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 member’s 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
department’s 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 member’s 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
evaluator’s 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 member’s 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 member’s 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 University’s 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