Arts and Sciences Faculty Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, February 12, 2015
4:00 p.m.
Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. in the Brown-Alley Room, Weinstein Hall. Bill Ross moved approval of the Arts and Sciences Faculty Meeting minutes of January 20, 2015. Peter Smallwood seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve. Abigail Cheever moved approval of the February 3, 2015 Arts and Sciences Academic Council minutes. Stephanie Cobb seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.
Humanities Initiative Report
Dean Skerrett offered introductory remarks about the Humanities Initiative. In August of 2014, she asked the nominating committee to create a Humanities Initiative ad-hoc committee, chaired by Dr. Nicole Sackley. The committee submitted a report in December that has been distributed to the faculty and others in the university community. The Dean asked Nicole to report directly to the Arts and Sciences faculty and elicit feedback.
Nicole thanked the ad-hoc committee members and stated that the process was a result of collaborative thinking and internal discovery. The committee was intent on gathering ideas from numerous groups of faculty and students. During the fall semester, they visited 11 departments, organized various student focus groups and talked with a total of 149 faculty/administrators.
Nicole noted the
commitment and enthusiasm for the humanities from all those who were
interviewed. Goals and priorities emerged from these conversations. The key
questions that emerged focused around the need for visibility, identity, and
integration of the humanities throughout the departments. Nicole reviewed the
specific goals with the faculty and proceeded to describe how these goals are
transformed into programmatic ideas, such as a Biennial
Faculty Humanities Seminar, a collective of first-year
seminars and mentors in the humanities, an Undergraduate
Humanities Research Seminar, the development of relationships
between UR humanities faculty and community partners to deepen student learning
and to collaborate in the creation of new knowledge or projects with
partners, the creation of a space for a Humanities center and the creation of a
master narrative about the value of the humanities at the university.
Dean Skerrett then
asked Abigail Cheever to talk about the undergraduate humanities seminar. Cheever
reported that the seminar will combine summer research experiences with a fall
seminar of 10 students. She noted that a
summer research experience often provides little time to produce a presentation
or paper and the fall semester will allow a deeper research experience beyond
the summer experience and create an undergraduate research community. At this time, the 2015 seminar is full and
more applications were received than spaces available.
The Dean asked
Nicole to talk further about the biennial faculty seminar.
Nicole shared
that faculty have asked for time to create an intellectual exchange across
departments and to think about what it means to practice the humanities. She
would like to see faculty focus on a broad topic and then connect it to the
Richmond area, putting the humanities into practice.
Nicole then
asked for other questions and comments and reiterated the committee’s desire
for faculty input.
April Hill
highly complimented the work of the committee and noted that it something that
all faculty can aspire to going forward. Dan Palazzolo noted his pleasure with
the goals and how the committee connected the goals to the mission of the
university. Con Beausang described the
report as beautiful. He also noted that a physical space for the
humanities is missing and he hopes a space can be developed where ideas can
cross-fertilize with others in Arts and Sciences. Jesse Fillerup asked how the
proposal relates to the current general education plan. Nicole replied that there
have been conversations about general education reform, but also noted that two
general education reform plans have failed in the last ten years. This plan may
relate to general education, but Nicole expressed the desire to first build an
interdisciplinary community and then have further conversations about general
education. Peter Smallwood asked what that conversation might look like, but
Nicole emphasized that the general education conversation was not part of the
ad-hoc committee’s purview.
Dean Skerrett
thanked Nicole for her presentation. The committee will continue its work on
implementing specific goals and folding them into various departments. She reiterated that it is a very exciting
project with many possibilities.
University Faculty Council Report
University Faculty Council Report
Tze Loo
reported on the transition to the Faculty Senate. The UFC met this
past Monday and decided on the following timeline:
-
On
February 17—At the University Faculty Meeting, update on transition to the Senate and information on
expectations of Senators
-
By
April 15 – All schools complete elections for senators and send names to UFC
chair
-
By
May 4 – Newly elected group of senators: has Senate 101 meeting with UFC
subcommittee, elects officers, and decides classes; Information on officers and
classes is sent to UFC chair
-
On
May 11 – UFC announces senators and officers at UFM
-
On
May 11 – UFC announces senators and officers at UFM
-
On
June 15 – SENATE in operation, UFC dissolved
Career Services update
Ashleigh Brock
from Career Services reported to the faculty about summer fellowships and the
Richmond guarantee program. Their
current goals center around increased quality of alumni engagement, enhancing
career development with students, and building a database of student employment
that she hopes will be helpful to faculty.
Much of the data will come from the senior survey and Career Services
will need the faculty’s assistance with encouraging students to complete the
survey. Ashleigh also reminded the
faculty about the various funding options for research fellowships and
internships.
Jesse Fillerup
asked about the searchable database and how it will be interpreted. She asked what
stories will be shared with prospective or current students and suggested that
sharing the career choices of students could be a way to promote the
Humanities.
A&S Faculty Merit Guidelines
Dean Skerrett reminded
the faculty that there have been ongoing conversations about the Merit Review
Guidelines among faculty and the A&S Academic Council, especially since the
process is in the first cycle of the current revision.
Through the use of PowerPoint slides, Dean Skerrett outlined the goals of the current revision (2012) which include:
Through the use of PowerPoint slides, Dean Skerrett outlined the goals of the current revision (2012) which include:
-Reduce work
for faculty and Dept. Chairs
-Delimit
required materials for submission
-Clarify
rubric for 5-point evaluation scale
-Improve
transparency of decisions makers
-Clarify
connection between score and salary raise.
Now that
faculty and administrators have experience with the revised triennial review,
it has allowed time for further analysis. The Dean has received feedback that
the time-saving components are welcome, especially for department chairs and
the Dean’s office. She is proposing several slight revisions to the current
version and they include the following:
- Support Year
A evaluation in context of individual's momentum. Provide
flexibility to review the dossier without a written review.
- Report
dean's divergent scores, if any, to dept. chairs. Provide the
opportunity to address divergent scores between the chair and faculty member.
- Support opportunity
for directors to join department's triennial schedule review.
Several
faculty comments emerged on the proposed revisions. Nicole Sackley asked if the
cycle means the preceding three years. An example might be a book project that
is not published yet and that it might make a difference in Year A to have a
review.
Art
Charlesworth offered a revision to include the forward look, not just a
backward look. It would be focusing on promise of fruition and allow
further review.
Peter
Smallwood stated that he is more comfortable with the thinking about the review
in terms of the preceding cycle and the need to demonstrate momentum.
Stephanie Cobb
shared that she is uncomfortable with the language regarding the department
chair or dean "may"
review. She is concerned about the three-year implications and what
we are incentivizing. Dean Skerrett
noted that this revision is a compromise of the three-year review.
Dean Skerrett stated
that you will carry your Year A score in Years B and C and there will be an
adjustment of the notification of divergent scores.
The faculty
directors’ (33 positions) review will be tailored on their responsibilities and
they would have the option to opt into the 3-year review after five years. Dean
Skerrett does not think this is controversial, but the logistics could be
challenging. Bill Ross asked if the option would be voluntary and
the Dean affirmed that it would be. Directors can also opt for an
annual review and this would allow the faculty director to choose when to join.
Angie Hilliker
asked about the continuous phrase in relation to parental leave. Could we
indicate the choice of ten semesters, rather than continuous? The Dean agreed with that change.
Dean Skerrett
will work on revisions for Academic Council and then she will bring back the
proposal on March 18 for further faculty review and
approval. Revisions to the merit review are not required, but these revisions
may be helpful in addressing some current concerns.
Dean Skerrett also
offered a sample triennial schedule to demonstrate how faculty are rolling on
the cycle. There is an attempt to stagger the As and coordinate that with
sabbaticals. These schedules are sent to
department chairs and can be shared with faculty as well.
Con Beausang
noted that there is some concern that the three-year cycle does not fully
reflect scholarship that is underway. It might help to remove the preceding
cycle. The current evaluation provides discretion, but this option would make
it clearer. Additionally if you have
pop-up years, it will offset the benefit of a three-year review. This might also reduce the need to pop up for
an annual review and allow the discretion to forward into the future.
Dean Skerrett
thanked the faculty for their discussion and comments.
The meeting
adjourned at 5:19 p.m.
The next faculty meeting will be held on
March 18, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. in the Keller Hall Reception Room.
Respectfully
submitted,
Lucretia McCulley
