- Academic Honesty Policy
- Committee Assignments
- Teaching Liaison Committee
- Community Norms on Committees
- Visiting Teachers
- Teaching Initiative
- Department Chair Recommendation Process (pdf)
- Five Year Plan created May 2007 (pdf)
- Hiring New Faculty
- Tenure and Promotion (pdf)
- Post-tenure Review
- Probationary Faculty Contract Renewal (pdf)
- Conflicts of Interest
- Undergraduate Advising
- Current M.A. Students Applying for Ph.D. Program
- Admissions to the Ph.D. Program
- Summer Lectureships
- Culminating Experience for M.A. Plan B students
- Culminating Experience in Alternative Futures M.A.
- Poli Sci 600
- Distance Learning
- Graduate Student Desk Assignments
- Student Evaluation of Instruction
- Harry Friedman Conference Room
- Carole Keala Moon Conference Room
- Jorge Luis Andrade Fernandes Graduate Lounge and Library
Management of the Department is led by the Department chair, the chair of the graduate program, and the chair of the undergraduate program.
Chair of the Department: Debora Halbert
Chair of the Undergraduate Program: Noelani Goodyear-Kaopua
Chair of the Graduate Program: Krishna (Interm Graduate Chair for Fall 2012: Debora Halbert)
Selects new graduate students; manages the application process. Also selects the two incoming Teaching Apprentices and assigns Tuition Waivers allocated for new students.
Chair: Noenoe Silva
Faculty Member: Krishna
Faculty Member: James Dator
Student Member: Gino Zarrinfar
Student Member: Matthew Petrasek
Alternate Student Member: Art Tasnavites and Aubrey Yee
Graduate Chair: Krishna (Debora Halbert for Fall 2012)
Undergraduate Chair: Noelani Goodyear-Kaopua
Chair: Jairus Grove
Student Member: Tuti Baker
Student Member: Irmak Yazici
Student Member: BJ Ramos
Grants, Awards and Hiring Committee :
Selects teaching assistants and winners of various awards; assigns Tuition Waivers allocated for current students; and manages the associated processes; selects and hires lecturers for summer session and on an ad hoc basis in conjunction with the Department Chair.
Chair: Petrice Flowers/Jim Spenser
Faculty Member: Manfred Henningsen
Faculty Member: Larry Nitz
Student Member: Brian Gordon
Student Member: Michael O'Kelly
Student Member: Duyen Bui
Alternates: Katie Brennan & Heather Hefner
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee:
Chair: Noelani Goodyear-Kaopua
Faculty Member: Colin Moore
Faculty Member: Carolyn Stephenson
Student Member: Anjali Nath
Student Member: Noriko Shiratori
Alternate: Donna Camuel
Graduate Curriculum Committee
Faculty Member: Manfred Steger
Faculty Member: Krishna
Faculty Member: Jon Goldberg-Hiller
Student Member: Megumi Chibana
Student Member: Tani Sebro
Professional Development Committee
Chair: Ehito Kimura
Faculty Member: Hoku Aikau
Student Member: Ben Schrader
Student Member: Sharain Naylor
Alternate Student Member: Sammy Badran
Teaching Liaison Committee: Katharina Heyer
Teaching Liaison Committee (adopted 10 May 1997)
There are multiple pedagogical and programmatic advantages to maintaining a close relationship between graduate students teaching 100-level political science courses and faculty which justifies the creation of a new committee to guarantee the resources for such a relationship.
Teaching assistants and teaching initiatives in the Department of Political Science assume particularly heavy responsibilities. They teach from their own syllabi, according to their own methods, and by their own sense of their professional standards. This has many pedagogical advantages for these student-instructors which we believe should be respected and continued. Foremost among these is the creative imperative which stems from full control of classroom and curriculum. At the same time, experiences with the Teaching Initiatives program and with seminars run by the university's Center for Teaching Excellence suggest that an opportunity to share ideas, concerns, and problems with peers and with faculty may augment the learning process, integrate teaching more into the program of graduate learning, and make teaching more satisfying. This need is not met entirely by the Tl program (which, at most, is run every other semester), or by the CTE (which has sporadic seminars to which TA's may feel invited). Although there is a great deal of informal mentoring which takes place, this is dependent upon networks not available to every student teacher.
The duties which this departmental faculty have to their undergraduates, a further set of pedagogical concerns, are not monitored in any ongoing fashion. To be sure, graduate students are carefully reviewed, their syllabi scrutinized, and opinions solicited from faculty who know them and have an opinion as to their effectiveness as teachers before they are chosen as teachers. At least yearly, their performance is assessed. However, if problems develop during the semester there is frequently little awareness on the part of the departmental faculty, and little incentive for instructors to reveal major difficulties. While, for the most part, our graduate student instructors are excellent, in no small degree due to the responsibility we allow them, we have an affirmative duty to our undergraduates to pursue excellence wherever we can. Maintaining some regular contact with our graduate instructors, offering them whatever advice we can while respecting their professional autonomy, and offering them the possibility of a faculty mentor (as well as the mentorship of more experienced graduate instructors) serves the double pedagogical purpose of furthering graduate and undergraduate education. Finally, undergraduate teaching is advanced because such interaction will facilitate the assessment of graduate teaching.
With these concerns in mind—and in light of the Department's commitment to democratic representation on its official institutions—we propose that a new committee, entitled the Teaching Liaison Committee, be established. This committee will consist of two graduate students with at least one full year of teaching in the Department as a TA or as a lecturer appointed by their fellow students, and one or two faculty in whose teaching experience, knowledge, and quality the Department chair has confidence. On semesters in which the TL program is being conducted, the TL instructor can also take the role of sole faculty representative due to commensurate duties. The members of the liaison committee will be encouraged to meet regularly with the 100 level teaching staff individually (perhaps once every three weeks or so) and collectively (perhaps twice a semester or so). In addition, they will make themselves available for consultation on an irregular needs basis. Their duties will, further, unwire maintaining an awareness of university resources available to TA's in aid of their teaching effectiveness.
The social role of Liaison Committee members is not one of oversight, nor surveillance, but should be as immediate resource to student teachers. In every way, these committee members are to operate as advocates, and as mentors, and should render support to graduate instructors. This is in keeping with the spirit of respect for these instructors' professional autonomy, which this Department has long championed. At the same time, liaison committee members—especially the faculty representative(s) as agents of the University—maintain their affirmative duty to pursue undergraduate teaching excellence. In nearly all cases, this duty will only reinforce members' duties to aid graduate instructors reach their fullest teaching potential. In very rare cases, this might mean a more direct form of intervention, but only when the committee members, in direct consultation with the Department chair, and with full respect of departmental, university, and legal norms, reach a common consensus to act on behalf of these undergraduate students.
Community Norms on Committees (adopted October 19, 2001)
Background: In order to remind and enumerate the various expectations of committee members, this Set of guidelines accomplishes two things. First, establishes certain formal guidelines regarding ethical conduct that will be acknowledged by every member of the committee through their signature. Second, it establishes that one member of every departmental committee, other than its Chair, will serve as Committee Monitor with the authority to oversee the procedural and ethical comportment of the committee. This Monitor has the responsibility to assure the department as a whole, through the Chair of the department, that no irregularities compromising the mission of the committee have occurred.
Guideline 18 (1): The following statement will be signed by all members of a specific committee at its inaugural meeting for that academic year. Thereafter, this statement will become a part of the record of deliberations of the committee.
I, _____________________________, agree to serve this committee and abide by norms of collegiality, confidentiality, and honor the University of Hawaii at Manoa's commitment to affirmative action and equal employment opportunity. By collegiality, I agree to respect members of the department as professionals and treat them with courtesy. Further, I agree to reveal to the committee chair any conflicts of interest that I suspect I may hold, and to recuse myself in cases where my decision-making may be compromised or questioned. By confidentiality, I agree to not disclose any deliberations or information supplied to the committee by others. In order to uphold the University's commitment to affirmative action and EEO, I agree to inform myself of these principles and apply them in my deliberations.
Guideline 18(2): Every committee should appoint an Observer who will be responsible for certifying to the department, through the departmental chairperson, that all activities and deliberations of the committee took place in conformity with the above-mentioned guidelines. If the observer cannot so certify the actions of a committee, that committee will be reconstituted by the chairperson of the Department.
Visiting Teacher (adopted October 1994)
A Visiting Teacher is a graduate student who arranges with a faculty member to teach that professor's undergraduate course for one week, covering a topic or organizing a project with which the student is familiar. The professor attends the class for that week and offers constructive feedback, including a brief written evaluation if the student requests one. The professor also asks the class to do an evaluation of the Visiting Teacher.
Who is this for? For graduate students with little or no teaching experience, the Visiting Teacher option allows them to get their feet wet, and to begin to investigate the world of teaching. Successful experience as a Visiting Teacher could produce student and faculty evaluations to be submitted in support of a subsequent application for a Teaching Initiative or Teaching Assistantship. While there would of course be no guarantee that the Visiting Teacher stint would lead to the other opportunities, it is a logical first step.
What does the Visiting Teacher do? The Visiting Teacher works with the professor to define the topic, select the readings and organize the assignments for one week of the course. The graduate student negotiates his/her specific role with the professor. The Visiting Teacher might conduct one week of lectures/discussions (e.g., a week on liberalism in a History of Political Thought course; a week on Indonesia in a Comparative Politics course; a week on the Gulf War in an International Relations course). Or the Visiting Teacher might initiate and supervise a project in the course (e.g., a personal narrative or oral history project in Feminist Theory, or a field trip for a Public Administration course). The point is to allow for flexibility in the kind of classroom experience the Visiting Teacher creates for herself/himself.
What is the professor's role? The Visiting Teacher is NOT an opportunity for a faculty member to leave town for a week. The professor agrees to assist the graduate student in preparing for her/his teaching, to attend the classes (and not to take them over), and to offer constructive feedback.
How is it arranged? Interested graduate students can contact a faculty member with a proposal for a Visiting Teacher arrangement. Students are expected to pick a subject in which they already have considerable knowledge. The graduate student and the faculty member should know each other well enough to predict successful performance from both parties. The arrangement would be formalized by a contract between the professor and the graduate student, specifying the topic and the approximate dates. No more than one Visiting Teacher per undergraduate course is allowed. Graduate students are allowed one Visiting Teacher stint per semester.
How is it evaluated? The Visiting Teacher constructs an evaluation form for the undergraduates to use. The form should stress the questions that the Visiting Teacher is most concerned about, including an open‑ended option to elicit maximum student response. The evaluation forms will go directly to the Visiting Teacher and be for her/his use.
The Visiting Teacher may ask the professor for a written evaluation if desired.
What about the undergraduates? Both the faculty member and the graduate student are obliged to make sure that the Visiting Teacher arrangement enriches the students' classroom experience. Done well, it could offer the students some variety, and bring a different energy to the class.
(back to top)
Description of the Teaching Initiative (TI) (adopted October 28, 1994)
Purpose A Teaching Initiative (TI) is an opportunity for qualified graduate students to teach their own class with the supervision of a qualified faculty member The TIs were created in recognition of the large potential pool of talented teachers who are not selected for TAs due to our limited resources, and of the need for those seeking academic jobs to acquire teaching experience.
All graduate students enrolled in the Political Science Department are eligible to apply. Preference will be given to those with little or no teaching experience, and to those who have not held a TI in the past. Those with past experience in teaching or past TIs will be considered if positions are available.
Each TI will offer one section of Pol Sci 110, and will meet regularly with the supervising faculty member to discuss their teaching.
The TIs will receive Tuition Waivers when such are available. They will also receive three academic credits.
Criteria for Selection
1. Meritorious academic achievement.
2. Ability to teach and interact with undergraduates effectively.
3. Affirmative action (the committee encourages women and minorities to
Process of selection
Four TIs will be selected each semester by the Grants and Awards Committee for the following semester. Selection should be done in a timely fashion so that the TIs have time to order their books without charging the Department for expensive air mail charges.
Each application should include the following materials:
1. A current report of progress toward completion of the degree,
endorsed by the applicant's advisor.
2. Three current letters of recommendation.
3. Evidence of undergraduate teaching ability or its promise.
4. A syllabus for Poli Sci 110.
5. Copies of recent unpublished or published research.
Hiring New Faculty (Adopted Spring 1997; Amended Fall 2003; Fall 2007)
The purpose of this Policy Guideline is to prescribe the policy and procedure under which new members of the faculty of the Department of Political Science are hired.
Consensus here means a general agreement on a particular option: it does not mean unanimity. A consensus can result from a dissenting minority's deferring to the "sense of the meeting". There is no consensus as long as a dissenting minority remains vocal in its opposition. Department (as far as hiring is concerned) means faculty, graduate students in political science and undergraduate majors in political science. Faculty means tenured and tenure-track faculty in political science, including emeritus.
Affirmative Action criteria are important throughout the hiring procedure. One member of the Search Committee will be designated by the Department chair as Affirmative Action Advocate who will be responsible for evaluating all steps of the search process in terms of the goals and principles of Affirmative Action.
The selection process is conducted through four distinct stages.
At Stage 1, the Search Committee prepares a short-list of six to eight files. It does this by reading all the files and discussing the individual candidates, and then narrowing these down to a short list.
In addition, members of the Department may draw attention to a candidate they deem worthy. Such additional files will be placed in a separate box, alongside the Search Committee's short-listed files. In order to give the Department sufficient time to review these files, they must be in the box at least four days prior to the meeting to select the interviewees. During that Department meeting, the sponsors of the additional files will be required to introduce the candidates to the Department, just as the Search Committee does its short-listed candidates.
At Stage 2, the Department selects three candidates to be interviewed. After discussion there will be a secret ballot in which each person votes for three candidates without ranking them. After determining the top six candidates, further discussion of these front-runners will strive for a consensus regarding the top three. There will then be a vote in which each person is to list three different candidates without ranking them. Any ballot without three different names will be invalid. In the event of ties, a runoff vote will be held.
In order to avoid problems arising due to changing electorates, the entire voting process for Stage 2 must be confined to one meeting. Only those physically present at the meeting will be allowed to vote.
Once the deadline for applications has passed, and until an offer is accepted, communication with the applicants regarding any matter related to hiring is to be made solely through the Department chair. While the interviewees are in Hawai`i , the candidates are to be treated in a manner which respects their Affirmative Action rights and which is uniform, fair, and equitable. Because the entire search is confidential, details of the procedure should not be discussed with any of the interviewees, the applicants, or anyone outside the process.
A sign-in log will be circulated at each candidate presentation. In addition, the Department will make reasonable attempts to electronically record all candidate presentations and make reasonable efforts to assure the availability of, and log access to, these electronic reproductions. All members of the Department may request access to these electronic reproductions until the commencement of Stage 3.
At Stage 3, after the interviews, the Department meets to decide its preferred candidate. Only those departmental members who have attended or watched all presentations are eligible to participate in Stage 3. Following discussion which strives for a consensus on the top candidate, the Department will decide by secret ballot. Each person votes only for his or her first choice. Only those physically present at the meeting will be allowed to vote.
If none of the three candidates wins a majority (more than 50% of the votes), a selection is made from the top two candidates in a runoff election.
In Stage 4 the faculty meet separately in order to ratify the Department's selection. The candidate selected in Stage 3 must secure a majority vote. The question to be addressed here is: "Do we welcome this person into our faculty?" as distinct from "Was this person my first choice?"
If the Department's choice cannot secure majority support in the faculty meeting, the Department returns to Stage 3. In this case the Department will discuss the candidates further. It may move as far back in the process as the Department feels is necessary.In the event of a prolonged deadlock, the majority faculty choice will prevail.
The entire process of four stages is represented below:
Select short list of 6-8
Select 3 interviewees
Search Committee meetings
Consensus; of needed, one person/one vote
One person/one vote
One person/one vote; majority must be demonstrated
One person/one vote; majority must be demonstrated
Appointed members of the search committee
Members of the Department physically present at the meeting
Members of the Department who have attended or watched all presentations
Tenure-track members of the faculty, including emeriti
Procedures for Faculty Tenure and Promotion (adopted December 15,
1995; revised August 25, 2011, revised March 3, 2012)
1. Guiding Presumptions for the Tenure And Promotion Process
The Departmental Personnel Committee (DPC) will undertake a fair
assessment of the candidate's strengths and weaknesses in relation to
the criteria established by the University and the College. The Department
encourages the maximum participation of all members of its community
in decision-making, consistent with the norms of fairness, maintaining
community, and adherence to external requirements.
2. Categories for Evaluation
The current Agreement between the faculty union (University of Hawai'i
Professional Assembly--"UHPA") and the Board of Regents of the
University of Hawai'i (a document which is variously called "The
Agreement" or "The Contract") describes the tenure process in Article XII
and the promotion process in Article XIV. The current "College Focus"
document elaborates on it somewhat on pages 7and 8. The Vice
President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) annually submits to the Deans and
Directors, and they to the Department Chairs for their use and for
submission independently by the DPC's, "Criteria and Guidelines for
Faculty Tenure/Promotion Application" and other information which is
used to determine the timing of the Department's tenure and promotion
The Chair shall give a copy of each of these documents, and this
statement of "Procedures for Tenure and Promotion" of the Department of
Political Science to each newly-hired faculty member and discuss them
with the new faculty member as soon as possible after s/he is hired. The
Chair shall also give in a timely manner to and discuss with each
candidate any new or amended documents which probationary faculty
need in order to prepare themselves for the tenure and promotion
"Article XII, "Tenure and Service," paragraph "Tenure Evaluation
Procedures," subparagraph 2 "Procedures for Evaluating Tenure
Applications," of the 2009-2015 Agreement states in part:
a. The application for tenure is prepared by the candidate in
consultation with the Department/Division Chair, if so requested by the
candidate, in accordance with the established guidelines. No anonymous
material shall be made a part of any dossier.
Prior to the DPC review, Departments, Department Chairs, TPRCs,
or UH administrators shall not accept unsolicited information for
inclusion in a tenure dossier without providing the information to the
candidate and then giving the candidate the opportunity to provide a
written response. Once the DPC has begun its review, no unsolicited
information will be included in the dossier. This does not apply to
solicited external reviewers, including those agreed upon by the
applicant, per the DPC procedures.
b. The application is then reviewed for completeness by the DC and
the Department/Division Personnel Committee (DPC). The DPC will
consider the evidence, make one (1) written assessment of the strengths
and weaknesses of each applicant, append a recommendation if they so
desire, and transmit the dossier to the next higher level of review.
c. The DC shall not participate in the deliberations of the DPC nor
influence the DPC‘s written assessment. The DC shall make a separate
and independent assessment and recommendation.
Each candidate is to be evaluated only on the professionally-relevant
categories mentioned in the criteria. When more than one faculty member
is being assessed by the DPC, the candidates shall not be compared to
3. Information Used by The DPC in the Assessment
The Chair of the Department, though informed by the DPC report, is
not a member of the DPC and engages in, and reports to the Dean, an
assessment of probationary faculty independently of the DPC.
Each candidate shall assemble and give to the DPC a file of appropriate
information, which includes a narrative addressing teaching, research,
and service goals,
Full and complete teaching evaluations from all classes taught, based
on a common departmentally-approved instrument, administered
independently of the candidate by the Department, shall also be placed in
the member's DPC file.
The DPC independently of the candidate shall elicit supplemental
information by requesting written submittals only on teaching,
scholarship, and professional, university, departmental and community
service from faculty and students. Only signed letters will be accepted,
with the confidentiality of the author being assured throughout the
review process. These letters are in addition to those of outside
reviewers, which shall be solicited in accordance with established
The DPC should make an effort to elicit responses from all Department
faculty members, especially those who are within the candidate's field of
specialization. Letters from other UH faculty may be solicited, when
Requests for student comments will be distributed by the DPC to all
graduate and undergraduate student mailboxes or through email, when
When requesting letters, the DPC should make it clear that it is asking
letter writers to assess the strengths and weaknesses of, and continuing
need for, the candidate in terms of her/his teaching, scholarship,
Department participation, professional and community service, meeting
the curricular needs of the Department and University, and other
elements included in the relevant criteria.
The DPC is not a venue for the filing of formal complaints. If the DPC
were to receive something which seems to be a formal complaint, the
chair of the DPC will immediately contact the appropriate administrator or
counselor (Department Chair, Dean, Student Advocate, and the like) for
evaluation and resolution of the matter.
In order to assess the candidate's strengths and areas that need
improving, the DPC does not need exhaustively to search for every bit of
information available, but merely try to obtain a fair sampling of relevant
information. Whenever the committee receives negative information
about the candidate, the committee should evaluate the information as to
4. Composition of the DPC
The DPC will be composed of five tenured faculty members randomly
selected from all Department tenured faculty members above the rank of
the candidate being reviewed. Prior to the actual selection, each of the
candidates being reviewed may ask the Department Chair to remove one
name from the pool of potential DPC members. This request will be kept
confidential.] The five tenured faculty members shall be chosen from a
box containing the names of all departmental tenured faculty members
above the rank of the candidate being reviewed, excepting any otherwise
eligible tenured faculty members who have been excluded by the
candidate(s) under review. The names of all eligible tenured faculty
members who have previously served on a DPC shall also be included.
The names shall be pulled blindly from the box by the Department Chair
during a Department Meeting. No active member of the tenured faculty
above the rank of the candidate being evaluated has the right to refuse to
participate in the selection process or to refuse to serve on the DPC, if
5. Procedures of the DPC
The Chair of the DPC is a tenured faculty member elected by DPC
members. Each member of the DPC shall receive a copy of this
document, and all of the other documents mentioned above. The
meetings of the DPC shall be closed and all information and discussions
kept in confidence.
In the process of its deliberations, the DPC shall make the candidate's
file available to all Department tenured faculty members above the rank
of the candidate being considered so that the faculty may perform its
proper role in evaluating the candidate. The DPC shall make a draft of its
report available to all tenured faculty members above the rank of the
candidate, then hold a meeting with those faculty in order to solicit
information about the candidate and obtain a sense of an interactive
faculty evaluation. The DPC may ask for a vote from the eligible tenured
faculty at this meeting. This vote is advisory to the DPC.
The DPC will strive to arrive at a consensual appraisal of the
candidate's professional progress. In the absence of consensus, the
decision will be determined by a majority vote by secret ballot.
6. The Norm of Confidentiality
All DPC members will adhere to strict confidence of information
sources. Unsigned letters and "secondhand" information are not
legitimate inputs into the DPC assessment process and will not be
accepted or considered.
The candidate's file shall be available only to the candidate and
tenured faculty members above the rank of the candidate being
If a DPC participant feels the process of the Committee has been
seriously breached or the norm of confidentiality violated, and cannot
resolve the matter in the Committee, he or she has the right to take his or
her case to the Department Chair for resolution. In the absence of a
satisfactory resolution of the issue, he or she may then bring the matter
to the attention of a meeting of all tenured faculty above the rank of the
candidate. Maintaining the confidentiality of sources, however, will
remain the prime consideration at all
7. The Right of Candidates to Respond to the Committee's
During the initial deliberation stage, candidates shall have an
opportunity to respond to any especially critical information which the
Committee might receive (with the author's anonymity insured if the
author wishes to remain unidentified to the candidate).
The candidate shall have a chance to review and comment on the DPC's
The candidate may, at his or her discretion, choose to bring the report
before a meeting of the tenured faculty members (including the Chair)
above the rank of the candidate for further discussion.
8. Reporting the Committee's Assessment
The Committee's final report will be submitted to the Chair, who will
show both the Chair's and the DPC's assessment to the candidate before
transmitting all of this to the Dean for the Dean's subsequent assessment
The Committee shall inform the Department that the procedures have
been completed and that the report is available in the Departmental
Office for inspection by all tenured faculty members above the rank of
the candidate being considered.the report is available in the Departmental Office for inspection by all tenured faculty members above the rank of the candidate being considered.
Post-Tenure Review (adopted October 4, 1996)
Post-tenure review is intended to be a positive force to encourage faculty to continue their intellectual growth. We encourage the university to provide the material resources that would make relevant opportunities available to faculty.
Faculty undergoing post-tenure review have already met the requirements for tenure and for promotion to a senior rank. The Department expects that the faculty will continue to work successfully at the levels required for their tenure and promotion:
For both Associate Professors and Full Professors, there should be evidence of a mature level of teaching and the versatility to contribute to all levels of the department's instructional program. It is desirable for the evidence to include summaries of student evaluations or other assessments of a significant sample of courses taught.
The Associate Professors should be well on their way to becoming established scholars in the discipline; the Full Professors should be established scholars who are leaders in the scholarly discipline. Publication entailing independent refereed reviews is of first importance in establishing scholarly record. Other forms of peer review outside the university are also important.
Both Associate Professor and Full professors should contribute service to the professional and lay communities as appropriate.
The Department acknowledges that, at different points in their careers, senior faculty may choose to emphasize different aspects of their work. We encourage faculty members to make productive contributions in their chosen areas.
Conflict of Interest (adopted October 3, 1997)
Graduate students planning to apply for a teaching assistantship or any other award administered by the Grants and Awards committee should not be members of that committee. If any current student member should decide to apply for a grant or award administered by the committee, that student is obligated to resign from the committee.
Undergraduate Advising (adopted October 1994)
The Department's Policy on undergraduate advising is that students can seek academic advising from any permanent faculty member in the Department. If you have taken, or are currently taking a course with one of our faculty members, and are comfortable talking with them, you are welcome to seek them out for advice. We DO NOT require that you see our Undergraduate Chair, Professor Noenoe Silva. Please see the office staff in Saunders 640 if you have any questions.
If you wish to make an appointment with a faculty member, please e-mail or call them (click here for directory). As a side note, the staff in the main office does not regularly keep track of faculty schedules, and can only provide office hours and contact information.
M.A. Applicants for Ph.D. Program (Adopted February 24, 1995)
Relevant University Policy
According to the University's Graduate Division Manual of August 1994 (p. 33):
Currently enrolled candidates completing masters degrees at the end of a semester should submit the following to the Graduate Record Office:
a. Doctoral petition form with signature of graduate chair, within established admission deadlines.
b. Biographical Information Form.
c. International students on J-1 or F-1 visas: Supplementary Information form for non-U.S. citizens.
d. EWC grantees must submit to Graduate Division the EWC "Request for Action" form and then complete Graduate Division's petition form.
Department of Political Science Policy and Procedure
Students who have been admitted to candidacy for the M.A. degree in political science are not automatically advanced to candidacy for the Ph.D. They must compete with others who are applying for entry into the Ph.D. program. Students who are currently enrolled in the Master's program already have been admitted to the university's Graduate Division, and they already have files in the Department, so they do not have to go through the full application procedure.
For our purposes, the doctoral petition form referred to in the Graduate Division Manual is the one entitled Application for Admission to the Ph.D./DrPH Program. Current M.A. candidates interested in entering the Ph.D. program in political science should request this form from the Records office of the Graduate Division, in Spalding 352.
As explained near its top, this form is to be used only by classified graduate students in the final semester of their Master's work. According to university policy, Masters students who are not yet in their final semester would have to obtain and use a different "Doctoral petition form" from the Graduate Division. However, the Department's policy is that it will normally not accept applications from current M.A. students who are not yet in the final semester of their M.A. programs.
The Application for Admission to the Ph.D./DrPH Program form should be accompanied by another form, labeled Graduate Division, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Doctoral. This is the Biographical Information Form referred to in the Graduate Division Manual. This form can be obtained from the Records office of the Graduate Division at the same time the Application for Admission is obtained.
Both of these forms should be completed by the applicant and turned in to the Department of Political Science. The Application for Admission to the Ph.D./DrPH Program should be filled out only down to the "Signature of Student" and "Date." The rest will be filled out later by the Department and the Graduate Division.
The deadline dates on the Application for Admission should be ignored; they reflect university policy, not departmental policy. Since current M.A. students must be evaluated in competition with new applicants not presently at the university, they must apply within the same deadline. The application must be submitted by February 1 for consideration for entry into the Ph.D. program in the Fall of the same year.
For most students, the filing of these two forms meets the requirements of the university. (International students and East-West Center grantees must supply additional information, as indicated in the Graduate Division Manual.) The Department, however, requires additional information to be used in the evaluation undertaken by the Department's Admissions Committee. Apart from the two forms required by the university, the Department requires the following:
- Statement of Intent
- A writing sample
- Three letters of recommendation
The Statement of Intent is a brief essay, of not more than two pages, describing the applicant's purposes in pursuing a Ph.D. in political science. It should address questions such as:
- What kinds of influences or projects (intellectual questions, life experiences, people) have contributed to the formulation of your concerns and interests in this field?
- How have your intellectual development and appetite for pursuing political questions added to your ability to initiate projects and sustain your work in the discipline?
- To what kinds of questions do you want answers?
- What is there about this program and location that particularly speak to your interests?
- What do you hope to accomplish through and with a Ph.D. in political science?
The writing sample should be a term paper or other piece of work that displays the applicant's capacity for clear and cogent analysis.
In summary, M.A. students wishing to be considered for the Ph.D. program in political science should submit the following, all at once, to the Department of Political Science:
1. Statement of Intent
2. A writing sample
3. 3 letters of recommendation
4. Application for Admission to the Ph.D./DrPH Program
These are the required materials. Applicants may add other materials as they wish.
Upon receiving these materials, a new file for the applicant will be formed, for use by the Department's Admissions Committee. Before forwarding the application file to the committee, the secretary will add two items, taken from the file the student has already established in the Department. These items are:
7. Graduate Record Examination scores
It is the applicant's responsibility to review the file with the Graduate Secretary to be sure it is complete.
The Admissions Committee may use the established file for the student in the Department as well as the newly-assembled application file. After the Admissions Committee has evaluated the information and made its recommendation, the two forms required by the university will be signed by the Graduate Chair and forwarded to the Graduate Division. Copies will be retained for the student's file. A letter reporting the decision will be sent to the applicant by the Graduate Chair.
Admission to Ph.D, Program (Revised February 1996)
The Department voted to raise the cap on admission to the Ph.D. program from 20 to 30, assuming that such a move would net an incoming class of approximately 10 students per year. We agreed to periodically revisit the policy.
Admission to Ph.D, Program (Revised Spring 2005)
The Department voted to cap admission to the Ph.D. program at 21, assuming that such a move would net an incoming class of approximately 11 students per year
Summer Lecturerships (adopted April 12, 1996)
By a unanimous vote of 13 (Y) to 0 (N) with no Abstentions, the Department adopted the following policy with regard to summer lecturerships:
1. We institute a clear, strong rule that individuals are eligible to teach only one course per summer, except under exceptional circumstances.
2. We instruct the hiring committee to prepare an alternate list, but we do not require the committee to rank all applicants.
3. If an alternate has already been assigned a course, then that person is ineligible for a second course, except under exceptional circumstances.
The purpose of this policy is to endorse the "share the wealth" principle to the greatest possible extent without compromising the commitment to select the most qualified applicants to teach the courses.
Culminating Experience for M.A., PLAN B (adopted April 24, 1996; amended October 10, 2006)
Goal: Our goal is to offer intellectually meaningful options to the MA Plan B students by creating work that entails clear expectations for success, significant consequences for failure, and meaningful opportunity for intellectual development. We want to locate the MA differently on the department’s academic map, making it a more robust and significant experience.
Organization: In each case, it is the responsibility of the student to assemble the needed supervisor or committee; faculty members are expected to accept a reasonable number of these obligations as part of their work with graduate students, but have the option of declining specific requests if they feel they are not qualified or have too many prior Plan B commitments.
Evaluation: Each option will be graded as pass or fail. In the event of a pass, mazeltov. In the event of failure, the candidate will be asked to re-write the problematic text until it is satisfactory.
Option I: M.A. Comprehensive Exams
The student must declare a specialization (in association with faculty). Students will then compose an MA committee consisting of two faculty members from the Department of Political Science. The MA committee will work with the student to agree upon a body of literature. Each professor will pose two questions to the candidate, and the student will select one question from each professor and write a 10-15 page essay in response to each question. Questions should be picked-up at the Department of Political Science office from 8am Monday and returned complete by 4pm the following Friday. Both professors will read and comment on both essays, while each professor is the ultimate arbiter as to the success or failure of his/her question.
Criteria for success: Successful essays must utilize a relevant literature and make a sound argument. The student may pass both essays, or fail both essays, or pass one and fail one. Timetable for re-writing failed questions is worked out between the faculty members and the student.
Option II: MA Paper
Students will select one seminar paper from a graduate class taken in the Department of Political Science and develop it into an article-length essay of publishable quality. The professor who offered the original class will normally be the supervisor of the MA paper, although if that person is not available another may be substituted. The seminar paper to be modified must be presented up-front to the supervisor so adequate progress in making revisions can be assessed.
Criteria for success: Successful papers must reflect considerably more work, both in quantity and quality, than was evident in the original seminar paper. A passing paper will be judged by both the professor and the student to be significantly improved over the first version. The student is strongly encouraged to work with his/her mentor to submit the essay to a refereed journal.
Option III: Intellectual Autobiography
Students will produce an original piece of analytical writing (not a re-circulated seminar paper, personal diary, or other previous work) of 15-25 pages in which the student reflects on his/her intellectual journey and explores the intellectual resources anchoring his/her graduate experience. The student will recruit a faculty member to act as supervisor for the work.
Criteria for success: A successful intellectual biography is one that both the professor and the student judge to contain the following elements:
- Analytical reflections on the literature that has most informed his/her academic growth; not a passive or descriptive literature review, but an active encounter that puts texts into conversation with one another and with the student’s own thinking;
- Discussion of the political problems and opportunities that have most shaped her/his growth as a student of politics;
- Speculations about her/his future directions and development as political thinker.
- An appropriate bibliography of works actually used (not a laundry list of potentially relevant texts in some future life).
Culminating Experience in Alternative Futures M.A. Specialization (adopted October 4, 1996)
On April 24, 1996 the Department agreed that students in the Master's program Plan B (Non-thesis) are required to complete a Culminating Experience consisting of a colloquium presented to the department. However, it was also agreed that students in particular Specializations may fulfill the requirement in other ways if approved by the department.
The Alternative Futures Specialization requires that students wishing to complete its program must take 3 6 credits (not just the 3 0 required of other Master's candidates), either by completing a thesis for 6 credits (Master's Plan A), or by taking a year-long paid internship in a futures research center for 6 credits (Master's Plan B). The Department agrees that this 6 credit internship is an appropriate Culminating Experience for Master's candidates in the Alternative Futures Specialization who do not write a thesis.
Reshaping Political Science 600: Scope and Methods of Political Science (adopted May 9, 1997)
In the Fall of 1997 we instituted a modular format for PolS 600. The consensus was that we approach the course as music appreciation, rather than piano lessons: the course will invite students into a variety of ways to frame questions about politics. Our goal is to introduce students to a variety of methods, broadly conceived, with their different languages, assumptions, and practices of inquiry. The course should help students to situate themselves within the field of political science, and within the methodological strategies practiced in this Department. The course should also encourage students to approach a variety of methods with respect and appreciation for their different possibilities as well as with an understanding of their limits.
Moving from a musical to a culinary analogy, the course is conceived as heavy pupus: participating faculty will articulate the basic parameters of different methodological approaches, as opposed to simply presenting their own research or to teaching the details of application. The faculty are encouraged to articulate and address some common general questions, such as: Why do I choose this method? What questions does it allow me to ask? What outcomes do I hope to see? What leads me to choose this method for this topic? Additionally, the faculty teaching the course in a given semester could select 2-3 substantive political issues, ranging from environmental policy to racial justice to same-sex marriage, and ask how different methods would go to work on those questions, constituting the intellectual terrain and shaping the inquiry. Faculty may use their own work to illustrate a particularly methodological strategy, but the focus is on introducing the general practice of inquiry. Students who want more information about the specifics of applying one or more of the methods will be directed to other appropriate seminars.
The modular frame for the course works as follows:
Four-six faculty members will each teach one module, made up of 2-4 sessions each. There will be one official instructor of record, to satisfy university bookkeeping requirements. For internal record-keeping, each faculty member teaching a full module (not those appearing for a single guest lecture) will receive .5 credit.
The first and last meeting of the semester will involve all the teaching faculty. The rest of the class meetings will be divided into the appropriate number and sequence of modules. Each faculty member will be responsible for the syllabus, reading material and assignments for his/her module. Faculty may coordinate reading assignments when desired. The faculty teaching the methods modules in any given semester are encouraged to share their topics and assignments with the rest of the Department, to foster a general sense of excitement concerning the practices of inquiry.
A potential menu of methods for this course include the following: global modeling, futures methods, quantitative methods (of various kinds), interviewing, survey research, feminist methods, interpretation, genealogy/semiotics/discourse analysis, anti-foundationalism, qualitative/ethnographic methods, historical analysis, participant-observation, and participatory action research. It is not crucial that every methodological approach be covered in every semester, but that an appropriate breadth and variety of methods be introduced, with useful information provided to the students about ways to further pursue different approaches.
This reorganization of PolS 600 took place within the Department because the existing catalog description of the course continues to be fully met. Other questions, such as whether to require the course and if so, of whom, would require further departmental discussion as well as official revision at the university curricular level.
Distance Learning (adopted: May 10, 1997)
Members of the Department see both strengths and weaknesses in the current move toward distance education (see report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Distance Learning, appended). Distance education courses are those which utilize electronic mail, newsgroups, web sites, and other electronic forums, in lieu of regular face-to-face and/or HITS interactions.
We want to be informed and critical participants in this as in other aspects of education. We will offer one distance learning class via CCECS, then evaluate it via the Curriculum Committee, who will speak with the instructor. We will then have further departmental discussion about future directions in this area.
The advertisement to teach the distance learning class will ask for the following additional material from applicants:
1. Applicants should address the unique opportunities and challenges of teaching an on-line course, explaining their teaching strategies in this medium;
2. Applicants should, in explaining course requirements, discuss their strategy to assure the integrity of the evaluation process;
3. Applicants should explain how they will go about assuring that students possess the minimum necessary familiarity with and access to the required technologies.
4. Applicants will agree to conduct a mid-semester and an end-of-semester evaluation which adds the following questions to the standard instrument:
On a 5 point scale (SA A ? D SD):
a. The instructor responded in a timely fashion to email inquiries.
b. The instructor responded substantively to email inquiries.
c. I found the electronic dialogue with the instructor to be useful in meeting my educational objectives.
d. I found the electronic dialogue with my fellow students to be useful in meeting my educational objectives.
e. Electronic dialogue and other information provided by the instructor was as effective as typical lecture sessions in comparable classes I have taken.
f. I do not feel that my educational opportunity was reduced or compromised by substitution of electronic communication for regularly scheduled classroom sessions in comparable classes.
g. I feel that the electronic forum we used was a significant improvement over the typical lecture session in comparable classes.
The instructor for a CCECS distance learning course will be selected in the same manner as other instructors, that is, through the Hiring Committee. If no member of that committee is knowledgeable about distance education, the committee should consult a faculty member who is.
Graduate Student Desk Assignments (adopted on September 5, 2001; revised on May 22, 2006)
Desk space for graduate students will be made available by the Department of Political Science in accordance with the following guidelines:
- First priority will be given to Teaching Assistants and Apprentices. Desk space will be made available to the student for the duration of the assistantship/apprenticeship.
- Second priority will be given to Lecturers and those participating in the Teaching Initiative program. Desk space for Lecturers and Teaching Initiative participants will be provided based on availability. Space will also be allocated on a limited basis to freshman seminar leaders. Usage, in all of these instances, will be limited to the duration of the teaching position.
- Third Priority will be given to Ph.D. students who have reached ABD status. Desk space will be granted for a maximum of six semesters. (Semesters of teaching will not be applied toward the six semester limit).
- Fourth priority will be given, for a maximum of four semesters, to Ph.D. students who are pre-ABD. (Semesters of teaching will not be applied toward this limit).
- Fifth priority will be given to MA candidates.
- If any space is still available, ABD students beyond their 6th semester and pre-ABD students beyond their 4th semester will be considered.
- All of the above will be executed in a manner that provides the least amount of movement and inconvenience for students. Students wishing to remain in their assigned desks (outside of the space reserved for Teaching Assistants) following a change in teaching/student status will be accommodated whenever possible.
Field Work/ Leave of Absence:
Graduate students who will be absent for the duration of time equal to or greater than one semester must vacate their assigned office space and return the office key to the department prior to their departure.
Lecturers for the summer sessions will use the office space assigned to Lecturers and Teaching Initiative participants.
Desk space is given to graduate students for their active dissertation (thesis) research and writing and/or course teaching. It is not for the storage of books or other materials. Those who do not regularly use their space should voluntarily vacate it, so that it can be allocated to active students without desks.
Prior to vacating the office space, a student must clean up the desk and work area and dispose of his/her unwanted materials such as books and papers by him/herself. Leaving unwanted personal materials in a community trashcan or in the hallway is unacceptable.
Student Evaluation of Instruction (adopted February 22, 2002; revised June 22, 2002)
The systematic evaluation of teaching can be designed to serve at least two functions:
Diagnostic. Evaluations can enable instructors to determine how well they have achieved the learning objectives set out in their course syllabi, and thus can help them adjust and improve their goals and methods of teaching.
Assessment. Information on teaching effectiveness can help the Department make decisions regarding the selection of instructors and the allocation of resources.
The University of Hawai‘i’s Office of Faculty Development and Academic Support (OFDAS) operates both a Center for Teaching Excellence and a Center for Instructional Support. The Center for Teaching Excellence specializes in providing diagnostic services, while the Center for Instructional Support provides online questionnaires and support services for obtaining information, both quantitative and qualitative, on teaching effectiveness. CIS’s Course and Faculty Evaluation service, called CAFÉ, is a flexible system, offering a menu of different possible questions, and allowing for new questions to be added. This allows instructors to develop an instrument that assesses the effectiveness of their teaching goals and methods. Instructors also are invited to use additional assessment procedures that are keyed to their individual teaching goals and methods.
The Department of Political Science believes that the quality of instruction should be diagnosed and assessed on a regular basis. The Department’s policy on the assessment of teaching effectiveness is:
1. Student assessment of instruction is required for all instructors of political science courses. The procedures described here are to be used in all political science courses except freshman seminar, directed reading, thesis research, dissertation research courses, and online courses.
2. The assessments will be administered in accordance with CAFÉ procedures and guidelines.
3. The Department Chair will establish a committee to facilitate both assessment and diagnostic procedures.
4. The Department will work with the CAFÉ system and the OFDAS Center for Instructional Support, with coordination by the committee.
5. The Department will adopt a list of required core questions from the CAFÉ menu to be used for assessing all instructors. This set of core questions may be changed only by a decision of the Department, on the recommendation of the committee. The core list will include questions that CAFÉ includes in all questionnaires used throughout the Manoa campus.
6. Instructors may add questions from the CAFÉ menu to the core list of questions. They may also use other means of assessment to augment, but not to replace, the CAFÉ questionnaire.
The CAFÉ questionnaire that is to be used includes some questions required by the CAFÉ system, and some required by the Department. In addition, individual instructors are free to add more agree/disagree questions and open-ended questions from the CAFÉ menu.
The procedure to be followed each fall and spring semester is as follows, with dates to be determined by the committee. Similar procedures will be formulated for Summer School and for Outreach College courses.
1. An introductory memorandum, “Introduction to the Political Science Department’s Assessment Procedures,” will be distributed each semester to all instructors describing the procedure that is to be followed. This memorandum will also invite those instructors who wish to do so to select optional questions by a specified date. The university’s current CAFÉ brochure will be made available, and instructors will also be informed as to how to locate the menu of options at the CAFÉ Web site.
2. Under the guidance of the committee, the Department’s secretarial staff will submit the CAFÉ questionnaire request form, online, for all political science courses. To facilitate coordination by the evaluations committee, instructors are asked to not submit requests on their own.
3. Near the end of the semester, the blank questionnaires from the CAFÉ office will be distributed to instructors, along with a memorandum from the CAFÉ office on “Administering the Course and Faculty Evaluation (CAFÉ).
4. Instructors will be required to administer the questionnaires during the last week of instruction in each of their courses, in accordance with the procedures described in the following section.
5. For courses that are taught by more than one instructor, separate questionnaires should be administered for each instructor who covers one third or more of the course.
6. After the completed questionnaires are processed at the CAFÉ office, the summary reports and questionnaires will be returned to the Department Chair.
7. The Department Chair will have a copy made of each summary report. The originals of the summary reports and the questionnaires will be given to the instructors.
8. The Department Chair will maintain the Department’s copy of the summary reports in a closed, secure Evaluations Archive.
9. When assessments are needed to support applications for teaching positions, promotions, tenure, etc., it will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide these materials to the relevant committee. They will not normally be drawn from the Department’s Evaluations Archive.
10. The committee from time to time may recommend changes in the policy, procedures, and questionnaire.
INSTRUCTOR’S ADMINISTRATION OF QUESTIONNAIRES
The CAFÉ questionnaires will be online near to the end of each semester. They will be accompanied by instructions for the administration of questionnaires, based on the following points:
1. The questionnaires are to be administered during the last week of class, and not during the final examination period.
2. After the CAFÉ office has completed its analysis, the instructors will recieve a summary. The Department can request copies of the summary reports for its Evaluations Archive.
There are 16 required questions that are to be included on all CAFÉ questionnaires used in the Department of Political Science. These are:
Three descriptive questions, required by the CAFÉ system:
- Class Level: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Graduate, Other (CAFÉ menu #1)
- Gender: Male/Female (#2)
- Course: Elective/Required (#3)
Three agree/disagree questions required by the CAFÉ system:
- The instructor demonstrates knowledge of course content. (#4)
- The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course. (#5)
- The instructor communicates effectively. (#6)
Six agree/disagree questions required by the Department of Political Science:
- I felt that this course challenged me intellectually. (#45)
- The instructor seems to enjoy teaching. (#57)
- The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively. (#68)
- The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter. (#69)
- The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject. (#70)
- The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions. (#112)
Four open-ended questions required by the Department of Political Science:
- Which aspects of the course were most valuable? (#300)
- Which aspects of the course were least valuable? (#301)
- Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Circle one: very poor – poor – average – good – excellent (#313)
Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Circle one: very poor – poor – average – good – excellent (#325)
Individual instructors may choose up to eleven more agree/disagree questions from the CAFÉ menu of options. They also may add up to three more open-ended questions.
More information about the CAFÉ system may be found at www.cafe.hawaii.edu
Harry Friedman Conference Room (Saunders Hall 624)
On 16 January 2004 the department met to determine use policy for the new conference room. For this semester the following uses will be considered appropriate:
MA Culminating experiences
Graduate student presentations to other graduate students in non-course settings
Evening graduate seminars
Laurie Onizuka is the keeper of the keys; keys must be returned to Laurie ASAP. The room must remain locked at all other times. We also agreed that food should not be eaten in the room.
Who is Harry Friedman?
The conference room is named for Harry Friedman, two-time chair of the political science department and architect of its modern incarnation. He was a consistent civic innovator in shaping the academic and political practices and the ethos that distinguishes our department today.
In the early 1960s, the department initiated a PhD program. Nevertheless, there were two contending ideas for how that program could be organized. One was to promote localism, encouraging the department to remain focused on state politics, particularly legislative and administrative politics. Another idea was to promote the PhD program as an opportunity to become a professional "political science" department (it had been the department of Government) with scholarship and graduate training aspirations—in short, the kind of department that belongs at a research university. It was Harry (with the collaboration of Bob Cahill) that successfully defended this vision. And subsequently, Harry played a major role in recruiting much of the department’s faculty, including some of our now-retired and deceased colleagues.
Apart from Harry's role in shaping the intellectual/scholarly orientation of the department, he was central to the development of the department's political orientation. He was virtually alone among the senior members of the department in his support for full student participation in departmental affairs, and, while many senior members were wary of pressuring the UH administration in order to acquire new positions or to ward off administrative and political interference, Harry hung tough on every issue. Harry retired and died in 1996.