Promotion Guidelines for Clinical Faculty

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
School of Public Service
Promotion Guidelines for Clinical Faculty
Date Approved: 09/17/21

Scope of Guidelines

These guidelines specify criteria and procedures for the School of Public Service. They govern the promotion procedures for Clinical Faculty. The SPS Guidelines for Clinical Faculty promotion are aligned with University Clinical Faculty Policies and Procedures (Policy 4490) and with University Policy 7000 (Position Definition for Clinical Faculty).

According to Boise State policy 4490, Clinical Faculty are

licensed or certified professionals whose primary responsibility involves teaching students in both academic and clinical settings, supervising clinical experiences, and engaging in professionally related community service. While they may, they are not required to participate in research or scholarship activities as part of their regular assignment. They may serve on select committees involving curriculum or program related issues. They are eligible for promotion but not tenure.

Promotion decisions should be clearly tied to Clinical Faculty workloads. Clinical Faculty workloads are determined by the SPS Faculty Directors, who track all SPS faculty workloads for the School, in consultation with the SPS Dean. Policy 4490 provides information about eligibility for promotion.

Criteria for Promotion to Associate Clinical Professor

According to University Policy 4490, “Associate Clinical Professor” denotes “a rank marking an individual who holds a terminal clinical/practical degree, as defined by the college. These Clinical Faculty members have a consistent track record of accomplishment as a clinical educator and demonstrated leadership in their department or discipline.”

University policy requires only that criteria for promotion to Associate Clinical Professor be developed by the college and approved by the Faculty Directors and Dean. Clinical faculty workloads are primarily dedicated to teaching and service, but may include some research or administrative effort when appropriate.

School of Public Service criteria for Clinical Faculty promotion embraces an expanded definition of teaching, delineated below:

Teaching

Clinical Faculty workloads reflect a heavy emphasis on teaching. Teaching in the School of Public Service is defined as traditional classroom instruction, online instruction, the direction of independent studies (undergraduate and graduate), the supervision of directed readings (undergraduate and graduate), the supervision of internships/field work (undergraduate and graduate), the overseeing/chairing of graduate student theses and dissertations, and serving on dissertation and thesis committees (see Appendix 1). As such, any credit-bearing course (either in a traditional classroom or a non-traditional classroom environment as listed above) constitutes teaching in the School of Public Service, though not all teaching counts towards one’s base workload (see SPS workload policy).

Criteria for Satisfactory Assessment in Teaching

Specific expectations for teaching in the School of Public Service pertain to teaching effectiveness and commitment to teaching. Clinical Faculty may show evidence of teaching effectiveness and commitment to teaching in the ways indicated below.

Teaching effectiveness may be demonstrated through the following:

A pattern of integrating applied student research projects (traditional research, experiential learning) to support course learning outcomes and the SPS mission
A pattern of mentoring students to prepare them for career and civic opportunities
Ability to scaffold experiential learning across aligned programs, drawing on evidence-based strategies
A pattern of positive official student evaluations, including quantitative scores and qualitative comments.
A pattern of positive alternative teaching evaluations, including those completed by peers, program leads, and Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) trained staff.
A pattern of meeting or exceeding expectations for teaching in annual evaluations.
A pattern of satisfactory assessments for teaching in Promotion Committee yearly evaluations.
Annual faculty reports indicating efforts to improve teaching effectiveness (e.g., through use of innovative teaching designs, learning activities or technology use).
Evidence of effective and/or innovative classroom and teaching tactics and strategies, including (but not limited to) syllabi, exams, assignments, etc.
Teaching awards or nominations.
Students’ ability to successfully complete a project (e.g. theses or community projects) that results in students graduating or in a community impact.
Other evidence of teaching effectiveness.

Commitment to teaching may be demonstrated through the following:

Flexibility in accepting teaching assignments.
Willingness to participate in collaborative course design and implementation
Willingness to integrate skills and applied learning in their courses
Continuing professional development (e.g., participation in teaching conferences and workshops, development of technology skills pertinent to teaching, etc.).
Academic and professional mentoring (e.g., graduate students, McNair Faculty Mentor, Student Research Program Mentor, etc.).
Self-assessment of teaching or a clearly defined plan to continually improve, through F180 self-assessments or other means.
Willingness to develop new courses and/or to refine existing courses for individual programs, school-wide offerings, and university general education that align with clinical priorities.
Demonstrated student engagement and participation in experiential learning program design, course delivery, and/or curriculum development

II. Scholarly, Creative, and Research Activity

According to University Policy 4490, candidates eligible for promotion to the position of Associate Clinical Professor do not need to have engaged in scholarship to be promoted. But research may be part of the Clinical Faculty’s workload in SPS. The School of Public Service (SPS) requires research success using an expanded definition of scholarship (see below). SPS includes a community of scholars who use varied modes of inquiry, communication, dissemination, and outreach. Successful candidates for promotion to Associate Clinical Professor may demonstrate achievements under the expanded definition of scholarship described below.

An Expanded Definition of Scholarship

The School of Public Service considers peer-reviewed research to be the foundational building block of a productive research career. When faculty members become recognizable experts whose work has been vetted by other experts in their fields, relevant public agencies are more likely to seek them out to help understand and solve pressing social problems. Clinical Faculty in SPS may be engaged in peer-reviewed research or in externally-funded research.

The School of Public Service also values, encourages, and rewards high-quality public and professional scholarship. The college subscribes to an expanded definition of Boyer scholarship based in part on Ernest L. Boyer’s (1990) work( Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), which articulates the value of both scholarship of discovery (i.e., peer-reviewed research), and engaged scholarship (i.e., public service research). The School also recognizes a third category, that of “professional” scholarship. These three categories of scholarship are defined below.

Categories of Scholarship Defined

Peer-reviewed research is work evaluated by scholars prior to publication or grant funding. The principal audience of this work consists of academics and policy experts (e.g., high ranking civil servants in federal, state, and international agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs)). Products typically include peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, grant proposals, and books (This may include scholarship of teaching and learning; see Appendix 2 for examples).

Public service scholarship is defined as work that has an intended audience outside of academia. The principal audience of this work includes civil servants, elected officials, citizens, NGOs, and other publicly-engaged officials. Such scholarship may include work with community organizations or governmental agencies to address community problems or deficiencies. Products of public service scholarship may include program or policy evaluations, opinion surveys, new administrative procedures, grant or contract proposals, or provision of technical assistance. Evaluation of public service scholarship may include impact on the agency and/or community, scope of the project, originality of design and methodology, generalizability of the results, connection to a broader literature and/or theoretical frame, and visibility gained for the researcher, program, and School. It is the candidate’s responsibility to provide documentation to support such assessments.

Professional scholarship is defined as work done that advances an individual’s profession. This typically involves the publication of textbooks (aimed at students), as well as books and book chapters that are not peer-reviewed. Other evidence of professional research may include grant proposals, encyclopedia entries, law review articles, editorial reviews or introductions, conference proceedings, book reviews, and conference presentations.

Across disciplines, there are often differing conventions and norms for different types of publications and scholarly activities. It is incumbent upon the faculty member to articulate why certain forms of scholarship matter, or are counted in particular ways, in their area of study.

Criteria for Satisfactory Assessment in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activity

The School of Public Service has specific standards for each of the categories of scholarship defined above. For peer-reviewed research, Clinical Faculty promotion committees may weigh the number of publications, the quality of the venue where the research is published, and/or the impact of the publication on the subfield/field. For public service and professional scholarship, promotion committees may weigh the number and quality of publications submitted to agencies; and/or the impact on policy-making, administrative practice, and/or the visibility of the work. They will also consider other metrics of social impact (see Appendix 3 for ways to consider and address scholarly, research, and creative impact and appendix 4 for information on how to report on funded research).

Research activity also includes internal and external funding, including funded and unfunded proposals and contracts. Promotion committees may weigh the number of proposals, the impact of the project, the amount of the award, the competitiveness of the funding partner, and the connection to the candidate’s scholarly identity. While unfunded proposals and contracts should be recognized for the time and effort it takes to make a long-term case for funding, funded proposals and contracts are more heavily weighted.

The School recognizes that there is no single model that faculty members follow in pursuit of their professional goals. It is expected that faculty members’ discipline, subfields, career stages, and professional interests will influence their research agenda.

Each faculty member’s combination of peer-reviewed, public service, and professional scholarship sits at different points on a continuum with no two combinations looking exactly alike. SPS Clinical Faculty will have different scholarly identities, strengths, and interests. It is the responsibility of the Clinical Faculty member in consultation with the Faculty Director(s) to clearly define their scholarly identity and how it translates through their work, impact, and contribution.

III. Service

Clinical Faculty usually have substantial service as a part of their workload. The School of Public Service recognizes three areas of service: professional service to the discipline, institutional service, and public or community engagement.

Criteria for Satisfactory Assessment in Service

Candidates may demonstrate a record of sustained, effective service and explain in their application for promotion how that service is related to University or School goals (see Appendix 5). Examples of service activities related to the three areas are as follows.

Institutional Service may include committee, student recruitment, and advising work done on the Program, School, and University levels. Such activities may include:

Serving on the SPS or University Curriculum Committee
Serving on experiential and/or applied learning committees at the program or school level
Overseeing experiential learning for aligned programs
Acting as the internship coordinator for aligned programs or for SPS broadly
Providing content and direction for marketing and communication strategies for SPS or their program on experiential, research, and applied activities that derive from aligned programmatic activities
Participating in Program Assessment Review
Serving on search committees for clinical faculty

Public or Community Outreach may include work that grows out of institutional programs and has the potential for positive effects on the community, the region, or beyond. Public or community outreach activities may include:

Holding appointed positions on boards, commissions, and advisory groups for community organizations that draw on expertise
Community engagement activities that involve the faculty member in partnerships with the community (e.g., jointly developed, financed, and administered projects that address issues of mutual concern and contribute to regional growth and development).
Consulting work or technical advice (paid or unpaid) that benefits the community, University, School, and/or the discipline.
Community outreach (e.g., discipline-related work in public education or awareness; referee work for community museums, galleries, publications, or competitions; discipline-related work with local schools; serving on local task forces or boards).
Media contributions and public communication that involve the candidate in sharing their expertise with reporters from television, podcasts, blogs, newspapers, radio, and other media outlets who use that information to educate their respective communities about public and civic issues.

Professional Service to the Discipline includes contributions to discipline-related organizations at the local, regional, national, and international levels. Such activities may include:

Holding office in a professional organization, organizing conferences or sessions, chairing sessions, and membership on a committee, task-force or board.
Editorial or referee activities undertaken in the context of work done by professional organizations or by other academic institutions (e.g., editing a professional journal; reviewing manuscripts; serving as external reviewer for promotion, tenure, or scholarship applications).
Serving as a team member on a program review (accreditation or certification).

IV. Administration

Candidates for promotion to Associate Clinical Professor may also serve in leadership positions within the School, depending on their workload agreements. Occupying administrative positions, such as those listed below, though not required for promotion to Associate Clinical Professor or Clinical Professor, strengthen the application. Clinical faculty are precluded by university policy from serving in administrative positions where they would be charged with evaluating tenure-line faculty, and therefore may not serve as Faculty Directors. They may serve in the School’s other leadership roles when appropriate. See the School of Public Service Leadership document for more information.

Procedure and Process for Promotion

Composition of the Mentoring Committee and Role
During their first year of hire, each Assistant Clinical Professor will be assigned a Mentoring Committee by the SPS Faculty Director(s). The Mentoring Committee for all clinical faculty should include, when possible, an Associate or Full Clinical Professor in SPS, a tenured SPS faculty member, and a third SPS faculty member (rank and line open).

The Mentoring Committee will fulfill two tasks: First, the committee will monitor the faculty member’s progress and provide advice and encouragement toward promotion. There are a variety of activities that the Mentoring Committee could engage in, including but not limited to:

Mentoring on how to identify and apply for external and internal funding from different sources, in accordance with the position description
Providing guidance on how to communicate the contribution and impact of their clinical activity
Making introductions to potential community partners and collaborators across campus or external to the university in our local, national, and global communities
Mentoring on how to conduct peer reviewed scholarship, public scholarship, and professional scholarship, when part of the faculty member’s workload
Sharing expertise on how to work with community partners and to manage partnerships
Sharing guidance on how to connect experiential and research areas when appropriate
Providing guidance on how to write promotion letters highlighting SPS and university policy
If research or administration is part of the faculty member’s workload, the mentoring committee may also provide guidance in those areas

Second, the Mentoring Committee will provide formal Progress Toward Promotion (PTP) annual reviews of the faculty member’s progress toward promotion beginning in their second year. These functions will happen both during in-person mentoring meetings and through the mechanism of the PTP review itself, which includes feedback from relevant faculty, as noted in the Procedure section below. Candidates should pay attention to Mentoring Committee feedback and annual reviews to indicate progress towards promotion, including what changes should be made, if any.

Review Materials

Faculty being reviewed will keep their electronic profile up to date (see below)—the system will be used to provide the Mentoring Committee with materials demonstrating teaching effectiveness and professional commitment to teaching (including teaching evaluations), service activities, scholarly/creative /research activities (when applicable), and administrative responsibilities (when applicable).

During their first year of hire, Clinical Faculty will be assigned Mentoring Committee folders in the Google Drive; these folders can be accessed by the faculty member, Mentoring Committee members, and Faculty Director(s). In general, the requested materials align with what the candidate will submit for promotion so as to create efficiencies and save time. These folders should include the following, organized by sub-folder, and as PDFs:

CV and position description (see Boise State policy 7000, section 2.2.1F)
A 3-4 page cover letter, double-spaced, that details the faculty member’s teaching profile, including their teaching philosophy and how their work has contributed to the School of Public Service and the community. Cover letters can be updated or removed at the discretion of the promotion-eligible faculty member.
Yearly evaluations from Faculty Director(s).
Previous Mentoring Committee letters
Faculty 180 self-evaluations
Student course evaluations. Appendix 1 addresses formatting of evaluations.
Additional evidence of teaching effectiveness and participation in service activities, and evidence of research and administrative responsibilities and accomplishments, when applicable. All documents may be kept in Google Drive from year to year, and updated as necessary.
Publications or grant funding (when applicable). These should be organized into sub-folders marked “peer-reviewed scholarship,” “professional scholarship,” “public service scholarship” and “funded research.” Appendix 4 provides guidance for how externally funded research may be formatted.
Letters of support from at least two colleagues holding clinical or tenure-track faculty appointments at the University (see university policy).

Mentoring Committee Letters

Progress Toward Promotion (PTP) reviews shall be both summative and formative in nature, and will review the faculty member’s accomplishments and future plans in relation to Boise State University Policy 4490 and 7000, the School of Public Service’s Promotion to Associate Clinical Faculty policy, and the faculty member’s individualized workload as guided by the electronic system for annual reviews.

The committee will prepare a substantive, thorough, and detailed assessment of progress toward promotion, including formative and summative assessments and feedback from other relevant faculty in SPS. This will be submitted to the faculty member, with a copy forwarded to the Faculty Director(s) for inclusion in the faculty member’s personnel file.

The Faculty Director(s) will review this assessment and the faculty member’s submitted materials, and provide feedback in writing before forwarding the materials to the Dean’s Office. The faculty member may attach a written response to this assessment, which shall also be placed in the personnel file if desired.

Mentoring Committee Chairs (assigned by the Faculty Directors) should place all Mentoring Committee letters in the Drive so that they are easily accessed by the Faculty Director(s), the promotion-eligible faculty member, and Mentoring Committee members. If weaknesses in the candidate’s profile are identified by the mentoring committee, the Faculty Director(s) shall assist the faculty member with developing and implementing a plan of improvement. The Faculty Director(s) are responsible for forwarding a copy of the PTP review (and any faculty member response) to the Dean’s office.

Procedure

Fall Semester: Mentoring committee has informal mentoring meeting with faculty member, and Faculty Director(s) work with Mentoring Committee, program leads, and faculty member to determine who “relevant” clinical faculty or tenure-eligible/tenured faculty (see below) for the PTP review process will be. Relevant faculty are selected from SPS, ideally from the disciplinary or thematic area of the faculty member. The list of relevant faculty for each promotion-eligible faculty will be stored in Google Drive and may change as faculty evolve. A Mentoring Committee member, a supervisor, or the faculty member may request changes to the relevant faculty list by contacting the Faculty Director(s). The Director(s) will approve or deny the request. Changes will be made in the best interests of the faculty member, the integrity of the promotion process, and based on conversations among all relevant parties. If the faculty member is prevented from making a desired change to the committee they have the right to send a written appeal detailing the issue to the Associate Dean.

Spring Semester: Sequential steps are taken to populate the faculty member’s Google Drive folder and complete relevant evaluative steps as outlined here:

Faculty member populates Google Drive with review materials.
Mentoring Committee reviews materials and drafts PTP review.
Mentoring Committee chair electronically circulates the faculty member’s 1) CV, 2) cover letter, and 3) the draft Mentoring Committee PTP review to all relevant faculty.
All relevant faculty meet and discuss the PTP review during the program’s annual PTP review meeting. If this meeting is the final meeting to be held before the school-wide tenure and/or promotion review, then a vote of all relevant faculty will occur.
Mentoring Committee incorporates feedback from all relevant faculty, including results from the vote (when relevant) and drafts final PTP review.
Mentoring Committee meets with faculty member to review the PTP review.
Mentoring Committee submits final PTP review to Faculty Director(s).
Faculty Director(s) write brief response to Mentoring Committee PTP review. The PTP review and Faculty Director response are then forwarded to the Dean’s office, which will manage the School-level tenure and/or promotion review process.

Promotion folder. Candidates for promotion should assemble a dossier for review by the SPS promotion committee that contains the materials outlined above; the Provost’s office also sends out guidance for the specific dossier to be submitted to their office.

Promotion committee. The SPS Promotion Committee for Clinical Faculty is composed of the existing Tenure and Promotion Committee for SPS, plus one Clinical Faculty member of at least associate clinical rank, and if possible, a Clinical Faculty from the applicant’s School/Department, or related field, when a Clinical Faculty is to be considered for promotion.

Timeline for Promotion to Associate Clinical Professor

The following guidelines are drawn from University Policy 4490 and SPS promotion procedures. According to University Policy 4490, “Maximum time in title does not apply to Clinical Faculty holding the titles of assistant clinical professor, associate clinical professor, or clinical professor.” There is a minimum time in title: for promotion from assistant clinical professor to associate clinical professor, five (5) years of full-time experience as a faculty member is required, though according to university policy years of prior experience may be applied:

At the time of initial appointment, the department chair or unit supervisor will make a written recommendation to the college dean regarding the application of experience at another academic institution and application of professional (nonacademic) experience toward the years of experience required for promotion; the dean is responsible for making the final determination. Professional (nonacademic) experience of two (2) years or more in the relevant discipline may be substituted for a maximum of two (2) years of the required total experience. University experience requirements are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for promotion.

Spring before promotion:

By April 1, candidate informs SPS Faculty Director(s) of plans to come up for promotion.
April-May. Faculty Director(s) reach out to the candidate and Mentoring Committee asking each to provide 2 names of associate or full clinical faculty or tenured associate or full professors (or equivalent) as possible internal letter writers.
By May 1, Faculty Director(s) identify at least two unbiased and highly qualified internal reviewers from the university and request letters from them evaluating the candidate’s research record. Reviewers will receive 1) the candidate’s CV with links to evidence of teaching success and, when appropriate, evidence of research success, 2) the School’s Promotion policy for Assistant Clinical Faculty, and 3) a letter from the candidate explaining their scholarly identity and impact. Letters are due at the start of the upcoming fall semester.

Fall of promotion:

By September 1: Candidate notifies Mentoring Committee Chair that promotion materials in the Google Drive are complete. Mentoring Committee Chair then notifies Mentoring Committee and relevant faculty that materials are ready for review.
October 1: After all relevant faculty meet to provide input, Mentoring Committee sends forward recommendation to the Faculty Director(s).
October 15: Faculty Director(s) will consult with relevant program leads, Center Directors, or others familiar with the clinical faculty’s work while conducting their own review. They will then forward the promotion materials, with their recommendation, to the SPS T&P committee.
December 1: Candidate notified of recommendation of School T&P committee. In the case of a recommendation to deny promotion, the candidate may request a meeting with the committee. The request must be made within five working days of the notification of denial and the meeting must occur within five working days of the request for a meeting.
December 15: Materials and recommendation forwarded to the Dean.
January 15: Dean notifies candidate of recommendation
January 31: Dean forwards recommendation to Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
March 1: President notifies candidate of decision. In the case of a decision to deny promotion, the candidate may request a meeting with the President. The request must be made within five (5) working days of the notification of denial and the meeting must occur within five (5) working days of the request for a meeting.

Appendix 1: Teaching Activities*

University Level	School Level	Program Level	Experiential
Foundational studies	SPS undergraduate core	Courses in program appointments	Skills learning workshops and courses
Venture college	SPS graduate methods sequence	Interdisciplinary teaching	Service learning
Guest lectures at Boise State (e.g., Osher Institute)	Guest lectures	Guest lectures	Capstones with community partners and projects
Guest lectures at other universities or colleges		Content and skills workshops	Study abroad
		PhD dissertation and thesis advising	Field schools
		Master’s thesis/final project advising
		Independent studies
* Illustrative but not exhaustive

Below is the format template for presenting teaching evaluation quantitative results. A copy of this excel template will be placed in each tenure eligible faculty member’s Google Drive folder.

Peer-Reviewed Research	Public Service Scholarship	Professional Scholarship
Journal articles (e.g. field, discipline, pedagogy)	White papers, policy briefs, issue memos, technical reports	Journal articles, not peer-reviewed (e.g. field, discipline, pedagogy)
Books	Books (i.e., trade books or books for popular audience)	Books, not peer-reviewed
Book chapters	Book chapters	Book chapters, not peer-reviewed
Edited books	Edited books	Edited books, not peer-reviewed
External funding: Funded or unfunded grants or contract proposals (e.g., NSF, DARPA, NEA, NIJ)	External funding: Funded or unfunded grant or contract proposal (e.g. city, state, federal, international contracts)	External funding: Funded or unfunded grant or contract proposals (e.g., professional organization grants)
Academic conference presentations	Academic or professional conference proceedings	Academic or professional conference proceedings
	Local, regional, state, national, or international conferences on public issues	Book reviews
	Online articles	Encyclopedia entries
	Surveys/polls
	Program or policy evaluations
	Technical assistance, instruction, or training
	Consulting
*Illustrative but not exhaustive; This typology can be fluid and work could exist across multiple forms (e.g., technical report on a program evaluation can subsequently be presented at an academic conference and later be published in a peer-reviewed journal).

Appendix 3

Ways to Demonstrate and Communicate the Impact of Peer-Reviewed Scholarship, Public Service Scholarship, and/or Professional Scholarship*

Cite impact or influence of the candidate’s scholarly work within their own disciplinary field through journal ranking, impact scores, and other metrics.
Ability to capture awarded grants and contracts whether via internal or external funding.
Show impact on advancing knowledge, new methodologies or significant changes to existing methods, public benefits of the research, and communication with and validation by peers (e.g., peer-reviewed articles).
Show public scholar identity through a substantial profile of media coverage in areas of expertise.
Document research and community engagement awards from academic, professional, government agency, and non-academic community.
Demonstrate candidate’s efforts have been sustained and transformative for a professional association, government agency, or non-academic community.
Evaluate one’s own public service research to include potential or actual impact on policies and practices.
Provide quantitative evidence (e.g., increased production or widespread adoption of a product or technique) and/or qualitative evidence (e.g., reviews by knowledgeable scholars/critics and expressions of benefit or value by stakeholders and community partners).
Describe evidence of candidate’s impact and/or contribution on clients, partners, or other collaborators (e.g., local or regional adoption of work, recommended best practices).
Demonstrate impact of work that helped create new businesses, jobs, promotions, or leadership opportunities.
Connect to teaching effectiveness in formats and settings outside the classroom, including the impact of learning on practice, application, and policy.
Connect to service effectiveness in formats and settings outside the classroom
Demonstrate impact of faculty member’s efforts to promote equity, inclusion, and diversity.
Describe mutually beneficial community-university partnerships that address critical community needs.
Document one’s contributions to large scale projects and grand challenges.
Explain how interdisciplinary approaches helped address societal problems and challenges.

*This list is illustrative but not exhaustive. It is adapted from the University of Georgia’s Guidelines for Appointment and Promotion for Public Service and Outreach Faculty and from Boise State’s Human-Environmental Systems T&P Guidelines.

Appendix 4: Funded Research

Funding Agency/Source	Project Title	Funding Amount	Award Status (Funded/Pending/Declined)	Project Role (e.g., PI, Senior Personnel, etc.)

Appendix 5: Service Activities*

Professional Service to the Discipline	Institutional Service: University	Institutional Service:	Institutional Service: Program	Public or Community Outreach
		School
Article/book reviews	Foundational Studies	SPS Research committee	Assessment and/or accreditation	Media events and coverage
Conference discussant/	Faculty Senate and related	SPS core evaluation committees	Curriculum development	Advisory boards and commissions
moderator/	sub-committees
panel organizer
Search committees	Search committees	Search committees	Search committees	Selection
				and/or search committees
Team member of a program review (accreditation or certification)	Internal Review Board	SPS Curriculum Committee	Internship	Blog posts
Student recruitment	Student recruitment	Student recruitment	Student recruitment	Student recruitment
Journal editor	University Curriculum Committee	Mentoring committees	Undergraduate student advising	Expert testimony
External reviewer for tenure and promotion			Graduate student advising	Guest lectures or invited talks/
				panels
Interests groups			Concurrent enrollment	Osher Institute teaching
*Illustrative but not exhaustive