Economics

Economics Department

Compensation Plan Criteria in Research, Teaching and Service

(Amended October 2008)

 

Faculty weights for the three areas of faculty accomplishment, teaching, research, and service, are negotiated between the faculty member and the department head according to guidelines established by the college. Faculty with a teaching load reduced below the norm (e.g., a six-hour teaching load to compensate for other assigned duties) will be allowed to negotiate these weights outside the normal college guidelines. Note that in such circumstances, there is a commensurately higher expectation of performance in the category for which the reduced teaching load was granted.

 

Faculty performance will be evaluated in the three areas of research, teaching and service, according to the following scale, recommended by the University Compensation Committee.

 

Rating

Performance Level

Performance Level Description

5

Exceptional

Performance/results consistently exceed competent levels. A high degree of proficiency is shown in most aspects of performance.

4

Commendable

Performance/results frequently exceed competent levels. A high degree of proficiency is shown in certain aspects of performance.

3

Competent

Performance/results are consistently at expected levels. Meets job requirements.

2

Development Needed

Some performance deficiencies exist. Performance Improvement Plan is to be established and improvement is required.

1

Unsatisfactory

Performance is consistently below acceptable levels. Performance Improvement Plan is to be established and immediate improvement is required.

 

Research

General Considerations:

A.     Faculty members may choose to count an article as a publication either when it is accepted or when it is published. However, any given article may only be counted once.

B.     Faculty granted a reduced (six-hour) teaching load for the purpose of conducting research will be expected to demonstrate productivity in excess of the standards described below to achieve ratings of 2, 3, 4 or 5.

 

Level 5 (Exceptional)

In order to obtain a performance rating of “exceptional” in research, a faculty member must, at a minimum, achieve at least one of the following outcomes.

 

1.      Two articles accepted for publication in peer-reviewed academic print or electronic journals indexed by Econlit or equivalent journals. Alternatively, one article accepted in a top tier journal. Articles accepted for publication in high-quality academic journals that are not peer reviewed or chapters in peer-reviewed academic books, published or in press, also count.

2.      A scholarly book published or in press (could be counted for multiple years).

3.      Editing a collection of readings, provided a contribution by the editor is included.

4.      Receipt of a major external research grant as a major contributor.  Large multiple year grants will be counted in this category in each year that grant money is received.

5.      Other documented activities that are deemed by the Faculty Evaluation Committee to be exceptional.

 

Level 4 (Commendable)

In order to obtain a performance rating of “commendable” in research, a faculty member must, at a minimum, achieve at least one of the outcomes in 1-3 or at least two of the remaining outcomes:

1.      One article accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed academic print or electronic journal

indexed by Econlit or equivalent journal. An article accepted for publication in a high quality academic journal that is not peer reviewed may also count in this category.

2.      A chapter authored in a published or in-press edited book that is editor selected.

3.      One presentation at a conference that is both prestigious and highly selective (e.g., American Economic Association, Econometric Society, etc.) with the expectation of future publication.  The faculty member will be responsible for making the case that the conference or convention falls into the prestigious, selective category.

4.      Receipt of an internal research grant/fellowship or a minor external research grant/fellowship.

5.      Receipt of a prize or award for a publication or an internal university or college research award.

6.      A presentation of original scholarly work at national or international conventions or conferences where the process is selective or invited, with the expectation of future publication.

7.      Multiple citations of the faculty member’s research in peer reviewed scholarly articles, textbooks, and popular press. Self citations will not count and only citations appearing in the current year or previous year (if not already counted) will be considered. The quality of the publication in which the citation appears will be taken into account. The Committee may at its discretion count this item as a level-3 activity.

8.      An article or report of a scholarly nature accepted for publication or published in a non-refereed periodical. Note that such publications may be evaluated as being of lower value than publications in outcome 1 above.

9.      Significant service on the editorial board of a professional journal. (Consideration will be given to the quality of the journal and responsibilities to the journal.)

10.  Major contributor to the submission of a major external research grant or fellowship.

11.   Other documented activities that are deemed by the FEC to be of equal value.

 

Level 3 (Competent)

In order to obtain a performance rating of “competent” in research, a faculty member must, at a minimum, document and achieve at least two of the following outcomes.

1.                  Presenting a scholarly paper at a regional, national or local meeting.

2.                  An application for a small grant or fellowship submitted for either external or internal funding.

3.                  An article manuscript either near completion or submitted for publication in a refereed journal.

4.                  A book manuscript either near completion or submitted for publication.

5.                  A book chapter near completion.

6.                  A major external grant application near completion.

7.                  Attendance at a research-related workshop, a grant-writing workshop, or a professional convention or other significant scholarly gathering.

8.                  Organizing a session, serving as a session chair (could be placed into service category) or discussing papers at a professional conference, convention or other significant scholarly gathering.

9.                  Receipt of a small internal grant or fellowship.

10.              Reviewing articles for professional, refereed journals.

11.              Completion of sabbatical leave, including submission to Department of a report on the leave .

12.              A book review in a refereed journal.

13.              Other documented activities that are deemed by the FEC to be of equal value.

 

Level 2 (Development Needed)

To achieve this rating, the faculty member would demonstrate a mostly inactive research agenda. This rating would be achieved by failing to meet the criteria for merit rating 3 above.

 

Level 1 (Unsatisfactory)

To achieve this rating, the faculty member would demonstrate a totally inactive research agenda. This rating would be achieved if the faculty member fails to meet the criteria for merit rating 3 for two consecutive years.

 

Teaching

General Considerations:

A.     Each faculty member will provide the FEC with a Teaching Area Portfolio listing activities and teaching area accomplishments. The portfolio must include a basic data set providing all relevant information on courses taught, including grade distributions, which course sections, if any, are technology driven (On-line, ITV, etc.).

B.     Each faculty member will also provide a brief summary of the faculty member’s teaching activities for the annual evaluation period. This summary report will provide the current year’s FEC an overall perspective as to what the faculty member accomplished or attempted to accomplish (work in progress) in the teaching area for the time period in question, and establish in part the basis of the assigned rating for teaching.

C.     As noted in Section 4.2.1.3 of the Faculty Handbook, “Student teaching evaluations can only be used for a maximum of 50% of the weight of evaluation in this area.”

D.     An important input into the evaluation of teaching will be peer evaluation.  Peer evaluation will include four items with each of the four areas assessed on a 4 point grading scale as follows: (1) Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, or (4) Needs Improvement.

 

1.                   Student recruitment as measured by the percentage of 155/165 students of faculty who later become majors or minors with majors weighted twice as much.

 

2.                   Grade distribution by type of course (principles, upper division, graduate) with both GPA and percent of A’s and B’s used.

 

3.                   A teaching portfolio and summary of teaching activities as described above.

 

4.                   Mandatory classroom visits every semester

 

o       Two people will visit, the department head and a randomly selected committee member.

o       The visit will be announced to faculty within a two to three week time frame for one class per semester.

o       Faculty who teach both upper division/graduate classes and principles will have one of each visited each year.

 

Level 5 (Exceptional)

To be considered for a 5 rating the faculty member would need at least two of the following outcomes.

1.      Student evaluations that lie within the following range: 1.00 to 1.6.

2.      Peer evaluations of Excellent in three categories or Excellent in two categories and Good in the other two.

3.      Teaching courses that impose heavy workloads and/or serve pressing Departmental needs or have consideration because they have lower evaluations because of student population. Specific examples of such courses would be ECO 490/690 (499), ECO/HCM 504, and ECO 610. Faculty members may argue for inclusion due to heavy workload based on total number of students taught, number of preparations, and large sections in principles, upper division, and graduate courses.  Heavy workloads may be counted as a lower level activity.

4.      Developing a new course.

5.      Participation in the London Program or other faculty exchange programs such as a Fulbright award.

6.      A refereed publication in the area of economic education (the faculty member may choose to list this under research).

7.      Publication of a textbook or having the text in press.

8.      Any other documented activities (e.g., significant advising activities, teaching innovations, etc.) that the FEC views as being of equal value. The faculty member is expected to make a case for the inclusion of such activities for Level 5 consideration.

 

Level 4 (Commendable)

To be considered for a 4 rating the faculty member would need at least two of the following outcomes.

1.      Student evaluations that lie within the following range: 1.61 to 1.95.

2.      Peer evaluations of Good in at least three categories.

3.      Presentations in teaching seminars/conferences on or off campus.

4.      Presentations at advising workshops.

5.      Obtaining a grant in the area of economic education.

6.      Receiving a teaching award.

7.      Attendance at teaching seminars/conferences off campus, followed by the dissemination of the information obtained at a workshop or seminar.

8.      Developing significant classroom experiments to support teaching effectiveness.

9.      Developing significant interdisciplinary course materials.

10.  Construction of on-line course materials.

11.  Any other documented activities that the FEC views as being of equal value. The faculty member is expected to make a case for the inclusion of such activities for Level 4 consideration.

 

Level 3 (Competent)

To be considered for a 3 rating the faculty member would need at least two of the following outcomes.

1.      Teaching evaluations that lie within the following range: 1.96 to 2.4.

2.      Peer evaluations of Fair in at least three categories.

3.      Attending teaching seminars/conferences on campus.

4.      Preparations to teach ITV and/or on-line course sections.

5.      Development and implementation of electronic materials in existing courses.

6.      Improving and up-dating course materials.

7.      Attending advising workshops.

8.      In-progress grant writing to develop teaching materials and lessons for economics courses,

9.      Guest lectures in classes on campus.

10.  Any other documented activities that the FEC views as being of equal value. The faculty member is expected to make a case for the inclusion of such activities for Level 3 consideration.

 

Level 2 (Development Needed)

The 2 rating indicates nonperformance in the teaching area. Evidence supporting a 2 rating would be a lack of commitment to undertake the above listed activity items. Evidence of negative performance (for example, a failure to meet office hours or poor advising habits) usually accompany the 2 rating.

 

Level 1 (Unsatisfactory)

The 1 rating indicates a sustained disengagement from teaching. Since performance would be consistently below acceptable levels it is presumed that the awarding of a 1 rating would most likely occur only after one or two 2 ratings had been awarded to the faculty member in question. Evidence supporting a 1 rating would be a sustained record of no significant achievements in the activities leading to ratings of 3, 4 and 5, including a persistent record of teaching evaluations near the bottom of the distribution. Clearly the deficiencies mentioned above in the 2 rating will also exist in the 1 rating.

 

Service

“Each full-time faculty member is expected to participate actively in the shared governance structure of the University by serving on departmental, college and university committees and by assuming an appropriate share of the requisite duties.” (FH 2.3.1.3) Service also includes providing expertise to professional organizations within the discipline as well as outside constituencies such as businesses, industries, schools, community organizations and colleagues in other university programs as they contribute both to the University’s public affairs and other missions and the faculty person’s development. The Economics Department at Missouri State expects faculty members to share Departmental work—chiefly by serving on committees at Department, College and University level, contributing to the economics discipline, and using their professional skills to serve one or more constituent groups of the community.

 

Faculty members should maintain a portfolio to document their service accomplishments. The portfolio will include descriptions of activities such as those listed below. The activity lists below are not intended to be exhaustive. If the faculty member feels that significant work has been done that is not clearly covered in the activity descriptions below, that faculty member can and should present his or her case to the FEC.

 

In all cases a faculty member must make a case for the level they believe they deserve. The list of activities provided below are typical of those that would be considered for each of the performance levels. However, large numbers of activities in lower categories may increase a faculty member’s overall ranking. To be considered at any of the top three levels, faculty members must satisfy criterion number 1 for level 3.

 

Level 5 (Exceptional Activities)

1.      Service as a major officer in a national or state professional organization and/or in a public sector agency.

2.      Serving as any Faculty Senate officer. e.g. Chairperson, Chairperson-Elect, etc.

3.      Principal contributor to a major accomplishment of the Department, the University, or the community, e.g., being the major organizer of a professional conference.

4.      Serving as chair or principal contributor of a major University or College committee.

5.      Service to another university as a consultant or as a member of an evaluation team

6.      Receipt of a community service award.

 

Level 4 (Commendable Activities)

1.      Significant contribution to Departmental, College, and/or University committees (it is the faculty member’s obligation to provide evidence of this contribution).

2.      Active member of major University or College committee.

3.      Making a significant contribution in a professional capacity in a community, state or regional activity.

4.      Service to another university as an external reviewer, such as for tenure and promotion decisions.

5.      Significant contributions on committees in other MSU departments or units.

6.      Organizing panels/workshops on topics of national, regional and/or local interest.

7.      Making presentations at panels, workshops, schools, community organizations.

8.      Advisor to a student organization.

9.      Providing professional expertise to national media including acceptance for publication of an article or book review in a major newspaper.

 

Level 3 (Competent Activities)

1.      Participation in Departmental, College and/or University committees appropriate to rank

2.      Participation in CHPA events (such as commencement, all-faculty college meetings, sponsored lectures, or symposia).

3.      Participation in professional organizations.

4.      Giving a presentation to a community organization.

5.      Active professional participation in and/or contribution to a campus or community organization or institution.

6.      Making a contribution that helps enhance the public affairs mission of the university.

7.      Attendance at meetings, conferences, or seminars related to faculty service activities.

8.      Developing ancillary course materials for publishers.

9.      Reviewing textbooks.

10.  Organization of a session at a regional, national, or international convention or conference.

11.  Unpaid professional consulting activities (must document nature and extent of activities).

12.  Providing professional expertise to local or statewide media including acceptance for publication of an article or book review in the local newspaper.

 

Level 2 (Development Needed)

A faculty member will receive a rating of 2 (development needed) if he/she fails to meet the criteria listed for rating 3 above. This ordinarily implies failure to serve competently on committees. Refusal to serve on departmental committees also moves the faculty member towards a 2 rating.

 

Level 1 (Unsatisfactory)

A faculty member will receive a rating of 1 (unsatisfactory) if he/she fails to meet the criteria listed for rating 3 above for two consecutive years and provides minimal evidence of service involvement.