This policy governs the annual evaluation of faculty and the annual determination of merit, as well as the activities of the Faculty Evaluation Committee of the Department of Philosophy (hereinafter “the Committee”). It does not in any way limit the charter- mandated responsibilities of the department Chair.

The performance indicators described in Policy I the Departmental Policies for Annual Review, Merit, Contract Renewal, Promotion, and Tenure of Tenured and Probationary Faculty should be used for annual merit review. The annual merit review will be based upon the accomplishments over the most recent three-year period on a rolling basis, ie., each year new information is added to the file for the most recent year, and information from the oldest year is eliminated from the file. This will help to reduce inequities that can result both from differences in the merit funds available each year and from fluctuations in performance that may occur from year to year.

The Committee will perform the following tasks annually using the following time table and process.

A: Calculation of Merit Points

1. Time Table. The Committee will solicit new information from the faculty regarding their professional activity in the past calendar year for teaching, research and service activities. Results of student evaluations of teaching as indicated on the Department's standard form are required for all courses taught during the regular academic year.

The Committee will evaluate the teaching, research and service of each faculty member and publish the results of these evaluations in each of the three categories, as well as an overall evaluation for each faculty member, by March 1.

2. Evaluation Criteria

All evaluations will be done using the departmental scale: (3) greatly exceeds expectations, (2) exceeds expectations, (1) meets expectations, and (0) does not meet expectations.

The departmental scale will be interpreted as giving assessments equivalent to those measured on the following three point scale used by the university: (2) exceeds expectations, (1) meets expectations, and (0) does not meet expectations. The departmental ratings of (3) and (2) will be converted to a rating of (2) on the university scale.     

Overall Evaluation or Merit Score

The department expects its faculty to maintain a standard allocation of effort that approximates 40% teaching, 40% research and 20% service. These weights will apply to most faculty who are carrying full teaching loads as defined by department policy. Modification of the allocation of effort for a faculty member who receives released time from teaching duties for administrative responsibilities or for research will be determined as follows: each course of reduced teaching load will reduce the allocation of effort to teaching by 10% and increase the allocation of effort to service or to research, respectively, by 10%. For example, a faculty member with a one course reduction in teaching load to compensate for increased administrative duties will be expected to allocate 30% to teaching, 40% to research, and 30% to service.

A faculty member's overall evaluation shall be based on the evaluations in the three areas using the following rule: the individual's points in teaching, research, and service, will be multiplied by the percent allocations of effort that are expected in those areas, and the overall rating will be the sum of the numbers thus calculated. In the standard case, the individual's points in both teaching and research will be multiplied by .4, the points in service will be multiplied by .2.

Teaching. Student evaluations of teaching shall be required from all classes using the departmental form for determining annual salary recommendations. Raw student evaluation scores for the teacher and the class will be adjusted in the light of the class size and of the course level (lower division, upper division, or graduate level). In addition, raw student evaluation scores will be further adjusted in the light of the written comments submitted by students. Each member of the Committee will review student's comments from each class.

The evaluation of teaching should include, but not be limited to, student evaluations, course objectives, methods, organization, and the communication skills of the instructor. The members of the Committee should evaluate all faculty using the same standards.

Conclusions concerning teaching evaluations will take into account other teaching related activities such as: directed readings, thesis and dissertation committees, curriculum development, unpaid overloads, extra course assignments, and participation in teaching large-lecture courses.

Whereas members of the Graduate Faculty regularly teach a four course annual load not only to facilitate their research efforts but significantly also to provide them time to work with graduate students, for example, on directed readings, internship supervision and theses and dissertation committees, the Committee shall give due consideration to the performance of such duties in its evaluation of their teaching. To receive a grade of “3” or “greatly exceeds expectations”, in teaching, graduate faculty with a standard four course teaching load must be members of at least two doctoral or masters committees of Philosophy graduate students. Beyond this minimum, membership on committees of graduate students in departments other than Philosophy shall receive the same credit as membership on committees of Philosophy graduate students (excluding service merely as the Graduate Faculty Representative).

Research. Each faculty member's research will be evaluated using the following criteria: monographs will be given greater weight than textbooks; papers in national journals will be given greater weight than regional journals (e.g. Proceedings of the Ohio Philosophical Association); normally, refereed articles will be given more weight than non-refereed articles; and paper presentations at a conference will outweigh commenting on a paper, panel participation or the chairing of a session.

In regard to those who have funded part-time appointments outside of the Department the Committee shall evaluate their contributions to the Department, and those who supervise the activities outside of the Department should evaluate those activities. Further, the merit monies that such persons receive will be calculated by taking the points they would have received if full-time and by multiplying them by the percentage of time that they spend in the Department. Moreover, research merit ranking for those with part-time contracts should be multiplied by the percentage of time in the Department. In order to help those with part-time appointments outside of the Department, the Committee will communicate to their supervisors concerning the meritorious work that they have done in the Department, particularly in the area of research.

Service. The Committee shall evaluate service of faculty members in light of the criteria listed in Policy I, the Departmental Policies for Annual Review, Merit, Contract Renewal, Promotion, and Tenure of Tenured and Probationary Faculty. Included in the area of service is work on external affiliations and partnerships appropriate to the Department's mission in Applied Philosophy. Attendance at departmental colloquia is included.

3. Committee Process. Each member of the Committee will independently evaluate each member of the Department using the above scale in the areas of teaching, research, and service employing the Departmental Evaluation Form. This form summarizes those data which serve as the basis for the evaluation process. As noted, during each evaluation period the Committee will use as the basis for its evaluation the results of the three most recent years on a rolling basis. The Committee will then attempt to reach a consensus evaluation for each member of the Department in each area, as well as an overall evaluation, relying on compromise only as a last resort. The Committee will provide faculty members with written results, seeking to provide constructive feedback that enables them to develop professionally and to make improvements in their performance.

4. Judgment of “No Merit”. A faculty member who receives an overall rating of (0) is not eligible for merit. The committee shall assign an overall rating of (0) to a faculty member if and only if, the faculty member's performance has been judged not to meet expectations and has been given a rating of(0) in any two of the three areas (teaching, research and service) for three consecutive years. In accordance with university policies, a faculty member will be eligible for a salary increment if and only if the faculty member qualifies for merit recognition.

5. Appeals. Evaluations shall be subject to departmental review upon request of any faculty member who disputes his/her evaluation after consultation with the Committee. A majority of the Department shall be necessary and sufficient to overturn the Committee's judgment. The Department shall base its judgment on the information provided to the Committee. This review should take place by March 10.

B: Calculation of Recommended Salary Increases

The Committee shall recommend salary raises based on merit through the following procedure:

1. A faculty member's merit score will be equal to his or her overall evaluation on the departmental scale, which is calculated according to the rule given in a.2 above.

2. In any given year, the university will determine the base merit increase to be received by members of faculty who receive an overall evaluation on the university scale of (1) or (2). The university will also determine the amount of money, if any, to be distributed according to departmental rules. Call this amount the “departmental special merit pool”. This special merit pool will be distributed among members of the department who receive an overall evaluation on the university scale of (2). Call these individuals the “eligible faculty”. Eligible faculty will receive extra merit increases on top of the base merit increase, the dollar value of which will be calculated as follows.

First determine the individual's percentage of the sum of merit scores of all eligible faculty within the department; call this the individual's merit percentage. (E.g., if the sum of all merit scores of eligible faculty in the department were 22, then if professor x has a merit score of 2.2, she would have a merit percentage of 10%.) Second, each eligible member of faculty will receive a percentage of the departmental special merit pool equal to their merit percentage. (E.g., if the departmental special merit pool is $5,000, then someone with a merit percentage of 10% would receive $500.)

3. A professional development fund should be made available to any faculty member who does not qualify for merit recognition and does not receive a salary increase.

4. In cases of exceptional merit (e.g. the publication of a book) the Committee may award additional points to individuals in the appropriate categories. Such action requires the unanimous consent of the Committee.

5. In extraordinary circumstances, the committee may recommend a larger merit raise for a faculty member than would be justified under the above rules. Any such recommendation is subject to veto by majority vote of the department.

C: Interpretation

The departmental scale given in section A:2 above will be interpreted such that a rating of (3), “greatly exceeds expectations”, will be interpreted as equivalent to a rating of (1), “outstanding”, on the old five point departmental scale; a rating of (2), “exceeds expectations”, will be interpreted as equivalent to a rating of (2), “excellent”, on the old scale; a rating of (1), “meets expectations”, will be interpreted as equivalent to a rating of (3), “good”, on the old scale; finally, a rating of (0), “does not meet expectations”, will be interpreted as equivalent to (4) “fair” or (5) “poor” on the old scale.

This section of the Policy may be deleted once the interpretation of the scale is well understood in the department.