AA 16 Standards of Academe and Tenure Guidelines (Library Services) - Nevada State College
graduation-cap-icon

AA 16 Standards of Academe and Tenure Guidelines (Library Services)

  • policy name:
    AA 16 Standards of Academe and Tenure Guidelines (Library Services)
  • owner:
    Office of the Provost
  • Contact:
    Sita Sales
  • category:
    Academic Affairs/Faculty
    All Policies
    Human Resources
  • Policy Id#:
    AA 16
  • Effective Date:
    01/01/2018
  • viewing/downloading options:
    Web - Formatted (this page)
    Download Policy

Library Standards of Academe

1. PHILOSOPHY

Overview

The goal of the establishment of Standards of Academe for librarians at Nevada State College is to provide clear expectations and guidelines for the equitable evaluation of all library faculty and successful achievement of tenure.

Librarianship

Library faculty are to be evaluated on the same performance areas as teaching faculty with the distinction of “librarianship” as the primary function for evaluation and assessment. Librarianship will be defined as the primary evaluation criteria for library faculty in lieu of teaching. Librarianship as an evaluation category is defined as the faculty member’s role and responsibilities within the library.

Annual Review

At each annual review, the faculty member and evaluator will develop annual goals for the calendar year. The annual goals will include specific goals for the faculty member to achieve in each of the three categories of librarianship, scholarship, and service.

At each annual review, the faculty member must provide a copy of the annual goals agreed upon at the previous year’s review and indicate which items from the plan were completed.

2. LIBRARIANSHIP

2.1 Overview

Faculty shall provide a narrative description of activities in their area of librarianship. This narrative will provide a context for the review of the individual’s professional effectiveness and should include evidence of projects and activities that benefited the library or college.

2.2 Rating Librarianship in the Annual Review Process

When rating librarianship, the evaluator will consider what was accomplished and how it was accomplished. In the Standards of Academe, what faculty accomplish is measured by evaluating progress toward meeting the goals set forth in the annual performance review and by completion of the responsibilities listed in the faculty member’s position description. How library faculty accomplish their work is evaluated using the Library Values. The Values prioritize library faculty, staff, and students working together as a team to creatively meet the needs of the campus community.

2.3 Library Values

Coachability. As exemplified by:

Collegiality. As exemplified by:

Communication. As exemplified by:

Campus Focus. As exemplified by:

Efficiency. As exemplified by:

Initiative. As exemplified by:

Leadership (as applicable). As exemplified by:

2.4 Annual Review Ratings

 Unsatisfactory

Satisfactory

Commendable

Excellent

3. SCHOLARSHIP

3.1 Overview

Evidence of productive scholarship can be supported by published records as well as other original work of a professional nature. However, scholarship does not operate on a yearly cycle, but is instead marked by projects that can take multiple years. Consequently, the tenure and promotion expectations for scholarship are more independent of the annual review ratings and focus on the cumulative accomplishments of the faculty member in terms of originality, quality, and quantity. External validation (peer-review) of one’s work resulting in a published product is required for promotion and tenure at NSC.

In annual reviews, evidence of scholarship in-progress (e.g., data collection, manuscripts under review, etc.) serves as an indicator of the faculty’s intent to complete the scholarship and/or creative activity. Statements of scholarship in-progress, supported by evidence, are required. Departmental evaluators are responsible for judging the quality of the faculty member’s scholarship. Quality can refer to the effect scholarship makes on advances in knowledge, the professional community, and especially, the enrichment of library practice. This concept of quality places more importance on the process and effect than on the quantity of products.

Tenure-track and tenured faculty shall provide a narrative description of their scholarly activities including how those activities have affected their practice of librarianship. This narrative will provide a context for the review of the individual’s scholarship.

3.2 Rating Scholarship in the Annual Review Process

To promote equality in ratings of scholarship performance, a unit of measure called Scholarly Effort (SE) will be utilized. One SE is equivalent to any significant scholarly contribution, such as an article in a recognized publication or a presentation with significant content.

4. SERVICE

4.1 Overview

Faculty members applying for tenure and promotion shall provide a brief narrative description of service activities. When evaluating faculty contributions in service, both the quantity and quality of service are important considerations. Quantity in the absence of quality is insufficient to earn high ratings in service. Faculty members are encouraged to submit relevant evidence (e.g., documents created, revisions or edits made) that reflect particular service contributions and may be asked to provide additional evidence of service contributions as requested by their supervisor during the review process.

4.2 Rating Service

 

Library Tenure Guidelines

Overview

The annual review criteria hold tenure-track faculty to very high standards of performance in librarianship, scholarship, and service. It is not the intent of the Marydean Martin Library to expect or require consistent “excellent” ratings on annual reviews in order to receive an overall “excellent” rating in any of the three areas when applying for tenure. Therefore, annual review ratings must be contextualized to represent expectations for unsatisfactory, satisfactory, commendable, and excellent ratings in the tenure and promotion application process. These ratings will be based on the cumulative performance of faculty members during the time leading up to the tenure and promotion review.

Librarianship and service operate on yearly cycles, so annual review ratings are used extensively in determining tenure and promotion ratings in these areas. However, scholarship does not operate on a yearly cycle, but is instead marked by projects that can take multiple years. Consequently, the tenure and promotion expectations for scholarship must be more independent of the annual review ratings and focus on the cumulative accomplishments of the faculty member in terms of both quality and quantity.

Third-Year Review

The purpose of the third-year review is to give faculty direction regarding their progress toward tenure by evaluating their cumulative performance after three years in rank. All untenured faculty on the tenure track will receive a letter from the Provost documenting their progress toward tenure at the end of their third year.

Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

As stated in the NSC Promotion and Tenure Policy, “all full time tenure-track faculty must apply for tenure no later than the beginning of their sixth academic year.” The Promotion and Tenure Policy details the guidelines for the application process, including the materials a candidate should submit and procedures for how those materials are reviewed. The process is a complex one, where several evaluators will consider numerous factors. However, as a general guideline, library faculty must meet these standards to be considered for promotion to Associate Professor:

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR TENURE: LIBRARIANSHIP

Faculty members applying for tenure and promotion shall provide a brief narrative description of excellence in librarianship. This narrative will provide a context for the review of the individual’s excellence in librarianship. This narrative is critical to provide justification or evidence of appeals to annual reviews that do not meet the requirements set forth in these standards. The evaluator has some latitude to make exceptions to the requirements in the case of unusual circumstances as presented in the narrative.

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR TENURE: SCHOLARSHIP

External validation (peer-review) of one’s work in a published product is required for promotion and tenure at NSC. For publications with multiple authors, faculty members should be able to justify their contribution. Tenure-seeking faculty members should plan out their scholarship agendas during their probationary period so they have time to complete the required expectations listed below. A consistent rating of satisfactory on a faculty member’s annual review is not equivalent to a rating of satisfactory on the tenure review.

The Library has set the following benchmarks for rating scholarship in the tenure review process. These benchmarks serve solely as a guide. Evaluators can be flexible in those cases where faculty members have undertaken exemplary forms of scholarship not listed here.

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR TENURE: SERVICE

Faculty members applying for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor shall provide a brief narrative of their service in the tenure application. This narrative contextualizes the list of accomplishments. The evaluators have some latitude to make exceptions to the requirements in the case of extreme circumstances as presented in the narrative.

Back to top
Get Info
Contact Us