
Department of Psychological Sciences Bylaws
BYLAWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES
NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the master agreement, "Departments thus have the freedom and flexibility to conduct the department's internal affairs according to the bylaws they create...". The Department of Psychological Science (hereafter referred to as the Department) recognizes its obligation to conform to the professional code of ethics adopted by the American Psychological Association in teaching, research, and any application of psychology in the community. These standards are part of our internal affairs.
In addition, the department maintains a culture of scientifically based inquiry and practice, and highly values student development. To that end, the department encourages direct student involvement in the processes of research, teaching, and service. Students are supported in their efforts to think critically and creatively about both the theoretical and practical aspects of the science of Psychology.
Mission statement: The mission of the Department of Psychological Science is to promote the discovery, dissemination, and application of the scientific principles of psychology by facilitating academic programming, scholarship, and professional engagement both within the University and the community at large.
This set of ideals should inform the interpretation of the following bylaws.
CONTENTS
ARTICLE 1. DEPARTMENT MEMBERSHIP
ARTICLE 5. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
ARTICLE 7. JUDGEMENTAL CRITERIA
ARTICLE 8. EVALUATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
APPENDIX A. POINTS SYSTEM FOR EVALUATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
ARTICLE 1. DEPARTMENT MEMBERSHIP
1.1 Membership in the Department consists of all members of the bargaining unit, as defined by the AAUP Master Agreement, in the Department and the Department Head.
1.1.1 A member of the Department on official leave of absence or sabbatical (excluding disciplinary related leave) retains all membership rights during that leave.
2.1 A quorum is defined as having more than half of a committee’s voting membership in attendance at a committee meeting. A quorum is required for all committee meetings.
2.2 Departmental meetings shall be held at least once a month at a regularly scheduled time during the academic year. These meetings will be scheduled at times that do not conflict with a voting member’s assigned responsibilities.
2.3 At the discretion of the Department Head, a departmental meeting may be called after providing at least 48-hours’ notice to the department membership. The meeting notification must include a meeting agenda.
2.4 Upon the request of one-fourth of the voting membership of the Department, the Department Head shall convene a departmental meeting to discuss the issue(s) behind the request within five business days during the academic year, excluding breaks.
2.5 An invitation to attend specific departmental meetings may be offered to specific enrolled NMU students by a two-thirds vote of the departmental faculty.
3.1 Department Head
3.1.1 The Department Head functions as the executive officer of the Department. In this capacity, the Department Head is responsible for representing the interests and concerns of the Department faculty to the Dean and other administrators, and for informing the Committee of the Whole (see Article 4.2) about the concerns and decisions of the administration.
3.1.2 As part of the selection procedures for a new Department Head, a candidate for Head must be endorsed by two-thirds vote of the Executive Committee before that individual can be recommended to the Dean.
3.2 Faculty Chair
3.2.1 In accordance with the Master Agreement, the Department shall elect a Faculty Chair.
3.2.1.1 The Faculty Chair is responsible for representing the interests and concerns of the Department faculty to the Department Head and other administrators, and for informing the Committee of the Whole about the concerns and decisions of the administration. The Faculty Chair will also maintain a cumulative record of load for each member of the Department, in consultation with the Department Head and each member of the Department, in accordance with the load document. The Faculty Chair will also serve as Chair of the Executive Committee.
3.2.1.2 The Faculty Chair is a one-year term. Appointment to the Faculty Chair requires being either tenured, tenure track, or of continuing contract status at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher and must be supported by a majority vote of the committee of the whole. A vote will be held during the first meeting of the Fall academic year.
3.2.1.3 The Faculty Chair may be recalled by a majority vote of the committee of the whole.
3.3 Academic Senate Representative
3.3.1 In accordance with the Bylaws of the Academic Senate, the Department shall elect a representative to the Academic Senate.
3.3.1.1 The Department Head shall communicate the name of the representative to the Secretary of the Academic Senate.
3.3.1.2 The Academic Senate representative may be recalled by a majority vote of the voting membership.
3.4 Faculty Council Representative
3.4.1 To provide for departmental representation within the bargaining unit, the Department shall elect a Faculty Council Representative, by majority vote of the committee of the whole. Such elections shall be held within one month of the start of the academic year or within two weeks following an announcement by the Union Executive Committee.
3.4.1.1 Faculty Council Representatives are expected to attend all Faculty Council meetings, or to arrange for a substitute during absences from those meetings.
3.4.1.2 The Faculty Council Representative is a two-year term. Appointment as Faculty Council Representative must be supported by a majority of the voting membership.
3.4.1.3 The Faculty Council Representative may be recalled by a majority vote of the voting departmental membership.
3.5 Recording Secretary
3.5.1 The Executive Committee will select one of their members to serve as Recording Secretary, whose responsibility will be to take minutes of each Committee of the Whole meeting and each Executive Committee meeting. The Recording Secretary is expected to disseminate those minutes to all Department members in a timely manner.
4.1 All department committees will be comprised of persons with membership in the Department.
4.2 There shall be a Committee of the Whole, which is comprised of all department members. General department business will be conducted by the Committee of the Whole.
4.2.1 The Committee of the Whole will make recommendations on such matters as use of carry-over professional development funds, course assignment concerns, and other departmental concerns. Committee decisions must be approved by a majority of the voting membership.
4.2.2 The Committee of the Whole may appoint ad hoc committees to conduct certain activities in the Department. In doing so, the Committee of the Whole will define the term length of the ad hoc committee or endpoints of the committee assignment.
4.3 There shall be a Departmental Evaluation Committee that does not include the Department Head, consisting of all members of the Committee of the Whole, and a Committee Chair selected for a two-year term by the Committee of the Whole.
4.3.1 Evaluation of all members of the Department, including the Department Head, shall be conducted in support for regular evaluations (e.g. annual, 2-year, 5-year, promotion, and tenure) in accordance with the master agreement. The evaluation committee will use articles 7 and 8 of these bylaws, as well as relevant sections of the master agreement. The evaluation committee is expected to complete a written evaluation of each faculty member. The evaluation will provide clear criteria for the support or nonsupport of any faculty member’s progress toward promotion or tenure. The statement will specify the strengths of achievements and recommended improvements using the criteria in article 7 and the faculty member’s individual goals.
4.3.2 The Committee Chair shall be a tenured member of the evaluation committee.
4.3.3 The Committee Chair shall make assignments of at least two other committee members to review each faculty evaluation. The Chair will assign reviewers of submitted evaluations who have equal or greater rank than the faculty member being evaluated unless such assignments are unavailable. It shall be the Chair’s responsibility to compile feedback from other reviewers into the Faculty Evaluation Report.
4.3.4 If a Departmental Evaluation Committee member is not interested or is otherwise unable to complete the reviews of other department faculty members’ submitted evaluations, they should inform the Departmental Evaluation Committee Chair of this fact so as to not hold up the work of the committee.
4.4 There shall be a Graduate Programs Committee with at least 3 members selected each year by the Committee of the Whole. The function of this committee will be to recommend graduate course schedules, programmatic changes, student admission, assistantship assignments, and other matters directly pertinent to the Department’s graduate programs.
4.4.1 The Chair of the Graduate Programs Committee will be appointed by the Executive Committee and will serve a two-year term.
4.5 There shall be an Executive Committee, which is comprised of Department faculty members who are either tenured, tenure-track, or of continuing contract status at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher. In addition, up to 25 percent of the Executive Committee may be assistant professor or higher rank who otherwise do not meet the previously stated criteria. Department members with joint appointments will only be eligible for the Executive Committee if the Department of Psychological Science is their primary department. Faculty members will be elected to serve on the Executive Committee each fall semester, by majority vote, during the first meeting of the committee of the whole.
4.5.1 The Executive Committee shall serve as an advisory committee to the Department Head. It shall serve as representative of the department as a whole, concerning itself with all matters pertaining to long-term impacts on the department (e.g. hiring decisions, new position requests, annual load document, programmatic changes, bylaws amendments, course additions, discussions of financial exigency) referred to it by the Department Head or the Faculty Chair. All recommendations of the Executive Committee shall be directed to the Department Head and shall be recorded in the distributed minutes of the committee meetings (except the details of specific personnel matters).
4.5.1.1 Meetings. The Executive Committee shall meet monthly (as necessary) during the academic year. Necessary additional meetings may be called by the Department Head, by the Chair of the committee, through a petition signed by three members of the committee, or through a petition signed by one third of the voting members of the department.
4.5.1.2 Agenda. Whenever possible, a written agenda shall be made available by the Chair of the committee at least 48 hours in advance of any meeting.
4.5.1.3 Closed Meetings. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall be open to the department membership, except in situations determined by the Executive Committee members through a majority vote.
4.5.1.4 Minutes. Minutes of all meetings of the Executive Committee shall be distributed to members of the department in a timely manner.
4.5.2 The Department Head shall be an ex-officio member of the Executive Committee, but may not chair the committee.
4.5.3 The Faculty Chair, as elected by Committee of the Whole, shall also serve as Chair of the Executive Committee.
ARTICLE 5. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
5.1 Full-time instructional faculty members shall normally be assigned to a twenty-four (24) credit hour teaching load (or its equivalent) during the regular academic year (fall and winter semesters). In most instances, twelve (12) hours is the normal credit hour load for each regular semester. It is recognized that it may not be possible to establish the same credit hour production for each faculty member. The Department Head, after meeting with the Committee of the Whole, is responsible for developing a mutually agreeable load document to structure assignments that will take into account large sections in single courses, number of preparations, nature of preparations, laboratory supervision and planning, supervision of special learning activities, supervision of field activities, clinical experience, number of advisees, or administrative duties, and other assigned responsibilities. The load document will pertain to the upcoming academic year and the meeting to discuss the load document will take place at a convened faculty meeting prior to the scheduling of fall semester courses. Specific information for determining teaching load will be based upon the load document, the Faculty Chair’s cumulative record of banked load, and relevant sections in the Master Agreement.
6.1 Recommendations for appointment of new tenure track and multi-year term faculty will require a 2/3 vote of the voting membership.
6.2 Criteria for appointment to academic rank are defined in the Master Agreement. In addition, a candidate will not be appointed to an academic rank if evidence is unavailable to determine if the candidate can meet the responsibilities of the academic rank as described in Article 8 of these bylaws.
ARTICLE 7. JUDGEMENTAL CRITERIA
7.1 Article 7 illustrates a suggested list of sources of data, not in order of virtue, that may be utilized as evidence toward earning tenure and promotion. This list is neither exhaustive nor mandatory, only illustrative. Evidence utilized in evaluations must conform to the spirit, not to the letter, of suggested examples provided in this article. Importantly, the suitability and quality of these data are provided in evaluations from the Department Evaluation Committee.
7.2 Teaching and Assigned Responsibilities
7.2.1 Teaching: The Department annual evaluation committee report shall serve as both verification of the existence and the quality of achievements in teaching. Additional written statements by students or other faculty may also be added to document the quality of achievements. Listed below are suggested sources of data for teaching effectiveness.
7.2.1.1 Student ratings of instructor and course: For every course for each semester or session, objective, anonymous, student opinion shall be solicited utilizing a rating form approved by the department. The form should include instructor and course overall effectiveness measures. Letters from students also may be used to evaluate the quality of instruction and course, advising, and/or research mentoring if the faculty member chooses to include them.
7.2.1.2 Colleague assessment of teaching: The possible sources
of written peer review can include 1) evaluation from a co-teacher, 2) evaluation of presenting an invited lecture, 3) evaluation of recorded class sessions or lecture, 4) evaluation of a course lecture by a department colleague or other qualified colleague, or 5) review of course material by a colleague.
7.2.1.3 Appraisal of student learning: Evidence must be provided to relate assessments of student learning to specific objectives for the course.
7.2.1.4 Materials prepared by the instructor associated with courses: Possible types of course material can include 1) course syllabi, 2) study guides, 3) workbooks, 4) lab manuals, 5) problem sets, 6) quizzes and exams, 7) computer models and simulations, 8) course website (Learning Management System) content, and 9) other content related to the instruction of course content.
7.2.1.5 Course preparations and innovations: Possible types of evidence can include 1) proposal for new courses, 2) teaching courses that the instructor has not taught before, 3) major revisions to an existing course, 4) maintaining and developing agency contacts for practicum experiences, and 5) other content related to course preparations and innovations.
7.2.1.6 Equipment and supplies related to a course: Possible types of evidence can include 1) maintenance and repair of equipment, 2) improvement to equipment, 3) design and construction of equipment, 4) procurement of equipment or supplies, and 5) other items related to equipping and supplying courses.
7.2.2 Mentorship of Teaching and/or Research Apprentices: Mentorship is an important and valuable assigned responsibility. The Department recognizes that these mentorship activities are individualized and that evidence of mentorship quality and effectiveness will vary.
7.2.3 Advising and other student services: Faculty must include a description and reflection on 1) major advising and 2) accessibility to students. Other activities may include 1) admissions advising, 2) advising preparing for graduate school or employment, 3) supervision of student research (if 7.2.2 is not applicable), 4) thesis advising, 5) attending non-mandatory student advising events, and 6) other related activities. Judgment of effectiveness in major advising should include any procedures adopted by the department. Otherwise, judgment of effectiveness of non-major-advising activities can include a variety of evidence types, the appropriateness of which will be determined and weighed by the Evaluation Committee.
7.3 Scholarship and/or Professional Development: This is one category and the relative amounts of scholarship and professional development must abide by criteria for tenure and promotion stated in article 8 and Appendix A of these bylaws. Importantly, some individual accomplishments may fit ambiguously in these categories, so the weight of the contribution is established by evidence of peer review commentary in the cumulative annual evaluations. When appropriate, some activities can fulfill responsibilities in two or more areas. Some activities can be divided into components. For example, an activity may have two components, one applicable to professional development and the other applicable for an area of scholarship.
7.3.1 Scholarship: A scholarly product is an achievement within one of the four forms of scholarship described by the Boyer Project of the Carnegie Foundation, Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). These are Discovery, Integration, Application, and Teaching. According to Halpern et al. (1998, American Psychologist 53, 1292-1297) “Psychology is a broad field with many paradigms, perspectives, and subdisciplines…”. In addition, the purposes and audiences for our scholarship may vary considerably. Hence, scholarship in the Department reflects the diversity of individual expertise in the discipline of Psychology in keeping with this description of the field. All forms of scholarship must involve the production of a tangible product or outcome. A tangible product of scholarship will be defined as a “result, outcome, consequence, or effect of scholarly activity.”
7.3.1.1 The department expects peer review of scholarship. Types of peer review appropriate for Psychology include, but are not limited to, publication in a peer reviewed journal, presentation of scholarly work as a result of a competitive selection process or invitation, written review of one's scholarship, evaluation of a grant proposal, or a peer letter acknowledging scholarly/professional accomplishments. Department, college, or university recognition of scholarly activity can include receiving a professional award or obtaining a grant. The Department does not consider works published in predatory journals to be peer reviewed. For example, articles published in journals listed on Beall’s list or Predatory Reports.
7.3.1.2 Scholarship of Discovery: The Scholarship of Discovery shall be understood as the original production or testing of a theory, principle, or knowledge, or artistic creation.
See Appendix A for criteria.
7.3.1.3 Scholarship of Integration: The Scholarship of Integration shall be understood as using knowledge found within and across disciplines to create an original understanding or insight that reveals larger intellectual patterns. See Appendix A for criteria.
7.3.1.4 Scholarship of Application: The Scholarship of Application shall be understood as bringing knowledge to bear in addressing a significant issue or problem by using existing research to influence current or future conditions. To be counted as scholarship rather than service, the application of professional expertise must have clearly stated objectives, demonstrate rigor and accountability, and produce some tangible product or outcome. See Appendix A for criteria.
7.3.1.5 Scholarship of Teaching: The Scholarship of Teaching shall be understood as proposing and empirically testing a pedagogical procedure that transforms or improves teaching practices. See Appendix A for criteria.
7.3.2 Professional Development: Professional development includes activities intended to maintain currency in one's discipline, developing new professionally related expertise, or acquiring new knowledge or skills accomplished through engagement in professionally related activities that don't necessarily result in a scholarly outcome. See Appendix A for criteria.
7.3.3 Service: The Department recognizes service as applying faculty expertise, or scholarship to address the needs of various communities within and outside of the university. See Appendix A for criteria.
ARTICLE 8. EVALUATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
8.1 Formal, written evaluations shall be completed for each faculty member in accordance with these bylaws and the Master Agreement.
8.1.1 Primary emphasis area: Teaching and assigned responsibilities are the primary emphasis areas for faculty in the Department for promotion and for year-to-year performance.
8.1.2 Secondary emphasis area:
8.1.2.1 Faculty members are expected to engage in professional development and/or scholarship activities and service each year (although see sub-sections below). An achievement in scholarship is not necessary for each annual or 5-year evaluation, but faculty are advised to be aware that evidence of scholarship must be presented for promotions and tenure. Evaluation narratives provided by the faculty member must clearly define the relative emphasis placed on scholarship and/or professional development and service.
8.1.2.2 The determination of relative emphasis for tenure earning appointments will be initially established in the Letter of Appointment. The relative emphasis may be redefined by the faculty member subsequent to tenure as a result of agreement between the faculty member, the departmental evaluation committee, and the department head.
8.1.2.3 Term, Continuing Contract Status faculty, and instructors are only required to have service, at the departmental level, as a secondary emphasis area for annual evaluations. No activities in Scholarship and/or Professional development are required, but applicants are not precluded from describing such activities.
8.1.2.4 Annual evaluations for contingent faculty need only include documentation of activities in the area of assigned responsibilities. No secondary emphasis area is necessary, although faculty are not precluded from describing activities other than those for assigned responsibilities.
8.1.3 All full-time department faculty shall have departmental committee responsibilities as a minimum yearly service requirement. All tenured and tenure earning faculty shall have college- or university-wide committee responsibilities as an additional minimum yearly service requirement. Minimum efforts in service and professional development and/or scholarship will be decided by the faculty member, the department head, and the evaluation committee, based on the interests and abilities of the individual and the letter of appointment. This process is intended to provide a system of checks and balances.
8.1.4 Goals must be stated for the upcoming evaluation period, and statements must be provided for the progress toward achieving goals from previous evaluations. Satisfactory year to year performance is to be further interpreted in individual cases with references to goal statements and previous evaluations by the Departmental Evaluation Committee.
8.1.5 Convincing Evidence: The evidence presented and used in an evaluation must be the most objective and informative data readily available. When possible, normative data will be presented and used to set the interpretive context for individual data. These data may be marshaled to provide evidence of individual performance in relation to the achievement of stated objective goals and cumulative past performance (self-norms). Subjective opinion can be used to describe the significance and impact of this evidence, and can serve as evidence when other data are lacking. While the Evaluation Committee has discretion to weigh the merit of evidence, generally, priority will be given to objective and informative data, such as outcome measures, completed products, and appropriate evaluative ratings, over subjective opinion.
8.2 For tenure-track faculty, achievements in both scholarship and/or professional development and service are necessary for achieving tenure or promotion. However, demonstration of achievements in all four forms of scholarship is unnecessary. Suggested types of evidence provided in Article 7 of these bylaws are guidelines.
8.2.1 The Department faculty will evaluate the quality and quantity and cumulative impact of these accomplishments based upon goal statements and evidence reported and reviewed in annual evaluations.
8.2.2 In a promotion or tenure document, a faculty member must clearly state whether the secondary emphasis will be placed upon scholarship and/or professional development or service. In the area of emphasis, achievements must, at a minimum, meet expectations established in accordance with articles 8.1.2, 8.3.2, and 8.3.3. To avoid misinterpretation by committees and/or administrators, the faculty member is advised to provide detailed descriptions of effort and impact for each achievement intended to meet bylaw criteria.
8.3 Criteria for recommendation to the status of tenure: The tenure probationary period is determined by the Master Agreement. The judgmental criteria for tenure consists of meeting the eligibility requirements in the Master Agreement and showing convincing cumulative evidence of performance in assigned responsibilities, scholarship and/or professional development, and service. The applicant must present or describe material to demonstrate a consistent yearly accumulation of achievements according to the criteria found in Appendix A.
8.3.1 Suggested guidelines and types of evidence for accomplishments in teaching are in Article 7 of these bylaws. The applicant will provide documentation of meeting criteria for tenure which are:
- Evidence of responsiveness to student ratings and other feedback
- Evidence of refinement of course content and positive peer evaluations of teaching
- Comprehensive syllabi with clear expectations as evidenced by peer or/and student evaluations
- Evidence of accessibility to students
- Evidence of competent advising
- Evidence of meaningful impact through committee work in department, college, or university level
8.3.2 When emphasis is placed on Scholarship and/or Professional Development, the faculty member must achieve a minimum of 50 points from the categories I-III. There must be a minimum of 10 points from category I from works that were initiated at NMU. The faculty member must achieve a minimum of 20 points from categories IV-V (see Appendix A).
8.3.3 When emphasis is placed on Service, the faculty member must achieve a minimum of 20 points from any of the categories IIII. There must be at least 5 points from category I from works that were initiated at NMU. The faculty member must achieve a minimum of 50 points from categories IV-V with a minimum of 10 points from category IV (see Appendix A).
8.4 Appointment of Continuing Contract Status: Appointments to Continuing Contract Status will be considered for faculty members who have completed five (5) years of full-time service in term contracts for the Department and have been reappointed to the Department for a sixth year. Faculty will apply for Continuing Contract Status by following the application process and judgmental criteria for tenure. However, applications for Continuing Contract Status need not include the category Scholarship and/or Professional Development, although an applicant is not restricted from doing so. Service outside of the Department is unnecessary for granting of Continuing Contract Status, although an applicant may include other types of service activities outside of the Department. The minimum expectation for granting Continuing Contract in the Department is 20 points from any of the Appendix A categories I-V.
8.5 Appointment to Assistant Professor: The judgmental criteria for appointment to Assistant Professor consists of meeting the minimum eligibility requirements described in Article 6 of these bylaws, the Master Agreement, and obtaining a doctorate in psychology.
8.6 Promotion to Associate Professor: The judgmental criteria for Associate Professor consists of meeting the eligibility requirements in the Master Agreement and those in article 8.3 of these bylaws.
8.7 Promotion to Professor: The judgmental criteria for Professor consists of meeting the eligibility requirements in the Master Agreement and showing convincing cumulative evidence of accomplishments since the application was made for previous promotion that is appropriate for a faculty member’s status.
8.7.1 Suggested guidelines and types of evidence for accomplishments in teaching are in Article 7 of these bylaws. The applicant will provide documentation of meeting criteria for promotion to Professor which are:
- Evidence of responsiveness to student ratings and other feedback
- Evidence of refinement of course content and positive peer evaluations of teaching
- Comprehensive syllabi with clear expectations as evidenced by peer or/and student evaluations
- Evidence of accessibility to students
- Evidence of competent advising
- Evidence of meaningful impact through committee work in department, college, or university level
8.7.2 When emphasis is placed on Scholarship and/or Professional Development, the faculty member must achieve a minimum of 50 points from the categories I-III. There must be a minimum of 10 points from category I from works that were initiated at NMU. The faculty member must achieve a minimum of 20 points from categories IV-V, with a minimum of 5 points from category IV (see Appendix A).
8.7.3 When emphasis is placed on Service, the faculty member must achieve a minimum of 20 points from any of the categories IIII. There must be at least 5 points from category I from works that were initiated at NMU. The faculty member must achieve a minimum of 50 points from categories IV-V with a minimum of 10 points from category IV (see Appendix A).
8.8 An evaluation of the Head of the Department which accurately reflects the judgments of the faculty of the Department vis a vis his or her performance in relation to the Department will be made available to the Department Head and the Dean during the appropriate evaluation year in accordance with the Master Agreement. The evaluation will be submitted to both the department head and immediate supervisor. If necessary, such an evaluation can be initiated at any time during an administrative term by a two-thirds majority of the voting members of the committee of the whole.
9.1 Proposed amendments to these Bylaws shall be circulated in writing to all members of the Department at least one week prior to the meeting at which they are to be introduced and discussed.
9.1.1 Proposed amendments shall be circulated during the academic year.
9.2 A majority vote by written ballot of the Executive Committee shall be required for Departmental adoption of Amendments.
9.3 Departmentally adopted amendments will be forwarded, by the Chair of the Executive Committee, to the department head, dean and the Contract Officer of the bargaining unit within seven days of passage by the department faculty.
9.4 Comparison universities used in the process of bylaws revisions, as outlined in the Master Agreement, shall be selected by the Executive Committee.
9.5 Following final institutional approval, the Faculty Chair will notify all department members within one week and provide a new copy of the bylaws.
APPENDIX A. POINTS SYSTEM FOR EVALUATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
Category I
6 points Publication of a textbook
6 points Funded External scholarly proposal* (NIH, NSF, or others by approval) 5 points Peer reviewed publication of scholarship in a reputable journal, which was conducted, analyzed, or written during the evaluation period.
Category II
3 points Book chapter
3 points Favorably reviewed but not funded External research proposal* (NIH, NSF, or others by approval).
3 points Internal research grant funded* (Faculty Research Grant, Reassigned Time Award, Peter White Scholar Program, Sabbatical, Curriculum Development and Instructional Improvement Grant Program, SISU Innovation Fund, others by approval)
2 points Oral presentation at a national or international conference or an invited seminar*
1 point Oral presentation at a regional or local conference*
Category III
2 points Poster presentation at a regional, national or international conference
2 points External research proposal submitted but not reviewed or funded*
2 points Publications that did not qualify for category 1 (as approved by evaluation committee)
2 points Award for scholarship received from a professional society
1 point Award for scholarship
1 point Internal presentation
1 point Final report for an external grant, expert testimony, professional consulting, program evaluation, needs assessment, or public policy analysis
1 point Internal grant proposal application submitted (Faculty Research Grant, Reassigned Time Award, Peter White Scholar Program, Sabbatical, Curriculum Development and Instructional Improvement Grant Program, SISU Innovation Fund, others by approval)*
1 point Chair of session at professional meeting
1 point Formal, invited review of a grant proposal or manuscript
1 point Attending a conference or workshop or taking courses related to your profession
1 point Professional practice, and other applied activities that result in acquisition of new knowledge and skill development
1 point Developing new technology in accord with psychological theory of thinking and learning
1 point Written briefs or reports of the application, including amicus briefs or clinical documents of record
1 point Development of continuing education courses
1 point Earning and or maintaining professional certification and/or licensing
1 point Mentoring a student on a research grant
.5 point Mentoring a student on local research presentation
Category IV
3 points Officer or Chair on a University/College/Union committee or board**
3 points Organizer of a national or regional meeting
3 points for being appointed to and serving on a state/regional/national board that is related to one’s professional discipline
3 points Officer of a national or regional professional organization**
3 points Significant revision of a program or curriculum with documentation of involvement
2 points Officer in a local chapter or section of a professional organization** 2 points Chair of a Department committee**
Category V
2 points Devising/implementing a new course (If not part of assigned duties.)
2 point Serving on a committee or board**
2 point Chair for a thesis committee
1 point Award for service
1 point Work on a subcommittee (counted in addition to serving on the committee)**
1 point Psychological service or psychologically related service to the public
1 point Faculty advisor for a student organization or departmental club**
1 point Presentation at high school or other community organization
1 point Committee member on a thesis
1 point Chair of session at professional meeting
1 point Review of a grant proposal or manuscript
1 point Write a peer-teaching review
1 point Mentor on a student research grant
1 point Providing workshops
1 point Significant maintenance of departmental equipment as judged by the annual evaluation committee
0.5 point Per time as judge at a science competition such as a poster session
0.25 point Per participation in NMU scholarship interviews
0.25 point Per campus visit
0.25 point Per Wildcat Weekend or similar event
0.1 point Recommendation letters (per letter/school/program submitted to)
Other accomplishments or changes to the value of a given accomplishment may be awarded as recommended by the evaluation committee.
*If the faculty member is a Co-PI on a grant or conference presentation, then his/her contribution to the writing of the proposal must be documented. Points will be awarded accordingly.
**Service as chair or member of a committee or similar activities are awarded the appropriate point(s) for each year of service. Points for less than a year are prorated proportionally.
When determining points earned for scholarship/professional development and for service, no activity may have points counted in more than one place. For instance, the review of a grant proposal could count as service or as professional development, but the same review cannot be counted in both places. If two reviews were done, the faculty member could count one as service and one as professional development or both in the same category. As another example, if a faculty member submits a grant proposal that was funded, then that proposal should be counted as a funded proposal but not again as a submitted proposal.
Date Approved: | 11-6-2013 |
Last Revision: | 4-2-2025 |
Last Reviewed: | 4-2-2025 |
Approved By: | Provost |
Oversight Unit: | PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE |