We discuss now the ideas behind the international faculty, the hiring process, the relocation of people, the training and coaching, and the growth in size of the faculty. We share how all the process bootstrapped and the challenges of starting from zero.

1 Booting the Recruitment Process

Professors select the universities to apply to and to join often based on the reputation of the organization, which may play a role higher than the salary, as the name of the institution on the business card of the professor constitutes a major plus when he/she performs private consulting or applies for research grants and funding for startups, which in turn are often a substantial part of the overall income. Moreover, the reputation of the current employer is a very important factor when a professor wants to change the job.

These factors themselves indeed explain the enormous difficulties that IU faced when it started the recruitment campaign for faculty members as early as 2013, just after its foundation, when still the city and the university were just plans on a paper.

The strategy was then to target mainly two classes of professors:

  • rising stars, meaning young, freshly graduate professors, offering them a very attractive research pack, a personal lab with equipment and research assistants fully funded by the university for a substantial number of years,

  • old lions, meaning well-established faculty members, also close to retirement, which could come either as permanent faculty members or visiting/adjunct and enjoy the possibility to have a new lab fully funded by the university where they could continue and extend their work, at the moment and also beyond retirement, plus the possibility to brand part of the university research and education with their personal research and educational choices.

Moreover, the youngest of the rising stars were also offered the possibility to spend time in the existing lab of the old lions, in their original institutions, to promote cross-fertilization and speed up the amalgamation process.

Two additional key factors for both were the possibility to shape the curriculum anew, in a striking modern and innovative way, a situation unimaginable in established institutions and the availability of top-quality students. These students could have been educated based on the mentioned curriculum, and in a few years, they would have been ready to perform top-quality research, as then happened, as we can see from the results at the ACM student research competitions.

Initially, the contact with perspective professors was anyway difficult, mainly addressing potential faculty one by one by email after an extensive web search. This is how one of the authors of this book has been contacted in October 2013. The second round was done using LinkedIn, in particular the contacts of the people already hired.

Rising awareness about Innopolis in 2013 and 2014 was a difficult exercise. As soon as a core of specialist known in their areas was hired, the visibility of the university quickly boosted, and a regular hiring campaign via traditional channels (journals, conferences, mailing lists, etc.) become possible.

The establishment of a program of visiting professors from abroad also helped dramatically to this regard. At the moment, the faculty includes more than 20 members, of which a good share are foreigners.

Figure 3.1 shows the first moment in which the existing faculty visited the inside of the university building in February 2015.

Fig. 3.1
figure 1

The first visit inside the university building, February 2015

Full size image

2 Formalizing the Hiring Process

After the initial ad hoc, almost one-to-one phase, the faculty grew in size, and it became then a compelling issue to formalize the hiring process with clean and transparent rules, ready to handle also hundreds of applications. For this reason, an approach similar to the one of Google or Facebook was selected and includes the following steps.

The recruitment for permanent and adjunct faculty is conducted through the following phases:

  1. 1.

    First of all, as it is a common process, applicants are asked to send a cover letter explaining their motivations to join Innopolis University, a CV, a teaching statement, and a research statement; moreover, they are asked to have at least two research scholars to send a recommendation letter directly to the university.

  2. 2.

    A permanent hiring committee shortlist candidates on the basis of their application documents and the current information available online on scientific repositories, such as Scopus, dblp, Google Scholar, etc. This tasks involves also the deans and the institute heads of the perspective faculty and institute(s).

  3. 3.

    A person from HR with the support of a person with technical knowledge conducts a first online interview to test motivation and soft skills and some general background.

  4. 4.

    If the candidate is deemed suitable, then a second round of online interviews is conducted, in order by the deans and the institute heads of the perspective faculty and institute(s) and by two experts in the field identified by the permanent hiring committee; each of these interviews acts as a filter to the next.

  5. 5.

    On the basis of the results of the interview, the permanent hiring committee can take three possible decisions:

    1. a.

      to invite the candidate for an on-site interview;

    2. b.

      to defer the decision, in which case more interviews might be sought or simply step 5 can be iterated to gather better understanding of the candidate or of the need of the university;

    3. c.

      to reject the candidate with a rejection letter.

  6. 6.

    The on-site interview includes:

    1. a.

      a lecture (for students, faculty members, and research staff);

    2. b.

      a research seminar (for students and research staff);

    3. c.

      up to four individual interviews with faculty members;

    4. d.

      lunch and dinner, as/when appropriate, to verify further motivation and soft skills;

    5. e.

      one panel interview.

  7. 7.

    Feedback from all these parts of the on-site interview is collected, and, on such basis, the permanent hiring committee writes a synthetic recommendation for the appropriate hiring body.

We have found this approach very effective even if a bit long. Out of the people hired with this approach, practically none had any problem in getting adjusted to our working style and process. However, remember that not all candidates have to go through all the stages. If there is a doubt in any of the steps, the process is simply stopped. Moreover, we have empirically noted that we had a few candidates complaining for the length; however, they were candidates that eventually did not even reach the final stage of the process and were rejected in due course.

With the advent of the pandemics, the last stage of on-site lectures and talks has been moved online, indeed, missing the more convivial dining part.

3 Faculty Continuous Development

A number of activities have been established aimed at supporting new faculty during the initial period and all faculty along their careers at Innopolis University. These activities are integral part of the attractive package that is offered to faculty, and it is particularly precious for young hires.

3.1 Induction Workshop

During the first semester of working at Innopolis University, new faculty members attend a half-a-day workshop run by more senior colleagues aimed at introducing the working practice of the university, its operations, the vision, and the short-term and long-term goals, including the strategies to achieve them.

3.2 Teaching Improvement Programs

Innopolis University offers to its teaching staff the opportunity to attend on-site the Instructional Skills Workshop (ISW). The Instructional Skills Workshops (ISW) was founded in 1979 in British Colombia, Canada, to quickly give classroom instruction skills to engineers who had never had teachers’ training. The process is an intensive introduction to teaching in a higher educational setting and focuses on practical in-class skillsets and course delivery.

This process was brought over to Russia via Innopolis University in 2017 and has since been the critical training unit for Innopolis Faculty at all ranks. Innopolis University’s trainers are the regional “local representatives” of the program for Russia. Our first faculty received their trainer qualifications, from a founding member of the process, in 2018 meaning that we are entirely self-sufficient in the program.

ISW is typically a 3-day event focusing on how to teach groups of students. It has been designed to enhance the teaching effectiveness of both new and experienced educators. A certificate of completion will be awarded to each participant. The participation is mandatory for junior teaching staff.

Figure 3.2 shows one of the most recent ISW graduation moments for some of our colleagues.

Fig. 3.2
figure 2

ISW graduation 2021

Full size image

The ISW is a framework model of teaching practice. The format varies depending upon participant goals. The workshop begins with an overview of instruction. To be certified, an ISW must:

  • Be a minimum of 24 h of in-classroom instruction (plus homework)

  • Have a minimum of three peer-evaluated lessons

  • Use an educational model of practice

  • Engage with the process of the training

The participants of the ISW report that it has improved their relations with students and teaching qualities.

3.2.1 ISW at Innopolis

From the faculty side, Dr. Joseph Alexander Brown, to improve TA actions, started a series of workshop sessions with TAs. From the administration side, Oksana Zhirosh leads the creation of a needs assessment process. The findings of both processes showed the need for better faculty training in teaching, and it was to be a formalized process.

After this evaluation, many programs were examined for suitability. Finally, the ISW was chosen due to the following: (1) it is targeted to the goals of the participants, meaning that any faculty or staff member can join the session and gain from experience, (2) it is designed to focus on classroom skillsets and is application-based, (3) it is designed to promote a learner-centric model, and (4) the certification process is recognized about the globe and does not expire or require hefty fees to some third-party organization for “recertification” or “membership”.Footnote 1

David Tickner, one of the founders of the process, in 2017 ran the first ISW at Innopolis. This ISW was immediately followed by facilitator development workshops (FDW) and in 2018 with the trainer development workshop (TDW).

3.3 Individual Mentoring

Innopolis University offers a mentoring scheme for junior faculty or teaching assistants who wants to be assisted in their initial professional steps by a more senior colleague. The mentor is assigned by the Department of Education on request of the employee.

4 Faculty Evaluations

All instructors, professors, and professors of the practice at Innopolis University participate in a number of evaluations over the course of their careers pursuant to the following schedule:

  1. 1.

    All instructors, professors, and professors of the practice with teaching responsibilities have every course and laboratory they teach evaluated by students enrolled in the course or laboratory at the end of each semester;

  2. 2.

    All instructors, professors, and professors of the practice have their courses evaluated by faculty peers of the same or higher academic seniority;

  3. 3.

    Annually, all faculty members are evaluated by the dean of faculty, taking into account the evaluation of the director of the institute;

  4. 4.

    In the last year of appointment, all faculty members are reviewed for reappointment;

  5. 5.

    When eligibility requirements are met, faculty members may apply for and be evaluated for promotion in academic rank.

As every process of this kind, especially in a new organization, everything is continuously in evolution, and the point described above may be changing in the future. Student and peer evaluation are described later in this chapter according to their current format. However, currently, there is an ongoing discussion on how peer reviews of classes should be conducted and whether it should be conducted at all.

4.1 Expected Conduct

All faculty members are expected to contribute to the missions of Teaching, Research, and Service as applicable to their individual appointment responsibilities and carry out these responsibilities in a professional manner. The exact ratio of effort and evaluation weight percentages in the areas of Teaching, Research, and Service is a function of the faculty member’s appointment type, the skills of the faculty member, and the goals and long-term vision of the institute and university.

All members of the Innopolis University faculty are expected to follow a professional conduct and will be evaluated on the basis of performing assigned responsibilities with personal integrity; sympathy with and concern for colleagues, students, and others; as well as adherence to those Russian laws and university and institute policies, procedures, and regulations that have significance to the faculty member’s professional performance and reputation.

4.2 Teaching

Faculty members with teaching responsibilities, regardless of academic rank, are responsible for teaching effectively by employing effective methods and approaches that facilitate student learning. Faculty members can demonstrate their teaching effectiveness through a number of different roles related to student learning. These include designing and delivering courses, directing undergraduate and graduate research, and mentoring students, whether formally or informally. Faculty can also demonstrate their commitment to student learning through involvement in curricular development, pedagogical innovation, and educational research.

Teaching faculty must demonstrate up-to-the-minute mastery of their subject matter, the ability to convey ideas in a clear and organized manner, and, when appropriate to the course subject, the ability to design engaging, hands-on active learning activities and assessments that improve the process of teaching and learning. They must also effectively use technology and other state-of-the-art teaching techniques in the classroom or laboratory, as well as show a willingness to learn and evolve as educators by participating regularly in faculty development opportunities and informing themselves about new teaching techniques, emerging educational technologies, etc.

Evaluation of teaching is based on a combination of assessments, including student course evaluations, syllabi review, grade distribution review, student letters, peer and director of institute classroom/lab observations, evaluation of teaching materials, teaching awards, and other evidence of contribution in this area.

4.3 Research Activity

Faculty-assigned research responsibilities are expected to engage in meaningful disciplinary research relevant to the research goals established by the university and the faculty member’s institute, contribute to important discourse and discoveries in their field(s) of study, present at major disciplinary conferences, and publish or present in well-respected peer-reviewed and referred journals and publications. Research productivity will be measured foremost in terms of high-quality research.

Specific research performance measures include the following:

  • Peer-Reviewed Publications and Presentations—It is expected that faculty members will present research findings at major disciplinary conferences and publish research results in well-respected peer-reviewed and referred journals, publications, or conferences. Expected performance as measured by the number and quality of publications and/or presentations varies by academic rank, appointment type, and discipline.

  • Patents, Inventions, entrepreneurial and Other Discipline Advancement Activities—Research activities that contribute to the advancement of the discipline, including the development of any licensed software, patents, products, services, startup companies, and inventions; innovative and entrepreneurial proprietary, commercial, and professional service activities (e.g., transfer of technology to industry or other research organizations, etc.) related to the discipline; facilitation and management of large research programs; and research infrastructure development such as building new facilities and laboratories.

  • Funding—Research applications, awards, and/or expenditures are expected to be at a level that is sufficient to support the activities of a research group comprised of a minimum of two MS/PhD/post-doctorate students, including its infrastructure in terms of equipment, supplies, conference travel support, etc. Faculty who participate in research center activities or government- or private-funded grants or contracts are expected to provide significant contributions to the activities, in terms of both collaboration on research and generation of funding, which will be given appropriate attribution when assessing research expenditures and output. Similarly, when specifically agreed to in advance by the university’s academic administration, research funding from internal Innopolis University sources will be given appropriate attribution when evaluating a faculty member’s research funding, expenditures, and output.

  • Students—It is expected that a successful research program will include participation of undergraduate students as well as graduate students and, in some cases, professional research assistants or research associates.

4.4 Service

Faculty members are expected to contribute to their departments and to the larger university community through participation in committees and other activities. Faculty should be involved in various institutes and/or university committees or other service activities such as performance of administrative functions, involvement with student groups, and activities. Chairing a major committee, directing a center, and the extent and effectiveness of participation are given additional consideration. Academic advising and outreach/recruiting activities are also elements of university service.

In addition, faculty members are expected to provide service to their professional discipline. External service brings recognition to the faculty member, his or her institute, the university, and the campus. The extent of service on professional committees, panels, or boards, as a journal editor and as a reviewer, is considered. Other examples of service to the professional discipline include but are not limited to serving as an appointed or elected officer of an academic or professional association; serving as an organizer or leader of local, national, or international conferences, workshops, panels, meetings, or summer schools in areas of professional competence; contributing time and expertise to further the work of a professional society or organization; promoting the image, prestige, and perceived value of a discipline or profession; participating in accreditation activities; refereeing manuscripts or grant proposals submitted to journals, professional meeting program committees, and funding organizations; and establishing professional or academic standards.

Consulting activities within the faculty member’s discipline are also regarded as service to the profession as the university recognizes such activities to be a measure of the faculty member’s value to society in the application of his or her academic knowledge and/or research findings. Volunteer activities in the public sector are good citizenship and are similarly recognized in the evaluation of service.

4.5 Student Evaluations

Student course evaluations are performed for all faculty with assigned teaching responsibilities, in all courses and laboratories, every semester. Student course evaluation forms are distributed near the end of the academic term to each student enrolled in the course/lab. The course/lab instructor is required to notify students in writing via the course syllabi and orally at the beginning and end of the academic term that completion of the student course evaluation form is mandatory and that student anonymity is maintained throughout the entirety of the course evaluation process.

4.6 Peer Evaluations

A faculty peer observation system is in place at Innopolis University for some faculty members with assigned teaching responsibilities. Initially, the peer evaluation was performed for every taught course and currently is performed only for new lecturers or new courses.

An experienced faculty member appointed by the dean’s office performs peer evaluations annually during the first semester of the academic year. The role of senior faculty peer evaluator is to:

  • Visit the class, laboratory, or other instructional setting in person or via a digital recording, live broadcast, or other electronic modality to evaluate the faculty member’s teaching effectiveness if the faculty member has assigned teaching responsibilities; and

  • Complete the classroom evaluation form and return it to the reviewee and dean of faculty within five business days of the evaluation.