Economics Department P&T Guidelines

Department of Economics


The Department of Economics respects and remains in full compliance with the University Policies and Procedures for the Evaluation of Faculty for Tenure, Promotion, and Merit Increases. Initially, these were adopted by the PSU Faculty Senate on June 12, 1996 and amended on July 2009 to incorporate new guidelines for promotion with selected research ranks. The PSU Faculty Senate adopted these additions on June 8, 2009. All faculty members need to be familiar with this document.

This document seeks render department standards and procedures consistent with the overarching University Policies and Procedures for the Evaluation of Faculty for Tenure, Promotion, and Merit Increases, adopted by the PSU Faculty Senate June 12, 1996.

I.    Standards of Performance

All members of the Economics Department faculty are expected to meet a two-pronged performance standard for all areas of faculty responsibility. These include: research, teaching, community outreach and service. There can also be standards applicable to an individual faculty member’s chosen area of scholarly specialization.

A.    Standards of Performance Applicable to All Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty

Members of the Economics Department will be expected to meet at least the following minimum standards of performance in research, teaching, community outreach and service.

1)    Research: All members of the department are expected to be active members of the economics profession, as demonstrated by staying current in their field and attending conferences and on a regular basis.

2)    Teaching: All members of the Department are expected to maintain high standards in the performance of their teaching duties. Course materials should be continually updated to incorporate current material, and should be documentable in current syllabi. Office hours are to be faithfully observed. Each faculty member is responsible for maintaining a classroom climate that i to all members of the Portland State student body. This performance shall be demonstrated and verified through the collecting of student evaluation for every course taught. Evaluation should demonstrate the consistent pedagogical strengths of our faculty members. In addition, faculty will be expected to describe in written form their teaching philosophy and their ongoing efforts to improve their teaching. Finally, the Chair of the Department and the members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee should be able to claim, with evidence, that each faculty is a strong and effective teacher, and that each individual is contributing adequately to the Department's mission of offering an appropriate range of quality curricular offerings.
3)    Community Outreach: All faculty members are expected to be accessible to and willing to assist members of the press and the community.

4)    Service: All faculty members are expected to do their share of the work of the Department, which includes departmental committee work and advising. Tenured faculty will be expected to perform a greater share of the work of the Department than will the faculty on annual tenure.

B.    Standards of Performance Applicable in the Individual Faculty Member's Chosen Area of Scholarly Specialization

All members of the Economics Department are expected to select one of the areas of scholarly endeavor – research, teaching or community outreach – for specialization for a given review period. In their selected area faculty are expected to attain and document excellence as stated in section II of the University Policies and Procedures for the Evaluation of Faculty for Tenure, Promotion, and Merit Increases, adopted by the PSU Faculty Senate June 12, 1996, amended July 2009 to incorporate new guidelines for promotion with selected research ranks, adopted by PSU Faculty Senate June 8, 2009.

Within the area selected for scholarly specialization, individual faculty members are expected to produce an acceptable number and quality of peer-reviewed publications pertinent to their specialization. Faculty within the Department of Economics are expected to exceed AACSB guidelines for number of publications. 

II.    Guidelines for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure 

Candidates for tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor must demonstrate substantial and ongoing scholarly contributions to the discipline. Publication in refereed journals registers as the most important criterion for evaluating a candidate’s scholarly contributions. Both the evaluated quality and quantity of publications are deemed important for a comprehensive evaluation. With respect to quantity, candidates are expected to have at least four peer-reviewed journal publications within their first five years leading up to their application for promotion and tenure.  Assistant professors with a record of scholarship prior to their arrival at PSU must demonstrate continued scholarly productivity at this rate.

With respect to journal and publication quality, the following guidelines apply: 

1. The publications should be in ranked journals. Two preferred rankings for faculty and P&T committee members are: (i) the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) ranking; (ii) the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR). 

2. On average, ranked publications should score: (i) B or better according to the ABDC ranking; (ii) Q2 or better according to the SJR. Candidates may indicate their preferred set of rankings but the P&T committee is not required to prioritize those rankings.

3. There is an expectation that at least three of the publications are in either: (i) the "Economics" field of research (FoR) according to ABDC; or (ii) the "Economics, Econometrics and Finance" subject area according to SJR.

In addition, candidates are expected to demonstrate an effort to obtain grant monies to support their work in their area of scholarly specialization.

III.    Guidelines for Promotion to Full Professor 

The department will look for similar measures of quality and rate of scholarly output from candidates seeking promotion to the rank of “full professor” (as from candidates for promotion to associate professor). Furthermore, the cumulative body of work for candidates for promotion to the rank of full professor should demonstrate important and sustained contributions to scholarship at national/international levels as appropriate for their fields. 

IV.    Procedures for Documenting Individual Performance

A.    For the Purposes of Annual Review of Full-Time Faculty on Annual Tenure, Promotion and Tenure

All faculty members shall prepare a scholarship portfolio, which shall include their C.V., an eight to ten page individual profile described below, and appendices containing supporting documentation, such as syllabi, reprints of articles and copies of student evaluations.

The individual profile should be a reflective document discussing the faculty member's efforts in each of the areas of research, teaching, community outreach and service. This document should flesh out the faculty member's C.V. in a way that highlights the coherence, quality and significance of a faculty member's efforts in each area. Every faculty member should include at least one page describing their teaching philosophy.

A minimum of half of the faculty profile should be dedicated to the faculty member's scholarly agenda, which develops more fully the faculty member's progress in the area of scholarship in which they have chosen to specialize. This choice of specialization should be discussed with the Department Chair at the time of hiring, and may be re-focused at any point at which the faculty member would like to alter emphasis. Faculty members' scholarly agendas should fit
the mission of the department, but the mission of the department may not be defined narrowly in a way that would impinge upon the academic freedom of individual faculty.

B.    For the Purposes of Merit Raise Recommendations

When merit monies are available, all faculty members shall list their accomplishments in each of the four areas of research, teaching, community outreach and service for submission to the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Chair of the Department. A suggestive list of activities is appended to this document, for the aid of faculty members compiling their records.

No faculty member shall be eligible for a merit raise recommendation who fails to meet the minimum standard of performance specified in section I A of this document. In exceptional cases the Department Chair may temporarily waive this inclusive provision if consistent with department goals.

For the purposes of merit raise recommendations, the Economics Department will weight efforts in the four areas of faculty responsibility in the following way:

  • Scholarship    40%
  • Practice of Teaching    40%
  • Community Outreach and Service    20%
V.    For Evaluation

Evaluation of faculty records for the purposes of annual review, promotion, tenure and merit  shall be first by a faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee, elected by Economics Department faculty from among its tenured members, and, second, by the Chair of the Department. The Chair of the Department shall meet with each faculty member under review to discuss the written evaluation of the faculty member, before a final version of the written evaluation is forwarded to the Dean’s Office. Oral discussion of the review shall be a regular part of the review process in all cases, including those for which the written review is not forwarded to the Dean’s Office.

VI.    For Sanctions for Performance Below Minimal Standards

Faculty members whose performance in any area falls below the established minima shall not be eligible for merit pay for the years during which they did not meet minimum performance standards. Faculty members whose performance in any area does fall below the minimum acceptable performance standard shall meet quarterly with the Chair and with the Promotion and Tenure Committee to collegially develop strategies for improvement until minimum standards are met.
Appendix: Meritorious Activities

The following list is suggestive only. Faculty members can and should include other activities in their portfolios which they feel also deserve consideration. Where these activities are innovative, particularly in the emerging arena of the scholarship of community outreach, it is incumbent  upon the individual faculty member to explain how the quality of such efforts may be assessed.

I.    Scholarship in All Areas

A.    Publication, whether Printed or Electronic
  1. Books
  2. Articles in Refereed Journals
  3. Articles in Proceedings and non-Refereed Journals
  4. Chapters in books
  5. Book Reviews
B.    Grant Writing
  1. Grants Awarded
  2. Grants not awarded.
C.    Papers Presented
  1. Invited Talks
  2. Conference Paper
D.    Scholarly Service to the Profession
  1. Book Series Editor
  2. Journal Editor
  3. Conference Planner/Organizer
  4. Referee Articles
  5. Reviewing Grants

II.    The Practice of Teaching

A.    Classroom Teaching
  1. Student Evaluations
  2. Self-Assessment
  3. Peer Assessment
B.    Advising
  1. General Advising Above Usual Assignment
  2. Advising Student Organizations
 C.    Pedagogical Development
  1. Development of New Courses
  2. Major Revision of Current Courses
  3. Instructor-developed tools or techniques
  4. Development of inter-disciplinary programs
  5. Technological innovation in teaching
  6. Attendance at teaching workshops
  7. Peer or video assessment of teaching
D.    Mentorship
  1. Advising Theses
  2. Publishing with students
  3. Mentoring students and other faculty in research
  4. Encouraging independent publication or presentations by students
  5. Students who receive regional or national honors or scholarships
E.    Community-Based teaching
  1. Developing Internship Opportunities for Students
  2. Involving students in community projects
  3. Involvement in Capstone Courses

III.    Community Outreach

A.    Disseminating Knowledge
  1. Presentations to Community Organizations
  2. Interviews with the Press
  3. Publication about community issues, if not arena of scholarship
B.    Assisting in Efforts to Solve Community Problems
  1. Evaluating community programs
  2. Assessing economic impact of community institution or program
  3. Development of software or technique for community use
  4. Grant writing for community organization

IV.    Service

A.    To the Profession
  1. Committee work for professional organizations
  2. Holding Office in Professional Organizations
 B.    To the University
  1. University committee work
  2. Administrative positions
  3. Faculty Senate
  4. Publicity or Fund-raising for the University
C.    To the Department
  1. Department committee work above the normal load
  2. Publicity or Fund-raising for the Department
  3. Departmental Projects