ANNUAL FACULTY EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION OF MERIT
(Revised January 2011)
Department of Philosophy
College of Arts and Sciences
Bowling Green State University
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.
University policy limits eligibility for merit increases to those who have an overall rating of (2) exceeds expectations. Any faculty member who receives at least a rating of (1) meets expectations in all three areas and a rating of (2) exceeds expectations in at least one area is eligible for merit and shall be given an overall rating of (2). [The rationale for this is that anyone who does what is expected in every area, but does more than expected in at least one area is, overall, exceeding expectations.
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. With regard to the scholarship of engagement, faculty will be evaluated in terms of the indicators in “A Guide for Documenting the Scholarship of Engagement at BGSU” (Appendix D of the Report of the Standards Committee on the Scholarship of Engagement—see attached). Faculty submitting scholarship of engagement activities for evaluation should provide a summary account of the activity and a brief explanation of the value they perceive the activity to have based on these indicators.
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.
Revised: January, 2011
Appendix D
A Guide for Documenting the Scholarship of Engagement at BGSU
Engagement that is scholarly will typically have the following characteristics. The Sample Questions may be used to clarify that quality and to identify Qualitative and/or Quantitative Indicators that demonstrate and document that quality. The framework of “Samples Questions, Examples of Qualitative Indicators, and Examples of Quantitative Indicators” is drawn from the Four Dimensions of Quality Outreach (Michigan State University, 1996). The questions as well as the qualitative and quantitative indicators that follow are meant to suggest possibilities. They do not constitute a checklist and not all need be answered by each candidate.
Characteristic 1
It asks questions that are of significance for the community as well as the discipline or interdisciplinary area.
Sample Questions | Examples of Qualitative Indicators | Examples of Quantitative Indicators |
- How well are the project and its objectives defined?
- How strong is the justification that the project is of significance to the scholarly community, specific stakeholders, and the public?
- What social, economic, or human consequences could result from not addressing the issue?
- Have all stakeholders agreed that the goals and objectives are valuable?
- To what extent is the project shaped by knowledge that is up-to-date, cross-disciplinary, and appropriate to the issue?
- Is knowledge in the community or among the stakeholders utilized?
- Can the project affect public policy? Can it improve practice or advance community knowledge?
| - Documentation of issues and opportunities based on concrete information; e.g., opportunity assessment, social and economic indicators, stakeholder testimony, previous work.
- Leaders in the field or public figures addressing the issue, citing the need.
- The magnitude of the issue; i.e., size, trends, future directions.
- Narrative discussing scope and potential impact.
- Evidence of scholarship related to project or prior work in the field.
- Issue addressed in the literature.
- Quality and fit of the citations, outside experts, or consultants.
| - Indicators of demand/need.
- Financial and other resource contributions.
• Cross-disciplinary resources utilized. - Significance, number, and dates of citations.
|
Characteristic 2
The work is placed in the context of existing scholarship and community practice.
Sample Questions | Examples of Qualitative Indicators | Example of Quantitative Indicators |
- Is the target audience at particular risk or open to new opportunity?
- To what extent is the project consistent with the university’s and/or unit’s mission?
- To what extent is the project a high priority among the external stakeholders?
- Does the project demonstrate sensitivity to diverse audiences and interests?
- Have the interests and well-being of all participants been considered?
- Are the goals/objectives realistic considering the context and available resources?
- Is the project design appropriate to the context and does it recognize the scope, complexity, and diversity?
| - Documentation of issues and opportunities based on concrete information; e.g., opportunity assessment, social and economic indicators, stakeholder testimony, previous work.
- Leaders in the field or public figures addressing the issue, citing the need.
- All stakeholders understand the goals and objectives as stated.
- Increased visibility in community or profession; new structures created; new skills developed and knowledge generated.
- Comparison with explicit mission statements and goals.
- Interviews with those potentially affected by the project.
- Comparison with stakeholder reports, proposals, letters of inquiry.
- Evidence of scholarship related to project or prior work in the field.
- Annotated narrative showing what sources of knowledge are used; i.e., community assessments, previous works, and applied theory.
| - Indicators of demand/need.
- Financial and other resource contributions.
- Projections of scope and potential impact.
- Degree of opportunity to change the situation.
- Cross-disciplinary resources utilized.
- Experts cited and/or participating.
- Contacts and planning meetings with stakeholders.
- Resources/methods used to promote program.
- Profile of audience; i.e., demographic characteristics.
|
Characteristic 3
The methodology is clearly defined and appropriate.
Sample Questions | Examples of Qualitative Indicators | Examples of Quantitative Indicators |
- To what extent does the project utilize appropriate expertise among the stakeholders?
- To what extent do all the stakeholders participate in planning, defining impacts, implementing, and assessing the project?
- To what extent is communication and interaction open and multi-directional?
- Does the nature of the collaboration lead to timely and effective decision-making?
- Is there an appropriate approach underlying the design; i.e., developmental, participatory?
- How does the project recognize and accommodate the differences in the education and experience of the stakeholders?
- Does the project have a comprehensive and appropriate evaluation plan?
- Are available resources (i.e., human, financial, capital, volunteer, etc.) sufficient to the scope of the effort?
- To what extent is there an awareness of competing methodologies, replicable models, expertise, and/or writing related to the project?
- How well are the project and its objectives defined?
- To what extent is there innovation in the application of knowledge and methodologies?
- Does the project plan pose a new model or hypothesis in addressing the issues?
- Was the documentation during the course of the project rigorous, thorough, understandable, and defensible?
| - Language and structure of partnership agreements.
- Identification, participation, and retention of all stakeholders.
- Communication logs and minutes of meetings.
- Reference to related literature on the methodology.
- Description of adaptation during project implementation.
- Explanation of how audience education levels were considered.
- Process documentation by project director through journals, images, recordings, etc.
- Description of integration and creative use of multiple methods and resources.
- New funding sources identified and leveraged.
- Narrative showing degree of fit between project needs and expertise deployed.
- Relevant offices and organizations involved in the project.
- Community partner participation in grading students, evaluating faculty/staff efforts.
| - Financial and other resource contributions.
- Numbers and types of expertise involved; e.g., tenure-track faculty, academic staff, students, stakeholders, external consultants.
- Stakeholders in leadership roles.
- Related activities; e.g., years of experience, number of articles, juried exhibitions/performances
- Partners or collaborative arrangements.
- Intra-institutional linkages.
- Inter-institutional linkages.
- Planning meetings.
- Instances of innovations in delivery; e.g., student involvement, use of technology.
- Amounts and types of the resources by source.
- Securing of extramural funding for outreach activities.
- Cross-disciplinary resources utilized.
|
Characteristic 4
The results are significant and have an impact on the discipline or interdisciplinary area as well as the community.
Sample Questions | Examples of Qualitative Indicators | Examples of Quantitative Indicators |
- Was new knowledge generated; i.e., program hypotheses confirmed or revised, outcomes creatively interpreted, new questions or scholarship asked?
- To what extent were the project goals and objectives met?
- If the goals are accomplished, will there be a significant social, economic, and/or human consequence or impact?
- What contribution does the collaboration make to capacity building and sustainability?
- Were intended, unintended, and potential impacts documented and interpreted?
- Were stakeholders satisfied? Did they value the results and apply the knowledge?
- Did the project affect public policy? Did it improve practice or advance community knowledge?
- To what extent did the project leverage additional resources for any partners?
- To what extent did the project broaden access to the university?
- To what extent did the project broaden access to the community?
- How does the project offer new opportunities for student learning and professional staff development?
- How does the project lead to innovations in curriculum?
- How does the project inform other dimensions of the university mission?
- How does the project increase cross-disciplinary collaborations within the university?
- How does the project increase collaboration with other institutions?
- How does the project assist the unit’s or faculty member’s progress in developing engagement potential and in using that potential to improve the institution’s operations and visibility?
- How does the project inform undergraduate and graduate students in their research (e.g., projects, theses, dissertations)?
| - Description of the magnitude of the results; i.e., size, trends, future directions.
- Documentation of results through journals, interviews, discussions, visual and sound media.
- Documentation such as program evaluations, surveys, letters, testimonials, and media coverage.
- Testimony and validation from peer review.
- Assessments on learning outcomes by individuals, students, and stakeholders.
- Description of how needs were fulfilled.
- Narrative discussing scope and potential impact.
- Increased visibility in community or profession; new images, objects, spaces, structures created; new skills developed and knowledge generated.
- Project garnered awards, honors, citations relative to its scholarship/creative work.
- Project generated a replicable, innovative model.
- Description of groups or institutions applying knowledge generated.
- Case studies of utilization.
- Description of how institutional processes were changed.
- Replications and/or innovative applications.
- Referrals to others and expression of interest by new groups.
- Benefits resulting from changes in practice; e.g., knowledge applied, processes or approaches more efficient, circumstances improved.
- Description of how knowledge is used in subsequent research, projects, or public discussion.
- Technology adopted and maintained.
- Disciplinary and interdisciplinary skills adopted and maintained
- Explanation of how activities and processes were institutionalized.
- Explanation of how networks (e.g., cross-disciplinary linkages) were activated.
- Role flexibility and changes that provide for greater university/community interaction.
- Narrative/visual/aural descriptions of changes in policies, procedures, curricula, and courses.
| - Measure of the magnitude of the results; i.e., size, trends, future directions.
- Percentage of deadlines met.
- Changes from benchmark or baseline measurements
- Appropriate products and presentations generated for practitioners and public (e.g. technical reports, bulletins, books, monographs, chapters, articles, presentations, public performances and exhibitions, testimony, training manuals, software, computer programs, curricular materials, instructional videos, etc.)
- Individuals and/or organizations directly or indirectly impacted.
- Projections of scope and potential impact.
- Number of times project cited, recognized.
- Products distributed.
- Contracts, patents, copyrights.
- Quantitative changes in skills, technologies, behaviors, activities, etc.
- Number of sites and cross-site linkages established.
- New collaborations considered or established.
- Off-campus courses offered with syllabus modifications to accommodate nontraditional students.
- Increased demand placed on the unit or faculty for engagement.
- Increased support for students (e.g., financial, advisory)
• Employment offers to students. - Quality graduate program offers to undergraduate students
- New courses and programs approved.
- Continued or alternative resources secured; e.g., funding, facilities, equipment, personnel.
- Expansion of university/unit constituency.
|
Characteristic 5
The results are communicated and disseminated to appropriate academic and public audiences.
Sample Questions | Examples of Qualitative Indicators | Examples of Quantitative Indicators |
- Are the stakeholders and potential interest groups involved in understanding and interpreting the knowledge generated?
- Is the knowledge generated by the project available for dissemination, utilization, and possible replication?
- In what ways is the knowledge being recorded?
- How effectively are the products or results reaching the intended interest groups?
- Were suitable styles and effective organization used to present the work?
- Were the results that were communicated and disseminated to appropriate academic and public audiences consistent with the mission of the institution?
- Were appropriate forums for communicating work to the intended audience used?
- Was the information presented with clarity and integrity?
| - Increased visibility in community or profession.
- Documentation such as program evaluation, surveys, letters, testimonials, and media coverage.
- Co-authored reports, presentations and exhibitions
- Testimonials from partners.
- Artifacts (e.g., electronic text, public performances and exhibitions, multi-media) that communicate and disseminate the project.
- Prestigious community commissions
| - Acceptances for publications, exhibitions, performances, speaking engagements.
- Requests for consulting.
- Programs, curricula influenced by scholarly results.
- Publications in refereed journals.
- Professional speaking engagements.
- Avenues chosen to communicate results.
- Appropriate products and presentations generated for practitioners and public (e.g. technical reports, bulletins, books, monographs, chapters, articles, presentations, public performances and exhibitions, testimony, training manuals, software, computer programs, curricula materials instructional videos, etc.)
- Sales of products
- Juried exhibitions/performances
|
Characteristic 6
The work is reviewed by scholarly peers as well as community partners who assess its rigor, integrity, originality, and contribution.
Sample Questions | Examples of Qualitative Indicators | Examples of Quantitative Indicators |
- Is the work reviewed by scholarly/creative peers as well as community partners who assess its rigor, integrity, originality, and contribution?
- Are peers well-placed to judge the project’s achievements in the context of existing scholarship; the disciplinary or interdisciplinary significance of its questions, methods, and results; and the effectiveness of the project’s chosen modes of scholarly dissemination and reflectiveness?
- Do community partners serve to judge how well the project has been placed in the context of community practice; how significant its questions are to community members; how appropriate its methods are; the kind and impact of its results on the community; the kind of community dissemination; and the kind of community collaboration built into the process of reflection?
- Do peer reviewers consider a broad array of criteria and alternative forms of documentation when evaluating scholarship of engagement?
- Are community members charged with reviewing a project in a way that ensures a meaningful and impartial assessment?
| - Professional feedback on the project.
- Input from community, stakeholders, students, etc., attesting that the project was clear, appropriate, inclusive, and understandable.
- Assessment of scholarly/creative merit by peer review process
- External review of performance by stakeholders relative to innovation, satisfaction with approach and results.
- Project garnered awards, honors, citations relative to its scholarship/creative work.
- Testimony and validation from peer and stakeholder review.
| - Communications related to the project; e.g., in-house documents, interim reports, newsletters, e-mail messages, chat rooms, bulletin boards.
- Publications in refereed journals.
- Citations and reviews in appropriate scholarly/professional journals
- Publication in juried anthologies
- Results of review by ad hoc referee panel (including peers and stakeholders).
|
Characteristic 7
The partners engage in collaborative, reflective critique.
Sample Questions | Examples of Qualitative Indicators | Examples of Quantitative Indicators |
- Does the plan include provision for ongoing documentation of activities, evaluation, and possible midstream modification?
- Were unanticipated developments appropriately incorporated into the final interpretation of the results:
- Are the stakeholders and potential interest groups involved in understanding and interpreting the knowledge generated?
- What were the supports and constraints (e.g., community, institutional, departmental) of the project?
- To what extent did the stakeholders come to understand and appreciate each other’s values, intentions, concerns, and resource base?
- To what extent was mutual satisfaction derived from the project?
- Is there a plan to determine whether or not the project/collaboration will/should continue?
- To what degree has the choice of conducting your project increased (or reduced) your ability to contribute to other areas deemed valuable such as traditional research/creative work, effective teaching, and/or professional service?
| - Reflective narrative, rationale for project, and documentation of the design process and lessons learned.
- Planned degree of disengagement or continuing partnership achieved.
- Interviews of participants regarding learning and skill development.
- Gaining multiple perspectives of the participants.
- Description of the dialogs among interested parties.
- Description of changes in attitudes, beliefs, and actions among stakeholders.
- Descriptions of research/creative work collaborations that have led to grants and refereed publications.
- Descriptions of innovations in teaching.
- Descriptions of community service opportunities.
| - Cost-benefit analysis.
- Comparison of actual results to predicted results.
- Comparison of cross-site findings.
- Research publications or creative work directly associated with project.
- Comparisons of research publications/creative work by colleagues engaged in SOE vs. those not.
- Measures of student achievement directly associated with project.
- Comparisons of demonstrations of student learning by students in project vs. those not.
- Invited presentations, exhibitions, performances, consulting opportunities, professional service opportunities directly associated with project.
- Comparisons of observable and measurable outcomes of community/professional service associated with SOE vs. those not.
|
MyBGSU
Email
Search
Directory
Academics
Admissions
The Arts
Athletics
Library
A to Z Links
Bowling Green State University