Arts and Sciences Faculty Meeting
Minutes
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 actions 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 A&S 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 Sackley
to report directly to the Arts and Sciences faculty and elicit feedback.
Nicole Sackley 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 Sackley 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 Sackley
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 common
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
Sackley to talk further about the biennial faculty seminar.
Nicole Sackley 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 Sackley 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 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 Sackley 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 Sackley 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 Sackley emphasized that the general
education conversation was not part of the ad-hoc committee’s purview.
Dean Skerrett thanked Nicole
Sackley for her presentation. The committee will continue its work on
implementing specific. She reiterated that it is a very exciting
project with many opportunities.
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. The 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.
Through the use of PowerPoint slides, Dean Skerrett reiterated the goals of the
2012 revision:
-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 three years experience with the 2012 guidelines, there is
time to revisit or make improvements. The Dean has received feedback that the
time-saving elements are welcome, especially for department chairs. 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.
- 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 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.
The faculty directors’
reviews will be tailored to their individual responsibilities and they could
opt into the triennial schedule after five years service. 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.
Dean Skerrett also offered
a sample triennial schedule to demonstrate how faculty are rolling on the
cycle. There is an attempt to stagger “A” years in a department and to
coordinate 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 triennial schedule does not fully reflect
scholarship that is underway. 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. Dean Skerrett will work on revisions
to the proposal 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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment