Guidelines and Procedures | College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Established: January 10, 2011
Last updated: February 11, 2025

This information is intended to address predicted absences for professional reasons. If a faculty member has a short-term absence due to illness or another unpredicted situation, it is best practice to inform the department head. Faculty members who will be absent from campus during the regular academic year for professional reasons must obtain permission in advance for such activities. The level of authorization required for such absences depends on the length of the absence.

Faculty on sabbatical or official paid or unpaid leaves do not require separate authorization. 

As a general guideline, a faculty member is absent from campus if they will miss a teaching assignment or other assigned duty that requires their physical presence on campus; or if they travel to a location distant from campus. 

For planned absences of up to 10 business days, the faculty member must secure the approval of the department head in advance of the absence. The department head should notify the Dean's Office of this absence (a brief email notification is sufficient). Note, faculty travel requires preauthorization through the Concur Travel and Expense Management system.
For planned absences of more than 10 business days, the faculty member must adhere to the University’s Policy of Modified Duties for Faculty Due to Life Events. The policy and accompanying procedures are available via the University’s Policy website.

These policies represent an implementation of the memo dated July 13, 2015 from the Provost's Office, pursuant to Article XIII.L.5.b of the University By-Laws:

No member of the professional staff shall be absent from his/her duties at the University except by permission of the department head. Short leaves to cover emergency situations may be granted by the department head, who will make such arrangements as are feasible to re-assign the absent staff member's work. In each such case, the department head will file a record of the matter with the dean. No such emergency leave shall be granted for a longer period than ten days without previous permission of the president for those units which report to the president or by the provost or the appropriate vice president.

Established: December 17, 2024

Clinical, In-Residence, and Extension (CIRE) faculty are vital contributors to the mission of the University, College, and academic units. Their excellence in clinical and academic teaching, advising, research, and service contributes to the success of all units. Clear and respectful governance practices can help advance equity, inclusion, and opportunity among all faculty members. Together, we are responsible for creating and supporting practices that advance our academic work, build more just and collegial unit governance and climate, and support the consistency of these practices across units.

Below you will find guidance generated through a CIRE working group in collaboration with CLAS.

Governance

A unit’s full-time faculty consists of all faculty with appointments within the unit, including tenure-line and CIRE faculty. CIRE faculty are ideally expected to vote on departmental affairs on par with tenured and tenure-track faculty, and such voting rights should be stipulated in unit by-laws. Appropriate considerations regarding graduate faculty status should follow governance documents. CIRE faculty have the agency to contribute to shaping governance documents.
Any unit committee, ad-hoc, or elected structure that makes decisions that impact CIRE faculty should ideally include CIRE representation with voting rights, subject to faculty availability.
Units should develop community norms/climate/professional expectations statements that explain principles and practices of parity of CIRE faculty with tenure-line faculty in terms of unit governance.

Promotion Process, Merit, and Workload, Including Metrics of Evaluation

Units should have clear criteria for re-appointment and promotion of their CIRE faculty specifically and should communicate those expectations, both in the unit’s governance documents, and to individual faculty through contractual letters and annual performance meetings.
Units should develop merit and workload expectations for CIRE faculty that reflect the responsibilities of their appointments and role in the unit, and that advance the need for equity in relationship to tenure-line faculty.
Unit processes of scheduling and course allocation should advance equity and, while attending to the specific expectations of the individual faculty appointment, acknowledge the need for CIRE faculty opportunities to develop and support the wider curriculum.
Since service is expected from faculty, units are encouraged to develop a guideline on service that sets general expectations for type and amount of service for faculty of different ranks and of different appointment types.

Professional Development and Leadership Opportunities

CIRE faculty may hold administrative roles within units, the College, and University that match their skills and experience.
Mentoring committees within units should include a structure that supports the career progression of CIRE faculty.
CIRE faculty should be encouraged to pursue professional development opportunities that complement their role and advance their career progression. Such opportunities count towards their reappointment, promotion, and evidence of teaching excellence and professional growth.
Unit leadership should work to enable CIRE faculty success, attending with intention to meet the challenges that come with campus location, funding, and constraints of course delivery. Units should seek parity across appointment types in departmental-level resources for professional development.

Workplace Culture

Unit faculty meetings and committee meetings should respect CIRE participation and contributions.
CIRE faculty should be invited to present their teaching innovations and/or research at unit brown bags or symposia, and should be permitted to invite outside speakers addressing their academic or pedagogical interests.
CIRE faculty accomplishments should be promoted through unit communications, including newsletters, listservs, and reports external to the unit (to the College or University, donors, and alumni) on par with tenure line faculty.
Unit leadership should submit appropriate CIRE faculty for award consideration for opportunities within the College and University.

Research Appointments

All members of the faculty should have a role in unit discussions that relate to the conditions of their appointment. Research faculty should consult with their Department Head or Director to discuss the parameters of their inclusion, acknowledging the terms of the individual’s appointment and responsibilities, and adhering to unit bylaws.

Established: October 15, 2014
Last updated: February 12, 2020

Bridge funding is specifically targeted for maintaining critical elements of productive, externally funded research programs when they are faced with a hiatus in funding. Bridge funding is intended to fulfill a short-term gap until other pending funding is received. It is not a mechanism intended for PIs seeking funds to pilot new studies.

Eligibility and criteria for access to CLAS bridge funds

The PI must demonstrate a history of grant support and continuing grant writing/submitting activity.
The PI must provide milestones for when they will submit (or resubmit) proposals for extramural funding.
The PI should describe in detail how the bridge funds will be used to supplement their use of any other non-restricted funds under the control of the PI. In general, bridge funding is intended to enable the retention of key personnel such as postdocs and technicians and the maintenance of key resources such as animal care.
PI salary is explicitly excluded from this program.
Bridge funding is typically limited to one year and must, in any case, be re-applied for annually.

Process

Applicants first should approach their department head and the director of any relevant center or institute to obtain their support and a combined commitment of at least 1/3 of the funds needed, beyond those that will be provided by the PI.
The department head should send the funding request to the associate dean for research and graduate affairs. The request should outline the faculty member’s funding history, the needs that will be met by bridge funding, and the resources to be provided by the faculty member and department (and any applicable centers of institutes), as well as the timetable for securing renewed external funding.
Upon successful review by the Dean's office, the College will match the department/institute contribution up to 1/3 of the necessary funds.
The Dean's Office will seek an additional 1/3 match from the vice president for research.

Note: This 1/3-1/3-1/3 schedule, while typical, may change in some situations.

Established: February 3, 2022
Revised: March 18, 2025

Centers and Institutes are reviewed on a schedule required by the Board of Trustees. This typically occurs every five years and is accomplished through a self-study. The goal of the review is to provide the unit with an opportunity to articulate its progress toward existing goals and consider directions for the future, while affording the CLAS review committee the relevant information needed for assessment.

Self-Study

The self-study is a vital component of the assessment of the performance and vision of the center/institute. This review should focus on strengths, weaknesses, and strategies for change and/or improvements and enhancement of quality. The self-study document should contain the following information.

Overview:
- Name of the center/institute.
- Name of center/institute director, and if relevant, their faculty rank and departmental appointment.
- Budget (include sources and amount of funds, including foundation and other accounts).
- List of staff members and their responsibilities, include whether they are part-time or full-time with the center/institute.
- Participating faculty (include name, rank and departmental appointment. Please indicate faculty status whether a “core” or “affiliate” of the center/institute).
Center/Institute Mission and Goals:
- Provide a brief overview of the center/institute mission and goals. If the mission has changed in the past 5 years, please explain how and why it has changed.
- Indicate how the mission/goals are aligned with University and College goals and priorities.Describe the center/institute operations, including its academic programs (if relevant), composition and meetings of advisory boards, core and affiliated faculty engagement, and other activities.
- Indicate how the center/institute impacts associated faculty and students. Delineate the metrics used by the center/institute to determine progress and success during the past 5 years (or since the last review if a different interval).
- Interpret the defined metrics to assess the effectiveness of the center/institute in meeting its mission and goals.
- Indicate how center/institute activities represent unique contributions independent of disciplinary or typical interdisciplinary activities performed by departments.
Scholarly productivity and broader impact (in the past five years or since last review):
- Publications relevant to the mission of the unit: Please attach a bibliography of articles, books, and other relevant forms of publication, cited in a standard format used in your discipline. For each, identify whether they emanate from the teaching, research, and/or outreach mission of the center/institute. Do not include unpublished work or work in preparation.
- Engaged scholarship: Provide information on projects involving community partners (industry, government, and non-profit). List names of partners.
- Other creative contributions: Please include any patents received, exhibitions and performances, etc. If available, provide information on their impact.
- Contributions to the university’s reputation: Please list any conferences/workshops hosted, keynote addresses delivered, invited presentations, and service on state or federal panels. For each of these, include responsibilities of the center/institute and number of attendees.
- External funding: In a tabulated form, provide a listing of all external funding from state, federal, foundation, or other sources. Indicate the agency name, project title, duration, total funding, and direct cost (if different from total cost). Please indicate whether the grant was seeded by center/institute funds and/or activities, or seeded by funds from CLAS provided directly to the faculty, and whether the work will be conducted using center/institute resources.
- Visiting scholars: Please provide a list of all visiting scholars and post-docs who worked at the center/institute, with the start and end dates of association with the center/institute.
- Contributions to the State of Connecticut: list any specifics, including work with legislators or participation on State committees, contributions to State initiatives, or other interactions with broad-based state-wide organizations or initiatives.
- Other: Report any other tangible evidence of scholarly productivity or broader impact that is not included above.
Strategic Analysis and Sustainability Plan for Upcoming Five-Year Period:
- Describe the opportunities, challenges, and threats that the center/institute faces in the next five years and how they might influence the unit's future success.
- Provide a list of the center/institute’s strategic goals for the next five years.
- Delineate the metrics that will determine whether the goals have been accomplished.
- Explain the center/institute’s specific objectives for each of these metrics. It is important to specify these objectives in terms of performance that would not have been attained if the unit did not exist. Another way to specify this is to consider the incremental contribution of the unit. For example, the scholars who comprise a center/institute will likely publish whether or not the center/institute exists, but some publications would not occur if the center/institute did not exist. Those publications should be the evidence of the objective.
- Describe how the resources afforded by the College are necessary to meet the unit’s strategic goals.
- Given limitations on physical space allocation, provide a space usage review, including an explanation of how the current space is utilized, and a space management plan.

The self-study report should focus on activities over the past five years and should not exceed fifteen single-spaced pages in length. The report should not include any appendices with grant proposals, reprints of publications, letters of support, etc.

Review Process

The self-study report should be delivered electronically to clas@uconn.edu, by the deadline provided by the College. The report will be reviewed by a committee of three to five faculty members appointed by the CLAS dean. Some of the committee members may be content experts and/or current or former directors of centers/institutes. The committee may elect to visit the center/institute to contextualize the above goals. It is essential to adhere to the agreed deadline so that the faculty review committee has adequate time to complete the report.

Within a month of receipt of the report, the committee will prepare an analysis that will be provided to the Dean. The objective of the committee’s analysis is to assist center/institute faculty in charting future directions and identifying appropriate performance objectives. The analysis should conclude with a recommendation to the Dean for continuation, a determined probationary period, or the decommissioning of the center/institute. The committee’s analysis assists CLAS in advancing its missions in research, teaching, and outreach, and helps guide the allocation of limited resources. The Dean’s Office will request input from department heads as appropriate.

Established: January 31, 2020
Updated: August 10, 2021

The College maintains several types of units distinct from departments (herein referred to as non-departmentally organized units, or NDOUs). Their missions and structures vary with respect to research agendas, teaching commitments, service, and outreach expectations. Some of our centers, institutes, and programs have jointly appointed faculty. Some have affiliate faculty and/or courtesy appointments, and some have no faculty lines. Therefore, processes for appointing leaders will necessarily differ. However, in all cases the process for appointing directors must adhere to the following principles:

The director is appointed by the CLAS dean. Centers, institutes, and programs may make recommendations, but the decision is at the discretion of the dean.
The process for considering potential candidates for director must be transparent and inclusive. Candidates for director will be full-time faculty with an appointment or other affiliation in the center, institute or program; exceptions may be considered for special circumstances. Unit governance documents should further define eligibility for directors, including a clear articulation of optimal characteristics and preferred experience as a leader. All candidates for director should submit to the faculty their vision for the future of the unit.
Unit governance documents should define who may be engaged in the selection (in the case of a new appointment) or evaluation (in the case of reappointment) process and who may constitute the selection/evaluation committee. The dean reserves the right to appoint an outside member to the committee.

Process for New Appointments

Before the selection process begins, the dean and/or associate dean who oversees the unit will meet with the NDOU’s faculty (as defined by the unit’s MOU or governance documents) to discuss the search process, also outlined in the unit’s MOU or governance documents. In the absence of an existing process, the unit (in consultation with the dean) should define a working process, consistent with the guiding principles described above. This must occur prior to soliciting nominations for director.

The process ends with a confidential report to the dean. The report should (1) identify any candidates who are deemed unacceptable; and (2) describe the strengths and weaknesses of each acceptable candidate.

Directors will be appointed by the CLAS dean in a manner consistent with any governance documents associated with the specific unit, with keen consideration of the responsibilities of the position and unit.

Process for Review for Reappointments

Presuming the dean is amenable to considering reappointment, the dean or associate dean overseeing the unit and the unit director will discuss the possibility of reappointment no later than the semester before an appointment is due to expire. If the director is interested in reappointment, the dean will assign an associate dean to conduct a review.

The review process entails the following steps:

The director will provide the associate dean with the following documents:
1. Statement of accomplishments during their tenure as director
2. Self-assessment of their performance
3. Their vision of the future of the unit
4. Copy of their CV
The associate dean will send an email to all faculty (as defined by the unit’s governance document) and staff informing them about the process for the director review and reappointment. The email will include the documents provided by the director as attachments and will provide a link to an anonymous survey.
The survey link included in the email will solicit feedback about the director’s reappointment. In addition to, or instead of, completing the survey, any member of the unit may send an email to or request a meeting with the associate dean or the dean to discuss the director’s reappointment.
The associate dean compiles feedback for the dean into a report that includes an executive summary as well as the raw data/responses that were received. The report and the survey data are for the sole use of the dean and will not be distributed to the unit faculty and staff.
The dean reviews the report and makes the final decision on whether and for how long to renew the director’s appointment.

Established: February 22, 2010
Updated: November 20, 2020

The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences recognizes that certain activities, often research-related, may require a time investment that is not compatible with the faculty member’s expected teaching load. When funds are available, faculty members may opt to utilize those resources to temporarily shift the balance of their responsibilities away from teaching toward these other activities.

In some cases, salary dollars are paid from a different account than normal (‘buyout’ of teaching). In these cases, the faculty member is not on leave from the University. In others, faculty members are awarded fellowships that allow them to focus on research and their teaching load is typically reduced as a function of a partial leave from the university (see guidelines below on Research Fellowships and Associated Leaves).

For Externally Funded Course Buyouts (on contracts and grants):

Because buyouts have staffing implications that may cut across multiple programs and campuses, the following approvals are required:
- Faculty at the Storrs campus must receive approval from the department head; for those who hold joint appointments, the head or director of the other unit(s) must also approve.
- Regional campus faculty must receive approval from the department head and relevant campus director.
Faculty may not buy out of more than half their normal teaching load without the approval of the dean.
Faculty are expected to be working on their home campus, unless explicit permission has been granted by the dean.
Faculty are not released from other departmental duties and responsibilities.
Faculty are responsible for ensuring sufficient funds for the buyout are available, as follows:
- Tenure system faculty with a nominal load of 4 courses (e.g., social sciences, humanities, statistics, linguistics): 12.5% of their academic year salary and fringe
- Tenure system faculty with a nominal load of 3 courses (e.g., mathematics, psychological sciences): 17% of their academic year salary and fringe
- Tenure system faculty with a nominal load of 2 courses (e.g., biological sciences, chemistry, marine sciences, Earth sciences, physics): 25% of their academic year salary and fringe
- Non-tenure system faculty (based on the CLAS standard of 7 courses): 14.3% of their academic year salary and fringe
In-residence/lecturer faculty must be a PI or co-PI on the award covering the course buyout. Tenure system faculty members may hold other titles as key personnel.

For internally funded course buyouts (paid by units within UConn):

The College recognizes that there may be instances where internal arrangements are made to allow faculty to buy out of a course (for example, work for the Honors Program or research/scholarship supported by the OVPR or Humanities Institute). Departments are responsible for covering courses consistent with CLAS expectations and should determine whether sufficient funds are available to meet these needs for instruction. Arrangements related to these course buyouts funded by UConn entities should be made between the faculty member and department head, and the details should be conveyed to the CLAS Business Center at least 60 days before the start of the semester in which the teaching will be affected so that they can collect the funds. While the details regarding resources may vary, expectations noted above regarding continuing with other responsibilities and remaining on campus apply here as well.

Distribution of Savings

Any salary savings to the College generated as indicated above will be subject to the following:

70% of the savings will be returned to the department to be used to replace the faculty member’s teaching obligations. Any remaining funds will be used according to department policy.
Regional campuses will comply with the above rules, with the caveat that they will act as the “department” and will receive 70% of the savings. If the academic department has a policy on how remaining funds will be used, the regional campus will follow the department policy. The regional campus will be solely responsible for meeting the teaching responsibilities of the faculty member.
The savings for the department will go into a pre-determined (2-ledger) salary savings account in the department. If the department is distributing a portion of their savings to a faculty member, an additional (2-ledger) salary savings account will be created for the faculty member in their name. For any funds that remain unspent in the departmental instruction operating budget (GENX), rollover (ROL), and salary savings for department and faculty (SSV) at the end of a given fiscal year, the College will reduce these funds by 25% and return the remaining 75%.

Established: February 4, 2021

To ensure that faculty teaching resources are used most effectively, the College has standards for both the number of seats offered in individual sections of courses (capacity) and the minimum number of students that must be enrolled for the class to be offered. These policies provide students with appropriate access to the classes they need and help to ensure equity in workload across instructors.

The policy described here relates to the minimum number of students who must be enrolled for courses to remain in our schedule during an academic year. It does not apply to independent study designations.

With the exception of W courses, first-year writing, particular laboratory sections and language instruction courses, the course/section enrollment minimums are as follows:

1000-level: 25 students
2000-level: 15 students
3000/4000-levels: 10 students
Graduate courses: 5 students

CLAS will evaluate courses each fall and spring shortly after freshmen register and will work with each unit to modify offerings as appropriate. Projections based on historical enrollments of incoming students will be considered.

Exceptions may be allowed in particular circumstances. Inquiries should be directed by unit leaders (heads, directors, and coordinators) to the associate dean for their division.

Established: June 10, 2020

Department heads are typically appointed for terms of 3-5 years. They may be reappointed once at the sole discretion of the Dean. The dean will conduct a review of the department head as part of the process of considering reappointing the head.

AAUP Contract Article 15.2: A review of the appointment of each Department Head shall be held at intervals not to exceed five (5) years, or at other times as decided by the Dean. When conducting a review, the Dean shall attempt to obtain input from all [of] the faculty. The Dean shall also initiate a review upon the request of a majority of the voting members of the department. Any review requested by a majority of the voting members of the department may not take place more than once in five (5) years.

Per UConn Bylaws, reappointment for a third or subsequent term requires recommendation from a majority of the department.

The University of Connecticut Bylaws, Article XIII C: Each department shall have an executive officer (head/chair) who shall represent his/her department and who shall report to the dean of the school/college within which the department is organized. Except at the Health Center, the executive officer shall not serve more than two consecutive terms unless the majority of his/her department recommends otherwise.

Review Process

The dean and department head discuss the possibility of reappointment no later than the semester prior to the final semester of the head’s term.
If the head is interested in reappointment, the dean will initiate a review of the head during the final year of the head’s term.
The dean assigns an associate dean to conduct the review.
The associate dean sends an email to all faculty and staff informing them about the process for head review and reappointment.
The head provides the associate dean with:
The material provided by the head is distributed to the faculty and staff.
The associate dean requests feedback about the head’s performance from full-time faculty (per unit bylaw definitions) and staff. This will be accomplished by a CLAS-designed survey. In addition, any member of the department may send an email to or request a meeting with an associate dean or the dean to discuss the head’s performance.
Following consultation with the department, feedback will also be requested from graduate students.
The associate dean compiles feedback for the dean into a report that includes an executive summary as well as the raw data/responses that were received.
The dean reviews the report and makes the final decision on whether and for how long to renew the head’s appointment.

Established: December 8, 2011
Last updated: May 8, 2020

Note: The steps below are intended to provide clarification and a suggested timeline.

Internal Department Head Searches

Dean and/or Associate Dean meet with Department (1 day): The search process and timeline are discussed.
Formation of Search Committee (10 days): The dean asks the department to elect search committee members numbering at least three faculty members but no more than seven. Voting eligibility is determined by departmental by-laws. The election is conducted entirely within the department. The department-elected members will form a majority of the search committee.
Consent for Associate Dean Membership on Search Committee (5 days): If the dean seeks to add an associate dean, eligible AAUP members in the department vote on giving consent for an associate dean to serve as a member of the search committee. This vote is handled completely by the department. Should the department decline consent, the dean may appoint an additional bargaining unit member, who may be from outside of the department.
External Search Committee Member Identified (2 days): Once the department members have been elected, the dean appoints at least one bargaining unit member from outside the department to serve as an external member(s). If the department did not approve the appointment of an associate dean to the search committee (#3, above) the dean may appoint an additional bargaining unit member, who may be from outside of the department. Such members can constitute at most a minority of the committee.
Search Committee Chair Vote (2 days): The elected majority of the search committee elects the committee chair.
Search Committee Announcement/Call for Head Nominations (5 days): An email is sent to inform all members of the department of the search committee’s composition along with a call for nominations for the head. Only tenured faculty members may be nominated.
Acceptance of Head Nomination (5 days): Each nominee is contacted to see if they would like to go forward with their nomination and provides materials requested by the search committee. The candidate will provide a CV, vision statement, diversity statement, and any additional materials requested by the search committee.
Meetings with Department Groups (1-15 days): Each head candidate meets with the faculty, staff, graduate students, and/or other departmental constituencies. These meetings may be held separately.
Feedback Request (5 days): The committee will solicit feedback from members of the department, which may be anonymous.
Meetings with Search Committee (1-7 days): The search committee will meet with each candidate.
Search Committee Review (1-5 days): The search committee will compile and review all feedback from the department.
Recommendation to the Dean (1-5 days): The committee is charged with providing the Dean with a report that accomplishes two tasks: (1) identify any candidates who are deemed unacceptable; and (2) describe the strengths and weaknesses of each acceptable candidate. Ranking of acceptable candidates by the committee is permissible, but not preferred.

External Department Head Searches

Dean and Associate Dean meet with Department (1 day): The search process and timeline are discussed.
Formation of Search Committee (10 days): The dean asks the department to elect search committee members numbering at least three faculty members but no more than seven. Voting eligibility is determined by departmental by-laws. The election is conducted entirely within the department. The department-elected members will form a majority of the search committee.
Consent for Associate Dean Membership on Search Committee (5 days): If the dean seeks to add an associate dean, eligible AAUP members in the department vote on giving consent for an associate dean to serve as a member of the search committee. This vote is handled completely by the department. Should the department decline consent, the dean may appoint an additional bargaining unit member, who may be from outside the department.
External Search Committee Member Identified (2 days): Once the department members have been elected, the dean appoints at least one bargaining unit member from outside the department to serve as an external member(s). If the department did not approve the appointment of an associate dean to the search committee (#3, above) the dean may appoint an additional bargaining unit member, who may be from outside the department. Such members can constitute at most a minority of the committee.
Search Committee Chair Vote (2 days): The elected majority of the search committee elects the committee chair.
Search Committee Announcement (1 day): An email is sent to inform all members of the department of the search committee’s composition.
Drafting of Job Ad and Recruitment Plan (5 days): The search committee will draft and submit to the Dean’s Office two versions of the job posting: long and short. The long version eventually will be submitted to HR and include the job description, minimum and preferred qualifications, and materials applicants should provide (CV, vision statement, etc.). The short version may be used for external advertising. The search committee will also include a plan for the recruitment of diverse candidates. The department must send both versions of the ad and recruitment plan to clas@uconn.edu for approval prior to submission to HR.
HR Approval of Advertisement and Recruitment Plan (5 days): Following approval by the Dean’s Office, the job ads and the recruitment plan should be submitted to HR for final approval.
Reviewing the Applications: Once the application deadline is reached, the committee should begin reviewing the applications and identify acceptable and unacceptable applications according to the minimum and preferred qualifications in the ad. The committee identifies a list of candidates to interview remotely (short list) to help narrow the top three candidates to bring to campus for interviews. The short list and the candidates selected for on-campus interviews must both be approved by the Dean’s Office prior to submitting the names for HR approval.
Meetings with Department Groups: Each department head candidate meets with the faculty, staff, graduate students, and/or other departmental constituencies. These meetings may be held separately.
Meeting with the Dean’s Office: Candidates will meet with the dean.
Meetings with Search Committee: Each department head candidate meets with the search committee.
Feedback Request (5 days): The committee will solicit feedback from members of the department, which may be anonymous.
Search Committee Meeting (1-5 days): The search committee will compile and review all feedback from the department.
Recommendation to the Dean (1-5 days): The committee is charged with providing the Dean with a report that accomplishes two tasks: (1) identify any candidates who are deemed unacceptable; and (2) describe the strengths and weaknesses of each acceptable candidate. Ranking of acceptable candidates by the committee is permissible, but not preferred.

Established: October 15, 2014
Last updated: January 31, 2020

Startup funding provided to faculty at the time of hire comes with an expiration date indicated in the faculty member's offer letter. Funds that are not expended by the expiration date will be reclaimed by the College and distributed as follows:

A pro-rated share based on the department's original contribution to the account will be returned to the department.
Remaining funds will be returned to the College.

For pre-tenure faculty, each tenure-clock extension will add one year to the expiration deadline for startup funds.

Established: January 31, 2020

As a general rule, the College does not move faculty permanently from one campus to another. However, the College might consider a change in extraordinary circumstances. In that case, the College would need to make a recommendation to the provost, who would need to approve.

Occasionally there may be a short-term need for a faculty member to teach their courses on a UConn campus different from their home campus. When such arrangements do not compromise the curriculum of either campus, the College will consider a temporary change.

All requests should come from the department head, who should provide the Dean’s Office with the following information:

Justification for the change.
Plans identifying how courses will be covered on both affected campuses. The College will not provide funds to cover courses associated with this change.
The faculty member must meet with any relevant regional campus directors, who should then provide the College with written confirmation that the change is acceptable.

Note: Regional campus faculty can teach a single graduate course on the Storrs campus while teaching the majority of their classes on a campus other than Storrs without it being considered a campus change; this policy does not refer to that arrangement.

Established: August 8, 2019
Last updated: August 23, 2021

Funds for discretionary salary increases available through the dean’s office are intended to acknowledge, reward, and encourage very strong contributions and achievements by faculty that advance the University’s and College’s goals, which are outlined in our strategic plan.

These include:

Increasing diversity and equity, as well as fostering an inclusive climate
Enhancing innovative and interdisciplinary research and scholarship
Strengthening undergraduate education, including providing unique experiential learning opportunities
Strategically advancing graduate student mentoring and training
Engaging in service and community outreach, particularly in ways that impact the welfare of Connecticut and strengthen our relationship with its citizens

The dean’s merit pool rewards exceptional performance in the areas central to our mission: research/scholarship, education, and service/outreach. Satisfactory performance is rewarded by negotiated across-the-board increases.

It is important that our faculty members are appropriately and fairly compensated for their work. As resources are limited, please consider ways to indicate how valued their efforts are beyond salary increases.

Established: August 1, 2022
Last updated: August 1, 2022

One of the most important facets of faculty work is participation in the hiring of new colleagues. The search process should be ethical, inclusive, and productive. See the UConn Human Resources (HR) and Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) websites for legal requirements and best practices.

All members of the search committee must complete training by the Office of Institutional Equity prior to approval of their participation in the search.

Search Authorization

All clinical, in-residence, visiting (VAP), and research faculty (including CLAS research and teaching scholars) searches require explicit written (electronic) authorization from the dean to the department head and/or unit director.

The Search Process

The size and composition of search committees can vary across and within units depending on the nature of the search, the composition of the unit, and availability of faculty. Efforts should be made to constitute a representative committee that takes into account faculty rank, areas of expertise, and faculty diversity. If the hire involves a joint appointment, the committee will include representatives from the specific institute/program/center. For regional campus faculty searches, please refer to specific suggestions below.

Each search committee will have a chair who is either appointed by the unit leader or selected by some other unit procedure (e.g., faculty vote). The chair will direct the search process and ensure that all policies and procedures are maintained and that the search is completed in a timely manner. Advertisements should be written with the goal of generating a diverse pool of qualified candidates; they should be as general as reasonably possible and should avoid the use of language that might cause potential candidates to unnecessarily self-eliminate from applying. The job advertisement (both long and, if there is one, short version) must be emailed to the associate dean who oversees the unit for pre-approval prior to posting the ad to PageUP.

Search committees will advertise widely. Keep a record of the sites, groups, and individuals with whom the advertisement has been shared.

The OIE and HR websites provide guidance for all phases of the search process including best practices, determining evaluative criteria, recruitment strategies, interviewing guidelines, and hiring procedures. The search committee should identify the minimum and preferred qualifications prior to reviewing applicants and apply the criteria consistently across all applicants. All faculty searches in the College should include a DEI minimum qualification. The associate dean overseeing the unit has examples of DEI minimums that they can share with the search chair. Applicants who meet the minimum qualifications and most or many of the preferred qualifications are eligible to be interviewed.

Once the committee has identified its interview candidates, the search chair should share the list with the associate dean who oversees their unit. When the associate dean approves, the department feedback user can enter the qualifications for each candidate into PageUP and contact OIE through PageUP by sending a note to searchcompliance@uconn.edu to begin the OIE approval process. Do not enter information into PageUP until written (email) approval has been received from the associate dean.

Once OIE approves the pool, the initial interview process can take place. Search committees are encouraged to interview the pool initially by Webex, Skype, or Zoom. Search committees should identify interview questions in advance and apply them consistently across applicants. Once the committee has decided on preferred candidates to bring to campus, the unit leader should send that on-campus list by email to the associate dean who oversees the unit. After the associate dean has approved, the search committee can then invite preferred candidates to campus.

Every college search will be conducted with an awareness of implicit bias. Please see OIE’s frequently asked questions for best practices on the search process. Diversification of the faculty remains a very high college priority and search committees will be expected to account for their efforts in achieving this goal.

On-Campus Interviewing

The on-campus visit consists of a variety of elements, and the committee should establish parallel schedules, comparable search protocols/process, and consistent interview questions. To ensure an equitable search process, the committee will not rank candidates in advance of the campus interviews.

The on-campus interview is a significant opportunity to welcome candidates, convey teaching commitments, and publicize the respective values of the unit, College, and University. Accordingly, everyone who connects with a candidate represents UConn and impacts the candidate’s perception of the institution. Informal meetings, discussions, social functions, and meals are part of the interview, and therefore all interview best practices and guidelines apply. Such perceptions involve teaching area importance, academic fit, collegiality, productive mentorship, and community belonging. Avoid implicit and explicit discriminatory bias in all interactions with candidates. Prejudiced behavior is more likely to surface in informal settings, so proactively consider engagement with candidates. This attention to biases and acknowledgement of potential prejudiced behaviors enhances the College’s diversification efforts with regard to faculty recruitment.

After on-campus visits, committees should circulate rating forms for unit members to offer feedback on the candidates. Please contact the associate dean for DEI for the template, which will be modified to reflect the criteria of the particular job ad (inclusive of minimum and preferred qualifications). By using a consistent form across candidates, the committee will be able to contextualize feedback with regard to field familiarity, subfield expertise, and time spent with candidate. Committees should set a consistent time frame across candidates for return of the form.

The committee is responsible not only to the parameters of the job ad and DEI efforts; it is also charged with providing recommendations for the number of candidates for which the search was approved (not more).

Offer Negotiations

Before making an offer to the final candidate, the unit leader must provide a rationale (see below) to the associate dean who oversees the unit. The dean must explicitly approve a candidate as acceptable before opening negotiations, and the terms of any offers to a candidate require explicit approval by the dean. Unit leaders work through the associate dean overseeing their unit on this process.

The unit leader (in consultation with the search committee chair) should prepare the rationale. General dismissals of candidates based on “fit” or ‘feeling” - without specific explanation of the basis of the assessment - may not shape the rationale.

The rationale should cover the following:

Provide background on the search process and explain the qualifications of the selected candidate as compared to others; describe the process in terms of unit policy and protocol for faculty votes and feedback. Reflect a sense of the minority opinion as appropriate.
Describe potential courses that can be taught by the candidate, both within and across units; give an indication of when teaching these courses might begin.
Starting salary. Provide information on where you plan to start the negotiations and the highest you will go, with rationale (consider years of experience, others in cohort at UConn, etc.).

Once the Dean’s Office approves the rationale and gives approval to make the offer, the unit leader can contact the candidate.

Once negotiations are finalized and verbal offers extended, the hire request must be submitted in PageUp for approval through the defined search workflow. Evaluations for all interviewed candidates and the selected candidates must be provided.

Facilities

Office space should be ready for occupancy when the faculty member arrives at the University to begin their appointment.
Any furniture purchases are at unit/department or regional campus expense.
CLAS IT will provide a standard computer, printer and software package for incoming in-residence and clinical faculty. Computer choices will be limited to University-contracted vendors (currently Dell and Apple) and will be purchased with the maximum warranty coverage available.
Please consider any ADA accommodations that may be needed

Financial Arrangements Pertaining to Searches

The College typically pays for advertising costs associated with in-residence, clinical, and research and teaching scholars searches, including searches at regional campuses. Units pay for such advertising costs for visiting professor and research professor searches.
The College provides up to $2,000.00 per position for in-residence and clinical positions for candidate travel and associated expenses, including such costs incurred by regional campus searches. Units pay for these costs, when applicable, for visiting professor and research professor searches (including research and teaching scholars).
Background searches on finalized candidates will be covered centrally by the Dean's Office.

Faculty Searches at Regional Campuses

The search and hire of faculty at regional campuses should be a joint effort involving the regional campus director and faculty working in close collaboration with the relevant CLAS head/unit leader and faculty. All faculty searches at regional campuses must be requested by the head/unit leader in consultation with the regional campus director. All procedures outlined above regarding search authorization, the search process, search costs, and offer negotiations should be followed for all regional campus searches. Information concerning candidates invited for campus interviews will be provided to the campus director.

Units are in charge of selecting the search committee membership, managing the search, and choosing the final candidate. Because the individual will be engaged primarily on the regional campus, CLAS requires that the regional campus also be an active part of the search. Additionally, any candidate for a faculty position on a regional campus should meet with the campus director or their representative. While the hiring decision is the prerogative of the home unit, candidates should also be supported by the regional campus director.

Knowledge of Regional Campus/Programs

Search Committee members need to know, or learn, about the regional campus and its relevant instructional or programmatic needs, and should gain an understanding of its teaching, research, service and/or community outreach. Search committee members from Storrs or other campuses may consider an orientation visit to familiarize themselves with the campus and/or with any academic programs related to the job description.

Representation on Search Committees

A faculty member from the regional campus should be included on the search committee. Although ideally the regional campus committee member would be from the hiring unit, when such an individual is not available or for other legitimate reasons, the campus director can recommend a faculty member from a related CLAS discipline. Some minimal number of search committee members should see both Storrs and regional campus presentations face-to-face or remotely (otherwise there is no common ground for committee deliberation). Ample time should be allowed to ensure that the distance between campuses does not prevent full discussion and consideration of unit and campus needs, interests, and judgments about candidates, weighing the recognition that timeliness can make the difference between recruiting and losing a strong candidate. The search committee should ensure an avenue for timely comments from the relevant regional campus community.

Established: November 16, 2011
Last updated: August 1, 2022

All members of the search committee must complete training by the Office of Institutional Equity prior to approval of their participation in the search.

Search Authorization

Tenure-track (or tenured) faculty searches require explicit written (electronic) authorization from the dean to the department head and/or unit director. Decisions will typically be made following a call for hiring proposals each spring that is guided by the CLAS strategic plan.

The Search Process

Each search committee will have a chair who is either appointed by the unit leader or selected by some other unit procedure (e.g., faculty vote). The chair will direct the search process and ensure that all policies and procedures are maintained and that the search is completed in a timely manner. Advertisements should be written with the goal of generating a diverse pool of qualified candidates; they should be as general as reasonably possible and should avoid the use of language that might cause potential candidates to unnecessarily self-eliminate from applying. The job advertisement (both long and, if there is one, short version) must be emailed to the associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) for pre-approval prior to posting the ad to PageUP.

Search committees will advertise widely. Advertisements should be placed in both the major venues and in special listserv outlets or journals that serve underrepresented groups, as well as through professional networks. The search chair should consult with the associate dean for DEI on launching an expansive, vigorous search; keep a record of the sites, groups, and individuals with whom the advertisement has been shared.

The OIE and HR websites provide guidance for all phases of the search process including best practices, determining evaluative criteria, recruitment strategies, interviewing guidelines, and hiring procedures. The search committee should identify the minimum and preferred qualifications prior to reviewing applicants and apply the criteria consistently across all applicants. All faculty searches in the College should include a DEI minimum qualification. The associate dean for DEI can offer examples of typical minimums related to the expectations of the position. Applicants who meet the minimum qualifications and most or many of the preferred qualifications are eligible to be interviewed.

Once the committee has identified its interview candidates and the Department Feedback User in PageUP has entered the qualifications for each candidate, the unit should use PageUP to send an email note to the associate dean for DEI to assess the pool. The associate dean will evaluate the pool for its diversity with an awareness that definitions of diversity are field-specific; that good faith efforts and affirmative action recruitment goals are only utilized during the recruitment process; and that race, ethnicity, gender, and other protected characteristics cannot be considered during the process of selecting an applicant. If the pool requires expansion, the associate dean will consult with the search chair on a response, which could include expanding recruitment or reconsidering all candidates’ evaluation against the qualifications posted in the job description. When the interview list has been approved by the associate dean, the Dean’s office will contact OIE through a PageUP note to searchcompliance@uconn.edu to begin the OIE approval process. OIE will not begin the interview approval process for CLAS searches without the approval of the Dean’s office.

Once OIE approves the pool, the initial interview process can take place. Search committees are encouraged to interview the pool initially by WebEx, Skype, or Zoom. Search committees should identify interview questions in advance and apply them consistently across applicants. Once the committee has decided on preferred candidates to bring to campus, the unit leader should send that on-campus list by email to the associate dean for DEI. After the associate dean has approved, the search committee can then invite preferred candidates to campus.

On-Campus Interviewing

Committees should prepare concertedly for on-campus visits. Candidates may have questions about faculty demographics, community composition, and student populations; committees should prepare also to highlight any possible research collaborations, academic opportunities, and community partnerships within specific emphases of interest to the candidate. In addition to typical discussions about tenure and promotion, committees should be prepared to discuss faculty mentorship and administrative support within and across units. In addition to a meeting with the CLAS Dean’s Office, the candidates should meet with leadership in any relevant potential institute or program and should be asked whether they wish to meet with any faculty or entity outside the unit.

The on-campus interview is a significant opportunity to welcome candidates, convey research commitments, and publicize the respective values of the unit, College, and University. Accordingly, everyone who connects with a candidate represents UConn and impacts the candidate’s perception of the institution. Informal meetings, discussions, social functions, and meals are part of the interview, and therefore all interview best practices and guidelines apply. Such perceptions involve research legibility, academic fit, collegiality, productive mentorship, and community belonging. Avoid implicit and explicit discriminatory bias in all interactions with candidates. Prejudiced behavior is more likely to surface in informal settings, so proactively consider engagement with candidates. This attention to biases and acknowledgement of potential prejudiced behaviors enhances the College’s diversification efforts with regard to faculty recruitment.

Offer Negotiations

Before making an offer to the final candidate, the unit leader must provide a rationale (see below) to the area associate dean, copying the associate dean for DEI. The dean must explicitly approve a candidate as acceptable before opening negotiations, and the terms of any offers to a candidate require explicit approval by the dean. This includes both salary and startup considerations including renovations. Unit leaders work through the associate dean overseeing their unit on this process.

The rationale should cover the following:

Provide background on the search process and explain the qualifications of the selected candidate as compared to others; describe the process in terms of unit policy and protocol for faculty votes and feedback. Reflect a sense of the minority opinion as appropriate.
Explain the offer strategy. Consider whether equipment is shareable and offer detail on renovations or other large-scale requests.
Describe potential courses that can be taught by the candidate, both within and across units; give an indication of when teaching these courses might begin.
Starting salary. Provide information on where you plan to start the negotiations and the highest you will go, with rationale (consider years of experience, others in cohort at UConn, etc.).
In cases of joint appointments, all parties to the search, including institute and program directors, centers, and campuses, must be consulted regarding the proposal and terms of the offer before providing the rationale to the associate dean, and before any representations are made to the candidate. The rationale should reflect consultation with all parties to the search.

Once the Dean’s Office approves the rationale and gives approval to make the offer, the unit leader can contact the candidate. At that point the unit leader should request a spreadsheet of start-up needs from the candidate. The unit leader should present that spreadsheet to the associate dean.

In cases of joint appointments, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) shall be discussed with the candidate as part of the negotiations. The MOU should clearly and unambiguously specify research, teaching, and service duties; salary responsibilities and future merit awards; tenure home and responsibilities of parties involved (i.e., department heads, department head and institute director, etc.), responsibilities for space and basic supplies as well as for more substantial types of support (e.g., computer upgrades).

Space, Renovations, Computers, and Furniture

Laboratory space requirements including any generic renovation work should be identified before a search can be authorized.
At the time an offer is made, any faculty member-specific adjustments to the space are to be discussed and the work initiated as soon as possible upon acceptance of the offer.
Office and/or laboratory space should be ready for occupancy when the faculty member arrives at the university to begin their appointment.
Furniture purchases are at unit/department or regional campus expense.
CLAS IT will provide a standard computer, printer, and software package for incoming tenure-track faculty only. Computer choices will be limited to university-contracted vendors (currently Dell and Apple) and will be purchased with the maximum warranty coverage available.
Please consider any ADA accommodations that may be needed by a new faculty member and discuss how they are resourced with the Dean's Office.

Financial Arrangements pertaining to searches (including Start-Up)

The College typically pays for advertising costs associated with tenure-track searches, including searches at regional campuses, as reflected in the plan submitted by the unit with a request to hire.
The College provides up to $2,000.00 per position for candidate travel and associated expenses, including such costs incurred by regional campus searches.
Background searches on finalized candidates will be covered centrally by the Dean's Office.

The hiring unit is expected to contribute 20% of a newly hired faculty member's start-up package. Units must receive approval from the Dean’s Office prior to finalizing the startup package.

Partner Hires

It is not appropriate to ask a candidate about their partner at any point during the hiring process; it is the candidate's prerogative to bring this matter under discussion.

CLAS is committed to working with units to provide reasonable and appropriate accommodations for partner hires, keeping in mind budget constraints and the needs and views of relevant stakeholders. Such opportunities (across the range of available appointment types) will be considered when the additional hire makes a positive contribution to the University, when the unit hosting the partner finds them to be a strong candidate, and when there are resources available to make the additional hire.

Faculty Searches at Regional Campuses

Knowledge of Regional Campus/Programs

Representation on Search Committees

Established: October 26, 2015
Last updated: December 23, 2020

The College encourages faculty to pursue competitive fellowships consistent with its research missions. Levels and types of fellowship funding may vary across disciplines and funding agencies. These fellowships often will come from external sources and provide funding for academic year salary and fringe benefits. In some of these cases, the faculty member may take a full or partial leave from UConn during the period of the fellowship to pursue the research that it funds.

A few fellowships are also provided via mechanisms internal to UConn, such as those from the Humanities Institute (UCHI). In these cases, faculty members are not on leave, and instead are provided with course releases to focus on their scholarship while remaining on campus.

In all cases, details related to expectations, as well as financial and human resource considerations, must be agreed upon among the faculty member and department head, with approval from the dean prior to applying for the fellowship. Course releases are the responsibility of the department.

Faculty members who are applying for fellowships should fill out this form.

Updated: September 8, 2020

The guidelines below expand on the Changes of Course Grades section of the UConn Undergraduate Catalog Grade Information page.

The following information pertains to undergraduate or graduate students who are appealing a grade in either an undergraduate or graduate course that is taught by a department in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Appeals of grades for courses residing in another UConn school or college should be referred to the corresponding school or college dean.

Grade appeals must be based on errors or failures in the grading process that the student believes affected the grade. Dissatisfaction with a grade is not sufficient to warrant an appeal.

Appeal Process

Information for Students

Students must appeal the grade to the course instructor no later than 10 working days from the posting of the grade or the last day grades are to be posted, whichever is later. It is recommended that this be done in writing (e.g., email) to establish a timeline and record of the appeal.
If the instructor does not approve the appeal, the student has 10 working days to appeal the decision to the head of the department in which the course is offered. Again, this should be in writing to establish a record of the request and the outcome of the request.
If the student is dissatisfied with the department head's decision, the student has 10 working days to request, through the dean of the school or college in which the course is taught, a review by CLAS Grade Appeal Committee.
To initiate an appeal to the CLAS Grade Appeal Committee, the student must complete a Grade Appeal Request form. The Grade Appeal Request and all supporting documentation should be submitted electronically.
Upon review of the student's Grade Appeal Request and documentation, the CLAS Grade Appeal Committee will perform an administrative review to determine if there are sufficient grounds to proceed with an appeal hearing. Allowable reasons for a grade change request comprise computational errors, clerical errors, and the discovery of overlooked components in a student’s body of work.
If the committee finds that a hearing is justified, one will be scheduled within 10 business days.

Information for Instructors and Department Heads

The committee will inform the department head and the instructor that an appeal has been lodged, and the basis of the appeal.
The instructor and head should provide any related correspondence to the committee.
The instructor should provide a copy of the course syllabus as well as any other relevant information. This may include, but is not limited to, any relevant course policies, grade book, answer keys, grading rubrics, the basis of any grading curves, etc.
The head should provide, in writing, any additional information that is relevant to the appeal.
The instructor(s) and department head should provide any other information requested by the committee.

Grade Appeal Hearing

Participants

The CLAS Grade Appeal Committee.
The student appealing their grade.
The student may have one support person present during the hearing. The support person may not speak during the hearing without explicit permission from the committee. If the support person was also indicated on the petition as having relevant information, the committee may, at its discretion, interview them during the hearing.
Other individuals that the committee opts to interview. These individuals will be called in individually by the committee for their interview but will not be present during other portions of the hearing.
The instructor(s) should be present at the hearing. If they are unable to attend in person, they should attend electronically. In the event that the instructor(s) is/are not available (e.g., is not currently in the employ of the University, or is/are otherwise unable to attend), the department head should represent the instructor’s perspective.

Process

During the hearing, the committee will provide time for the student to explain their petition.
The committee may question the student, instructor, and any other participants.
The hearing is not a forum for a confrontation between the student and the instructor. Accordingly, all participants will respond only as directed by the committee.
No electronic recording of the hearing may be made.

Committee Decision

The committee will deliberate and render a decision in a closed session.
Support of a grade appeal will require agreement by the majority of the committee. Failure to reach a majority supporting the appeal will result in a rejection of the appeal.
The decision of the committee will be rendered in writing to the dean (or the dean’s designate) who will transmit the decision to the student, instructor, and head.
If the committee supports the appeal, they will develop a plan for a reevaluation of the student's grade. The plan will be made in consultation with the head and instructor, as appropriate, to ensure a fair and unbiased reevaluation. A decision leading to the reevaluation of the grade will not guarantee that the student’s grade will improve. The reevaluation process may result in no change, improvement, or a reduction in the contested grade.
If the committee changes the student's grade, they should inform the dean (or the dean's designate) who will send a copy of the grade change to the registrar, the student, the department head, and the instructor.
The decision of the committee and the resulting grade change, if warranted, is final and is not subject to appeal.

To appeal a grade, please complete the grade appeal request form.

Established: August 19, 2010
Last updated: January 11, 2024

Modification of Duties

The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences follows the UConn policies and procedures articulated on the UConn Human Resources website under all circumstances related to leaves of absence. On January 1, 2024, the University implemented a Policy of Modified Duties for Faculty Due to Life Events that applies to all CLAS faculty. The policy and accompanying procedures are available via the University’s Policy website.

Established: September 11, 2009
Last updated: January 31, 2020

Each department should maintain a Professional Responsibilities Document. Part of that document is a statement of the department’s teaching load policy. In order to address issues of equity and accountability, the College has guidelines for the teaching-load portion of these Professional Responsibilities Documents and calls on each Department to review their policy regularly in light of those guidelines and, where necessary, make adjustments to bring them into alignment.

A clear departmental teaching load policy serves both an internal and external purpose. Internally, such a policy promotes transparency in the assignment of workload and makes it possible to hold individual faculty members, the department, and College administration accountable for equitable treatment of all faculty members. A policy also makes it possible to hold rational and principled discussions about resource allocation within the College. Finally, an explicit written policy is of particular benefit for individuals who are disadvantaged by the informal power structure in departments – including junior faculty members, and, in some cases, women faculty and faculty members from traditionally underrepresented groups.

Externally, a clearly written policy helps to satisfy the College’s responsibility to account for its expenditure of resources in pursuit of its missions. It provides a basis for discussions with other units about the College's resource base. Finally, such a policy, carefully drafted and properly implemented, will improve the perception of the College's professionalism and will enable the college to cement its reputation for dedication to teaching, research, and service.

Teaching Load Standards

The standard teaching load for tenure system faculty members who are actively engaged in research and participate in the typical amount of department and College service is set by the department, with the approval of the dean, based on documented disciplinary standards. Such documentation means evidence from peer and aspirant institutions showing that departmental policies are in line with market forces. In cases where faculty participate in interdisciplinary programs that cross departments, the relevant departments shall, in consultation with the dean, establish agreements that account for such efforts.
The standard teaching load for tenure system faculty members who are not actively engaged in research and who participate in the typical amount of department and College service is 3 courses per semester.
The standard teaching load for in-residence faculty members is seven courses per academic year. With permission of the College, research, service, outreach, advising, or administrative duties may be substituted for a portion of the teaching obligation.
The basic unit of measure for teaching load is the traditional, 3- or 4- credit, regularly scheduled undergraduate or graduate course that meets the College’s minimum enrollment targets and in which the faculty member is the sole instructor. Large lecture courses with associated discussion/recitation/lab sections count as one course, if these associated sections are managed by teaching assistants. In the absence of special provision in policy, courses team-taught by n individuals count as 1/n courses for each participating faculty member. Departmental policies must explicitly describe how teaching efforts in other settings – such as lecture courses taught by a large series of lecturers, online, or experiential (field) courses – are accounted for in comparison with this unit.
All faculty members not formally on leave will be on campus during the full academic year and must participate in advising and other service activities throughout the year. An individual's teaching should be distributed across both semesters of the academic year. In special circumstances, departmental policies may deviate from this requirement, but such deviations must be limited and must be documented in the departmental policy.
The department is responsible for characterizing “active engagement in research.” Such characterizations must reflect the complexities of scholarly and creative work in each discipline; they must be applicable in practice and reflect the high standards of the University.
Departments may offer a small number of faculty members a reduction in teaching load based on explicitly defined criteria. Such reductions may be associated permanently with certain functions in the department, or temporarily to allow a faculty member to take advantage of an exceptional opportunity. The College does not support permanent reductions in teaching load for an individual faculty member.
Departments should document guidelines that grant new faculty members reduced teaching loads or that provide pre-tenure teaching releases of various kinds. CLAS will not provide funding to cover courses under these circumstances.
Each departmental policy shall include an annual review process to determine which faculty are “actively engaged in research” and to ensure that teaching effort is equitably distributed.
These policies apply equally across all UConn campuses. Any reductions in teaching load per item 7 (above) shall result from consultation between the department head and the regional campus director, if applicable.
Departmental teaching load policies require approval by the dean.

Established: April 14, 2020
Last updated: April 14, 2020

Background

The work of in-residence and clinical faculty is essential to the academic mission of CLAS and to the lives of our students. Units should evaluate faculty based on the terms of their appointment and should make clear the criteria for reappointment, multi-year contracts, and promotion. These criteria must be consistent with those of the College and the University and apply to faculty across campuses. If the terms of an in-residence or clinical faculty member’s appointment change across their employment, units should document the changes in their appointment letters.

Careful attention to process is important. Everyone involved should take care to understand and follow the procedures, including those outlined on the website for the Office of the Provost and the Provost’s Academic Affairs Governance Documents Library SharePoint. The supervisor (department head or unit director) is ultimately responsible for making certain that the dossiers are complete and submitted on time.

The head/director is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the unit consistently offers feedback on in-residence and clinical faculty members’ teaching, administrative, and other duties, through processes within the department including teaching assessments from faculty. In cases of multi-year contracts and promotion, the head/director should offer balanced, accurate evaluations of candidates; see below for advice on securing evaluation letters for promotion from inside and outside of the University. At all levels, strive for fair assessment, not advocacy.

University Expectations

In-residence and clinical faculty may be offered a multi-year contract after completing one year of employment and must be offered multi-year contracts if reappointed after completing six consecutive years in title. After a multi-year contract is awarded, subsequent reappointments must also be for multiple years unless just cause is given for non-reappointment. The “Reappointment, Multi-Year Appointment, and Promotion Form for Clinical, In-Residence, & Extension (CIRE) Faculty Members & Lecturers” (“P&R form”), located in the Academic Affairs Governance Documents Library section on PTR-PR Forms, must be used for all promotions of in-residence and clinical faculty and all instances in which a faculty member is receiving their first multi-year appointment. Review of faculty for reappointment to a second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth year, and for the renewal of a multi-year contract, shall be carried out by the head or director of the department or unit of which the individual is a member. The P&R form does not need to be used for these routine reappointments and they are not reviewed at the dean’s or provost’s level.

In the case of the first multi-year appointment (which requires the P&R form), the faculty member’s P&R file is reviewed at the dean’s level but not advanced to the provost’s office. Only promotion cases will be advanced to the provost’s office for review and approval.

Faculty seeking promotion to associate professor in residence or professor in residence should follow the provost’s P&R procedure with the same deadlines and committees as the tenure-track process.

CLAS Expectations

For a successful promotion to associate professor in residence, the College expects that:

Candidates meet or exceed the criteria approved by the department/unit.
Achievements and levels of performance are competitive with those of faculty members in parallel appointments at comparable institutions.
Candidates have a clear record of sustained excellence in the areas specified in their appointment document.

For a successful promotion to the rank of professor in residence, the College expects that:

Candidates meet or exceed the criteria approved by the department/unit.
Candidates have experienced an appropriate period in rank as an associate professor.
Achievements and levels of performance are competitive with those of faculty members in parallel appointments at comparable institutions.
Candidates offer evidence of growth in the profession consistent with their letter of appointment, which might include scholarship on teaching and learning.
Candidates have a clear record of sustained excellence in the areas specified in their appointment document.

Evaluation Letters

For multi-year appointments and promotion, the P&R form requires evaluations from the department, from unit leaders for joint appointments and regional faculty, and from outside evaluators (for promotion only).

Procedures

Each department or unit shall establish a committee to consider the reappointment of in-residence and clinical faculty for the initial award of a multi-year contract. This committee may be the PTR committee or some other committee established specifically for this purpose, following departmental bylaws. This committee and the department head shall evaluate the performance of the faculty member (as with the tenure system PTR process) and forward their recommendations to the Office of the Dean.

In all cases where the faculty member is located at a regional campus, the department or unit head shall request a letter of evaluation from the regional campus director, which will be added to the faculty member’s file. If the candidate holds a joint appointment and work is supervised by individuals other than the primary unit head (e.g., associate vice provost, center or institute director, head of a second department), a letter from the other supervisor should be included. The evaluation serves as the other supervisor’s independent evaluation.

The dean will make the final decision as to whether to reappoint the faculty member to a multi-year contract, and will take into account the recommendations of the dean's committee, the department committee, the department head, and other supervisors.

External Letters (for promotion only)

The candidate shall coordinate with their unit leader to arrange for at least 4 letters of evaluation, where at least two (2) should be external to the University. The department head or unit director is responsible for the selection of external reviewers for the department’s candidates and may consult with the candidate if standard practice in the department’s promotion and reappointment processes. Communications to (prospective) letter writers should come from the unit leader. If any questions regarding suitability of external evaluators exist, please contact the associate dean who oversees the unit prior to requesting the letters.

The letters should address the standards appropriate to the candidate's responsibilities. All external evaluation letters should be included in the file, accompanied by a copy of the letters used to solicit the evaluations. The unit should briefly describe the outside reviewer’s affiliation and qualifications to evaluate the candidate. If relying on equivalent experience in a non-university setting please upload a CV/resume of the reviewer.

External letters must come from individuals at or higher than the rank to which the candidate is applying. They should not be from former graduate advisors or other mentors or recent (last 4 years) or current collaborators. They also should not come from close colleagues or co-instructors. Letters from reviewers who have/had personal ties with the candidate carry little or no weight because of a possible lack of objectivity.

Suggestions for seeking internal evaluation letters (from individuals currently appointed at UConn):

Tenured faculty within the unit or elsewhere at UConn
Tenured faculty in a related field or discipline
In-residence or clinical faculty within the unit or elsewhere at UConn

Note that, per the Office of the Provost, only one letter may be provided by a reviewer from within the candidate’s academic home unit.

Suggestions for potential external evaluators:

In-residence or clinical faculty at peer institutions
Tenured faculty in the discipline at strong liberal arts institutions
Expert in pedagogy at a peer or strong liberal arts institution, potentially including the director of a Center for Teaching and Learning (or equivalent)
In the case of clinical faculty appointments, one of the external letters can be from the individual’s clinical site

Note that at UConn the faculty member has the right to read the letters of evaluation.

Evaluation of Teaching

All courses for any candidate for multi-year appointment or promotion should be evaluated. Where feasible, all courses should be evaluated by students. The Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) forms should be included with the file for all courses taught since the initial hiring (for first-time promotions) or since the last promotion at UConn (when the candidate is considered for promotion to full professor).

Evaluative comments of the SET must be provided by the head/director and the department/unit's evaluative committee, as well as the Dean’s Advisory Council. The scores for courses should be considered in the context of comparative data, as well as information related to the challenges in interpretation.

Teaching evaluation beyond the SETs (SET+) is required for any multi-year appointment or promotion. A candidate may not exclusively use SET+ previously employed for reappointment or promotion and must include additional measures of teaching effectiveness for the current promotion. In terms of promotion to the rank of professor, candidates should include additional measures of teaching effectiveness (i.e., SET+) for the second promotion. It is the responsibility of the department head (unit leader) to be sure an appropriate assessment is included in the P&R file. Letters from former students and commendations from the provost’s office are not acceptable. Classroom observations are highly recommended.

The P&R form’s description of “Teaching and Curriculum Development” suggests the inclusion of a teaching portfolio. Since the form is required for multi-year appointments and promotions, those candidates are strongly urged to offer a portfolio, which may include a range of materials, such as a teaching philosophy, description of courses and programs supported at UConn, course design materials (syllabi, course website, sample assignments and exams), evidence of teaching effectiveness (student feedback, peer evaluation, departmental evaluation), professional development in pedagogy, and teaching awards/recognition. For more guidance on teaching portfolios, visit the CETL website.

Please also be aware that engagement with graduate students – even if the faculty member is not graduate faculty – can be included in the P&R form under “Teaching and Curriculum Development.” This engagement could include mentoring, colloquia, collaborations, participating in elements of graduate degree progress (reading exam lists, prospectus, etc.). If a candidate is in a teaching position and seeks promotion, they could demonstrate pedagogical excellence through a range of measures, which could include the development and implementation of new curricula, teaching awards or other forms of recognition, and the implementation of new pedagogical methods.

In the P&R descriptions of a candidate’s "Research, Scholarship, and Creative Work,” "Teaching and Curriculum Development,” and “Academic and Professional Service/Engagement” the P&R form includes an option: “not required for your responsibilities, but you wish to highlight work in this area.” Many faculty members choose to engage in scholarship that is beyond the specific terms of their appointment, including research and publications, all of which is valuable to our intellectual community; such work can inform the success of pedagogy and may be highlighted by the unit leader and committee through its relationship to the terms of the appointment document. CLAS considers minimum expectations for reappointments and promotions to be based on the primary duties of the candidate.

Mechanics

The list of candidates for multi-year contract or promotion should be finalized by the previous May 31 (units may choose to set earlier deadlines). In particular, faculty considering promotion to full professor should notify the unit by this deadline. Requests for evaluation letters for promotion should be sent early enough so that letters will be received by the start of the Fall semester.

For faculty at a regional campus who are candidates for reappointment to a multi-year contract or promotion, a letter from the director of the regional campus should also be requested at this time. The unit leader is responsible for requesting such input so that it is received in time for the unit committee deliberations.

Similarly, for faculty in a department holding a joint appointment with an interdisciplinary center, institute, or program, a letter from the director of that institute should also be requested so that it is available for the deliberations of the departmental committee.

The dean’s office expects materials to be submitted by units on the published due date. Delays may mean that the candidate’s file cannot receive the full attention it deserves, and it puts undue pressure on individuals involved in the review at the College level.

Role of the Departmental/Unit Committee

The report of the unit’s committee is often the most important part of a candidate’s case. Because the screening of faculty for promotion and multi-year contracts is a critical factor in the future academic quality of the UConn faculty, it is important that committees apply fair, but rigorous, standards to candidates. The unit committee report must provide a thorough, frank, and critical review of both the strengths and the weaknesses of the case according to the expectations of the appointment document.

The role of the unit committee includes the screening of the materials submitted by the candidate for accuracy and for clarity. Materials submitted by the candidate should be returned to the candidate for changes as needed. The unit committee assists the candidate, the unit leader, and the members of the Dean’s Advisory Council in describing the work and contributions of the candidate. In years in which decisions are being made about reappointment or promotion, the unit committee must record a vote. If it is not unanimous, an indication of the factors contributing to the minority opinion(s) should be provided in addition to those relating to the majority. This committee also provides feedback to the candidate. The critical process performed by the unit committee is one of evaluation, which is different from advocacy or description.

Please contact the associate dean for your area with any questions about the process of reappointment and promotion of in-residence and clinical faculty members.

Established: March 15, 2011
Last updated: May 20, 2021

Background

The diversity of the work we do in CLAS and the range of cultures across our disciplines means that the criteria for tenure and promotion vary substantially across our units. It is expected, however, that all departments will evaluate progress based on excellence in research, teaching, and service/outreach. Departments must make the criteria explicit across each of these dimensions for each career stage. These criteria must be consistent with those of the College and the University. Tenure is campus-wide, and regional campus faculty have the same tenure and promotion expectations.

Careful attention to process is important. Everyone involved should take care to understand and follow the procedures, including those outlined on the website for the Office of the Provost and the Academic Affairs Governance Documents Library SharePoint. The department head is ultimately responsible for insuring that the submitted dossiers are complete and completed on time.

The department (both the PTR committee and the department head) has a responsibility to provide a fair and rigorous evaluation of the candidate’s dossier, pointing out both strengths and weaknesses and assessing the cases against the standards of the candidate’s field. In the vast majority of the cases, the expertise of faculty members in the department, along with those of the external evaluators, will be closest to those of the candidate. Therefore, the dean and the dean’s advisory council depend on the assessments they provide. The department head is charged with the responsibility of insuring that the department submits a balanced, accurate evaluation of its candidates and that letters are solicited from unbiased experts who have appropriate levels of experience. At all levels, letters should strive for fair assessment, not advocacy.

CLAS Expectations

For a successful promotion to associate professor with tenure, the College expects that:

Candidates meet or exceed the criteria approved by the department.
Achievements and levels of performance are competitive with those of faculty members recently promoted to the associate professor level at other leading research-intensive, land-grant institutions, and peer institutions relevant for the discipline.
Candidates have a clear record of sustained excellence in research and education (including classroom instruction and mentoring of students). This requires a sufficient time in rank as an assistant professor to provide a basis of assessment of performance that will predict continued, long-term achievement.
Candidates have a strong, positive national reputation for their scholarship.

For a successful promotion to the rank of professor, the College expects that:

Candidates meet or exceed the criteria approved by the department.
Candidates have experienced an appropriate period of time in rank as an associate professor. University bylaws indicate that this should be at least five years except for evidence of superior ability compared to other associate professors.
Achievements and levels of performance are competitive with those of faculty members recently promoted to the full professor level at other leading research-intensive, land-grant institutions, and peer institutions relevant for the discipline.
Candidates have a clear record of sustained excellence in research and education (including classroom instruction and mentoring of students).
Candidates provide solid service to their unit(s), CLAS, and/or UConn, as well as to their professional discipline, with at least some of these activities involving an element of leadership.
Candidates have a strong, positive international reputation for their scholarship.

Tenure Clock Extensions

Faculty members who have a "major life event" (as defined by Human Resources) during their pre-tenure period are entitled to an extension of the tenure clock. In extraordinary circumstances, faculty whose professional progress has been hampered by unforeseen barriers that were outside of their control may also receive a tenure clock extension. When evaluating a faculty member for tenure, such extensions should play no role in the evaluation.

External Letters

Letters of recommendation are a critical resource in the PTR process. They are most useful when they come from a leader in the field and provide a thorough, candid assessment of the originality and impact of the faculty member’s research according to the standards of the field.

Five external letters are required for tenure and promotion. Among the five or more letters, it is better to have a smaller number of letters from well-chosen experts who can speak knowledgeably about the candidate’s works than more cursory and less-informed letters. Quantity does not trump quality.

Note that at UConn the faculty member has the right to read the letters of recommendation.

Detailed information and a sample letter for department heads to send to external evaluators are located in the Academic Affairs Governance Documents Library SharePoint.

Candidates should be aware that the list of referees they suggest should be chosen carefully. Letters from reviewers who have/had personal ties with the candidate carry little or no weight because of a possible lack of objectivity. Examples of such ties include former graduate advisors or other faculty mentors, close colleagues and collaborators, including co-authors or individuals on grant applications with the candidate.

External reviewers should be experts in the candidate’s field (or, if necessary, from a related scholarly field) at institutions of comparable or higher quality (research intensive, R1). Exceptions for a reviewer at a non-academic institute or at an institution of lesser quality are possible, but the reason(s) for selecting such a reviewer must be clearly articulated in the PTR packet.

External reviewers should be full professors for any candidate for promotion to full professor. In rare instances, an exception is possible where the leading expert in an area is at the associate professor level. Solid justification should be provided. External reviewers for a candidate for tenure or promotion to associate professor can be at the associate professor level, though the weight of the assessment will likely be judged less than that given by a full professor. An effort should be made to include more full than associate professors.

The department head is responsible for the selection of external reviewers for the department’s candidates. Where appropriate, that responsibility may be shared or delegated with other senior department colleagues who have better knowledge of the experts in relevant sub-fields. Regardless, communications to (prospective) letter writers should come from the head. If any questions regarding suitability of external evaluators exist, please contact the associate dean who oversees the unit prior to requesting the letters.

When a faculty member holds a joint appointment with an interdisciplinary center, institute, or program, the department head should consult with the director of that institute in the selection of outside reviewers.

Evaluation of Teaching

All courses for any PTR candidate should be evaluated. Where feasible, all courses should be evaluated by students. Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) forms should be included with the file for all courses taught since the initial hiring (for first-time promotions) or since the last promotion at UConn (when the candidate is up for promotion to full professor).

Evaluative comments of the SET must be provided by the department head and the department’s PTR committee, as well as the dean’s advisory council. The scores for courses should be considered in the context of comparative data, as well as information related to the challenges in interpretation. For more information, please review the guidelines on interpreting SET scores.

Teaching evaluation beyond the SET scores (SET+) is required for any promotion. In terms of promotion to the rank of professor, a candidate may not use SET+ materials from their tenure process; they must include additional measures of teaching effectiveness for the second promotion. It is the department head’s responsibility to ensure that an appropriate assessment is included in the PTR file. Letters from former students and commendations from the Office of the Provost are not acceptable. Classroom observations are highly recommended. The department head should consult the Office of the Dean if other approaches are to be used. For more information about SET+, please refer to Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning’s website; the CLAS associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion may be also consulted for information on best practices.

Evaluation of Research

Research should be evaluated in the context of departmental expectations and strength of a positive national (for promotion to associate professor) or international (for promotion to full professor) reputation. Some units will have minimum expectations related to quantity (e.g., one monograph, some number of peer-reviewed journal articles). Beyond those minima, quality and impact are of primary importance. These aspects should be clearly evaluated at the department and College levels, and the metrics used for such assessments should be clearly described.

No single assessment of quality or impact is ideal; in fact, most metrics are flawed in one way or another. For example, while the names of some academic presses and journal impact factors can provide indications related to the reputation of outlets, cases exist in which the right audience will be reached through venues that receive deeper, but more narrow, attention. Similarly, among disciplines that primarily use journal articles, one might consider a balance of larger, multi-study papers with smaller ones that can be published more quickly. Candidates should consider a balance of where and how to publish, and reviewers should evaluate accordingly. Quality and impact of publications should be described at each stage of the review process, using a range of appropriate assessments and benchmarking to similar types of venues. In all cases, peer-reviewed publications will carry far more weight than other publications.

Similar to publications, the impact of presentations should be assessed. It is not sufficient to discuss quantity. Consider whether the presentations were invited or the submissions were peer-reviewed, as well as the strength and breadth of the conference/institution.

As the College values interdisciplinarity, multi-authored publications are anticipated. The role of the candidate in each publication should be articulated. It is expected that the candidate plays a unique, pivotal role in the majority of these works, one that involves more than basic analyses and was critical to the genesis, interpretation, and writing of the material.

Academic and Professional Service and Outreach

The contributions of the candidate to the departmental, school/college and University committees on which the candidate has served should be assessed, as well as any other departmental, College, and University-wide responsibilities the candidate has undertaken. Also evaluate the candidate’s contributions to the discipline(s)/professional organizations (e.g., holding office, committee assignments, participation in grant panels, editorships, ad hoc review of journals, grant proposals, and books, etc.). The impact of these activities should be discussed by individuals evaluating the dossier; reiterating a list that can be seen in the candidate’s portion of the PTR form is not particularly useful.

Mechanics

The list of candidates for tenure and for promotion in a PTR cycle should be finalized by the previous May 31 (departments may choose to set earlier deadlines). In particular, faculty members considering promotion to full professor should notify the department by this deadline. Requests for external evaluation letters for tenure and promotion should be sent early enough so that letters will be received by the start of the fall semester.

For faculty at a regional campus who are candidates for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, a letter from the director of the regional campus should also be requested at this time. The department head is responsible for requesting such input so that it is received in time for department PTR committee deliberations.

Similarly, for faculty holding an appointment with an interdisciplinary center, institute, or program, a letter from the director of that institute should also be requested so that it is available for the deliberations of the departmental PTR committee.

The Dean’s Office expects PTR materials to be submitted by departments on the published due date. Delays may mean that the candidate’s file cannot receive the full attention it deserves, and it puts undue pressure on individuals involved in the review at the College level.

Role of the Departmental PTR Committee

The report of the PTR committee is often the most important part of a candidate’s case. Because the screening of faculty for tenure and promotion is the single most important factor in the future academic quality of the UConn faculty, it is critically important that committees apply fair, but rigorous, standards. The PTR committee report must provide a thorough, frank, and critical review of both the strengths and the weaknesses of the case according to the standards of the discipline or interdisciplinary field being considered.

The role of the department’s committee includes the screening of the materials submitted by the candidate for accuracy and for clarity. Materials submitted by the candidate should be returned to the candidate for changes as needed. Note that a CV does not substitute for the requested listing of research bibliography sub-categories in the form and order requested. All portions of the PTR form must be completed.

The departmental PTR committee assists the candidate and the department head (in all years), and the members of the dean’s advisory council (in years of decisions on reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion) in describing the work and contributions of the candidate. In the years in which decisions are being made about reappointment or promotion (potentially including tenure), the departmental PTR committee must record a vote. If it is not unanimous, an indication of the factors contributing to the minority opinion(s) should be provided in addition to those relating to the majority. This committee also provides feedback to the candidate, especially in early reviews of the candidate’s dossier. The critical process performed by the departmental PTR committee is one of evaluation, and not one of advocacy or description.

Established: June 1, 2010
Last updated: January 31, 2020

When funds permit, the College will partner with the vice president for research and other University entities to provide matching funds for programs that require them. The department head should contact the associate dean for research and graduate affairs on behalf of the PI at least 3 weeks prior to proposal submission to inform the Dean's Office about the scale of the proposal and the amount of matching funds required. If appropriate, CLAS will contact the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) to contribute. The College and/or the OVPR will provide a letter of support to the proposal indicating a commitment to provide the mandatory match.

Institutional Support beyond Agency-Required Matches

Applications for large, collaborative grants may benefit from institutional support beyond what is specified as a required match, such as an indication that the institution will continue to support the program beyond the term of grant. The College supports the pursuit of such grants and will partner with the OVPR when possible to consider options. The support may take the form of direct or in-kind contributions. The scope of support depends on factors that include availability of funds, overall impact of the project on the College, and resources held by the faculty involved. Contact the associate dean for research and graduate affairs at least 3 weeks prior to submission of the proposal to discuss the types of resources that may be available.

Established: September 4, 2012
Last updated: December 2021

Requesting a Sabbatical Leave

Per University policy: “Sabbatical leave is a privilege to be applied for in each case and is in no instance to be considered an earned perquisite. Such leaves may be granted on application for the purpose of the advancement of knowledge or professional improvement of mutual benefit to the University and the individual. Following such leave, individuals are obligated to return to active service at the University for a minimum of one year.”

Faculty members who anticipate not being able to take their sabbatical when eligible should note that postponements are not applied retroactively. In such cases, the faculty member should apply for a sabbatical when they are eligible and request a postponement once the sabbatical has been approved. If a faculty member has an appointment longer than 9 months, they are required to return to their 9-month base faculty appointment during the academic term of their sabbatical. Their appointment term and pay will be adjusted during the leave, accordingly.

Request deadlines

Applications for Fall sabbaticals must be received in the Dean's office by Aug. 1st of the preceding year.
Applications for Spring sabbaticals must be received in the Dean's office by Jan. 1st of the preceding year.

To request sabbatical leave, the faculty member must:

Log into their Core-CT account using the UConn employee self-service portal
Follow the steps in the job aid on requesting sabbatical leave. Include the following material:
- A one to two-page summary of the proposed research that the faculty member will undertake while on sabbatical.
- A current CV or a summary of the faculty member's scholarly productivity over the past 6 years.
- (Optional) Any additional information that the faculty member wishes to include to support their request (e.g., letter of invitation).

Approval process

The completed application must be reviewed by the department head, and if applicable any center, institute or program director (if the faculty member is affiliated with a secondary unit). The Department Head should add their recommendation in the Comments section and approve or deny the request, only after confirming that all parties have agreed. If the faculty member is at a regional campus, the request will also be routed to the regional campus director.

Salary funds released from academic year sabbaticals return, in their entirety, to the Dean's office. Course coverage needs should be addressed through the staffing plan process. However, should a regional campus faculty member take a full-year sabbatical at half-pay, the regional campus director may request up to 70% of the cost savings to cover course replacements.

Modification

A faculty member may modify a sabbatical leave request by logging in to Core-CT and following the job aid for submitting or modifying a sabbatical.

The request will automatically be forwarded for review to the Department Head, Dean’s Office, and HR/Provost for approval.

Eligibility for administrative postponements is currently under consideration by the University. Please consult with the College if you are considering this type of postponement.

Questions Regarding Approval

Questions regarding eligibility should be directed to the Leave Administrator in Human Resources. However, eligibility does not guarantee approval by the administration at any level.

Sabbatical Final Report

After completing a sabbatical leave, faculty must submit a detailed report on activities and accomplishments. This report will be submitted to the department head, unit director (if applicable), and to the Dean’s office (clas@uconn.edu) within the first two months of the semester in which you return.

The report should be submitted as an electronic document (PDF format). Please title the report with the following designation: “Department Sabbatical Report: Your Last Name/Term/Year.” The document should not exceed two pages in length. What follows is an overview of what should be included in the report:

Name and department
Semester(s) during which the sabbatical leave was taken
Description of main activities carried out during the sabbatical leave (include research undertaken, and, if applicable, travel connected to that research)
List of all written works, creative products, presentations, performances, grant proposals, new curricula, and related work facilitated by the sabbatical leave.
- Include dates and venues for conferences, presentations, performances, and/or exhibitions.
- Indicate work submitted for publication and its current status (e.g., submitted, under review, accepted, and under revision). Be sure to include complete citations.
- Provide names of collaborators (inclusive of faculty and students).

Established: June 25, 2024

NIH F31 and NASA FINESST Graduate Fellowships are external awards that provide support for predoctoral graduate students. When the awarded stipend amount is less than UConn’s academic year GA stipend level, the Graduate School will supplement the difference to ensure the graduate student is supported full time for the academic year.

The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences will provide an additional supplement for NIH F31 and NASA FINESST graduate fellowships by providing funds toward summer support for the awardees. CLAS will provide one third of a summer stipend. The PI and/or Department can partner to bring the fellow's stipend up to the standard 20-hour-a-week allotment for the summer term (maximum of three months).

This applies for all new awards with an effective Notice of Award date of July 1, 2024, or later.

Phone:	(860) 486-2713
E-mail:	clas@uconn.edu
Address:	215 Glenbrook Road, Unit 4098 Storrs, Connecticut 06269-4098 Philip E. Austin Building, Suite 401

Absence from Campus

Best Practices and Expectations for CIRE Faculty Inclusion

Governance

Promotion Process, Merit, and Workload, Including Metrics of Evaluation

Professional Development and Leadership Opportunities

Workplace Culture

Research Appointments

Bridge Funding

Eligibility and criteria for access to CLAS bridge funds

Process

Center and Institute Reviews

Self-Study

Review Process

Center, Institute, and Program Director Appointments and Reappointments

Process for New Appointments

Process for Review for Reappointments

Course Buyouts and Associated Salary Savings

For Externally Funded Course Buyouts (on contracts and grants):

For internally funded course buyouts (paid by units within UConn):

Distribution of Savings

Course Enrollment Minimums

Department Heads Review

Review Process

Department Head Searches

Internal Department Head Searches

External Department Head Searches

Expired Startup Accounts

Faculty Campus Change

Faculty and Department Head Merit Salary Increase Criteria

Faculty Searches for Non-Tenure-Track Positions

Search Authorization

The Search Process

On-Campus Interviewing

Offer Negotiations

Facilities

Financial Arrangements Pertaining to Searches

Faculty Searches at Regional Campuses

Knowledge of Regional Campus/Programs

Representation on Search Committees

Faculty Searches for Tenure-Track Positions

Search Authorization

The Search Process

On-Campus Interviewing

Offer Negotiations

Space, Renovations, Computers, and Furniture

Financial Arrangements pertaining to searches (including Start-Up)

Partner Hires

Faculty Searches at Regional Campuses

Knowledge of Regional Campus/Programs

Representation on Search Committees

Fellowships for Faculty Research

Grade Appeals

Appeal Process

Information for Students

Information for Instructors and Department Heads

Grade Appeal Hearing

Participants

Process

Committee Decision

Parental Leave

Modification of Duties

Professional Responsibilities

Teaching Load Standards

Promotion and Reappointment Procedures for In-Residence and Clinical Faculty Members

Background

University Expectations

CLAS Expectations

Evaluation Letters

Procedures

External Letters (for promotion only)

Evaluation of Teaching

Mechanics

Role of the Departmental/Unit Committee

Promotion, Tenure, and Reappointment (PTR) Procedures for Tenure-System Faculty

Background

CLAS Expectations

Tenure Clock Extensions

External Letters

Evaluation of Teaching

Evaluation of Research

Center, Institute, and Program Director Appointments and Reappointments

Process for Review for Reappointments