Section IX: CBE Evaluation Plan

Section IX: CBE EVALUATION PLAN: PRINCIPLES USED FOR APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, GRANTING OF TENURE AND CONTINUOUS EVALUATION OF FACULTY

To achieve its mission, the college faculty must be prepared and productive educators. The necessary qualifications for appointment, retention, promotion, and the granting of tenure are those established in the WWU Faculty Handbook and Collective Bargaining Agreement, augmented by the College of Business and Economics Handbook. The accepted terminal degree for tenure track appointments in all departments shall be the appropriate doctorate.

 

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

In addition to being effective educators, University faculty are expected to be experts in their field of specialization and to contribute to their respective discipline’s body of knowledge, and to participate in academic governance and professional service.

Evaluation of faculty traditionally includes assessment of the contribution in each of the following areas: (1) teaching; (2) research, creative scholarship and publication; (3) department, college, and university governance and professional service.

It is not expected that each faculty person will contribute equally in each area. It is required, however, that candidates for promotion or tenure shall achieve and maintain competence in each of the three areas, and will strive toward distinction in at least one. The same criteria are used for all evaluations.

 

Teaching:

In its various forms, teaching constitutes a central function of the College, and excellence in teaching is encouraged and rewarded. Every faculty member is expected to be an effective teacher, and no faculty member should be nominated for promotion or for tenure without documented and convincing evidence of teaching effectiveness. Excellence in teaching draws continuously upon the teacher’s competence as a scholar in the discipline. Suggested sources of information for use in the evaluation process may be found in Addendum 1 to the Faculty Evaluation Form, printed as Section X of this handbook.

 

Research, Creative Scholarship and Publication:

Research, Creative Scholarship and Publication: Scholarship is defined as inquiry undertaken to establish facts, develop principles, and/or answer or illuminate questions posed within an area of intellectual pursuit, through the collection, ordering, and dissemination of documented evidence and conclusions. Every faculty member is expected to demonstrate continuing competence and currency in this area. Scholarship with application to practice and pedagogically related research are also of value.

Research and creative scholarship are evaluated primarily in terms of publications. Books or monographs published by university presses, and books published by well‐established and  academically recognized commercial firms, articles in journals providing a process for review of manuscripts by selected authorities, and bulletins or reports that are similarly reviewed, naturally carry more weight than those that do not require rigorous review for acceptance and publication. Faculty members may be asked to provide evidence about the quality of a publication for the review process for publications. In cases of multiple authorship, the degree of contribution to the study by each person should be established as clearly as possible. An impact measure such as a current Google Scholar report of citations may also provide evidence of quality.

Other scholarly activities may include papers published in proceedings or in­‐house journals, book reviews, professional presentations, conference sessions organized or chaired, being a discussant at professional meetings and in some cases offices held in professional organizations or scholarly societies.

Promotion to Associate Professor and/or Tenure: Published research in refereed journals or in books published by a recognized press (after substantial peer review) is a necessary condition for promotion to associate professor or the granting of tenure in the College.  In addition, there should be evidence that the commitment to research will be sustained and substantial.

Promotion to Professor: The standard for promotion to professor is higher in terms of quantity and quality of scholarly activity than the standard for promotion to associate professor. Evidence would include substantial articles in refereed journals or research in books published by university presses, well established and academically recognized commercial firms, or other scholarly production of comparable stature. It is expected that the record will demonstrate a long­‐term, sustained, research effort with substantial contributions to the scholarship in a faculty member’s area of specialization.

It is recognized that for the College to flourish it must help faculty members build their strengths and maintain their creative energies over a career. Faculty members’ interests may shift over the course of a career from discovery research to applied, or pedagogical research. Faculty members in the later stages of a career may be called on to devote a larger proportion of their energies to service activities and mentoring of junior faculty. A faculty member may shift more attention to teaching or to research over long periods of time.      

 

Department, College, and University Governance and Professional Service:

Active participation in activities relating to College and University governance and service to the University such as committee work, administrative duties, student advising, student placement, and other activities that may promote the general College and University welfare is expected of all College of Business and Economics faculty.

In addition, there are other professional activities that represent the outreach programs and engagement activities of the College and its faculty. Emphasis is placed upon organized activities where knowledge and teaching are combined, but programs and activities of a professional nature, or service to an outside agency or community may be included. For example, teaching in seminars offered by other divisions of the University, membership on publication review boards, committee memberships or the holding of office in professional societies, and consulting or advising extr­‐university groups in matters of professional expertise are all appropriate, particularly as they relate to the College’s mission and values (Section 1).

Governance, professional service activities and programs can be beneficial to all faculty members. However, it is expected that greater emphasis will be placed on this area after a person has been granted tenure. Faculty members should be prepared to present evidence of the quality and/or impact of their service activities through such things as letters from committee Chairs, evidence of committee accomplishments, and other appropriate documentation.

 

Administrative Appointments:

It is also recognized that some faculty members may accept time consuming administrative appointments with the College or University. Faculty members with such combined academic/administrative appointments will need to reapportion their time commitments to teaching, research and service in ways that are consistent with the expectations established at the time the administrative appointment is accepted. The diversity of administrative appointments precludes the establishment of general expectations; however, evaluations of individuals in such positions must consider the trade-‐off between administrative duties, service, teaching assignments and scholarly expectations.

 

FACULTY REVIEW PROCESS:

All faculty members of the College of Business and Economics submit a Faculty Record annually to their Department Chair, except faculty members undergoing another review and Senior Instructors who are reviewed once per appointment period. The purpose of the review of the Faculty Activity Record by the faculty member and the Department Chair is to promote professional excellence and faculty development and to provide a basis for the evaluation of performance. Such evaluation forms the basis for recommendations regarding personnel actions. The procedures for the annual review differ depending upon the personnel action for which the faculty person is eligible.

Responsibilities/Requirements of Faculty:

  1. Each faculty member shall complete the Faculty Activity Record document by the established deadlines.
  2. Each faculty member not undergoing other review shall have a personal interview with the department chair in conjunction with the completion of the Faculty Activity Record, no later than the end of fall quarter.
  3. Each faculty member shall maintain an updated dossier by keeping their information current in the CBE faculty information system so that it is available for review.
  4. Each faculty member shall ensure that current information from the dossier is contained in the central CBE faculty information system.
  5. As specified in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, all tenured faculty shall participate in a timely and complete manner in probationary reviews, promotion reviews, tenure reviews and post tenure reviews unless they are on leave. Tenured faculty on leave may, but are not required to, submit an individual written assessment on the dossier and vote. Probationary (i.e. non-tenured Tenure Track faculty) faculty may examine a dossier but will not vote or provide comments on the actin under consideration.

 

Responsibilities/Requirements of Faculty:

  1. The chair shall assume responsibility for the development and preparation of candidates for personnel actions.
  2. Each department chair shall establish procedures to assure the timely and complete review of all eligible faculty under consideration for a personnel action. Chairs have the right and responsibility to refuse to accept incomplete or late files from faculty under review.
  3. The chair shall forward to the Faculty Review Committee and the Dean the names of all tenured faculty who participated in the review, along with the names of all tenured faculty who did not participate, with the reason for their non‐participation.
  4. All personnel actions will originate with the department.

 

Review Categories and Procedures:

For all types of review it is the obligation of the candidate to make the case for the action reviewed. The case should be made in a letter to the reviewers highlighting the candidate’s achievements during the review period, carefully documented by reference to the candidate’s file. The contents of the file are described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The application dossier must include a representative set of student teaching evaluations (both numerical responses and written comments) for the reporting period. Specifically, a representative set of student teaching evaluations must be provided with respect to the courses taught during each year of the reporting period and with respect to the different courses taught:

  • For each year of the reporting period, student course evaluations must be submitted for a majority of the courses taught. For example, if a faculty member has taught six course sections during a given year, then student course evaluations for at least four course sections for that year must be included in the dossier.
  • For each specific course taught during the reporting period, student course evaluations must be submitted for a majority of the sections taught over the reporting period. For example, if a faculty member has taught eleven sections of a specific course over a five­‐year reporting period, then student course evaluations for at least six sections of the course must be included in the dossier. In the case of a stacked course, a “section of the course” is considered to include both the undergraduate and the graduate students. For a majority of such sections taught during the reporting period, faculty must submit evaluations from all students in the section (both undergraduate and graduate).

For all types of review it is the obligation of the reviewers to carefully evaluate the candidate’s case, documenting their evaluations by reference to the candidate’s file.

In order that chairs have ample time to check the adequacy of the files and reviews, these files and reviews must be made available to the chairs in a timely fashion. Failure by faculty members to provide adequate and timely reviews should be documented in the faculty members’ files and used in evaluations of service contribution when they are in turn reviewed.

Internal peer evaluation: an evaluation from any faculty member employed at Western Washington University, whether in the candidate’s department or not.

External evaluation: an evaluation from a person at another university, or elsewhere outside of Western Washington University.

Internal peer evaluations are not subject to disclosure to the public. They remain available only to the chair, review committees, and others making the evaluation. After the review procedure is complete, the candidate may obtain access by submitting a written request to the dean of the college.

 

A. Evaluation of Probationary Tenure Track Faculty

1.  Procedures:

The procedures for the evaluation of probationary faculty are described in detail in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

B. Promotion and Tenure Review

1.   Eligibility:

Tenure eligibility is discussed in detail in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

2.  Procedures:

The procedures for tenure and promotion are described in detail in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Departments in the College of Business and Economics may choose to hold a meeting of those faculty eligible to participate in the review to discuss the candidate.

The procedures for promotion to the rank of professor are described in detail in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

C. Post Tenure Review

1. Procedures:

The procedures for post tenure review of faculty are described in detail in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The College of Business and Economics has adopted a five‐year review period for faculty.

 

2.  Additional Considerations:

For the faculty member undergoing Post Tenure Review to be considered as meeting department standards, the faculty member must be evaluated as meeting or exceeding department standards in all three areas of Teaching, Scholarly Activities, and Service (see Collective Bargaining Agreement).

 

The following table summarizes the articulation between the internal evaluation scale used in the CBE review forms and the scale described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

WWU Evaluation Scale

CBE Evaluation Scale

Exceeds

Department

Standards

Demonstrates exemplary performance for this category of personnel action

Is well above current college/department standards for this category of personnel action

Meets

Department

Standards

Satisfies the current college/department standards for this category of personnel action

Does Not

Meet

Department

Standards

Is marginally below current college/department standards for this category of personnel action

Is well below current college/department standards for this category of personnel action

 

If a faculty member receives an unsatisfactory review (does not meet department standards category above) in any area he or she will work with the chair or designee to address the deficiency. Progress will be assessed in the following year and a formal review will be conducted in the second year, in accord with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. A development plan shall be prepared in consultation with the relevant department Chair, the Dean and any other colleagues that may be deemed helpful.  The plan will specify what remedial actions are to be taken and how they are to be evaluated.  The College and the department shall make available reasonable resources to assist the faculty member to meet the requirements and make progress according to the development plan. Failure to achieve a satisfactory evaluation of teaching in the second year or to maintain academic or professional qualifications may result in action under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

D.  Evaluation of Non‐Tenure­‐Track Faculty

1. Eligibility:

Non‐tenure‐track faculty are all those faculty employed outside the structure of tenure. Titles are described in detail in Collective Bargaining Agreement.

2.  Procedures:

The procedures for the evaluation of non-tenure-track faculty are described in detail in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

E.  Promotion to Senior Instructor

1. Eligibility:

Instructors with a minimum of five years’ experience of 0.5 FTE or more at WWU (see the Collective Bargaining Agreement). 

 

F.  Annual Faculty Activity Record and Review

1. Eligibility:

All tenured faculty not scheduled for post-tenure review in that academic year.

2. Procedures:

a. The annual interview with the department chair, together with the Faculty Activity Record and the complete dossier, shall be the basis of this review. The Faculty Activity Record and the complete dossier should be available to the Chair by the first Monday in October.

b. The Chair shall complete the appropriate section of the Faculty Activity Record and give a copy to the faculty member as well as retaining a copy in the departmental office.

c. Each Chair shall provide to the Dean an assessment of all faculty members following their annual review.

d. The Dean shall evaluate Chairs in their administrative roles.

 

G. Department Chairs, Center, Program or Regional Director Evaluations

1. Procedures:

Individuals holding administrative assignments will be evaluated for their faculty duties and/or their administrative duties using separate processes as outlined here: 

Faculty members who are Chairs or Directors will undergo post‐tenure reviews with respect to teaching, scholarly activities and research. The dossier submitted will contain information that clarifies the expectations for administrative duties (established when the faculty member took the administrative appointment), as well as the teaching, research and service expectations.  In the post-­‐tenure review process, the teaching, scholarly, and service achievements of the faculty member holding an administrative assignment will be assessed proportionally to the position appointment. 

The Dean will evaluate the administrative performance of Chairs based upon input from the department faculty. The Dean will evaluate the administrative performance of directors with input from the faculty. The evaluation of administrative performance will occur during the second year of a term of office.

 

H. Special Merit Evaluation

1. Eligibility:

When special merit money is available, all members of the College faculty who are eligible according to special merit procedures set at the University level shall be reviewed for salary increase based on merit. If no eligibility criteria are set at the University level, all tenured and tenure­‐track faculty will be eligible.

2. Procedures:

  1. The College will follow University procedures if such procedures are specified. If procedures are not specified at the University level, the College will follow the below procedure.
  2. Each department chair shall establish procedures to assure the timely and complete review of all eligible faculty. When appropriate, this review may be a part of A, B or C above.
  3. Each department chair will forward a list of recommended faculty to the Dean, together with the proposal regarding the size of the award and a brief statement of support for each recommendation made.
  4. The Dean shall evaluate the chairs for inclusion in the merit pool.
  5. The Dean will determine the final special merit salary recommendations in consultation with the chairs and Associate Deans consistent with the College standards and resource availability.

 

I. Grievance and Complaint Procedures

Grievance and complaint procedures are described in detail in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

J. Forms for Annual Activity Record and Faculty Evaluation

PDF icon Faculty Activity Record - PDF

File Faculty Activity Record - Word

PDF icon Faculty Evaluation Form