University of Florida Homepage
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Religion

Information for Faculty

Policies and Procedures of the Department of Religion

The following overview of the department’s governance is intended for the faculty. Included here are policies and procedures for:

General Organization

Within the Department, the ultimate authority resides in its voting members except in those instances when the College or University has vested authority in the Chair. Voting members of the Department are those who are budgeted to the Department and hold the rank of assistant professor or above. Operation of the department is conducted by the Chair, Associate Chair, Steering Committee, Graduate and Undergraduate Coordinators, and standing and ad hoc committees.

The Chair is the chief administrative officer of the department. S/he oversees the professional office staff and all aspects of the academic program, such as: teaching assignments, recruitment, space, promotion, tenure, and annual evaluation of faculty. The Chair appoints and supervises the Associate Chair, Graduate and Undergraduate Coordinators and selects and supervises the members of all committees. On a routine basis the Chair supervises the day-to-day activities of the Department and in conjunction with the coordinators and committees assures that all policies and procedures are carried out. In addition the Chair acts as a liaison between the Department and the College.

The Chair is also the chief financial officer of the Department. S/he is responsible for the final recommendations for salaries and leaves. The Chair supervises all receipts and expenditures and prepares the annual academic program review and budget proposal to the Dean. All budget documents shall be available to any voting member of the Department on request. In addition, the Chair acts as a liaison to the College development officers as well as the Advisory Board, both of whom aid in outside fund raising for the Department.

Standing committees include the Steering Committee, the Graduate Advisory Committee, and the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.

  • The Steering Committee serves as an advisory council to the Chair on all departmental matters. This committee consists of the Associate Chair, Graduate Coordinator, and the Undergraduate Coordinator.
  • The Graduate Advisory Committee is responsible for the supervision of the graduate program including the admission of graduate students. This committee consists of the Graduate Coordinator plus two members selected by the Department. The committee is chaired by the Graduate Coordinator, and all members serve three-year terms. All members of the Graduate Advisory Committee should have graduate faculty status.
  • The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee is responsible for the undergraduate curriculum. This committee consists of two members plus the Undergraduate Coordinator as chair. Members serve two-year terms.
  • The Merit Committee assists the Chair in determining distribution of merit pay, or other performance-based premiums the University might provide on an ad hoc basis. The Merit Pay Committee consists of three faculty members elected by the department’s faculty.

Ad hoc committees, such as faculty search committees, are appointed by the Chair and approved by the Department from time to time for a fixed duration to meet departmental needs.

The Graduate Coordinator is a faculty member appointed by the Chair for a three-year term and is given an annual course reduction. With the Graduate Advisory Committee, s/he is responsible for the administration of the graduate program.

The Undergraduate Coordinator is a faculty member appointed by the Chair for a three-year term and is given an annual course reduction. S/he is responsible for undergraduate advising and in consultation with the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee oversees the undergraduate curriculum. The Undergraduate Coordinator also administers the Jaberg Award.

Faculty meetings are called by the Chair on a regular basis and when needed. The Chair presides at these meetings and determines the agenda, in consultation with the faculty. Fifty percent or more of the number of voting members of the Department excluding those on leave constitute a quorum.

Faculty on leave or absent from a meeting are permitted to vote on any specific motion provided they are fully informed of the issues under discussion with the one exception of votes to hire new faculty members. (Absent or on-leave faculty should not enter into the Department’s conversation that has led up to the issue being presented for a vote. At the same time, absentees should feel invited to express reservations, institutional memories, and suggestions to the Chair who can then decide whether something important might be added or subtracted either now or at some point in the future). In the instance of hiring new faculty, a faculty member must have been present at both the job talk and faculty meeting with each candidate or have met individually with the candidate in the absence of either being present at the job talk or faculty meeting in order to register a vote in the final deliberations. Further, faculty members must be present when the final deliberations take place in order to register a vote.

Return to Top

Mentoring

The Chair will facilitate the appointment of a mentor for each untenured member as early as possible in their first semester. The choice of mentor need not be based on similarities of academic work. The emphasis should be on finding someone the untenured member can talk with freely about all matters concerning the tenure process.

The Chair will seek to assign a modest amount of administrative duties to tenure-track faculty while bearing in mind the need to balance the administrative load among all faculty.

Untenured members will be encouraged to share their work with their mentor and the Chair. They will be especially encouraged to discuss with their mentor the decisions they are making with regard to courses to teach, papers to present, and writing to publish with the mentor and Chair helping to evaluate these decisions in the light of the best possible tenure and promotion portfolio.

The Chair and mentor will encourage and guide the untenured member in seeking funding for research projects or release time.

Annually the Chair and/or mentor will visit the untenured member’s classroom to evaluate their teaching.

The Chair and the mentor should meet to discuss the progress of the untenured faculty member on an annual basis.

Prior to the end of each academic year before tenure, the Chair will consult with the mentor and meet with the untenured member as needed concerning the end of the year evaluation letter.

Return to Top

Peer Teaching Evaluations

Each academic year the Chair and/or faculty mentor will carry out teaching evaluations of every untenured faculty member. Tenured faculty are encouraged to ask the Chair to appoint another tenured faculty member to carry out this evaluation on a regular basis.

Evaluations will be based on classroom visits and examination of syllabi, hand-outs, paper and exam assignments, web-related materials, and any other information the faculty consider relevant to judging his/her teaching.

These evaluations will be particularly concerned with techniques, style, and effectiveness of teaching as well as the content or substance of instruction, which reflect an individual’s command of and fluency in one’s field of expertise.

Return to Top

Release Time

Alteration of the usual 2-2 teaching load, course reduction, and research leave are all possible within the Department. Such actions are taken with clearly understood criteria, in consultation with the steering committee, and ultimately at the discretion of the Chair.

Current Department policy allows two instances of release time:

  1. Junior faculty are normally given a semester of research leave within their first three years with the expectation of increased research productivity. Here research leave is understood as release from all teaching and service requirements.
  2. The Graduate Coordinator and Undergraduate Coordinator can at the discretion of the chair be granted a one course annual reduction in exchange for their service. Here course reduction means teaching one less course in a year while continuing to participate in the normal life of the Department including assigned committee work and research.

The expectation of increased productivity or reward for service or some combination of the two should guide the granting of release time. In evaluating a request for release time, the Chair, in consultation with the Steering Committee, will consider such factors as: how recently and how often the individual faculty member has received time off, results of past leaves or course reductions, whether or not an effort has been made to secure outside funding, what service is being rewarded or being offered in return, class coverage and responsibility to graduate students, and the overall fairness and practicality of the request in the context of the competing needs and desires of other faculty members.

Types of release time include:

  • Release from all teaching and service requirements (research leave)
  • Course reduction of one or two courses without administrative release (course reduction)

Requests for release time need to be in the Chair’s hands in sufficient time for the Chair and the Steering Committee to make a decision before the class offerings are submitted for the semester in question.

Return to Top

The Jaberg Award

The Russell Jaberg Award is given annually to the top graduating senior (or seniors) in the Department of Religion. The nominating procedure for this award is as follows:

  1. a group of top students are identified by GPA
  2. nominations from among this group are solicited from faculty
  3. top nominees are asked to submit up to 20 pages of their best written work (can be more than one piece)
  • Judges should be whoever is teaching the senior seminar that year plus whoever taught the junior seminar the previous year. This means that there will be two faculty who have likely had the nominees in their classes.
  • Eligible students are those graduating that spring or the following fall.
  • The selection process is administered by the Undergraduate Coordinator.
  • The award includes a financial component, which may be divided.

Return to Top

Merit Pay

It is the responsibility of the Department Chair in consultation with the Steering Committee to award merit pay increases to the faculty. The Steering Committee will be responsible for recommending to the Chair those individuals who shall be eligible for such awards. The deliberations of the committee shall remain confidential. The Steering Committee will determine for all eligible faculty members their place within four levels of merit pay. Each member of the Steering Committee will be excluded from discussion of her or his own assessment and, where applicable, the assessment of his or her spouse or partner. The assessments of each member of the steering committee will be made by the remaining members of the Steering Committee.

Despite the fact that the availability of merit funds is usually not known until early summer, these deliberations will take place every April at a time when all faculty are present. To be eligible for consideration for merit pay a faculty member must submit their annual activity report by the second Monday of April. The recommendations of the Committee will be completed by mid-May at the latest and given to the chair to guide his or her determination of individual awards.

Determinations of merit shall be based on consideration of faculty’s annual research, teaching and service record. Since the availability of merit funds varies from year to year, up to three years of research, teaching, and service may be taken into consideration.

Research

For purposes of evaluation, the current year’s annual report, a current C.V., and if necessary the Steering Committee evaluations from the previous two years will be consulted.

The following shall be considered the rank-order of research productivity from most to least meritorious.

Tier One
 Sole-authored, refereed scholarly books and monographs; co-authored, refereed scholarly books; major external grants and fellowships; refereed journal articles; co-authored refereed journal articles; refereed book chapters; co-authored refereed book chapters.

Tier Two
 Authorship of textbooks; editorship of reference works; editorship of refereed scholarly books; co-editorship of refereed scholarly books; keynote addresses; non-refereed articles; non-refereed chapters in books; minor external grants and fellowships; review essays.

Tier Three
 Invited external lectures; conference papers; internal fellowships and grants; encyclopedia and dictionary entries; book reviews; books written and under review; and articles and chapters written and under review.

Tier Four
 Invited lectures at UF; books being written (demonstrable progress made); articles and chapters being written (demonstrable progress made).

Though an effort has been made to rank scholarly contributions according to four tiers and to make ranked distinctions within tiers, it is understood that there is some overlap between the tiers and certainly within them. Moreover, the committee seeks to be attentive to the “impact” of a scholarly contribution to a field of study.

Another significant consideration is the base line expectations for faculty in different ranks and/or salaries. Those in lower ranks and/or lower salaries will have less expected of them than those in higher ranks and/or higher salaries.

In sum, this is a necessarily heuristic process reliant upon the experienced judgment of the merit pay committee.

Teaching

The category of teaching shall include undergraduate and graduate instruction; undergraduate honors, masters and dissertation thesis supervision; and other related activities.

For purposes of evaluation, student teaching evaluations and peer evaluations shall be considered. In addition, range of course offerings and degree of involvement in thesis supervision at all levels will be assessed. It is understood that faculty members will not be penalized because the demands of the curriculum have resulted in some teaching more at the graduate or undergraduate level.

The department considers the following guidelines to assess teaching performance:

  • Techniques, style and effectiveness of teaching, which is assessed primarily through student evaluations and peer evaluations.
  •  The content or substance of instruction, which reflect an individual’s command of and fluency in one’s field of expertise. This can best be assessed by peer evaluation by colleagues and work in curriculum development.
  • The level and range of a faculty member’s teaching within the discipline. The Department expects that a faculty member will participate at all levels (according to Department needs), lower division and upper division, undergraduate and graduate, and that s/he will contribute to the program through supervision of undergraduate honors theses, masters theses, and/or dissertations.
Service

The category of service shall include:

  • Normal performance of departmental responsibilities, such as attendance at faculty meetings and recruitment colloquia, as well as work on standing and ad hoc departmental committees

It is assumed that the service of junior faculty will be lighter than those of senior colleagues. Other service activities that may be considered appropriate for merit evaluation include:

  • exceptional performance of normal departmental responsibilities
  • service on the Steering Committee, as Graduate Coordinator, or Undergraduate Coordinator
  • service on college or university committees
  • service in professional associations, editorial boards, or as a reviewer for professional journals or academic presses
  • other activities that enhance the reputation and visibility of the Department, college or university

Return to Top

Tenure and Promotion

The policy of the Department of Religion for tenure and promotion conforms to the policies for tenure and promotion established by the college and university. The Department acknowledges the university’s stipulation that the relative consideration given to the three areas of research, teaching, and service will be based on the percentages stated annually in the applicant’s successive contracts. Normally this means that the Department expects all of its members to contribute on a regular and continuing basis to research, teaching, and service in that order of significance. We recognize that in the field of religious studies there are a variety of approaches to scholarly excellence. Faculty making decisions about tenure and promotion will consider standards appropriate to the individual candidate’s sub-field.

The department has adopted the following guidelines for tenure and promotion of its faculty to Associate Professor.

Research

To qualify for tenure and or promotion to Associate Professor a candidate must make a significant intellectual impact on in her or his field of scholarship, as determined by leading scholars in the field.

It is normally expected that a faculty member will have published or have “in press”, a monograph or book length study based on original research to be published by an established scholarly press. (“In press” means that the manuscript has been accepted for publication and the book will appear in print in the near future). It is also expected that the candidate will have published original research in leading journals and/or book chapters in one’s field. The quality of publications will be based on peer assessment.

Beyond these essential contributions, the Department welcomes additional supporting evidence of scholarly productivity that gives promise to a developing pattern of regular contributions to research. A list of the types of additional research activity recognized by the department includes co-authored books, edited books, encyclopedia, textbooks, review essays, book reviews, convention papers, invited addresses, and a demonstrated effort to seek grants and fellowships that further demonstrate an active scholarly agenda. Publications through peer-reviewed, recognized electronic journals will ordinarily be considered equivalent to traditional modes of publishing. The quality of these contributions will be determined by peer assessment within and outside the department.

Teaching

The Department considers four aspects of regular teaching performance for promotion or the awarding of tenure.

  1. Techniques, style and effectiveness of teaching for which student evaluations and peer evaluations are especially relevant.
  2. The content or substance of instruction, which reflect an individual’s command of and fluency in one’s field of expertise. This can best be assessed by peer evaluation by colleagues and observed through departmental colloquia, work in curriculum development, and peer classroom visitations.
  3. The level and range of a faculty member’s teaching within the discipline. The Department expects that a faculty member will participate as needed at all levels, lower division and upper division, undergraduate and graduate. It is expected that faculty will also teach both the traditional core courses of their discipline and offer important new courses.
  4. Supervision of undergraduate honors theses, masters theses, and/or dissertations. Faculty especially in the areas of the department’s three graduate tracks are expected to play an active role in mentoring graduate students, especially through serving on their thesis committees.
Service

The Department recommends that the Chair not assign extensive or burdensome service to pre-tenure junior faculty. However, service is an integral component of job performance. At minimum it includes normal performance of faculty responsibilities such as attendance at faculty meetings and candidate presentations. In addition, we assume that before tenure faculty will have served on departmental committees and perhaps university and/or college committees. Other service activities recognized by the Department include teaching and lectures in secondary schools and other civic and religious organizations. Service to the profession might involve membership on editorial boards, participation in committees, or leadership in professional organizations.

To qualify for promotion to Full Professor a candidate must demonstrate a continuing significant intellectual impact on in her or his field of scholarship, as determined by leading scholars in the field.

Research

For promotion to Full Professor, a faculty member will normally be expected to have produced, beyond that which qualified him/her as an Associate Professor, a monograph or book length study based on original research published by a scholarly press. It is also expected that the candidate will have continued to publish original research in leading journals and/or book chapters in one’s field. The quality of publications will be based on peer assessment within and outside the department. Normally a faculty member will have demonstrated an effort to seek grants and fellowships that further demonstrate an active scholarly agenda.

Additional supporting evidence of research productivity is required. Usually this should take the form of co-authored books, contributions to leading journals, book chapters, edited volumes, textbooks, encyclopedia, book reviews, encyclopedia and dictionary articles, conference papers, and internal grants. Publications through peer-reviewed, recognized electronic journals will ordinarily be considered equivalent to traditional modes of publishing. The quality of these contributions will be based on peer assessment.

Teaching

In addition to satisfying the four aspects of teaching performance outlined for tenure and promotion to associate professor, the department expects faculty members seeking to become full professors, especially in the three areas of the graduate program, to have played an active role in its administration and particularly through chairing and serving on graduate thesis committees.

Service

It is expected that all candidates for Full Professor will have demonstrated an active post-tenure contribution to the life of the Department through consistent and significant service to the Department, college, university, and profession over at least several years.

Promotion to Distinguished Professor

Full professors (with the exception of eminent scholars and graduate research professors) may be nominated by the Department Chair for promotion to the rank of Distinguished Professor in recognition of well-established national and/or international reputations in their fields of endeavor and exceptional records of achievement (beyond that expected of full professors) in the areas of teaching, research, and professional and public service.

Return to Top
Progress to Promotion”

Progress to Promotion (PtP) Process

Procedure for Conduct of Progress-to-Promotion Review for Non-Tenure Track Faculty

A progress-to-promotion review is to be conducted for non-tenure track faculty members in the third year of their employment. The purpose of this appraisal shall be to assess the faculty member’s progress toward meeting the criteria for promotion and to provide assessments, suggestions, and guidance to assist the faculty member in fulfilling the University’s, College’s, and Department of Religion’s criteria.

A non-tenure track faculty member due for review in a given year may decline to be reviewed under this process by notifying the department chair in writing by January 10 that they so decline. Faculty who decline to be reviewed will have another opportunity for a progress-to-promotion review the following year otherwise, as voted upon by the faculty.)

Otherwise, faculty due for review shall submit to the department chair no later than May 15 of the year in which the review is to be conducted all the information that would normally be provided in the candidate’s portion of a promotion dossier.

The faculty member will use the promotion template for the current academic year, with its directions and guidelines, as the basis for the preparation of the progress-to-tenure review dossier.

The department chair will provide to the faculty member the following materials for inclusion in the dossier:

Annual Assigned Activity, including the proportions of the faculty member’s assignments reported on the annual activities report that have been devoted to teaching, scholarship and service;

(2) Departmental criteria for promotion;

(3) Peer evaluations; and

(4) The faculty member’s Annual Evaluations.

Letters of evaluation normally solicited for promotion are not required for the progress-to-promotion review dossier.

The department chair will make the completed dossier available for review to those department faculty members who are senior in rank – including both tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty – and eligible to vote on promotion.

These members will then meet with the department chair to assess whether the faculty member under review is making satisfactory progress toward promotion, according to the kinds of expectations and indications of success that are appropriate at this point (as set out in the departmental clarifications/criteria) in teaching and faculty service, and to provide suggestions and guidance on steps, the faculty member might take to make improved progress toward promotion.

The department chair will subsequently make the completed dossier, together with a chair’s cover letter, available to the CLAS Dean’s office for review no later than June 10. The dean will provide an evaluation of the faculty member’s progress toward meeting the criteria for promotion and will share this evaluation with the department chair.

No later than July 10th (six months after the start of this process), the results of the review will be shared with the faculty member in a letter of evaluation prepared by the department chair. These results will include any recommendations about how the faculty member might improve their performance and promotion dossier and what assistance might be available in the department, college, and University to address candidate needs and improve performance. Upon request, the faculty member will be provided the opportunity to meet with the chair and/or the dean to discuss the review.

The appraisal process will be confidential to the extent permitted by law and internal to the department and the college office. Consequently, the appraisal will not be placed in the faculty member’s evaluation file and will not be included in the faculty member’s subsequent promotion dossier.

Return to Top

Promotion Criteria for Non-TT

This document is the Department of Religion’s discipline-specific clarification of criteria for promotion as they pertain to non-tenure-track faculty. At the University of Florida, tenure and promotion require distinction in at least two of the three areas of teaching, research, and service. Non-tenure-track faculty in the Department of Religion are likely to have appointments mainly in the areas of teaching and service. The evaluation of non-tenure-track faculty for promotion will accordingly focus on whether they have achieved distinction in the area(s) of their appointment.

“Distinction,” as understood by the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences in its tenure and promotion guidelines, is “an excellent and sustained record commensurate with the highest academic standards.” Since non-tenure-track faculty in Religion will be appointed as Lecturers with assigned duties in the areas of teaching and service, this document elaborates on how excellence in teaching is understood in the field of religion and on what expectations there are with respect to service in this unit of the college. It should be recognized throughout that there are no simple quantitative measures of distinction in these areas; there is an ineliminable element of professional judgment involved in their evaluation.

DISTINCTION IN TEACHING

Teaching religion requires a wide variety of skills in addition to mastery of the content. Not only must the excellent religion teacher be able to present what is often very difficult material in an accessible and clear fashion, they must also be able to engage students in critical dialogue while also fostering a respectful classroom environment. In addition, students in religion courses at every level need to practice writing critical and evaluative essays, and the burden falls to faculty to provide assistance in, and to assess the merit of, a considerable amount of writing in many of the courses offered by the department. Even for large courses with the format of lectures taught with teaching assistants, there is significant work to be done in supervising those assistants and monitoring their work as graders.

A faculty member who has achieved distinction in teaching should have a consistent record of successful teaching. Assessment of teaching is normally based on both student evaluation scores and evaluations done by other departmental faculty. Assessment may also include consideration of the faculty member’s record of advising student research, which may include directing independent studies, undergraduate honors theses, and serving as a member on masters and/or doctoral committees. Distinction may also be demonstrated by a faculty member’s having received awards for their teaching or some other form of public recognition.

DISTINCTION IN SERVICE

Distinction in service is demonstrated through evidence in the dossier of significant service contributions to the needs of the unit, college, university, profession, and other constituencies, as appropriate for the faculty member’s discipline, assignments, and rank.

Return to Top

Third Year Review

Purpose

The intention of the midterm review process is to provide structured and constructive information to assist candidates to meet college and university requirements for tenure and promotion. The review is normally done in the third year. It should be designed to provide the faculty member with constructive comments to strengthen the eventual tenure packet and provide the faculty member with a true assessment of how her/his efforts are perceived by peers within her/his own discipline. It also will assist that faculty member, in that peers, other than her/his own chair, will provide an evaluation of the faculty member’s efforts.

The fact that the review process takes place at the end of the third year of service should allow for proper review of the faculty members teaching, research and service efforts and will allow enough time for the faculty member to make any modifications necessary for the successful award of tenure in the future, if any deficiencies are noted in the review. Likewise, it could also be used to assist the faculty member in the choice as to when she/he would most likely be successful in applying for tenure.

Process

The review should begin early in the third year of appointment. By February 1st of that year, the candidate will complete a dossier of materials and present it to the Chair of the Department. The dossier will include:

  1. A tenure and promotion packet abridged for this purpose (described below)
  2. A research/scholarship portfolio including all of the candidate’s research publications, papers submitted for publication, grant proposals, and similar information
  3. Annual letters from the candidate’s mentor
  4. Annual letters of evaluation from the chair

The dossier will be made available to the senior faculty. A committee of the Chair, mentor of the candidate, and one senior faculty member appointed by the Chair will review the dossier and assess the candidate’s performance. The assessment will address the issues normally considered in tenure and promotion deliberations and will determine if the candidate is making satisfactory progress toward promotion and tenure. The committee will prepare a report fora meeting of tenured faculty in the Department which will discuss the candidate’s progress toward tenure and promotion and advise the Department Chair on what might be included in his/her letter of review to the candidate. For example, Department faculty may consider:

  • Is the candidate’s teaching at or above department norms and expectations or making steady progress in that direction?
  • Has the candidate presented papers in appropriate venues and are the number and quality of those papers acceptable?
  • Has the candidate published at an acceptable rate and in appropriate journals?
  • Is the candidate beginning to establish a regional and national reputation in her/his field?
  • Is the candidate preparing her/himself to attract external funding to support her/his scholarly work?
  • Has the candidate gained graduate status and served on master’s and doctoral committees?
  • Does the candidate’s record suggest a teaching and research trajectory that is likely to lead to the rank of Associate (and later Full) Professor?
  • Is the candidate appropriately involved in professional service activities at the local, state, national, or international level?

The Department Chair will draft a letter of review based on the candidate’s dossier, the committee report as well as the discussion and other information from the Department faculty. The letter should consider the candidate’s assignment and any support the Department may have provided the candidate. It should identify areas of strengths and weaknesses in the candidate’s record and make clear recommendations, if any, on how the candidate may improve her/his dossier and performance. The goal is to give thoughtful and constructive assessments and suggestions that will help the candidate meet college and university requirements for tenure and promotion. The letter will be explicit in stating that the letter itself is not a decision for tenure and promotion but is rather a mid-course evaluation.

Before April 30th, the Department Chair will meet with the candidate to provide a copy and discuss the letter of review. The candidate and Department Chair should discuss strengths and weaknesses in the candidate’s dossier; what the candidate might do, if anything, to strengthen her/his papers in the future; and what assistance might be available in the department, college, and/or university to address candidate needs and improve performance, if needed. In making these recommendations the Chair and tenured faculty members are not entering into a contractual relationship with the candidate such that if these recommendations are fulfilled the candidate is assured of tenure. Rather they are recognizing and acting upon their responsibility to support the candidate in her/his final years before tenure. A copy of the letter of review will be placed in the candidate’s personnel file. The faculty member has the right to submit a written response to the report if so desired, and the response will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file for future reference. Neither of these letters will become part of the tenure and promotion packet.

The Department Chair’s letter of review will be forwarded to the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs by the end of the Spring semester.

Preparing the Packets: Guidelines for Faculty

The following guidelines are to be used in preparing the midterm review packets.

ASSIGNED ACTIVITY – Please list the assigned activity while employed at the University of Florida beginning with the 2004-2005 academic year and working backwards.

Percent of effort should be listed in a) Teaching, b) Research, and c) Service and should be summarized by academic year as below. Please indicate if the nominee was on leave during a semester or academic year.

EXAMPLE
 Assigned Activities

Teaching Research Service
Spring 2005 50 30 20
Fall 2004* 0 100 0
Spring 2004 55 25 20
Fall 2003 50 30 15

*on leave
Administrative duties are to be listed under Service. Advisement duties should be listed under Teaching. Please do not create additional categories. The combined total should be 100% unless actual employment was less than 1.0 FTE.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND – List all degrees awarded, beginning with the highest degree. All entries must include the university/college attended, field of study, degree and date awarded. See example below.

EXAMPLE
 Educational Background

University of Minnesota Mathematics PhD 1997
University of Minnesota Mathematics MS 1994
University of Minnesota Mathematics BS 1992

EMPLOYMENT – Employment should be listed in reverse chronological order with the University of Florida employment appearing first. Please show employer, ranks and administrative positions held at each place of employment, effective dates of each title and whether or not the position was tenured or tenure-accruing if employment was with an institution of higher education. See example below.

EXAMPLE
 Employment Listing

University of Florida Assistant Professor
(Tenure-accruing)		 1999 – present
University of Georgia Instructor
(non-tenure accruing)		 1997-1999

TEACHING, ADVISING AND/OR INSTRUCTIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS – May be used to describe teaching accomplishments and duties such as advising, and the development of new courses.

Undergraduate instructional activities may also include supervision of honors thesis and research projects.

Syllabi, course examinations, and other materials used in classroom instruction should be made available at all levels for review as needed or requested. Please do not include them in this section.

TEACHING EVALUATIONS – A statistical summary of all University of Florida teaching evaluations should be typed into the packet along with the rest of the text. (Computer printouts should not be included or photocopied into the packet.) The summary should include departmental/center and/or college means in addition to the faculty member’s means, an indication of the number of responses and the number enrolled in the course. Statistics for the evaluations must list the scores for the core questions.

EXAMPLE
 Teaching Contribution

CES 4605
Spring 2001
Responses – 37 (if applicable, if not, need to indicate “not available”)

Instructor Mean
Dept.
Mean
College
Mean
1
 Description of course objectives/ assignments 3.8 4.1 4.3
2
 Communication of ideals and information 3.6 4.3 4.1
3
 Expression of expectation for performance 4.0 3.9 4.2
4
 Availability to assist students etc.
5
 Respect and concern for students etc
6
 Stimulation of interest in course
7
 Facilitation of learning
8
 Enthusiasm for subject
9
 Encouragement of independent thinking
1-9
 Instruction Evaluation
10
 Instructor Overall

Peer evaluation or the results thereof, should be included in the packet after the student evaluations.

RESEARCH NARRATIVE (ALL FACULTY) – In no more than 750 words explain your research program. Describe briefly the overall area within which your research falls and then explain how your publications, creative work, research projects, grants, fellowships, extension works, etc. reflect your research program and your achievements. There is no need to cite again specific works or grants. Simply reference works published, exhibited during certain time periods, or supported by various sources.

PUBLICATIONS should be listed in reverse chronological order, beginning with the most recent publication and going backwards. The format of the citation is the nominee’s choice, but should contain the information requested below. Please include the names of all authors. The name(s) of the senior/principal author(s) is/are to be underlined.

  • Books, Sole Author (Title, Publisher, Place of Publication, Date, Inclusive Pages)
  • Books, Co-authored (Co-author(s), Title, Publisher, Place of Publication, Date, Inclusive Pages)
  • Books, Edited (Editor, Co-editor(s), Title Publisher, Place of Publication, Date, Inclusive Pages)
  • Books, Contributor of Chapter(s) (Author, Co-author(s), Title of Book and Chapter, Publisher, Place of Publication, Date, Inclusive Pages)
  • Monographs (Author, Co-author(s), Title, Series of Volume, is applicable, Publisher, Place of Publication, Date, Inclusive Pages)
  • Refereed Publications (Author, Co-author(s), Title Name of Journal, Publication, etc., Volume, Date, Inclusive Pages)
  • Non-refereed Publications (Author, Co-author(s), Title, Publisher, if applicable, Place of Publication, Date, Inclusive Pages)
  • Bibliographies/Catalogs (Author, Co-author(s), Title, Publisher, if applicable, Place of Publication, Date, Inclusive Pages)
  • Abstracts (Author, Co-author(s), Title, Name of Journal, Publications, etc., Volume, Date, Inclusive Pages)
  • Reviews (Author, Co-author(s), Title and Author of Work Reviewed, Where Review was Published, Date, Inclusive Pages)
  • Miscellaneous (Author, Co-author(s), Title, Source of Publication, Date, Inclusive Pages)

The following information should be considered when compiling the publication listing:

Refereed-Journals : A paper is considered to be refereed if it appears in a journal (or proceedings) whose papers are published only after review and acceptance by one or more independent professional expert(s) of national or international standing.

Refereed Proceedings: Should be listed as a separate category under Refereed Publications and the nominee should provide a brief explanation of the review process for the proceedings. This may be listed as footnote to the publication list.

Non-refereed Publications: Materials listed under non-refereed publications should include not only those journal articles which have not been refereed, but also extension publications delivered in print or via electronic format, and electronic bulletins.

When listing publications, please do not use the term “forthcoming.” Use one of the following:

“Accepted” or “in press:” A publication is defined as “accepted” or “in press” if it has been accepted for publication and will appear in print in the future. If a publication listed is “accepted” or “in press,” a copy of the letter of acceptance must be attached to the back of the packet.

Please write the name of the article on the acceptance, if it is not already stated, and indicate the approximate length of the publication in the citation. These letters should appear in the same order as the articles appear in the publication listing.

“Submitted:” “Submitted” refers to a manuscript that has been submitted to a publisher for publication review. Those publications which have been accepted of which are in press may be part of the requested publication list. Submitted publications are to be at the rear of the packet under “Further Information”. If the publication is still in the writing stage, please do not include it in the packet. Books that are under contract but have not yet been completed are to be listed under “Further Information”.

Other concerns:

  • Be sure that pagination is listed correctly. If an article is longer than one page, give first and last page numbers.
  • Media releases are considered “Miscellaneous” publications.
  • “Reviews” are to be used for reviews written by the nominee. Reviews of a nominee’s works, if included, should be listed under “Further Information”.
  • Publication citations including words in a foreign language should have the English translation listed in parentheses.
  • All publications must appear in one of the categories provided.

LECTURES, SPEECHES OR POSTERS PRESENTED AT PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES/MEETINGS. This listing is to be in reverse chronological order and is to be categorized by type of meeting/conference, i.e., international, national, regional, state, local, etc. The entries must also tell if the lecture/speech was invited. The list should include separate categories for invited seminars, refereed papers presented at such meetings, and participation as an invited panelist, organizer or moderator.

CONTRACTS AND GRANTS

a. Funded – Each entry should include the effective dates of the contract/grant, the value, the name of the funding agency, and the role of the nominee, i.e., P.I., co-P.I. or Investigator. If applicable, this should include funding received while employed by another institution. Please be explicit regarding funding.

A summary of grant funding should be included as illustrated in the following example.

Summary of Grant Funding Received, 1998 – present
Summary of Grant Funding

Role Total Direct Costs Indirect Costs
Principal Investigator $5,286,867 $ $
Co-Principal Investigator $ $ $
Investigator $ $ $
Sponsor of Junior Faculty $306,645 $ $
  Totals
 $10,183,255 $ $

b. Submitted But Not Funded or Pending – Each entry should include the date of submission, amount of proposal, name of agency, proposed role of nominee and whether it was not funded of if it is pending. Indicate resubmissions.

UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE – This area should include information regarding the nominee’s service to the university including membership on university, college, and department/center committees and is to be listed in reverse chronological order.

CONSULTATIONS OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITY – This area is used for consultations which are not part of the nominee’s assigned duties and responsibilities. There should be an indication of the work performed, the organization/employer, and the date(s). These should be listed in reverse chronological order.

EDITOR OF A SCHOLARLY JOURNAL, SERVICE ON AN EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD OR REVIEWER FOR A SCHOLARLY JOURNAL – Please list whether the nominee was an editor, served on an editorial advisory board, or was a reviewer, the name of the journal or publication, the date(s) of service and the amount of reviewing/editing done.

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES – Please describe teaching, research, and service activities and their significance for the nominee’s scholarly career.

SERVICE TO SCHOOLS – The 1984 Legislature determined that service to the public schools (K-12) would be considered for tenure and/or promotion purposes. Such service should be listed in this area.

MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES IN THE PROFESSION – This area is to be used to communicate contributions to the nominee’s profession including memberships in professional societies and organizations. When listing memberships, be sure to include committee memberships and offices held. Examples of independent professional contributions would include giving testimony to a congressional committee or serving as a reviewer for grants. All listings are to indicate dates of service.

HONORS – Please list those honors, awards and prizes received as part of the nominee’s professional career.

COPIES OF ALL ANNUAL LETTERS OF EVALUATION – Attach, with the most current appearing first.

THE FURTHER INFORMATION SECTION – Include such things as letters of acceptance from publishers, list of submitted publications, information on forthcoming books, unsolicited letters of recommendation (please indicate that these are unsolicited), committee reports, as well as any addition information the nominee wishes to submit. Information should be restricted to professional accomplishments and should not include such items as “thank you” letters or acknowledgment letters.

Return to Top

Graduate Admission Procedures

Introduction

The following describes the procedures that govern Graduate Admissions.  These procedures are to guarantee a transparent process, let faculty know how to participate, and ensure procedural fairness to all applicants.

Bureaucratic procedures
  1. The Department Secretary will sort incoming applications into two file boxes (or two sections in one box).  One section will have completed applications, the other incomplete ones.  Once established, both will be available for faculty review.  Faculty may communicate with promising candidates with incomplete files informing them that their file is not complete.
  2. Candidates whose own materials (statements and applications) are not postmarked by the closing date will not be considered for admission.  Their submitted materials will be kept separately from the above-mentioned two boxes.
  3. Supporting materials (recommendation letters & transcripts) must be received no later than 10 business days after the application deadline.   Candidates with incomplete files at this time will not be admitted.  The secretary will attempt to contact applicants with incomplete files on 15 January or the first work day afterward.  International candidates may have other procedures and timelines.
  4. The GAC will meet within three weeks after the application deadline.
The GAC & Decision Making
  1. The graduate admissions committee (GAC) shall prioritize candidates for admission and fellowship competitions, in close consultation with and taking seriously the views of all department faculty who chose to review and comment on the applicants.  As much as possible decisions will be by consensus.
  2. If consensus cannot be reached, decisions will be reached by majority vote of the GAC, with any ties broken by the department chairperson. Faculty will be promptly informed of the admission decision. Under exceptional circumstances, faculty may request re-consideration of a decision to decline a prospect if they have met two conditions: 1. they have provided their views of the candidate prior to the GAC’s deliberations; 2. they make this request within a week of the announced decisions. The GAC retains the right to decide whether it will act on the request.
  3. The GAC will normally be composed of at least one faculty member from each Ph.D. track.  If the graduate coordinator is not involved in one of the tracks, she or he will be a fourth voting member. GAC members will be appointed by the Chair of the department after consulting with track faculty as to their views regarding who should serve.
  4. Because the priority for graduate education in the dept. of Religion is the Ph.D. Program, students applying for admission to the MA program will normally be interested in the Ph.D. concentrations and likely to be strong candidates for Ph.D. admission should they choose to pursue it. They will, then, normally have received a GRE score of 1100 or more (including a minimum 600 on the verbal portion) to gain admission to the program.
Internal Candidates
  1. Students preparing to finish their Master’s degree must by 15 January formally make known their desire to be re-classified as Ph.D. students. They must also adhere to all the procedures and deadlines involved in such re-classification as specified by the graduate school.  They will be evaluated for Ph.D. program admission on a competitive basis with all other applicants for the Ph.D.  When applying for this change of status they must provide: (1) An updated statement of purpose and goals, plotting his or her doctoral program within the framework of one of the three fields and identifying primary faculty mentors; (2) Three letters of recommendation from university faculty (two from within the department); (3) Their MA thesis proposal; and (4) A Report on the status of their language preparation. NOTE: Students admitted to the doctoral program prior to completion of the M.A. will be admitted provisionally and their application reviewed following successful completion of the M.A. degree.
MA Candidates NOT in Three Main Fields of Study
  1. For admission such applicants need support from two faculty members who indicate a willingness to supervise their work, as well as from the majority of the GAC. This applies also to undergraduate students who request permission to do a joint BA/MA degree.
Early Admission & Requests to Take Graduate Courses
  1. Requests for full-status admission to the graduate program beginning in a Spring semester (of for Fall after the formal admissions process has transpired) will not normally be considered or granted.  (The Graduate School does provide for such admissions, with a mid-October deadline for Spring semesters.)  Students who the graduate coordinator and chair judge to be good and likely prospects for admission during the regular admission cycle in January may, however, be permitted to take courses during the academic year prior to the one for which they are applying for formal admission.  In exceptional circumstances the Graduate Advisory Committee may be asked to convene to consider providing formal admission to the program apart from the normal January/February evaluation period.
Time is of the Essence

Timely decision-making, including the providing of financial offers to admitted students, is an important part of admissions process, and essential if we are to compete well for the best graduate students.  It is important, for this reason, that we not make exceptions to the above-specified procedures and deadlines.  It is even more important that we follow specified procedures and deadlines to ensure procedural fairness for all applicants.

The following time frame will be followed for the selection process

  • January 15:
    Deadline for receiving all materials from prospective candidates; international candidates will have a week or so more lee-time;
  • February 10:
    The GAC meets to evaluate candidates, having obtained the written opinions of faculty who wish to comment on any or all of the candidates; the Coordinator of the GAC will, as soon as possible, make public the list of selected candidates, allowing 5 days for faculty to appeal on any case as described in Item 6 supra.;
  • February 15:
    Letters of offer will be sent to selected candidates; faculty may at that time contact students with whom they will be establishing an advisory relation;
  • April 15:
    Final date for student response to offer in writing.
Revision Procedure

The above guidelines will continue to guide future admissions processes until the graduate coordinator, or any other faculty member, concludes that revisions are needed or worth considering.  On such an occasion the graduate coordinator will consult with faculty as needed and prepare a draft of the revised guidelines accordingly.  These guidelines, with the changes indicated, will then be distributed to faculty either by email, or by notifying them they are on the shared department “S” drive.  Within two weeks, any such faculty member wishing to discuss and possibly further modify such guidelines can do so either by working with the graduate coordinator to refine them further, or can ask that the entire faculty discuss such changes at a faculty meeting.  Otherwise, the revised guidelines will govern the admissions procedures going forward.

The intent of this document, and the revision procedure, is to keep the process transparent while at the same time allowing for the efficient revision of these guidelines as needed changes become apparent.

Return to Top