Departmental Policies and Committee Regulations

Academic Honesty and Plagiarism

The department holds its students to the highest standards of academic integrity. Examples of academic dishonesty include, but are not limited to:

  • Using the same paper for more than one class without explicit permission from the instructors.
  • Cutting and pasting directly from a website or other source without proper attribution.
  • Using sources or referring to sources without directly referencing the materials. This includes restating the material so tightly that any reasonable person would recognize the text as substantially the same.
  • Passing off work done by other students as your own.
  • Cheating on tests.

No forms of academic dishonesty will be tolerated. If a student is found to have engaged in a form of academic dishonesty, consequences will range from failure on the offending assignment, to failure in the course, to suspension from the university. Evidence of academic dishonesty within a course will be forwarded to the department chair and/or graduate chair. A report may be filed with the Office of Judicial Affairs. A record of charges will be kept in the student’s file.

More information regarding this subject can be found on the website of the University of Hawai'i at Manoa Catalog at or the Office of Student Affair’s website in the student conduct code at

Grievance Policy

If you have a concern regarding a course grade or and academic grievance, please carefully read and follow the instructions for formally addressing your concerns here: If you have questions about how to proceed, please contact the Department Chair.

Return to top

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.

Return to top

Community Norms on Committees (adopted October 19, 2001)


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.

Return to top

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:
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

Select Finalist

Ratify finalist


Search Committee





Search Committee meetings

Department meeting

Department meeting

Faculty meeting


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

Return to top

Contract Renewal Procedures

The current contract renewal prodcedures were adopted June 5, 2015. To read the thorough procedures for probationary faculty contract renewal, download this memo.

Return to top

DPC Policies & Procedures for Tenure & Promotion

These procedures are updated annually. Please see the document below for the current version.

DPC Policies & Procedures for Tenure & Promotion

Return to top

Departmental Expectations for Tenure and Promotion to Associate and Full Professor

(Established March 2012; Revised February 2014 Vote 11-0)

The following categories constitute the criteria used by the Department of Political Science to assess candidates for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor and to Full Professor.

A. Scholarship1

The criteria for Instructional faculty regarding scholarship for tenure and promotion requires:

"The faculty member must have demonstrated a level of scholarly achievement appropriate to the rank at which tenure is sought in comparison with peers active in the same discipline.  The comparison peer group consists not only of departmental colleagues but also of the whole of the appropriate community of scholars active at major research universities.  For the Assistant Professor seeking tenure as an Associate Professor, the applicant should be well on the way to becoming an established scholar in his or her discipline.  The Associate Professor seeking tenure should be an established scholar whose scholarly contributions and recognition during the probationary period reflect this stature.  The full Professor must be among the leaders in the scholarly discipline.  In general, publication in a form that involves review by independent referees is of first importance in establishing scholarly achievement.
(Criteria and Guidelines for Faculty Tenure/Promotion Application, September 2011, p. 6-7)."

The Department expects its members to be actively engaged in scholarship in their areas of expertise. Publication in peer-reviewed sources and the presentation of research at professional conferences constitute an important means by which to determine the productivity of a faculty member.

The Department encourages its faculty to engage in innovative and critical areas of research.  The Department emphasizes the importance of the quality of the work submitted and recognizes that each decision must balance the Department's assessment of quality with the standards expected in the candidate's field(s) more generally. Quality is to be assessed through the internal and external review of the scholarship submitted as part of the tenure and promotion file. It is expected that faculty up for tenure or promotion to Associate Professor should demonstrate consistent scholarly activity, as discussed below, resulting in a record of published work in peer-reviewed media such as print journals, electronic journals, or academic publishers

For the purposes of tenure, the department expects the following in terms of scholarship:

  • Publication of a single author monograph or a contract for publication based upon peer review.
  • In exceptional cases a substantive body of peer-reviewed scholarly articles will be considered the equivalent.  
  • In all cases, high quality academic publishers that use external peer review are most valued.

In addition to this standard, the Department expects faculty to include some combination of or the following1:

  • Additional publications that demonstrate a clear contribution to the field during the probationary period are expected. These could include publications in peer-reviewed journals, special issues, book chapters, invited essays, co-edited or co-authored books, co-authored articles and other editorial projects. Conference presentations of work at relevant peer reviewed conferences in the field, including invited speaking events.
  • A record of actively pursuing and obtaining external grants.
  • Participation in the scholarship of engagement, meaning a direct connection between the scholar and larger communities.

1Authorship conventions in the field:  According to a 2009 survey of political science departments in the United States with graduate programs, the two most important publication requirements for tenure were a single-authored monograph (a book) and a series of journal articles. While approximately 1/3 of programs required a book manuscript for tenure, most others required the book manuscript or its equivalent in journal articles. A review of the tenure and promotion criteria for our benchmark universities demonstrate that universities are flexible in their requirements regarding a book or the equivalent in journal articles depending upon subfields.

Promotion to Full Professor

At the rank of Full Professor, a faculty member is expected to have developed a respected international reputation in their area of study.  Consistent publication and engagement in the field remains vital in this regard and it is expected that throughout their career faculty will continue to publish in peer-reviewed formats.

For the purposes of promotion to Full Professor, the department expects the following in terms of scholarship:

  • Publication of a second single author monograph or a contract
    for publication based upon peer review, or the equivalent in scholarly
  • Consistent publication over the period of review in peer-reviewed journals, special issues, book chapters, invited essays and other editorial projects.
  • Continued participation in relevant conferences associated with scholarly output.
  • Advancing research in the fields through leadership.


Instructional faculty are also expected to be excellent teachers and to maintain the highest quality of classroom instruction at all levels of tenure and promotion.  According to the Criteria and Guidelines for Faculty Tenure/Promotion Application, September 2011:

"The faculty member must have demonstrated a high level of competence as a teacher during the probationary period.  In the rank of Assistant Professor, there should be evidence of increasing professional accomplishment as a teacher.  For the Associate and full Professor ranks, there should be evidence of a mature level of performance and the versatility to contribute to all levels of the department’s instructional program.  In all cases, the evidence should include summaries of student evaluations, how your classes contribute to programmatic and institutional learning outcomes, or other objective assessments of a significant sample of the courses taught during the probationary period.
(Criteria and Guidelines for Faculty Tenure/Promotion Application, September 2011, p. 6.)"

Faculty at all levels of the tenure and promotion process should submit evaluations for all courses taught in addition to other evidence of teaching effectiveness.  The Department will accept a variety of sources as evidence of teaching excellence, including the college-mandated student evaluations, letters from faculty who have co-taught courses with the faculty up for review, evidence of ongoing professional development through the Center for Teaching Excellence, and assessments by the Department chair based upon a class visit that can be requested as part of the review process. We recognize that student evaluations are very important in assessing learning in the classroom, but that peer review of teaching is also an important element in understanding the value of the teaching environment.

Return to top

Post-Tenure Review (2015)

Periodically, faculty must undergo post-tenure review. The same expectations discussed above will apply to all post-tenure reviews not leading to promotion. Specifically, all faculty members are expected to remain engaged in their fields of study by presenting their research at academic conferences and publishing their work in peer-reviewed formats. Additional book-length monographs are encouraged. Publication of approximately one scholarly piece a year is also expected. Failure to provide evidence of on-going engagement in the field will result in a negative post-tenure assessment.

Return to top

Conflicts 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.

Return to top

Policy on Consensual Relationships

The University of Hawai‘i is committed to ensuring a safe, civil learning and working environment in which the dignity of every individual is recognized and respected. To read the full policy on consensual relationships, including examples, please visit

Return to top

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 at any point, however it IS recommended. 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. 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.

Return to top

M.A. Applicants to 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:

6. Transcripts
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.

Return to top

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

Return to top

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.
  4. 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.

Return to top

Culminating Experience for M.A., Plan B (adopted April 24, 1996; amended October 10, 2006)


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.


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.


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:

  1. 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;
  2. Discussion of the political problems and opportunities that have most shaped her/his growth as a student of politics;
  3. Speculations about her/his future directions and development as political thinker.
  4. An appropriate bibliography of works actually used (not a laundry list of potentially relevant texts in some future life).

Return to top

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.

Return to top

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. PolS 600 is not required however it can be counted as 9 credit hours towards master plan A and B.

Return to top

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.

Summer Session:

Lecturers for the summer sessions will use the office space assigned to Lecturers and Teaching Initiative participants.

General Guidelines:

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.

Return to top

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:


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.


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

Return to top

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:

Department meetings
Candidate talks
Committee meetings
Dissertation defenses
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.

Return to top

Policy on Visitors

Occasionally the department hosts visiting scholars. These individuals are selected because they contribute to the intellectual environment of the department.

Visitors are selected by the chair in consultation with other interested faculty and graduate students. Some are proposed by a department member; others contact the department independently. In the later event, the chair should conduct due diligence to be sure the individual is an appropriate candidate.

We invite the individual to join us for a maximum of one year and we assist this person in securing library access. If it is available, we will provide office space. No financial support will be offered.

We may invite the visitor to give a department colloquium and to be available for other events as requested.