Page Comparison

•  Bylaws
•  Policy Document
•  Procedures
•  Guidelines
•  Form

Mission of the School of Business

The faculty and stakeholders of the School of Business at SUNY Fredonia declare the following:

Our mission is to integrate excellence in instruction, relevant faculty scholarship, and proactive community service to prepare students from differing backgrounds to be successful, ethical, and globally aware business professionals. We accomplish this mission by:

• • Providing students with high quality educational opportunities by engaging them with faculty, local business, regional community, and university organizations.
  • Continuously improving a challenging curriculum through ongoing outcomes assessments.
  • Supporting scholarly, professional, and pedagogical research that sustains intellectual vitality and enriches student learning.
  • Providing collaborative research efforts with the more capable students so as to develop their latent talents and advance their career opportunities.
  • Providing the region, university, and broader professional community with the expertise that further strengthens the academic currency of the Faculty, and that adds value to these communities.

CONTENTS

PART ONE: Introduction

PART TWO: Administration

1. Department Structure
2. Department Meetings
3. Scheduling of Classes and Teaching Assignments
4. Advising
5. Department Objectives
6. Amendments to Department Handbook

PART THREE: Other Faculty Responsibilities

1. Faculty Mentor
2. Student Evaluation of Teaching
3. Faculty Vita Book
4. Office Hours
5. Timely Submission of Reports

PART FOUR: Faculty Evaluation Criteria and Procedures

Appendix 1: Peer Review Policy
Appendix 1: Hierarchy of Learning
Appendix 1: Application Outline for DSI Evaluation
Appendix 1: Academic and Professional Qualification Standards

PART ONE: Introduction

This Department Handbook establishes a structure for faculty governance within the Department of Department of Business Administration. The Handbook conforms to the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the State of New York and United University Professions, the Policies of the SUNY Board of Trustees, and the provisions of the Fredonia Handbook on Appointment, Reappointment and Promotion (HARP). In some cases this Department Handbook clarifies and refines the procedures set out in HARP.

Since governance must remain responsive to changing conditions within the Department, a process for Handbook revision is an integral part of this document. Both faculty and the chair shall have the power to initiate the revision process.

PART TWO: Administration

1. Department Structure:
   1. Chair:
      The chair of the Department is its unit head. The chair is designated in accordance with this handbook, appointed by the Dean, and facilitates the policies of the Department and the University.
   2. Associate Chair:
      The chair, in consultation with the faculty, may recommend to the Dean the appointment of an associate chair. The associate chair shall carry out such administrative tasks as are requested by the chair.
   3. Program Coordinator(s):
      The chair, in consultation with the faculty, may select such functional area coordinators as are deemed appropriate to aid in the effective administration of Department tasks. Coordinators shall serve at the pleasure of the chair with respect to term and duties.
   4. Personnel Committee:
      The function of the Department Personnel Committee (DPC) is to review full-time candidates for appointment, reappointment, continuing appointment, promotion, and discretionary salary increases (DSI/DSA); and make recommendations to the Department chair based on its review.
      1. The committee shall comply with the requirements of the Fredonia Handbook on Appointment, Reappointment and Promotion (HARP) concerning the committee’s composition, chair, review of materials, ballots, and recommendations.

      2. For any year, all members of the Department who hold continuing appointment, excluding the Department chair, will serve on the DPC. The Department chair will call the DPC’s first meeting within the first few weeks of the academic year, and indicate the calendar of deadline dates required for their recommendations. During this meeting, separate sub-committees and sub-committee chairs will be elected to address each of the following tasks (members may serve on multiple sub-committees):

         • Evaluation of a candidate’s application for continuing appointment or promotion.

         • Evaluation of a candidate’s application for reappointment.

         • Evaluation of DSI submission materials, and recommendations for distribution of these funds.

         • Evaluation of candidates for initial tenure-track appointment.

         The DPC members will complete their evaluations by applying the Faculty Evaluation Criteria and Procedures contained in Part Four of this Handbook.

      3. Following HARP, the subcommittees and chairs will solicit and gather ballots from the members of the DPC, and forward them to the Department chair with a summary cover letter.

      4. With respect to the Department’s search committees for initial appointments, at least some members of the sub-committee for this initial tenure-track appointment task should be on the specific search committee. The application materials of any final candidates will be available to the entire DPC. The sub-committee will form evaluations of the candidate’s academic qualifications and/or professional qualifications, and submit letters to the Department chair concerning these evaluations.

      5. The sub-committee that evaluates candidates for initial tenure-track appointment will also evaluate the credentials of candidates for visiting and adjunct positions. Concerning the evaluation of visitor and adjunct applicants, the opinions of all DPC members need not be solicited in order for this sub-committee to form recommendations to the Department’s chair.

      6. For DSI or promotion consideration, the specific tenured faculty under consideration will not participate in deliberations or recommendations concerning his/her application.

      7. With respect to any Department policy-change examinations and recommendations, various additional ad-hoc sub-committees may be formed at the request of the Department chair or other DPC members, and at any time during the academic year.

      8. If and when the Department’s chair disagrees with any expressed majority opinion of the DPC, the rationale for this disagreement will be communicated to the DPC either by letter or through a meeting with the DPC.

      9. Adjunct faculty members shall be reviewed by the Department chair in the manner specified in HARP.

2. Other Standing Committees:
   Annually, the Department chair shall present the makup of the following standing committees to the Department faculty for an endorsement by vote. The first meeting of each committee for the academic year shall be called by the Department chair.  Each committee shall then select a chair for the committee from among its members. Except for the DPC, the chair serves as an ex-officio, nonvoting member of all committees

   1. Curriculum Committee
      The function of the committee shall be to continuously review and update course offerings and ensure implementation of whatever revisions and updates in the curriculum have been established. This may take the form of aiding in the interpretation of existing policy or of formulating new policy recommendations for submission to the faculty.

   2. Admissions and Standards Committee
      The function of the committee shall be to provide the faculty and/or Department chair with policy recommendations on matters of:

      1. the propriety of proposed transfer courses;

      2. selecting student awardees;

      3. maintenance of articulation agreements with other schools

   3. Instructional Resources Committee
      The function of the committee shall be to advise the faculty and chair on matters related to non-personnel instructional resources such as, but not limited to, books and periodicals, equipment, and computer hardware and software. The committee shall also keep liaison with the University library.

   4. Assessment Committee
      The function of the committee shall be:

      1. recommend changes to learning goals as necessary;

      2. develop instruments to measure the students’ learning outcomes;

      3. determine the extent to which the learning goals have been achieved;

      4. recommend curricular changes to achieve the learning goals.

      To the extent possible, the committee membership shall reflect every one of the Department majors.

3. Ad-Hoc Committees:
   Such committees as are necessary may be formed by the chair to solicit faculty advice on policy matters.

4. Department Meetings:
   1. Department meetings shall be scheduled by the chair as needed in order to explore matters of policy that are in need of resolution. After consultation with the faculty, the chair shall set the agenda for faculty meetings and distribute the agenda no less than 72 hours before the meeting. However, a two-thirds vote by the faculty members present, given the existence of a quorum, is sufficient to add an item to the agenda.
   2. Individual faculty members may request that a matter be made an agenda item any time prior to the publication of the agenda. Such a timely request must be honored.
   3. Individual faculty members may request that the chair schedule a Department meeting. Such a request must be honored in a timely fashion.
   4. Roberts Rules of Order shall govern proceedings at all faculty meetings.
   5. Only full-time faculty members may vote at Department meetings. The Department chair is also a voting member.
   6. Quorum for Department meetings is 50% of the faculty members eligible to vote. The dean, chair, and proxy votes shall not be counted toward a quorum.
   7. Proxy votes are allowed provided written and signed proxies are provided.
   8. Electronic means of communication may be substituted by a faculty member for physical presence at Department meetings. Electronic presence shall count toward a quorum.
   9. The Department chair shall make provision for the taking minutes of the meetings.
   10. Guests may attend the meetings with the consent of the chair.
       
       
5. Scheduling of Classes and Teaching Assignments:
   1. Academic Year:
      Scheduling shall be carried out by the chair in consultation with the faculty. The chair shall determine the final schedule, balancing faculty desires with student needs, staffing limitations, the educational goals of the Department, and University Policies.
   2. Summer, J-Term, and Overload Assignments:
      Summer, J-Term, and academic year overload courses shall be assigned by the chair following the guidelines set by the University. The chair shall solicit volunteers for such assignments from the Department faculty through prior announcement of the proposed course(s). The final decision shall be made by the chair, reflecting University and Department needs and the match between course and faculty member.
      
      
6. Advising:
   Assignment of students to faculty members for the purpose of advisement shall be guided by the following criteria:
   1. Appropriate numbers of advisees shall be assigned to each faculty member with every effort toward making the advising load equitable.
   2. To the degree possible, within the constraint of criterion A, a faculty member shall be assigned advisees majoring in his/her own functional area.
      
      
7. Department Objectives:
   The chair shall prepare, in consultation with the faculty, a statement in writing of the short and long-term Department objectives. This statement shall be an agenda item at the first Department meeting of the academic year.
   
   
8. Amendments to Department Handbook
   Any faculty member or the chair may propose additions, deletions or changes to the Department Handbook by including such proposals as agenda items for a Department meeting. All such proposals must be formed in advance of the meeting and the language stated as part of the agenda. Approval of such proposals requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative.

PART THREE: Other Faculty Responsibilities

1. Faculty Mentor:
   The chair will appoint each first-year faculty member a senior faculty mentor who will advise him or her concerning Department and University policies.
2. Student Evaluation of Teaching:
   1. Student evaluation of teaching has a dual purpose:
      1. to provide a faculty member with feedback from the students on teaching technique, so the faculty member can assess and improve effectiveness; and,
      2. to provide information useful in reappointment, promotion, and continuing appointment decisions. 
   2. Near the end of each semester, before the final examination period, a student evaluation of teaching effectiveness shall be conducted for each course by the University.
3. Faculty Vita Book:
   1. A faculty vita book shall be maintained in the chair's office and be accessible to anyone who wishes to review it.
   2. The faculty vita book shall contain the most recent vita of each Department faculty member. Each faculty member bears complete responsibility for the content and timeliness of the material included under his name in the vita book.
   3. The chair shall ensure that the vita provided by each faculty member (with his or her permission) appears on the Department website.
4. Office Hours:
   Each faculty member shall post and maintain office hours that are in accordance with the University policy.
5. Timely Submission of Reports:
   1. Each faculty member shall file midterm and final grades by the deadlines established by the University’s registrar.
   2. Each faculty member shall annually update their professional accomplishments contained in the Digital Measures Database by the deadline established in the Academic Calendar. This data is the source for individual and Department annual reports.

PART FOUR: Faculty Evaluation Criteria and Procedures 

Introduction

This policy document establishes the guidelines and procedures that the Department of Business Administration will use for their recommendations concerning the allocation of Discretionary Salary Increases (DSI). It also indicates how the stated criteria should be considered for reappointment, and Promotion & Tenure. As such, the policies set forth a unified evaluation guide that should assist in faculty planning.

The criteria specified for meritorious suggest a minimum performance threshold expected for every Faculty member in each of the three evaluation areas of instruction, research and service. As such, all diligent faculty members should strive to reach or exceed this threshold in each of the three areas. In addition to specifying the minimum meritorious performance criteria, this policy document articulates a list of exemplary activities some of which the faculty should pursue depending upon the individual’s situation and interests. This list presents a guide for achieving a level of excellence that some faculty will reach or exceed.

The Department of Business Administration expects accomplishments in all three evaluation areas from every Faculty member. It is intended that at a minimum meritorious performance must be achieved or exceeded in each of the three evaluation areas (instruction, scholarship, and service) in order for the Faculty member to be considered for DSI. Failure to achieve meritorious performance in any one of these areas will likely result in denial of DSI no matter the level of achievement in the other areas. In addition, at a minimum it is expected that for promotion and/or tenure, meritorious performance must be achieved in all three evaluation areas over the multi-year evaluation period, and exceeded in all three evaluation areas for a majority of the evaluation years.

The criteria presented below apply to all faculty members in the Department. Nonetheless, recognizing the differences between the subjects instructed and researched, these criteria seek to allow for the differences in the difficulty of publication and also instruction. In addition, the lists of accomplishments and activities listed below are not exhaustive. Faculty members are invited to expand these lists, and to make their arguments for personal achievement by following the procedures enumerated below.

Since cooperation with this annual evaluation system is a professional requirement, it is expected that every Faculty member will follow the format and procedures indicated below and submit their materials for evaluation. Non-cooperation indicates non-meritorious performance.

1. Faculty Evaluations
   

   It is recognized that DSI and Promotion & Tenure decisions are ultimately the providence of the relevant administrators. The following evaluation criteria, however, are declared by the Department Faculty as being appropriate.

   To be eligible for DSI, the faculty member will be evaluated in each area by the Department Chair together with the Personnel Committee as elected by the Department’s full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty.[1] To be considered for DSI, faculty should achieve at least the minimum meritorious performance in each of the 3 evaluation areas of instruction, scholarship and service. A non-meritorious performance evaluation in any one of these three areas will likely result in a negative DSI recommendation for all three evaluation areas.

   For DSI purposes, the Chair and Personnel Committee will review the submitted materials and documentation for purposes of both evaluation of authenticity and the proper classification given the guidelines below. Although the Personnel Committee decides the classification of faculty performance, the peer-review of course portfolios, to the extent they are performed for the courses involved, will be given considerable weight for evaluation of instruction. These peer-reviews should be utilized as evidence that the appropriate hierarchy of learning is pursued, and that the course objectives are being met. (See the Peer Review Policy in Appendix 1.)

   For purposes of performance planning, faculty members are encouraged to seek the advice of the Department Chair prior to every evaluation year, which covers an academic year (Fall through Summer). This may be particularly important in resolving whether planned activities might lead to exemplary classifications.
   
   

   1. Meritorious Performance
      Meritorious performance in instruction requires all of the following: 
      • The faculty member is judged to have pursued the general and specific course objectives established by the Department Faculty as a whole as appropriate for the courses instructed.
      • The faculty member is judged to have pursued the appropriate hierarchy of learning as established by the Department Faculty as a whole as appropriate for the course instructed. (For a general guide, see Appendix 2.)
      • The faculty member is judged to have diligently attended to his/her courses, and is judged to have offered students an appropriate and professional level of out-of-class assistance.
      • The faculty member’s student evaluations are judged as being at least meritorious for the courses instructed. {It is recognized that student evaluations should differ according to the level of the course, whether it is a course for only students within a particular major, and also according to the designed content of the course. The Chair and Personnel Committee will consider these factors. In addition, to achieve some semblance of uniformity, student evaluations should be collected only during the last week of classes for each course.}
      Meritorious performance inintellectual contributions requires the following:
      • The faculty member maintains academic or professional qualification through intellectual contributions and other professional activities. Intellectual contributions may be cited by year of acceptance or year ofpublication, but not both. {See the attached School of Business Policy for Academic and Professional Qualification Classifications.}
      Meritorious performance inservice requires both of the following:
      • At least one professional service activity that is external to the University is performed annually. Examples include serving as discussant at an academic or professional meeting that is nationally or regionally recognized, serving as reviewer for a journal, serving as a member of a doctoral committee, or providing professional consultation and direction for an outside organization.
      • The faculty member has performed diligently and professionally on all appointed and elected Department, School of Business and/or University Committees. This is assumed to have occurred in the absence of evidence to the contrary presented to the Personnel Committee by the relevant committee chair.
        
        
   2. Exemplary Performance
      To be classified as exemplary in any one of the evaluation areas, the faculty member must be found to be at least meritorious in that area, and to have performed some of the activities listed below. The number required, and/or combination of activities required for this classification, are left to the discretion of the Chair and the recommendation of the Personnel Committee. In addition, the activities listed below do not exhaust the possibilities that might lead to a classification as exemplary. Faculty members are invited to submit reviews of activities that they believe warrant this classification. Although there is no set formula that automatically admits faculty to being judged as achieving the exemplary classification, faculty who achieve multiple combinations of the activity lists presented here are more likely to be so classified.
      
      Exemplary performance activities in instruction include the following:
      • The faculty member designed and instructed a course that is new to the curriculum.
      • The faculty member played a substantial role in design and development of a new curriculum for an option, or a substantial redesign of an existing curriculum for which he/she had significant course revisions.
      • The faculty member has more course preparations than the average for the Department.
      • The faculty member has significantly more students than the Department average.
      • The faculty member has significantly more advisees than the Department average.
      • The faculty member coauthored a research paper with a student that led to a professional/academic presentation or publication.
      • The faculty member receives a SUNY - Fredonia recognized award for outstanding performance in instruction.
      Exemplary performance activities in scholarship include the following:
      1. The faculty member published a refereed article in an exemplary journal during the evaluation year. An exemplary journal is defined as any academic double-blind-refereed research journal or prestigious nationally recognized professional journal. For DSI/DSA purposes, these intellectual contributions will be cited by year of publication, and not by year of acceptance. For continuation, or promotion and tenure consideration, however, the year of acceptance may also be cited.
      2. A faculty member may also cite journal publications that they consider to be in particularly distinguished journals, i.e. those that are recognized as being among the leading research journals in their business-subject areas. The Personnel Committee will consider these for particular recommendation to the Department Chair.
      3. The faculty member presented a presentation at an exemplary conference during the evaluation year or previous year.  These presentations are defined as being at the leading national double-blind peer-reviewed academic conferences, or the prestigious nationally recognized professional conferences, in business. The Personnel Committee and Department Chair will maintain a list of these nationally prestigious conferences.
      4. The faculty member won an award from a prestigious national level peer-reviewed conference or publication deemed worthy by the Personnel Committee.
      5. The faculty member authored a text published by a reputable nationally-recognized publisher during either the evaluation year or previous year, and that is adopted at another university.
      Exemplary performance activities in service include the following:
      • The faculty member demonstrates truly effective academic leadership in committee service to the Department or University.
      • The faculty member demonstrates truly effective leadership in professional service external to the University. Examples are serving as track chair for an annual regional organizational meeting or serving as officer in a regional organization.
      • The faculty member is elected, either during the evaluation year or previous year, to an upper-level office in a nationally recognized academic or professional organization. The organization must be germane to the instructor’s academic subject.
      • The faculty member is the editor of a reputable academic journal in the subject area of instruction.
      • The faculty member serves as University Senate Chair.
        
        

   3. Disposition of DSI Funds
      The criteria presented above are to be used as guidelines for DSI considerations. Faculty who are classified as at least meritorious in all three of the areas of instruction, scholarship and service will be considered eligible to share DSI funds. Faculty members who are classified as non-meritorious in one or more of these areas are unlikely to be considered for DSI for any classification area.

      Faculty who are classified as performing meritoriously in each evaluation area should receive equal portions of the DSI pool of funds. Faculty who perform exemplary activities in all three areas should receive a share of the DSI fund-pool that is at least 50% more than faculty classified as meritorious. For example, if all faculty members are classified as meritorious, then all will receive equal shares of the fund pool. If, however, one faculty member receives exemplary classification for each evaluation area, then he/she will receive at least 50% more of the pool than each other faculty member, 16.67% more for each evaluation area. If one faculty member receives a single classification as exemplary¸ along with two classifications as meritorious, then this faculty member will receive at least 16.67% more of the fund.

      Faculty may be recommended for more than the 50% increase for exemplary activities depending upon the quality of the activities as judged by Chair and Personnel Committee. For example, publication in more prestigious journals, or more prestigious service may result in recommendations for larger shares of the pool of funds

   4. Preparation of Materials for Annual Evaluations
      Faculty members are responsible for presenting the necessary objective evidence of performance. This material must be presented to the faculty’s Department chair by the deadline date. During the first week of the academic year, the Department Chair will communicate this deadline date to the Faculty.

      The materials required for these evaluations cover the academic year which ends each August. Annual evaluation materials must include a listing of courses instructed, course portfolios for each preparation instructed during the year, a full listing of all intellectual contributions and copies of each if not already on file in the Chair’s Office, and a listing of all service performed with brief text explanations of any distinguished leadership roles fulfilled. The form of the materials presented must follow the outline in the Appendix of this document.

   5. Equity Considerations
      DSI and equity adjustments are from the same annual pool of funds. The Department Chair will maintain the annual results of the AACSB Salary Survey. Faculty who wish to be considered for equity salary adjustments should refer to the difference between their salary and the average salary in their subject area as indicated by the Survey. They should also show evidence that their academic qualifications are sufficient to be considered for positions at other AACSB accredited universities. The Department Chair will consider this as relevant information in making their equity adjustment recommendations.

   6. Dissemination of DSI and Equity Recommendations and Appeals
      The Department Chair will disseminate his/her recommendations concerning DSI and equity adjustments to the Faculty as a whole. Faculty who wish to appeal will do so only via written argument concerning why they deserve more than initially recommended (not by oral argument). These written appeals must be presented to the administrators within one week of the original recommendation notification. The results of the appeal will also be disseminated to the Faculty prior to being forwarded to the Dean. It is recognized that faculty always have the right to appeal the Department recommendations to the Dean.

   7. Promotion and Tenure Considerations
      In consideration of promotion and tenure applications, the Personnel Committee should consider the above listed meritorious and exemplary activities. As a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a positive tenure recommendation, the Department expects a consistent record of classification of at least meritorious in instruction and service, and at least some achievement of exemplary activities in each. For intellectual contributions, the Department expects at least 3 refereed journal articles during the evaluation period in order for a positive tenure recommendation. The quality of journal articles and other publications will also be considered. In addition, the candidate must maintain academic or professional qualifications during the evaluation period. 

      For the Department to recommend promotion to Associate Professor, the Faculty member is expected to achieve a consistent level of at least meritorious in all three areas for each of the previous 5 academic years. In addition, the faculty member must maintain either academic or professional qualifications for the entire 5 year period. Also, the faculty member will achieve exemplary activities in each of the 3 evaluation areas for at least 3 of the 5 previous academic years, although not necessarily simultaneously in each of these 3 years.

      For recommendation for Full Professor, it is expected that the Faculty member must not only achieve a consistent record of exemplary activities in all three areas, but through accomplishment of the activities listed above, he/she must demonstrate substantial leadership in service as well as substantial accomplishment in research.

^{[1] Faculty on this Committee will be excused from consideration of his/her personal applications.}

^{[2] This requires, at a minimum, a consistent record of being classified as academically or professionally qualified in research.}

Appendix 1: Peer Review Policy 

Subject area peer-review committees will be appointed by the administrators. All courses taught on an A or B schedule (i.e. those offered every semester or every year) in each program will be reviewed at least every three years by the subject-area peer review committee. Courses on a C or D schedule (offered every other year or on occasion) will be reviewed at the discretion of administrators, chairs and subject-area peer review committee. 

Review of the following will comprise the peer review:

• Course portfolio, which should include
  • syllabus and course schedule (or list of topics to be covered)
  • exams and quizzes with a sample of completed and graded exams (include one A, one C and one F if available)
  • student projects
  • handouts
  • assignments
  • grade distribution
• Compiled results of student evaluations
• Compiled results of class visits:

The peer review committee should document results of their review and any recommendation/s for change. Follow-up review should address cooperation of instructor over time in following any recommendations made.

Checklist for Class Visitation

For each class visited, peers should answer the following questions, and provide those answers to the peer-review committee. At least one classroom visit should be conducted by at least one peer for each peer-reviewed course.

1. Can students hear classroom presentations clearly?
2. Are appropriate ancillaries used (board presentations or projections)? Are they clearly visible and properly explanatory?
3. Is the class content consistent with the objectives specified in the course syllabus?
4. Does the instructor answer student questions appropriately?

Appendix 2: Hierarchy of Learning for Business and Economics Curriculum

The “hierarchy of learning,” presented here is not the only educational hierarchy available as a pedagogical guide. The policy document presented below relies on, but does not copy, Bloom’s first three competencies: “knowledge, comprehension, and application.” The last competency listed, “synthesis,” replaces Bloom’s last three competencies: “analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.” 

The policy presented here indicates the appropriate competency for the specified level of course. It also specifies the types of skill abilities we should expect from students in demonstrating knowledge. Keep in mind that this is only a pedagogical guide for curriculum design.

Lower Competency: Knowledge

This requires the recollection of information such as dates, events, and places, and also the identification of, and explanation of, significant ideas.

Appropriate Course Level: 100 and 200 level.

Student skill demonstration: The student should be able to list, define, tell, describe, identify, show, label, collect, examine, tabulate, quote, or name. Brief analyses may also be appropriate.

Appropriate evaluation method: Objective exam or brief-answer essays are appropriate.

Middle Competency: Comprehension

This requires the understanding of the implications of given information through the comparison of facts. It also requires the inference of causation and the prediction of consequences through elementary analytical models and methods. This comprehension should in part rely upon material from previous courses.

Appropriate course level: 300 level.

Student skill demonstration: The student should be able to distinguish, describe, interpret, and contrast the relevant facts from irrelevant facts as presented in a narrow, stylized question. After a brief reinforcement (review) of the lower-level material presented in introductory accounting, economics, mathematics, statistics and communication courses, the student should be able to apply this review material in combination with new course material for new problem solution. These new problem solutions should rely on the prediction of consequences of alternative actions by using elementary decision models and methods.

Appropriate evaluation method: Brief essays and brief mathematical solutions are appropriate. Some short analytical projects and case analyses may be appropriate.

Higher Competency: Analysis Application

 This requires the application of more advanced decision models and analytical methods to realistic problems in business and economics. This advanced application should rely upon appropriately reinforced material from 200 and 300 level courses. The solutions should be somewhat directed through narrow presentations of the problems posed.

Appropriate course level: 400 level.

Student skill demonstration: The student should be able to apply more advanced decision models and analytical methods to real world problems in business and economics.

Appropriate evaluation method: Brief and extended essays, and more extended mathematical solutions are appropriate. Analytical projects and lengthier case analyses may be appropriate.

Highest Competency: Synthesis

This requires the application of advanced decision models and analytical methods to realistic problems in business and economics, but in a less directed setting than in the “analysis application” competency reviewed above. This advanced generalization should rely upon all of the previous curriculum with little reinforcement of lower-level material.

Appropriate course level: 400 level capstone courses.

Student skill demonstration: The average student should struggle to answer and appropriately communicate solutions to realistic problems in business and economics.

Appropriate evaluation method: Analytical projects, papers, and lengthier case analyses are appropriate. Oral and/or written communication must be required for outcomes assessment.

Appendix 3: Application Outline for Annual DSI Evaluation (see below)

Appendix 4:  Academic and Professional Qualification Standards

The Faculty and Administrators of the School of Business recognize that appropriate academic degrees, intellectual contributions, and professional experience where relevant, are necessary evidence of faculty currency in the area of instructional discipline. To that end, the following academic classification and requirements are declared.

Academically Qualified

Faculty members who have held their doctoral degrees for five or more years and who meet both of the following criteria are classified as “academically qualified:”

• The faculty member holds an appropriate doctoral degree in the relevant instructional area, or in a closely allied area with graduate course work in the instructional area.[1]
• The faculty member has at least five intellectual contributions or intellectual development activities in the last five years, at least two of which are refereed academic journal publications. These contributions may be discipline-based research, contributions to practice, or learning and pedagogical as long as they are relevant to the instructional area. The other contributions may be
• refereed academic journal contributions,
• professional journal publications,
• peer-reviewed academic or professional conference presentations,
• substantial editorial responsibilities of either an academic or professional journal that is generally recognized by either the academic or professional community (each edition counts as a contribution),
• editorial responsibility for an academic conference proceedings,
• graduate course work in the subject area of instruction or closely related area, and at an AACSB-Accredited institution,
• text and scholarly book contributions of reputable publishers,
• book reviews and case studies published in refereed academic journals.
• A dissertation is considered an intellectual contribution provided it is completed within the five-year time period.

 Faculty who completed their doctoral degree within the past five years will count their dissertation as a contribution, and must have an additional contribution by the end of the second year after their degree. By the end of their fifth year, they must complete four contributions in addition to their dissertation, at least one of which must be a refereed academic journal article or equivalent.

ABD faculty will be considered academically qualified for three years after the completion of their comprehensive-qualifying exams. Upon completion of the doctoral degree, they will be classified as academically qualified subject to the requirements listed above.

Professionally Qualified – Full-Time Faculty

Faculty who were professionally engaged at the point of hire prior to academic employment, may be classified as professionally qualified provided they meet all of the following criteria:

• The faculty member holds at least a master’s degree in the relevant subject area or a closely allied area with graduate course work in the subject area.
• The faculty member holds and maintains the professional certifications relevant to the subject area. This is relevant for those subject areas for which professional certifications are the norm, such as accounting or law.
• For faculty engaged for five years or more, then over the previous five-year period, the faculty member has at least five intellectual-development contributions over the previous five years. These contributions may be of an applied/professional nature, or instructional nature, or be peer-reviewed academic journal publications or peer-reviewed academic conference presentations. They may also consist of graduate course work at an AACSB Accredited institution, provided the courses are related to the instructional area. Possible contributions may also consist of presentations at regional professional meetings, consulting reports that are available for public review, or other documented professionally related activities that indicate objective professional development relevant to the instructor area. Faculty engaged for fewer than five years will maintain an average of at least one professional contribution per year.

Professionally Qualified – Part-Time Adjunct Faculty

Part-time adjunct faculty members are those engaged for fewer than 9 credit hours per semester.  They may be classified as professionally qualified, provided they meet all of the following criteria:

• The faculty member has at least a master’s degree in the subject area of instruction or in a closely allied subject area.
• The faculty member is professionally employed at the point of hire, and has at least three years of substantive professional experience prior to being engaged as a part-time instructor.
• The faculty member maintains professional employment while being engaged as a part-time instructor.
• If applicable to the subject area, the faculty member maintains professional certifications relevant to her or his instructional area (such as CPA or CMA certifications or Bar Association membership). 

Engagement of Qualified Faculty

Only faculty who are judged as either academically or professionally qualified will be engaged for either full-time or adjunct positions in the School of Business. The Annual Faculty Evaluation Policy specifies that only faculty members who are judged academically or professionally qualified are eligible for positive Department recommendations for continuing appointment, or to be promoted to Associate Professor. Only academically qualified faculty are eligible for positive Department recommendations for promotion to Full Professor. 

^{[1] The JD is appropriate for instruction in business-law-related courses. A master’s degree in law, however, is appropriate for more advanced subjects such as tax.}