The Vice President for Academic Affairs has made several
decisions that will impact faculty, especially new hires and
those who will be going up for tenure and promotion. Some
of these decisions were made with limited or no faculty
input. Faculty, historically, have been actively involved
in issues when it has to do with promotion, tenure, and the
recruitment of new faculty.
| Question: |
What is meant by actively pursued? Does
that mean application for one, two, three - how many -
grants? |
| Question: |
Applying for a grant may be as time consuming
as publishing an article. Is a grant application, successful
or unsuccessful, equivalent to a published article? |
| Question: |
For the individual's academic success (promotion,
tenure, and raises) should he/she pursue grants or publish
articles? |
| Question: |
Are grants from some funding agencies more
prestigious, therefore better, than others, or are we
looking at equal dollars (e.g., NSF grant the same as
a grant from JCCI)? |
| Question: |
Will the weight of a grant be relative
to a published paper? |
| Question: |
What happens to the individual who pursues
one grant and is turned down, but has several articles
published at P/T time? Has the individual fulfilled the
actively pursued grants part of the administration's expectations
when she/he reaches the promotion or tenure point? |
| |
| Point (2): Time in rank.
|
| |
| Question: |
Why is it assumed by the Vice President
for Academic Affairs that when a candidate comes up for
promotion to Full Professor at the required minimum time
in rank as listed in the Faculty Handbook that the faculty
member is actually coming up for promotion early and is
likely to be turned down because the faculty member came
up too early? |
| Question: |
Is there a time frame that is not too early?
Should that not be a faculty decision? |
| |
| Point (3): Outside letters
of reference. |
| |
| Question: |
Outside letters of references are used by
some departments for P & T evaluation purposes. Are the
departments that do not require outside references placing
their candidates in jeopardy? |
| Question: |
If outside letters are used then who selects
the reviewer? |
| Question: |
Given that we have reviewers and that our
faculty evaluations are relative to their peers at UNF,
how can an outside reviewer assess the quality of research
based upon UNF criteria and their peers? |
| Question: |
Along with the idea of reviewing research
to see if it "hangs together" as a cohesive whole, do
we then send all the research that the candidates' peers
have done to the reviewer? Recall they are evaluated relative
to their UNF peers. |
| Question: |
What is a research program that "hangs together"?
Who determines what "hangs together" means? |
| |
| Point (4) Confidentiality
of Reviews. |
| Question: |
A candidate who agrees to outside
reviews may not have the right to exclude those reviews
from the dossier. A candidate should always have the right
to see and respond to reviews (as he/she does for letters
from inside the University). How can the administration
deny this right of a candidate to see material in his/her
own dossier and respond to it? |
