Faculty Guide to Resources and Policies

MSUMAcademic AffairsFaculty GuideProfessional Development / Research

Professional Development / Research

Consultation
 Faculty Development
 Grants
 Human Subjects Approval - Surveys
 Institutional Animal Care and Use
 Institutional Research Board (IRB)
Misconduct in Research or Scholarly Activity
 Professional Development and Evaluation (PDP)
Professional Improvement Funds
 Promotion
 Radiation Safety
 Student Evaluation of Teaching Procedure
 Tenure


Consultation

Faculty members are permitted to engage in consultation consistent with the standards set forth in the IFO/MnSCU Agreement, Article 27, Section C, Subd. 1, as follows:

Subd. 1c. During a period of full-time employment, a faculty member shall not receive either an annual retaining fee or a regular salary from any external source unless the arrangement has been approved in advance by the President/designee. This provision does not apply to such things as the writing of books or articles, the creation of computer software or artistic works, or the giving of occasional speeches or consultations.

Subd. 1d. A full-time faculty member serving as a regular paid consultant or staff member for another Minnesota state agency shall do so with an appropriate leave of absence and deduction of pay at the university.

Subd. 1e. During a period of full-time employment, a faculty member shall not engage in external consulting, employment, or other activities which require the faculty member's absence from the campus for more than an average of one (1) full duty day per week in any academic year.

Faculty Development

The Faculty Development Committee promotes continuing professional growth in the faculty, advises the Faculty Development Directors, and makes recommendations regarding funding for interdivisional faculty development projects. The committee reports to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. For detailed information on committee policy and practice, structure, and membership, refer to Academic Affairs/Committees.

 

For additional information regarding faculty development, refer to the Center for Teaching and Learning on the MnSCU web site.

 

 

Grants

Any grant proposal submitted through Minnesota State University Moorhead must have university approval. The MSUM Grants web site maintains information on grants submitted, provides information on the MSUM approval process and electronic grant proposal submission, especially via NSF FastLane. College deans are responsible for providing advice and aid in grant development as is the MSUM Alumni Foundation Office. The MSUM Approval Form for Grants, Contracts and Contributions required for submitting external grants is available from the Academic Affairs Office (Faculty Grants) and must be submitted through Associate Vice President Brittney Goodman who serves as Grants Officer.

There are a number of internal and MnSCU awards available to MSUM faculty and staff and academic and non-academic departments/offices for equipment, instruction or research, creative activity or professional development projects.

Human Subjects Approval – Surveys

The process of giving surveys actually constitutes research on human subjects. Surveys that are anonymous and do not deal with invasive information about the individuals being surveyed present little likelihood of harm to the respondents, however, if any of the questions ask respondents about intimate details regarding themselves or their families or others, the survey must be approved by the Institutional Research Board (IRB) prior to administration. Contact Dr. Louis De Maio, IRB chair, for more information.

Institutional Animal Care and Use

MSUM Animal Care and Use Policy states that approved protocols are required for care and use and use of all vertebrate animals on campus and its satellite facilities. Consult the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) website for further information.

Institutional Research Board (IRB)

The Institutional Research Board (IRB) is charged to ensure compliance with federal regulations established to protect human subjects’ participation in research activities. An investigator of any kind of research activity, including departmental surveys, undergraduate projects, or similar activities, that involve the use of human subjects must obtain approval of the IRB.

Misconduct in Research or Scholarly Activity

  1. Philosophy

MSUM is committed to integrity in research or scholarly activity by faculty and staff and will deal promptly and fairly with any allegation of misconduct in research pursuant to the following procedures administered by the Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA), President of the MSUM Faculty Association, or chief representative of any appropriate bargaining unit of the involved individuals and appropriate Dean or Vice President (hereafter referred to as Screening Committee).

  1. Definition

Academic misconduct involves some form of fraudulent behavior that entails an act of deception whereby one’s work or the work of others is misrepresented. Misconduct is distinguished from honest error and from ambiguities of interpretation that are inherent in the scientific process. Further, misconduct involves significant breaches of research integrity that may take numerous forms such as, but not limited to, those outlined below:

  1. Fabrication and Falsification of Data - Fabrication and falsification of data ranges from creating data to deceptive selective reporting of findings and purposeful omission of conflicting data.

  1. Improprieties of Authorship - Plagiarism and other improper assignment of credit such as excluding others, or claiming the work of another as one’s own.

  1. Misappropriation of Other’s Ideas - Unauthorized use of information or influence gained by privileged access, such as service on peer review panels, editorial boards and policy boards of research funding organizations.

  1. Violation of Generally Accepted Research Practices - Intentional manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results; improper statistical analytical manipulations.

  1. Violation of Federal, State, or University Rules Governing Research or Scholarly Activity - Including, but not limited to, those regarding use of funds, care of animals, human subjects, investigational drugs, DNA, new devices, and radioactive, biological, or chemical materials.

  1. Inappropriate Behavior in Relation to Misconduct - Includes inappropriate accusation of misconduct, withholding or destruction of information relevant to a claim of misconduct, and retaliation against persons involved in the allegations or investigation of misconduct.

  1. Compliance

All procedures used in investigating misconduct must be in compliance with the appropriate bargaining unit agreement and applicable state and federal laws.

  1. Disposition of Allegations

  1. Initial Phase

  1. Questions about, or suspicions of, misconduct in research or scholarly activity should be brought to the attention of the VPAA for confidential counseling and possible informal resolution.

  2. Official allegations of misconduct shall be presented to the Screening Committee in writing. The Screening Committee will acknowledge allegations in writing to the person or persons bringing charges. A copy of the written allegations shall be provided to the subject of the inquiry.

  1.  Review and Decision of Initial Findings

  1. In reviewing the allegation, the Screening Committee must discuss independently with each of the parties the issues involved with the possibility and hope of resolution at this stage of the inquiry. The Screening Committee must decide within 15 working days of receipt of written complaint of alleged misconduct whether to refer the allegations to the Committee of Inquiry. The decision for referral must be by majority vote. The party charged must be informed in writing of the decision

  1. Committee of Inquiry

  1. The Committee of Inquiry is a standing sub committee of the Faculty Development and Grants Committee. It is comprised of three faculty representatives and one MSUAASF representative. (If the Committee of Inquiry deems it necessary, one of these four members may be replaced by an expert in the field of the researcher or scholar being charged.) The fifth member of the Committee of Inquiry may be chosen by the person(s) being accused.

  2. The Screening Committee shall charge, in writing, the Committee of Inquiry to conduct a confidential inquiry based on separate communications with the parties. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine if there is reason to believe that misconduct has occurred. 

The inquiry should be limited to activities necessary to determine whether to recommend a formal investigation. The  identities of the parties will be kept confidential by members of  the Committee.

  1. The Committee of Inquiry has 30 working days from the day it receives the written notification from the Screening Committee to conduct the inquiry including completion of the written report of findings. If the inquiry cannot be reasonably completed within 30 working days, the Committee may request an extension of up to 30 calendar days from the Screening Committee.

  1. If three or more members of the Committee of Inquiry recommend that a formal investigation be conducted, the Screening Committee must ask the President to appoint a Committee of Investigation. If only one or two members of the Committee of Inquiry recommend a formal investigation, the Screening Committee by majority vote may dismiss the allegation.

  2. If the allegation of misconduct has been made in good faith, even if the Committee of Inquiry is not able to substantiate it, the university must protect the person making the allegation, in keeping with the federal and the state "whistleblower" policies. The institution must guard against negative repercussions to the whistleblower.

  3. In the event the Committee of Inquiry determines that the allegations have been made in a capricious or malicious manner, it will report this to the Screening Committee for appropriate disciplinary action.

  4. When a decision is made to establish a Committee of Investigation, the party charged must be informed in writing by VPAA of the exact charges and given 15 working days from the date on the written memo to respond in writing prior to initiating the investigation. Sponsoring agencies shall be informed if appropriate or mandated.

  5. The office of VPAA shall maintain in a secure manner all documentation relating to the inquiry, including the written report, for a period of at least three years after the completion of the inquiry.

  1. Committee of Investigation

  1. The Committee of Investigation will be an ad hoc committee of five members. The President of the university will appoint the members in consultation with the Screening Committee. One member of the Committee will have been part of the Committee of Inquiry. At least one will be an expert from outside the university.

  2. The Office of Scientific Integrity, a component within the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, will be notified in writing by the VPAA that an investigation will be conducted if the situation is related to a Public Health Services Grant (Department of Health and Human Services). The notification will take place within 72 hours of the decision to investigate.

  3. The Screening Committee shall charge, in writing, the Committee of Investigation to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegation to determine if misconduct has occurred. The Committee should have access to all persons and information needed to determine the extent to which misconduct has occurred. Otherwise, the investigation should be confidential. The investigation must commence within 30 calendar days of the completion of the inquiry.

  4. The Committee of Investigation has 90 calendar days from the receipt of written charges from the Screening Committee to complete the investigation, including preparation of the written report.

  5. The Committee of Investigation will prepare a written report which thoroughly documents the extent to which misconduct has occurred. This report will be given to the Screening Committee and to the person(s) under investigation. In addition, the Committee of Investigation may recommend to the Screening Committee a course of action based on their findings.

  6. All documentation concerning the allegation and findings will be kept in the office of the VPAA for three years following the acceptance of the final report. The Federal agency involved will receive a copy of the final report, as will the college dean or vice president and the President. The VPAA shall take appropriate administrative action to protect Federal funds and ensure that the purposes of Federal financial assistance are being carried out.

  1. Appeal

The person(s) under investigation has 30 calendar days following the receipt of the report from the Committee of Investigation to file an appeal of the findings of the Committee with the President, whose decision shall be final.

  1. Determination of Action

  1. Following the President's decision, based on the report and following any appeal there from, the VPAA will determine and take appropriate action which, in addition to the notification of funding agencies, journals, co-authors, and professional organizations and/or licensing boards, may include specific sanctions with referral to the cognizant university officer for disciplinary action.

  2. Imposition of sanctions or disciplinary actions shall be pursuant to university procedures governed by the agreement between the appropriate bargaining unit and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities relating to grievances or appeals and pursuant to any hearings or appeals accorded to individuals subject to dismissal for cause.

  3. University procedures shall be designed to ensure appropriate confidentiality and protection of the rights of all involved parties and shall comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Data Practices Act.

  1. Public Health Service Grants (Department of Health and Human Services)

If the situation is related to a Public Health Service Grant (Department of Health and Human Services), the VPAA is responsible for notifying the Office of Scientific Integrity, a component within the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, if the VPAA determines at any stage of the initial phase, inquiry, or investigation that any of the following conditions exist:

  1. There is an immediate health hazard involved;

  2. There is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;

  3. There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co-investigators and associates, if any;

  4. It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly; or

  5.  There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation.  In that instance, the VPAA must inform the Office of Scientific Integrity within 24 hours of obtaining that information.         

[APAC 12/05/95, Modified, 1/15/97]

Professional Development and Evaluation (PDP)

Each faculty member shall, after consultation with his/her immediate supervisor, prepare a professional development plan (PDP) for the period to be covered by the evaluation (IFO/MnSCU Agreement, Article 22, Section A , subd. 1). The purpose of professional development is to provide for continuing improvement in teaching, in other student interactions, in the quality of scholarly activity, and other service to the university and community. The purpose of evaluation is to provide faculty with information which will contribute to their professional development. The evaluation processes are intended to be supportive of a faculty member’s desire for continuing growth and academic excellence. This process contributes to various personnel activities and supports the interest of each faculty member to achieve continuing professional growth and to pursue the highest level of academic excellence. For detailed information on PDP Timetables, refer to Academic Affairs/Calendars.

 [IFO/MnSCU Agreement, Article 22, Section A]

The criteria shall include:

  1. Demonstrated ability to teach effectively and/or perform effectively in other current assignments.

  2. Scholarly or creative achievement or research.

  3. Evidence of continuing preparation and study.

  4. Contribution to student growth and development.

  5. Service to the university and community.

[IFO/MnSCU Agreement, Article 22, Section B]

For faculty with teaching assignments, the PDP shall include a process for student assessment.

 [IFO/MnSCU Agreement, Article 22, Section D, subd. 1]

Professional Improvement Funds

Funds are available for faculty improvement grants, research, and summer support for research/creative activity. Such funds are granted based upon proposals written by faculty members who submit them to the appropriate college Peer Review Committee (PRC). The PRC recommendations are evaluated by the dean and submitted to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, whose decision is final. For detailed information on Professional Improvement Grants and a list of Peer Review Committee members, refer to Academic Affairs/Faculty Grants.

[Memorandum of agreement executed 10/14/96]

Professional Study and Travel funds are allocated to departments at the beginning of each academic year. The use of these funds is limited to paying the costs of travel, housing, meals, and registration associated with participation in professional conferences, workshops, and similar meetings and courses, the cost of professional books, journals, and software. The funds may be used to pay for professional membership, provided that membership in a professional organization is required in order to receive a professional journal. The department shall, through a democratic process, determine an equitable procedure for distribution of funds.

  [IFO/MnSCU Agreement, Article 19, Section B, subd. 3]

Promotion

A faculty member who wishes to apply for promotion shall give notice of intent to the immediate supervisor (for IFO faculty, this is the dean). (Dates are established at Meet and Confer and will vary from the IFO/MnSCU Agreement because of MSUM’s semester calendar.) The faculty member completes an application for promotion and sends a copy, along with supporting documentation, to the department/unit through the chair. The recommendation of the department and of the chair, with all supporting documentation, shall be sent to the immediate supervisor. (See IFO/MnSCU Agreement, Article 25, Section A, Subd. 2 and Section C; Article 20, Section A, Subd. 3 and 4.) There is no specific application form. A letter or memo will suffice. Supporting documentation will be needed and should cover all areas of performance/responsibility. 

Supporting Documentation:

  1. Materials submitted by the faculty member which speak to the principles of demonstrated consistent performance and high achievement are to be included. The criteria to be used shall include:

  1. Demonstrated ability to teach effectively and/or perform effectively in other current assignments

  2. Scholarly or creative achievement or research

  3. Evidence of continuing preparation and study 

  4. Contribution to student growth and development

  5. Service to the university and community

[IFO/MnSCU Agreement, Article 22, Section B]

Additionally, length of service in rank and at the university may be a factor. Normally, three years in rank with two evaluations will be a minimum for consideration for promotion.

[IFO/MnSCU Agreement, Article 25, Section C, Subd. 7]

  1. The faculty member may submit results of student evaluations or request that the department chair include results of student evaluations as part of the documentation.

  2. Recommendation of the department. (Where a faculty member teaches in more than one department, each department must submit a recommendation.)

  3. The chairperson's comments and recommendation.

  4. The faculty member's comments on the recommendations of the department and the chairperson (if he/she so chooses).

Procedures:

A more detailed description of procedures is as follows:

  1. Each department must have on file in the Office of Academic Affairs an updated written statement of departmental procedures which will be followed in the process of faculty evaluation.

  2. The specified departmental evaluation procedures must be determined before the recommendation of the department can be developed.

  3. The chairperson may call a department faculty meeting before making a recommendation concerning promotion. The purpose of the meeting shall be to discuss the performance and achievements of the faculty member relative to promotion criteria.

  4. Departmental faculty and chairpersons shall base their personnel recommendations on the five criteria in Article 22, Section B. In accordance with Article 5, Section Q, recommendations for a personnel action must include written reasons and must be signed and dated by the person or persons making them. This provision does not prohibit the department from conducting a vote on any matter and sending it to the immediate supervisor, but the vote shall not constitute a recommendation (Article 20, Section A, Subd. 3). Individual faculty members within departments may also make recommendations on these same matters.

  5. The recommendation of the department/unit and of the chairperson (Article 20, Section A, Subd. 4) with all documentation, shall be sent to the immediate supervisor, with copies sent to the faculty member by the chairperson. The department’s recommendation must be reviewed and approved by the department’s faculty and forwarded to the immediate supervisor by the chairperson with a statement verifying that the requirement has been met (Article 20, Section A, Subd. 3).

  6. The immediate supervisor shall conduct an independent review of the candidate and after considering the information available, including the department’s recommendation, the chairperson’s statement and other pertinent responses, shall provide a copy of his/her proposed recommendations to the faculty member in question. After receipt, the faculty member shall be given the opportunity to meet with the immediate supervisor. The faculty member may then submit written comments to the Vice President regarding the immediate supervisor’s recommendations. Copies of the supporting materials, if any, which are submitted to the immediate supervisor by the department/unit as part of the recommendation for promotion will be given to the faculty member under review. If the immediate supervisor develops supporting materials in addition to those submitted to him/her by the department/unit, a copy of such materials will be made available to the faculty member prior to submission of the recommendation to the Vice President.

  7. The supervising Vice President makes a recommendation to the President after considering the documentation of the application and the advice of the immediate supervisor and provide a copy to the faculty member.

  8. The faculty member may request an interview with the President before the President decides on the request for promotion.

  9. The President’s decision to promote or not to promote shall be conveyed to the faculty member in writing. Those promotions which are awarded shall be announced to the faculty by the President.

[IFO/MnSCU Agreement, Article 25]

Radiation Safety

All principal investigators, faculty, staff and students wishing to use radioisotopic material for research or reaching projects must receive prior approval from the MSUM Radiation Safety Committee. Documented training will be required. Contact the Radiation Safety Officer, Dr. Joseph Provost, for further information.

Student Evaluation of Teaching Procedure

The MSU Moorhead Administration/Faculty Association Agreement regarding student evaluation of teaching along with the optional procedure and evaluation form were developed by an ad hoc committee of MSUM student, faculty association and administrative representatives to address issues that have arisen over the years as Deans reviewed faculty members’ teaching effectiveness. For detailed information on Student Evaluation of Teaching Procedure and Agreement, Procedure and Student's Evaluation of Course and Instruction form [PDF] refer to the Academic Affairs web site.

Tenure

A probationary faculty member becomes a candidate for tenure when he/she submits a tenure request which documents contributions to the department, college, and university in the areas of teaching, scholarly and artistic achievement, professional growth and development, and service to the university and community. A tenure request will normally be submitted for evaluative action during the fifth year of continuous full-time service in a tenure earning position. All tenure requests, whether or not approved, will be acted upon and forwarded through channels. All supporting materials will accompany the recommendation until the procedures have been completed.

Faculty tenure application procedures and deadlines are established by the President in accordance with Articles 21 and 25 of the IFO/MnSCU Agreement.

MSUMAcademic AffairsFaculty GuideProfessional Development / Research