Standard V. Administration and Finance

V.1 The school is an integral yet distinctive academic unit within the institution. Its autonomy is sufficient to assure that the intellectual content of its program, the selection and promotion of its faculty, and the selection of its students are determined by the school within the general guidelines of the institution. The parent institution provides the resources and administrative support needed for the attainment of program objectives.

The School of Information Sciences is one of 16 undergraduate, graduate and professional schools at the University of Pittsburgh. The University offers 446 distinct degree programs, of which the School hosts one undergraduate and six graduate degree programs.  The administrative and academic head of the School is the Dean, who reports directly to the Provost of the University. Although this Program Presentation deals specifically with the School’s MLIS program, it is essential in many cases to describe the school as a whole to present an accurate picture of the learning environment.

Currently, the School offers the following degree programs:

Autonomy – Curriculum

The faculty has primary responsibility in the areas of curriculum design, degree requirements, program content, methods of instruction, academic advising, and the conduct of research and public service. Oversight within the program is the responsibility of the Program Chair, an elected position. Specifically, the Program Chair provides strategic leadership and oversight to address key areas including intellectual leadership, advocacy for the program within the iSchool, management of administrative and academic resources, and interfacing with other iSchool advisory or governmental bodies. The specific duties of the Program Chair are outlined in Appendix PRO 8.

Academic programs are designed and presented by the faculty in the iSchool. The content of the degree programs is under the purview of the School’s faculty with oversight provided by the SIS Council and the Dean and Associate Dean. This management style enables the program faculty to review and revise the curriculum to better address changes in the field without unnecessary bureaucratic delays. The faculty are responsible for regular review and evaluation of the degree programs in accordance with policies mandated by the University and any accrediting bodies. Each year, the faculty assess the successes and challenges in meeting stated learning objectives through stringent review of core and/or required courses. The program faculty hold monthly meetings, at which discussion of curriculum changes take place on an ad hoc basis. This provides the program with the essential agility to enhance and change the program of study on an as-needed basis. The faculty undertake periodic review of the curriculum for each degree program, drafting proposals for significant changes for the consideration of the program faculty and then the SIS Council.

Such revisions might include changes to admissions requirements, required courses, specializations within each degree program, and the addition of non-degree curricular efforts.  For example, in 2011, the APRM-related faculty proposed to change the admissions requirements and documentation in order to garner better students. The School revised its admission application to call for one year of professional experience in the archives field and a more detailed personal statement from those applying to the APRM specialization. The Program Faculty approved the idea and it was implemented in Fall 2011, resulting in better-prepared students who are more likely to be successful. Another example would be the faculty’s procedural efforts to change the admissions criteria to include the submissions of GRE or Miller’s Analogies scores. A subset of faculty proposed the action, the program faculty voted to enact it, and it was discussed in SIS Council. All students applying to the MLIS program for Fall 2013 and beyond will be required to submit these scores (with the exception of those who already hold an advanced degree such as MSIS, JD, or PhD). This measure was thoughtfully taken in order to bring the program in line with other Master’s programs at the iSchool and other accredited MLIS programs.

To introduce a new course, the interested faculty member formally proposes the course to the program faculty. Such a proposal involves a description of the course, its learning objectives, a description of how the course will fit into the curriculum and the need for it, a sample syllabus, and an estimate of the resources needed to offer the course. The program faculty consider and vote on the proposal. Many new courses are offered for several terms as “Special Topics” courses (LIS 2970); after assessing the success of the course, faculty vote whether or not to add it to the course catalog with a permanent course number (see appendix CUR 3 for a list of Special Topics and new permanent courses).

Annually, the School crafts a report to the Provost of the University outlining progress toward strategic goals stated in the previous annual report: changes to academic programs are also outlined in this annual planning document, carefully outlining the rationale for any proposed revisions of the academic degree programs. Recent Annual Plans are presented in SCH 13 and will be available on-site as well.

If the School would choose to develop new academic programs, a proposal would be developed by a faculty committee for review and approval by the program faculty, the SIS Council, the deans and the Provost. This proposal outlines the goals of the degree program, the learning objectives associated with such a program, the estimated market demand for the program, the School resources necessary to develop and offer it, and any potential synergistic symbiosis/conflicts with existing University programs. In 2006, the School utilized this process to create the Digital Libraries specialization in the MLIS program. The same process is necessary to eliminate any degree programs.

Autonomy – Hiring of Faculty

The input and approval of the faculty drives the hiring of new faculty at the School of Information Sciences. The program faculty identify hiring priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, based on projected growth, faculty vacancies, and desired research/teaching strengths for future program enhancements. These priorities are reviewed by the Dean and Associate Dean, considering the faculty and teaching needs of the other degree programs. The list of desired positions is reviewed by SIS Council and finalized by the Dean, who submits a request to recruit to the Provost accompanied by a rationale for each position. After receiving approval to recruit for the various positions, the Dean convenes an ad hoc committee of iSchool faculty and doctoral students, as well as an outside faculty member, to serve as the search committee. This committee crafts the solicitation for the position, to include the rank, desired teaching and research areas of interest, and expectations regarding teaching load. This advertisement is reviewed and revised by the University’s Office of Affirmative Action to ensure that it meets all Equal Opportunity Employment criteria. The job solicitation is distributed by the University of Pittsburgh to a substantial number of publications – the exact publications are determined by the committee and are selected according to their distribution range or academic focus; a number of selected publications are chosen because their target audiences are from underrepresented populations. The committee reviews all applications for the position, crafting a list of desirable candidates. A subset of the search committee (including the Dean) will also host screening interviews at major professional conferences appropriate for the position (e.g. ALISE, iConference). Based on the review of applications and recommendations from those prescreening at conferences, the committee then determines which candidates to invite to an on-campus visit. Usually, three to five candidates are selected to interview for each open position. During that visit, candidates will meet formally and informally with faculty and PhD students, give a formal presentation to the entire school, and meet with the Associate Dean and the Dean. After the site visits are concluded, the committee reviews the candidates and submits a ranked list of proposed candidates for review by the program faculty; this is then submitted to the Dean for approval. The finalized shortlist is sent to the Provost’s Office and approval is sought to enter into negotiations with top candidates. The Dean and the candidate negotiate a hiring package. The official appointment is granted by the Provost.

The iSchool and the University of Pittsburgh have stated goals to increase the diversity of the faculty at this institution. For the last seven years, this has been a major component in the school’s annual plan to the Provost. The University’s Board of Trustees has established an Office of Affirmative Action, Diversity, and Inclusion. One of the primary goals of this organization is to “achieve diversity in the racial/ethnic and sex composition of its [Pitt’s] workforce at all levels.” This office also provides numerous resources to assist University groups in searching for diverse pools of faculty candidates, which can be viewed at this Web site.

Autonomy – Promotion and Tenure

The tenure and promotion processes are managed and supervised by the School itself. This is a three-tier process, which was revised and approved by the Provost of the University in 2007. The guidelines for promotion and tenure declare that “appointment of properly qualified members of the faculty is of paramount importance to the continuation of SIS as a leader in our field. It is essential, therefore, that those appointed possess not only the stated qualifications, but also those qualities that make for a good teacher, an energetic researcher, and a leader in the profession with an ability to pursue excellence in the educational and research goals in our field.” See Appendix FAC 8 for the School’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.

For those faculty in the tenure stream, the iSchool has created a sequence of reviews to foster success at achieving tenure and promotion. The system includes the Dean’s annual review of each faculty member’s performance, a comprehensive third-year review before all faculty, periodic Peer Review of Teaching, and informal mentoring.

Each year, the faculty submit progress reports for review by the Dean and Associate Dean, outlining their achievements and activities in teaching, research and service. For faculty approaching tenure, the Dean offers advice and identifies opportunities to improve the candidate’s position prior to the tenure and promotion process.

Tenure-stream faculty, as well as non-tenure-stream faculty, participate in a rigorous third year review.  All faculty are invited to evaluate the candidate for reappointment. The candidate prepares a dossier and presentation for evaluation by faculty who hold a rank higher than that of the candidate. This subset of faculty also interviews the candidate in a closed session, and then votes whether or not to recommend reappointment. Based on this review and the clear support of faculty for reappointment, the Dean submits the dossier and request to reappoint to the Provost’s Office.

The mandatory tenure review (which incorporates the promotion to Associate Professor) must be completed within the sixth year of the candidate’s appointment. Promotion to full professor is initiated at the candidate’s request, after consulting the Associate Dean and the Dean.

The criteria considered for each candidate for promotion and/or tenure include teaching excellence, research productivity, service to the profession, educational background and (when relevant) professional qualifications. Candidates prepare an exhaustive dossier showcasing their teaching, course development and revision, research and publication, and service activities. The dossier must provide concrete evidence of the following:

  • Educational – Holds a doctorate (or equivalent) in the information sciences or a related specialty appropriate to the field. (Examples of evidence: transcripts and academic recommendation.)
  • Teaching – Shows proof of continued effort and commitment to improve teaching. (Examples of evidence: student reviews, successful completion of the Peer Review of Teaching process, personal teaching statements, outcomes of seeking instructional and design assistance from University resources such as the Center for Instructional Design and Distance Education, and documentation of course evaluation and revision.)
  • Research – Is productive in scholarly research in areas related to teaching specialty. (Examples of evidence: statement of research interest, publications, grant seeking and outcomes, funding acquired.)
  • Service – Exhibits a record of participation individually and as a member of an educational team to design creative and effective educational experiences, and demonstrates a commitment to professional activities. (Examples of evidence: recommendations and interview statements, work experience, professional conference organization, peer review panel participation, committee assignments, offices held.)

External letters of evaluation are requested from experts outside the University of Pittsburgh: the list of such experts is developed by the chairperson of the first-tier review panel (up to three names being suggested by the candidate). A minimum of six letters is required. The first-tier committee is selected and convened by the Dean and comprises five graduate faculty members with research and teaching foci related to those of the candidate; members must be of a higher rank than that of the candidate. Up to two members may hold their primary appointment from outside of the School. This first tier committee will review the candidate’s dossier and cast a secret ballot for or against tenure or promotion. They will produce a summary of the candidate’s accomplishments, an account of the deliberations of the committee, and a description of the voting procedures and results.

Regardless of whether the committee recommends for or against promotion or tenure, a second-tier committee is convened by the Dean. This second tier committee includes all tenured faculty in the School of a more senior rank than that of the candidate – members of the first tier committee may participate in the second tier review, but do not vote. The second tier committee reviews the dossier, the recommendations of the first tier committee, and may call the candidate for an interview. The second tier committee produces a recommendation, including justifications, to the Dean. Then, the Dean reviews the candidate’s dossier as well as each committee’s findings and recommendations.  He then makes an independent recommendation to the Provost regarding the candidate’s promotion/tenure application. The Provost conducts an additional, independent review of the faculty member’s qualifications for promotion and tenure, and forwards the dossier and all reviews to the Chancellor, who makes the final decision.

Autonomy – Admissions and Financial Support Offers

The faculty within the program hold responsibility for reviewing student applications and determining to whom to offer admission and financial aid. However, the processes are separate: faculty lead the review of admissions applications and the Program Chair determines financial support distribution, after receiving recommendations from faculty involved in admissions.

The program has an appointed admissions committee which reviews all applications – these online applications include a resume or CV, transcripts, letters of recommendation, an essay, proof of financial support (if international), and an official application form for both admission and financial support. All application materials are submitted online via the University’s Apply Yourself system, with the exception of the transcripts which are sent by the applicant’s current or previous institutions of higher learning. The committee determines which applicants meet the admissions criteria, which have a strong academic or professional background, and which have stated a specific interest with regards to specializations. If the applicant is interested in the School Library Certification or Archives specializations, their application packet is forwarded to the appropriate specialization faculty. The remainder of applications is reviewed by the Admissions Committee, and decisions are made and recorded about whether or not to offer admission to the applicant.

The School budgets funds for financial support of students (in the form of tuition remission and/or stipend) to each of the programs, and appointed faculty members or Program Chairs determine which applicants (of those who were offered admission) will be offered financial support. Students receive notification of offers of admission via the Apply Yourself system and may indicate their acceptance of the offer within the system. The formal offers of financial support may be made in separate letters sent via US Mail and e-mails, particularly if the students are international.

Doctoral student admissions are supervised by the PhD admissions committee/members of the Graduate Faculty. This group determines a potential fit between specific faculty members and the applicants; the application is then reviewed by that selected faculty member for determination regarding offers of admission. Program Chairs or appointed faculty members make formal offers of financial support to admitted students.

Support from the University

The University of Pittsburgh provides the School of Information Sciences with resources including a building; services, including IT support and access to instructional designers; and a world-class library system. The University also provides staff for maintenance operations of the iSchool building; and student services, such as a health center and seven fitness centers, police and emergency services, and campus transportation. The University budgets the funds necessary for faculty and staff salaries, as well as for the financial support of students. It also conducts periodic compensation studies to assure that salaries of all staff and faculty are in a competitive range benefitting the University. The faculty salary range for the School is $66,226 – $122,698 (as compared to the average range across the University of $47,107 - $172,033) (University Times, 2/23/2012, provided in appendix UNI 1).  University resources and financial support are described more fully in Standard V.5.

Top