Faculty Reviews
Guiding Principles for Faculty Review
The quality and integrity of academic programs depend upon the performance of individual faculty. Indiana University as an institution and its faculty members have a mutual and reciprocal commitment to ensure the ongoing productivity of individuals throughout their academic careers. Peer review is an essential aspect of continued improvement and faculty development. To this end, the following specific review processes are in place:
Annual Reviews
The professional performance of each faculty member at the rank of Associate Professor or below and each librarian at the rank of Associate Librarian or below shall be reviewed annually under procedures adopted by the faculty within the department, school, program or division or library unit in which the individual holds his or her appointment. At that time the appointee shall also be informed of matters relevant to eligibility for promotion. The appointee shall cooperate with the principal administrator to ensure that the file on which such a review is based contains all relevant materials. In the case of a non-tenured appointee, a written statement summarizing the substance of each annual review should be kept in the file, and a copy given to the appointee. In the case of a tenured appointee, the principal administrator shall confirm in writing, to the appointee, and to the Dean of the Faculties, that an annual review or evaluative discussion with the appointee has taken place. The appointee has the right to request and receive a written statement from the principal administrator summarizing the substance of the review or discussion; the principal administrator may, at his or her discretion, provide such a written statement even though it is unrequested. If a statement is written, copies must both be placed in the file and be given to the appointee.
Reappointment Recommendations
Inherently, the reappointment recommendation constitutes a written form of review. After the period of initial appointment, reappointment is considered annually until the end of the probationary period, and thereafter, for non–tenured faculty, at intervals one year prior to the end of a multi–year appointment. Most schools base reappointment recommendations on the annual review, but faculty subject to annual appointment should become familiar with the procedures followed in their respective units. Although campus and University policies do not require committee reviews for reappointment, some school bylaws make such provision.
Three Year Formative Review
IUPUI faculty and librarians (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the faculty" or "the faculty member(s)") represent our campus's most valuable resource. The University makes a substantial long-term investment in its faculty. Our tenure-probationary faculty's success must be among the highest priorities for all campus administrative officers. While IUPUI has in place an annual review policy mandating that all faculty members be provided with a yearly written evaluation of their work in the areas of teaching, research, and service (or, in the case of librarians, the equivalent areas of performance, professional development, and service), these annual reviews are frequently conducted by the department chair or the school dean alone, without the participation of a peer review committee.
The Policy
To ensure that all tenure-probationary faculty members benefit from helpful and meaningful assessments of their progress toward promotion and tenure near the mid-point of their probationary period, a THREE-YEAR FORMATIVE REVIEW [hereinafter referred to as the "REVIEW"] shall be conducted on all such faculty members during the spring semester of the third year of their appointments in accordance with the following guidelines.
Applicability
This policy applies to all tenure-probationary faculty members at IUPUI, with the exceptions noted immediately below. The term "third year" refers to the third full academic year of the tenure-probationary faculty member's appointment. However, faculty members who enter with one year of credit toward tenure are in their "third year" during their second full academic year of appointment, and those who enter with two years of credit are in their "third year" during their first full academic year of appointment. Those who enter either with tenure or with more than two years of credit toward tenure are exempt from the REVIEW.
Procedures
In schools or units where faculty-approved policies or guidelines for conducting the REVIEW already exist, those policies or guidelines should be followed to the extent that they do not seriously conflict with the general procedures set forth below. If there is conflict, especially regarding due dates and required documentation, such schools or units ought to resolve it by either revising their policies or guidelines accordingly, or negotiating special arrangements with the Office of the Dean of the Faculties. In schools or units where such policies or guidelines have not yet been formulated or approved by the faculty, the REVIEW shall in the interim be conducted in adherence with the following general considerations.
- The chief purpose of the REVIEW is to provide tenure-probationary faculty members with feedback from the school or unit level review committees regarding their cumulative progress toward promotion and tenure. Hence, other than the department chair or school dean, involvement by the department's Primary Committee (where applicable) and/or the school's Unit Committee (where applicable) in the REVIEW is essential.
- The order of review and deliberation involving the department chair or school dean and the Primary and Unit Committees should generally follow the sequence and procedure used by each school in handling ordinary tenure and promotion cases.
- The faculty member being reviewed should submit only1[1] a candidate's statement together with an up-to-date vita (preferably in accordance with the "Dean of the Faculties' Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers"). The statement (not to exceed 5 pages) should be similar in organization to the statement the faculty member would expect to write at the time of making a case for promotion and tenure. In particular, it should clearly state the anticipated area(s) of excellence or the intention to request consideration on the basis of a balanced case.
- The department chair or school dean and the Primary and Unit Committees (where applicable) must each provide the faculty member with a written assessment that includes evaluation of progress toward promotion and tenure, using normal and appropriate metrics that will eventually be employed in a tenure decision. If the chair, the dean, or the Committees identify any problems, their assessment must include specific suggestions for remedy aimed at helping the faculty member and the faculty member's department or unit in their efforts to rectify the problems.
Documentation and Reporting
A copy of each review report, whether by the Committees, the chair, or the dean, shall be communicated to the faculty member under review within three days of the time it is completed. To ensure that the REVIEW is properly conducted for all applicable tenure-probationary faculty members, the dean of each school shall be responsible for submitting copies of the chair's or the dean's and the Committees' reports on all tenure-probationary faculty members who have been reviewed to the Office of the Dean of the Faculties by May 1 each year.
Limitation on the use of the Review
The thrust of the REVIEW shall be to help the tenure-probationary faculty member to succeed. The REVIEW and its findings shall NOT be used by the department chair or the school dean, or the Office of the Dean of the Faculties, as the basis for a tenure decision, a pre-tenure decision, a reappointment or non-reappointment decision, or any personnel action of like kind. The tenure-probationary faculty member is not limited in the use of the REVIEW. 1[1] Some schools require far more than this (e.g., list of potential reviewers, summary of pre-IU professional activities, previous annual reviews, letters from students, or even a dossier "that is identical in substance and format to that which they will submit for the actual review two years later"). The present policy does not encourage premature requisites or burdensome requirements.
