Introduction
Over the course of their career, faculty will be evaluated for the purposes of annual reappointment, annual performance evaluations, promotion in rank, the granting of tenure, nominations for honors, awards, and chaired professorships, and post-tenure review. The process of evaluation will consider each of the following three areas: teaching, research/creative activity, and service (including community outreach and administration), with consideration given to the specific apportionment of duties in the individual faculty member's allocation of effort.
Assessment is made first at the department level and is determined both as appropriate to the discipline, and appropriate to this point in the faculty member’s career. However, all assessment at the University is part of a process of review at several levels with built-in checks and balances, and assessments or recommendations, made at all levels---from the faculty body or promotion and tenure committee, to the Director, to the College Executive Committee, to the Dean, to the Senior Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and to the Chancellor. The purpose of the review at the college level (and at the vice-chancellor level) is especially to insure that proper standards are being applied.
The foundational documents for evaluation procedures of faculty are the Bylaws of the Board of Regents, in particular Chapter IV: Rights and Responsibilities of Professional Staff, at:
https://www.nebraska.edu/board/bylaws-policies-and-rules.html
and UNL's Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty, at:
https://www.unl.edu/svcaa/documents/tenure_guide.pdf/
Criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion should be somewhat flexible among departments and schools in the university because the importance of teaching effectiveness, research productivity, or creative activity and service may necessarily vary among the disciplines, and also vary with the nature of an individual faculty member's appointment and allocation of effort. However, it is expected that all faculty members will show evidence of at least: 1) satisfactory participation in the educational tasks of the University (i.e., teaching, recruiting, and associated activities); 2) intellectual or creative activity related to their disciplines (i.e., research or associated activities); and 3) responsible participation in other School, College, University, or professional activities (i.e., service or associated activities).
- Criteria For Evaluation
- Terminology
The following terms are to be used for all stages of the review process. This is not a grading system in the standard sense, since College expectations are high and since the faculty hiring process itself is extremely selective. It is assumed that the College will attract and keep only meritorious, hard-working faculty members, and that new faculty members will maintain or raise the overall standards of teaching, research/creative activity, and service of the individual units.
It is important to note that these terms are to be applied to the evaluation procedure for the faculty member as appropriate at that point in his or her academic career, and based on apportionment of duties.
Exceptional Performance
Denotes exceptionally high performance or recognition, in one or more areas, at or near the top of his or her field nationally or internationally, that likely would not be duplicated every year.
Exceeds Expectations
Denotes superior performance or recognition, in one or more areas, exceeding the high expectations of the department and the college that likely could be repeated in successive years.
Meets Expectations
Denotes performance, in all areas, at a level of excellence demonstrating that a faculty member is living up to the promise shown at the time he or she was hired. Thus, “meets expectations” tends to be the normal, typical, most frequent description of faculty performance.
Needs Improvement
Denotes performance, in one or more areas, that is questionable and is not consistently meeting the high standards of the college.
Unacceptable
Denotes poor performance or neglect, in one or more areas.
- Scope of Evaluation - It is assumed that faculty will document yearly activity in the areas of teaching, research/creative activities, and service. Some projects take more than a calendar year to complete. In fact, it is expected that post-tenure faculty may engage in more adventurous and expansive projects that may take several years to bear fruit. The annual evaluation, therefore, must look not only at the specific tangible achievements for that calendar year but consider progress on larger projects and the faculty member’s articulated plan for ongoing and anticipated future activity in all areas in which duties have been apportioned. Evaluations for promotion and tenure will consider the entire academic career of the candidate to that point.
- Guidelines for the articulation of the criteria for evaluation - At UNL, specific criteria for evaluating faculty performance are determined by the faculty in the individual departments.