Bylaws of the Department of Economics

 

I. Mission and Vision of the Department of Economics

The mission of the Department of Economics at the University of Nevada, Reno is to produce teaching and research of increasing quality. In support of this primary goal, service is provided internally to the college and university, and externally to community, state, nation, and discipline. Applied research, which benefits the community and state, is produced to serve Nevada taxpayers under our Land Grant Mission, to provide learning by doing experiences to students, to develop research projects of interest to the economics discipline, and to raise funds for the Department. Opportunities to enhance Department productivity through specialization and cooperation are sought, where faculty and staff with different roles work together as an all inclusive team, where all on the team can achieve excellence. Departmental improvement is measured by results obtained, not by efforts made. For teaching quality, the primary success metric is student placement (into good internships, jobs, and graduate schools) and outputs such as textbooks and teaching materials that support quality teaching. For research quality, the primary success metric is quality publications in the form of journal articles, academic books and monographs, and other outlets accepted by the national economics research community.

The Department of Economics at the University of Nevada, Reno seeks a reputation in the state and nation for producing high quality applied economic research, and an associated reputation for high quality teaching that supports student success in competing for internships, jobs, and graduate schools in the region and nation.

 

II. Department of Economics Bylaws

  1. These Bylaws are authorized by the Bylaws of the College.
  2. These Department Bylaws are subordinate to and shall not conflict with either the College Bylaws or the UNR Bylaws. Amendment of these Bylaws shall be in force upon: (1) approval by two-thirds of those members of the Department faculty who vote in a fair, written, and secret ballot; (2) review by the College Bylaws Committee; and (3) approval by the Dean. Approved department bylaws shall be made available to all faculty by the Department.
  3. An ad hoc Bylaws Committee shall review all proposed amendments. This committee shall consist of three faculty members elected by secret ballot of the Department’s voting members, with terms not to exceed one year. Members may serve more than one term. Proposed amendments to these Bylaws shall be addressed to the Chair, who shall forward these proposals to the Bylaws Committee, who in turn shall review these proposals and make a recommendation to the faculty. Proposed amendments shall be distributed to the faculty together with the recommendations of the Bylaws Committee. A faculty meeting may be called as per Section V.A of these Bylaws to consider and vote on the proposed amendments, or the Chair may hold an election by mail ballot as per Section VII.B of these Bylaws.
  4. The purposes of these Bylaws are to establish:
    1. Rights and responsibilities of faculty members in the Department,
    2. Procedures for evaluation of Faculty Performance,
    3. Criteria for Promotion in Rank, Tenure, and commendation for merit,
    4. Procedures for meetings of the Department,
    5. Duties of and procedures for the selection of standing Department Committees,
    6. Duties of and procedures for the selection of the Department Chair, and
    7. Search procedures.
 

III. Rights and Responsibilities of Faculty

  1. Faculty of the Department of Economics shall have all rights of academic freedom provided by the Nevada System of Higher Education Code, and the Bylaws of the University and College.
  2. Department faculty shall include all academic and administrative faculty on annual contracts that assign at least 0.5 Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) of their position to the Department, including all faculty whose promotion, tenure or merit decisions are the responsibility of the Department, but excluding visiting faculty on leave from other universities and those faculty who have received a notice of nonrenewal from the university. Except as otherwise limited by university, college, or department bylaws, voting members of the department shall include all tenured and tenure-track faculty, as well as nontenure-track academic faculty who have been employed by the university for three or more years.
  3. Individual faculty in the Department have a general collegial responsibility to demonstrate intellectual and academic development and progress. Criteria for demonstrating fulfillment of these responsibilities shall be the basis of faculty evaluations for the purpose of granting promotions in rank, tenure, and commendations of merit.
 

IV. Evaluation of Faculty Performance

  1. Faculty shall be evaluated on their teaching performance, their research contributions to the field of economics, and their service to the Department, College, University, the State, and the community as a whole, consistent with their role statement.
  2. All members of the Department faculty shall submit a role statement to the Chair at the beginning of each calendar year. The Chair shall then review the role statements of all faculty to ensure that they are compatible with the mission and the needs of the Department as well as the long-run professional interests of the faculty member, and the Chair may require the faculty member to revise his or her role statement accordingly. Once approved by the Chair, all role statements shall be made available to the Department faculty.

    The role statement should be a general statement of the faculty member's intended allocation of effort for the coming year, with regard to teaching, research, and service. In particular, the role statement should indicate any major departure from the normal teaching, research, and service responsibility of the faculty member. As such, the role statement is a written understanding between the faculty member and the chair regarding the general allocation of time. However, the role statement is not a contract, nor does it any way supersede the standards for merit, tenure, and promotion as expressed in the bylaws of the Department, College, or the University.

  3. The Department Personnel Committee constituted under these Bylaws shall evaluate faculty performance to determine whether an individual faculty member's performance is “excellent,” “commendable,” “satisfactory,” or “unsatisfactory” in each of three areas of teaching, research, and service and in their overall performance.
  4. The evaluation of research shall include but not be limited to:
    1. Publications in refereed academic journals;
    2. Publications in refereed practitioner journals;
    3. Scholarly books;
    4. Publications in proceedings;
    5. Presentations at academic meetings;
    6. Presentations at practitioner meetings; and
    7. Working papers.
  5. The evaluation of teaching shall include but not be limited to:
    1. student evaluations;
    2. quality of course material; and
    3. external teaching activities including, but not be limited to, supervision of theses, supervision of independent studies, and coordination of student activities in professional organizations.
    The quality of work in each of the above categories of research and teaching shall be evaluated by the Department Personnel Committee in conjunction with the faculty role statement.
  6. The evaluation of service shall include internal, external and community service, including but not limited to the following:
    1. Internal service:
      1. Acting as a representative on departmental, college, university, and system level committees, and
      2. Acting as an advisor to a student organization.
    2. External and Community Service:
      1. Serving as an officer or board member of a professional organization;
      2. Paper/book reviews for a journal;
      3. Book review for a publisher;
      4. Publications in practitioner newsletters;
      5. Serving on the editorial board of an academic and/or professional journal;
      6. Being a track chair or workshop leader at a professional conference;
      7. Serving on committees to review academic programs in other universities;
      8. Paper review for academic and/or professional meetings;
      9. Organizing a professional seminar for the business community;
      10. Participation in local community services that may include:
        1. Membership on the board of an organization which promotes and recognizes the Department or College or University, and
        2. Professional speaking to local community
      11. Continuing Education teaching;
      12. Consulting reports;
      13. Public testimony; and
      14. Participation in popular media outlets.
  7. Criteria for evaluating demonstrated performance include:
    1. Criteria for granting Tenure: Tenure may be considered if a qualified applicant is rated “excellent” in research. The applicant must also be rated “commendable” or better in teaching and at least satisfactory in service.
    2. Criteria for Promotion to Associate Professor: The criteria for promotion to Associate Professor shall be the same as the criteria for tenure;
    3. Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor: The criteria for promotion to Full Professor shall be the same as the criteria for Associate Professor with the following additions:
      1. Promotion to Full Professor shall be recommended by the Department Personnel Committee when the applicant has demonstrated continued professional development and nationally and/or internationally recognized contributions to the discipline of Economics through research and service;
      2. There should also be evidence of continued professional development in the entire spectrum of professional obligations including, but not be limited to, “excellent” ratings in research, and “excellent” or “commendable” ratings in teaching, service, and in overall performance.
    4. Criteria for Commendation for Merit: Commendation for meritorious performance shall be based on the role statement and annual evaluations of faculty research, teaching and service. Annual evaluations are separate and distinct from evaluations for tenure and promotion. While excellent annual evaluations are indicative of excellent evaluations for tenure and promotion, they are neither necessary nor sufficient for them.
 

V. Meetings of the Department

  1. The faculty of the Department shall meet at least once each academic term. Additional meetings will be held at the request of the Dean of the College, the Chair, or upon written request of twenty-five percent of voting faculty members.
  2. Departmental meetings shall be governed by procedural rules agreed upon by a majority of faculty present at a meeting.
  3. A quorum shall consist of fifty-one percent of all voting faculty in the Department.
  4. The minutes of the Department Meetings will be prepared by the Department Secretary and will be distributed to the Department Faculty in a timely fashion for approval at their next meeting.
  5. On matters requiring a vote of the department faculty, the chair shall notify the faculty and set a deadline for their response. If no meeting is called as per section V.A. of these bylaws, then the chair shall call for a vote by mail ballot. A quorum of fifty-one percent is required for all mail ballots.
 

VI. Department Committees

  1. The Department Personnel Committee and the Curriculum Committee are standing committees within the department. Other standing committees can be created and dissolved by majority vote of the Faculty, provided that there is a written proposal that describes the committee’s responsibilities, membership, and election.
  2. Ad hoc committees may be formed to perform specific Departmental duties by a majority vote of the faculty. Such committees shall be dissolved upon reporting to the faculty that these duties have been completed.
  3. A Department Personnel Committee shall be elected by secret ballot of voting members of the Department, and shall consist of three tenured voting members of the Department.
    1. The Personnel Committee shall annually evaluate the performance of all members of the Department for the purpose of recommending commendations of merit for individual faculty. The committee shall consider the approved role statements for the prior calendar year in making recommendations for the annual evaluation of faculty.
    2. The Personnel Committee shall also evaluate requests for promotion in rank and requests for tenure of the faculty of the Department.
    3. The evaluations of the Personnel Committee shall be sent to the Chair of the Department, to be forwarded to the College Personnel Committee and to the Dean of the College. These evaluations are advisory.
    4. The Personnel Committee shall also annually evaluate the performance of the Department Chair, and this evaluation shall include consultation with the Department Faculty and classified staff. This evaluation shall be shown to the Department Chair and then sent to the Dean of the College. This evaluation is advisory.
  4. In the event that a member of the faculty requests promotion in rank, the Department Chair shall call for a meeting of all faculty holding the rank being sought by the individual, or higher rank, to discuss the promotion request. A ballot of all faculty in the meeting will be taken on the request for promotion. In the event of a request for tenure, the Department Chair shall call for a meeting of all tenured faculty, to discuss the tenure request. A ballot of all faculty in the meeting will be taken on the request for tenure. In either case, the outcome of the recorded ballot will be provided by the Department Chair to the Department Personnel Committee.
  5. A Department Curriculum Committee shall be elected by secret ballot of voting members of the Department, and shall consist of three voting members of the Department.
    1. The major responsibility of the Curriculum Committee shall be to evaluate requests by the Department Faculty to add, remove, or substantially alter courses or curriculum requirements. Course revisions will not normally be reviewed by the Curriculum Committee unless they merit changes to the course descriptions found in the University Catalog.
    2. Recommendations of the Curriculum Committee for specific changes or additions to courses or curriculum requirements shall be sent to the Chair, who shall distribute them to the Department Faculty. A faculty meeting may be called as per Section V.A of these Bylaws to consider and vote on these recommendations. Recommendations of this Committee which are approved by the faculty, or for which no meeting is called, shall be forwarded by the Chair to the College Curriculum Committee for further consideration.
  6. A Department Graduate Committee shall be elected by secret ballot of voting members of the Department, and shall consist of three voting members of the Department who teach 700-level courses in the Department’s graduate program. In addition, the Department’s Graduate Director shall serve as an ex-officio member of the committee, and as the committee’s chair. Upon the request of the Graduate Director, the Graduate Committee shall advise the Director regarding graduate admissions, the assignment of teaching assistants, and other financial aid. The Graduate Committee shall also advise the Department Faculty on matters related to graduate programs, curricula, or policies.
  7. Faculty members elected to the Personnel Committee, the Curriculum Committee, and the Graduate Committee shall serve three-year terms, so that in each year one new member is elected for each. If any member of these committees is to be absent for less than a year, the Department Chair may appoint a temporary replacement for that period only. If any member of these committees is to be absent for a year or more, the department shall elect an eligible faculty member for the remainder of that member’s term. Any faculty member ending a term on these committees of one year or more is not eligible to serve on that committee for one year. The member of each committee that is serving the third year of his or her term shall serve as committee chair, unless the committee unanimously agrees otherwise.
  8. Except as described above, all department committees shall elect their own chairs. The Department Chair is an ex officio member of all department committees.
 

VII. Department Chair

  1. The Department Faculty shall nominate a faculty member from among their number to serve as Department Chair. This nomination is subject to approval by the College Dean, and is advisory to the President. The Chair’s term of office is three years, and the nomination shall require the approval by majority in a secret ballot of voting members of the Department, except that a Chair nominated to a third consecutive term shall require approval by two-thirds of the Faculty. In addition, a vote of confidence by secret ballot shall be held upon the receipt of written request by fifty percent of the voting members of the Department. If two-thirds of all voting members vote against the continuation of the Chair, then the College Dean shall appoint an Acting Chair. The Acting Chair shall serve a term not to exceed one year, until the Department nominates a new Chair who is approved by the Dean and President, as described here, for a new three-year term.
  2. The Chair has primary responsibility for:
    1. Approval of expenditures of Department funds;
    2. Calling Departmental meetings as per Section V.A of these Bylaws;
    3. Scheduling convenient and timely departmental meetings, and clearly communicating the schedule and agenda in advance, so that as much as possible all voting members of the department faculty may attend and be adequately prepared;
    4. Calling for votes by the faculty and ensuring that these votes, whether by mail ballot or in departmental meetings, follow fair and established procedures;
    5. Establishing and communicating clear, convenient, and reasonably timely deadlines for faculty mail ballots or faculty requests to convene departmental meetings;
    6. Reviewing, negotiating, and approving the role statements of all department faculty to ensure that they are compatible with the mission and the needs of the Department as well as the long-run interests of the faculty member, and making approved role statements available to all department faculty;
    7. Evaluating faculty members requesting promotion in rank or tenure;
    8. Evaluating faculty members overall performance for recommendations of merit; and
    9. Conveying important policy matters to members of the Department, College, and the University.
  3. The Chair may suggest the creation of any formal or informal faculty position, including graduate program director, undergraduate major advisor, et cetera, or the creation of any ad-hoc committee. The Chair may also nominate any faculty member to serve in these positions or on any committees. The creation of these positions and committees, and the election of faculty members to them, shall be subject to approval by the Department Faculty.
  4. The performance of the Chair shall be evaluated as described in Section VI.C above, and in College Bylaws. The Department Chair shall be evaluated annually both for his or her administrative responsibilities as Chair as described above, and for his or her faculty responsibilities in teaching, research, and service other than his or her administrative responsibilities as Chair.
  5. The Department Chair shall appoint an Acting Chair of the Department during a temporary leave. The Acting Chair shall assume all the responsibilities of the Department Chair written in these Bylaws.
 

VIII. Search Procedures

  1. When openings appear within the Department, an ad hoc Search Committee shall be formed in accordance with the procedures provided in these Bylaws.
  2. The Search Committee shall develop a position description for each opening and undertake a search for the purpose of identifying qualified candidates for the position(s) to be filled.
  3. After reviewing applicants' qualifications, the Search Committee shall present a list of the most qualified candidates to the members of the Department for consideration. The voting members of the Department shall then develop a ranking of these candidates for the purposes of filling the vacant position(s) in the Department. The criteria to be used by the Search Committee and the Department in developing this ranking shall take into consideration the likelihood of a candidate meeting the criteria for promotion, tenure, and commendation for meritorious performance provided in these Bylaws.
  4. If the search is for a tenure-track position, only tenured or tenure-track faculty are eligible to vote on hiring recommendations or serve on the Search Committee, though all faculty may participate in the search or otherwise advise voting members of the faculty.
 

Appendix 1: Department Policy Standards for Annual Evaluation

Passed by Department Faculty: November 14, 2011

The Department Personnel Committee (DPC) shall only recommend one of the four evaluations required by the NSHE Code: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, commendable, or excellent. These evaluation terms shall be used for each component of the evaluation, and for the overall evaluation. Annual evaluations may use no other scores or terms.

Annual evaluations are indicators for tenure or promotion recommendations; however, tenure and promotion evaluations consider a broader range of issues such as the overall professional impact of a faculty member’s work, evidence of a national or international reputation, et cetera.

DPC evaluations are recommendations to the Chair. However, the Chair shall meet with the DPC to explain any substantive changes to the committee’ recommendations.

Tenured and tenure-track professors are expected to be Academically Qualified (AQ) according to the College’s AACSB standards. Non-tenure-track lecturers are expected to be Professionally Qualified (PQ) according to these standards.

  • Standards for evaluation of teaching

    The evaluation of a faculty member’s teaching performance should depend primarily on the quality of the teaching, not the number of sections/students taught. Quality is represented by the professional standing of the faculty member, course materials, course content (course syllabi, course grades, course assignments, course examinations, etc.), and student evaluations. Student evaluations are not the primary measure of teaching quality; that is, high student evaluation scores are neither necessary nor sufficient to obtain a ranking of Excellent in teaching. Faculty who fail to maintain either AQ or PQ status may not receive an excellent evaluation for teaching.

    In general, a demanding instructor that is respected by students shall be evaluated better than a popular but less demanding instructor, even if the latter receives higher numerical student evaluation scores.

    Teaching outside of the academic year assignment (Summer and Wintermester courses, study abroad courses, courses taught for other institutions, etc.) in certain circumstances may be considered in the evaluation of teaching.

    Advising students, supervising student projects, supervising dissertations and providing any other teaching-related functions outside of the normal teaching assignment shall be considered in the evaluation of teaching.

  • Standards for evaluation of research and professional activities

    In addition to measuring current research output, the research component shall measure efforts to maintain AQ or PQ status. Failure to maintain such status shall result in an unsatisfactory research evaluation, and continued failure to maintain such status for three years or more shall result in an overall unsatisfactory evaluation.

    The AQ and PQ standards are minimal standards for research.

    Commendable and Excellent research evaluation for AQ status shall normally require published work; however, research in any given year is judged as a moving average of work over the previous two years. Hence, evidence of ongoing research such as working papers, conferences, presentations, grant applications, etc. in one year is adequate for a commendable and in some situations adequate for an excellent rating if faculty member has a meaningful publication or research grant record in the previous two years. Likewise, if there is no recent record of meaningful publication or grant activity in the previous two years, evidence of ongoing research such as working papers, conferences, paper presentations, grant applications, etc. would normally be rated satisfactory.

    To assist the current DPC and Chair, the previous year’s evaluation by the DPC and Chair should be considered in evaluating research.

    Commendable and Excellent research evaluation for PQ status shall require evidence of published work, participation in conferences beyond attendance, grant applications, etc. Again, the evaluation of research in a given year is judged in the context of a moving average over the previous two years.

    Faculty can choose when to report a publication. Grants are reported when awarded or paid. A publication can be reported at any time after the contribution has received final acceptance in writing but can only be counted once unless the contribution is published in another form.

    All published work that is an academic contribution to the field of economics shall have a positive effect on the evaluation of research, including sometimes pedagogical research depending on the level of the pedagogical research. Textbooks are normally considered teaching; however, a faculty member can make a case to have textbook material included as part of his/her research activity.

    Publications should not all be counted equally. Each publication should be considered in the context of the nature of the contribution, the place of publication and academic area in which the contribution is published, et cetera. The emphasis is on peer-reviewed research published in nationally and internationally recognized outlets.

  • Standards for evaluation of service

    Service is a faculty responsibility; however, teaching and research are the primary focus of a faculty member’s efforts. Service consists of internal service to the department, college, or university and external service to the profession or to the local, state, national, or international community. A faculty member can meet the service requirement by either internal or external service or a combination of both.

  • Standards for evaluation of administrative assignments

    Administrative assignments shall be evaluated separately, with appropriate input solicited. Code and bylaws require that a chair’s annual evaluation consider input from all faculty and staff under his or her supervision, using some sort of survey instrument. Similarly, the evaluation of all faculty who supervise others should solicit input from those he or she supervises. The evaluation of administrative assignments to other units, such as the Agricultural Experiment Station or Cooperative Extension, shall solicit written input from the relevant administrators in those units.

 

Appendix 2: Department Policy Adjunct Faculty Standards and Processes

Passed by Department Faculty: May 11, 2012

According to Section 2.3.6 of the University Bylaws, the department may recommend individuals for adjunct faculty status at an appropriate rank and title. In making this recommendation, it must be demonstrated that their services will be of value to the teaching, research, public, and community service, or educational support service programs of the department, and that they fulfill the appropriate requirements for the corresponding position.

An initial recommendation for adjunct status must be approved by the department faculty, the Dean and the President, while the annual adjunct contract can be renewed annually through mutual agreement of the faculty member and the Department Chair.

Adjunct faculty are distinct from paid part-time faculty employed on letters of appointment. Adjunct faculty are nonvoting and unpaid volunteers, but may act as members of the department faculty where deemed appropriate by the Department Chair. If also approved as members of the graduate faculty, adjunct faculty may serve on graduate thesis committees.

To be considered for adjunct status, an individual must be nominated for adjunct status by at least two tenured or tenure-track members of the department faculty. The Department Personnel Committee must then consider the nomination, together with all appropriate supporting materials, to determine whether the nomination meets the standards established in university bylaws, and to recommend the appropriate rank and title. The Department Personnel Committee must then report to the department faculty as to whether it recommends approval or not, though the committee may also choose to report a decision to make no recommendation.

Once the Department Personnel has reported to the department faculty, faculty shall vote by secret ballot on the nomination following established procedures, and the Department Chair shall report the results of this vote to the Dean.

 

Appendix 3: College Policy Faculty Qualifications for Accreditation

  • Faculty qualifications and standards

    AACSB Standards include the expectation that at least half of the faculty resources in undergraduate business programs should be academically qualified, though the percentage may vary with the mission of the school, and schools with graduate programs should have a higher percentage. At least 90 percent of faculty resources should be either academically qualified or professionally qualified, and this proportion should be maintained across programs and disciplines. This shall be measured as a percentage of student credit hours for both Fall and Spring semesters.

    These academic and professional qualifications depend not only on the faculty member’s qualifications as of the date hired, but also on evidence of ongoing intellectual contributions over the last five years in either discipline-based scholarship, pedagogical research, or contributions to practice. Faculty are expected to keep current in their field through research and other contributions appropriate to the stage of their career, to continue their professional development and a pattern of constant learning so that the information students receive reflects the best professional practice.

    For purposes of this self-study for the College of Business of the University of Nevada, Reno, we define a faculty member as Academically Qualified (AQ) if he or she has a doctoral degree in business or a related discipline, or a similar terminal degree, and has published at least two intellectual contributions in peer-reviewed journals over the past five years, or in other published outlets of equal professional standards, such as a book for a respected academic publisher. A faculty member with an established research record who demonstrates a significant level of activity may substitute two other intellectual contributions for one of the above publications, as long as these are both scholarly in nature, available to the public for scrutiny, and accepted by the department as a contribution to the field, and at least one of them is also peer-reviewed. Examples include presentations in academic conferences, published proceedings, book chapters, or publications in other edited outlets. There are at least three exceptions allowed under the AACSB standards for academic qualification:

    1. A faculty member who is currently a Ph.D. candidate in a discipline related to their teaching area may be considered academically qualified if it can be demonstrated that their dissertation research is relevant to their teaching, as long as no more than three years have passed since becoming a doctoral candidate. Except for doctoral candidates currently studying in a program within the college, no more than ten percent of faculty may fall under this exception.
    2. A faculty member who has served at least half-time in an administrative capacity, e.g., as a department chair, for at least three of the past five years, shall be considered to be academically qualified if he or she was academically qualified prior to their administrative service.
    3. A faculty member who has received his or her Ph.D. in business or a related discipline within the last five years will be considered academically qualified even if they have no other intellectual contributions since their dissertation.

    Visiting faculty from other institutions are also considered to be academically qualified here if they are academically qualified at their home institution.

    Non-tenure-track lecturers and part-time instructors who do not meet the above criteria but who are nonetheless professionally qualified are considered by the AACSB standards to be an important part of a business college’s faculty, in that they help ensure that student learning reflects current business practice, and help students to see the connection between business theory and practice. However, a tenured or tenure-track professor is expected to be academically qualified, and may not be professionally qualified in lieu of meeting those standards.

    For purposes of this self-study, we define a faculty member as Professionally Qualified(PQ) if he or she has at least the master’s degree in an area related to their teaching, and current relevant professional experience. For a full-time non-tenure-track lecturer, this relevant professional experience may include published intellectual contributions, as with academically qualified faculty, or at least two instances of professional consulting, conference presentations, service in professional organizations, or professional workshops over the past five years. For part-time instructors, this professional experience will likely include current professional work in their area of expertise. AACSB standards do allow some trade-offs in these expectations, though the burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of exceptions is on the college, and we have one exception to this definition:

    1. A faculty member who has a bachelor degree may be considered professionally qualified if it can be demonstrated that they have significant and high-level experience in their field, so that their experience more than compensates for the lack of a graduate degree.
  • Participating and Supporting Faculty

    The AACSB standards distinguish between the roles of participating faculty, who are engaged not only in teaching and research but also in service to the department, college, and/or university, and supporting faculty, who do not play this additional role. Participating faculty generally have voting rights on policy and curricular matters, are treated by the university as permanent faculty members even if they are part-time or on temporary contracts, may advise students or serve on committees or boards, and otherwise participate in faculty governance. AACSB standards include the expectation that at least 75 percent of the college's annual teaching will be delivered by participating faculty overall, and at least 60 percent in each discipline and program. This shall be measured as a percentage of faculty full-time equivalence, and a full-time equivalent for part-time instructors would be five assigned courses per semester.