Environmental Studies Guidelines

Process for Evaluation Prior to Re-appointment and Tenure

The ad-hoc committee chair has primary responsibility for advising tenure-track faculty as they work toward re-appointment and tenure. This will be done formally through the chair’s evaluation of tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports each year, which will be shared with all members of the candidate’s reappointment and tenure review committee. Through this process, the ad-hoc committee chair  will review not only tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports, but also their syllabi and research material. To evaluate teaching, each voting member of the reappointment and tenure review committee will observe the teaching of the untenured faculty member. Each voting member shall visit no fewer than one session of one class in each of the probationary periods before tenure and write a brief report to the chair, copies of which will be put in the faculty member’s file and given to him/her. Tenure-track faculty should work with the chair in arranging the classroom visits each semester.

Guidelines for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor

Teaching

Assessment of the quality of teaching will be based on:

• direct observation of classroom teaching by program colleagues;
• student evaluations of teaching, both in course evaluation forms and selected and random student letters in the tenure file;
• and our own and external reviewers’ assessment of teaching material.

The candidate is expected to be an active and effective teacher including engagement of students in the candidate’s research program if they come from a scholarly field in which student involvement in research is normal. The latter can occur through senior projects, summer internships, or independent study opportunities.

Qualities of good teaching include:

• Enthusiasm for class material and for teaching, with both communicated to students; this might also be expressed as a sense of vocation or commitment to teaching well;
• Empathy with students (understanding where each student is academically, intellectually engaging with students, and desiring for them to learn and perform well in the course) in keeping with their development of intellectual independence during their careers at Hamilton;
• Sensitivity to the concerns of students from diverse backgrounds;
• Respect for diversity of opinions and perspectives articulated by students.

Measures of teaching effectiveness include:

• Ability to teach at all levels of the curriculum;
• Evidence of high expectations and standards for students;
• Course content current with developments in the field;
• Ability to communicate with, stimulate, and evaluate students, which includes clearly articulating course expectations and grading criteria, using methods of instruction that challenge students and engage them in analysis within the discipline, and thoughtfully evaluating and grading student work in a timely manner;
• Articulation of teaching philosophy and goals for students and demonstration of how teaching philosophy is implemented and goals for students are achieved;
• Development of courses and course materials that are consistent with research and/or best practice in pedagogy;
• Serious consideration of and response to patterns that emerge in end-of-course student evaluations and periodic faculty evaluations. This consideration and response should, most importantly, be demonstrated in practice and reflected in subsequent evaluations and annual reviews;
• Student evaluations at or above program norms for at least some courses and reasonably near college and program norms overall.  Evidence in student comments and letters of the qualities of good teaching identified above. In assessing student satisfaction, the program will take into account the nature and size of courses taught.  In looking at teaching evaluations, the review committee should be attentive to any systematic bias in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or other category on the part of students.

Scholarship

We believe that active and rigorous scholarship is both an end in itself, and an important part of continuing to be a good teacher. We look for the development of a clear research agenda beyond the work of the dissertation, engagement with scholars in the candidate’s field both within the College and beyond, familiarity with recent developments in the field, and the ability to communicate and/or share the work of research and scholarship with students.

Working only on a variety of research projects with students is not enough for tenure. Publication of original scholarship – incorporating the generation of new data or ideas – is required in the record of scholarly productivity. The candidate’s publication record must show that his/her research has moved beyond publishing work directly related to his/her dissertation and postdoctoral studies. Personal research grants should be pursued as appropriate for the field. Receiving grant funds from external agencies is not required evidence of scholarship in tenure evaluation, but it is valuable evidence of developing/ongoing research and represents positive peer-review of a research program underway.

Scholarship will be judged on the basis of quality, quantity, and trajectory.

Quality

Assessment of quality will be based on publication venue, internal reading of scholarly work, and especially reports from external reviewers. We recognize that collaboration is common or even essential for many research projects. A candidate must, however, demonstrate intellectual leadership in at least some of his/her published research. Books and articles in refereed journals will receive the greatest weight. Within this criterion, we recognize differences among journals in quality and scope; although no formal measures are calculated (e.g., impact factors), additional evaluative weight is given to papers that appear in more general or widely distributed (i.e., prestigious) journals. Other types of published and non-published scholarship contribute to evidence of scholarly activity but do not substitute for publication of original research in books or peer-reviewed journals. These include:

• Successful grant applications
• Articles in anthologies, review articles, synthesis papers, or textbooks
• Articles under submission to journals (especially those receiving “revise and resubmit”)
• Encyclopedia entries, book reviews, conference papers, or written materials that have not been peer-reviewed
• Excellent reviews of unsuccessful grant proposals. The Program recognizes variation in funding rates among grant-funding agencies and divisions within agencies and availability of funding opportunities across disciplines
• A variety of other measures that demonstrate that the candidate's colleagues value his/her work (e.g., invitations to collaborate, speak, chair sessions, lead field trips, write book reviews, review proposals and manuscripts, etc.).

Quantity

The Program believes that quality is more important than any fixed standard of quantity. Assessment of quantity depends upon the particular path chosen by the candidate.  For those choosing to publish their research in book form, successful candidates will ordinarily have had a book accepted for publication and at least some additional scholarly publications at the time of tenure. For those choosing to publish their research as articles, the primary measure of scholarly success is publication of original research in widely distributed, high quality, peer-reviewed journals or edited volumes. There is no set number of papers that need to be published, as the Program recognizes different field/ data collection methods and timelines that affect time to publication. Although expectations of quantity may vary, candidates should develop a research plan that will repeatedly demonstrate completion of published research within the pre-tenure timeframe, as is appropriate for the discipline in question.

Trajectory

An estimation of the long-term research potential of the candidate is a component of the evaluation process. The candidate’s research record must show a trajectory consistent with continued productivity after tenure, and the candidate’s research portfolio must contain a statement that describes the candidate’s post-tenure research agenda.

Service

The program expects candidates for tenure to serve the program, the College, and the larger environmental studies community in roles beyond their teaching and scholarship. We endeavor not to overburden junior faculty with service, but expect them to participate in the shared governance of the College, such as by serving on appointed or elected College-wide committees. We also value service that directly benefits student learning beyond the classroom, such as bringing speakers to campus and advising relevant student groups. In addition, being an effective adviser of majors and non-majors is required. The Program expects pre-tenure faculty to contribute to institutional grant proposals as appropriate to the candidate’s field. The level of involvement in proposal development should be determined in close consultation with the program director and tenured faculty.  

We value service to the profession, such as organizing panels or small conferences, taking on organizational tasks in national or regional professional associations, serving in positions of responsibility in professional organizations or as a reviewer or editor for a journal, book series, or edited volume.

Service can also be in the local community, such as volunteering in schools, working on environmental projects that affect the community, and sharing one’s expertise in the media.

Guidelines for promotion to Professor

The Faculty Handbook states that those promoted to the rank of Professor “are expected to provide distinction to the Faculty as teachers, to have demonstrated sound, continuing growth as scholars, and to serve as leaders of the academic community.” More specifically, faculty appointed in Environmental Studies should show distinction in teaching, research, and service within the context of our highly interdisciplinary and student-centric program. In addition to the types of criteria and evidence considered during the tenure review, we add the following:

• In regard to teaching, candidates should provide evidence of continued dedication to and success in distinguished teaching as demonstrated by the development of new courses and pedagogies, the revision of course syllabi, evidence of students’ rigorous intellectual or creative engagement in the candidate’s classes and beyond. Faculty members voting on promotion should observe the candidate’s teaching at least once since tenure and provide a written evaluation of the candidate.
• In regard to scholarship, candidates must continue to be active scholars, and to have attained some distinction in their field. Although candidates may continue in the same area of scholarly work as before tenure, they must demonstrate that they have moved beyond the body of work submitted during the tenure review. This new work should show sustained progress and result in significant publications. The primary measure of scholarly success is publication of original research in widely distributed, high quality, peer-reviewed journals (print or online) or edited volumes. We recognize that collaboration on research projects is common or even essential for many research projects. A candidate must, however, demonstrate intellectual leadership in at least some of his/her published research. We especially value work that engages students and reflects the interdisciplinarity that is central to Environmental Studies. In addition, candidates should be able to demonstrate that the professional community values his/her work by, for example, invitations to collaborate, speak, chair sessions at conferences, evaluate grants, write book reviews, review proposals and manuscripts, etc.
• Other types of published and non-published scholarship can contribute to evidence of scholarly activity. These include
• Successful grant applications
• Review articles, synthesis papers, or textbooks
• Encyclopedia entries, book reviews, or written materials that have not been peer-reviewed
• Excellent reviews of unsuccessful grant proposals

These examples of scholarship may be considered by the department but do not substitute for publication of original research in peer-reviewed journals.

• In regard to service, candidates should undertake significant service. Increased participation or leadership in college committees, governance structures of the program or department, appropriate community groups, and/or the broader academic or professional community will be evidence of important service. We recognize that an important portion of the candidate’s service load may be in chairing the Environmental Studies Program.

Revision Fall 2021