operates as described in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. The FAC is elected directly by the full-time Faculty of the Department as defined in subhead III A Definition of the Faculty above.

            The TT CBA provides that the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the Department may decide whether and to what extent full-time non-tenure (NTT) track faculty shall be represented on the FAC.

            The TT CBA provides that the faculty of the Department shall ensure that Regional Campus faculty are appropriately represented on key Department and College committees, including but not limited to the FAC, the CAC, the RTP Committee, Search Committees, Review Committees, and committees considering curriculum, department or college policy, instructional standards, and program development.

            FAC terms are for two (2) years. Elections are conducted for the FAC members to assume office at the beginning of the Fall Semester.The FAC shall consist of three tenured and tenure-track faculty members. The membership of the committee should reflect the major disciplinary subdivisions of the department: cultural anthropology, archaeology, and biological anthropology; ergo, membership should be composed of one person who represents one of these subdisciplines.

            The FAC is convened and chaired at least once per term by the Chair who, in consultation with the FAC, sets the agenda for its meetings.  FAC members may request that items be added to the agenda.  Additional meetings of the FAC may be called by the Chair, as needed, or upon a request by at least one-half of the members of the FAC.  The FAC elects one (1) member to act as the Department representative to the College Advisory Committee (hereinafter “CAC”); Normally the CAC representative will be the chair of the FAC.

          2. The Curriculum Committee (CC)

            The CC is composed of at least one (1) faculty member who is designated its chair whether or not there are additional members.  In consultation with the FAC, the CC chair makes recommendations on any and all matters which affect the academic programs of the Department including but not limited to faculty proposals for new courses, changes in course content, major requirements, and other curricular matters.  The CC chair reviews and decides student appeals regarding course substitution.

            The CC chair shall serve on the College Curriculum Committee.

          3. The Graduate Studies Committee (GSC)

            The GSC is composed of at least one (1) faculty member elected (by vote of all tenure-track (TT) and non-tenure track faculty (NTT) from each subdiscipline (cultural; biological; archaeological) in the Department. The chair of the GSC is a voting member of the committee and is appointed by the chair of the department. Both TT and NTT faculty can serve (be elected) and are eligible to vote on GSC membership which is determined by 80% voting approval on the ballot. In the event that no candidate from a subdiscipline receives 80% (or more) positive votes on the ballot, the candidate with the highest vote tally serves as that subdiscipline's sole representative. Membership (i.e., inclusion on the ballot) is voluntary. The election is to be held during the fall semester of every third year. The GSC is not necessarily limited to three members and may include additional members from any or all of the three subdisciplines, but in cases of more than three elected members numerical balance among the three subdisciplines is not required.  The chair of the GSC serves as the Graduate Coordinator, and is responsible for oversight of the Department’s graduate program.  The GSC reviews graduate faculty membership status annually and its recommendations are advisory to the Dean of Arts and Sciences. Criteria for graduate faculty membership and the level of that membership are as specified in the University Policy Register 6-15.1. The GSC also reviews proposals for new graduate courses, changes in course content and related curricular matters, and conducts periodic reviews of the Department’s graduate program as a whole. The GSC also assumes the role of Curriculum Committee for graduate curriculum where necessary. The GSC is responsible for evaluating applications for admission, evaluating and recommending candidates for graduate appointments, and monitoring the progress and academic performance of graduate students in the Department. As part of the graduate admissions process, any faculty member may review candidates and provide a statement in support of each candidate’s case to the Graduate Studies Committee (via email to the Graduate Coordinator). A list of all applicants will be circulated to all faculty before the GSC meets to make decisions on applicants, and all faculty have access to the Banner imaging portal to view applications.

          4. Student Academic Complaint Committee

            The chair of the GSC serves as the Department’s Student Academic Complaint Officer. The policies and procedures of this officer are governed by University Policy 3342-4-02.3.              In the event that the Student Academic Complaint Officer is the subject of or may otherwise be involved with a student complaint, the FAC will select a replacement from the full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty.  If the SACO is the subject of or may otherwise be involved with a student complaint, the Chair will appoint a member of the TT faculty and the FAC will appoint an second person from the full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty. 

          5. Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Committee

            The policies and procedures which govern the Department’s Ad Hoc Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) Committee are included in University Policy.  Procedural and operational guidelines for this committee are provided annually by the Office of the Provost.  This committee reviews materials relevant to the professional performance of faculty who are candidates for reappointment, tenure, or promotion in rank, and makes recommendations to the Chair on each of these personnel decisions.  The recommendations of this committee and the Chair, together with the materials assembled for the committees, are forwarded to the Dean of the College.

        2. Recruiting Faculty

          The Department supports the goals of equal opportunity and affirmative action in recruiting and in making appointments to the faculty.   Search Committees are appointed by the Chair after consultation with the FAC and faculty members in the specific area or discipline conduct the search for candidates.  Search committees may include a student member selected by the faculty members serving on the search committee. Following the search, the search committee recommends to the Chair that two (2) or three (3) candidates be invited to campus for interviews. The search committee may recommend its choice of candidates to the Chair. Committee recommendations are advisory to the Chair, who then makes a recommendation to the Dean.  If the Dean concurs with the Chair, a recommendation is forwarded to the Office of the Provost.  If the Chair's recommendation is different than that of the search committee and the faculty, the Chair shall inform the Dean of all recommendations and the reasons for the disagreement.

        3. Grievance Procedure

          A.  Informal Procedure

          Any faculty member who believes that he/she may have a grievance is strongly encouraged, before initiating a formal grievance or appeal, to talk with the Chair about any issue(s) of concern.  The Chair may seek the advice and recommendation of individual faculty members or faculty advisory groups in seeking informal resolution of a dispute or complaint.

          B.   Formal Procedure

          Formal procedures for addressing grievances affecting the terms and conditions of employment of faculty are described in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Disputes involving substantive academic judgments are subject to a separate academic appeals process governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.

          Faculty grievances that are not directly related to the terms or conditions of employment and are not academic appeals are appropriately addressed within the Department, whenever possible.  The Chair and/or faculty members will initiate an informal dialogue with all parties involved in a dispute and strive to reach a resolution agreeable to all parties.

        4. Sanctions

          A sanction is a documented corrective action in response to a faculty member's unsatisfactory performance of his/her duties and responsibilities as a member of the faculty. (See, CBA Article VIII).

        5. Faculty Leaves

          All leaves, sponsored or unsupported, personal or professional, are subject to the approval of the Chair, the Dean and the Provost.  University leaves include but are not limited to:

          1. Research leaves (See UPR 3342-6-11.8 ).

          2. Leaves of absence without pay (See UPR 3342-6-11.9).

          3. Faculty professional improvement leaves (See UPR 3342-6-12).

          4. Research/Creative Activity appointments (See UPR 3342-6-15.3).

        6. Faculty Absence and Travel Policy

          Faculty members who will be absent from campus for professional or personal reasons must submit a Request for Absence Form with the Chair.  The request should be made at least one (1) month prior to the planned absence and is subject to the approval of the Chair and the Dean.  Arrangements for any classes to be missed during an absence must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Chair before approval will be granted.

          Attendance at professional meetings is encouraged and approved travel expenses incurred in attending such meetings will be reimbursed when approved prior to travel according to the University's travel policies and are subject to the availability of Department funds.  In general, greater amounts of support will be granted to participants (i.e. those presenting a paper or chairing a session) than to faculty members who simply attend professional meetings. 

        7. Faculty Sick Leave

          The Chair is responsible for keeping complete records of faculty sick leave; however, faculty members are  also required to submit the appropriate sick leave forms to the Chair.  Sick leave forms should be completed  and submitted to the Chair within forty-eight (48) hours after an absence. (See UPR 3342-6-11.1)

  2. Teaching assignments and workload including workload equivalencies and related procedures

    1. Faculty Workload and Workload Equivalents

      All full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty of the department are expected to carry a maximum workload of twenty-four (24) credit hours per academic year.  Full-time non-tenure track faculty members are expected to carry a maximum workload of thirty  (30) credit hours per academic year.  (See, University Policy 6-18)  The workload for each individual faculty member is assigned by the Chair with the approval of the Dean.  The FAC shall advise the Chair on issues related to teaching assignments, class schedules and the appropriate application of workload equivalents. The Chair shall provide each faculty member with a statement of her/his workload.

      The department’s specifications for such workload equivalencies are given in the table below

      Table 1.

      TEACHING AND RELATED WORKLOAD
      Courses                                                             1-15 hours/semester
      Graduate student supervision             1-2 hours/semester

      ADMINISTRATIVE WORKLOAD
      Graduate coordinator                            3 hours/semester
      Undergraduate coordinator                 3 hours/semester
      Other department service                   1-2 hours/semester

      SCHOLARSHIP WORKLOAD
      Research                                                   1-3* hours/semester
      University service                                 Hours mandated by CBA / semester

      *In exceptional circumstances, and with approval of the Chair and Dean, other workload credit may be given in the research category.

    2. Teaching Assignments and Class Schedules

      Faculty members are assigned to teach specific courses by the Chair.  The primary considerations for course assignments are prior teaching experience, subject expertise, and shared responsibility among the faculty for service and introductory courses.  Questions regarding teaching assignments should be addressed to the Chair.  In the case of a dispute or request for reassignment the faculty member may request review by the FAC which will make a recommendation to the Chair.

      Scheduling of classes is the responsibility of the Chair.  The primary consideration for scheduling classes is student need with regard to meeting program or major requirements within a reasonable time frame.  In addition, the scheduling of some classes may be determined by the need to serve nontraditional students.

    3. Summer Teaching Assignments

      The Chair welcomes requests for summer teaching assignments from all full-time faculty members.  Summer teaching cannot be guaranteed to any faculty member and most summer teaching assignments are for a partial load.  The size, content, and staffing of summer courses are dictated by budgetary constraints and curricular needs.  Within these requirements faculty members are offered summer teaching assignments on an annual rotation system. The department will endeavor to distribute summer teaching opportunities equitably among members of the bargaining unit without regard to academic rank. Faculty members may elect not to accept a summer assignment. See also CBA Article IX, Section 3.

    4. Other Faculty Duties

      1. Advising

        Faculty are required to advise and counsel undergraduate and graduate students on academic matters. Individual faculty members are responsible for providing academic counseling to undergraduate students assigned to them and to other undergraduate students who seek such advice, as needed.  Student advising at the graduate level is conducted by the student's "major professor" and the student’s thesis/dissertation committee members. In order to assist in student advising, faculty members should maintain current knowledge of University, College, and Department programs and requirements.

      2. Grades and Student Records

        Grades and Student Records: Faculty members must inform students of their progress throughout the semester.  Grades are a faculty member's responsibility and should be assigned fairly and objectively.  Submission of final grades must comply with University Policy, including but not limited to the deadline for the timely submission of grades.  Failure of faculty members to provide grades in compliance with University Policy will be taken into consideration in reappointment, promotion, tenure and merit decisions. Materials used in computing grades (e.g., exams, papers, reports, etc.) should be retained by the faculty member for five (5) years after final grades are submitted.  Students have a right to inspect the written work performed during a course and discuss the grade with the faculty member.

        All members of the Department must comply with all laws and University Policies that govern the privacy of student education records, including but not limited to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).  These regulations require, among other things, that faculty members keep thorough academic records and forbid the posting of grades by name, social security number or any other method that might identify a student.

      3. Office Hours

        Faculty members are normally expected to schedule and attend at least five (5) office hours per week (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-18.101), unless it is clear and obvious that student access is not required during a particular semester.  The office hours shall be communicated to the Department office.  If a student, for a legitimate reason or reasons, is unable to meet during the faculty member’s scheduled office hours, the faculty member shall make appointments to meet with the student at an alternate time.

      4. Participation in University Activities

        Faculty members are expected to participate in recruitment programs, graduation ceremonies and other activities that are appropriate to their roles in the Department.

      5. Student and Peer Evaluations

        A Student Survey of Instruction (hereinafter “SSI”) is required in each course in each semester and will be conducted under the auspices of the Chair pursuant to applicable University policies and procedures (See, Section IX of this Handbook).

        Probationary faculty members are required to undergo peer review of teaching during each year of the probationary period. 

      6. Syllabi

        Faculty members are expected to provide students with a syllabus which includes the subject matter to be covered in a course, a listing of assignments and/or reports, approximate dates of examinations, grading standards, attendance requirements, and other pertinent details of the conduct of the class.

      7. Annual Workload Summary Reports

        All faculty members are required to provide a current curriculum vitae (CV) to be kept on file in the Department office. The faculty member’s CV must be updated annually using the electronic system supported by the University. (See CBA Section IX.2.D).

  3. Reappointment, tenure and promotion criteria and the criteria and processes relating to other faculty personnel actions

    1. Reappointment of TT faculty

      The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-16).  Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee (See, Section III of this Handbook).  The FAC, in consultation with the Chair, assigns two (2) faculty members to visit the classes of each probationary faculty member, interview students in the classes, and generally evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance.   Written reports of these evaluations are submitted to the Chair for placement in the faculty member’s reappointment file.  Probationary faculty will also create an updated file that is presented to the Chair who will make these materials available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. Each probationary faculty member is discussed by the committee, which then votes on the faculty member’s reappointment.  The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean.  The Chair informs probationary faculty of the committee's recommendation and provides a copy of her/his recommendation to the Dean.  Probationary faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.  For faculty members whose appointment is in the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment from the Chair are forwarded to the Dean and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.

      For probationary faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure.  Moreover, the faculty member must have established and articulated short and long term plans for achieving these goals.  For faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at Kent State University is particularly critical. Upon completion of the third year of the probationary period, faculty reviewing a candidate for reappointment should consider the record of the candidate’s achievements to date.  This record should be considered a predictor of future success.  The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of compelling evidence of impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline. This record can be demonstrated through review of the candidate’s grants, pink sheet reviews, peer reviewed work including assessment of the impact (as measured by the quality of the journal publishing the paper/journal impact factor) or citation indexes preferably those provided by ISI (Institute for Scientific Information). Where appropriate, other sources of citation can be provided but are the responsibility of the candidate. Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Chair during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the Department.  A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified promptly that she/he will not be reappointed.

      In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback.  If such concerns arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period, the Chair, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the Department’s tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan.

      From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to need her/his probationary period be extended.  Upon her/his request, a faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period which has been traditionally called “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.”  The University policy and procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in the University Policy Register. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-13).

    2. Tenure and Promotion of TT Faculty

      The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty promotion (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-15).  Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  Tenure and promotion are separate decisions.  The granting of tenure is a decision that plays a crucial role in determining the quality of university faculty and the national and international status of the University.  The awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the faculty member has achieved a significant body of scholarship that has had an impact on her/his discipline, excellence as a teacher, and has provided effective service.  The candidate is also expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality teaching and scholarship relevant to the missions of the candidate’s academic unit(s)and University.  Tenure considerations can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at Kent State University in order to judge long-term consistency, as well as research grant proposals whether funded or not funded, pending proposals, papers “in review” or “in press,” graduate students currently being advised, and any other materials that may serve to indicate the candidate’s probability of professional success  in his or her discipline .  In contrast to the tenure decision, promotion is dependent on a candidate’s accomplishments that have been completed during the review period. These include articles published, grants applied for and received, and graduate students mentored during the review period, as well as teaching evaluations and service to the University.

      Promotion to Associate Professor is dependent upon the candidate’s likelihood to establish national/international prominence in his or her field.  Relevant evidence includes extramural grants received and formal extramural reviews thereof, articles published in the formally refereed journals of significant standing, other forms of scientific literature (books, chapters in books, books edited), students mentored, etc.  Promotion to Professor represents the highest level of regular university achievement and requires a record of sustained national/international prominence.  Evidence is largely the same as that required for promotion to Associate Professor, but of sufficient quantity and quality to demonstrate national and preferably, that international prominence has been achieved.  

      Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for tenure and advancement in academic rank. The overall evaluation of a candidate for tenure and/or promotion shall include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek tenure and promotion in the Anthropology Department.

    3. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of TT faculty on the Kent Campus

      The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion. The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. During the probationary period, these tools should be used for projection of the candidate’s likelihood of future success to achieve tenure and promotion.

      Tables 2 (A and B), 3 and 4 provide guidelines for the assessment of a faculty member’s performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates. For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor the faculty member must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in scholarship and at least a “very good” rating in teaching. University citizenship must meet the minimum Department criteria as outlined in Table 3. These same categories and assessments apply for tenure decisions.        

      A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in scholarship and teaching. University citizenship must meet the minimum Department criteria. A candidate for promotion to Professor is not required to have equal activity in scholarship, teaching and service.

      1. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship

        Scholarship is an essential component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact, and value of the candidate’s academic work must be assessed.  To assist this process, the candidate may submit the names of experts in her/his field who he or she considers capable of judging the candidate's work.  Moreover, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample evidence of his/her scholarly activity. Such evidence shall include copies or reprints of all papers, grant applications, reviews of grant applications, books, book chapters, and other similar academic materials. A faculty member's specific area of specialization is an important factor in determining the appropriate number and size of grants received and the scope and time required for research and the resulting publications. Major theoretical and/or original analytical/descriptive reports in internationally recognized journals will be given precedence in most decisions.

        Additional scholarly activities that may be considered in tenure and promotion decisions include but are not limited to service on national grant reviewing bodies, presentations at regional, national, and international professional meetings, and paper presentations before learned societies.  These latter activities should be viewed as complementing primary scholarly publications and grant funded research. Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies, to attend and participate in and/or organize institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency. However, such activities are again to be considered secondary to those listed above in the previous paragraph. 

        All faculty are expected to demonstrate excellence in scholarly activities and the criteria for their assessment are provided in Tables 2A & 2B. During annual reappointment reviews prior to the granting of tenure or completion of the tenure review period, each faculty member seeking  tenure or promotion must provide a formal summary of his/her scholarly record to the RTP Committee and Chair. The candidate should also provide relevant information about journal quality and impact and funding success levels in his/her discipline. The candidate may also provide supplementary materials of any other evidence of scholarship that he/she deems appropriate.  The Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee and Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s achievements in light of the Department’s expectations for a successful tenure decision. Reappointment will be dependent upon successful and appropriate progress toward that decision.    

        Table 2A. Kent Campus: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure

        Scholarship 

        Definition

        Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

           Excellent

        Nationally/Internationally recognized research program

        Publications1 and grants2, presentations, research-related service to federal/state organizations, awards, recognition from scientific societies3

         Very Good

        Emerging nationally

        recognized research program

        Publications and ”seed” grants, presentations at meetings of well-recognized societies

             Fair

        Active research program

        Some peer-reviewed publications or ”seed” grants, some presentations at meetings / seminars

             Weak

        Limited research program

        Occasional publications or meeting presentations

        Unacceptable

        No research program

        No publications, presentations, or grants

        Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications,” “grants,” and “recognition” throughout Table 2A.

        1Publications include: articles in peer-reviewed journals of demonstrable quality (usually “A or B” quality journals (See, Table  2B), books, book chapters, and books edited. International Presses of long standing and academic presses shall be the principal acceptable venues for books of all types (e.g., chapter contributed or book edited). Evidence of book quality shall be provided, whenever possible, by reviews of the volume in appropriate venues (journals, national newspapers, etc.). Evaluation of publications will consider quality and impact as well as quantity.  Papers of exceptional quality and impact will be given particular consideration. 

        2“Grants” refers to extramural funding where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated (normally PI or co-PI) and which are of sufficient magnitude to fully support research at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline, including funds for supplies, materials and personnel (graduate students, research technicians and/or post-doctoral associates).  For NIH grants, this includes R01s, AREA grants, and others of sufficient magnitude as described herein.  “Seed Grants” are extramural grants that are not of sufficient magnitude to fully support doctoral students or are intramural grants.  "Seed Grants" should be designed to lead to successful applications for “Grants.” Grant monies provided by the university (i.e., “in house”) shall be considered as encouragement to the candidate and not as an accomplishment for reward.  Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of research with stipulation that the dollar amounts of awards vary among fields. 

        3Recognition from scientific societies may include, for example, election to office, editorial board membership, editorship, etc.  Service to federal/state institutions includes service on federal proposal panels, site visits, and other research related activities.

        Table 2B. Journal Ranking for Guidance in RTP Decisions

        .

        A Journals

        Cell; Science; Nature; PNAS; Genome Res.; Mol. Biol. & Evol.; American Anthropologist; American Antiquity, Social Science and Medicine, Neuroscience, J. Comparative Neurology, Cerebral Cortex, Current Biology, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, J. Roy. Anthropological Inst., American Ethnologist, J. Polynesian Soc., Oceania

        B Journals

        Genetics; Molec. Phylo. & Evol.; Am. J. Phys. Anthro.; J. Hum. Evol.; Latin Am. Antiqu.; Am. J. Prim.; Int. J. Prim.; Panamerican J. of  Epidemiology, J. Social Medicine, Brain, Behavior, and Evolution, Animal Cognition, J. Anthrop. Research, Anthro. Quarterly, Evolution, Ethnology, Anthro. Forum, Ethos, Cultural Anthro., Contemporary Pacific, Anthro and Humanism, People Culture Oceania,

        C Journals

        Human Evolution, J. Cognition & Culture, Dialectical Anthro, Intern. Rev. Asian and Pacific ; Pacific Studies“on line journals” which are associated with a substantial, recognized, publisher and/or national or international society

        D Journals

        Micronesia; Bikmaus; AnthroGlobe Journal; “on line journals” of limited age and which are not associated with a substantial, recognized, publisher and/or national or international society

         

         

         

         

      2. Standards for Evaluating Teaching

        Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 3.  Course revision is defined as a substantial modification to a course such as developing several new laboratories, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content/format, etc.

        Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Department, College or University administrators shall be considered when available.  Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including all student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.  Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students and/or postdoctoral students.  Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses. 

        Table 3. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure

        Teaching

        Definition

        Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

        Excellent

        Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional

        Development

        Develop/revise courses where appropriate, develop research projects for students (undergraduate and/or graduate), work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research, excellent student and peer perceptions, instructional creativity, actively taking the lead in curricular revisions where appropriate.

        Very Good

        Innovative teacher

        Develop/revise courses where appropriate, good student and peer perceptions, work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research

        Good

        Meets obligations well

        Good student and peer perceptions; participation in curricular revisions where appropriate.

        Fair

        Substandard teacher

        Below average student and peer perceptions

        Poor

        Substandard, ineffective teacher

        Below average student and peer perceptions, consistent pattern of complaints



         

         

         

         

      3. Standards for Evaluating Citizenship

        A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, Campus, College, and University as outlined in Table 4.  The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee listed and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served.  Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in department events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, department meetings and seminars, etc.

        Being an active and useful citizen of the Department, Campus, College and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's research and other scholarly activity and instructional responsibilities.  Expectations in service for promotion to Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

        Table 4. Assessment of University Citizenship for promotion and tenure

        Citizenship Assessment

        Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

        Exceeds obligations

        Significant role in Department, Campus College and/ or University as evidenced by productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach

        Meets obligations

        Meets the minimal Department/Campus obligations such  as membership in assigned committees, active participation in significant departmental events and activities, occasional public and campus outreach.

        Does not meet obligations

        Does not meet Department/Campus obligations in a timely manner or does not actively participate in significant departmental/campus events

        Other components of service are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the Department. 

         

         

         

  4. Criteria, performance expectations, and Department procedures relating to Faculty Excellence Awards

    1. Overview

      Merit Awards are established and awarded pursuant to the applicable CBA.  Procedures and timelines for determining Faculty Excellence Awards for any given year shall be conducted in accordance with guidelines issued by the Office of the Provost.

      Merit awards are intended to reward exemplary professional performance, that is, what is done beyond what is expected as part of one’s workload obligations.  This bar will vary from one faculty member to the next, dependent upon differences in his/her workload assignments.  Thus, a faculty member who receives greater workload equivalency for research activities has a higher bar for meritorious work than someone whose workload equivalency is less.
      Faculty must use the standard departmental form, to be provided by the Chair, and provide all requisite supporting documentation, in order to be eligible for consideration.  The period of time from which merit awards will be determined will be announced in advance, and faculty may only count activity that occurred while he/she was part of the bargaining unit.
      For the sake of transparency, merit awards will be apportioned using the formula detailed below.  The departmental pool of funds will be allocated by direct proportion to the total score earned in each of the three categories of scholarship, teaching, and service, as outlined below.  These three categories of scholarship, teaching, and service are divided into subcategories in order to organize the presentation of information by faculty and to facilitate the evaluation by the FAC and Chair. The subcategories and their weighting factor (in parentheses) follow:

      Scholarship (55% of total award)
      1.    Publications (4)
      2.    Grants (3)
      3.    Professional contributions (1)
      4.    Presentations (1)
      5.    Other (variable)

      Teaching (25% of total award)
      6.    Instruction and awards (3)
      7.    Theses, dissertations & other individual supervision (2)
      8.     Other (variable)

      Service (20% of total award)
      9.    Department, College, and University service (3)
      10.    External service (2)
      11.     Other (variable)

      The information to be provided in each subcategory is described in the following pages.  Each faculty member's activity in each subcategory will be evaluated by the FAC and Chair and will be rated according to the following five-point scale:
      0:     No activity in the subcategory
      1:     Activity that is commensurate with what is expected, given his/her workload
      2:     Some activity of meritorious quality
      3:     Very good activity of clearly meritorious quality, above average
      4:     Considerable activity of highly meritorious quality
      These ratings will be multiplied by a weighting factor (indicated in parentheses above) and summed within each major category in order to determine each faculty's rating in that category.  The FAC then will discuss their ratings in order to determine a final combined rank ordering in each major category.  

       

    2. Scholarship Activity Evaluation Metrics

      1. Publications

        To have achieved meritorious work in publications, the faculty member must show a substantial number of publications in high quality outlets. The following works will be considered:

        • Refereed journal article
        • Books (authored): scholarly, monograph
        • Books (edited)
        • Book chapter
        • Edited special issue or conference proceedings
        • Other: book review, refereed communication, technical report, encyclopedia entry

        Greater emphasis is placed on first-, corresponding-, and/or sole-authored publications, as well as highly visible publications in well-regarded outlets, such as reputable presses or journals with a high impact factor and broad readership.  

        Each work will be considered only once.  Each faculty member may choose whether to have a work considered when it is "in press" or when it appears in print.  It is the faculty member's responsibility to provide written verification that "in press" works have been accepted in final form by the editor or publisher.  New and recent faculty should indicate explicitly what aspects of the research in each publication were performed at Kent in any cases where there might be uncertainty.

        The contribution to each publication should be justified.  For each publication with multiple authors, the faculty must indicate what percentage of the total workload he/she contributed to:

        • The idea conceptualization and design;
        • The work performed, both data collection and analysis;
        • The supervision of the work; and
        • The writing of the publication.
      2. Grants/Contracts

        Meritorious activity in this subcategory is shown by receipt of external grants and/or contracts in which the faculty member is PI or co-I. For each grant/contract, the faculty must provide the following information:

        • Faculty role (e.g., P.I., Co-P.I., Senior Personnel)
        • Agency
        • Title
        • Amount (overall and percentage associated with the faculty member)
        • Duration
        • Contribution to Department (e.g., GAs, equipment/ supplies, overhead)

         The scope of the award (as evidenced via the information provided in the bullet points above) substantially influences how meritorious it is. Grant/contract work is generally acknowledged for a merit period in which the award is initiated only. A supplemental award on an existing award can be counted as a new and separate award.

      3. Professional Contributions

        Meritorious activity in this category is identified through considerable activity in positions that acknowledge the faculty member as a leading scholar in his/her field:

        • Special awards for scholarly or professional achievement
        • Journal editor, consulting editor, and editorial boards (name of journal and position; number of manuscripts handled)
        • Grant review panels (name of panel and agency; number of applications reviewed)
        • Other scholarly reviews; for each review list the name of the journal, agency, publisher, etc.; indicate how many reviews were performed for each source: journals, grants (non-paneled), book reviews for publisher.

        Supporting relevant documentation, along with self-assessment in terms of level of effort, for each contribution is required.

      4. Presentations

        Meritorious activity in presentations is acknowledged through a substantial presence in the discipline in terms of external visibility.  The following items will be considered:

        • Invited papers at scholarly meetings
        • Papers presented at scholarly meetings
        • Scientific papers presented locally (state, University, etc.)
        • Session moderator
        • Symposium organizer
        • Colloquium at another university

        A greater emphasis is placed upon presentations that were invited, juried at highly selective conferences, and high profile venues.

      5. Other Research/Scholarly Activities Not Considered Above

        Faculty may also submit to have additional forms of scholarship, not identified above, count for Merit Awards.  He/she must describe the activity and argue for a weight commensurate with those for similar tasks in this evaluation section.

    3. Teaching Activity Evaluation Metrics

      1. Instruction and awards

        Meritorious activity in teaching is identified through a consistent demonstration of high-quality dedication to instruction, as is evidenced through the following means:

        Teaching recognition as evidenced by the following:

        • National teaching award
        • University teaching award or finalist
        • Teaching development grant from KSU
        • College teaching award or finalist
        • Student Evaluation of Instruction scores
        • Peer reviews

        Faculty must list courses taught organized by term; the departmental office will provide results from student evaluations.  Faculty may also add documentation of innovations used in the classroom for consideration.

        Teaching enrichment and development activities as evidenced by the following:

        • Attending continuing education workshops
        • Developing new courses
        • Extensive revision of existing courses

        Documentation and justification must be provided for any of these activities, and where relevant, support on how the activity is related to teaching.

      2. Thesis, Dissertation and Other Individual Supervision

        Supervision is considered meritorious with evidence of exceptional mentorship in terms of graduate students being productive and completing their degree in a timely manner.  Students are counted only upon degree completion.  The faculty member should provide a list of students for which he/she served as:

        • thesis or dissertation advisor or co-advisor
        • thesis or dissertation committee member
        • senior honors thesis advisor or co-advisor
        • honors thesis committee member
        • Independent Study Supervision (does not include advisees)

        The number of years to degree completion should also be provided for any graduate students for which the faculty member is advisor or co-advisor.  Student publications and presentations for which the faculty member served as a mentor should also be listed.

         

      3. Other Research/Scholarly Activities Not Considered Above

        Faculty may also submit to have additional forms of teaching, not identified above, count for Merit Awards.  He/she must describe the activity and argue for a weight commensurate with those for similar tasks in this evaluation section.

    4. Service Activity Evaluation Metrics

      1. Departmental, College, and University Service

        Meritorious activity in service is documented by extensive, high-quality service, in particular where he/she takes on a leadership role

        The following items will be considered:

        • committee chair
        • committee member
        • other (e.g., student organization advisor)

        Supporting relevant documentation, along with self-assessment in terms of level of effort, for each contribution is required.

      2. External Service

        Meritorious activity in service is documented by extensive, high-quality service, in particular where he/she takes on a leadership role or partakes in outreach activities.

        The following items will be considered:

        • office of professional/scientific association
        • membership on outside committees and panels (e.g., site review team)
        • professional development not appropriate to be listed under research/scholarship
        • unpaid consulting for outside organizations (list name of organizations)
        • lectures and presentations to community organizations

        Supporting relevant documentation, along with self-assessment in terms of level of effort, for each contribution is required.

  5. Other Department guidelines

    1. Department objectives

      GOALS AND MISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT

      The primary objectives of the Department are to:

      1. Create an academic environment which promotes the intellectual and professional development of students and faculty;

      2. Develop and maintain a commitment to scholarly activity in research, graduate education, and undergraduate education which is commensurate with the goals and mission of Kent State University;

      3. Provide programs for all students which meet the educational and technological demands of the disciplines represented in the Department;

      4. Offer courses in cognate academic disciplines and professional fields which provide the necessary base for the career goals of students and faculty; and,

      5. Provide the public with service commensurate with a University.

      Implicit in these objectives is our responsibility as teachers, which includes but is not limited to, educating undergraduate and graduate students and providing continuing education while promoting and clarifying the role and philosophy of education.

      A strong commitment to research means creating and maintaining a significant intellectual environment and achieving our broader commitments to the advancement of knowledge and service to the public. 

      Service to the University and to the general public unifies and clarifies the role of the University in the local community, in the State of Ohio, in the nation, and is valued within the Department, the College and the University.

    2. Faculty Appointments

      1. Adjunct Faculty Appointments

        These appointments are held primarily by faculty from other institutions or persons on the staffs of community-based agencies and organizations.  Adjunct faculty appointments are made at the discretion of the Chair in consultation with the FAC.  Adjunct faculty members do not vote on Department Committees and do not participate in Department governance.

      2. Visiting Faculty appointments

        Visiting faculty appointments at an appropriate faculty rank may be made when leaves of absence occur or special needs arise and funds are available.  A visiting faculty member is typically a faculty member from another institution who is employed by the Department for a period not to exceed one (1) year.  In the event that a Visiting faculty member is employed in that capacity for a second consecutive year, the visiting faculty member will then become a full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty member.

      3. Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTT) Appointments

        Full-time non-tenure track faculty (NTT) appointments are made on an annual basis (See, Section VI of this Handbook).  NTT appointments are not included under the umbrella of the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and NTT faculty members are not entitled to any rights with regard to tenure.

      4. Part-Time Faculty Appointments

        When the Department cannot meet its teaching needs from the ranks of its full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty, full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty and graduate students, part-time faculty appointments will be made from an established pool of qualified applicants not currently on regular appointment at the University.

      5. Graduate Faculty Status

        As a doctoral degree granting department, the Department normally requires that all faculty hired for tenure-track positions be eligible for appointment to the graduate faculty as associate or full members.  The Administrative policy regarding graduate faculty is included in the University Policy Register.  (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-15.1) 

    3. Faculty Ranks

      The basic definitions of faculty ranks are the following:

      1. Instructor

        This rank is intended for persons initially hired with a master's degree.  Normally, the Department does not hire at the rank of Instructor except for full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty positions.

      2. Assistant Professor

        This rank is normally the entry level rank for tenure-track faculty holding the doctorate in an appropriate discipline. 

      3. Associate Professor

        Hire to or promotion to this rank presumes prior service as an Assistant Professor, significant academic achievements, and possession of the doctorate in an appropriate discipline (See, Section V of this Handbook). 

      4. Professor

        Promotion to this rank requires credentials and achievements beyond those required for promotion to Associate Professor and is reserved for senior faculty members who have achieved significant recognition in their discipline (See, Section V of this Handbook). 

      5. Research Associate Professor and Research Assistant Professor

        These ranks are reserved for individuals who are engaged in research and who are not normally assigned teaching responsibilities.  Such positions are typically supported by extramural grant funds and are not tenure-track appointments.  Faculty who hold these ranks do not vote on Department committees and do not participate in Department governance.

      6. Adjunct Faculty Appointments

        These appointments are held primarily by faculty from other institutions or persons on the staffs of community-based agencies and organizations.  Adjunct faculty appointments are made at the discretion of the Chair in consultation with the FAC.  Adjunct faculty members do not vote on Department Committees and do not participate in Department governance.

      7. Visiting Faculty Appointments

        Visiting faculty appointments at an appropriate faculty rank may be made when leaves of absence occur or special needs arise and funds are available.  A visiting faculty member is typically a faculty member from another institution who is employed by the Department for a period not to exceed one (1) year.  In the event that a Visiting faculty member is employed in that capacity for a second consecutive year, the visiting faculty member will then become a full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty member.

      8. Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTT) Appointments

        Full-time non-tenure track faculty (NTT) appointments are made on an annual basis (See, Section VI of this Handbook).  NTT appointments are not included under the umbrella of the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and NTT faculty members are not entitled to any rights with regard to tenure.

      9. Part-Time Faculty Appointment

        When the Department cannot meet its teaching needs from the ranks of its full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty, full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty and graduate students, part-time faculty appointments will be made from an established pool of qualified applicants not currently on regular appointment at the University.

    4. Role and Responsibility of the Faculty

      Research, Teaching, Service: Each faculty member is expected to contribute to the Department, Campus, College and the University according to the terms and condition of his/her letter of appointment.  Some faculty members make their primary contribution in teaching while others emphasize research.

      Scholarly activity is expected of all faculty members, although the extent and/or type of activity may vary with the terms of each faculty member’s assignment and campus location.  Faculty involved in research and graduate programs are expected to present evidence of their endeavors by publication, proposals submitted for extramural funding, and dissemination of research in various venues as are appropriate to the discipline. Activity in professional organizations and the training of graduate students are also expected.

      Not all faculty members contribute to the Department in the same manner.  A faculty member whose primary responsibilities are undergraduate teaching and undergraduate programs may teach and serve in a greater diversity of courses than a faculty member who is also a member of the graduate faculty.  Most Department faculty members will be either full or associate members of the graduate faculty.  All faculty members are expected to be involved in significant research activity, serve on graduate student committees, and direct graduate student research. Supervision and direction of undergraduate research projects and theses are part of the teaching function.

      Service to the University is a responsibility of each faculty member.  Department, Campus, College, and University committee or task force memberships are expected as a normal part of a faculty member’s contributions.  Special or outstanding service above and beyond that which is typical may be considered during the review of a faculty member, but service alone will not reduce the expectations of quality teaching and scholarly activity.  Public service is encouraged and recognized as a part of the professional responsibilities of each faculty member, although contributions in this area can be expected to vary widely due in accordance with the various subdisciplines within the Department.

    5. Faculty Code of Ethics

      1. University Policy Register

        All members of the Department faculty are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards as teachers, scholars, university citizens and colleagues.  The University policy regarding faculty code of professional ethics can be found in the University Policy Register.  (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-17).

      2. Policy on Consensual Romantic or Sexual Relationships between Faculty and Students[1]

        Terminology 

        For the purposes of this policy, the term “faculty,” “faculty member,” or “teaching faculty” refers to all those who teach and/or do research at the University including (but not limited to) tenured and tenure-track faculty, non-tenure-track faculty, part-time instructors, lecturers, holders of research appointments, graduate students with teaching responsibilities, visiting faculty, and advisors.

         The term “student” refers to a person enrolled at Kent State University in any capacity, including (but not limited to) full-time or part-time; undergraduate or graduate; for-credit or not-for-credit; or degree or non-degree.

         Policy (The anthropology faculty voted unanimously in favor of this policy Dec. 7, 2015)

        The Department’s educational mission is promoted by professionalism in faculty/student relationships, and professionalism is fostered by an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. Actions of faculty members and students that harm this atmosphere—which occurs when those in positions of authority abuse or appear to abuse their authority—undermine professionalism and hinder fulfillment of the Department’s educational mission.

        The Department strongly believes that a romantic and/or sexual relationship between a student and a faculty member—even if such a relationship is claimed to be consensual by one or both parties—undermines the Department’s academic mission and must be avoided.  In addition, the Department imposes the following formal restrictions:

         Romantic and/or sexual relationships, and the pursuit thereof, between faculty members and graduate or undergraduate students are entirely prohibited whenever the faculty member has direct professional responsibility for or any authority over the student.  Positions of professional responsibility or authority include course instructor; formal advisor; independent study director; internship coordinator; dissertation, MA, or Honors Thesis committee member; MA or PhD Advisory Committee member; Graduate or Undergraduate Coordinator; TA/RA supervisor; or similar formal hierarchical relationship. 

         Furthermore, no faculty member may pressure, cajole, or otherwise coerce a student to avoid a hierarchical professional relationship (e.g., to avoid taking a faculty member’s course) in order to engage in a romantic and/or sexual relationship.

         Finally, while the Department does not expressly forbid them, romantic and/or sexual relationships between faculty and graduate or undergraduate students at Kent State are also discouraged even when no clear professional or hierarchical relationship between the faculty and student exists.

         Sanctions

         Failure to comply with this policy may result in discipline or dismissal according to the rules appropriate to the individuals involved, regardless of tenure status. One or more faculty and/or students may, at any time, report violations of this policy to any responsible party (Chair, FAC, Dean's Office). Upon such notification, the chair will request that the Faculty Senate Ethics Committee (FSEC) initiate an investigation of charges. Upon completion of that investigation the Committee will notify the Dean, Chair, and departmental FAC of its findings. In the event of a finding of inappropriate behavior, as defined above, appropriate sanctions will be applied by the Dean. The timing and extent of such sanctions should vary in proportion to the violations, but could constitute a negation of tenure. 

    6. Copyright Restrictions

      All faculty members should be aware of current copyright laws that restrict the copying of published materials.  For further information, contact the University’s Office of Legal Affairs.

    7. Academic Misconduct

      The University policy regarding misconduct in research and scholarship and the Administrative policy and procedures regarding allegations and instances of misconduct in research and scholarship are included in the University Policy Register. (See, University Policy Register 3342-3-05 and 3342-2-05.01)

    8. Handbook modification, amendment, and revision

      The implementation, modification, amendment and revision of this Handbook is governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.  The Department faculty will review and update this Handbook, as needed, but at least every three (3) years.  Suggestions for modifications or amendments to the Handbook may be initiated at any time by the Chair or by any faculty member.  Proposed modifications or amendments are subject to discussion, revision, and recommendation by the FAC.  When a proposed modification or amendment involves a major change in Department policy or practice the Chair may seek the recommendation of the entire faculty.  If the Chair concurs with a proposed modification, amendment or revision, he/she will recommend the change(s) to the Dean.  All modifications, amendments and revisions of the Handbook require the approval of the Dean. In reviewing this Handbook the Dean may request revisions before lending final approval.  If these revisions are not adopted by the Department, the Dean shall consult the CAC with regard to the provision(s) in dispute before making a final determination and certifying final approval of the Handbook. Further, the Dean may direct that the Handbook be modified, amended or revised to reflect changes in College or University policy.