Expectations for New Junior Faculty Members

Marriage, Family and Human Development Program
School of Family Life
Brigham Young University
April 11, 2000
Revised March 22, 2001; Feb. 28, 2002

Research

The record of scholarship should reflect a focused, systematic research agenda that is of high quality, organized around one or two coherent themes, contributes to critical debate in the field, and demonstrates capacity for project leadership that can include work with prior mentors, along with projects that demonstrate independent work. We recommend that, on average, new faculty have the equivalent of at least one peer-reviewed journal article per year in print or accepted for publication by the time they are considered for continuing faculty status. Most of this work should appear in respected specialty journals where quality and impact can be documented in one’s sub-discipline and in their field at large. Publications in high-impact, archival, generalist journals are highly encouraged (1st tier), with the understanding that these often compete with large-scale federally funded research and are more likely to come later when research programs have matured.

It is also recognized that sub-disciplinary standards vary. For example, papers published in higher impact journals in one sub-discipline may not equate to the rigor and effort associated with published work appearing in higher impact journals in another sub-discipline. There are also different methodological and analytical protocols. It is important that faculty members convincingly document and contextualize their work within their own national disciplinary standards and that they be evaluated accordingly.

Articles may be coauthored, as per sub-disciplinary norms, but the candidate should be lead author on a third to one-half of these papers. Individual contributions to co-authored work should be documented for evaluation purposes. In addition, book chapters and edited volumes with leading national or international academic presses are welcome but are not weighted as heavily as journal articles in the review process since they typically do not meet journal article peer review standards (Refer to MFHD Annual Evaluation document for specific accounting procedures.) Handbook – type chapters are usually given more credit. Faculty should also demonstrate significant engagement with their discipline and should become well connected with national disciplinary peers. An average of about one paper per year should be presented at national or international conferences, preferably in paper symposium sessions with leaders in their field. In most cases, these presentations should lead to published work.

Faculty should view the recommendations noted above as minimum standards for quantity. Judgments about scholarship quality (in the context of quantity) will be the primary determining factor in CFS and promotion decisions, as determined by department faculty, external reviewers, college, and university evaluating entities. These entities will also assess scholarship trajectory and will determine whether it is sustainable beyond the period of review. External grant writing is encouraged and rewarded to facilitate high-level faculty scholarship. However, this is not required due to limited BYU infrastructure support for this endeavor.

New faculty are encouraged to qualify for graduate faculty status in order to facilitate their research program. (See MFHD Policy on Graduate Faculty Status document for specific criteria for graduate faculty status.)

Teaching

New faculty should regularly teach upper and lower division courses in the undergraduate curriculum as well as courses that focus on their area of specialization. Teaching will be evaluated through standard student evaluations, student comments, peer review, and a review of course materials. These evaluations should demonstrate that courses are organized with clear objectives, and that students are learning core concepts, are being exposed to current information with critical thinking opportunities, are being treated with respect, and are being evaluated fairly. When problems are identified, faculty members are expected to make necessary changes to improve teaching and to document how this is being accomplished in annual stewardship reviews. Student evaluation scores, comments, and peer reviews should indicate the candidate is "very good" or better by the time a candidate applies for continuing status. The standard teaching load for faculty with productive research agendas (as defined above) is 3-3-2. Adjustments can be made for large class sizes with limited TA support (see MFHD Graduate Faculty Expectations document). Faculty who meet graduate faculty status criteria receive credit for one course per semester, reducing their teaching load to 2-2-1.

Junior faculty are encouraged to serve on graduate committees in mentoring roles, but this service should not be so intensive that it interferes with the faculty member's own teaching and research agenda. Junior faculty should limit graduate committee assignments as per MFHD graduate faculty guidelines. Junior faculty should only chair graduate committees in which the student's work is directly related to the faculty member's program of scholarship. When chairing their first student, new junior faculty are encouraged to co-chair with a senior faculty member.

Citizenship

All faculty are expected to behave in a manner consistent with the mission statement of the School of Family Life and the University. New faculty will not be given heavy administrative assignments until after they receive continuing status, nor will they be asked to chair committees. New faculty are expected to serve on and make contributions to departmental and university committees, but should be protected from inordinate amounts of work that would detract from their teaching and research agendas. Their service should demonstrate commitment to the program, school, college and university. Good citizens show respect for program staff and maintain good collegial relationships with other faculty members. Junior faculty should also be actively engaged in service to their field (i.e. journal article reviewing), but not to the extent that it impedes their own productivity. Outreach activities should be kept to a minimum, except in instances where faculty are producing scholarly work at levels well above the minimal research productivity criteria that are outlined above. Outreach should stem from the faculty member’s disciplinary line of scholarship.

3rd Year Review (Summary)

At the 3rd year review, the faculty member should demonstrate substantial progress toward meeting the expectations noted above. While numerous publications are not required to pass the third year review, faculty should show promise by having some published articles and/or chapters, with other articles and/or chapters under review and some in preparation (charting towards an average of at least one peer-reviewed publication per year). There should also be good indication that an independent research program is being established. Course load and content should be established, and teacher evaluations should be "very good" or better. The candidate should demonstrate willingness to serve on department committees and contribute to building and effective department, but should not be chairing chair major committees or be extensively involved in time-consuming committee assignments.

New junior faculty should carefully read the college and university policy statements on faculty rank and status (available in the electronic handbook.) At the third year review, an evaluation will be provided by the program, college, and university faculty rank and status committees.

Rank and Status Review

The same expectations noted for the 3rd year review hold true for the subsequent rank and status review, with the exception that much of the work in progress during the 3rd year review has come to fruition in terms of published or “in press” refereed publications. An external review will be a part of the evaluation process in addition to the within-university levels of review specified in the 3rd year.

Annual Review

Each year during the annual evaluation process the MFHD Program chair and the Productivity and Annual Review Committee (PAR) review progress toward meeting these expectations. Faculty mentors will also provide a short written summary, on an annual basis, of their involvement with the new faculty member (as per MFHD Program and University mentor guidelines). This will be shared with the MFHD Productivity and Annual Review Committee and with the MFHD Program chair. Strengths and weakness will be communicated to faculty members in writing.

Overload Teaching Policy for Junior Faculty

Overload classes for untenured junior faculty will be contingent on 1) the availability of a room, 2) the need for the course, 3) the faculty having a paper IN SUBMISSION at a professional journal at the time he/she is requesting an overload, 4) that the faculty member is "on schedule" in terms of publications (minimum 1 good peer-reviewed publication for each year at BYU), 5) a "very good" or better student and peer evaluation of day classes, and 6) the course doesn’t require a new preparation. Faculty teaching overload courses should understand that overloads are taxed at a higher rate than regular salary earnings, and that this mechanism for earning extra income is not a long-term economic solution. Despite overload teaching, productivity needs to be maintained for the good of the individual and the department in the annual merit allocation process and for establishing a national reputation.