Western Carolina University faculty members are responsible for evaluating each other’s contributions to the University, region, and profession and making recommendations to the administration on faculty performance decisions. Western Carolina University has four separate but related faculty evaluation processes: annual faculty evaluation (AFE), reappointment (R), tenure and promotion (T/P) and post-tenure review (PTR). This section explains the purpose of each review, defines each of these processes, and explains the roles and responsibilities of all participants.
B. Types of Review
1. Annual faculty evaluation. The purpose of annual faculty evaluations (AFE) is to provide faculty members with an annual evaluation, which includes written feedback concerning the extent to which they have met the departmental criteria and university standards for teaching, service, and scholarly/creative contributions. AFE is based on an annual record of performance.
2. Reappointment. The purpose of collegial review in the reappointment process (R) decisions is to indicate whether or not a faculty member is meeting the departmental criteria and university standards for teaching, service, and scholarly/creative contributions. Reappointment is based, in significant part, on a cumulative record of performance.
3. Tenure and promotion. The purpose of collegial review in the tenure/promotion (T/P) process is to determine whether or not an individual faculty member merits tenure or promotion. Each faculty member presents a dossier describing how he/she has met department criteria and university standards for tenure or promotion. Tenure and promotion are based, in significant part, on a cumulative record of performance.
4. Post-tenure review. The purpose of post-tenure review (PTR) is to determine the extent to which tenured faculty members have exceeded, met, or not met the department criteria for teaching, service, and scholarly/creative contributions in the five years since the last TPR/PTR action.
C. University Standards for Collegial Review
Faculty members at Western Carolina University are expected to be effective teachers, to be practicing scholars in their disciplines, and to provide meaningful service to the University and the community. The particular mix of these expected activities will vary as a function of departmental missions and the role of the faculty member in the department. Tenure-track or tenured faculty members should be active in all three areas. The following minimum university standards provide the groundwork for departments to establish specific criteria for collegial review.
1. Teaching
Faculty members at Western Carolina University are scholarly teachers who provide evidence that their teaching is effective, i.e. their students learn. Effective teaching will be documented through the use of student, peer, and self-evaluations. Students provide reports that teachers are organized, clear, and enthusiastic, provide frequent and fair evaluations, and maintain an appropriate level of communication. Peers provide reports that faculty members design their courses in ways that help students learn, are knowledgeable and reflective about both their subject matter and their teaching, and challenge their students intellectually. Faculty members will also self-report and evaluate their teaching.
2. Scholarship
Faculty members should demonstrate that they are current and scholarly in their disciplines as reflected in the ways they teach and serve. They are also expected to demonstrate regular activity in one or more types of scholarship outlined below. The relative emphasis on each type of scholarship will be determined in the context of departmental and university mission and needs. Expectations of scholarly activity should be consistent with peer institutions. Departments will provide guidelines in AFE/TPR documents for dissemination and evaluation of scholarship. The four types of scholarship from Ernest Boyer’s model include:
Scholarship of discovery. Scholarship of this type includes original research that advances knowledge and may involve publishing journal articles, authoring/editing books, or presenting at conferences. This type of scholarship also includes creative activities such as artistic products, performances, musical, or literary works.
Scholarship of integration. Scholarship of this type involves synthesis of information across disciplines, across topics within a discipline, or across time. Textbooks, bibliographies, and book reviews are examples of this type of scholarship.
Scholarship of application. Sometimes called engagement, the scholarship of application goes beyond the provision of service to those within or outside the University. To be considered scholarship, there must be an application of disciplinary expertise with results that can be shared with and/or evaluated by peers such as technical reports, policy statements, guidebooks, economic impact statements, and/or pamphlets.
Scholarship of teaching and learning. Scholarship of this type is the systematic study of teaching and learning processes. It differs from scholarly teaching in that it requires a format that will allow public sharing and the opportunity for application and evaluation by others.
Departments should recognize and evaluate a wide variety of scholarly activities consistent with the department’s and the University’s mission. Scholarly activities should not be rigidly categorized. Many activities and products can be classified as more than one type of scholarship.
3. Service
Faculty members are expected to participate in service. Service is expected to increase over a faculty member’s employment. Primarily, service requires general expertise and is done as an act of good citizenship. Service at the department, college/school and university levels, includes serving on committees (e.g., search committees, curriculum committees, and collegial review committees), recruiting students, mentoring new faculty members, and advising administrators.
Service may also require special expertise, unusual time commitments, or exceptional leadership. Examples of such service include exercise of special technological, research or pedagogical skills, involvement with students in extracurricular activities, leadership in university governance, or taking on special administrative assignments (e.g., being department head, directing a graduate program, administering a grant obtained by the University).
Service includes community engagement (e.g., providing disciplinary expertise to a professional, civic, economic, or educational entity at the local, regional, or national level).
Advising students is a significant form of service. Advisers are expected to be informed about curriculum and related processes, to be available to those they advise, and to help students in their academic and career planning.
D. Procedures Guiding Collegial Review
Collegial review is the responsibility of the faculty. All procedures for faculty evaluation should reflect the university standards as stated in Section 4.04C.
1. The rule of confidentiality will guide the operations of all collegial review committees.
2. Annually, each faculty member will receive information concerning departmental expectations. Departmental criteria should be specific and flexible – specific enough to provide guidance to new faculty and flexible enough to accommodate multiple types of teaching, service, and scholarship.
3. Collegial review/faculty evaluation (AFE statements, reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions, and post-tenure review feedback) should be based on the degree to which the faculty member meets the established departmental criteria.
4. Each faculty member has the right to receive annual written feedback as part of the AFE and reappointment procedures.
5. Each faculty member has the right to place a written response to the AFE and reappointment feedback in his/her AFE/TPR file.
6. All four faculty evaluation processes (AFE, reappointment, tenure and promotion, and post-tenure review) must include procedures and documentation that are consistent and aligned. One set of supporting documentation is sufficient for candidates up for both promotion and tenure, when they occur in the same academic year.
7. Reappointment, tenure, and promotion will utilize the departmental criteria that are in effect at the time of the review.
8. Should criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion be different from when the faculty member was previously reviewed, the individual may request special consideration by the appropriate department and/or college collegial review committee(s). The following procedures will be followed:
a) The appropriate department or college collegial review committee(s) may recommend extension of probationary period and/or reconsider the expectations. The committee should consider such things as the timing of the change in expectations relative to the candidate’s eligibility for review and the level of discrepancy between the expectations and the ones under which the candidate had been working.
b) The collegial review committee(s) shall make a written recommendation to accept or deny the request and specify any conditions.
c) The collegial review committee(s) shall forward the recommendation to the appropriate department head/dean.
d) The appropriate department head/dean must review the recommendation with the candidate.
e) The appropriate department head/dean may accept, modify, or reject any collegial review committee recommendations.
f) Any changes made to the recommendations of the collegial review committee(s) recommendations must first be discussed with the candidate before forwarding them to the Provost for action.
g) The Provost may seek the advice and counsel from the University Collegial Review Committee.
• The Provost will notify the candidate in writing specifying the conditions under which the candidate will be evaluated.
• This notification letter will be placed in the candidate’s personnel file.
• The candidate will be responsible for including this letter in the TPR dossier.
h) The faculty member may appeal any unfavorable action to the next level until it reaches the Provost.
i) The Provost’s decision for a review of an individual’s criteria for tenure and promotion shall be final
9. Department heads and deans should receive training regarding collegial review policies and procedures.
E. Roles, Responsibilities, and Procedures
This section outlines the respective responsibilities of all parties within the collegial review process.
1. Departments
a. Recommend criteria consistent with the university standards for teaching, scholarship, and service.
b. Review departmental criteria according to established guidelines.
2. Faculty members
a. Provide evidence in a dossier for reappointment, tenure, and promotion reviews. The dossier should reflect their record of teaching, scholarship, and service activities that meet departmental criteria. The specific contents and format of the dossier are outlined by the Provost annually. See also Section 4.07.B
b. Acknowledge receipt of AFE and reappointment feedback.
3. Department collegial review committees
a. Evaluate dossiers against the departmental criteria.
b. Vote on candidate reappointment, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review.
c. Provide each candidate with annual written reappointment statements describing, to the extent possible, the committees’ impression of the candidate’s progress toward tenure, promotion, and reappointment.
d. Provide each candidate with a written description of all the reappointment, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review actions taken by the committee.
e. Work with department heads to develop procedures for making recommendations to the college collegial review committee.
4. College collegial review committees
a. Receive the recommendations from the department collegial review committee and department head. These documents may be combined or separate.
b. Evaluate dossiers against the departmental criteria.
c. Assure that departments appropriately followed the procedures specified in collegial review documents.
d. Develop written procedures to guide the review of candidate folders and voting.
e. Provide each candidate with a written description of all the reappointment, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review actions taken by the committee.
f. Work with deans to develop a procedure for making recommendations to the University Collegial Review Committee
5. The University Collegial Review Committee
a. Receives the recommendations from the college collegial review committee and dean. These documents may be combined or separate.
b. Evaluates dossiers against the departmental criteria
c. Assures that departments and colleges appropriately followed the procedures specified in collegial review documents.
d. Provide each candidate with a written description of all the reappointment, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review actions taken by the committee.
e. Make a recommendation to the Provost, concerning the extent to which candidates meet the departmental criteria and university standards that are the basis for tenure and/or promotion.
f. Assure that the departmental collegial review criteria and procedures comply with the university standards, principles, and roles established by the Collegial Review Council of the Faculty Senate.
g. Work with the Provost to establish a cycle for evaluating collegial review criteria and procedures.
6. Department heads
a. Provide faculty members with a copy of the departmental criteria and collegial review procedures.
b. Provide new tenure-track faculty with a copy of the current departmental criteria and procedures no later than when the position is offered.
c. Provide faculty members with annual written feedback (AFE summary statement and reappointment decisions), which describe the degree to which the faculty member met the departmental criteria.
d. Assure that faculty members are sufficiently informed regarding the collegial review process, including the format and required documentation.
e. Make recommendations to the dean for prior service credit to be granted toward tenure and/or promotion during the hiring process of new faculty members within their department.
f. Make recommendations to the dean on tenure, promotion and reappointment matters.
7. College deans
a. Meet with all faculty candidates for promotion and/or tenure to discuss process, criteria and documentation requirements.
b. Meet with department heads and college collegial review committee members to discuss department criteria and university procedures and standards.
c. Approve departmental criteria to assure they comply with university standards.
d. May establish procedures in consultation with the college collegial review committee and department heads for colleges with common disciplinary expectations and/or those containing professional programs guided by accrediting bodies.
e. Consult with the appropriate department heads; make recommendations to the Provost for prior service credit for new faculty members.
f. Make recommendations to the Provost on tenure, promotion and reappointment matters.
8. The Office of the Provost
a. Provides training for deans and department heads to assist them with the responsibilities involved in the collegial review process.
b. Hears appeals from departments concerning the appropriateness of the departmental criteria.
c. Consults with the appropriate department head and deans to grant prior service credit for new faculty.
d. Develops guidelines for the specific contents and format of the dossier annually.
e. Hears the initial appeal from candidates denied tenure or promotion by the Provost.
f. Make recommendations to the Chancellor on tenure, promotion and reappointment matters.
9. The Chancellor
a. Make decisions for reappointment.
b. Hears appeals from candidates denied tenure or promotion by the Provost, following the Provost’s negative decisions on reconsideration of appeals.
c. Presents recommendations to the Board of Trustees for tenure and promotion.
10. The Board of Trustees
a. Grants tenure under the delegation of the President and Board of Governors
b. Approves promotions.