University Citizenship
A Faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, the Campus, the College, and the University. The Department expects each Faculty to accept shared responsibility for the maintenance and development of Departmental programs and to productively carry out associated administrative tasks that may be assigned.
Typical characterizations of three levels of performance are provided in Table 4. For each level, the listed characterizations are meant to convey a clear sense of standards; they are not meant to be an exhaustive list or a mandatory check-list. It is recognized that individual cases can bring accomplishments in areas that can鈥檛 be listed ahead of time. Likewise, individual cases can sometimes display exceptionally high levels of accomplishment in some matters that outweigh lesser accomplishments in other matters.[1]
Those items of citizenship involving committee service or administrative assignments should be evaluated as to (1) whether the committee chairmanship was effective, (2) whether service on the committee was productive, and (3) 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. If the performance levels in scholarship and teaching are satisfied, the minimum criteria in University Citizenship for promotion and tenure is 鈥渕eets obligations鈥.
[1] E.g., it can happen that, a research grant award contains a significant public service component that brings prestige to the Department and University. It is appropriate to not confine the evaluation to simply research. It can also happen that a role in University service is so productive and highly thought of that it overshadows a minimal record in other possible citizenship.
Table 4. Kent Campus: Characterizations of Performance Levels for Evaluation of University Citizenship for Tenure and Promotion
|
Performance Level |
Typical Indicators |
|
Exceeds obligations |
Significant role in Department, College, or University affairs as evidenced by productive service on committees, and some of: active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, effective completion of administrative assignments, significant public outreach, external grant support for Departmental facilities or infrastructure, excellence in undergraduate advising. |
|
Meets obligations |
Adequate role in Department, College, or University affairs as evidenced by service on committees, and some of: effective chairing of committees, effective completion of administrative assignments, public outreach, external proposal for Departmental facilities or infrastructure. |
|
Does not meet obligations |
Rarely participates in Department, College, or University affairs, ineffective in committees or administrative assignments, does not actively participate in 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鈥檚 duties and responsibilities within the Department.
Departmental criteria are used to assess the University citizenship of Department Faculty who are assigned to the Regional Campuses; however, due to differences in the missions of the Kent and Regional Campuses, resources that may be available for research, and differences in the nature of Faculty appointments on the Kent and Regional Campuses, the weighting of the categories of scholarship, teaching and University citizenship for Regional Campus Faculty in the Department of Physics is established by the Regional Campus to which the Faculty member is assigned. Thus, the Kent Campus Ad Hoc RTP Committee and Chair will provide recommendations based on the Departmental criteria, as weighted by the Regional Campus.
To this end, Regional Campus Faculty should ensure that a copy of their particular campus handbook weighting of criteria are included with the Reappointment, Tenure, and/or Promotion materials submitted to the Department for evaluation.