|
|
 |
|
Faculty Evaluation
Michael J. Galgano The present issue is the largest and most ambitious attempted to date because the topic discussed is of paramount importance to all history faculty. I am especially grateful to our contributors: Donald R. Whitnah, Acting Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Northern Iowa; Raymond G. Hebert, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Thomas More College; Charles P. Carlson, Jr., Chair of the History Department, University of Denver; and Louise E. Hoffman, Associ- ate Professor of Humanities and History, Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg for their thoroughness and candor. Their remarks provide helpful insights for department chairs and faculty as we collectively strive to improve present practices. There is considerable variety; yet, a surprising degree of continuity. The December issue will focus more specifically on evaluation of teaching. If your department employs other procedures or practices, please forward them, together with any comments or responses, to the OAH office. Faculty Evaluation at the University of Northern Iowa Donald R. Whitnah The mystical arena of evaluating faculty has plagued administrators for many decades. As a department chair for twenty years, I fought this dilemma annually, never completely to my satisfaction, nevertheless, with a certain amount of success. As acting dean, I shall now most certainly become quite active once more in pursuing this important process for our College of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Under my supervision are the departments of Geography, History, Home Economics, Political Science, Psychology, Social Work, and Sociology-Anthropology. A number of special programs involving directors and interdisciplinary faculty are housed in our College. My comments pertain to service as the Department of History leader under two different systems, one under a non-union bargaining agreement during the period to 1977 and under a bargaining agreement between our State Board of Regents and United Faculty since 1977. Except for changing a few labels, there emerged fewer changes than one might expect. In my experience, the elusive target of evaluating my faculty accurately has been a combination of formal and informal aspects of the total system. In the pre-bargaining days, we insisted on faculty input through a tenure-promotion committee, often referred to by faculty as ``the tenure-promotion board.'' The union calls it the Professional Assessment Committee (PAC), procedures for which are agreed upon early each academic year by the departmental PAC, the department chair, and the dean. This PAC, elected by its peers, is only as effective as any faculty committee but usually is a very positive force in judging its peers and passing on the recommendations about anyone under consideration for continued tenure-track appointment, tenure, and/or promotion. In large departments, perhaps over six or seven in number, it is necessary to appoint a sub-PAC of several members. Whether dealing with the sub- or full-PAC, one encounters the problem of representation in ranks: Should the body consist of only those faculty in the rank or a higher rank than the one to which the candidate might be promoted or considered for tenure? A basically unified procedure is essential among the seven departments. Then too, if the department has only two or three tenured faculty at the ranks in question, should faculty from outside the department be included on the sub-PAC or PAC? Again, uniformity is basic in the colleges or the university. Whether dealing with the tenure-promotion committee without the union or a bargaining unit, the key to success rests with the willingness of colleagues to judge fairly and accurately the strengths and weaknesses of their peers. This entails in the beginning an open system of nominations either by colleagues or the faculty member seeking continued tenure-track appointment, tenure, or promotion. Moreover, we have found and effective system of coordinated classroom visits by a small number of colleagues at times mutually satisfactory to the candidates. Use of this procedure elicits numerous helpful suggestions, e.g., using eye contact with the students, a brief outline or at least writing out difficult terms, or perhaps inserting or omitting items from the lectures. This positive assistance, usually gracefully considered by the faculty member, nearly always outweighs the danger of inflicting coercion or embarrassment through this practice. In sum, effective teaching has often been enhanced. No foolproof system of PAC review exists. For example, is it really necessary to evaluate the performance of all persons on the tenure track appointment every year? Why not every other year or every third year? Remember that much valuable faculty time is expended in classroom visits. One also encounters the difficulty in writing out specific guidelines for tenure and promotion. I have always shied away from a point system weighing articles, books, or parts of books or from the absurdity of judging edited books versus writing your own manuscript or compiling a diary or journal. It results in apples versus pears. However, the PAC, the chair, and the dean, must strive for balance in the judgement categories and be able to equate the present case with recent similar examples in order to insure fairness and uphold high standards. In my opinion, assistant professors normally should not receive tenure if they are not eligible for promotion to associate professor. Here once more we argue over our typical minimum of five years before this consideration versus the AAUP normal maximum of six years. This procedure is not easy. For instance, how do you compare the person who is entirely popular and possesses a booming and pleasant voice for teaching with the other person of less volume and popularity who is fully as effective in all other aspects of the evaluation? The role of the chair might vary. I have served as an ex officio member of the tenure and promotion unit without a vote and at other times have been invited to deliberations to provide background and advice. I did the same during the early years of the PAC under bargaining; and finally, for several years, was never present for PAC meetings unless invited to answer a specific question. After all, I had my chance to support or reject the nomination whenever the committee recommendations reached my desk. By the way, the usual practice entails the PAC chair writing to the department chair a letter of recommendation for each candidate in question. The PAC retains its own confidential materials which may or may not be placed in the official Faculty Evaluation File. Under bargaining rules, this file is open to the faculty member at the beginning of the following semester after the recommendation is fully processed by the PAC. So far in the procedure, I have no quarrel; again, the system is as effective as its individual faculty committee members. Now let us peruse more carefully the department executive's role. The faculty PAC report is only one of several factors weighed by the head or chair in arriving at a decision for submission to the college dean. Complaints of an unofficial or official nature, confirmed or unconfirmed rumors, praise or criticism from the students and/or colleagues, as well as praise or unfavorable reports from faculty members and administrators, are the typical avenues which must be evaluated by the conscientious leader before decisions are made. For example, one staff member might spread a rumor that a faculty member had a strong odor of liquor on the breath before a morning class. The rumor might be entirely unsubstantiated and, in fact, denied by student and faculty witnesses. One of the most popular professors during the student protest years gained the rigid and mendacious, perhaps even fanatic, support of the students. This student support was conveyed to the department chair before the latter found proof that the person was dismissing classes time and time again without notifying students or the department chair. One of the student supporters sincerely apologized later to the department chair after the guilty professor's tenure-track appointment was terminated for a number of reasons. For the most part, verification of these types of reports do not automatically find their way into official files unless necessary for dismissal or final personnel warnings. The positive reports stand to assist the chair in favoring the faculty member in not only reap- pointment (tenure-track), tenure, or promotion, but also for evaluation purposes applied to salary raises. One of the truly elusive factors to ascertain is the assessment of faculty members by students on official written instruments. Tenured faculty are also included in the chair's annual letter. Another bargaining rule entails student assessment of all tenured faculty members' classes at least once every five years. Administrative officials may call for more frequent assessments in individual cases. Long a question of deep concern, faculty who score well on these tests praise them to the limit. Faculty who falter into the lower ratings see no reason whatever for considering these documents by the PAC, the departmental leader, or the dean. The truth must rest somewhere between these two extremes. One dean hammered away constantly at the low student assessments of faculty persons not in favor while ignoring the lower ratings involving any favorites. Another dean wisely advised his department chairs to consider student assessments only as a learning and developing tool to assist the faculty person without penalizing unduly wherever improvement could be expected. Again, I recall the case of one professor who received only the highest ratings from the students on each category. We always suspected indoctrination of the students before the assessments were given. Anyway, the tool was entirely useless in our eventual decision to terminate this tenure-track appointment. It is not the only time, unfortunately, that rumored encouragement for high scores has been suggested by faculty members in the university. There is absolutely no sure way to design a foolproof assessment document. Freshmen are asked to rate a professor on material they hardly know and to compare the person with other unknown professors. Students grow extremely weary and blas‚ because each semester they must fill out these dreary instruments. Students will sometimes lash out against the professor because of a course they dislike, find too difficult, or simply resent having to take. Weigh all of these imperfections, and the student assessment is more often than not a helpful guide that must be used with peer evaluation and all other factors reaching the administrators. With such a staggering number of part-time lecturers or adjuncts appointed throughout the country, the evaluation of this type of faculty person also presents unique problems. Because such faculty do not fit into the usual bargaining procedures for tenure-track positions, it has been useful to have faculty peers visit classes and offer recommendations to the chair about these colleagues. Again, suggestions for improved instruction have resulted; several persons have gained repeated temporary appointments while other instructors have not been rehired. The foregoing observations have concentrated primarily on the local campus. For faculty evaluation to be effective, it must also utilize the input of external peers. This practice is only consonant with our normal procedures of periodic external review of departments and the administrative officers of departments and colleges. While it might be unproductive or impossible to elicit the evaluation of a colleague's teaching from external and unknowing sources, the areas of research and faculty professional service are uniquely suited to such evaluation. Professional ethics naturally play a role here. I have always suspected the person who constantly relied on the Ph.D. degree mentor to promote his/her interests, for example, through reviewing the right books or arranging the correct sessions at scholarly meetings. On the other hand, if the mentor is the only known authority in the field, perhaps such evidence is admissable. Yet, I have never found it difficult to seek evaluation of my colleagues' contribution or my own from independent experts in the field. It is sometimes very refreshing to discover just how many admirers or detractors one possesses out there in the discipline. It is advisable to seek more than one source, not just one book reviewer, because unfortunately, some reviewers seem never really to read the books they assent to review. Professional ethics weigh heavily in this regard. I have not yet encountered historians off campus who refuse to give such verbal and written evaluation of our colleagues without demanding a fee. However, I have examples from other disciplines and deplore such developments. Confidentiality of these external documents must be assured with or without a faculty union. Finally, after obtaining the faculty recommendations, assembling the data collected as the departmental leader, and perusing the external evaluations particularly appropriate for research-writing and professional service, there is yet one additional roadblock. The department faces the difficulty of determining the status of its nominees compared with candidates in other departments within the college and in other colleges throughout the university. Teaching excellence, scholarly production, and professional service, are the posted and commendable guidelines; but do all deans treat in the same manner such recommendations? The department chair must guess this factor and trust the deans and provost to act fairly and consistently. Onetime years ago, my colleagues and I recommended the promotion of a faculty member. The recommendation was denied by the dean, whereupon the faculty member appealed. These were the days before the United Faculty. The appeal was consistently denied on up through the State Board of Regents, although the chair and faculty in the department consistently defended their colleague. A major bone of contention involved the alleged promotion of certain faculty in other departments and colleges with fewer publications than our colleague. This is the only personnel case which I recall losing. The university owes it to the deans and chairs to instigate adequate synchronization of faculty evaluation procedures even under collective bargaining. It would be, indeed, disconcerting to have varying deadlines, election procedures, and standards of judgement, among various colleges. We have found quite effective the policy of the provost and deans holding a retreat for the purpose of joint consideration of these tenure-promotion nominations. The goal, of course, is to strive toward uniformity as well as maintenance of high standards. Here again, the Provost must lead the process. One always remembers the near misses when possible legal tangles were involved. One appointee, inherited when I assumed office, did not appear to be compatible or effective in teaching, research, or service. I urged a resignation. The colleague resigned but then regretted this decision and attempted unsuccessfully to elicit support against me from one of the local daily newspapers. It is imperative that complete records of all informal and official personnel actions be maintained. At an institution that has evolved into a university with high standards of teaching, research-writing, and professional service, one is confronted by the dilemma of evolution into tougher standards. There is no perfect answer other than to reward most those faculty who perform well in all three categories, encourage the persons who formerly claimed they only had to teach well to broaden their interests into the other categories, carefully evaluate the potential talents of newly hired faculty to assure that they will be productive in all three areas, and refuse tenure-promotion to unworthy nominees. In addition to the above procedures at Northern Iowa, the department chair writes an annual evaluation letter for each faculty person, tenured or untenured. This usually occurs at the end of the academic year and in conjunction with the salary adjustment recommended for the coming year's appointment. Here again, the process has been modified by the bargaining agreement, with the union calling for the lion's share in automatic increases and the administration preferring as much as possible to manage merit or individual adjustment. The percentages vary from year to year but often reach at least 30 percent of the total salary raises. Naturally, the department chair and dean play the leading roles in assigning these allocations of salary. If the system appears cumbersome, it is. But throughout the process I have attempted to indicate that faculty peers and chairs play a strong role in the evaluation of faculty. Imperfect? Yes, but the procedures are far better in my opinion than a rigid system of points or relying entirely upon the across-the-board salary adjustments used in some colleges and universities. Faculty Evaluation at Thomas More College Raymond G. Herbert The evaluation of a member of the faculty at the time of initial appointment, at each renewal, and on the occasion of promotion in rank or appointment with tenure, is based upon his/her potential contribution to the general community of scholars, to students, to the faculty of which the member is a part, and to the College. (Thomas More College Faculty Policy Manual, 2301.1) During my fifteen years at Thomas More College, the Faculty Policy Manual has opened the section of ``Faculty Evaluations'' with a paragraph such as the one provided above. It is then followed by the criteria that are intended to guide the Faculty Relations Committee (FRC) as well as the dean of the college in the evaluation of faculty members. Significantly, individual departments may establish and publish criteria more demanding than those in the Manual but none ever has. As a result, each department has the responsibility for assuring that all of its faculty members understand the criteria. The Manual actually states that ``each department should engage in a full discussion of the criteria used for the appointment, retention, and promotion of its faculty . . . The discussions should occur at least once each academic year before the Faculty Relations Committee begins its recommending procedures.'' Also within the context of general guidelines, the Manual adds that ``evaluation of faculty members of Thomas More College will be consistent with the purpose of the institution'' (2301.2). Curiously, it is within that context that we emphasize how the evaluation process is designed chiefly to: 1) provide information for the improvement of academic performance, 2) reward good instruction, and 3) provide data to the department chairperson and the dean of the college for curricular and personnel planning. Deliberately, no mention is made whatsoever of merit considerations because, over the last two decades, that issue has been one of the most volatile on campus. Along the way, of course, there have been six presidents and six chief academic officers. As the battles between a changing administration and stable faculty became more or less intense, one of the ever-present issues for debate was that of ``faculty evaluations.'' Surviving through it all has been the following criteria:
Moving on to the specifics, our policy has been to evaluate all ranked teaching faculty on an annual basis. The evaluation rests on data compiled from five sources:
Not surprisingly, it is mandatory that there be ``primary faculty input in the design of the evaluation tools to be used'' (2301.21). This privilege has been jealously guarded during the last two decades. Of primary importance here is that, for most of the 1980s, neither the faculty nor the administration has been satisfied with the existing student evaluation form. It was tolerated for a bit longer in 1987 when a strong push was made by the faculty to assure that the results would not be used for ``merit salary increases'' but rather for ``improvement of instruction.'' Two recent developments have encouraged this direction: 1) major strides in the area of ``faculty development'' as the way to reward good teaching. This was made possible by the strong support of the Board of Trustees (with $20,000 for each of two consecutive years) and, most recently, by the award of $75,000 for three years from the Lilly Foundation of Indianapolis (with a near equivalent match internally). Morale has improved remarkably and every department has had one or more faculty ``rewarded'' since 1987. 2) In conjunction with the Southern Association Accreditation process and its heavy emphasis on ``institutional effectiveness,'' we recently experimented with a pilot version of the IDEA system for evaluation of instruction as developed by William Cashin and associates at Kansas State University. For the IDEA system, instructional effectiveness is defined as ``reports by students of their progress on those teaching objectives which the faculty member specified as relatively important for that particular course.'' The students' reports of progress are compared to those of students from other courses of similar size containing students of similar motivation. Student motivation is determined on the basis of the response to an item on the evaluation (``I had a strong desire to take this course''). The data used for comparison is not from the individual institution; it is from approximately 87,700 classes at over 300 colleges and universities that have participated in IDEA. Thus IDEA provides a basis for comparing teaching at one's own institution with teaching at colleges and universities throughout the country. During the pilot semester (spring 1989), nineteen Thomas More College faculty members participated and, at present, a series of discussions have begun which indicate that within a year the IDEA form (plus an additional page of short course--specific questions will be added that allow the students to write comments) will be selected as the replacement for our current student evaluation form. Perhaps, beyond that, the possibility of peer evaluations will be revived or, more likely, the eventual decision to allow each faculty member to select a battery of data bases for evaluation--as long as all of those available are used at least once over a three year period. In conclusion, the only certainty at Thomas More College is that the topic of ``faculty evaluation'' will never be very far from the surface. My contention is, however, that as long as the primary focus is on faculty development and effectiveness of teaching, then the rhetoric will end up being nothing more than just that--rhetoric. Faculty paranoia will have been replaced for most, hopefully, with faculty growth. Faculty Evaluation at the University of Denver Charles P. Carlson, Jr. The University of Denver has long had a declaratory policy of awarding salary increases based upon merit, but the university's administration has never defined what it means by merit. The result is that salary increases have been made largely on an ad hoc basis, resulting in much dissatisfaction with what is regarded as an arbitrary, often capricious decision-making process. Three years ago, my departmental colleagues decided to seize a measure of control over our fate by devising our own internal merit system which would serve as a basis for my recommendations to our dean. The result is the document reproduced below. Several features should be highlighted. First, this document reflects a fairly conventional conception of faculty merit, with slightly more emphasis placed upon scholarship than teaching but retaining significant recognition for university service. Of special note is the ingenious ``carry-over'' system designed to even out inequities caused by the variation in the size of merit pools from year to year. Also, the system produces recommendations for increases in absolute dollars and not in percentages; although contrary to university-wide practice, we believe that percentage increases only result in ``the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer.'' We would rather preserve collegiality in our department. The system is certainly not perfect, and several members of the department make the valid objection that it provides no means of measuring quality of performance (as a student of Reformation, I must admit to a certain discomfort with the resemblance of this scheme to the `Treasury of Merits' associated with the indulgence system). Although space does not permit me to present my own views on this notoriously difficult issue, I would observe that the problem has not been difficult to resolve in practice. My colleagues permit me considerable latitude in interpreting this document, and I have the further option of recommending supplemental awards to our dean in exceptional cases. In my opinion, two major advantages of the system far outweigh the disadvantages: First, the system provides a systematic, disciplined approach to faculty evaluation, insuring that neither I nor any of my colleagues will overlook any significant area of performance. I would recommend use of this document or a suitably adapted version to any department chair as a checklist, even if the point system is not used. Secondly, the procedures specified at the end of the document, modelled on practices current in many progressive businesses and government agencies, make the process of merit evaluation a completely open one. This I regard as a very important factor in assuring that the results are as equitable as possible. University of Denver Department of History The chair of the department will prepare annual salary recommendations in accordance with a merit point system. The chair will evaluate merit according to the following guidelines:
This element of the annual increment shall amount to three merit points, as explained below. Other duties and achievements are to be evaluated according to a numerical table which is designed to make possible the recognition and reward of the widest possible range of professional achievement and service:
The dollar value of a merit point shall be $100.00. Each faculty member's points will be totalled, and that total multiplied by the dollar value of a merit point. This will determine the value of the merit increment for the year. Should the total number of merit points for all members of the department be in excess of the allocation made available for salary increments based on merit, assuming that each merit point is equivalent to $100.00, every member of the department who accrued merit points shall receive an amount of increase based upon the same percentage of the sum total of merit awarded in/by the department. Thus, if the sum made available to reward merit in a given year amounts to only 80% of the money required by the departmental total of points, then each person will receive 80% of the raise due him/her. If this should occur, the remaining unremunerated points will be carried over to the following year and added to those points allotted during the next year. Also, when it is determined that such a carry-over will take place, the chair will immediately request from the dean a supplement to the succeeding year's budget to cover remuneration of these accumulated merit points. If any funds remain unallocated after the distribution of all dollar amounts earned for accumulated merit points, they shall be added to the salaries of individual faculty members at the discretion of the chair, acting on the basis of merit and taking account of considerations of equity among members of the department.
Yearly Interviews. These shall consist of an initial and year-end during each academic year, the academic year being defined as synonymous with the university's calendar. The initial interview (normally conducted in September) is primarily for the purpose of setting goals and exploring the possibilities for professional achievement which each member anticipates during the balance of the year. Each faculty member is entitled to submit any appropriate supplementary documents to the chair on this occasion (e.g., correspondence, contracts, invitations to professional meetings, etc.). The year-end interview will take place before the deadline for the chair's recommendations for increments to the dean. This will be an accounting and explanation (with supplementary documents at the discretion of either party) of what has been accomplished since the year's initial review. A written list of activities and achievements (i.e., an updated curriculum vitae) will be submitted by the faculty member to the chair prior to the year-end interview. The chair's calculation of rewarded merit points shall be based on this data and conveyed to the faculty member prior to the interview for discussion at the year-end interview. Appeals may be made to the Department Executive Com- mittee; if the appellant is a member of that committee, the chair shall appoint an alternate member to the Executive Committee on a temporary basis. Faculty Evaluation at Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg Louise E. Hoffman Criteria for all evaluations (annual and promotion/tenure) follow categories set forth in Penn State's Personnel Policy entry PS-23, ``Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations,'' approved by the University Faculty Senate and promulgated by the central administration. In addition, particular units (colleges, divisions) may set their own criteria which, when registered with the central administration, become official policy; copies of these unit criteria are now included in promotion and tenure dossiers sent forward from those units. Some units, unaccountably, have not adopted criteria expressing their specific natures and missions; cases from these units sometimes suffer when considered at higher levels. While most universities evaluate faculty achievement in three categories (teaching, research, and service), Penn State specifies four: teaching, research (or creative accomplishment), ``scholarly performance and mastery of subject matter,'' and service. We all understand what is meant by teaching and service. But what is the difference between research and scholarship? I asked that very question on my arrival. The answer: ``research'' encompasses publication (or its equivalent in the arts and applied fields), whereas ``scholarship'' means presentation of conference papers and evidence of currency in one's subject matter and reputation in one's field. This distinction, in my view, is a wholly artificial one. After all, the conference paper I gave last year is often the basis of the article I published this year. Why make this eccentric division? The explanation seems to lie in Penn State's history and complex structure. For many years, the Commonwealth Campuses were essentially community colleges; their faculty were mainly holders of master's degrees who were expected to teach heavy loads and conduct little if any original research. Fairness dictated that they not be evaluated in an area for which they were not trained or supported; hence, ``scholarship,'' required them instead to show continued growth of knowledge in their teaching fields. That situation is changing: the younger faculty on those campuses generally hold doctorates and their departments expect them to publish (without providing many resources to support research). A university task force this year is considering a proposal to merge ``scholarship'' and ``research,'' with appropriate definition of expectations for particular groups of faculty. I support this change. As is common, Penn State faculty must file annual ``Faculty Activity Reports'' listing their responsibilities and achievements in all four categories. Submitted in the spring for the preceding year, these reports are used by department or division heads to recommend salary increases. Merit is supposed to be the only basis for raises; we receive no cost-of-living or step increases. (The Penn State faculty is not unionized and has no active AAUP chapter.) Division heads review their salary recommendations with the dean who forwards them to University Park; but faculty do not know what increase they will receive until late summer when the state legislature passes the supplemental budget. Secrecy surrounds all matters of salary at Penn State. Because the University is not a state agency, no sunshine laws apply; and because the faculty is not unionized, there is no specified salary scale. Faculty members who know each other well may offer to ``show you mine if you'll show me yours;'' those who serve on search committees are told the salary range available for the particular positions concerned; and those on governance committees who review the annual strategic plans for each unit see the amounts budgeted for new positions. But otherwise only rumors abound, and in this most tangible evaluation process, many faculty have no real knowledge of the process used to rate them, or their situations, compared to others. The result, predictably, is unhappiness--compounded by officially-acknowledged inequities between comparably-credentialed faculty at University Park and other locations. The University has begun to provide equity increases but is providing only small amounts (1%-1.5% per year). These will only slow the rate of growth of inequity, not eliminate it. A serious attack on inequity would require diverting some funds from University Park, or acquiring additional support from the legislature--neither possibility easy, but neither has been attempted. The distribution of Penn State campuses across the state could be a political advantage, if any university president had the vision and will to use it. Division heads also use activity reports in their annual conferences with individual faculty members. In my division, these occur in the fall. In conference, faculty members comment on their past activities and describe their plans for the coming year; division heads review each person's strengths and weaknesses and offer guidance for professional development. My division, which is as diverse as a very small college of liberal arts, needs an exceptionally knowledgeable and energetic head to keep up with requirements and expectations in many different disciplines. The present head is such a person; but still faculty must exercise even more initiative and self-reliance in their professional development than is usual, and they must help to educate the head in their fields. Problems can arise when faculty members are working in areas unfamiliar to the head--and still more when college administrators fail to understand work in a particular field and have no body of faculty in that discipline to inform them. In the pre-tenure evaluation, new faculty members meet with the division head to discuss expectations. In theory they receive copies of the divisional criteria; in practice, they often don't until it's time for a formal review. I wish division heads would compile a standard ``standards and expectations'' packet, containing copies of division, college, and university criteria, and routinely give it to each new faculty member on arrival. In the last year, division heads have composed statements of respon- sibility for each untenured person, giving a copy to the faculty member; this is a positive step. But the statements I've seen have been long lists, with no indication of which areas are most important; junior faculty should have priorities as well as lists, and they should participate in drawing up the statements. Penn State requires pre-tenure reviews in the second and fourth years. These are comprehensive evaluations: candidates compile dossiers just as they do for promotion and tenure and undergo the full review process in the division and college (see below), but not at the university level. These reviews are not pro forma; they can result in dismissal of untenured faculty who are not making satisfactory progress toward tenure, especially at the four-year stage, with no terminal year. One oddity of my division's practice is its use of external letters of evaluation for these reviews before the final tenure consideration. Candidates submit names of referees; the division head makes his own list, and selects one or two from whom to request letters. Some faculty object to this practice as an excessive intrusion on busy senior scholars elsewhere; indeed some professional organizations, such as the Modern Language Association, have issued appeals to administrators to avoid proliferating demands of this sort. Since letters used in one review are not included in succeeding ones, the requirement creates an irrational situation; candidates wish to ``save'' the most highly-qualified outside scholars for their tenure reviews, and so may recommend lesser experts for the two- and four-year evaluations. The division head argues that external advice is necessary, especially since so many of our faculty have no disciplinary colleagues here, and since some of them have responsibilities beyond the campus which we have no direct means of evaluating. The compilation of dossiers is the division head's responsibility, so his decision is final. I believe that we should request such letters very sparingly, and only when absolutely necessary to assess a person's performance adequately. I believe that the pre-tenure reviews are worthwhile despite the anxiety and labor they entail. Properly conducted (as they are in my division), they provide untenured faculty with a clear sense of the institution's criteria and their progress in meeting them. Sometimes the result is very favorable; sometimes mixed, in which case the candidate is given specific information about areas needing improvement. In the occasional instance of a negative decision, the candidate is not kept hanging on for six years with no real prospect of achieving tenure, and the institution is not tied to an inappropriate or ineffective person. Penn State is unusual among major universities in maintaining a separation between consideration for tenure and for promotion to associate professor. While recent candidates have usually been considered for both simultaneously, it is still common--especially in other divisions--for candidates to receive tenure only. Technically the processes are separate, although just recently the university has shifted to requiring only a single dossier, with two separate cover sheets for candidates nominated for both. And substantively the criteria differ: tenure is to be awarded on the basis of ``potential for future advancement . . . as indicated by performance during the provisional period,'' while ``promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement.'' Some might find it irrational that the institution would pledge lifetime tenure on the basis of potential rather than demonstrated accomplishment. In practice, the difference is less than the words imply. At least a few faculty members have been misled by them, though, indicating that the wording should be clarified. The process of evaluation at every level involves both faculty committees and administrators, each contributing an independent judgment. The divisional review is supposed to be the most intense and authoritative, and to apply divisional criteria. The division head has overall responsibility for the process; he selects and communicates with external evaluators; advises the candidate about compiling the dossier; and briefs the committee. The division committee is elected by all full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty. The committee visits candidates' classes (by prior consultation with the candidates); by custom in humanities, candidates receive copies of the resulting evaluations. It selects recent graduates from whom to solicit letters--a supplement to the quantified results of in-class student evaluations, on which we are unwilling to rely too much. (This practice is not yet general; it should be.) It reviews all the usual materials submitted by the candidate--scholarly works, syllabi, and so on--and confidential letters from outside referees. Division head and committee arrive at separate recommendations, forwarded together to the college dean and committee. Of the members of the college promotion and tenure committee, over half are elected at large by the college faculty; the rest are appointed by the provost and dean, so as to balance representation of the various divisions and ensure an adequate representation of full professors (to consider cases of promotion from associate to full). Both committee and administrator review cases independently, in the light of the college's mission and interests. Their recommendations, whether positive or negative, are sent to University Park. There the university committee and the university provost review cases, considering university interests. It is essential that the local reviews be thorough and the dossier well-presented; experiences in other divisions indicate that some division heads offer insufficient guidance to junior faculty and take inadequate care in compiling their cases. The resulting negative decisions have been most common in fields where recruiting is most difficult. To remedy this situation, the college provost now requires that dossiers be sent to her in November, to be reviewed ostensibly for form only. The results are good, but this step is still a violation of the process. College authorities should see dossiers only after the divisional review is complete. Division heads who aren't conducting effective reviews should be replaced or retrained, rather than subjecting candidates to potentially prejudicial pre-judging. In recent years the university provost has typically sent to the Board of Trustees several names not recommended by the university committee. It is hard to know how to assess this practice, owing to the prevailing secrecy surrounding the process. We do not know until afterward how many cases the divisions have considered. As at most universities, publication is the most significant criterion. At the division and college levels, teaching ability is taken seriously, committees and administrators have successfully blocked approval of candidates whose teaching is unsatisfactory, regardless of their publication records. But at the university level, publication is thesine qua non. Expectations for publication are supposed to take account of candidates' teaching loads and other responsibilities; nevertheless, both tenure and promotion rates are significantly lower at non-University Park locations. Dissatisfaction with this state of affairs is widespread, among both faculty and campus administrators, but I see little prospect of change in the near future. A major research university must of course value research--but Penn State has along way to go to provide adequate support for research to faculty at its outlying ``colonies.'' From the candidates' perspective, this process is even more gruelling than elsewhere, because it takes longer. Official notification occurs in the robing room at graduation in mid-May, when the college provost privately notifies and congratulates successful candidates (those who attend!). Formal letters arrive the following week, when many people have left for the summer. Other large universities manage to complete the process by March or April; Penn State should accelerate its schedule. The bureaucratic nature of the process does have the positive effect of reducing the impact of personal and political motives in reviews. No process can eliminate such attitudes altogether, but reviews at Penn State--or at least my corner of it--seem to be freer of unprofessional machinations than other universities I know. Confidential evaluations also tend to remain confidential more than elsewhere. What is to be done? In addition to the comments I've offered above, I would recommend the following additional steps to improve the evaluation processes.
|
||