GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL FACULTY EVALUATION, MERIT
DETERMINATION, PROMOTION AND TENURE

EBERLY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES


I. Professional Expectations



          The Eberly College of Arts and Sciences affirms that a faculty member's quality of performance in teaching, in research (or equivalent scholarly activity), and in service shall be the primary basis for annual evaluation, promotion in rank, and the awarding of tenure. Faculty responsibilities are usually defined in terms of activities undertaken in each of the three areas; therefore, faculty evaluation is based primarily upon a review of performance in these areas. Scholarship is an important indication of activity in each of the three areas; it occurs in a variety of forms, and is not restricted to the research area. The extent to which scholarship is recognized depends upon one's areas of expected significant contribution. Depending upon one's discipline and the unit's guidelines, publication of scholarly findings could be appropriate in any or all areas. Faculty members are expected to keep current in their fields and should be able to demonstrate such currency.

          In weighing the faculty memberís contributions in the areas of teaching, research, and service, the relationship of the faculty member's expected role at the institution is to be considered. New and continuing activities in all three areas, as defined in the letter of hire and subsequent faculty evaluations, shall support both the current and projected program needs and circumstances of the Department, the College, and the University.

A.         Teaching.

         Teaching involves the dissemination of knowledge, the stimulation of critical thinking, and the development of artistic expression. Teaching includes not only traditional modes of instruction such as the classroom lecture, but also modes such as clinical, laboratory, and practicum instruction; thesis and dissertation direction; various forms of continuing education and non-traditional instruction; advising, which is a special dimension of teaching, the success of which is essential to the educational process; evaluation; and critique of student performance.

         The prime requisites of an effective teacher are intellectual competence, integrity, independence, a spirit of scholarly inquiry, a dedication to improving methods of presenting material, the ability to transfer knowledge, respect for differences and diversity, and the ability to stimulate and cultivate the intellectual interest of students. Supporting documentation for the evaluation of performance in teaching might include evidence drawn from such sources as the collective judgment of students, of student advisees, and of colleagues who have visited the faculty member's classes. It might also include analyses of course content, evaluation of products produced by the instructor such as textbooks or videotapes, the development or use of instructional technology and computer-assisted instruction, pedagogical scholarship in refereed publications and media of high quality, studies of success rates of students taught, or other evidence deemed appropriate and proper by the Department and College. Each department is expected to develop criteria for evaluating teaching appropriate to their discipline(s). Each department also is encouraged to avoid sole reliance upon student evaluations and consider multiple indices of successful teaching.

B.        Research.

          Research involves the creation, the discovery or synthesis of knowledge, the creation of new approaches to understanding and explaining phenomena, the development of new insights, the critical appraisal of the past, artistic creation, and the application of knowledge and expertise to address needs in society and in the profession. These activities result in products which may be evaluated and compared with those of peers at other institutions of higher learning.

          Research is a critical component of the mission of the university, contributing to the general body of knowledge and thus infusing instruction and public service with rigor and relevance. It validates the concept of the teacher-scholar. Although often discipline-focused and individual, research also may be interdisciplinary and collaborative. In most disciplines, refereed publications (print or electronic) of high quality are expected as evidence of scholarly productivity. An original contribution of a creative nature relevant to one or more disciplines may be as significant as the publication of a scholarly book or article. Quality is considered more important than mere quantity. Significant evidence of scholarly merit may be either a single work of considerable importance or a series of studies constituting a program of worthwhile research. Faculty members are expected to undertake and demonstrate evidence of a continuing program of studies, investigations, or creative works.

C.        Service.

          Service activities involve the application of the benefits and products of teaching and research to address the needs of society and the profession. These activities include service to the university, state, region, and at national and international levels. Service to the university includes contributions to the efficiency and effectiveness of the faculty member's department and college.

          In keeping with its tradition as a land-grant institution, the university is committed to the performance and recognition of service activities on the part of its faculty as essential components of its mission. Enlightened perspectives, technical competence, and professional skills are indispensable resources in coping with the complexities of modern civilization. Service by faculty members to West Virginia is of special importance to the university mission.

          The evaluation of service should include assessments of the degree to which the service yields important benefits to the university, society, or the profession. Especially relevant is the extent to which the service meets the needs of clients, induces positive change, improves performance, or has significant impact on societal problems or issues. One important benefit of service to the university is faculty participation in the governance system. Service contributions considered for evaluation are those which are within a person's professional expertise as a faculty member, and performed with one's university affiliation identified. The definition of the nature and extent of acceptable service for purposes of promotion and tenure should be identified in the departmentís evaluation guidelines.


II. Annual Evaluation



         The performance of individual faculty members is evaluated annually throughout their career at West Virginia University. These written evaluations, which are required for all full-time and continuing part-time faculty members, provide individuals with a written record of past performance, accomplishments and continuing expectations, serve as an ongoing critique of strengths and weaknesses, and document support of recommendations and decisions concerning reappointment, retention, promotion, and tenure as well as program assignments, sabbatical and other leaves of absence, and performance-based salary increases. The primary purpose of these annual evaluations is to assist individual faculty members in developing their talents and expertise to the maximum extent possible, and in promoting continuing productivity over the course of their careers, consistent with the role and mission of the university. The specific nature and purpose of a faculty member's annual review may vary, however, in accord with the type of appointment, rank, and where appropriate, tenure status.

         The annual evaluation should be related to one's assignment and performance, and should be both formative and summative. The review is not limited to events of the immediately-previous one-year period; it is also to be a review of annual evaluation statements from previous years, in order to assess whether suggestions for improvement have been addressed. The resultant annual assessment will be used to guide the faculty member in areas in which improvement may be needed, and if positive, as a basis for merit salary adjustment. The annual evaluation also provides the opportunity for developmental changes in responsibilities that reflect the strengths of the individual and the needs of the university. For tenured faculty, changes in areas of significant contribution must be negotiated prior to the review year in which promotion will be requested and approved by the Dean and Provost. See University Guidelines for specific applications for varied appointment, rank, and status types.

A.        Descriptors for Annual Review

          The annual review of one's performance in each of the mission areas to which one is assigned shall be assessed as Excellent (characterizing performance of high merit), Good (characterizing performance of merit), Satisfactory (characterizing performance sufficient to justify continuation but not sufficient to justify promotion or tenure), or Unsatisfactory. Based on these descriptors, a faculty member with a preponderance of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" ratings, particularly in an area in which a significant contribution is required for promotion and tenure, would not qualify for promotion or tenure.

          The assessments provided by annual reviews should be a basis for those periodic recommendations forwarded to the Provost which relate to promotion, tenure, or negative action. Positive recommendations for promotion and/or tenure should be supported both (a) by a series of annual reviews above the "satisfactory" level, and (b) beyond those reviews, by performance which is judged to meet the more rigorous standard of "significant contributions" (see below). Additionally, all appropriate guidelines must be met.

B.       Performance-Based Pay Policies

          [The following language is to be placed into the College Faculty Evaluation Guidelines as required by the Faculty Salary Policy Document for WVU adopted by the WVU Faculty Senate on May 13, 2002, and approved by the WVU Board of Governors on June 7, 2002. This statement was written to replace Section B "Merit Pay Policies" on page 4 of the current Eberly College Faculty Evaluation Guidelines, as adopted May 15, 1998. This policy was approved by Ad-Hoc Faculty Committee ECAS, November 22, 2002, Dean Nellis, November 22, 2002, and by C.B. Wilson and Russell Dean, (based on feedback) December 2002. Presented to Eberly College Faculty in general at the Fall 2002 Eberly College Faculty meeting on December 10, 2002. Modified Fall Term 2005 to conform to WVU Faculty Salary Plan Implementation Strategy.]

         Every unit is required to develop a performance-based pay policy that must be approved by the Dean of the college. Annual evaluations are to be considered when awarding performance-based pay. The intent of performance-based pay is to recognize those who are meeting or exceeding the normal expectations associated with their position and have been rated "satisfactory," "good," or "excellent" in their areas of assignment. In developing performance-based pay policies and implementing those policies, units need to exercise care to assure that performance-based pay is awarded to those whose efforts contribute positively to the department's and college's mission.

          In awarding performance-based pay, the assignment of a faculty member and his/her performance in that assignment should guide the amount of the award. Performance-based salary increases will apply proportionally to each assigned mission area. A faculty member whose annual performance in an assigned mission area is deemed excellent will received the highest performance-based salary increase for that portion of his/her assignment. A faculty member whose performance is deemed good will receive a smaller increase for that portion of his/her assignment. A faculty member whose performance is deemed satisfactory will receive a still smaller increase for that portion of his/her assignment. A faculty member whose performance is assessed as unsatisfactory will receive no performance-based salary increase for that portion of his/her assignment. Units in the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences are encouraged to reward performance in a manner that reflects clear and substantial differences in performance among the three performance categories ("excellent," "good," and "satisfactory") and that also provides strong incentives for excellent performance by faculty in their mission areas. Unless otherwise specified in the department's approved Performance-Based Pay Policy document, the default performance-based allocation will be in the ratio of 4.0:2.5:1.0 for "Excellent", "Good", and "Satisfactory" ratings, respectively. These ratios will apply for performance in all areas of assignment (Research, Teaching and Service), and will be applied to the real amount in dollars available to the unit for increases. Salary increases will be distributed on a fixed percentage basis concomitant with a specific qualitative assessment. The college salary pool will be allocated on the basis of department/division salary budgets.

          The receipt of performance-based pay in one or several years does not guarantee that a faculty member will be promoted and/or tenured. For example, if an exemplary record in teaching is not matched by an appropriate record in research or service, such a faculty member would not be promoted or tenured although he/she may have received performance-based pay in each of several years. It is important that performance-based pay policies developed by the units in the College make this distinction clear. This distinction also makes it possible to reward effort that may be important to the unit but that, without other equally important contributions, may not justify promotion and tenure. The Dean's final performance-based pay decisions should not be made until faculty members have been given reasonable opportunity for appeal and rebuttal of annual evaluations.

          While the process of annual evaluation and assignment of performance-based pay are integrated, units may have separate documents defining their promotion and tenure, and performance-based pay policies.


III. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion



          The College criteria for the awarding of promotion and the granting of tenure described below are general expectations; they shall be elaborated by departmental criteria which take account of the distinctive character of the faculty member's discipline and the rank to which they are seeking promotion. The Department criteria for promotion to Associate Professor must be different from those for promotion to Full Professor.

A.        Criteria for Tenure

          In order to be recommended for tenure a faculty member will be expected to demonstrate significant contributions in research and in teaching in the classroom or other settings and reasonable contributions in service. Successful teaching is an expectation for all faculty who are assigned to teach. As a criterion for tenure, significant contributions must be made in teaching.

          The term "significant contributions" in research means performance in research which meets or exceeds that of peers recently achieving tenure who are respected for their contributions in research at peer research universities. Peer research universities are determined by the department, subject to approval by the Dean. In the teaching context, "significant contributions" are normally those which meet or exceed those of peers recently achieving tenure who are respected for their contributions in teaching at West Virginia University. In some cases, external reviews of teaching contributions may be appropriate. In service a candidate for tenure normally will be expected to demonstrate reasonable contributions. In this context, departments should define reasonable service in their guidelines.

B.        Criteria for Promotion

          In order to be recommended for promotion, a tenured or tenure-track faculty member normally will be expected to demonstrate significant contributions in two of the following areas: research, teaching in the classroom or other settings, and service. In the third area of endeavor, the faculty member will be expected to make reasonable contributions. The areas of significant contribution in which each faculty member is expected to perform will be identified in the letter of appointment, or modified in a subsequent document. Successful teaching is an expectation for all faculty who are assigned to teach. As a criterion for promotion, significant contributions will have been made in teaching.

          In order to be considered for promotion, eligible temporary faculty members normally will be expected to make significant contributions in the area(s) of their assignment as outlined in the letter of appointment or as modified in a subsequent document. For faculty who have a title with the prefix "Research," research will normally be one area in which significant contributions are expected. In general, a research faculty member seeking promotion will produce research of equal or better quality and of greater quantity than a tenure track faculty member for whom research is one of two areas in which significant contributions are expected. For faculty who have a title with the prefix "Clinical" (as differentiated from faculty in the "clinical-track"), service will normally be one area in which significant contributions are expected.

          For faculty who have service as an area of significant contribution, service activities provided for the benefit of the citizens of the State will receive primary emphasis when reviewed for promotion purposes. While service to the university and professions are worthy of consideration in this context, normally a faculty member must have significant service activities, which can include the creation and direction of service-learning projects, directed to the citizens of West Virginia. Exceptions to this normal practice may occur when a faculty member provides extraordinary and extended service to the university, profession, or on a national or international level. Such exceptions should be identified in the letter of appointment or subsequent documents.

          The decision to accept a recommendation for or against retention or the awarding of tenure shall rest on both the current and projected program needs and circumstances of the department and college and on the strengths and limitations of the faculty member as established in the annual evaluation process.

          A full-time or part-time assignment to an administrative position or to a unit other than the one in which the faculty member holds or seeks tenure does not carry with it an automatic modification of criteria for promotion or tenure. A faculty member who accepts such an assignment, and who seeks promotion or tenure, should have a written agreement concerning both status and expectations within the department in which the locus of tenure resides. Such an agreement must be approved by the Dean and by the Provost.


IV. Promotion and Tenure Procedures

          The Eberly College of Arts and Sciences will adhere to university procedures for faculty evaluation. A copy of these procedures is provided to each faculty member each year. The following additional procedures and deadlines will be utilized by the College to implement the university guidelines for external evaluation of faculty members seeking promotion or tenure. Individual departments may establish earlier deadlines than those listed below. When any of these deadlines falls on an official holiday or weekend, the documents are due on the previous business day.

A.        Administrative Procedures

          Each department faculty evaluation committee must be formed by September 1 and normally consist of at least 5 members. A majority of those voting must hold tenure. September 1 is the last date for a faculty member to notify his/her Chair in writing if he/she wishes to be considered for discretionary promotion or to decline consideration for tenure in the critical year. The department faculty evaluation committee and the faculty member will each prepare a list of at least six possible external evaluators. External evaluators should be at or above the rank to which promotion is sought and are normally faculty members at peer research institutions. A paragraph describing each evaluator should be submitted by the faculty member and faculty evaluation committee indicating why each evaluator is qualified to serve as an evaluator. Any personal or professional relationship between the evaluator and the faculty member should be noted.

          These lists of potential evaluators must be forwarded to the department chair by September 10. The chair will then share the faculty evaluation committee list with the faculty member within two working days. The faculty member has the right to review the list and to comment on persons who may not provide an objective evaluation. The faculty memberís acknowledgment of such review, with appropriate comments, should be forwarded in writing to the department chair by September 15. The department chair, or chair in consultation with the chair of the department faculty evaluation committee, will select the names of a sufficient number of appropriate external evaluators from each list to ensure receipt of at least four evaluations. This selection process may take into consideration any comments of the faculty member regarding potential evaluators whose names appear on the faculty evaluation committee list. The faculty member is not informed of the names in the final list of external evaluators. The final list, and the evaluation solicitation letter, should be forwarded to the Dean for approval by September 20. Departments are encouraged to determine an evaluatorís willingness to evaluate a candidate in advance of sending evaluation materials. October 1 is the last day for the department chair to mail letters soliciting external evaluation and supporting materials for all faculty under consideration for promotion and/or tenure. The dean-approved letter will state that the evaluation must be received by December 31. The letter should state clearly that returning evaluations to the Office of the Dean is university procedure and that a copy of the evaluation will be forwarded to the department to be used in its evaluation. A copy of the letter used to request external evaluations should be included in the faculty memberís file with identifying information removed.

          The Office of the Dean will provide clerical support and self-addressed envelopes for return of the evaluation letters. The Office of the Dean will also monitor the receipt of the evaluation letters and facilitate receipt of overdue evaluations. If four evaluations are not received by the time the file is to be closed, the deadline for including such evaluations in the file may be extended through the written consent of the faculty member, chair, and Dean. A copy of the written consent letter should be included in the faculty memberís personnel file.

          The Dean will forward to the department chair, by the first working day in January, a complete set of evaluations for review at the department level. These evaluations will be returned to the Dean upon completion of the departmental review process. The Dean will provide the faculty member with the opportunity to review copies of the external evaluations with identifying information removed upon written request. These copies must be returned to the Dean upon completion of the review process.

          Please note there is a 5-day deadline for rebuttals of evaluations and petitions for review of negative recommendations, as described in the Universityís faculty evaluation guidelines.

B.        Selection of the College Committee           
1.   There shall be three Eberly College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Evaluation Committees--each representing one of the traditional areas of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural/Mathematical Sciences. Every department shall have a representative on one of the committees.
Humanities
English
Foreign Languages
History
Philosophy

Social Sciences
Communication Studies
Geography
Political Science
Psychology
Public Administration
Social Work
Sociology and Anthropology

Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Biology
Chemistry
Geology
Mathematics
Physics
Statistics
2.   To provide continuity from year to year, department representatives should be appointed to two-year terms with half of each committee changing each year. Departmental representatives will be recommended to the Dean by the department chair. Those eligible to serve on the committee will be limited to i) faculty not serving as chair of their department, ii) tenured faculty at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor, and iii) those not serving on any other promotion and tenure committee.
C.        College Committee Procedures
1.   Each committee shall choose its own chairperson.

2.   Each committee will take into consideration department procedures and criteria, all recommendations forwarded from the appropriate departments, and any appeals made by individual faculty in those areas. No committee member may vote on recommendations from his/her own department, but may provide information as requested by others on the committee.

3.   All committees must employ the criteria in effect in the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences and Department Guidelines; individual committees may not modify the criteria used in assessment of faculty. As soon as all committee members have been appointed, they shall meet collectively with the Dean for a review of the university and College criteria to ensure that common standards are used by the three committees. The three committees will review operating definitions of "significant contributions" and "reasonable contributions" in teaching, research, and service appropriate to their areas.

4.   Each committee will make and report its recommendations on faculty tenure, promotion, continuation, and appeals to the Dean based on the merit of the faculty records as forwarded, plus materials generated as a consequence of the faculty evaluation process. Within these guidelines, the specific operation of the committees may vary as necessitated by differences in committee size and work load. The deliberations of the committees shall remain strictly confidential.
D.      Role of the Dean

          The Dean reviews and evaluates each recommendation and appeal of faculty under consideration for promotion and/or tenure and makes an independent recommendation providing a written rationale for each decision. The Dean reports the recommendations of the departmental committee, the department chair, the appropriate college committee, and the Dean to the Provost for continuation of the process at the Vice President's level.

V. Changes in the College Guidelines

A.        College Guidelines must be in agreement with University Guidelines unless an exception is granted by the Provost. Any changes in University Guidelines (other than minor administrative changes) which conflict with College Guidelines will lead the Dean to appoint a committee to determine appropriate action.

B.         The College Guidelines can be amended by a vote of eligible College faculty. Amendments can be proposed at a College Faculty Meeting and, if approved by a majority of those present, will be placed on a mailed ballot. Such amendments may include change in the College Committee structure (e.g., multiple committees vs. single committee), the assignment of departments to committees if the multiple committee structure is preserved, etc. All votes will be conducted by mail ballot, and decisions will require a simple majority of those voting. Ballots will be given to all eligible faculty. Eligible faculty are limited to full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty in the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences.



Revision of Fall 1994 Guidelines Approved by Faculty Vote, May 15, 1998
Accepted by Provost Gerald E. Lang, July 8, 1998