Department of Linguistics, Protocol for Annual Performance Review1
Department of Linguistics
Protocol for annual performance review
1. Introduction
The purpose of this document is to specify the processes and criteria used in the Department of Linguistics to achieve the goals of the annual performance review. This review is intended to:
- involve faculty members in the design and evaluation of objectives of their academic programs and in the identification of the performance expectations central to their professional growth;
- assess actual performance in the areas of teaching, research and scholarly activity, and professional service;
- promote the effectiveness of faculty members through an articulation of the types of contributions that their peers think might enhance the Department, the profession, and the University;
- provide a written record of faculty activities to support Departmental decisions;
- recognize and maximize the capabilities and achievements of faculty members; and
- assist faculty members in improving their contributions in any areas where performance is considered by their peers to be below expectations.
This document is also intended to be consistent with the preservation of academic freedom. Therefore, all procedures will be implemented in such a manner as to preserve the following fundamental principles.
- Faculty are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of their results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties.
- Facultyare entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject and in their methods of teaching.
- When facultyspeak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.
2. The process
2.1 Form of reports and period of review
Performance reviews will be based on an annual report submitted by each faculty member. The form of this report will be subject to the approval of the faculty. Except for new hires, the report will cover a three-year window. It will list the objectives for the review period and for the next year. It will also describe accomplishments, including contributions to the academic mission of the Department. This report will serve as a primary source of information for review by the committee and the head.
Performance reviews will be conducted each year. Faculty will submit reports by mid-January. The Peer Review Committee’s written evaluation will be given to the Department head by the end of February. The head will use the committee’s evaluation in making his or her evaluation each faculty member, informing faculty of their evaluations by mid-March. The head will provide each faculty member an opportunity to discuss the review by the end of the spring semester.
2.2 Performance ratings
Faculty will be rated in each of the three primary areas of responsibility (teaching, research and scholarly activity, and service). The rating scale includes the following descriptive headings: excellent, meritorious, satisfactory, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory.
The overall evaluation will be computed as the average of the evaluations in research and scholarship, teaching, and service, weighted in accordance with the workload percentages previously negotiated with the Department head.
See section 6 for criteria.
3. Workload assignments
Each faculty member may negotiate with the head the percentages of his or her workload that will be devoted to research, teaching, and service. When special negotiations are not undertaken, the default value of 40 % for research, 40 % for teaching, and 20 % for service will be operative for tenured and tenure-eligible faculty. The workload percentages for teaching staff and the head will be determined on an individual basis.
Workload assignments for individual faculty are flexible. It is expected that those assignments will vary as careers progress, in accordance with the strengths of different faculty members and the changing expectations at different stages of their careers.. Changes in workload assignments should be negotiated so as to take effect at the beginning of the calendar year if possible, including temporary changes involving sabbatical and other kinds of leave, and administrative assignments. Periods of time spent on sabbatical or other kinds of leave and on administrative assignments are handled differently. Annual reports will include narratives regarding periods of time spent on sabbatical leave or on leave without pay, or administrative assignments. The evaluation of administrative assignments will be carried out by the appropriate administrative officer (e.g., Dean).
4. Roles of the Peer Review Committee and the Department head
By the vote of the Department adopting these procedures and in accordance with the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, the faculty delegates to the Department head the authority to appoint a Peer Review Committee ideally consisting of four members of the faculty (a full professor, an associate professor, an assistant professor, and a member of the teaching staff).
The head and committee will make reasonable efforts to advise faculty whose [c1]performance is slipping in a manner that could lead to a rating of “needs improvement”, either overall or in an individual area, and to acquaint such faculty members with the resources available to improve their performance.
Committee members will be evaluated by the other members of the committee and by the head. The committee and head will also evaluate performance of faculty while on leave. The evaluation of administrative assignments will be carried out by the appropriate administrative officer (e.g. Dean).
The Department head will evaluate each faculty member, based on the recommendations of the Peer review committee and his or her observations. The Department head will communicate the results of the evaluation to each faculty member, and if the results differ from those recommended by the committee, that fact and the reasons for the difference will also be communicated.
The head and committee will make reasonable efforts to advise faculty whose performance is slipping in a manner that could lead to a rating of “needs improvement”, either overall or in an individual area, and to acquaint such faculty members with the resources available to improve their performance.
5. Appeals
Any disagreements between the faculty member and the Department head about either the evaluation or the work assignment will be mediated can be appealed to the Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Further appeal options are available in the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel.
6. Criteria
The basic standard for appraisal will be whether the faculty member under review discharges conscientiously and with professional competence the duties associated with his or her position.
The guidelines here and in the Department’s Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Procedures provide a philosophical basis for evaluation. They express the level of expectation that the Department holds for itself; they ensure that the activities that are to be rewarded are consistent with the mission of the Department; they alert the faculty to their responsibilities and the expectations that the Department has for them. The factors listed in sections 6.1-6.3 are not meant to be exhaustive.
6.1 Teaching
The evaluation of teaching takes into account but is not limited to such factors as: quality of classroom teaching as measured by student evaluations, peer evaluations, and the faculty member’s own report of effectiveness; and extent of participation as a guest instructor in other courses, individual supervision of undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, including thesis and dissertation supervision, advising and mentoring students, applying for grants to support teaching, and efforts to design new courses and teaching methods.
6.2 Research and scholarly activity
The evaluation of research takes into account but is not limited to such factors as: publication of research papers, books, book chapters, monographs, and software; presentation of research at scholarly meetings, workshops, and colloquia; the effective carrying out of a research program, including applying for grant support for that research; and supervision of research assistants.
6.3 Service
The evaluation of service takes into account but is not limited to such factors as: membership on department committees and other departmental service; service to other units at the University of Arizona that is not reported by the faculty member for evaluation in those units; and local, state, national and international professional and outreach activities.
Approved 12-Dec-2003
[c1]