Article 1: Membership in the W.A. Franke Honors College Interdisciplinary Faculty

• Section 1: Faculty Definition
  • The Interdisciplinary Faculty of the W.A. Franke Honors College (hereafter “the FHC Faculty”) is composed of CareerTrack faculty members representing a wide range of academic fields. Any Faculty member fully or primarily appointed in the Honors College, and teaching HNRS prefix courses, is considered a part of the FHC Faculty, with all privileges and expectations thereof. Members of this Faculty are tenure ineligible, and do not have Continuing Status (UHAP 4A.3). Faculty Members whose administrative home is the Franke Honors College but who are not contracted to regularly teach HNRS prefix courses are non-voting members of the FHC Faculty but may participate in Faculty meetings as ad-hoc members. Faculty affiliated primarily with the Office of General Education (hereafter “the UNIV Faculty”) are governed separately under Chapter 2: Bylaws of the UNIV Faculty. Where this document refers to “the Faculty” or “the full Faculty,” it applies to both bodies.
• Section 2: Roster
  • The Chair of the Faculty shall maintain a current and accurate census of the Faculty for purposes of voting and participation in Faculty governance. This roster shall be updated as needed.
• Section 3: Voting Members of the FHC
  • Faculty are eligible to vote in matters of Faculty governance, to hold offices, and to serve on committees established in accordance with these Bylaws.
• Section 4: Roles and Responsibilities
  • The roles and responsibilities of individual members of the Faculty are determined by the percentage of their appointment in the Franke Honors College, their FTE, and their designation as teaching (e.g., Professor of Practice) or research (e.g., Research Professor) Faculty. All Faculty have an expectation of teaching, scholarly activity, and service to the Faculty, the College, and the University. The typical workload distribution for fully appointed, 1.0 FTE Franke Honors College Faculty is exemplified as follows: 60% teaching, 20% scholarly activity, and 20% service. This baseline distribution may be adjusted by the Associate Dean on a case-by-case basis, based on the individual circumstances and departmental needs, and may be discussed at annual performance review meetings and modified ad hoc in consultation with the Associate Dean.
• Section 5: Annual Review Process and Promotion
  • Annual performances follow the Career-Track Annual Review guidelines (UHAP 3.2). Continued employment (contract renewal) is dependent on the outcome of the annual reviews by the Associate Dean. Promotion reviews follow the general procedure outlined below and the corresponding guidelines in the UHAP. Both the annual reviews and promotion reviews (UHAP 3.3) are based on the criteria and expectations established in Appendix 1: Criteria for Appointment and Promotion of Career-Track Professors of Practice in the W.A. Franke Honors College.

Article 2: Officers and Elections

The Interdisciplinary Faculty has one elected officer: the Chair of the Faculty. 

• Section 1: Chair of the Faculty
  • The position of the Chair of the Faculty (hereafter “the Chair”) exists to serve the best interests of the Faculty and the W.A. Franke Honors College at large.
    • 1. Responsibilities (revised 12/2021):
      • a. Serving as liaison between the Faculty and the Dean, Associate Dean, Assistant Deans, and all College subdivisions.
      • b. Conducting regularly scheduled Faculty meetings.
      • c. Attending College Leadership meetings.
      • d. Communicating initiatives and/or directives from Leadership to the Faculty and Faculty to Leadership.
      • e. Serving as Chair and/or Member of Franke Honors College Promotion Committees when the Candidates are at or below rank of the presiding Chair.
      • f. Attending Individual Faculty/Associate Dean Annual review meetings, if requested to do so by individual faculty members.
      • g. Responding expediently to individual and/or collective Faculty concerns, including issues that may arise outside of Faculty meetings.
      • h. Other duties to be determined in collaboration with the Associate Dean and Faculty.
    • 2. Term
      • a. The Chair shall serve standard terms of three to five (3-5) calendar years, beginning January 1st and ending December 31st.
      • b. Re-election cannot be sought for a third sequential term.
      • c. If the Chair is unable to fulfill a full term, the Chair shall either: i. Nominate an alternate candidate from amongst the Faculty; or, ii. Call for nominations from amongst the Faculty. iii. In either instance, election of a replacement Chair shall follow standard voting procedures outlined below. iv. Replacement Chairs shall fulfill the remainder of the previous Chair’s term; at the appropriate time, the standard nomination and election process shall determine the next Chair.
    • 3. Nominations
      • a. Candidates for Chair of the Faculty may be nominated for the office by other members of the FHC Faculty or may self-nominate.
      • b. Criteria for eligibility: i. Holds rank of Associate Professor of Practice or higher. ii. Has a minimum of 5 years as a member of the FHC Faculty. iii. Has not held the position of Chair for at least one term cycle (3-5 years) prior to nomination. iv. Must have at least 0.5 FTE appointment in the Franke Honors College.
    • 4. Elections
      • a. Election of the Chair shall be affected by affirmative vote of a majority (at least 51%) of the FHC Faculty.
      • b. Voting may occur during a regular or special Faculty meeting, or through electronic means. Voting held during a meeting must be announced with sufficient notice and included in an agenda circulated no less than 24 hours prior to the meeting. Electronic voting must likewise make reasonable allowance for participation; it is recommended that electronic voting take place over a business week (5 days).
    • 5. Procedures for a Vote of No Confidence
      • a. On rare occasions, in the course of College business, the Faculty may wish to express or record its opinion regarding their College administration, encompassing the Chair and other administrators in the College. These votes are generally described as votes of confidence/no confidence. A vote of confidence/no confidence is a statement of the sense of the Faculty and not a personnel recommendation. The vote is not binding but is reported to the Associate Dean and/or Dean, and to the Provost as appropriate.
      • b. In the event that a member of the Faculty believes the Chair is not acting in accordance with the best interests of the Faculty, or is demonstrably ineffective in the role, a Faculty member may call for a Vote of No Confidence in the Chair.
      • c. A vote of confidence/no confidence may be requested electronically in an email to the full Faculty and the Associate Dean, or in person at a Faculty Meeting. Such a request must take priority over other Faculty business, and overrides any existing agenda.
      • d. The vote will be taken by secret ballot, and tallied by a Dean-level College representative to whom the Faculty do not directly report, such as the Assistant Dean for Student Engagement or the Assistant Dean for Programs, Diversity, and Inclusion.

Article 3: Meetings

• Section 1: Schedule of Meetings
  • Before the beginning of each semester, the Chair shall draft and circulate a regular weekday and time for Faculty meetings, and a suggested schedule of meetings for the term. Meetings should be scheduled so that all Faculty members may attend, barring unexpected or temporary events.
• Section 2: Notice of Meetings and Agenda
  • An agenda shall be drafted by the Chair and circulated to all Faculty members at least two working days before each scheduled Faculty meeting. Prior to this, an open period shall be allowed for any Faculty member to submit agenda items and/or circulate items for discussion at the next meeting.
• Section 3: Methods of Voting
  • Voting may occur during regular or special Faculty meetings, or through electronic means. The method of voting is determined by the presider. Voting held during a meeting must be announced with sufficient notice and included in an agenda circulated no less than two working days prior to the meeting. Electronic voting must likewise make reasonable allowance for participation; it is recommended that electronic voting take place over a business week (five working days). A majority of the Faculty must participate in any vote, including formal abstention.
• Section 4: Attendance
  • Faculty attendance of regularly scheduled meetings is mandatory as an expectation of their role. Faculty should notify the chair when they will be unable to attend and provide advanced notice whenever possible.

Article 4: Faculty Committees: Membership and Terms

Participation by the Faculty in a range of College activities and initiatives is expected as part of the role. 

• Section 1: Ad Hoc Committees
  • Each semester, the Chair of the Faculty, in consultation with the Associate Dean and other members of the College Leadership Team)1 , determines and conveys to the Faculty the priorities for that term. The Faculty prioritizes the service requests and divides the labor amongst themselves, typically through volunteering. The resulting working groups are typically defined formally as ad hoc committees, which work on behalf of the full Faculty and present updates on their progress related to the work assigned.
• Section 2: Standing Committees
  • When necessary, the Faculty creates standing committees to initiate and/or sustain work related to Faculty interests and affairs. The formation of these committees is identical to the procedure for ad hoc committees.
  • 1. Curriculum Committee
    • a. This committee is concerned with the evolution of the Franke Honors College curriculum in alignment with the College’s mission and principles. b. It oversees the initial, College-level review of new course proposals, mentors Faculty in course refreshes and revisions to bring HNRS courses into alignment with university general education guidelines, and assists Faculty and Affiliates in developing and refreshing HNRS seminars.
  • 2. Faculty awards
    • a. This committee considers and nominates Faculty for awards, especially at the university-level, and provides application/nomination packet support when possible.
    • b. The committee maintains an accurate list of relevant awards and nomination deadlines, and considers Faculty nominations based on the following criteria: i. Eligibility ii. Previous nominations/receipt of award iii. Promotion cycle
• Section 3: Promotion-related Committees
  • Two committees participate in the promotion process for Franke Honors College Faculty.
  • 1. The Dossier Review Committee functions as the departmental committee required by the UA Faculty Affairs Promotion Guidelines (see promotion schedule here). This ad hoc committee is composed of at least three (3) career-track Faculty of a rank higher than the candidate. Members of this committee are appointed by the Associate Dean from within the Franke Honors College Faculty or from the greater UA Faculty, with a preference for candidates already affiliated with the Franke Honors College and its mission.
  • 2. The Standing Committee on Career-Track Faculty Status functions as the college promotion review committee for all cases of Career Track appointment and/or promotion. This committee will be composed of at least three (3) career-track Faculty of a rank higher than the candidate. Members of this committee will be appointed by the Associate Dean, one from the Franke Honors College Faculty (if rank permits, and from outside if rank does not permit), one from the greater UA Faculty (with the aforementioned preference for candidates affiliated with the Franke Honors College and our mission), and one from the candidate’s shortlist (rotating specific to each candidate, should more than one Faculty member be submitting their candidacy for promotion). 1 Leadership Team is the informal name for the supervisory and/or Dean-rank Honors College staff members who determine College priorities.

Article 5: Franke Honors College Committees: Membership

Participation by the Faculty in a range of College activities and initiatives is expected as part of the role. Participation options include intra-College standing and ad hoc committees.

• Section 1: Standing Committees
  • At times, members of the Faculty may be invited to serve on various ongoing Franke Honors College committees that represent a spectrum of roles and/or constituencies within the Colleges. Because these committees may request Faculty representation, the Faculty may decide, at the request of any individual Faculty member, to rotate the representative amongst the current membership.
• Section 2: Ad Hoc Committees
  • At times, members of the Faculty may be invited to serve on various short-term Franke Honors College committees that may seek to represent a spectrum of roles and/or constituencies within the Colleges, or are so numerous as to require the involvement of a majority of Franke Honors College employees. These include scholarship committees and hiring committees.

Article 6: University-Wide Committees with Shared Governance Participation: Membership and Terms

The Interdisciplinary Faculty participates in service to the wider university community by sending voting representatives to the following university-wide committees.

• Section 1: Undergraduate Council
  • The Undergraduate Council shall be composed as follows:
    • a. The Undergraduate Council (UGC) voting membership shall consist of: the UGC chair; one member of the General Faculty from each college that offers undergraduate degrees; one member from the Library; and one member from the Franke Honors College; each chosen by election in the college OR the appointment by the Dean, after consultation with that college’s version of an advisory council in accordance with the shared governance guidelines and agreements. College representatives serve for three-year terms. In addition, the chair of the University-wide General Education Committee or a designated alternate currently serving on the committee; the chair of the University General Petitions Committee or a designated alternative currently serving on the committee; and one to two student representatives from the Associated Students of the University of Arizona (ASUA)appointed to Undergraduate Council by the president of ASUA, shall serve as voting members of the UGC. ASUA members serve one-year terms that may be renewed. The chair shall be appointed by the Chair of the Faculty, on advice of the Nominating Committee and in consultation with the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, in accordance with the principles detailed in the shared governance guidelines and agreements. The chair shall serve for a term of one year, renewable for up to three years.
    • b. Non-voting members may include others as needed, by invitation of the chair.
    • c. The Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the Executive Director of Academic/Curricular Affairs, the Registrar, the Director of Advising Resource Center, the Vice Provost of Digital Learning & Student Engagement for the Office of Academic Initiatives and Student Success, the Assistant Director of Academic Policies & Organizations are ex officio non-voting members.
• Section 2: University-Wide General Education Committee
  • The University-Wide General Education Committee is composed as follows:
    • a. The University-wide General Education Committee (UWGEC) voting membership shall consist of the UWGEC Chair and faculty representatives from the Colleges and programs that offer General Education courses, as follows: The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (two voting members); the Colleges of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture, Education, Nursing and Pharmacy (one shared voting member); Eller College of Management (two voting members); the College of Engineering (one voting member); the College of Fine Arts (two voting members); Franke Honors College (one voting member); the College of Humanities (two voting members); the College of Science (two voting members); the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences (two voting members); and University of Arizona South (one voting member). A faculty representative for each of the three Foundations programs—English, Mathematics, and Second Language—and the Library shall serve as voting members. Two student representatives, one undergraduate junior or senior, and one will each serve as voting members (two voting members in total). Non-voting ex officio members include a representative of the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. Each faculty member serves a three-year term; each student serves a one- year term. Colleges are advised that at least part of the membership should be elected by their faculty, but in order to ensure that certain minority interests are heard, it is reasonable that part of the membership be appointed. In the event that an academic unit not represented in this list begins offering courses in the General Education program, the UWGEC voting members may adopt a means for ensuring appropriate representation for that academic unit, through the sharing of an existing voting member.
    • b. In addition, there is invited, non-voting representation from areas directly involved in general education.
    • c. Support for the committee is provided by the Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.
    • d. The chair is chosen in consultation between the Chair of the Faculty and Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, and serves a three-year, renewable term. The chair of UWGEC is a voting a member of the Undergraduate Council, and reports to the Senate through or in concert with the UGC chair.
• Section 3: Faculty Senate As of March 2022, the Franke Honors College does not have a representative on the Faculty Senate. Faculty are permitted to run for at-large Senate seats.
• Section 4: Other University-Level Committees At times, members of the Franke Honors College Faculty may be invited to serve on various short-term university-level committees, such as for awards and scholarships.

Article 7: Grievance Policies and Procedures for Faculty

From time to time within the University community, disputes may arise between a Faculty member and a Chair (or equivalent), Dean, Provost, or other administrator in which there are allegations of inequitable treatment, violation of academic freedom, or violation of College and/or University policy or procedures in some action which affects the Faculty member. Administrators should work carefully to avoid such situations and, should they occur, make every effort to resolve them before they become formal grievances. Similarly, Faculty should understand that mediating a formal grievance will involve a major investment of their colleagues’ time, and should use the procedure only to resolve important issues. When such a dispute arises, it is important that the parties work in good faith to resolve the situation informally, as quickly as possible. The aggrieved Faculty member should attempt to meet with the person whose action is the focus of the dispute in order to discuss and resolve the situation. If resolution is not achieved, they should attempt to meet first with the Chair and Associate Dean and, if they are unable to resolve the dispute, then with the Dean or Provost (or Provost’s representative) to make them aware of the situation and discuss paths to resolution. If, after making these attempts at informal resolution, the faculty member is not satisfied, they may proceed formally within the regular grievance procedure. The University of Arizona Faculty Bylaws delineate University’s the principles, procedures, and process for grievance resolution.

Article 1: Relationship to the W.A. Franke Honors College Interdisciplinary Faculty

As of August 2022, the W.A. Franke Honors College is the administrative home of Career-Track faculty members whose primary teaching responsibilities are UNIV 101 and UNIV 301. These faculty members, the UNIV Faculty, are not considered a part of the FHC Faculty for purposes of Franke Honors College governance.

Article 2: Governance and Voting

Until such time as the UNIV Faculty can draft and pass separate bylaws, they will be governed by the Franke Honors College bylaws and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Franke Honors College and the Office of General Education (OGE), with the MOU as the superior authority. Individual contracts and the MOU will be superior to these bylaws if the UNIV Faculty roles, responsibilities, expectations, procedures, or other job descriptors are in conflict. The Chair of the Faculty of the Franke Honors College also serves as the Chair for the UNIV faculty, but on matters of the administration of UNIV 101 and UNIV 301, the Chair of the Faculty and the UNIV Faculty shall defer to the designated Course Directors. The UNIV Faculty will follow the promotion guidelines set out in Appendix 1: Process and Criteria for Appointment and Promotion of Career-Track Professors of Practice in the University of Arizona W.A. Franke Honors College and the evaluation procedures set out in Appendix 2: Process and Criteria for Evaluation of Career-Track Professors of Practice until such time as the UNIV Faculty can draft and pass separate bylaws covering such procedures. For the 2022 evaluation year, the OGE Executive Director and Course Directors will complete the faculty annual evaluations for each person’s teaching, research/scholarship, and service. The Franke Honors College will initiate the annual evaluation process for each faculty member and the Dean will submit the final assessment as provided.

Article 3. Workload

All UNIV Faculty have an expectation of teaching, scholarly activity, and service to the Faculty, the College, and the University; the typical workload distribution for fully appointed, 1.0 FTE UNIV Faculty is exemplified as follows: 60% teaching, 20% scholarly activity, and 20% service. The typical course load is the equivalent of 12 units of teaching per academic year; variations from this baseline based on contract negotiation and individual circumstances will be negotiated primarily with the OGE Executive Director.

*Language regarding minimum qualifications for rank does not apply to UNIV Faculty, whose minimum qualifications are a master’s degree.

Statement of Purpose

The Franke Honors College promotes and supports a culture of collaboratively engaged scholarship with a focus on innovative pedagogy and inclusive mentoring. To that end criteria for appointment and promotion focus on the integration of teaching, research, and service. All candidates for promotion must demonstrate excellence in their student-centered teaching, scholarly and creative productions, and service to the Franke Honors College, University, community, profession, and beyond. Career-track teaching professionals are an integral part of the University of Arizona W.A. Franke Honors College. The conditions of their appointments are defined by the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel (UHAP 3.13). The present document is intended to be consistent with the UHAP and the Bylaws of the Franke Honors College. In the event of any inconsistency, the UHAP and the University of Arizona Faculty Bylaws and Constitution have the superior authority.

Promotion in rank for the Honors College follows the traditional academic progression, using the titles of Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor of Practice. Promotion in rank is awarded based on professional accomplishments in position effectiveness, leadership, and service, as described below. Promotion in rank is not granted lightly or automatically and is based on excellent performance and the promise of continued excellence and professional growth.

Workload and Employment Contracts

Franke Honors College Faculty focus primarily on instruction, course management, and development, student mentoring ranging from thesis advising to internships and independent studies, as well as service, outreach, and scholarly activity. The typical workload distribution for Honors College Faculty is exemplified as follows: 60% teaching, 20% scholarly activity, and 20% service. As a guideline, 4-5% of each instructor’s total workload is the equivalent of a single unit of teaching, meaning a typical workload will involve the equivalent of 14 units per year with no more than three class preps per semester, usually apportioned as two 3-unit classes and one 1-unit class each fall and spring semester. The scholarly activity requirement for Honors College Faculty will include such work as results in funded grants, publications, creative endeavors, and/or other scholarly products. This baseline distribution may be adjusted by the Associate Dean on a case-by-case basis, based on the individual circumstances and departmental needs, and may be discussed at annual performance review meetings and modified ad hoc in consultation with the Associate Dean.

Promotions

Similar to Tenure-track faculty, the performance of Honors Faculty is subject to two types of reviews: Annual reviews and (optional) Promotion reviews. Annual performances follow the Career-Track Annual Review guidelines (UHAP 3.2). Continued employment (contract renewals) are dependent on the outcome of the annual reviews by the Associate Dean. Promotion reviews follow the general procedure outlined below and the corresponding guidelines in the UHAP. Both the annual reviews and promotion reviews (UHAP 3.3) are based on the criteria and expectations given below. A Franke Honors College Faculty member with the appropriate years of full-time employment in a given rank has an option (not a requirement) to request consideration for promotion to the next academic rank within the Honors Faculty. (The same length-of-service test described in the Contracts section applies to split appointments.) Since it is generally expected that promotions are accompanied by salary increases, the Associate Dean may limit the number of promotion cases reviewed in a given year based on budgetary constraints. Promotion review is initiated by the request of a qualified candidate to the Associate Dean, who, after initial consideration, refers the case to the Career-Track Faculty Status Committee.

The Dossier Review and the Career-Track Faculty Status Committee

Two committees are involved in the promotion process. The Dossier Review (DR) Committee functions as the departmental committee and is composed of at least three (3) career-track faculty of a rank higher than the candidate in order to best advise said candidate regarding their dossier. Members of this committee are appointed by the Associate Dean from within the Honors College Interdisciplinary Faculty or from the greater UA faculty, with a preference for candidates already affiliated with the Honors College and our mission. The standing committee on Career-Track Faculty Status (CTFS) functions as the college promotion review committee for all cases of Career-Track appointment and/or promotion. This committee will be composed of at least three (3) careertrack faculty of a rank higher than the candidate. Members of this committee will be appointed by the Associate Dean, one from the in-house Honors College Faculty (if rank permits, and from outside if rank does not permit), one from the greater university faculty (with the aforementioned preference for candidates affiliated with the Honors College and our mission), and one from the candidate’s shortlist (rotating specific to each candidate, should more than one faculty member be submitting their candidacy for promotion). In appointing the committee, consideration should be given to candidates’ involvement in extra-collegiate engagement in other units. When that involvement is significant, an outside faculty member from those units should be appointed to the committee. The CTFS Committee reviews the candidate’s performance and accomplishments summarized in the promotion dossier and the candidate’s Faculty Annual Profile profile. Guidelines for dossier preparation adhere to policies set forth by the Office of the Provost for Faculty Affairs. The Candidate’s Statement (Section 5) and the Teaching Portfolio (Section 6) portions of the dossier should include evidence of productive engagement in diverse educational activities in the department (e.g., instructional development and enrichment, honors and awards, and evaluation), involvement in professional development (e.g., scholarly publications, productions, presentations, and grant/scholarships), and documented record of service to the department and university (e.g., committees, college outreach, and service awards).

Expectations for Honors College Faculty

Honors College Faculty are effective educators, whose primary responsibility (typically 60%) is teaching. They contribute in diverse ways to the educational mission of the Honors College. They may supervise undergraduate students as related to their teaching responsibilities. They may serve as Thesis Advisors for Honors College undergraduate students, provided they hold a terminal degree from an accredited institution. They may also serve as leaders/collaborators for intramural or extramural funded educational and scholarship programs to contribute to advance the scholarship of teaching and (inter)disciplinary expression, research, and outreach. According to UHAP 3.3.03.b, promotion requires excellent performance and the promise of continued excellence as determined by the specific duties assigned to individual faculty members. ABOR section 6-201(I)(4)(a) notes that criteria for evaluation should consider teaching effectiveness; quality of service to the profession, university, and community; and the quality of scholarly research, publication, or creative endeavors.

Review Process

Information on the promotion review process is included in UHAP chapter 3.2.01 and 3.03.03 Career-track Professors of Practice should submit a dossier using the dossier templates and documentation from the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. Some sections of the dossier may be marked as NA for Not Applicable if they are not relevant to the candidate’s assigned duties.

Additional Consideration

• Determining years of service for purposes of eligibility
  • Candidates for promotion may request credit for years of the previous service at other institutions, or in UA positions that included related duties. Such credit will be negotiated on an individual basis. Units may set different schedules for reviews to fit the profiles of their faculty. Promotion will generally be considered after the appropriate number of years of UA service in rank (at ≥ .5 FTE) because the expertise needed for higher ranks requires understanding the UA’s institutional resources, expectations, and mission. Questions about years of service should be directed to the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs.
• Considering student evaluations in assessments of faculty
  • When assessing teaching for promotion, reviewers should recognize that research has demonstrated that faculty members’ gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, national origin, and disability status can impact their students’ evaluations. That impact can be intensified by controversial course content and individuals’ teaching style. The University recognizes the impact of these factors by considering student evaluations as part of a multimodal review that includes peer observations and reviews of teaching portfolios.
• Timeline for career-track promotion reviews
  • Candidates should consult with their department heads on their college’s schedule for career-track reviews. The Provost’s Office will accept dossiers all year, but decisions on dossiers submitted in spring semesters will not be made until after May 1.

 

 

Statement of Purpose

The Honors College promotes and supports a culture of collaboratively engaged scholarship with a focus on innovative pedagogy and inclusive mentoring. To that end, criteria for appointment and promotion focus on the integration of teaching, research and service. Similarly, the annual evaluation process assesses all three categories and seeks to provide formative feedback to the faculty. In these evaluations, feedback will encourage and be centered on fostering excellence in student-centered teaching, scholarly and creative productions, and service to the Honors College, university, community, profession, and beyond. Career-track teaching professionals are an integral part of University of Arizona Honors College. The conditions of their appointments are defined by the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel (UHAP 3.13). The present document is intended to be consistent with the UHAP and the Bylaws of the Honors College. In the event of any inconsistency, the UHAP and the Bylaws have the superior authority.

Timeline of the Annual Evaluation Process

The annual evaluation process for a given calendar year shall begin with faculty members entering the required materials (described below) into Faculty Annual Profile by January 15 of the subsequent year (or the first business day immediately following, if the 15th is not a business day). The Associate Dean will schedule one-on-one Evaluation & Planning Meetings with each faculty member after January 15 and no later than February 1. Faculty members may elect to include the Chair of the Faculty 3 in their Evaluation & Planning Meeting; they must indicate that they want the Chair to be present via email to both the Chair and Associate Dean by January 15. These Evaluation & Planning Meetings will cover the formative evaluation of the previous calendar year, any necessary workload adjustments for the present calendar year, and goal-setting and course schedule planning for the present and next calendar years. In discussing potential changes to workload distribution for the present year, faculty should be aware that the schedule for fall term goes live for student registration on March 1; therefore, most changes made at this meeting to workload distribution will be in the categories of service and scholarship. The result of these Evaluation & Planning Meetings will be (1) evaluative scores entered by the Associate Dean into Faculty Annual Profile with narrative explanation and (2) documentation of the upcoming goals and workload distribution of the faculty member as agreed upon with the Associate Dean. The latter document, the Goals & Workload Agreement, will be held on file in the Honors College after both parties to the evaluation sign off on it, which must be completed by February 15. (Faculty intending to submit promotion documents can begin that conversation during or before the Evaluation & Planning Meeting, but they may also seek a separate meeting with the Associate Dean; notification of intent to submit promotion documents occurs in early/mid-March.)

*Either the faculty member or the Chair may request that the Chair designate a third party to serve as the Chair’s designee if either feels there would be a conflict of interest in their participation in the Evaluation & Planning Meeting for that particular faculty member.

Entry of Faculty Annual Profile Materials 

This section describes the materials that should be gathered for and submitted into Faculty Annual Profile . 4 While the deadline for each calendar year’s evaluation is January 15 of the subsequent year, faculty are encouraged to enter materials year round while the experience is fresh in order to keep the details accurate.

Required Components

The four main required components that must be entered into Faculty Annual Profile by all faculty are:

• Workload Distribution — This information may automatically be populated. If not, speak to the chair immediately. Your information must include entries for Position Title, FTE, Instruction, Research, and Service. (Note that what the Honors College refers to as Scholarly Activity falls here under Research.) Other categories of professional activity that are visible on Faculty Annual Profile can be used to describe one’s workload distribution if previously agreed upon with the Associate Dean. One can enter discrete workload distributions for each semester of the evaluations year if necessary.
  • a. An example of a 1.0 FTE workload distribution for Honors College faculty is as follows: 60% teaching, 20% scholarly activity, and 20% service.
  • b. Teaching, in this example, is satisfied by five 3-unit classes per year, usually apportioned as one class in the fall plus Catalyst teaching responsibilities and two classes in the spring.
  • c. Scholarly activity includes all phases of the research and creative productive process, from background investigations through publication and dissemination; an expanded but not exclusive list of scholarly activities is provided below.
  • d. Service typically includes committee work at the college and university level, as well as participation in college events; an expanded but not exclusive list of service activities is provided below.
• Honors College: Annual Review Narrative — The faculty member’s Annual Review Narrative should include:
  • a. An executive summary that represents the major points of the faculty member’s performance for that year, allowing the evaluator to rapidly become acquainted with the body of materials submitted for the evaluation. This should highlight what the faculty member considers most important in their evaluation for that year, and it should include a statement about the relative proportions of time/effort required for each component of workload distribution (which can be done visually). The length limit for the executive summary is a single page.
  • b. Separate sections for Teaching, Scholarly Activity, and Service, which should each cover (but are not limited to):
    • i. Actual workload, including the relationship of effort, contribution, and effect or impact
    • ii. Modifications made to the plans set at the prior year’s Evaluation & Planning Meeting
    • iii. Significant accomplishments within the evaluation year
  • c. Each of these sections should include the activities and accomplishments most closely aligned with that section. For example, a teaching innovation should be described within the Teaching section, while a publication or presentation about said innovation belongs in Scholarly Activity. Example activities and their suggested alignments can be found below, along with other sections of Faculty Annual Profile in which those activities can be detailed as determined by the individual faculty member. The length limit for these three sections, combined, is three pages, for a combined total of four pages for the entire Annual Review Narrative.
• Goals and Progress — In the context of this section, the term “goals” is meant to include plans, intentions, and aspirations discussed and agreed upon at the previous Evaluation & Planning Meeting.
  • a. Goals: Faculty should set goals in each of the three workload categories (teaching, scholarly activity, and service), though some goals may transcend those categories (e.g., better time management, building campus relationships, desired impacts of service obligations that extend into teaching and/or scholarly activities).
  • b. Progress: Additionally, progress made on all goals agreed to in the previous Evaluation & Planning Meeting should be briefly described. Failure to make progress and/or impediments to progress should be acknowledged here but can be described in more detail in the Annual Review Narrative.
  • c. Activity Classification: Faculty should enter their Goals and Progress statement into the text box labeled “Goal.” Below the boxes, select “Other Professional Activities” from the Activity Classification drop down menu. In preparing this statement, which includes both goals and progress details, please limit yourself to one page.
  • d. Faculty should refer to the lists provided below regarding the types of teaching/scholarly/service activities that the Honors College values when setting their goals and crafting the short narrative for this section.
  • e. This narrative may also be revised during the course of the Evaluation & Planning Meeting and evaluation process, and will ultimately be signed off on by both the faculty member and the Associate Dean.
• Honors: Supplemental Curriculum Vitae — Faculty should submit an up-to-date Curriculum Vitae in the format of their discipline(s). They are encouraged but not required to highlight within the document the elements pertinent to this evaluation year.

Components That May Vary Individually

This section explains the other major categories of Faculty Annual Profile into which faculty may enter their activities and accomplishments. Please enter any pertinent items into the categories listed below.

• Teaching: Credit Bearing Courses
  • This section is automatically populated with enrollments and Student Course Surveys; however, faculty may add supplementary materials (such as a syllabi or assignment language) to illustrate innovative or noteworthy teaching methods as part of each year’s evaluation.
  • Whole course designs, significant course redesigns, and other teaching innovations are important to document for later use in the promotion dossier as well as for consideration during the annual review process. (A significant or major course redesign is considered a revision of approximately 30% of the course, which could include a change of objectives or goals, themes, materials, activities or other use of course time, nature of assignments, etc.) Faculty may upload all or part of a syllabus or other documentation as needed to demonstrate a major redesign or innovation in their teaching by pairing the documentation with the appropriate class in this section. These submissions should be uploaded and tagged as either Syllabus or Other and should be preceded by a brief narrative describing the changes and the purpose of the changes (no more than a page). 
  • With regard to teaching observation: Faculty are not required to engage in peer observation; however, it is recommended, for the purpose of improving one’s skills, that faculty should engage in regular formative peer observations. If said observations result in written documentation -- such as a letter describing the teaching observed -- said documentation should be attached to the class that was observed under this section. (Faculty should note that these observations can later be included in their promotion dossier at the individual’s discretion. There will also be an additional observation completed as part of the promotion process; details of the promotion process can be found in the Promotion Criteria document.)
• Teaching: GradPath Advising Activities
• Teaching: Guest Lectures and Invited Teaching
• Teaching: Student Mentoring, Advising and Activities
  • This section is a good place to specifically identify first-year projects, independent studies, thesis mentoring, and any other similar projects with students. (N.B. These items will need to be listed in the promotion dossier, so having a thorough record here is helpful later on.)
• Teaching: Development of Instructional Resources
  • This section should only be used for the development of instructional resources with significant benefit to your own or others’ courses, especially to the benefit of the Honors College or Honors students more broadly. Such resources go beyond the types of innovations and projects that might be included under Teaching: Credit Bearing Courses.
• Research: Grants and Contracts
• Research: Scholarly Contributions and Creative Productions
  • Faculty are encouraged to enter ongoing projects in this section -- it is not necessary to wait until a given scholarly activity is “complete” or published before entering it.
  • As a reminder, even atypical scholarly activities can and should be included here, including items that do not appear on the list below.
  • When it is not self-evident, faculty should feel free to include information contextualizing the effort and impact of any scholarly activity, up to and including non-traditional modes of publication, the competitiveness of the process, invitations to contribute, etc.
• Research: Development of Research Support Resources
  • This section could include resources developed in support of your own research or that of colleagues or students, at the faculty member’s discretion.
• Service: Institutional Committees
  • For formal standing committee appointments within the institution (UA, college, school, department, etc.). Note: non-UA committee work should be entered under “Teaching: Student Mentoring, Advising and Activities” (for dissertation/thesis/honors committees, etc.) or “Professional Service and Outreach (Extramural),” for professional service or community work, as appropriate.
  • Specific details of time spent, effort made, and roles taken should be included in the narrative.
• Service: Other Institutional Service (Intramural)
  • For ad hoc or specialized institutional service or administrative assignments, such as accreditation or assessment coordination; special assignments from department head, dean, vice-president, or provost, etc.
• Service: Professional Service and Outreach (Extramural)
  • Professional Service includes service rendered to an academic or professional organization such as a committee appointment, journal editor or reviewer, speech or presentation of non-research paper at a professional meeting, moderator, discussant or panelist at a conference.
  • Outreach and Community Service includes service outside of the institution and outside of the profession/discipline, such as organizing community or public conferences or workshops; delivery of non-credit curriculum; or work with community groups/volunteers.
• Service: Faculty Mentoring
• Honors, Awards and Fellowships
• Consulting
• Inventions, Technology Transfer and Commercialization
• Professional Development ○ For conference, training, continuing professional education, events or activities in which you participated. Do not list degrees in progress here; enter instead as Degrees in the Profile Form.
• Volunteerism
• Additional Input

The Substance of the Evaluation

Good, effective, and meaningful teaching should be the ambition/objective of all Honors College faculty. Such teaching is characterized by: the use of active learning strategies and evidence-based teaching models; the reflexive and iterative redesign of courses; pedagogical innovation in class structure, materials, and assessments; creative, integrative, and purposeful uses of instructional technology; well-considered student outcomes intended to support iterative intellectual growth; responsive and consistent assessment techniques that reward and cultivate intellectual curiosity; and other dynamic, collaborative, and interdisciplinary practices.

Honors courses should utilize challenging learning objectives that elevate student thinking above the lower tier of Bloom’s taxonomy to require creative, evaluative, and analytical thinking. Honors faculty should be able to speak to how their courses promote the Honors Hallmarks for Course Development (attached below as Addendum on Honors Hallmarks) and should bear those aspects in mind when developing their teaching materials and in composing their narrative for evaluation.

Evaluators should consider formal student feedback, namely the Student Course Surveys, as the basis for formative evaluation feedback, not quantitative determinations of faculty performance. Similarly, the scores assigned in the Office of Instruction and Assessment observation mechanisms should be translated into qualitative feedback, with an awareness that teaching styles vary.

Good, effective, and meaningful scholarly activity is not defined solely as the publication or dissemination of traditional research products. The Honors College values all phases of creative and scholarly production, as well as the diversity of its multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary instructional team. Faculty are encouraged to describe efforts at any stage of the scholarly process and to describe work for an audience outside of their disciplines or specializations. Evaluators should consider workload distribution and the varied disciplinary standards of scholarship when assessing an individual faculty member’s progress and accomplishments.

Good, effective, and meaningful service foregrounds the positive impacts of service on the students of the Honors College, including current and future students, as well as alumni. Service can be performed for the college and university, through participation or leadership in national or international professional and/or field-specific organizations or advisory groups, and in outreach to the community and the general public. While faculty should describe the specific responsibilities, the time devoted to various committee work and service, and the perceived impact of their service in the appropriate part of the Annual Review Narrative, evaluators should carefully balance the relationship between the contributions of time and intellectual effort and the effects of the service work provided.

The Result of the Evaluation Process

The Evaluation & Planning (E&P) Meeting — held annually in late January — considers the previous calendar year of teaching, service, and scholarly activities. During the Evaluation & Planning Meeting, the evaluator will consider the faculty member’s goals for the evaluation year (documented in the Goals & Workload Agreement), and the progress made towards those goals. Sufficient progress will be determined based on the description provided in the Goals and Progress statement (submitted to Faculty Annual Profile) and via verbal explanation by the faculty member during the E&P Meeting. Circumstances that supported and/or hindered progress on goals should be discussed and considered by the evaluator. New goals for the current calendar year will be discussed, agreed to, and documented in the Goals & Workload Agreement. This document will also describe the faculty member’s course schedule for the two calendar years after the evaluation year.

During the E&P Meeting, the faculty member and evaluator will also discuss the quality of the faculty member’s teaching, service, and scholarly activities in relation to the values described above (The Substance of the Evaluation). In conversation with the faculty member, the evaluator will endeavor to develop actionable goals to improve their teaching, service, and/or scholarly activity as appropriate — and said goals should be added to or revised within the Goals & Workload Agreement, which must be signed by both parties during or after the E&P Meeting.

After the E&P meeting, the evaluator must submit scores out of four in each of three categories: Teaching, Research/Scholarly Activity, and Service. Please see Addendum on Scoring for details of how evaluation scores are calculated. The scores should be accompanied by meaningful language in the evaluator’s short narratives posted in Faculty Annual Profile . The evaluator should highlight specific noteworthy accomplishments, as well as areas for improvement or development. Three sentences addressing the faculty member’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement (in the context of this evaluation year) would be sufficient in each category. In the “Meets/Exceeds Expectations” category, feedback should make clear whether and how the faculty member is exceeding or meeting expectations. The E&P Meeting and evaluation process fundamentally centers on formative assessment. Failure to complete goals agreed to in the G&W Agreement for the relevant evaluation year will be considered in light of any extenuating circumstances. Discussion and proposed amelioration will focus on specific structures of support (including but not limited to mentorship, deadlines, etc.) to encourage the faculty member’s future success. In the event of an unsatisfactory evaluation, please refer to the Addendum on Procedures for Unsatisfactory Evaluations.

Addendum of Example Activities

Examples of Activities that Might be Listed in More Than One Category

• Student mentoring (including but not limited to First-Year Projects, independent studies, and theses) should be regarded as teaching unless the faculty member intentionally has chosen to include said activities as service (as might be the case for other student mentoring, such as career counseling).
• Guest Lecturing — depending on the context and specifics, an item listed under Teaching: Guest Lectures and Invited Teaching could be categorized as teaching, service, or scholarly activity, at faculty discretion.
• Service to the profession such as reviews for academic publications or reviews applying your professional expertise could be categorized as either service or scholarship, but not both.

Examples of Service Activities

• Extracurricular events (including Honors College all-staff events), especially the planning and/or organization of such events
• Mock classes, such as for recruiting events
• Committees — both standing and ad hoc — in the Honors College
• Other university committees, including collaborations with other units and university-level committees
• Service toward other university units and programs
• Participation in professional development or training focused on improving faculty knowledge and cultural competencies
• Service to the profession (this could include reviews for academic publications or reviews applying your professional expertise, but should be “counted” in either service or scholarship, not double dipped)
• Service to community organizations that utilizes professional expertise and/or builds collaborations of value to the Honors College
• Any other activities which enhance the profile of the Honors College in the campus or wider community

Examples of Creative and Scholarly Activities

Professional development training and continuing education specifically related to scholarship — faculty should be able to articulate the benefit the training/education had on their creative or scholarly work, including its impact.

Preliminary and Active Research Activities include:

• The early stages of research, including contemplation and the incubation of ideas.
• Formative scholarship activities (consisting of developmental work: drafting, reading, archival visits, writing groups, workshop participation, informally presenting ideas to professional colleagues).  
• Data gathering, fieldwork, travel, lab experiments, etc.
• Related activities, such as grant writing and other funding/project management Effort expended on “failed” or stalled projects — faculty should be unashamed to describe those projects with extended timelines and those that have faced delays and impediments, including unsurpassable obstructions/pandemics.

Publishing, meaning the entire dissemination process, including the performance and/or presentation of:

• peer-reviewed articles, books
• critical/academic reviews
• performing creative work
• blog posts, pop press/reviews, and journalism (consider the status of the publication in the Annual Review Narrative)
• radio show appearances/hosting regular show
• public lectures
• editorial or other publications or appearances that reflect well on the Honors College
• curation of or contribution to exhibits and/or public events/festivals
• conference presentation
• poster

Within the Annual Review Narrative, describe the work’s relationship to your area of disciplinary expertise as well as the cycle of submission, revision, resubmission, etc. as necessary to understand the impact of the work. The greater impact of the work, including but not limited to accolades, awards, prizes, etc.

Addendum on Honors Hallmarks for Course Development

The goal for our Honors Education program is to provide a high level of learning and performance beyond the expectations of regular courses. In our Honors courses at University of Arizona we seek to engage students in all aspects of learning, but further challenge students with more progressive and complex levels of cognition: creation (or design), evaluation, and analysis. These top three levels reflect engagement typical of graduate level coursework.

We expect Honors students to imagine creative solutions to real world problems by challenging them to think in a range of knowledge dimensions from the factual to the abstract, and from the single case to more comparative approaches. Courses that utilize these challenging learning objectives will prepare students to be the next generation of intellectual leaders. We would like this document to serve as a guide for the development of Honors courses. Our challenge is to create a course that embodies hallmarks to engage students in the creative, evaluative, and analytical learning levels. We have defined Honors Hallmarks across three categories: learning outcomes or objectives, learning environments, and assessment. We recognize that learning environments, outcomes, and assessments vary across disciplines. When developing your course, you may decide that certain hallmarks fit your objectives and the format of your discipline better than others. This document does not provide an exhaustive list.

Honors Learning Outcomes 

• Ethical Reasoning – Exhibit ethical reasoning in academic, professional, and personal contexts as engaged contributors to intersecting cultural worlds and natural environments.
• Critical Thinking, Creative Inquiry, and Research – Develop research and critical thinking skills to analyze and evaluate arguments, develop individual understanding, and communicate effectively.
• Interdisciplinary Thinking – Integrate learning and knowledge across multiple disciplines to engage with complex questions and vital issues.
• Intercultural and Global Understanding – Learn from and develop respect for different identities and perspectives to engage with and serve diverse communities locally and globally.
• Collaboration & Leadership – Practice working effectively in collaboration, integrating the talents and experiences of ourselves and others, while including and motivating our community.
• Holistic Engagement – Incorporate learning outcomes into our contributions, reflecting upon our experiences and evaluating our roles as scholars and community members.

Honors Learning Environments should enable students to engage and interact through:

• Collaborative learning spaces
• Peer-to-peer learning
• Experiential learning
• Evidence-based instruction
• Direct contact and interaction with the course instructor in a smaller class setting

Honors Assessments should promote student engagement with material on a deeper level through:

• Critical reading and discussion
• Scholarly analysis essays
• Constructive feedback and consistent evaluation
• Group work and projects

Addendum on Scoring

In the event of an unsatisfactory evaluation, the faculty member can refer to official University documentation for appeals and other dispute resolution procedures.

Teaching

 

 

 

Service 

 

 

 

 

 

Scholarship 

We support an inclusive view of scholarship including participating in publicly engaged research and creative activities. When scholarly activity is part of the faculty member’s workload, measures of scholarly achievement may include (but are not limited to) the following:

 

 

 

 

Below is the memo from Provost Andrea Romero describing considerations to be taken into account with 2020 evaluations in light of the coronavirus pandemic. In the event that any guidance in this document conflicts with the Provost’s recommendations, the Provost’s recommendations supersede this document.

Memorandum

To: Deans, Department Heads, Chairs, Directors and Faculty

From: Andrea J. Romero, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

Date: December 3rd, 2020

Subject: Additional Information on Annual Reviews

Dear all, Nothing about the 2020 year has been normal or typical for anyone across the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the racial pandemic. We have all seen and experienced first-hand the extent to which the daily work lives of faculty have been directly impacted. As such, I am writing to share additional guidance concerning how to adjust our usual expectations of faculty activity in order to better correlate with the realities of the pandemics. We did sincerely investigate suspending annual reviews, however, both ABOR and UHAP policy mandate annual review for all tenuretrack, continuing status and career-track faculty. We recommend that compassion for ourselves and each other at this moment requires us to reconsider using only traditional metrics or standards for review of activity during 2020. Rather than focusing on traditional evaluative approaches for 2020, we encourage a formative approach that provides opportunity for reflection on how faculty activity was affected by the pandemics and discussion for strategic planning of 2021 activities. Formative reviews emphasize professional growth through constructive support of assessing current activity and informing strategic planning. By focusing on strengths while identifying challenges, a formative approach can improve professional development and even encourage risks that may lead to innovation and advancement of knowledge.

The Provost, in a previous memo, provided as much flexibility as possible within the bounds of existing policy, which still requires peer review, scoring, and meeting with the department head. Although numerical scores are still required for annual review by peers and department head, we recognize the inherent challenge of reconciling a formative approach with the need for scoring. Thus, rather than too narrowly focusing on scores, we recommend more emphasis on the written summary from the department head and meeting with the department head as an opportunity to engage in reflection and formative feedback. Student Course Surveys (SCS) were not required for 2020 instructors and will not be required for 2020 annual review. This was decided because of the rapid transition to remote learning in Spring 2020 and the variability and instability of teaching formats in Fall 2020. Peer teaching observations were still possible for remote learning, in which case it was recommended that observers choose only 2-3 areas to focus on while observing remote learning – see this link for guidance for observing remote learning.

We encourage celebrating faculty who have gone above and beyond their traditional work in order to address either pandemic. This will require a more expansive view of what counts for each area of the workload as well as an openness to understanding ways in which faculty have needed to re-focus their efforts. We can provide recognition of work that may be on-going, including unexpected service activities that have helped the university address financial changes, student needs, racial inequities and pandemic related topics. This may also include forms of public scholarship where faculty have addressed urgent social and health issues in public spheres. In addition, recognition of how faculty quickly pivoted in teaching and scholarship to integrate the health and racial pandemic historical moments, including rapidly adopting and refining remote learning strategies and technical applications. Such efforts deserve to be recognized as significant achievements during the 2020 year, especially during this time period when furloughs and pay-cut related flex time have reduced the amount of available or expected work time.