Evaluation Process Overview

This section provides a guide on how the evaluation process can be done—without prescribing how it must be done—in order to facilitate evaluation consistency and to clarify expectations as reappointment and tenure ballot recommendations are made.

A candidate’s performance in each category—teaching, research and creative activity/ scholarship, and service/university citizenship—can be evaluated using a four-rank scale of excellent, significant, satisfactory, and deficient. (See sections C1-3)

Because of the differences among disciplines and publication, presentation, performance, and/or exhibition venues—and the year of the review process—it is inappropriate to quantify absolutely the scale noted above. Based on the standards of the relevant discipline, the testimony provided by the candidate’s file and peer reviewers, and the discussions during the Reappointment/Tenure Committee meetings, each member of the Committee must necessarily apply his or her own professional judgment in the review to make a final ballot recommendation. When all the evaluations are summarized, a recommendation regarding a candidate’s whole performance, viewed as a unified, integrated record of a teacher-scholar and university citizen emerges consistent with Section (C).

Candidates standing for reappointment and tenure are strongly encouraged to acknowledge these facts as they prepare their files and to explain fully why they think their accomplishments should be considered excellent, significant, or satisfactory given their discipline, their year in the review process, and how they addressed issues raised in the previous year’s review.

In a reappointment decision, evaluators are required to make a final ballot recommendation of “yes,” “yes with reservations,” or “no.” For tenure decisions, only final ballot recommendations of “yes” or “no” are possible. The minimum performance required for an unreserved positive ballot recommendation for a candidate’s reappointment or tenure can be illustrated by the following table:

Teaching (C.1.)

Research and Creative Activity (C.2.)

Service (C.3.)

excellent

satisfactory

Satisfactory

significant

significant

Satisfactory

significant

satisfactory

Excellent

satisfactory

excellent

significant

It should be made clear to both reviewers and candidates that this table does not attempt to identify every possible combination of performance leading to specific ballot recommendations, as that would be inconsistent with the intent of guidelines. Instead, it is consistent with and intended to signal the “general principles, which reflect the mission and values of the campus.” “Deficient” does not appear in the table because deficiency in any area signals that a “yes with reservation” or a “no” reappointment ballot recommendation is warranted. In the case of tenure, it signals that a negative ballot is indicated. Finally, it should be reemphasized that this table makes no attempt to quantify absolutely what constitutes excellent, significant, satisfactory, or deficient performance, which was discussed above.[1]

 

1The Regional Campus librarians and library directors are members of the faculty of University Libraries. As such, these faculty members have duties and responsibilities to both their regional campus and to University Libraries. Like all Kent Campus UL faculty, the tenure-eligible and tenured Regional Campus librarians and library directors are expected to demonstrate evidence of scholarly activity, meeting the same tenure and promotion standards as Kent Campus UL faculty.