DOC I-06-11

PROPOSAL TO THE ACADEMIC SENATE

 

 

TITLE:                        Review of Tenured Faculty

 

SUBMITTED BY:     Provost Council Foundational Issues Committee

 

DATE:                        submitted October 16, 2006; October 26, 2007 version for Senate discussion

 

ACTION:                    Legislative authority

 

REFERENCE:

 

 

 

University of Dayton

Review of Tenured Faculty:

The Peer Consultation Component

 October 5, 2007 Draft 5

 

Section 1: Foundation and Philosophy

 

The faculty of the University of Dayton is a community of academic professionals who recognize and accept their responsibility for self-reflection, peer and administrative evaluation, and peer consultation on professional activities in scholarship, teaching, and service.  Both formative and summative processes, conducted in the spirit of the University of Dayton’s Catholic Marianist traditions, are necessary components in the success of a faculty member’s academic career.[1]  As such, this policy on post-tenure peer consultation has been developed as an approach to peer review following tenure that is consistent with the values of the University and its faculty.  The subsequent parts of this section describe current processes for faculty evaluation, the philosophy that has guided the design of this policy, AAUP guidelines, and the value of this policy to the faculty, to academic departments and units, and to the University.

 

Current Processes of Faculty Evaluation

 

The University of Dayton has established policies and processes for evaluating faculty performance both pre- and post-tenure.  Prior to the awarding of tenure, members of the faculty are evaluated annually by administrators and regularly by peers in accord with the University and unit promotion and tenure policies.  Once tenure is granted, the identified parties evaluate faculty members by means of the following processes:

 

·         Annual review - conducted each year by administrators as specified by each unit.

·         Promotion review – conducted by peers and administrators in accord with University and unit promotion policies and processes at the time the faculty member chooses to pursue promotion in academic rank or an academic position.

·         Sabbatical application and post-sabbatical report reviews – conducted by peers and administrators on a seven year cycle in accord with University policy.

 

Through all of these processes, even though the specific content, format, or procedures may vary by unit, faculty and administrators fulfill their responsibilities for the professional monitoring of performance. Based on these evaluations, as well as others that may be appropriate to particular situations, University administrators have substantive information by which to identify, in a timely manner, a faculty member whose professional performance is deficient and to take appropriate actions.

 

Given this set of post-tenure evaluations, a process for individual reflection and peer consultation devoted to the purpose of professional growth is a complementary, responsible addition.  Through considerate review of past work and contributions and discourse with colleagues, this process will enable individual faculty members to discern and determine the direction of her or his work in accordance with the direction of the department, the unit, the University, and the profession.  The agreement resulting from this consultation has bearing on resource allocation and organizational planning.

 

Philosophy of Post-Tenure Peer Consultation[2]

 

The University of Dayton is dedicated to facilitating the highest level of performance for all members of the faculty. Faculty performance is based, at least in part, on a supportive, respectful work environment that offers opportunities for professional growth. Post-tenure peer consultation is a process that, when viewed holistically and implemented appropriately, can provide a collegial environment to support the lifelong learning and professional growth of faculty. 

 

The faculty is a largely self-regulating community of teachers and scholars dedicated to the generation, transmission, and application of knowledge.  The academic community holds at least three expectations of its members in order to carry out its mission. One of the expectations of the community is that membership in it entails a career-long commitment to developing one’s skills in generating, transmitting, and applying knowledge.  The process of generating, transmitting, and applying knowledge is dynamic.  This implies that the organization is committed to providing development opportunities throughout one’s career.  The second expectation is that a faculty member should regularly assess his or her own effectiveness as a teacher, scholar and community servant; indeed, reflection is a key component of learning. The third expectation is that colleagues serve an important role in helping provide insights and ideas to each other through involvement in a regular process of discourse and consultation.  The purpose of this process is to help each faculty member enhance her or his effectiveness as a teacher, scholar, and provider of service to the community.  Fulfillment of these expectations is a necessity for the community to thrive and grow.  Post-tenure peer consultation is a community-based mechanism to assist faculty members to develop and to meet these expectations.

 

Given these expectations, tenured faculty members are entitled to unbiased discussion and consultation on their career expectations and their plans for continued contributions to their discipline, profession, department, unit, and to the University.  This process provides an opportunity for faculty to reflect on their past academic career, assess where they are in their career, and articulate their expectations for the future.  The subsequent peer consultation serves as a source of feedback on a faculty member’s academic career and a guide for future professional growth. Post-tenure peer consultation promotes systematic formative appraisals for tenured faculty in the spirit of the Marianist traditions of community.  A process that is based on informed reflection, and that is expressive of the culture of the university, supports the University’s commitment to excellence.

 

AAUP Guidelines[3]     

 

The peer consultation approach of the University of Dayton’s policy on post-tenure review is consistent with the guiding principles that are being advanced by The American Association of University Professors (AAUP).  The AAUP recognizes that since the mid-90s, state legislative bodies, boards of trustees and university administrators have called for making post-tenure reviews mandatory.  Therefore, the AAUP offers the following guiding principles.

 

1.      Post-tenure review should be aimed at development.

2.      Post-tenure review should be under the control of the faculty.

3.      Post-tenure review must not be a re-evaluation of tenure.

4.      Post-tenure review must not be used to show cause for dismissing a faculty member.

5.      Post-tenure review must protect academic freedom.

 

Value of Post-Tenure Peer Consultation

 

The core value of the process of consultation is to continually advance the University in ways consistent with its Marianist traditions, mission, and vision of excellence.  A post-tenure peer consultation policy:

 

  • Provides the opportunity for faculty members to critically reflect on their academic career, determine their position in the organization and the profession, intentionally articulate future ambitions, and receive substantive feedback from their colleagues.
  • Allows peers to be informed of their colleague’s expertise and body of work and contribute to shaping that work to enhance its contribution to the academic community.
  • Informs the alignment of strategic plans at all levels of the organization, including the allocation of faculty resources by the department and/or unit, the determination of future faculty needs, and the allocation of organizational resources for the professional growth and advancement of faculty.

 

Thus, the process described in subsequent sections of this document has been designed to benefit the individual faculty member, the faculty member’s peers, the department and/or unit, and the University.  


[1] Citation to be provided by Dr. Lasley

[2] Based on Post-Tenure Review Report and Recommendations, submitted by Provost Council Foundation Issues Committee, October 16, 2006

[3] Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response, approved by the Association’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, June, 1999