Skip to Content

Department Policies

Expand All Content
  • Given the potential disruption caused by COVID 19 during calendar year 2020, the RCC strongly recommends a spirit of generosity and understanding guide the work of the next FRC. We must be mindful of the fact the disruptions in 2020 to teaching, research, and service were beyond the control of us all.
    Annual Review of Faculty Policy
    DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
    Adopted November 1997
    Revised Fall 2001, Fall 2003, Spring 2004, Fall 2006, Spring 2008, Fall 2008, Fall 2009, Spring 2010, Fall 2011, Spring 2013, Spring 2015, Spring 2017, Spring 2018, Fall 2018, Spring 2019, Fall 2019, Fall 2020
    The faculty is responsible, in part, for fulfilling the mission of Texas State University. Our collective performance determines the effectiveness of our institution. It is essential, therefore, that we evaluate our performance and cultivate actions that enhance institutional effectiveness.
    A distinction must be made between assessment, which concerns the effectiveness of a campus, and evaluation, which focuses on the performance of individual faculty. We believe that these processes must be strongly linked. Faculty should be evaluated in terms of our contribution to campus missions, and we should be rewarded for enhancing institutional effectiveness.
    I. Purpose of this document: To establish guidelines for the annual review and evaluation of tenured and non-tenured faculty.
    A. Purpose of evaluation: “The purposes of annual faculty evaluation are to provide for self development; to identify, reinforce, and share the strengths of faculty; to extend opportunities for continuous professional development; and to provide for identifying and strengthening the role of faculty members within their departments” (The Faculty Handbook, 14th edition, p. 28).
    B. Policy guiding evaluation: The annual evaluation of faculty “also provides information that may be used in tenure and promotion recommendations, in the awarding of performance and merit raises, and in decisions regarding the retention of faculty or of tenure itself” (The Faculty Handbook, 14th edition, p. 28). In addition to evaluation for the purposes of improving teaching, scholarship, and service, as well as training new teacher-scholars to take their place on the Personnel Committee (formerly Senior Faculty), evaluation serves the function of ranking faculty for merit, performance, and bonus raise consideration.
    C. Affected parties: “All faculty members will be evaluated annually” (The Faculty Handbook, 14th edition, p. 28). “All faculty members” refers to both continuing faculty and non-continuing faculty (as specified in AA/PPS 04.02.01).
    D. Responsibility for evaluation: “The annual evaluation of faculty is the responsibility of faculty governance—a duty shared by departmental Chairs and departmental Personnel Committees” (The Faculty Handbook, 14th edition, p. 28).
    E. Evaluation cycle: “All faculty will be evaluated by their academic department or school. … The performance evaluation covers the preceding calendar year and must be completed by March 1” (The Faculty Handbook, 14th edition, p. 28).
    2
    F. Relationship to Tenure and Promotion: The annual evaluation of faculty “also provides information that may be used in tenure and promotion recommendations, in the awarding of performance and merit raises, and in decisions regarding the retention of faculty or of tenure itself” (The Faculty Handbook, 14th edition, p. 28). Tenure and promotion decisions will be made in accordance with and on the schedule outlined in AA/PPS 04.02.20. Evaluation of tenure-track faculty will be made in accordance with and on the schedule outlined in AA/PPS 04.02.01. The annual review policy described in this document is distinct, and substantively different from, University policies regarding the criteria for tenure and promotion.
    II. PROCEDURES for Annual Evaluation
    A. Faculty Review Committee (FRC): Because evaluation is a duty shared by departmental chairs and the department’s Personnel Committee, the Sociology Department will annually convene a Faculty Review Committee selected from members of the Personnel Committee.
    1. The Faculty Review Committee will be elected annually by the Department’s voting faculty. This election will be held during the second week of November.
    2. The Faculty Review Committee will be elected by faculty voters from members of the Personnel Committee. The four PC members with the greatest number of votes will comprise the FRC, the alternate being the one of those four with the least number of votes. In case of ties, a run-off election will be conducted.
    3. Of those elected to the FRC, the faculty member with longest department tenure will chair the FRC.
    4. No faculty member will serve on the FRC committee in consecutive years. The FRC will examine materials submitted annually by each faculty member to the Faculty Qualifications System.
    5. The department will maintain records related to GPA and quantitative student evaluations, and collect syllabi. These materials should be available by February 1st of each year, and will be provided to the FRC.
    6. The FRC will assign a rating of Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, or Does not meet Expectations for each of the three areas of Teaching, Scholarship and Service. The ratings assigned to each faculty member will be mutually agreed upon by all FRC members.
    7. The ratings will be shared with the Department Chair.
    B. Role of Department Chair in Annual Evaluation: Because the Faculty Review Committee’s recommendations regarding the annual evaluation are advisory to the Chair, the Chair’s recommendations take precedence. Nevertheless, the Chair is obligated to hear the Committee’s recommendations and to meet with and discuss his or her decisions with the FRC before notifying faculty members about those decisions.
    C. By March 1, the Chair will provide a written performance review to all faculty members.
    D. Appeal Process: Should a faculty member take issue with the Departmental Chair’s performance review, the following process should be followed.
    1. The faculty member will notify the Chair in writing within 10 working days of receiving official notification of the Departmental Chair’s performance review that the faculty member requests an explanation.
    3
    2. The Chair has 10 working days after having received the request for explanation to provide that explanation to the faculty member during a formal conference and in writing.
    3. Should the explanation be unsatisfactory to the faculty member, a three-person Reconsideration Team will be convened to look at the faculty member’s complaint. The faculty member will select one member from the Department’s faculty, and the Chair will select a second from the FRC. The third will be chosen by agreement of the first two Reconsideration Team members.
    4. The Reconsideration Team will examine the recommendation of the Faculty Review Committee and Departmental Chair. The Reconsideration Team will offer its report on the merits of the complaint to both the faculty member and the Chair within ten working days of its inception.
    5. Should the faculty member and the Chair be unable to resolve the disputed performance review, the faculty member may consult with the University Ombudsman for further action.
    E. Rubric Review Committee (RRC): Because evaluation is a duty shared by departmental chairs and departmental personnel, the Sociology Department will annually convene a Rubric Review Committee.
    1. The Rubric Review Committee will be elected annually by and from the Department’s voting faculty. This election will be held during the second week of November.
    2. The Rubric Review Committee will be the result of voting on faculty from two categories: tenure-track and nontenure-track. Faculty voters will choose one person from the tenure-track faculty and two persons from the nontenure-track faculty.
    3. Those elected will receive the highest vote total in each category.
    4. The chair of the FRC will chair the RRC. The chair of the FRC is the faculty member with the longest tenure in the department.
    5. Elected members of the RRC will serve three-year staggered terms. Initial terms of either one, two, or three years will be selected by random draw. No faculty member will serve consecutive 3-year terms on the RRC committee.
    6. The RRC will meet annually (on or about March 15th) to critique, evaluate, and edit the Annual Evaluation Policy and to propose changes of it to the Sociology faculty. Recommended changes will be acted upon in a spring faculty meeting, and will be adopted or changed by majority vote.
    III. EVALUATION of teaching: The Sociology Department defines teaching as its most important contribution to the university and community. As a result, it takes seriously the delivery of excellent instruction. To insure high quality teaching, regular evaluation is essential.
    A. Faculty members are required to submit student evaluations and other information deemed relevant by the faculty member (e.g., academic advising, serving as director of thesis/practicum, serving on a thesis/practicum committee, development of new courses, correspondence courses, individual directed studies, internship related activities, and Merrick Grants) to the FRC.
    B. Faculty directing theses or practica should indicate whether a thesis or practicum is completed or in progress during the year in review. In addition, faculty should list only those students who were enrolled in thesis or practicum credits with the faculty
    4
    member during the year in review. (Faculty should also indicate particular comprehensive exam grading)
    C. The FRC will evaluate teaching in terms of the criteria listed in VI.C.1.
    IV. EVALUATION of Scholarship: The Sociology Department recognizes the reciprocal nature of good teaching and scholarly activity. To enhance our capacity to teach and to contribute to the discipline and the world of ideas, the Department encourages and rewards scholarship.
    A. Articles, books, manuscripts, papers, grants, reports, annotated bibliographies, and other evidence of scholarly activity will be submitted for the annual evaluation following the year in which the activities are published or occur. Faculty should use the drop-down menu in digital measures to correctly classify the type of scholarly/creative work.
    B. If a scholarly work is accepted for publication in one year, but is published in a following year, it will count as a publication only once. The faculty member may choose the year in which it counts as a publication. Faculty should use the comments section in digital measures to identify which of the scholarly items listed for the year should be counted in the annual review process.
    C. The FRC will evaluate scholarship in terms of the criteria listed in VI.C.2 or VI.C.3.
    V. EVALUATION of Service: The Sociology Department recognizes that service to the department, university, and discipline is crucial to a thriving department, university, and discipline. To enhance the prestige and contribution of our faculty, the Department encourages and rewards service.
    A. Faculty will annually submit evidence of service as noted on the vita submitted.
    B. Additional indicators of exceptional service (letters of appreciation, etc.) may also be submitted as evidence of exceptional service.
    C. Activities required of full-time faculty (e.g., letters of recommendation, attending graduation, evaluating portfolios) should generally not be submitted.
    D. The FRC will evaluate service in terms of the criteria listed in VI.C.4.
    VI. CRITERIA for Retention, Performance, and Merit
    A. The Department of Sociology will use the following rankings for merit and performance: exceeds expectations, meets expectations, and does not meet expectations.
    B. Examples of TEACHING, SCHOLARLY OR CREATIVE ACTIVITY, and SERVICE can be found in the College of Liberal Arts Criteria for Promotion and Tenure LA/PPS 2.02
    C. Below “scores” refer to the mean “overall” score on student evaluations of teaching. For merit and performance (PPS 7.10), the rankings are defined as follows: 1. TEACHING
    a. Exceeds expectations: If scores in all classes are 3.5 or higher and at least one score is 4.0 or higher, the faculty member will receive an “exceeds expectations” on teaching. No other evidence of teaching effectiveness needs to be evaluated.
    b. Meets expectations: If all course evaluations are 3.5 or above but none are 4.0 or higher:
    5
    i. The FRC will examine additional evidence of teaching effectiveness to be considered for “exceeds expectations”. If at least one additional piece of evidence indicates teaching excellence, the faculty member will receive an “exceeds expectations”. Acceptable evidence is listed below.
    ii. If no additional evidence of teaching effectiveness is present, the faculty member will receive a “meets expectations” for teaching.
    c. Does not meet expectations: If any courses fall below 3.5 the faculty member can do the following:
    i. The faculty member will provide the FRC with a narrative explanation for the low student evaluation scores and the FRC will also examine additional evidence of teaching effectiveness. If two or more indicators suggest teaching effectiveness the faculty member can receive a “meets” or “exceeds” on teaching effectiveness, depending on the available evidence. If no additional evidence of teaching effectiveness is present, the faculty member will receive a “fails to meet” expectations for teaching.
    2. SCHOLARLY AND/OR CREATIVE ACTIVITY: Applies to all faculty receiving a course-load reduction for research.
    a. Exceeds expectations: A peer reviewed, published scholarly or creative achievement or the equivalent (e.g., books, chapters, articles, funded internal or external grant proposals). Please indicate the evaluation year you want the work counted.
    b. Meets expectations: Scholarly or creative achievement or the equivalent (e.g., presentation, poster session, session organizer, chair, or discussant at international, national or regional meetings, grant reports, encyclopedic entry, letters to the editor, comments, evidence of work in progress, or attendance and/or participation in local, regional, national, or international workshops or symposia).
    c. Does not meet expectations: The bulk of available evidence indicates a lack of scholarly or creative achievement.
    3. SCHOLARLY AND/OR CREATIVE ACTIVITY: Applies to non-tenure track faculty and tenured faculty electing a four-course load
    a. Exceeds expectations: Extensive bibliography (20 or more citations) of literature (books, chapters, journal articles, secondary sources, existing data, government documents, etc. other than textbook material listed on course syllabi) relevant to the subject matter of teaching areas, with documentation (brief summaries) of knowledge gained and its relevance to teaching areas; or a funded grant proposal(s); or presentation(s) at local, regional, national or international workshops or symposia; a publishable review of a current sociological book or monograph; or an encyclopedic entry; or a white paper/evaluation report; or relevant coursework of 6 credit hours per year; or any two or more of the “meets expectations” criteria. (e.g., attending two or more conferences, workshops, or symposia)
    b. Meets expectations: Acceptable bibliography (10-19 citations) of literature (books, chapters, journal articles, secondary sources, existing data, government documents, etc. other than textbook material listed on course
    6
    syllabi) relevant to the subject matter of teaching areas, with documentation (brief summaries) of knowledge gained and its relevance to teaching areas; or relevant coursework of 3 credit hours per year; or a submitted grant proposal(s); or attendance at local, regional, national or international workshops or symposia, with relevance to teaching areas noted.
    c. Does not meet expectations: The bulk of available evidence indicates a lack of scholarly or creative achievement (no attendance and/or participation in local, regional, national or international workshops or symposia; no submission of grant proposals; no bibliography with documentation of reading relevant to teaching areas, etc.).
    4. SERVICE1
    a. Exceeds expectations: Demonstration of unusually effective leadership or service in the department, university, or discipline level (e.g., chairing a committee, or serving as faculty advisor for a student organization, or judging a paper competition, or serving on the editorial board of a journal, or serving as an officer in a professional organization, reviewing papers for scholarly journals (please identify the year review was completed), or receiving service awards, or similar); demonstration of unusually effective service to the community related to the discipline.
    b. Meets expectations: Demonstration of effective service in the department, university, or discipline level (e.g., serving as a member on committees, reviewing books/proposals, and so forth); effective service to the community related to the discipline.
    c. Does not meet expectations: Lack of effective service in the department, university, or discipline level.
    D. MERIT: To be eligible for merit, at least one “exceeds expectations” rating must be achieved in the preceding three-year period, in addition to “meeting expectations” in teaching each year. Merit is based on a three-year rolling average of ratings: Each “exceeds expectations” earns 2 points; each “meets expectations” earns one point; and each “does not meet expectations” results in zero points. Ratings points are added for a three-year period and faculty are ranked from most to least points. Merit is awarded accordingly, with highest merit for faculty members with the most points. The Chair consults with the Personnel Committee to arrive at merit awards to be proposed to the Dean.
    E. PERFORMANCE: To be eligible for performance, a “meets expectations” in TEACHING and one other category each year is required.
    F. RETENTION: If the faculty member is on a tenure-track or extended-term contract, a record of two straight years with evaluations that could not justify at least a performance raise will cause the department to consider whether termination with appropriate notice is warranted. (See Faculty Handbook, 14th Edition, p. 28.) If the faculty member is to be retained, the Chair will provide him or her with specific written suggestions for improvement.
    G. POST-TENURE REVIEW: The Department will follow the Texas State policy found in AA/PPS 04.02.10.
    H. BONUSES - Bonus criteria are currently established by the university's administration and currently reflect contributions to the Strategic Planning Initiatives.
    1 Change approved spring 2010
    7
    No application process will be created to award bonuses. Faculty can nominate one another, themselves, or be nominated by the Chair. The Department of Sociology suggests, given the Strategic Planning criteria, that two kinds of awards be considered:
    1. Individual bonus awards: Faculty members who have made significant contributions, over and above their normal obligations, to the Department’s Strategic Planning goals.
    2. Group bonus awards: Faculty members who, working in collaboration, have made significant contributions, over and above their normal obligations, to the Department’s Strategic Planning goals.
    8
    ADDENDUM TO ANNUAL REVIEW POLICY
    EFFECTIVE 1/2004
    Revised 5/2010, 4/2015, 4/2017, 10/2019
    Recommendations (Teaching)
    A. In addition to course syllabi (already required), the Ad Hoc Annual Evaluation Policy Review/Revision Committee recommends we also require a summary of written comments from student evaluations.
    B. Section VI., part c above indicates the criteria for rankings for merit and performance as it relates to teaching. The policy provides the opportunity for a faculty member to submit materials to be considered for evidence of teaching effectiveness. The documents that can be considered per the discussion above include:
    1. Student evaluations (overall score and/or subscales)
    2. Open-ended student comments
    3. Chairing and/or serving on Master’s Thesis/Honor’s Thesis (note whether in progress or completed)
    4. Teaching awards
    5. New course proposals
    6. New course preparations
    7. Mentoring students (assisting students with conference presentations and publications, or other mentoring activities that exceed normal mentoring expectations)
    8. Other evidence of effective or innovative teaching (e.g., comments on teaching from the Faculty Qualifications report, and recognition letters from graduating students)
    9. Statement of teaching philosophy
    10. Attending a teaching workshop
    The FRC and Chair should weigh the relative importance of the above indicators in determining a faculty member’s rating (Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Does not Meet Expectations). The FRC will include brief justification of the evaluation of each faculty member in its recommendation to the Chair.

  • Curriculum Process Policy
    Department of Sociology
    Adopted: May 2017
    Revised and Approved:
    Effective: May 2017
    This policy provides the guidelines for the approval procedures and process for new courses in the Department of Sociology.
    1. The Department of Sociology will maintain a Sociology Curriculum Committee (SCC) that will be responsible for oversight of the development of new courses, course changes, and course deletions. The SCC will consist of the following departmental members: associate chair (SCC chair), graduate director, undergraduate advisor(s), Sociology’s Liberal Arts College Curriculum representative, tenure-track (untenured) faculty representative.
    2. Although the department chair may initiate course changes and deletions, such changes should be completed in consultation with the SCC.
    3. Undergraduate program changes will be initiated by the chair with the approval of SCC and the general faculty as needed.
    4. Graduate program changes will be initiated by the graduate director and/or department chair in consultation with the graduate faculty and SCC as needed.
    5. New course proposals will be initiated by the faculty who wish to teach these courses. Faculty are encouraged to discuss new course proposals with the chair to assess their viability.
    6. Faculty wishing to propose a new course should provide a written proposal to the SCC by September 1st with the following information:
    a. Course Title
    b. Course Description (50 words or less)
    c. One paragraph explaining the following: student interest in the topic, faculty expertise in the topic, and the pedagogical benefits of offering this course.
    d. If the course is proposed to be taught instead of another course, faculty should comment upon what will happen to the course to be replaced in their current teaching repertoire.
    7. The SCC will evaluate courses in terms of their long-term viability for student demand, faculty expertise, pedagogical goals, and strains on departmental teaching needs.
    8. The SCC will make a recommendation to the chair about new course proposals.
    9. The chair will consider the recommendation from the SCC and if approved, the faculty member will then proceed with completing a formal new course proposal in the Course Inventory Management (CIM) system by the due date (9/30). The faculty member should consult with the department chair, SCC chair, and/or Sociology’s Liberal Arts College Curriculum representative in completing the CIM form.

  • FACULTY DISPLAY CASE POLICY

    Adopted: March 2017

    Revised and Approved:

    Effective: March 2017

    Purpose:  To display the quality, volume, and relevance of the sociology faculty's publications

    Location:  The top shelf of the display case across from the Student Lounge

    The publications will be displayed according to the following rules: 

    • Junior faculty's work will be given priority over that of senior faculty.
    • Only the first pages of journal publications and the front covers of books will be displayed.
    • Each item will be colored copied on card quality paper and enlarged to 8" X 10" to be readable.
    • Each item will be displayed to be as readable as possible.
    • Each faculty will be allowed one displayed publication at a time.
    • Publications will be rotated at least twice each year, at the beginning of each semester.
    • Each faculty member will be given at least one displayed publication each year, if available.
  • Flower Fund Policy
    Department of Sociology
    Adopted: 8/26/2016
    Revised and Approved:
    Effective: 9/1/2016
    The Department of Sociology has a long tradition of collecting donations by faculty/staff members that is held in a departmental “flower fund.” The fund is then distributed to faculty/staff and their loved ones on behalf of the department. The spirit of generosity for this fund has allowed the department to be wide-ranging in its giving. This policy will allow that tradition to continue with some guidelines for the department chair to follow.
    1. All departmental faculty/staff may contribute to the fund with the expected contribution to be $20/semester.
    2. The “flower fund” will be used to order flowers, baskets, cards…etc (hereafter, “flowers” refers to any such order) for those occasions that warrant it (death, illness, inability to work for an extended time, birth of children…etc).
    3. The chair will order flowers for any faculty/staff member who meets the criteria in #2, unless the faculty/staff members expressly declines flowers.
    4. Additionally, faculty/staff members may request flowers for loved ones. Whom counts as a “loved one” is up to the faculty/staff member. However, flowers must be expressly requested to the chair and/or admin III. If a faculty/staff member is unable or unwilling to make such a request, another faculty/staff member may request flowers on their behalf.
    5. The chair will be generous. If funds run low, the chair will request an additional donation from faculty/staff.
    6. The funds may also be used for small department-related expenses at the discretion of the chair.
    7. All expenses resulting in use of flower fund monies will be reported via email by the chair or admin III as an accounting measure and as a means of notifying faculty/staff of an event concerning a faculty/staff member and/or a loved one.

  • Merit Policy
    DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
    Adopted November 1999, updated Spring 2008, Spring 2017
    The faculty is responsible, in part, for fulfilling the mission of Texas State University. Our collective performance determines the effectiveness of our institution. It is essential, therefore, that we evaluate our performance and cultivate actions that enhance institutional effectiveness.
    A distinction must be made between assessment, which concerns the effectiveness of a campus, and evaluation, which focuses on the performance of individual faculty. We believe that these processes must be strongly linked. Faculty should be evaluated in terms of our contribution to campus missions, and we should be rewarded for enhancing institutional effectiveness.
    I. Purpose of this document: To establish guidelines for awarding merit to faculty members in the Department of Sociology.
    II. Purpose of evaluation: “The purposes of annual faculty evaluation are to provide for self development; to identify, reinforce, and share the strengths of faculty; to extend opportunities for continuous professional development; and to provide for identifying and strengthening the role of faculty members within their departments” (The Faculty Handbook, 13th edition, p. 37).
    III. Policy guiding evaluation: The annual evaluation of faculty “also provides information that may be used in tenure and promotion recommendations, in the awarding of performance and merit raises, and in decisions regarding the retention of faculty or of tenure itself” (The Faculty Handbook, 13th edition, p. 37). In addition to evaluation for the purposes of improving teaching, scholarship, and service, as well as training new teacher-scholars to take their place on the Personnel Committee (formerly Senior Faculty), evaluation serves the function of ranking faculty for merit, performance, and bonus raise consideration.
    IV. Affected parties: All faculty members who meet the minimum criteria for merit are eligible for merit. Those minimum criteria are as follows: “Exceeds Expectations” in any category, in addition to meeting performance criteria of “Meets Expectations” in any two categories, with at least a rating of “Meets Expectations” in teaching.) (“Annual Review of Faculty Policy”,” Department of Sociology, adopted November, 1997)
    V. Responsibility for evaluation: Merit evaluation of faculty is the responsibility of faculty governance—a duty shared by department chairs and faculty members.
    VI. Evaluation cycle: All faculty will be evaluated by their academic department annually by April 15 for the preceding calendar year unless the administration of the university has announced that no merit will be given for that academic year.
    VII. Relationship to Tenure and Promotion: Tenure and promotion are separate from merit consideration. All faculty members who are eligible for merit as defined in section IV are eligible for merit, regardless of their tenure or promotion status.
    VIII. Procedure for Merit Evaluation
    A. Merit Evaluation will begin on March 15th of each year in which it is expected that merit will be given. Documentation from annual review reports submitted to the Faculty Qualifications System will be used in scoring for merit.
    B. The Chair will assemble all ratings for all faculty members in the department from the annual evaluations covered by the period for which merit is to be awarded. Points (as indicated in VIII.D) will be awarded based upon the preceding annual evaluation(s). Two exceptions are noted below:
    i. In the judgment of the Chair, an “Exceeds Expectations” rating may be elevated to “Significantly Exceeds Expectations” if a faculty member has produced significantly beyond his/her colleagues in an area.
    ii. Examples of significant achievement might include publishing numerous articles or a book in a year; chairing a major department committee and producing significant results from the committee for the department; introducing new teaching approaches or undertaking new teaching areas with demonstrated success.
    C. For those faculty members who are not rated in scholarship, teaching evaluations will be double weighted.
    D. Faculty members will earn points as follows:
    i. “Significantly Exceeds Expectations” 3 points
    ii. “Exceeds Expectations” 2 points
    iii. “Meets Expectations” 1 point
    E. Points will be summed, and faculty will be ranked according to points.
    F. The Chair will make approximate assignments to three groups “Very High Merit,” “High Merit,” or “Merit.”
    G. The Chair will consult with the Personnel Committee to arrive at merit awards to be proposed to the Dean.
    H. Ratings will be communicated to faculty by April 1, or as soon as the amount of merit money is known to the Chair.
    IX. Appeal Process: Should a faculty member take issue with the Department Chair’s merit review, the following process should be followed.
    A. The faculty member will notify the Chair in writing within 5 working days of receiving official notification of the Department Chair’s merit review that the faculty member requests an explanation.
    B. The Chair has 5 working days after having received the request for explanation to provide that explanation to the faculty member during a formal conference and in writing.
    C. Should the explanation be unsatisfactory to the faculty member, a three-person Reconsideration Team will be convened to look at the faculty member’s complaint. The faculty member will select one member from the department faculty, and the Chair will select a second from that year’s annual FRC. The third will be chosen by agreement of the first two Reconsideration Team members.
    D. The Reconsideration Team will examine the recommendation of the Faculty Review Committee and Department Chair. The Reconsideration Team will offer its report on the merit of the complaint to both the faculty member and the Chair within ten working days of its inception.
    E. Should the faculty member and the Chair be unable to resolve the disputed merit review, the faculty member may consult with the University Ombudsman for further action.

  • Contact Hours Outside of Class Policy
    Department of Sociology
    Adopted: 2/3/2017
    Revised and Approved:
    Effective: 8/1/2017
    This policy provides the guidelines and policy for faculty holding office hours in the Department
    of Sociology as directed by PPS 4.01.
    1. All faculty members teaching courses, whether those courses are face-to-face, online, or
    hybrid, will need to maintain student contact hours outside of class.
    2. Contact hours outside of class may be conducted in any combination of communication
    methods that include in-person, telephone, or electronic communication. The type(s)
    of method used should be appropriate for the class setting.
    3. The number of scheduled hours for such contact hours is at the discretion of the faculty
    member, but such hours should be considerate of the ability of students to meet with
    faculty, the teaching load of the faculty member, and class enrollment size.
    4. Contact hours outside of class should be announced in class, included in a syllabus, and
    filed with departmental staff.

  • Faculty Sick Leave Policy
    Department of Sociology
    Adopted: 10/2/2020
    Revised and Approved:
    Effective: 10/2/2020 (retroactive to 9/1/19 per Faculty Records Request)
    This policy provides the guidelines and policy for faculty sick leave in the Department of Sociology as directed by UPPS 04.03.30 This policy states the following in section 04.10: “Faculty members earn sick leave and must report sick leave taken even if no classes were missed as required by the state of Texas (Texas Government Code 661.203). Nine-month faculty members are not required to report hours worked…. Faculty must report sick leave for the actual time missed from carrying out their normal, negotiated workload responsibilities (teaching, research, and service). Sick leave taken must be recorded in hours, including partial day absences.” Furthermore, the policy states in section 04.06: “Employees may take sick leave with pay when sickness, injury, pregnancy, or confinement prevent the employee’s performance of duty, when the employee needs to care for an immediate family member who is sick, or to obtain medical or dental examinations as part of an employee’s or immediate family member’s personal health maintenance program. For purposes relating to regular sick leave, immediate family is defined as those individuals who reside in the same household and are related by kinship, adoption, or marriage, as well as foster children certified by the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (DPRS). For the purpose of regular sick leave, the university considers the employee’s minor children as immediate family, whether or not they are living in the same household.”
    In line with the above policy, all benefits eligible faculty in the department will follow the below practices in recording sick leave.
    1. All faculty members who are ill, schedule doctor/dental appointments, or engage in any other health-related care for oneself or one’s family during normal working hours (M-F, 8am-5pm) should report it as sick leave.
    2. Faculty should contact (via email or phone) the department chair and administrative assistant III to notify them of work missed due to medical issues (faculty need not disclose personal medical information). Non-benefits eligible faculty still need to notify the chair and administrative assistant III of any missed duties (class, meetings).
    3. Please provide the following information:
    a. Reason for leave: employee or family sick, funeral, emergency, other (please describe)
    b. Date and Time of work missed (e.g. 10/2/2020, 8am-12pm
    4. The administrative assistant III will then record sick leave in accordance with UPPS 04.04.30 on the faculty member’s behalf.
    5. In the instance that sick leave stretches beyond one day, faculty should be prepared to provide medical documentation to Human Resources.

  • Travel Policy
    Department of Sociology
    Adopted: 2/3/2017
    Revised and Approved:
    Effective: 2/3/2017
    This policy provides the guidelines and policy for the procedures and allocation of travel money in the Department of Sociology.
    1. In September of every academic year the department will ask for all faculty planning to travel during the academic year to complete a travel request form on the department’s “faculty resources” section of the departments home page. Faculty wishing to travel for the purposes of online curriculum/teaching should make this known at the time of the travel request so that online course fees can be assessed for travel use.
    2. Based upon these requests and available funds, the department chair will provide the faculty an estimated yearly travel budget per faculty member. This information will be conveyed at the October faculty meeting.
    3. A range of opportunities that benefit both faculty and the department are acceptable for travel reimbursement. This can include, but is not limited to: presentation of a paper, poster; section officer; recruitment of students and/or faculty; professional development; networking; keynote address.
    4. The department chair will use discretion in funding for faculty who request funds for multiple trips. Additional trips beyond the generally accepted practice of one trip/year will be funded based upon available funds and may only include partial or limited funding.
    5. As a general rule, the chair will attempt to allocate funds as equitably as possible across the faculty.

  • Sociology Department: Workload
    (Approved Department of Sociology Personnel Committee, 10/8/2010; Amended January 2012; Amended 3/5/2021)
    Effective: 3/5/21 (online class size provisions detailed in section 4 will be effective for spring 2022 class scheduling)
    The purpose of this workload policy is the fair and proportional distribution of work within the Department of Sociology, which takes into account both the needs of the Department and the career aspirations of its faculty members.
    Faculty Workload policies in the Department of Sociology at Texas State University are governed by AA/PPS No. 04.01.40 and the College of Liberal Arts Workload Policy. At Texas State University the normal workload for full-time faculty is twelve semester credit hours per semester (12 workload units). For most tenure-track faculty at Texas State, this twelve-workload unit standard is met by teaching three classes (9 workload credits) and conducting research at a level that warrants the awarding of three workload credits (3 workload credits). Lecturers and Senior Lecturers normally meet this twelve-workload unit standard by teaching four classes (12 workload credits). Faculty members with less than full-time appointments have proportionally reduced minimum and normal workloads. Section 03.03 of PPS 04.01.40 states the following: - “Chairs or directors are responsible for ensuring that individual faculty members’ workloads comply with this policy and the workload policies of the academic unit or college. Chairs or directors are also responsible for appropriately distributing obligations among faculty members within the academic unit. In meeting this responsibility, chairs or directors should attempt to match the needs of the academic unit and the university as outlined in the academic unit’s goals for teaching, research, scholarly, and creative activity, and service with the individual professional goals of each faculty member.”
    1. Requests to teach fewer than four courses must be approved by the department chair. Unusual requests that do not adhere to standard department, college, and/or university polices will be evaluated by the chair in consultation with the Personnel Committee and Dean. Faculty workload will be considered using the following guidelines.
    2. Adjustments to assigned time may be given by the Department Chair, in consultation with the Personnel Committee and Dean, as needed. The approved activities for adjusted workloads can be found in section 05 and 06 in PPS 04.01.40.
    3. The department seeks to facilitate productive scholarship among all tenure line faculty (tenure-track and tenured faculty). The department will seek ways to maximize teaching flexibility to facilitate department goals.
    4. Because teaching duties are a shared responsibility across all members of the department, the unit will strive to maintain equity across the faculty, while still meeting student needs and departmental goals. Thus, the department chair will assign teaching duties with the following issues in mind:
    1. The department recognizes that those classes with a writing intensive (WI) designation generally include a large workload. The department will implement a maximum capacity on officially designated WI classes of 30 students, regardless of teaching modality (face-to-face, online, hybrid).
    2. The department seeks to provide students with as many learning modalities as possible, but the department must also meet student demand. Class capacities for undergraduate classes taught online will be the same as those class capacities for face-to-face class sizes with the following exceptions:
    a. Faculty who were hired as online faculty will continue to maintain existing capacity sizes previously negotiated with the department chair.
    b. Faculty who taught class sections online prior to the pandemic (e.g. Fall 2019 or earlier) will have classes set to a capacity of 40 starting spring 2022.
    c. Faculty, in consultation with the department chair, may choose to teach larger class sizes in order to meet departmental needs. However, class size for these courses will not exceed those of their face-to-face counterparts.
    5. The department recognizes that worklife balance is an important goal we all share in common. PPS 04.01.40 includes a section (08.04) that addresses this important issue. Examples of personal reasons that might warrant the use of this type of workload adjustment may include, but are not limited to illness, caretaking, etc. A faculty member may request the use of this workload adjustment to the department chair and the chair will take such requests to the Personnel Committee.
    6. Summer teaching is not guaranteed among faculty with 9-month contracts. Decisions regarding summer teaching will be made based upon programmatic needs and faculty interest. The department chair will weigh departmental need and faculty interest when scheduling summer teaching, within the context of budgetary constraints.
    1. Upon the call from the chair, all interested faculty should respond with summer teaching preferences;
    2. The chair will assign teaching requests as equitably as possible based upon departmental needs;
    3. Primary importance is given to required courses for sociology majors and/or service courses;
    4. For equity purposes, preferences will be given to non-tenured faculty when teaching demands are greater than teaching needs;
    5. Summer salary is guided by AA/PPS 04.01.41.

  • Peer Evaluation Policy
    Department of Sociology
    Adopted:
    Revised and Approved:
    Effective:
    The department of sociology has a long-standing practice of peer evaluation of new lecturers and new tenure track hires (the latter observations is consistent with PPS 04.02.01) using a departmental rubric based upon classroom visitations. In most cases observations occur within the first two years of being hired, but can extend beyond that timeframe with approval from the Personnel Committee. Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic the department is proposing a temporary practice in lieu of our regular process of peer teaching observations. With many classes online the following peer teaching observation practice will be followed (subject to change at a later date when conditions change):
    1. For faculty teaching asynchronously, a faculty reviewer will be given access to the Canvas site as an “observer” to review the course syllabus, assignments, discussions, modules, and other communications with students to gauge course content, assignments, and engagement with students.
    2. For faculty teaching synchronously (face-to-face or online via zoom), a faculty reviewer will observe a face-to-face class in the classroom, live zoom class or watch a recording of a zoom session.1 Additionally, a faculty reviewer will review either the course canvas site and/or a syllabus as an additional point of data to evaluate the course.
    3. Faculty may choose which course to review, which live session/recording to share, and the faculty evaluator will provide a written assessment based upon the departmental peer observation rubric followed up with a one-to-one meeting between the faculty member and the faculty evaluator.
    1 For face-to-face classes during the pandemic, observations will only take place with space permitting under the current capacity limits. If a faculty member requests an in-person review and a faculty reviewer is not comfortable attending a face-to-face classroom an alternative reviewer can be selected (e.g. department chair).
    Peer Evaluation of Classroom or Online Teaching Performance
    PROCESS: In discussion with the faculty member, the faculty reviewer should schedule a time to observe and discuss your appraisal. If class is held online (synchronously or asynchronously) please adapt the rubric below to evaluate the course learning site (Canvas) and/or a live zoom/zoom recording. If the faculty member thinks that a rating is unfair or inaccurate, this should be noted in writing.
    Rate the teaching level observed on each item, the highest score is 5 and the lowest is 1. Please select the appropriate score from the drop-down menu.
    A. Class Goals Clarity: On a scale of 1-5 please indicate whether class goals were clear (Very Clear = 5; Somewhat Clear = 3; Unclear = 1).
    5
    COMMENTS:
    B. Class Goals Exceeds/Meets/Fails to Meet: On a scale of 1-5 please indicate whether class goals were met (Exceeds = 5; Met = 3; Failed to Meet = 1).
    5
    COMMENTS:
    C. Class Organization: On a scale of 1-5 please indicate whether class is organized (Well Organized = 5; Acceptably Organized = 3; Disorganized = 1).
    5
    COMMENTS:
    D. Class Content: On a scale of 1-5 please indicate whether class content is appopriate (Appropriate = 5; Mostly Apporpriate = 3; Inappropriate = 1).
    5
    COMMENTS:
    E. Class Content Clarity: On a scale of 1-5 please indicate whether class content is clear (Very Clear = 5; Mostly Apporpriate = 3; Inappropriate = 1).
    5
    COMMENTS:
    F. Open to Alternative Views: On a scale of 1-5 please indicate whether the faculty member is open to alternative views (Very Open = 5; Somewhat Open = 3; Closed = 1).
    5
    COMMENTS:
    G. Enthusiasm: On a scale of 1-5 please indicate the faculty member’s level of enthusiasm (Very Enthusiastic = 5; Somewhat Enthusiastic = 3; Not Enthusiastic = 1).
    5
    COMMENTS:
    H. Encouraged Student Engagement: On a scale of 1-5 please indicate the faculty member’s encouragement of student engagement (Strongly Encouraged Engagement = 5; Encouraged Engagement = 3; Discouraged Engagement = 1).
    5
    COMMENTS:
    I. Level of Student Engagement: On a scale of 1-5 please indicate the student’s level of engagement (Strongly Engaged = 5; Engaged = 3; Not Engaged = 1).
    5
    COMMENTS:
    J. Student Activities: On a scale of 1-5 please indicate the effectivness of student activities (Activities Effective = 5; Activities Somewhat Effective = 3; Activities Not Effective = 1).
    5
    Faculty :
    _______
    Date:
    Course:
    _______
    No. Of Students:
    Faculty Reviewer:
    _______
    Location/ Time:
    ______________________________ ______________________________
    Evaluator Signature Date Faculty Signature Date

  • Graduate Assistants Time-Away from Duty
    Adopted: 11/2/2018
    Revised and Approved:
    Effective: 11/2/2018
    As employees of the university, GIAs are responsible for working the number of hours designated for their weekly assignment. In the Sociology Department, we both support our GIAs with their studies/professional goals, and expect them to commit their time to their assistantship. This means that GIAs and their supervising faculty must be in dialogue regarding the GIAs’ request to take time-away from duties including for personal and holiday travel, workshops, conferences, minor/short-term illness, and other. For short-term illnesses that result in the GIA not being able to be on task on a particular day, the GIA should give notice to their faculty supervisor in advance as soon as possible. For workshop/conference travel, the GIA should meet with their faculty supervisor at least 14 days in advance and provide their faculty supervisor with travel timeline or itinerary details, title and abstract of the work being presented, and/or a brief synopsis of the professional development training/activities that they are planning to attend. GIAs must understand that request for time-away from duty is not granted automatically.

  • Presidential Award Nominations Policy
    Department of Sociology
    Adopted: 11/2/2018
    Revised and Approved:
    Effective: 11/2/2018
    This policy provides the guidelines and policy for nominating faculty from the Department of Sociology for the Presidential Awards in Teaching, Scholarship/Creative Activity, Service, and Presidential Seminar (PPS 02.04.20)
    1. Every year, each department is permitted to submit one candidate to the College of Liberal Arts for the following Presidential Award categories:
    a. Scholarly/Creative Excellence: Assistant Professor, Senior Lecturer, Lecturer
    b. Scholarly/Creative Excellence: Associate Professor/Professor
    c. Service Excellence: Assistant Professor, Senior Lecturer, Lecturer
    d. Service Excellence: Associate Professor/Professor
    e. Teaching Excellence: Senior Lecturer or Lecturer
    f. Teaching: Excellence: Assistant Professor
    g. Teaching Excellence: Associate Professor/Professor
    2. The Presidential Award Nominations (PAN) committee will be comprised of the following members: one senior lecturer, one assistant professor, and one tenured professor (chair of previous year’s FRC will chair the PAN). The department chair will serve as a member of the committee who can provide information, answer questions, and provide letters of nomination upon request. The PAN committee will serve as the committee to solicit and select candidates for the above-mentioned categories. Faculty members will self-nominate for the PAN committee.
    3. On November 1st of every year the department chair will send an email reminder to all faculty notifying them of the upcoming Presidential Award nomination process and direct all inquiries to the chair of the PAN committee.
    4. Nominations are due the PAN committee chair by November 10th. Faculty may self-nominate for an award category or faculty may nominate a colleague. Nominations (self or peer nominations) should include the following: an updated Texas State CV, an email stating key supporting points, and any accompanying documents as needed. In the event that someone self-nominates, the nominee should be prepared to provide information to be included in a nomination letter; those who nominate another faculty member should be prepared to write a nomination letter on that nominee’s behalf. Letter writers for self-nominations may be selected by the nominee or solicited by the PAN committee. Members of the PAN may be nominated for an award, but would be recused from discussions/voting on the category for which they are nominated. Letters of nomination/support are required for advancement to the College of Liberal Arts.
    5. If there are no nominations for a category, the PAN committee should select a candidate and solicit their application.
    6. In the event that there is more than one nomination for a category, the PAN committee will decide which nominee shall represent the department based upon available information (CV, past award winners, nomination letters…etc.).
    7. Nomination packets, which include the Texas State CV and a nomination letter, should be submitted electronically as a PDF to the department chair by January 25th and the department chair will submit the materials to the College of Liberal Arts by the deadline of February 1st.

  • Department of Sociology
    Promotion of Lecturers to Senior Lecturers
    Spring 2011
    The department may at times promote Lecturers to Senior Lecturers in order to maintain an adequate teaching staff to meet instructional demands in the department (see PPS 7.22, Faculty Responsibilities). Under this policy, promotion of an existing faculty member to Senior Lecturer does not require a national search to fill the Senior Lecturer position.
    To be eligible for promotion, a Lecturer must have taught courses in the department for at least two academic years and established a record of high-quality teaching effectiveness as demonstrated through the annual evaluation process. In addition, the Lecturer must have demonstrated collegiality and contributions to the department’s mission in ways that can be listed or enumerated.
    In the fall semester of the academic year, the department Chair will notify the Personnel Committee of his or her belief that a potentially deserving Lecturer should be considered for promotion to Senior Lecturer for the following year. Based on a review of the Lecturer’s record of teaching and departmental service, and considering department needs, the department Chair will request an in-depth evaluation of the Lecturer during the academic year which culminates in the annual evaluation. The in-depth evaluation will include, but is not limited to, classroom visits by two or more Personnel Committee members.
    If the promotion of the Lecturer to Senior Lecturer is found, through the annual evaluation process, to be in the best interests of the department, the department Chair will ask the Personnel Committee to vote on the promotion recommendation by secret ballot vote. A two-thirds vote in favor of promotion by the Personnel Committee is required before the department Chair can take the administrative steps necessary to facilitate the promotion. Before a contract is issued for the following academic year, the department Chair will inform the Lecturer of the promotion for the following academic year.

  • Subvention Fees Policy
    Department of Sociology
    Adopted: 5/7/2019
    Revised and Approved:
    Effective: 5/7/2019
    The departmental subvention fee policy is meant to provide guidelines for handling subvention fees associated with peer-reviewed publication by departmental faculty members. This policy is consistent with and does not supersede university policy (see attachment).
    1. Faculty seeking departmental support for subvention fees should submit a formal request to the department chair using the online form system. The request should include information on the nature of the fee, publisher, type of publication, amount of request, and other relevant information (other author payment commitments, author order…etc). The request should also include information on whether they are eligible for and/or planning to request funding from the Provost’s Office.
    2. Faculty may submit a request for subvention fees for any publication, however, consideration of departmental support will consider the following types of information in reaching a decision:
    a. total cost of fees
    b. type of publication (peer-reviewed, 2nd Edition of book…etc) will be considered in making a decision.
    c. author order
    d. commitments from non-Texas State authors or other departments at Texas State to contribute to the total cost
    3. If the faculty member is receiving support from the Provost’s office the department will support faculty up to one-half of the total fees (assuming no other contributions).
    4. In years when a faculty member is not eligible for Provost support (once every three years) the department will consider faculty requests to cover fees. In such circumstances, the department chair will bring the request to the Personnel Committee for discussion and potential approval.
    Attachment: Texas State University Subvention Fees Guidelines
    Texas State University Subvention Program Guidelines
    Texas State University is committed to supporting faculty in the publication and dissemination of high quality research, scholarly, and creative works. The subvention program is designed to assist when university and scholarly presses and open-access publishers require authors/creators to provide funds to underwrite the publication and dissemination of these works. Subvention awards provide financial assistance to faculty members when departments, colleges, and other units are unable to provide full support.
    Guidelines
    1. Purpose. These guidelines are for subvention requests made to and funded by the Office of the Provost. Subventions may assist faculty in getting their works published, particularly when small, open-access, and other publishers are concerned about recovering costs. Subventions may also be used as subsidies for items that create high publication costs, including unique books, artwork, maps, graphs and charts, music, photographs, and other special works. All requests must receive chair/director endorsement and a commitment of at least 50 percent in matching support.
    2. Faculty Eligibility.
    • Any current Texas State full-time faculty member who is the sole or primary author/creator and is employed in a position that requires research, scholarly and/or creative activities is eligible to seek assistance via the program.
    • Academic administrators with faculty status are eligible for the program.
    • Preference is given to faculty members who are on the tenure-track or those who have not been previously funded.
    • Each faculty member, regardless of authorship status, is eligible for subvention support once every three years (i.e., two Texas State faculty members on one publication are both credited for the subvention support).
    • Funds are only paid directly to the publisher, as faculty members may not be reimbursed from university funds.
    • Subventions are not awarded to: students, temporary faculty, faculty whose contracts will not renewed the following year, faculty who plan to resign in the current or subsequent academic year, faculty who are agents or employees of the publisher, and faculty who receive a cash advance from the publisher.
    3. Scholarly Work Qualifications.
    • Subventions are intended for research, scholarly, and/or creative works that are peer-reviewed and recognized as important to a faculty member’s development and productivity. Faculty members are advised to consult with chairs/directors before committing to works that incur subvention fees.
    • Subventions are made for initial publications only, not for subsequent or re-issued editions.
    • Subventions for the publication of textbooks, translations of previously published books, or book reprints will not be considered.
    • Subventions for vanity, trade, or popular press publications will not be considered.
    • Publications may be in any language and any discipline.
    • Texas State University must be mentioned by name in the publication.
    Process
    To be considered for a subvention grant, a chair/director must submit the following items to the associate provost (Debbie Thorne) and academic budget specialist (Cindy Waggoner). The following information should be included or attached to an email with “subvention request” and last name of the primary author in the subject line.
    1. Acceptance letter or contract from the publisher
    2. Evidence from the publisher regarding the specific amount of the subvention (website, letter, email, etc…)
    3. Evidence that another university entity is supporting at least 50 percent of the amount needed for the subvention (e.g. funds committed by the faculty member’s department or college, etc.)
    4. Statement of publication quality, peer-review process, and contributions to the faculty member’s scholarly efforts
    5. Acknowledgement and date of previous subvention support by Texas State, if applicable
    Version 1, July 2018

  • Tenure and Promotion Policy
    Department of Sociology
    Adopted: 10/8/2010
    Revised and Approved: 5/11/2016
    Effective: 9/1/2016
    PURPOSE
    1. The purpose of this policy is to establish the criteria of the Department of Sociology for tenure and promotion together with the policies and procedures for their application. The following is a current list of sources relevant to these criteria. a. PPS 8.01, Development/Evaluation of Tenure-Tenure Track Faculty b. PPS 4.05, Maintenance and Improvement of Quality in Teaching c. PPS 8.10, Tenure and Promotion Review d. Faculty Handbook, Texas State University e. The Core of Academe (word, pdf), AASCU, 1993 f. The Texas State University System (TSUS) Rules and Regulations g. LA/PPS 2.02, Tenure and Promotion Policy of the College of Liberal Arts
    f. Tenure and Promotion Policy of the Applicant's Academic Department
    PREPARING THE PORTFOLIO
    2. Candidates for tenure and promotion prepare a portfolio to document their accomplishments in teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and service. In addition to the forms required by the University (see PPS 8.10 Form 2), candidates for tenure and/or promotion will submit an up-to-date Texas State Vita Form 1A (PPS 8.10 Form 1A)). For other items to include in the portfolio, see below: Teaching, paragraph 4; Scholarly/Creative Activity, paragraph 11; and Leadership/Service, paragraph 13.
    TEACHING
    3. The teaching of each faculty member in the Department of Sociology is evaluated by the Personnel Committee and Department Chair on the basis of scholarly preparation, dedication, peer evaluation through classroom visits and review of a teaching portfolio. Teaching is understood to include not only classroom performance, but other factors such as preparation, syllabi and other course materials, graded assignments, effective testing, staying current in the discipline, student academic and career counseling, and curriculum improvement. 4. In preparing the portfolio, candidates will include the items listed below to document Teaching. Candidates for tenure and for promotion to associate professor should include teaching material collected since initial date of employment. Candidates for promotion to full professor should include teaching material collected since the latest promotion. a. A statement (no longer than two pages) summarizing teaching accomplishments
    b. A summary of student evaluations from all classes that evaluated the candidate using departmental forms c. Sample course syllabi, assignments, and examinations d. Examples of students’ work e. Documentation of any other achievements relevant to teaching, such as awards, funded grants and/or curriculum development f. For candidates for tenure, written statements and/or letters from colleagues who have observed candidate’s classes
    SCHOLARLY/CREATIVE ACTIVITIES
    5. For tenure and/or promotion to Associate Professor, the Department of Sociology requires five refereed, scholarly works—which may include articles, book chapters, and comparable electronic projects—or a book. In addition, candidates may include achievements in other categories of scholarly/creative work listed in the Texas State Vita (PPS 8.10 Form 1A), such as externally funded grants and/or refereed papers presented at regional or national meetings. 6. Promotion to Professor requires five refereed, scholarly works—which may include articles, book chapters, and comparable electronic projects—or a book, since promotion to Associate Professor. The candidate will identify these publications on the Texas State Vita (PPS 8.10 Form 1A) by placing an asterisk beside each entry and by a footnote at the bottom of each page: *Since promotion to Associate Professor. The College Review Group will emphasize Scholarly/Creative Activity published subsequent to promotion to Associate Professor, but will also consider the candidate’s entire academic career. In addition, candidates may include achievements such as externally funded grants and/or refereed papers presented at regional or national meetings. 7. In addition to the quantitative requirement (which is intended as a standard of eligibility and not an approval of tenure and/or promotion), there is an important qualitative component. The Department of Sociology Chair and Personnel Committee will provide a qualitative assessment of the candidate’s scholarship and/or creative activity based on such factors as acceptance rates of journals in which works have appeared, citation record, prestige of publishers, prestige of organizations to which papers were presented, prestige of granting agencies, and opinions of experts outside the University. For promotion to Associate Professor and Professor, the Chair and the Personnel Committee "should describe the total scholarly/creative work of each candidate and assess its impact on the expansion of knowledge in the discipline"; the description and assessment are "particularly critical for promotion to full professor" (see #24, PPS 8.10). It is the candidate's responsibility to provide to the Chair and the Personnel Committee with a two-page assessment of the impact of his or her scholarly/creative activity. In addition, the Chair and Personnel Committee "should fully develop a rationale for recommending the candidate, leaving no doubt about the candidate's suitability and importance to the future development of the department" (see #26, PPS 8.10). The qualitative assessment will appear as part of the tenure/promotion forms completed by a representative from the Personnel Committee and the Chair, respectively (PPS 8.10 Form 3). 8. All candidates must include a minimum of three external reviews of their scholarly/creative work. Reviewers are selected according to the following procedures: The candidate proposes a list of at least five experts in the field who might serve as external reviewers, subject to endorsement by the Chair and the Personnel Committee. The Chair then selects reviewers from the list and sends them copies of the candidate’s scholarly/creative work. As reviews are received, the Chair adds them to the candidate’s portfolio. External reviewers should ordinarily hold the terminal degree appropriate to the discipline and, in cases of promotion to professor, the rank of professor. To minimize bias, external reviews should not be solicited from thesis advisors, co-authors, former students, or former professors. Reviewers should be informed that the content of the tenure/promotion portfolio is open to the candidate. To assist referees in writing their evaluations, the Chair’s invitation to submit a review should include a brief statement about the mission of the university and the department, including an indication of teaching load and research expectations. Referees should be asked to indicate the nature of their professional contact with and knowledge of the candidate, and to provide an assessment of the significance and quality of the candidate’s scholarly and/or creative contributions to the discipline.
    To assist referees in writing their evaluations the following additional information will be included in the invitation to review candidates:
    External Reviewer’s Evaluation
    Please respond to the requests below. a. Indicate the nature of your professional contact with and knowledge of the candidate. b. Provide an assessment of the significance and quality of the candidate’s scholarly and/or creative contributions to the discipline. c. Compare the candidate’s contributions to generally accepted norms in the field according to your understanding of these norms.
    9. If the size of the candidate's Department precludes internal evaluation, the candidate and the Chair will agree on the selection of at least two qualified external reviewers (see #25, PPS 8.10). For the logistics of the review, see #8 above. 10. Only scholarship or creative work that is in print, or documented as forthcoming will be counted as part of the Scholarly/Creative record. In a separate folder titled “Forthcoming Scholarly/Creative Work,” the candidate must provide documentation, i.e., letters of acceptance from publishers or journal editors listing date of publication. All documentation in this folder must be received by the date of the College Review Group’s meeting to vote on tenure and promotion. Written work that is in progress, submitted, under review, under contract, or being revised or resubmitted will not count and should not be listed under “Works in Print” (section III.A.) of the Texas State Vita (PPS 8.10 Form 1A). Such work should be listed instead under the appropriate headings in section III.B.5. (“Other Works Not in Print”).
    Candidates who have a substantial portion of their scholarship written or published in a foreign language are obliged to provide an abstract of each work in English and translation or independent scholarly assessment(s) of the same. Assessments may not come from interested parties, such as the candidate’s mentors, thesis/dissertation directors, or co-authors. 11. In preparing the portfolio, candidates should use the checklist below to document Scholarly/Creative Activity. To indicate whether or not a publication is Refereed, candidates should write R for Refereed or I for Invited (the latter designation accompanied by an explanation) beside the entry of each book, monograph, article, or book chapter listed on the Texas State Vita (PPS 8.10 Form 1A). In each entry under Publications or Presentations, candidates should include beginning and ending page numbers of a work. Candidates should also list co-author(s), if any, exactly as they are listed on the publication or in a conference program. The portfolio for Scholarly/Creative Activity should be organized in the following order. a. The candidate’s two-page research statement
    b. Letters from external reviewers
    c. Refereed and non-refereed published books and book chapters, i.e., scholarly monographs, textbooks, edited books, chapters in books, creative books d. Refereed and non-refereed journal articles e. Refereed and non-refereed abstracts, reports, book reviews, other published work f. Folder, titled “Forthcoming Scholarly/Creative Work” with the forthcoming refereed and non-refereed publications and their respective letters of acceptance g. Externally funded grant proposals h. Copies of papers or materials presented at regional and national meetings and items under Works Not in Print on the Texas State Vita (PPS 8.10 Form 1A). i. Other relevant documents
    LEADERSHIP/SERVICE
    12. The Department of Sociology defines Leadership/Service as any professionally related activity, other than teaching or scholarship, which contributes to the well being of the university both in its internal and external aspects. It is expected that a faculty member will be able to demonstrate contributions—related to the faculty member’s area of expertise—in one or more of the following areas: department, college, university, profession, or community. Examples of Leadership/Service are holding office in professional organizations; chairing sessions at professional meetings; serving on departmental, college and university committees; and in general, any other activity that
    advances the best interests of the university. Leadership/Service activities are subject to qualitative judgments, and the quality of Leadership/Service takes precedence over simply a long list of committee memberships. Leadership/Service includes Collegiality, i.e., expected "collegial contributions to the university community" and "to the positive functioning of the department and the university" (see #3, PPS 8.10). In its "Statement of Professional Ethics," AAUP addresses collegiality as follows: As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions of others. Professors acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution. 13. On the Texas State Vita (PPS 8.10 Form 1A), candidates should list Leadership/Service to the department, College and University, and to the profession and the community. Candidates may include copies of correspondence, descriptions of projects, or other evidence of effective Leadership/Service. 14. Candidates for Professor should carefully describe and document Leadership/Service because an "outstanding record of leadership and service is normally expected" for promotion to this rank, but "less critical" for promotion to Associate Professor (see #21, PPS 8.10).
    EARLY TENURE AND/OR PROMOTION
    15. On the recommendation of the department and in exceptional cases, the Department of Sociology will consider candidates for early tenure and/or promotion.
    FACULTY AFFECTED BY THIS PPS
    16. Tenured and tenure-track faculty in the Department of Sociology will follow the policies in this document (effective 9/1/2016; revised and approved 5/11/2016), subject to PPS 8.10.
    Texas State University-San Marcos | 601 University Drive, San Marcos, Texas 78666 | 512.245.2111 Texas State University-San Marcos is a member of the Texas State University System