The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Policy # [####]
College of Business Materials (Appendix A: COB)

College of Business

Policies and Procedures for Appointment, Renewal, Promotion, Tenure and Merit

Initial Date Approved by COBA Faculty: May 30, 1989

Initial Effective Date: July 1, 1989

Revisions Approved by COBA Faculty: February 6, 1992

Effective Date of Revisions: January 1, 1992

Revisions Approved by COBA Faculty: February 18 and April 8, 1994

Revisions Approved by COBA Faculty: December 5, 1997

Revisions Approved by COBA Faculty: April 6, 2001

Revisions Approved by COBA Faculty: June 2, 2004

Revisions approved by COBA Faculty: April 7, 2007

Revisions approved by COBA Faculty: May 2, 2008

INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of this document is to assist the College in accomplishing its mission, goals and objectives. A second purpose is to place in writing the College’s guidelines and criteria, which should be applied in a judicious and professional manner, for personnel decisions concerning appointment, renewal, promotion, tenure, merit and assignment of professional responsibilities. The third purpose of this document is to outline the actions needed, timelines for those actions, and the needs of the College of Business (COBA) in the areas of teaching, research and service to accomplish its mission and to maintain AACSB accreditation.

PRODUCTIVITY GUIDELINES

TEACHING: Teaching is the primary duty and responsibility of a faculty member. Teaching assignments must meet the needs of our students and the needs of the College to generate Student Credit Hours (SCH) and Full-time Equivalents (FTE). In calculating the average SCH per FTE in the College, undergraduate SCH will be added to 1.33 times graduate SCH. In addition to meeting the workload requirements, faculty are expected to continuously improve the quality of instruction.

 

INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS: Research and scholarly activity, hereinafter referred to as research, is a significant part of the faculty’s workload. For a given four-year period, the College’s Intellectual Contributions Productivity Profile should approach the goal profile below.

College of Business
Four Year Intellectual Contribution Productivity Goal Profile

Aggregate goal cumulative percent of faculty

25% – 6 scholarly works, at least 4 of which are articles

50% – 5 scholarly works, at least 3 of which are articles

80% – 4 scholarly works, at least 2 of which are articles

100% – 3 scholarly works, at least 1 of which is an article

AACSB categorizes Intellectual Contributions as Learning and Pedagogical Scholarship (works that focus on teaching and learning), Contributions to Practice (works that focus on applications) and Discipline-Based Scholarship (traditional scholarship furthering the academic discipline). When evaluating the Intellectual Contributions of our faculty and staff, AACSB expects a report that divides our contributions into Peer Reviewed Journal Articles (PRJ) and Other Intellectual Contributions (OIC) within each of the three categories.

Intellectual Contributions

Learning & Pedagogical Scholarship
Peer Reviewed Journal Articles
Other Intellectual Contributions

Contributions to Practice
Peer Reviewed Journal Articles
Other Intellectual Contributions

Discipline-Based Scholarship
Peer Reviewed Journal Articles
Other Intellectual Contributions

Peer Reviewed Journal Articles appear in a journal where the referee process consists of a review by at least two individuals. These can either be from the journal’s editorial board or from outside reviewers. Journals listed in Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities, whose review process meets the above requirements, will qualify. For journals not listed in Cabell’s, the author(s) is responsible for providing evidence that the journal’s review process meets the above requirements.

The following are generally not considered refereed journal articles:

1. Paper presentations which later appear as proceedings.
2. Conference paper presentations that later appear in a journal but are not subject to a second review process.
3. Articles where the journal charges a fee to publish, except if pre-approved by the Faculty Review and Development team.

Final judgments regarding the classification or value of a journal article or paper will be made by the Faculty Review and Development team.

Other Intellectual Contributions includes but is not limited to the following:

• monographs,
• scholarly books,
• textbooks,
• papers accepted for presentation at academic or professional meetings and/or proceedings from scholarly meetings,
• publicly available research working papers,
• papers presented at faculty research seminars,
• publications in trade journals,
• publications in in-house journals,
• published and disseminated book reviews,
• written cases with instructional materials,
• instructional software, other publicly available materials describing the design and implementation of new curricula or courses including instructors’ manuals, test banks, slide sets, cases and/or PowerPoint presentations that are attributed to the faculty member as author,
• a significant consulting project whose results are publicly available,
• a significant research grant (at least $15,000) from which articles or professional presentations are anticipated.

Intellectual Contributions must be publicly available, (i.e., proprietary and confidential research and consulting reports do not qualify as Intellectual Contributions).

The presumption that other Intellectual Contributions are not equivalent to peer reviewed journal articles can be rebutted by additional evidence provided by the faculty member.

SERVICE: Faculty are expected to participate on Team, College, and University committees that are important to faculty governance and achieving the goals and mission of the Team, College and University. Service includes participating in committees, student organizations, professional and academic organizations; conducting seminars or workshops; being a reviewer of articles, papers or books; coordinating classes; and providing service to the community.

 

I. PERSONNEL GUIDELINES

The following guidelines are designed to provide a general framework for personnel decisions. These criteria will be applied in a judicious and professional manner.

APPOINTMENT: The recruiting of faculty is the responsibility of the Team. All appointments are made consistent with University and College Policies and Procedures.

DEGREE COMPLETION: Individuals without an appropriate terminal degree, or who are not near completion of an appropriate terminal degree, will not be hired for a tenure track position. Individuals without the appropriate credentials, if employed, are employed in a temporary position as academic staff. Individuals pursuing the terminal degree may be renewed to the third year (renewal early in the second year) without having completed the terminal degree. However, an individual may not be renewed to the fourth year (renewal late in the second year) unless all requirements have been completed for the degree by the time of the renewal decision. To assist tenure track faculty to complete the terminal degree, Teams are encouraged, as appropriate to the individual and the availability of resources, to:

a. reduce the teaching load for at least one semester of the first year;

b. reduce or eliminate service assignments for the first year;

c. discourage summer teaching; and

d. discourage outreach activities unless activities are applicable to degree completion.

RENEWAL: Teaching, research, and service are considered in the renewal process. In February of their third year, probationary faculty are almost one-half way to the time at which the tenure decision is normally made. By February of the third year, a faculty member should have begun to establish a clear research track record or serious consideration will be given to non-renewal. In addition, faculty are expected to have a satisfactory performance in the classroom and contribute to the service requirements of the Team, College and University. Clear signals about progress and performance will be given by the Team Personnel Committee and subsequent College level reviewers in their recommendations for renewal. These signals should guide the faculty member toward the upcoming tenure decision.

TENURE: At the time of the tenure decision, a candidate should have at least six (6) works (as defined in the Intellectual Contributions section), at least three (3) of which are refereed journal articles. Under exceptional circumstances, one article may be under review at the time a faculty member submits tenure/promotion documents. Articles must be peer-reviewed.

Meeting Expectations in each of the three areas (Teaching, Intellectual Contributions and Service) is necessary, but may not be sufficient to receive tenure. College expectations are in addition to the University criteria for tenure as specified in the most recent University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook. It is also to be noted that faculty may apply for “early” tenure in accordance with the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook.

Consistent with University policy, faculty that have signed a contract prior to July 1, 2000, are “grandfathered” under the criteria minimums of five (5) scholarly works, at least two (2) of which are articles. Faculty who signed a contract after June 30, 2000 are subject to criteria of six (6) scholarly works, at least three (3) of which are articles.

 

II. PROMOTION

The University’s Promotion Policy, in its entirety, can be found in the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Handbook. The University’s criteria for degree, experience, and time in rank for promotion to each academic rank are restated below. The additional College of Business minimum requirements for teaching, research and service are indicated by bold type print.

1. Instructor

Degree: Master’s

Experience: No minimum

Time in Rank: No minimum

Teaching: Potential for classroom proficiency.

Research: None
Service: None

Note: The COBA usually does not appoint individuals at the instructor rank. Appointments below the rank of Assistant Professor are designated as instructional academic staff. Instructional academic staff appointments are temporary, non-tenure track appointments, with an annual review for renewal.

2. Assistant Professor

Degree: Doctorate or ABD if an initial appointment.

Faculty who acquire the doctorate will be automatically promoted to this rank if official notice that the degree has been granted is submitted to the Vice Chancellor’s office by January 1. Rank will be effective as of the following July 1.

Other Degree Options: No exceptions in the COBA.

Experience: No minimum.

Time in Rank: No minimum.

Teaching: Potential for classroom proficiency.

Research: None

Service: None

3. Associate Professor

Degree: Doctorate

Experience: A minimum of five years of college teaching.

Time in Rank: A minimum of two years as an Assistant Professor at this university.

Teaching: Demonstrated teaching proficiency as evidenced by peer and student evaluations.

Research: At least six (6) scholarly works (as defined in the Intellectual Contributions section), at least three (3) of which are refereed journal articles. Under exceptional circumstances, one (1) article may be under review at the time a faculty member submits promotion documents.

Service: Satisfactory

4. Professor

Degree: Doctorate

Experience: A minimum of ten years of college teaching or relevant experience.

Time in Rank: A minimum of four years as an Associate Professor at this university.

Teaching: Demonstrated teaching proficiency as evidenced by peer and student evaluations.

Research: At least six works (as defined in the Intellectual Contributions section), three or more of which are refereed journal articles, since last promotion.

Service: Satisfactory

Evidence: The faculty member shall document that all data are consistent with university records and that evidence of degree completion, years of experience, and other factual information is on file in the Vice Chancellor’s office.

III. MERIT GUIDELINES

All faculty are evaluated once every two years. Across-the-board or cost-of-living adjustments are given only if such adjustments are mandated by the University. Although teaching, research, and service are considered in the biennial review process, it is recognized that quality research and scholarly activity can often take longer than two years. Thus, a four-year time frame is used for research, while two-year time frames are used for teaching and service.

Expectations: It is recognized that not all faculty will contribute in the same manner or at the same level of performance. Expectations for teaching, research and service in each of the College’s merit classifications are outlined below:

Teaching:

Multiple factors will be considered in evaluating teaching. Examples of these factors include:

1. WHAT IS TAUGHT: currency, relevance, meets ultimate customers’ needs, depth and breadth, theory and application, creation of new course.

2. HOW IT IS TAUGHT: effective use of teaching methods, appropriate pedagogy for course material, use of innovative teaching techniques, development of new pedagogy:

a) Lecture and discussions – organization, clear presentation, stimulates thinking.

b) Assignments – effective in evaluating students’ learning, stimulates thinking, helps students to learn and communicate.

c) Examinations – appropriate for course.

For the biennial review of teaching, each member of the faculty will submit documentation which best describes the quality of their teaching outcomes during the period under review. In so doing, each faculty member will specify his/her own judgment of what level of achievement has been attained (A, B, C, or D).

Meets Expectations (C). To justify a rating of Meets Expectations, the faculty member must submit:

Student Opinion Surveys. Using the New Business Form (NBU), Student Opinion Survey data including associated grade distribution (for 50% of classes taught in the biennium) should demonstrate average ratings above 3.0 in all of the following:

1) Amount Learned (SOS 6, 17)

2) Professor Behaviors (SOS 9, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20)

Syllabi from each course taught over the past biennium. All syllabi must contain each of the following: course objectives, grading policy, multiple assessment criteria, and a timeline/schedule; and be evaluated by the Faculty Review and Development Committee as satisfactory.

Merit Rating:

Faculty meeting the criteria for Meets Expectations (C) will be given a base Merit Rating of 100. Additional Merit Rating Points can be earned as follows; however, no more than 60 Merit Rating Points can be earned in any single category. Merit Rating Points cannot exceed 200.

Category 1 (30 pts each)

• Publish an article on teaching or curriculum improvement
• Complete requirements for UW System Teaching Scholar
• Present a paper on teaching/pedagogy at an academic or professional meeting and/or have such a paper published in the proceedings from such meetings
• Conduct a teaching/pedagogical workshop at an academic or professional meeting
• Provide Student Opinion Surveys demonstrating average ratings above 4.0 in each of the two groupings described above, for 80% or more of the surveys submitted.

Category 2 (20 pts each)

• Write and implement a substantive Teaching Development Plan that includes evaluation of teaching effectiveness by self and external colleagues/sources, teaching philosophy, identification of strengths and weaknesses, a plan to address weaknesses, and specific measurable outcomes. Collection and evaluation of data must be provided.
• Develop and implement a comprehensive Classroom Assessment Plan that includes a blend of evaluation techniques regarding important classroom outcomes [i.e., student reactions, measurement of learning, changes in behavior (transfer of training) and improved effectiveness of the major and/or College]
• Document success with mentoring another faculty member’s teaching
• Present aFacultyCollegeor COBA workshop on teaching pedagogy
• Administer pre/post test of student performance demonstrating statistically significant changes in student knowledge on course. (20 pts max)

Category 3 (15 pts each)

• Attend a seminar on teaching improvement and demonstrate how it impacted your teaching
• Supervise an Independent Study
• Supervise funded student research
• Supervise or substantially participate in supervising a Masters’ Thesis or Honor’s Thesis
• Develop and teach a NEW course
• Document an innovative approach to teaching
• Receive 2 peer reviews (2 sections) (15 pts max)
• Perform 2 peer reviews (1 inside and 1 outside department) (15 pts max)

Exceeds Expectations (B). To justify a rating of Exceeds Expectations, the faculty member must attain a Merit Weighting of at least 135.

Exceptional (A). To justify a rating of Exceptional, the faculty member must attain a Merit Weighting of at least 170.

If faculty members do not provide the information required under “Meets Expectations” or if it is evaluated by the Faculty Review and Development Committee as unsatisfactory, they will be evaluated as (D) or (E).

Meets Most Expectations (D). 50 Merit Weighting Points. Faculty will not meet expectations if any of the following occurs:

• Faculty fail to provide all the documentation required for Meets Expectations
• Faculty fail to meet the evaluation criteria for Meets Expectations
• Student comments, peer reviews, or other data demonstrate that the faculty member is not performing at the Meets Expectations level.

Merit Not Justified (E). 0 Merit Weighting Points. Merit will not be justified if any of the following occurs:

• Faculty member fails to submit more than 50% of the documentation required for Meets Expectations
• There is significant evidence that the faculty member is not performing teaching at a satisfactory level.

The presumption of Meets Expectations can be negated by evidence that indicates a faculty member is not performing at the Meets Expectations level. The presumption of Does Not Meet Expectations can be rebutted by additional evidence presented by the faculty member.

Intellectual contributions:

Faculty will qualify for one of five categories in the area of Intellectual Contributions. Qualifying for placement in each of the performance categories will depend upon meeting specific criteria as presented below. The requirements are expressed for a four-year time frame.

Four Year Merit Table

Intellectual Contributions

Merit Ratings

Merit Rating	Merit Weighting	Scholarship Activity Level
A. Exceptional	200	6 scholarly works, at least 4 of which are articles
B. Exceeds Expectations	150	5 scholarly works, at least 3 of which are articles
C. Meets Expectations	100	4 scholarly works, at least 2 of which are articles
D. Meets Most Expectations	50	3 scholarly works, at least 1 of which is an article
E. Merit Not Justified	0

 

Merit Table

For Faculty with Three Years or Less In COBA

 

Merit Rating	Merit Weighting	Earliest Year Candidate Begins COBA Service
		Less than 3 years*	Less than 2 years**	Less than 1 year ***
A. Exceptional	200	5 scholarly works, at least 3 of which are articles	4 scholarly works, at least 2 of which are articles	2 scholarly works
B. Exceeds Expectations	150	4 scholarly works, at least 2 of which are articles	3 scholarly works, at least 1 of which is an article	1 scholarly work
C. Meets                              Expectations	100	3 scholarly works, at least 1 of which is an article	2 scholarly works, at least 1 of which is an article	Evidence of scholarly work in progress
D. Meets Most                    Expectations	50	3 scholarly works	1 scholarly work
E.  Merit Not                    Justified	0

 

* January 1st of year of merit review with more than 2 years but less than 3 years in COBA

** January 1st of year of merit review with more than 1 year but less than 2 years in COBA

*** January 1st of year of merit review with less than 1 year in COBA

 

New Faculty: For faculty with three years or less in COBA, each faculty member will qualify for one of five categories in the area of Professional & Scholarly Development by using the highest rating developed from evaluating the individual based on each of two tables: (1) the Four Year Merit Table (based on four years experience that can include experience prior to coming to UW Oshkosh); (2) the Merit Table for Faculty with Three Years or Less in COBA (based on the appropriate column in which the individual fits).

Service:

A faculty member is expected to attend Team and College meetings and make other value-added contributions. Faculty will be evaluated for service activities, as previously defined, that require a significant commitment of time and that are important to the reputation and functioning of the Team, College and University. Service will be evaluated using information provided by faculty members about their contributions to the Service mission of theCollege ofBusiness. Information should include description of leadership roles, effort level in terms of hours expended, and contribution in terms of identifiable product(s). Team Leaders and Program Directors will be evaluated by the Dean (with input from the relevant constituencies) for their contributions in those roles; the evaluation by the Faculty Review and Development Committee will be based upon their contributions beyond those listed in the position descriptions. If there is a difference in ratings for Team Leaders or Program Directors between the Dean and the Faculty Review and Development Committee, they will meet to jointly determine the final it rating for service.

The service categories include the following:

1. University level,
2. College of Business,
3. Team,
4. Student Services [student advising including career counseling, club advisor, participation in club activities, commencement exercises, etc.],
5. Professional Services [e.g., professional speeches, consulting activities, seminars/workshops, review of papers/articles/books, offices held in academic/professional organizations or conferences, and community services related to your field of academic/professional expertise that advance the service mission of the university],
6. Other Services [Any other significant service-related activities that were not addressed above.]
The faculty member will be placed in one of four performance categories based upon information provided about the above service.

For the biennial review of service, each member of the faculty will submit documentation which best describes the quality of their service contributions during the period under review. In so doing, each faculty member will specify his/her own judgment of what level of achievement has been attained (A, B, C or D).

Because there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes effective service, ratings will necessarily be based on the professional judgment of the evaluators. It is the individual faculty member’s responsibility to put forward the best possible case for evaluation. Faculty will be placed in one of the following groups:

Biennial Merit Table – Service
Merit Rating	Merit Weighting
A. Exceeds Expectations	150
B. Meets Expectations	100
C. Meets Most Expectations	50
D. Merit Not Justified	0

 

Faculty who do not anticipate qualifying for the top rating in service (A. Exceeds Expectations) but do feel qualified to receive the second rating (B. Meets Expectations) may elect to submit a set of service-related documentation including only a list of the service activities in which he/she was involved during the biennium. A statement from the faculty member should be provided indicating his/her election to submit only the minimum documentation for evaluation.

Faculty who feel qualified to receive the top rating (A. Exceeds Expectations) must clearly describe their rationale for this conclusion, supported by evidence. A more extensive set of documentation is likely to be needed to support the case for the top rating.

New Faculty: During the first year, new faculty will “Meet Expectations” if they have limited or no service that year. During the second year, new faculty will “Meet Expectations” if they have at least Team or College committee service.

Division of Merit Pool: To address individual faculty strengths and interests, eachCollege ofBusiness faculty member will select a set of three weights. These weights must comply with the ranges indicated below and all weights will be expressed in integer multiples of 5%. The selected weights will be provided confidentially to the Faculty Program Director at the beginning of the biennium. The weights will remain confidential throughout the biennium and during the FRED Team’s evaluation process. After evaluation has been completed, the weights will be used in calculating individual faculty merit increases. Allowable ranges are:

Teaching 35% to 45%

Scholarly & Professional Development 35% to 45%

Service 10% to 25%

Merit Review Process: Biennial evaluations are based on performance. The Faculty Review and Development Team (FRED) is responsible for developing a uniform procedure for reporting accomplishments in the areas of teaching, research, and service. This procedure shall be communicated to the faculty prior to January 1 of the evaluation period. After the evaluation is complete, each faculty member will be provided a written summary of his/her ratings in each of the three performance categories. Within 20 working days of the date of this written feedback two representatives of the FRED Team, and possibly the Dean, will meet with the faculty member for face to face feedback on his/her performance and to discuss future professional development. For faculty members receiving an overall evaluation that is below expectations the two FRED Team representatives, the Dean and the faculty member will jointly create a development plan to improve performance. This plan will specify dates on or before the next two-year merit/post tenure review to assess improvement.

 

REVISION AND UPDATING

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Every four years these Policies and Procedures for Appointment, Renewal, Promotion, Tenure and Merit will be re-evaluated and any revisions will be recommended to the faculty for their action.