Evaluation of Faculty

In addition, the department chairperson reviews annually each department member on a Faculty Appraisal Form. This review is discussed with the faculty member, and the form is signed by both the faculty member and the department chairperson.

1. Evaluation of Faculty Members

   Principles

   1. Faculty members at all ranks should be subject to periodic reviews at reasonable intervals of time.
   2. Reviews of individual faculty members will normally originate with the individual department. (Since the academic organization of the University varies, references to department should sometimes read division or college, and references to chairperson should sometimes read director or dean.) Such reviews should involve a substantial number of faculty members but not the chairperson.
   3. Faculty members under review have the right to supply such evidence that they feel may be necessary to a fair evaluation of their merits. This should not preclude departments or others properly involved in the review process from soliciting and using other evidence, but in every such instance, the faculty member should be informed of the source of that evidence.
   4. Appropriate administrative officers may make independent evaluations within the review process.
   5. Upon completion of the review, the faculty member should be apprised of the results.
   6. Faculty members are fully entitled to the rights of appeal. Reviews of individual faculty would not be a substitute for competency hearings of tenured faculty. They may serve, however, as a basis for instituting such hearings. In the event of a competency hearing, due process would be observed, with the burden of proof residing with those instituting the hearing.

   Specific Procedures

   1. Periods of Evaluation:
      1. Instructors and assistant professors should be reviewed at least every two years but normally no more often than once a year. Not later than the fall of the sixth year of service, assistant professors should be reviewed for promotion.
      2. Tenured associate professors should be reviewed at least once within every three to five year period of service but normally not more often than every two years. Nontenured associate professors should be reviewed in the year prior to their eligibility for tenure.
      3. Full professors should be reviewed at least once every five to seven year period of service, but normally not more often than every two years.
   2. Departmental Responsibility:
      1. The department chairperson organizes and coordinates reviews of faculty.
      2. Reviews of instructors and assistant professors should be conducted with the participation of associate and full professors in the department. In no case should faculty members be reviewed without the participation of at least two members of their department, one of whom, if possible, must be a rank at least one step higher than the person under review.
      3. Associate professors should be reviewed by professors in the department. In those departments where fewer than two professors are available to conduct such a review, the chairperson of the department may request professors from other related departments to serve on the review body.
      4. Full professors should be reviewed by a committee of at least three of their peers. In small departments, professors from other related departments may be asked to serve at the request of the chairperson.
      5. These provisions specify minimum requirements. A department may choose to constitute the whole department, or any other designated authority, to serve as a review body. A department may choose to include in the review body faculty members at the same rank or lower rank of the person being evaluated so long as such persons do not constitute a majority of the body.
   3. Submission and Evaluation of Documents and Other Evidence
      1. The faculty member under review should assemble a dossier of materials that he or she regards as appropriate and convincing evidence of his or her abilities in the three major areas of evaluation (see below). The faculty member should be notified of the date that the dossier is required by the chairperson. This date should be in sufficient time before the review date, which should also be specified.
      2. The review body or the chairperson of the department may request additional evidence from: a) the faculty member under review; b) other sources within the University, such as experts in related fields, committee chairpersons, and colleagues; c) similar sources outside the University. In all instances under (b) and (c), the faculty member should be informed that such evidence is being requested. If any evidence is requested in confidence, the faculty member must be told the source of such confidential information. He or she may then communicate to the review committee in writing his or her position as to the qualifications of that source.
      3. The review body should evaluate the evidence and the candidate's abilities in each of the three major areas. A report summarizing the reasons for or against a favorable judgment should then be forwarded to the dean of the college along with the chairperson's independent evaluation. A copy of the report of the review body, of the chairperson, and of any other administrator may be delivered to the faculty member under review upon request.
   4. Administrative Evaluations

      Appropriate administrative officers, such as chairpersons, deans, academic vice president, and president may review the dossier of each faculty member reviewed whenever a recommendation for sabbatical, promotion, and/or tenure is made by the department, or whenever there is a significant and substantial change in the status or conditions of employment of any faculty member. Further evidence may be solicited in accordance with the same procedures stipulated under c.2) above.

   5. Reporting Results of Reviews

      Each faculty member is entitled to a personal interview with the chairperson of the department and, upon request, a written report of his or her review. Wherever possible, the interview and report should carry specific indications where evidence has been satisfactory or, when it has not been, specific recommendations for improvement before the next review.

   6. Appeals

      A faculty member may appeal the decision of the review body by requesting another review within a semester of the first review, and he or she may request a new committee. This request may be rejected by the department, but is subject to appeal to the appropriate college and University committees.

2. Categories of Faculty Activity

   Principles

   1. The three major areas of faculty activity are: 1) Teaching; 2) Scholarly, Creative, and/or Professional Development; and 3) Service.
   2. Precise demarcation between the three major areas is often difficult and sometimes impossible; in any case, all activities of a faculty member must be considered as an integrated whole.
   3. Faculty activity in each of the areas may vary from year to year, or even semester to semester, according to the interests and abilities of the faculty member, and according to the needs of his or her department, college, or the University as agreed to by the chairperson and dean.

   Specific Definitions

   1. Teaching

      Under this category shall be included all scheduled classes (and academic advising involved therein), seminars, laboratories, thesis and research supervision, field activities, and any other instructional activity.

   2. Scholarly, Creative, and/or Professional Development

      Under this category shall be the following:

      1. Research, usually presented through publication of scholarly work or through appropriate colloquia, seminars, conferences, and lectures.
      2. Creative development in those fields in which the faculty member receives public recognition for his or her professional contributions to society or to the University. Included are such activities as plays (composition or production), music (composition or performance), art exhibitions, patents, etc.
      3. Professional development involving the presentation of papers or chairing sessions at professional meetings, serving as an officer or committee member of a professional organization, editorial duties, professional consulting, and other similar activities.
   3. Service

      Included in this category shall be:

      1. University service
         • Nonacademic advisement of students (career, professional, or personal)
         • Activities such as living/learning experiences, for which no academic credit is given
         • Departmental committees and special assignments
         • College senates, committees, and special assignments
         • University Senate, committees, and special assignments
         • Administrative and quasi-administrative appointments
         • Participation in student affairs related activities
      2. Community service (local, state, regional, national, international), such as election or appointment to boards, commissions, committees, legislative bodies, or the like outside the normal professional calling of the faculty member in the teaching or research function.
      3. Creative activities outside the normal professional calling of the faculty member; for example, participation in orchestras or ensembles, shows of paintings, musical or literary productions, and the like, which enhance or improve the University as a community of learning.

   ---

   
   March 23, 1995