91制片厂

Current Guidelines (PDF)

View Previous Guidelines

Tenure in Sociology is awarded based on teaching, scholarship and, to a lesser degree, service to the Department, the College, and the profession. A successful candidate for tenure should have demonstrated excellence as both a teacher and a scholar, and assumed appropriate service responsibilities (as outlined below). A successful candidate for reappointment will make strides toward excellence in these areas, though an emphasis will be placed on their scholarly and pedagogical trajectory.

I.   Teaching

 

1. Teaching will be evaluated through consideration of class observations by tenured members of the department, syllabi and other course materials prepared by the candidate, random and select evaluation letters written by past students, and the candidate’s self-reflections on teaching, as allowed by the Faculty Handbook. While our department values student feedback via evaluations and letters, these evaluations will be assessed within the broader gendered, racialized, and heteronormative context of the College, which can produce systematic biases in the evaluations of faculty of color, women faculty, queer faculty, and trans/non-binary faculty.

The Department will use a number of different categories (with corresponding evidence listed below) to evaluate a candidate’s overall level of teaching effectiveness. As a Department, we do not expect faculty to fulfill every single teaching objective specified in our departmental policy in a single class meeting, or even a given semester. We acknowledge that sometimes the best teaching is emergent in the classroom, arising from the interests and participation of students and their interpretations of the material. We also acknowledge that every teacher brings their own unique perspective and set of talents into the classroom, and are wary of prescribing what "good teaching" is in a monolithic way. As such, evidence of effective pedagogy will include, but is not limited to, the following categories:

• Incorporation of disciplinary knowledge, practice, and pedagogy into courses. Indicators of this can be found from peer review by assessing how syllabi and assignments incorporate sociological scholarship and issues of societal relevance. Classroom observation can reveal how, and to what extent, disciplinary discussions shape course content, assignment design, and pedagogy. Additional evidence can also be found in self-evaluations that describe how a candidate has revised a course or developed a new course based on developments in the field.
• Use of inclusive pedagogical approaches and practices. Classroom observations can reveal the faculty member’s efforts to help students learn sociological ideas via varied, creative pedagogical approaches in the classroom. Additional evidence can be derived from syllabi and assignments that clearly identify course requirements, expectations, and grading criteria in an accessible fashion. Further indicators may include assignments and activities that allow students to demonstrate their learning and development in the course across multiple modalities. Classroom observation can assess the extent to which there is broad engagement and interaction across students. Self-evaluation can further reveal efforts to adapt pedagogy to be more inclusive of the students in the class. Classroom observations and self-evaluation can also illuminate the extent to which the faculty member provides a variety of ways for students to succeed and/or demonstrate their learning, paying particular attention to being inclusive and equitable in assessments. 
• Encouragement of the development of students’ critical thinking skills. Classroom observation can be used to document the instructor’s efforts to direct discussions in ways that acknowledge students’ views on topics and deepen their engagement with, and understanding of, course materials. Other indicators can be found in syllabi, assignments, and activities detailed in peer review, solicited student letters, and end-of-semester evaluations, which demonstrate that courses are designed to challenge students appropriately and assist their efforts to think critically about taken-for-granted aspects of the social world. Peer review and solicited student letters can also provide evidence of the extent to which instructors provide thoughtful and timely feedback on students’ work.
• Reflective and iterative growth. Indicators of this can be found in self-evaluation, which can report on efforts to experiment with different pedagogical approaches, develop new courses, or revise existing ones. It may also be evident in faculty development efforts such as attending workshops about teaching. In addition, the Department will consider a candidate’s teaching improvement over time (as revealed in student letters and/or in the observation-based assessments of senior colleagues) insofar as such improvement has resulted in excellence in teaching.

2. An outline of the department’s peer review policy can be found below:

Peer Review Policy for Teaching Observation
Peer review of teaching will include:

1. A pre-observation meeting in which the faculty member being observed shares class session goal(s), pedagogical approach(es)/slides/assignment(s) and course trajectory (e.g. syllabus) with the observer.
2. A classroom observation of a single class session.
3. A post-observation meeting.
4. For faculty in or beyond their second year of teaching in the department, written documentation of the review will be produced by the observer (the classroom observation report to be used for peer review can be found in Appendix A) that addresses the pre-observation conversation, a review of teaching materials, and observations about various aspects of the class session such as content, clarity, and organization; student engagement; teacher-student interactions; and attention to diversity, equity, inclusion, and access. This will be shared with the person being reviewed within four weeks of the observation.

The department chair (or designated senior faculty member) will make peer review assignments at the beginning of each semester, the observer will take responsibility for scheduling on a mutually convenient date, and the department chair (or designated senior faculty member) will ensure that the review occurs by the end of the semester. Each faculty member will be observed no more than twice per semester, and each classroom observation will be conducted by one colleague only. 

All voting members within the department will have firsthand knowledge of teaching through this peer review process before voting on reappointment, tenure or promotion. Complete written documentation of teaching observations will only be used internally by the Department during the tenure and promotion process, but will be referenced in the department’s tenure, reappointment, and promotion letters and in annual reports.

Applicability of teaching criteria for those who will not be evaluated for tenure

The teaching of all faculty in non-tenurable positions will be evaluated with the same criteria as untenured faculty in tenure-track positions. 

Faculty in non-tenurable positions will be reviewed using the same processes as those employed for faculty in tenure lines. Visiting faculty on one-year contracts will be reviewed for formative purposes in their first semester, but may request a written, summative evaluation in either semester.

A distinguished record of teaching that is required for promotion to Professor will also exhibit evidence that the faculty member has engaged in reflective and iterative growth.  Evidence of this will be sought in self-evaluation that reports on this growth, in the development of new courses or the revisions of existing ones, or in other faculty development activities voluntarily undertaken by the individual. The teaching of those who have been promoted to Professor will also be evaluated with this additional criteria.

II. Scholarship

1. The Department expects a successful candidate for tenure to present evidence of ongoing research and publication that appears likely to extend beyond the tenure decision. In particular we value the content and impact of colleagues’ research in their respective subfields. We recognize that colleagues’ engagement in, and contribution to, scholarship will vary by subfield and methodological approach and that this cannot be measured simply by number of publications.
   
   We also want to encourage quality over quantity. The candidate should have a book or book in press with a recognized university press or peer-reviewed trade press, or the equivalent in several shorter publications in peer-reviewed outlets (~4-6 publications). In hopes of clarifying expectations, candidates who have a mix of peer-reviewed work in top specialty journals, other journals, and book/handbook chapters are expected to approach the upper bound specified above. However, should the candidate have a particularly impressive publication, such as an article in a top generalist journal in sociology (e.g., American Journal of Sociology or the American Sociological Review), having fewer publications could meet expectations for tenure.
2. The quality of publications will be assessed by tenured faculty in the department and by outside reviewers. We encourage faculty to strive for publications in flagship journals and top specialty journals. Single-authored and co-authored works, based on original research, and published after peer review will be given the greatest weight. Candidates should be sure to clarify their relative contributions to co-authored work in their materials for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Book chapters, textbooks, articles in non-peer-reviewed journals, book reviews, papers presented at professional meetings, op-eds and other public scholarship, and invited talks delivered at other institutions or conferences will also be considered though afforded less weight relative to peer-reviewed scholarship.
3. Works that are in-press will be considered equal to published material and given greater weight than those that are under contract but not yet in production, but the latter will also receive serious consideration.
4. Evidence of continuing commitment to scholarship might include, in addition to the foregoing, material under review by journals and presses, revise and resubmit responses, grant proposals, and funded research.

III.  Service

1. Service to the Department requires participating in Department activities and working cooperatively with colleagues to conduct the business of the Department. Candidates for tenure can serve the Department by participating, as appropriate, in the hiring process for new faculty members; advising students; assuming individual responsibilities within the Department; and representing the Department at occasions such as receptions for accepted students.
2. Service to the College may include serving on College committees, serving as an academic advisor, working with student organizations, and more generally supporting the work of the College (such as meeting with prospective students and their families, interacting with trustees, or working on interdepartmental initiatives). Contributing professional expertise to the larger community by, for example, speaking before local organizations, will also count as service to the College.
3. Although it is not required as a condition of tenure, service to the profession will be counted in a candidate’s favor. Service to the profession may include serving on professional association committees and boards, reviewing book and article manuscripts, reviewing grant proposals, and editing newsletters or other professional publications.
4. Although service to the College and the Department is a responsibility that all faculty members share and a significant element in the tenure decision, junior faculty members are not expected to take on heavy service commitments prior to reappointment.Tenure track faculty who are unsure whether they have struck the proper balance in this regard should consult with the chair and/or faculty mentor.

Guidelines for Promotion

At the time of review for promotion to Professor, the Department will look for distinction in teaching, scholarship and service as outlined in the Faculty Handbook in section VI.C.10. “Those appointed to the Faculty with this rank or promoted into this rank 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.” 

The Department will expect the candidate to demonstrate excellence in teaching as judged by the criteria outlined above, in addition to evidence that the faculty member has continued to engage in reflective and iterative growth. Evidence for such growth will be determined in a number of ways, including the candidate’s self-evaluation, the revision of existing courses or development of new ones, experimentation with innovative pedagogical approaches, and participation in faculty development activities.

A candidate’s scholarship should evince a degree of national recognition by peers in their field. Evidence of continuing excellence in the area of scholarship will principally be assessed using letters from outside reviewers, but also include the candidate’s work being cited by leading scholars, shaping or contributing to central debates within the discipline, and recognition by peers as an important scholar in a given sub-field (as signified, for instance, by book reviews of their work in the discipline’s journals, serving on awards committees, invited talks, awards for their scholarship, their election to a position within an ASA or SSSP section, or serving on a journal’s editorial board). The candidate should have taken on significant service responsibilities (e.g., service on major faculty committees) and made significant contributions to the College community.

APPENDIX A. Classroom Observation Report (View in PDF)

---

Approved by COA 10/07/25