DEPARTMENT OF
PHILOSOPHY BYLAWS
Approved: November
29, 2001
1 BYLAWS
COMMITTEE
1.1 A
meeting of the Departmental Bylaws Committee will occur within a reasonable
time period as required by The Agreement between WSU-AAUP and the Board of
Trustees of Wright State University (hereafter, the Agreement), or if called
for by the Chair of the Department, or by petition of one-third of all the
Departmental Members of the Bargaining Unit. The individual(s) who
called the meeting will announce the purpose of the meeting and call for
any additional agenda items. The Bylaws Committee consists of all full-time
faculty in the department. The chair and non tenure-track members are
non-voting.
1.2 A
quorum shall be a majority of all Departmental Members of the Bargaining
Unit.
1.3 In
all matters when voting is needed or requested by any of the Departmental
Members of the Bargaining Unit present, an unambiguous vote count will be
taken. Each Departmental Member of the Bargaining Unit will have one
vote. A majority vote of the Department’s Bargaining Unit Faculty will
determine the outcome. A member may request and receive the use of
secret ballots in a vote. If approved by the Bargaining Unit faculty,
voting and/or input on issues may be done by memo, e-mail or other means,
which do not require meetings.
1.4 Accurate
records of the proceedings of the meetings shall be kept. A secretary
shall be appointed or selected to keep these records.
1.5 Recommendations
for amending the Departmental Bylaws may be made by any Departmental Member
of the Bargaining Unit or the Chair of the Department. The exact language
of the proposed amendment(s) must be sent to all members of the Department
at least 7 days before the meeting. A recommendation for change in
the Bylaws requires a majority vote of all Departmental Bargaining Unit Faculty
Members.
2 DEPARTMENT
MEETINGS
2.1 A
Department meeting may be called by the Chair of the Department or by petition
of one-third of all Department full-time faculty members. The Chair
of the Department will schedule a meeting within a reasonable amount of time,
announce it to all Department full-time faculty, and call for any additional
agenda items from the Department faculty.
2.2 The
Department Chair or an official designee of the Chair will chair the meeting.
2.3 A
quorum shall be a majority of all full-time Departmental faculty members.
2.4 Whenever
voting is needed or requested by any full-time faculty member present, an
unambiguous voted count will be taken and recorded. Each full-time
faculty member will have one vote except on issues restricted to bargaining
unit faculty members. A majority vote of the quorum will determine
the outcome. A faculty member may request the use of secret ballots. If
approved by the faculty, voting and/or input on issues may be done by memo,
e-mail or other means, which do not require meetings.
2.5 Accurate
records of the proceedings of the meetings shall be kept. A secretary
shall be appointed or selected to keep these records.
3 BARGAINING
UNIT FACULTY ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 The
Faculty of the Department of Philosophy will in regular Department meetings
called and conducted in the manner prescribed in Article 2 of these Bylaws
give advice and make recommendations regarding the governance of the Department,
college and university in the following areas: faculty appointment; professional
development and mentoring of new faculty; teaching assignments and class
schedules, including summer and overloads; graduate and undergraduate curriculum
and academic standards; faculty involvement in review of deans; and issues
affecting the Department or college. Only Bargaining Unit Faculty will make
recommendations regarding faculty reappointment and dismissal.
3.2 If
a majority of the Bargaining Unit Faculty agrees, they may record a vote
of Bargaining-Unit-Faculty-only on any issue. If a majority of the
Bargaining Unit Faculty agrees, the Bargaining Unit Faculty will meet in
Executive Session to determine their advice and recommendations in the above
areas.
3.3 If
the advice and recommendations concern a Bargaining Unit Faculty member of
the Philosophy Department, that Bargaining Unit Faculty member may be excluded
from the deliberations by a majority vote of the other Bargaining Unit Faculty
members.
4 ANNUAL
EVALUATION
4.1 Evaluation
Procedures
4.1.1 The
Department Chair will annually evaluate all Bargaining Unit Faculty following
the procedure outlined in the contract covering Bargaining Unit Faculty.
4.1.2 Each
Bargaining Unit Faculty member will submit a report to the chair, and the
chair will evaluate her or his professional activities. The purpose
of this bylaw is to establish (1) the means by which the Chair will weight
the different areas of activity, and (2) the criteria the Chair will use
in evaluation.
4.1.2 Annual
evaluations should recognize faculty for their successes in diverse areas
of their professional lives. Therefore, the Philosophy Department will adopt
a flexible system of weighting the three major areas of teaching, scholarship,
and service.
4.1.3 The
Department Chair will consult each faculty member before setting the percentage
weighting for annual evaluations, normally within the following scale:
| |
|
Full
Professor
|
Associate
and Tenured Assistant Professor
|
Non-Tenured
Assistant
Professor
|
|
Teaching
|
|
40%
to 55%
|
40%
to 60%
|
40%
to 70%
|
|
Scholarship
|
|
20%
to 40%
|
5%
to 50%
|
25%
to 55%
|
|
Service
|
|
20%
to 40%
|
5%
to 50%
|
5%
to 20%
|
4.1.4 In
the event of an unforeseeable change in a faculty member’s workload, the faculty
member may ask the Chair to change the weighting the chair has assigned to
an area of professional activity before the faculty member submits the documentation
of his/her professional activities to the Chair for evaluation.
4.2 Criteria for the Evaluation of Scholarship
4.2.1 The
Philosophy Department values research and scholarship, and encourages its
faculty members to regularly engage in activities that culminate in the publication
of research in philosophy.
4.2.2 Scholarship
evaluation scores:
4.2.2.1 To
receive a score of 1 (Adequate) in scholarship, a faculty member must present
evidence of currency in the scholarship of the professor’s
own field by working on a paper, attending a conference, chairing a panel,
responding to a paper, publishing a book review, preparing a brief article
for a reference work, or the equivalent.
4.2.2.2 To
receive a score of 2 (Meritorious) in scholarship, a faculty member must
present evidence of serious research by submitting a substantial,
scholarly paper for publication (for the first time), delivering a substantial,
scholarly paper at a professional meeting, submitting a substantial, scholarly
article or articles for a reference work, publishing several scholarly book
reviews or one substantial, scholarly review, publishing a non-peer reviewed
scholarly article or chapter, co-authoring a paper in a peer-reviewed journal,
or the equivalent.
4.2.2.3 To
receive a score of 3 (Outstanding) in scholarship, a faculty member must
present evidence of sustained research by publishing an article
in a peer-reviewed journal, publishing a chapter in a peer-reviewed book,
editing or co-editing a peer-reviewed book, revising and republishing a previously
published book or textbook, or the equivalent.
4.2.2.4 To
receive a score of 4 (Extraordinary) in scholarship, a faculty member must
present evidence of comprehensive research by publishing a
peer-reviewed academic book, publishing a peer-reviewed translation of a
monograph, publishing a peer-reviewed textbook in an appropriate field, publishing
two or more articles in peer-reviewed academic journals, publishing two or
more chapters in a peer-reviewed academic book or books, or the equivalent.
4.2.2.5 A
faculty member will receive a score of 0 (Unsatisfactory) if during the past
year there is no adequate indication either of work in progress or of maintaining
currency in the scholarship of the professor’s own field.
4.2.3 The
faculty member should submit documentation of his/her scholarly activities.
Such documentation may include evidence of work in progress, in addition
to evidence of completion of a project. For example, a draft of a publication,
or part of a publication, may be submitted as evidence of work in progress;
a contract may be submitted to demonstrate acceptance for publication; or
the publication itself may be submitted to demonstrate successful completion
of the project. A completed work may “count” as evidence for a ranking of
Meritorious or higher either when it is accepted for publication (as demonstrated
by a contract, letter of acceptance, or the equivalent) or when it physically
appears in print. It cannot “count” as evidence of the completion of the
project in more than one year.
4.2.4 The
Philosophy Department recognizes that sustained and comprehensive research
is the product of many years of labor. Research, writing, and revision of
an article or book frequently takes more than one year. Such activity should
be rewarded. Documented progress on a project, such as the draft of an article
or book chapter, should be considered Meritorious, for it is evidence of
serious research. Substantial progress on a major project or on several projects,
such as the drafting or revision of several book chapters or articles, may
be counted as Outstanding. A faculty member may receive “credit” for sustained
work on a project over the course of several years, but in each successive
year he/she must submit documentation of significant progress. 4.3 Criteria
for the Evaluation of Service
4.3.1 A
faculty member may contribute to service on many levels: service to students,
the university, the community, and/or the profession.
4.3.2 Service
evaluation scores:
4.3.2.1 To
receive a score of 1 (Adequate) in service, a faculty member must participate
in service at the departmental level by attending and contributing to department
faculty meetings, as well as participating in departmental committees and
other service as needed, or the equivalent.
4.3.2.2 To
receive a score of 2 (Meritorious) in service, a faculty member must meet
the qualifications for adequate service AND participate in college, university,
or professional committees, programs, or initiatives, or the equivalent.
4.3.2.3 To
receive a score of 3 (Outstanding) in service, a faculty member must meet
the qualifications for adequate service AND participate in college, university,
or professional committees, programs, or initiatives that demand a significant
time commitment or involve significant projects, or the equivalent.
4.3.2.4 To
receive a score of 4 (Extraordinary) in service, a faculty member must meet
the qualifications for adequate service AND assume a leadership role in college,
university, or professional committees, programs, or initiatives that result
in major initiatives or accomplishments, or the equivalent.
4.3.2.5 A
faculty member will receive a score of 0 (Unsatisfactory) if during the past
year he or she failed to meet the qualifications for adequate service.
4.3.3 The
faculty member should submit documentation characterizing his/her expenditures
of time, effort, and skill in each of the four areas of service named in
section 4.3.1 as either minimal, moderate, above average, major, or great.
Evidence of service may include, but is not limited to, activities of the
following forms: (1) Committee Work, e.g., serving on Departmental, College,
or University committees, or the equivalent; (2) Administrative Work, e.g.,
advising, chairing a committee, directing a program, or the equivalent; and
(3) Outreach Work, e.g., philosophical lectures or publications for the general
public, acting as trustee for a public library or school board, or the equivalent.
4.4 Criteria
for the Evaluation of Teaching
4.4.1 In
this document, “teaching” refers to all assigned teaching done by Department
faculty at or on behalf of Wright State University, whether or not it occurred
in the Philosophy Department.
4.4.2 Teaching
evaluation scores:
4.4.2.1 To
receive a score of 1 (Adequate) in teaching, a faculty member must (1) Meet
scheduled classes, hold regular office hours, be sufficiently prepared for
lectures, provide adequate and timely feedback on student performance, and
provide students with an adequate syllabus for each course taught and (2)
Maintain an acceptable level of teaching performance for
the courses taught, as evidenced by formal student evaluations that indicate
no serious dissatisfaction and/or peer evaluations that reveal no serious
problems.
4.4.2.2 To
receive a score of 2 (Meritorious) in teaching, a faculty member must (1)
Meet scheduled classes, hold regular office hours, be sufficiently prepared
for lectures, provide adequate and timely feedback on student performance,
and provide students with an adequate syllabus for each course taught and EITHER
(2a) Maintain a commendable level of teaching performance for
the courses taught, as evidenced by formal student evaluations that reflect
learning and generally positive feedback and/or peer evaluations that
are positive OR (2b) Maintain an acceptable level of teaching performance for
the courses taught and demonstrate a commendable enhancement of
teaching and learning as evidenced by the creation of class materials
(e.g., tests, handouts, syllabi, and websites) that are useful, or the equivalent.
4.4.2.3 To
receive a score of 3 (Outstanding) in teaching, a faculty member must (1)
Meet scheduled classes, hold regular office hours, be sufficiently prepared
for lectures, provide adequate and timely feedback on student performance,
and provide students with an adequate syllabus for each course taught and EITHER
(2a) Maintain a highly commendable level of teaching performance for
the courses taught as evidenced by formal student evaluations that reflect
considerable learning and involvement of the students and/or peer
evaluations that reveal excellence in teaching OR (2b) Maintain a commendable level
of teaching performance for the courses taught and demonstrate
a highly commendable enhancement of teaching and learning as
evidenced by the creation of class materials that are challenging and informative,
or the equivalent.
4.4.2.4 To
receive a score of 4 (Extraordinary) in teaching, a faculty member must EITHER
(a) display exceptional skill as a teacher, as evidenced by
formal student evaluations and peer evaluations that reflect a profound ability
to instruct and inspire students OR (b) Maintain a highly commendable level
of teaching performance for the courses taught and demonstrate
an exceptional enhancement of teaching and learning as evidenced
by the creation of class materials that are creative and inspiring, or the
equivalent.
4.4.2.5 A
score of 0 (Unsatisfactory) in teaching will be given to any faculty member
who does not satisfy the requirements for an Adequate evaluation or who does
not provide the Chair the evidence required for the Chair’s evaluation.
4.4.2.6 Each
faculty member should submit documentation of his or her teaching. Such documentation
should include syllabi, and may include handouts and other classroom materials,
tests and other instruments used for assessing learning, and a description
of methods and technologies used in instruction. Teaching outside the traditional
classroom setting may be documented, including serving on honors and masters
thesis committees, supervising independent study, and facilitating extracurricular
activities that advance the understanding of philosophy.
4.4.2.7 Student
narrative evaluations must be a factor in the evaluation of teaching. Untenured
faculty members will be evaluated on both numerical scores and narrative
comments for peer evaluation. Tenured faculty members may submit numerical
scores, but they are not required to do so. A tenured faculty member’s decision
not to submit numerical scores shall not be negatively construed. Finally,
student evaluations should constitute only one factor among several in rating
the faculty member's teaching.
4.4.2.8 Peer
evaluation must be a factor in the overall evaluation of teaching for untenured,
tenure-track faculty. Peer evaluation may be requested by tenured and non-tenure-track
faculty. Peer evaluation will consist of review of documentation and
evaluations described in 4.4.2.6 above by the Department Promotion and Tenure
Committee and their ratings of these materials. Peer evaluation may also
include classroom visitation.
5 GUIDELINES
FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
5.1 The
Promotion and Tenure Committee of the Department of Philosophy shall consist
of its tenured associate and full professors (one of whom will be elected
by the committee members to chair the committee). In considering particular
cases the committee may choose to invite external members who have appropriate
expertise. The tenured, bargaining unit, departmental Associate and full
Professor members of the committee, the candidate and the chair shall agree
upon the list of external members to be invited to serve on the Promotion
and Tenure Committee. In the case of untenured faculty the external
members will serve from the beginning of each candidate’s probationary period
(unless prevented from doing so by change of circumstances). There
will be a minimum of three members for considerations of promotion to associate
professor and a minimum of five for considerations of promotion to professor,
with at least three members holding the rank of professor. The chairperson
of the Department is an ex officio member of the committee who may
neither vote nor chair the committee. The person under consideration
will be excused from the committee while his or her case is being considered.
5.2 Promotion
to Associate Professor
5.2.1 In
order to be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor in Philosophy, a
candidate must have demonstrated, in his or her time at Wright State, a record
in teaching that reflects an active, effective, and respected teacher. Service
to the university, profession and/or the community is required for promotion
and/or tenure. Acceptable service would include regular participation
in department meetings, serving on department committees as needed and serving
on college or university committees during the latter stages of the probationary
period, or the equivalent. A strong record in service is desirable, but not
essential if the teaching record is strong; but excellent service cannot
cancel bad teaching. In the area of scholarship, a candidate must demonstrate
sustained scholarly production of work of recognized quality. This
can be accomplished by publishing four scholarly articles in refereed philosophy
journals, or the equivalent. At least two of these articles (or the
equivalent) must have been published during the candidate’s time at Wright
State. If a candidate published a scholarly monograph (or the equivalent)
before coming to Wright State, the candidate must also give evidence of regular
scholarly production while at Wright State. This can be accomplished
by at least one additional publication of recognized quality in a peer-reviewed
scholarly journal or the equivalent.
5.2.2 A candidate who has not published four scholarly
articles in refereed journals but claims to have published equivalent work
must provide evidence that the work in question is equivalent to publishing
four articles in refereed journals. The equivalent work must consist
of published writing, must involve originality, and must either deal with
topics that are clearly philosophical in nature or deal with topics that
are not traditionally dealt with by philosophers, but deal with them in a
manner that is clearly philosophical. It must also be clear that the
intellectual labor and creativity required to produce the body of work approximate
that required to publish four articles in refereed journals. Such publications
could include books or essays of recognized quality written for the educated
public or to educate the public — instead of publications addressing philosophical
peers. Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, Mortimer J.
Adler’s Ten Great Philosophical Questions and Sophie’s World by
Jostein Gaardner are concrete examples. 5.3 Promotion
to Professor
5.3.1 In
order to be promoted to the rank of Professor in Philosophy a candidate must
have maintained his or her standing as an active, effective, and respected
teacher and must have shown a greater commitment to service than that expected
of Assistant Professors. This can be demonstrated by having had an
obvious leadership role on significant college or university committees or
the equivalent. He or she must also have shown excellent scholarship
while at Wright State, as evidenced by publication of a scholarly monograph
of recognized quality, or the equivalent (e.g., four to five related peer-reviewed
articles in ten years). The monograph (or equivalent work) in question
can have been published any time since the candidate was promoted to associate
professor.
5.3.2 A candidate who has not published a scholarly
monograph but claims to have published equivalent work must provide evidence
that the work in question is equivalent to publishing a scholarly monograph. The
equivalent work must consist of published writing, must involve a high degree
of originality, and must either deal with topics that are clearly philosophical
in nature or deal with topics that are not traditionally dealt with by philosophers,
but deal with them in a manner that is clearly philosophical. It is
possible for a number of articles in refereed journals, a book that is not
a scholarly monograph, or a combination of articles and a book, to count
as equivalent; in such cases, though, it must be clear that the intellectual
labor and creativity required to produce the body of work approximate that
required to produce a scholarly monograph. Such publications could include
books or essays of recognized quality written for the educated public or
to educate the public — instead of publications addressing philosophical
peers. Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, Mortimer
J. Adler’s Ten Great Philosophical Questions and Sophie’s World by
Jostein Gaardner are concrete examples. 5.4 All
Promotion and Tenure Committee judgments about whether a candidate has met
these requirements will be based on the candidate’s promotion and tenure
file, which must include a summary of all teaching, research, and service
performed since appointment to our faculty. External letters will be used
as supporting evidence of scholarly achievement and will assist the committee
in evaluating the quality of the candidate's scholarship.
|
