Overview | Kent State University

Overview

Merit Awards are established and awarded pursuant to the applicable CBA.   Procedures and timelines for determining Faculty Excellence Awards for any given year shall be conducted in accordance with guidelines issued by the Office of the Provost.

Merit awards are intended to reward exemplary professional performance, that is, what is done beyond what is expected as part of one’s workload obligations.  This bar will vary from one faculty member to the next, dependent upon differences in his/her workload assignments.  Thus, a faculty member who receives greater workload equivalency for research activities has a higher bar for meritorious work than someone whose workload equivalency is less.

Faculty must use the standard departmental form, to be provided by the Chair, and provide all requisite supporting documentation, in order to be eligible for consideration.  The period of time from which merit awards will be determined will be announced in advance, and faculty may only count activity that occurred while he/she was part of the bargaining unit.

For the sake of transparency, merit awards will be apportioned using the formula detailed below.  The departmental pool of funds will be allocated by direct proportion to the total score earned in each of the three categories of scholarship, teaching, and service, as outlined below.  These three categories of scholarship, teaching, and service are divided into subcategories in order to organize the presentation of information by faculty and to facilitate the evaluation by the FAC and Chair. The subcategories and their weighting factor (in parentheses) follow:

 

Scholarship (55% of total award)

1.    Publications (4)

2.    Grants (3)

3.    Professional contributions (1)

4.    Presentations (1)

5.    Other (variable)

 

Teaching (25% of total award)

6.    Instruction and awards (3)

7.    Theses, dissertations & other individual supervision (2)

8.    Other (variable)

 

Service (20% of total award)

9.    Department, College, and University service (3)

10.  External service (2)

11. Other (variable)

 

The information to be provided in each subcategory is described in the following pages.  Each faculty member's activity in each subcategory will be evaluated by the FAC and Chair and will be rated according to the following five-point scale:

0:    No activity in the subcategory

1:    Activity that is commensurate with what is expected, given his/her workload

2:    Some activity of meritorious quality

3:    Very good activity of clearly meritorious quality, above average

4:    Considerable activity of highly meritorious quality

These ratings will be multiplied by a weighting factor (indicated in parentheses above) and summed within each major category in order to determine each faculty's rating in that category.  The FAC then will discuss their ratings in order to determine a final combined rank ordering in each major category.