(Decommissioned) Faculty Roles and Rewards I: Tenure Track – LR 403.20

Back to Faculty and Staff Affairs

University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Policy Name: Faculty Roles and Rewards I: Tenure Track
Policy Number: LR 403.20
Effective Date: September 14, 2011

Promotion and Tenure Guidelines



The University of Arkansas at Little Rock is an institution that embraces change yet maintains its traditions. In 1927, Little Rock Junior College was founded with strong ties to the community. At that time, the college was physically a part of the community, within the walls of Little Rock High School, which is now Central High School. In 1957, after thirty years of service to the city, the institution became Little Rock University and began offering baccalaureate degrees. In 1969, it entered the University of Arkansas and was renamed University of Arkansas at Little Rock. The institution now embraced a statewide mission. In 1990, the former junior college offered its first doctoral degree. Ten years later, the Carnegie Foundation classified UA Little Rock as a “doctoral university” that is “research intensive.” While continuing its collaboration with Little Rock and Arkansas, UA Little Rock became an institution that also served the nation. As part of its 2006 strategic plan, Fast Forward, the institution established the goal of becoming “the high tech campus in Arkansas,” which is both an acknowledgement of its cutting edge programs that span a diversity of disciplines and a commitment to educate students who will make contributions to society in the twenty-first century. The strategic plan further refines the university’s role as a resource for contributing to knowledge and the improvement of services throughout the state and beyond.

Through eight decades of growth and transformation, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock retained key values that form its mission to the city, state, and nation. From its inception, UA Little Rock educated a diverse body of students, many of whom would not have been otherwise able to pursue a degree in higher education. Teaching has remained a core value. From its inception, UA Little Rock held close ties to the community. It is and will remain a metropolitan university that forms partnerships with surrounding communities and educates students to make significant contributions to society. These values will not change.

At the time of the drafting of this document, 2005-2006, the institution is again poised for dramatic change. Teaching and service will not be de-emphasized, but scholarship will become an increasingly more important activity. As the institution offers more graduate degrees, scholarship will become more deeply integrated with teaching and service. As the institution prepares students for “the intensely competitive global economy of the 21st Century,” it will focus on the development of faculty – through training and recruitment – who can strengthen its established programs and envision programs that anticipate and foster technological change.

For the university to achieve its mission, faculty must remain committed to teaching, scholarship, and service. Every member of the faculty is expected to make contributions in each area, although not necessarily equally every year. The university recognizes that the arc of an academic career must be viewed with a long lens. An assistant professor who is preparing for tenure review will normally focus on teaching and scholarship. An associate professor in mid-career may devote more time to service – both to the community and professional organizations. A professor, late in a career, may shift focus from scholarship to administration or mentoring young faculty. While the university wishes to nurture the careers of individual faculty it also recognizes that the faculty must develop within a department, college, and discipline. As faculty members develop their careers, they must also contribute to the UA Little Rock community.

The university also realizes that the contributions of individual faculty members to the mission of the university will vary depending on the faculty member’s talents, the needs of departments and colleges, and the character of diverse academic disciplines. Faculty members, thus, need to negotiate responsibilities – teaching loads, scholarship agenda, and service commitments – with the chairs of departments or the directors of schools. It is the responsibility of chairs and directors to mediate the needs of departments with the university mission and trends in disciplines.

The university further recognizes that some departments or schools may have more demanding obligations in teaching or service, and some may be more research-intensive. Those departments or schools offering advanced degrees are expected to have a stronger scholarship agenda and to be more actively involved in obtaining external support for the department’s teaching and scholarship agenda. Thus, chairs and directors must balance the needs of the department and resources with clear expectations in teaching, scholarship, and service. However, it is the expectation of UA Little Rock that each member of the faculty will devote time and talent to all areas.

The university also expects that members of the faculty will adhere to the ethical standards of the university and their respective disciplines. They are also expected to manifest standards of civility, professionalism, and collegiality.

As faculty members have responsibilities to students, the university, and the community, so the institution has obligations to provide an institutional infrastructure to nurture professional growth and development. This infrastructure should promote “a collaborative spirit,” “encourage and reward experimentation,” and “”find ways of honoring and rewarding exemplary teaching, scholarship, and collegial service” (Zahorski and Cognard, Reconsidering Faculty Roles and Rewards 10). As Zahorski and Cognard state: “[O]nly when reward structures accurately reflect, and strongly support, the teaching-learning mission will an institution nurture and sustain the environment of trust, support, and opportunity requisite for a sound academic infrastructure”(7).

This document was written by a committee of faculty and administrators who represented facets of the UA Little Rock community. The committee began its work with an examination of relevant documents already in place at this university and consideration of the university’s Fast Forward long range strategic plan. The committee also reviewed roles and rewards documents from sister institutions and consulted key publications, including Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered (Carnegie Foundation 1990), Glassick et al.’s Scholarship Assessed (Carnegie Foundation 1997), Zahorski and Cognard’s Reconsidering Faculty Roles and Rewards (Council of Independent Colleges 1999). The Zahorski and Cagnard report, a study that involved twenty-two institutions, was particularly useful. Finally, the committee presented a series of drafts to administrators, focus groups of faculty from all colleges, and the Faculty Senate.



In 1988, the UA Little Rock Faculty Senate approved the institution’s current mission statement: “The mission of the university is to develop the intellect of students; to discover and disseminate knowledge; to serve and strengthen society by enhancing awareness in scientific, technical areas; and to promote humane sensitivities and understanding of interdependence.” This statement establishes teaching as a central value at UA Little Rock. The university expects all UA Little Rock faculty members to contribute to the teaching mission of the institution and to demonstrate effective teaching.

The nature of effective teaching may vary across disciplines, but certain qualities are universal: respect for students, faith in student abilities, a focus on student learning, and a commitment to student success. Equally important, faculty should view themselves as role models who convey the values of their disciplines and initiate students into their professions. In the pursuit of excellence in teaching, faculty members must remain current in their discipline and in pedagogical strategies. They should consider teaching a continual process of improvement and growth.

The best teaching, as stated by Ken Bain, creates a “natural critical learning environment,” where students “learn by confronting intriguing, beautiful, or important problems, authentic tasks that will challenge them to grapple with ideas, rethink their assumptions, and examine their mental models of reality”(What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard UP 2004). The university considers the following activities to be central to its teaching mission:

  • Designing and delivering instruction in suitable formats;
  • Mentoring and advising students;
  • Participating in overall curriculum design;
  • Assessing student learning and instructional effectiveness;
  • Complying with requirements of disciplinary accreditation, where appropriate.

The evaluation of teaching should include peer review, student evaluation, administrator/supervisor review, and self-assessment.

The documentation of contributions to teaching takes many forms. One way to document teaching effectiveness is through the preparation of a teaching portfolio, which includes self-reflection, teaching and learning artifacts, and various evaluations of teaching. The content and format may vary by discipline and individual philosophy, but information about both teaching effort and teaching quality over time should be included. Standard artifacts may include but are not limited to:

  • Statement of teaching philosophy and pedagogical strategies;
  • Teaching history including teaching loads, summary of courses taught and modes and settings of instruction in each course;
  • Materials from individual courses–syllabi, exercises, projects, exams, websites, multimedia products, video of lectures;
  • Summary of advising, consultation, and supervision of students at all levels – pre-college, undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral;
  • Curriculum design, development, and administration;
  • Course, program and core assessment activities and outcomes;
  • Professional development activities related to teaching;
  • Student course evaluations both from current and former students, compiled and interpreted to give the data contextual meaning;
  • Peer evaluations both internal and external to UA Little Rock;
  • Administrator/supervisor evaluations;
  • Self-evaluations; and
  • Recognition and awards.

When including these documents in a teaching portfolio, the faculty member should provide the context and state why the document is important.


Goal Four of Fast Forward states, “UA Little Rock will expand its research capabilities to support UA Little Rock’s academic mission and to strengthen regional and state development plans.” As this university becomes a greater agent for change in the state, nation, and world, faculty contributions to scholarship and creative activity will become even more important. All faculty are expected to be active scholars.

Scholarship is used to encompass traditional research and other activities considered comparable in the modem university. As Boyer writes, “What we urgently need today is a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar,” a view “that recognizes the great diversity of talent within the professoriate” (Scholarship Reconsidered 24-25). As will be explained, scholarship is a broad term that embraces a range of contributions that faculty members might make to their respective disciplines: Scholarship of Discovery, Scholarship of Creativity, Scholarship of Application, Scholarship of Integration, and Scholarship of Teaching. With the term scholarship, this document reaffirms values traditionally associated with research – creativity, originality, significance, dissemination, and peer-review review – as it also respects the spectrum of work represented by disciplines within UA Little Rock.

Knowledge is typically discovered and disseminated within academic disciplines, using a diverse range of methods and rhetoric. While recognizing the diversity of scholarship, the university holds certain core values that are widely regarded as standards for excellence in inquiry applicable across disciplines:

  • Scholarship is defined as a systematic, focused attention on a question, problem, or idea, characterized by expertise, originality, analysis and significance.
  • Scholarship results in products that are shared with appropriate audiences within the academy and the wider community.
  • Scholarship is evaluated externally. The character of evaluation is unique to disciplines, but scholarship and creative activities must be reviewed by methods accepted by the appropriate discipline. In this document the term peer review will be used to encompass those appropriate and accepted methods. Scholarship may be defined in ways that do not neatly fit into traditional categories, but application of a clear method of review to such work is essential.

In creating appropriate college and departmental or school standards, the university embraces the full range of scholarship proposed by Boyer in Scholarship Reconsidered (1990) and that range should be considered. To Boyer’s four categories, this document adds Scholarship of Creativity.

Scholarship of Discovery. The scholarship of discovery is systematic inquiry or investigation designed to validate and refine existing knowledge and generate new knowledge. At its core, this scholarship involves studies that use quantitative or qualitative methodologies to make significant contributions to knowledge. Primary empirical research, historical research, theory development, methodological studies and philosophical inquiry are all representative of this form. Typically this scholarship is documented through peer-reviewed publication of articles or books; papers presented at state, regional, national, or international meetings; grant awards; or recognition by professional organizations as a scholar in a particular area.

Scholarship of Creativity. The scholarship of creativity entails the creation of or performance of original works of art, literature, music, film, and theater. It may also include the creation of new forms of electronic or digital media. Typical examples, although not an inclusive listing, are production or scenic design of plays; writing, directing, or acting in plays; choreography and dance performance; creation and exhibition of visual arts such as painting, sculpture, and photography; musical composition and performance; direction or production of film and video; creative writing; and creation of websites, virtual reality programs, kiosks, and multimedia communication tools. In all cases, however, there are accepted forms of peer review to determine the quality and significance of faculty work, from juried art shows to publication. These conventional procedures must be part of evaluation.

Scholarship of Application. The scholarship of application is the use of professional expertise or information in the process of solving social or community problems. It should not be confused with service or citizenship. At a basic level, the difference between service and the scholarship of application lies in the product of the faculty’s work. Service activities typically benefit a particular group, organization, or community. The scholarship of application should include a mechanism whereby the quality and influence of the contribution can be evaluated. This is most easily demonstrated when an artifact is created encompassing the work – a report, a training manual, a program evaluation, a video, or a website. Some activities include peer review; for example, the report written for a task force is reviewed by members of the task force as well as other agencies and institutions. In cases where this is not so, the department or school should initiate an alternative review process, such as sending the work to experts in the field to evaluate its significance, rigor, and impact. In all cases, the product of the scholarship of application must be subject to some form of peer review.

Scholarship of Integration. The scholarship of integration involves synthesis across theories or across academic fields. As academics tackle social, economic, and technical problems, a need often exists for faculty members with broad and multidisciplinary perspectives to see connections across the unique perspectives of a theory or discipline. The Scholarship of Integration may result in a traditional academic product such as an article, book, or presentation. It also may take the form of a product or patent. As in other areas, appropriate forms of external review must be used to determine the merit of such products.

Scholarship of Teaching. The scholarship of teaching should be a reflection of excellence in teaching as well as a rigorous form of scholarship in which a professor systematically examines the impact of pedagogy upon learning. It is most often disseminated to peers in the discipline through refereed articles in academic journals, books, conference presentations, workshops, or teacher handbooks. The scholarship of teaching is, thus, more than being an excellent teacher. It involves systematic inquiry about teaching, dissemination of the results, and peer review. The scholarship of teaching moves beyond the walls of a classroom to the profession at large. It should produce artifacts available for critical review by peers in the discipline.


As a metropolitan university, UA Little Rock has greater expectations of its faculty in the area of service than many other universities. Faculty members are expected to be active in one or more areas – service to the university, service to the profession, and service to the community.

Service to the university is an essential part of each faculty member’s responsibility. Typically, such service means significant participation in department or school, college, or university activities. Such involvement is critical to the carrying out of the university’s mission. Examples of such service include, but are not limited to, membership and leadership of unit committees or task forces; advising student organizations; involvement in faculty governance; coordination of programs, labs, and technical support; and recruitment.

Faculty should recognize that being actively involved in collegial governance is to their benefit. As Zahorski and Cognard write: “Ironically, freeing faculty time takes time. Specific handbook changes are necessary to ensure that new procedures in governance and who is responsible for them are clear…In effect, changes in governance may require not only collegiality but months, even years of effort as well. In the end, however, the effort pays off: faculty and administrators achieve mutual respect through cooperation and understanding; faculty enjoy greater time and freedom to pursue their first, and perhaps only, professional love; and students learn better than ever before. In the complex equation of learning and time, students are the direct beneficiaries of considered, responsible reform of faculty governance” (45).

Service to the profession is also expected, especially as the faculty member’s career develops. Professional service includes, although not exclusively, activities such as serving as an officer and committee membership in a professional organization; conference or event planning, coordination, or other active participation; editing or otherwise contributing to the publication of a professional journal; and reviewing manuscripts, grants, programs, and textbooks.

Particularly important to a university such as UA Little Rock is discipline-related service to the community. Such activity necessarily incorporates a wide variety of efforts but is defined by the application of the faculty member’s professional expertise to help the community at every level – local, state, regional, national, or international. Typical examples of community service at UA Little Rock have included involvement in task forces seeking to solve community problems; consulting with governmental, business, and non-profit organizations; training and presentations; and program review, coordination, and development.

Exemplary service in these areas should be considered as particularly worthy of reward. Each unit of the university will have its unique ideas concerning the character of service in these three areas. Each unit and discipline also will provide varying opportunities for service. It is important, therefore, that each unit clearly define what is meant by service and what service is expected of faculty members. An essential component in the assessment of service is that the faculty member’s participation contributes to securing the goals of the activity. Documentation of the significance of the faculty member’s service is an essential part of the process, and each unit should provide appropriate guidelines for its demonstration.


Changing roles and increasing demands for faculty in teaching, scholarship, and service require that the university put in place a system of rewards that encourages and supports faculty who demonstrate a commitment to and competence in each of these areas. Such a system should support the articulated priorities and goals of the university. It should be linked directly to the teaching, scholarship, and service responsibilities of the faculty. It should also be compatible with the different strengths of individual faculty members and recognize differences among disciplines and the goals and objectives of individual academic units. A single model is unlikely to fit all. Thus the system needs to have flexibility to allow for rewards to be given at the department or school, college, and university level. Creativity is encouraged in determining what individual faculty members value. Above all, the system of rewards must be clearly defined, fair, and transparent.

Some means of rewarding those faculty members who are successful in meeting the expectations of the university exist:

  • One of the university’s most important existing means of providing rewards is through tenure, promotion, and continuing employment. If the criterion for determining each of these steps in a faculty member’s career are not connected to the university’s expectations for faculty, little likelihood exists that those expectations will be met. Departments should develop clear guidelines that tie success in fulfilling faculty roles to promotion, tenure, and continued employment.
  • Beyond employment and faculty status, the university also offers rewards through salary. As in the case of the former, consideration for salary increases is and should be merit-based and tied to success in meeting expectations, but true merit dollars must be provided. Faculty members must see the connection between merit pay increases and their performance if salary is to be seen as a reward.
  • The university also provides rewards to faculty in the form of faculty excellence awards offered each year. It is important, as in each of the cases above, that the criteria for these rewards be connected to the role expectations for faculty if these are to provide incentives for faculty performance.

Other means of rewarding faculty would be effective additions to any system designed to develop faculty excellence:

  • The creation of some rank beyond professor that marks distinction and offers additional funds for travel or materials that facilitate the faculty member’s teaching, scholarship, or service is a means of reward used by other universities. Such positions would be an important addition to this university’s reward system that would encourage continued faculty effort.
  • Endowed faculty positions of various kinds can provide additional incentives for faculty excellence. Endowed chairs (currently requiring a $1.5 to $2 million endowment) can help the university attract eminent scholars who will bring high visibility and research support to the university. Some universities also other endowed professorships at lower endowment levels. For example, a $100,000 endowment for a named professorship would produce approximately $4,500 per year for use by a faculty member. The funding could be used tor travel, curriculum development, student research support, research needs, or other faculty development costs. Such a named professorship might even rotate among faculty in a department. A given faculty member could hold it for a four year term, and then a new faculty recipient could be chosen to hold the chair.
  • The university has faculty awards in teaching, scholarship, and service, but the development of additional awards for such activities would be a useful tool in promoting greater faculty activity in these important areas. Named awards for specific accomplishments – creative teaching, best book, most important public service project, and other such activities, would signal the value attributed to such work. At many universities, for example, the school’s alumni association offers such awards. Whatever the source, these awards offer naming opportunities that could be used to attract potential donors.
  • The university should reconsider its policies concerning merit salary adjustments. The existing system of funding salary increases is detrimental to providing meaningful rewards for faculty achievements. Dividing funds equally among departments means that, in a productive department, the salary pool may be divided relatively evenly, with no apparent real gain for successful faculty members. In a non-productive departments faculty members with relatively modest productivity might do significantly better than a more productive person in another department. If salary adjustments are to be used as a system of reward, the connection between productivity and reward must be clear. To that end the university should at least consider the development of a special pool providing salary adjustments connected to tenure, promotion, or activities of particular merit. It should also consider a system of rewards that judges departments on the basis of their merit as well. Deans should be encouraged to make distinctions among departments and the provost among colleges.
  • External grants are essential for the university to carry out many of the pledges made in the Fast Forward plan. Many universities, including UAMS, provide additional incentives to faculty to secure such funds by allowing extra compensation from the grant to those who secure a grant. Such a system should be considered at this university as one that might do more than any other reward to encourage the increased level of faculty scholarship that signals excellence.


Faculty roles are changing with the maturation of the university. As UA Little Rock adds graduate and doctoral programs, achieves a leadership role in the state on technology issues, and seeks to make an impact on the region and nation, expectations for scholarship and community involvement will increase. Faculty members will also be expected to become more involved in student advising and assessment of educational outcomes. The university must make strategic investments and re-evaluate policies to create an infrastructure to support these increasing expectations.

It is important to recognize that university resources are limited and university leaders find themselves in a financial squeeze as educational costs rise while state support as a percentage of operational cost is declining and increases in tuition and fees are discouraged because of their negative impact on access to higher education for many potential students. Thus, the evolution of faculty roles and the administration of resources and rewards will require a careful balancing act. For example, reducing teaching loads could reduce SSCH (student semester credit hour) production at a time when the state funding formula is based on SSCH production. Replacing faculty members with adjuncts to keep SSCH production steady could reduce the percentage of UA Little Rock classes taught by full-time faculty members, creating general quality concerns in some cases as well as specific concerns on the part of key accrediting bodies.

If UA Little Rock does not achieve a balance between expectations and resources, the institution will not be able to attract and retain the caliber of faculty who can meet the goals in the university’s strategic plan. To successfully recruit faculty, the institution will need to provide competitive salaries, start-up research packages, reasonable teaching load expectations and support for travel and faculty development. Faculty cannot compete for federal research grants in some cases without adequate equipment, matching funds, statistical and methodological support, and graduate assistants paid competitive stipends.

To support increasing expectations of faculty roles, the institution will address the following issues:

Teaching Loads

UA Little Rock has operated with a standard teaching load of 12 hours per semester, with reductions in that load approved for administrative appointments, funded research, or other approved assignments. This load is typical of two-year campuses or undergraduate institutions but it is not consistent with other research intensive comprehensive universities. The UA Little Rock Faculty Instructional Load Policy, which represents current policy, was passed by the Faculty Senate and issued by Chancellor Hathaway in 1994. This policy is inadequate to the current needs of this institution.

The institution must move toward a standard teaching load of nine hours per semester for tenure-track and tenured faculty who are productive scholars. Some accredited programs may require a different teaching load based on accreditation standards. Faculty members will continue to have reductions from the standard teaching load for administrative appointments, funded research, advising doctoral or master’s projects or other approved assignments.

Moving toward the new teaching load standard and reduced committee assignments for faculty who are active scholars will require critical discernment, and the needs of students and academic units must be considered. Some full-time faculty members who are not active in research or service may negotiate with their chairs or directors and deans to make a contribution to the department and university by teaching more classes or taking on other assignments that are essential to the department to fulfill its complete mission.

Faculty members teaching at the new standard load will be expected to be productive in publishing articles, obtaining research grants, producing creative products, or in other measurable activities appropriate to their disciplines. Evaluation of the use of reassigned time will be undertaken by deans and chairs. An increase in teaching load will be an appropriate response for any failure to achieve goals while reassigned time was granted.

Any such change in instructional load policy needs to be phased in over a period of years to avoid institutional financial impact. Deans and chairs or directors will be responsible for monitoring of class schedules to ensure the most efficient use of faculty teaching time, that is, securing maximum reasonable student enrollment in all class sections.

Securing Additional State and Private Funds

The university must explore all possible avenues for obtaining resources to fund the following strategic activities that are essential to support teaching, scholarship, and service:

  • Strengthen library resources. UA Little Rock has made a commitment to invest additional funds in the library in recent years; that commitment must continue. Faculty and students need access to electronic databases and journals as well as to traditional books and materials to facilitate teaching, scholarship, and service activities. This also includes funding for the joint UA Little Rock-Central Arkansas Library System’s archives connected to the Center for the Study of Arkansas History and politics.
  • Raise average salaries of the UA Little Rock faculty to the equivalent of other similarly ranked faculty at peer institutions. Competitive salaries are essential to both recruiting and retaining good faculty and reaching such a level is essential to the long-term success of this institution.

Providing Support for Improvement of Faculty Teaching

While the university is placing increasing emphasis on scholarship and service, teaching remains a major function of its faculty.

  • The university is in the process of developing a Teaching Center that will provide resources and personnel to aid faculty members in improving their teaching skills, including the development of new teaching strategics and interdisciplinary teaching. Support for this center should be considered an essential funding goal.
  • The university should initiate, possibly within the Teaching Center, an orientation and mentoring program for new faculty.

Expanding Support for Scholarship

Support for scholarship is essential to produce increased scholarly activities. The need is all the more critical with the development of the university’s existing and anticipated doctoral and masters programs. The university must find the resources to assist scholars in the following activities:

  • Develop a foundation account to supply matching funds for grants. Frequently outside grants require significant matching funds and if the university is to increase its number of grant submissions these monies must be available.
  • Develop a pool of funds for start-up costs for new faculty members (research equipment, computers and technological needs, databases, etc.);
  • Work to create fellowships to support the scholarship of junior faculty;
  • Expand support for faculty who are writing grants;
  • Increase funding available through ORGS for faculty travel to conferences to present research;
  • Provide support for publication costs for publishing in refereed journals in some disciplines;
  • Sponsor mentoring program in which new faculty members can work with a leading researcher in their discipline, either on campus or off;
  • Increase funding for competitive program of summer research support for faculty members currently offered by ORGS;
  • Increase funding to support pilot research projects that can make faculty more competitive in obtaining external grants;
  • Hire at least one statistical methodological consultant for faculty members; and
  • Provide funding for participation in summer courses at other institutions to encourage the development of faculty scholarship.

Enhance Graduate Assistantships

To attract the best students who can provide assistance to faculty and bring about greater scholarly productivity, more and better paid graduate assistantships are critical necessity. The creation of endowed assistantships may be one way of expanding support.

Achieving a Balance

The values described in this document should guide faculty, chairs, directors, and deans as they establish expectations in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. At a metropolitan university, the activities of teaching, scholarship, and service often form an inter-connected braid. Faculty members often engage in applied scholarship that meets social needs as it advances knowledge in the discipline. Students are involved in service learning and often assist faculty in the Scholarship of Application. To fulfill the university’s mission requires a process of balancing expectations, resources, and rewards in each department, school, and college. The following guidelines should inform this process of negotiation:

  • Each academic unit must have a clear document that specifies procedures and criteria for annual appointment, tenure, and promotion that is consistent with the values expressed in this document. That document for each department or school must be referred to the dean and provost and approved by the chancellor. It will outline clear expectations in teaching, scholarship, and service. It will also include processes for pre-tenure review and post-tenure review. It is critical that different expectations be established for faculty members of different rank and time of service. This document will be reviewed by faculty and administrators on a regular basis to coincide with the department’s or school’s program review. Each academic unit should make sure that new faculty members have the governance document explained to them during the orientation process. The document should also be posted on the departmental website.
  • The drafting of departmental or school documents must follow the guidelines established in college, university, and system documents and be consistent with state laws, UA Board policies, and university policies. When there is a conflict, the higher level policy will be enforced.
  • Although there should be balance in teaching, scholarship. and service not all faculty members will contribute equally in each area due to personal strengths, opportunities, or the stage of their career. All pre-tenure faculty members must strive for some achievements across the three categories; however, tenured faculty may choose to emphasize a given area at different stages of their career with the approval of a chair or director and dean. Departments or schools should develop criteria that allow all faculty members performing at a high level to be rewarded for their accomplishments. For example, faculty members who effectively teach a heavier load of courses should, as a general guideline, be rewarded at the same level as faculty members who teach fewer classes and publish more scholarly articles. Incentive systems should reward all contributions to a department’s or school’ s mission.
  • Expectations for faculty performance must be balanced with appropriate support for achieving the expectations. This may include training or apprenticeship to achieve teaching or service excellence, teaching loads that provide adequate time for scholarly activity, library resources, funding to support scholarship or presentation of scholarly work at conferences, grant-writing training and support, and other forms of professional development. For example, it would be inappropriate for a department or school to fund one trip to a conference per year but expect faculty members to present at two or three conferences per year.
  • Faculty responsibilities must reflect a commitment to achieving the mission of the department/school, college and university.
  • Equally important, it is the responsibility of administrators to analyze and re-prioritize workloads on a regular basis. New responsibilities in advising, assessment, or other activities should not be added to the workload without shifting other responsibilities. Analyzing workload should include eliminating unnecessary or unproductive committees, streamlining reports, exploring new modes of instruction, focusing annual reviews, and reshaping teaching schedules.

Source: Faculty Senate
Revised: April 28, 2023
Status: Decommissioned
Approved by: Chancellor Christina Drale
Custodian: Provost and Faculty Senate