Old Dominion University
A to Z Index  |  Directories

Office of Academic Affairs

Faculty Handbook

 Search Handbook       

Policy and Procedures on Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

  1. Policy for Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
    1. An annual evaluation of the performance of all faculty members will be conducted in order that they may receive full credit and review for their contributions to the University and to their disciplines. The three criteria on which this evaluation will be based are teaching, research, and service.

    2. The initial responsibility for evaluation of faculty performance rests with the chair, on the basis of evidence supplied by the faculty member or collected elsewhere. The faculty member shall be given a copy of the chair's evaluation and may submit comments. Both the chair's evaluation and the faculty member's comments are submitted to the dean, who has the final responsibility for evaluation of faculty. A copy of the dean's evaluation should be sent to the faculty member in a timely fashion.

  2. Procedures for Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
    1. Annual Evaluation
      1. In order to insure that all relevant information is included in the evaluation, all faculty members are required to submit once a year a faculty information sheet in which they detail the evidence in support of their performance in teaching, research, and service, together with whatever other information they wish to be taken into consideration by the chair and dean in the evaluation. These evaluations will be based on a faculty information sheet, student evaluations of teaching, up-to-date curricula vitae, peer evaluation of course portfolios, and such other information as the faculty or the chair wishes to include. The evaluations will comment on the performance of the faculty member in teaching, research and service and on progress toward meeting individual goals resulting from previous evaluations. If the faculty member fails to submit his or her annual evaluation materials, the chair and dean have the discretion to evaluate the faculty member's performance based on available evidence. For associate professors who desire promotion, feedback on their progress to full professor will be provided by the department/school chair in consultation with the chair of the department/school promotion and tenure committee. The department/school chair will work with the faculty member to develop a plan for advancement to full professor.

    2. Evaluation Process
      1. The chair, using the faculty information sheet and whatever other information is obtainable, evaluates the performance of the faculty member during the previous year and writes up the evaluation into a formal statement of the contributions of the faculty member to the department, college, and University. In the case of chairs, these evaluations are written by the dean. Since evaluation of performance is one of the essential factors in determinations concerning tenure, promotion, reappointment, and salary increments, the chair and dean should make every effort to insure that the evaluations are clear, honest, and genuinely evaluative. A listing of facts without interpretation is helpful neither to the faculty member nor to the committees concerning personnel decisions.

      2. The chair and the dean will interpret the cumulative record of annual evaluations along with the performance of the faculty member during the previous year (see section 11.B.1), so that a clear picture of positive contributions and any deficiencies will emerge. An in-depth evaluation will be conducted if requested by the faculty member, the chair, or the dean. In no case will a faculty member be considered for promotion or other major personnel decision unless an in-depth evaluation, as described in the policies on Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness, Evaluation of Scholarly Activity and Research, and Evaluation of Service, has been conducted in the previous twelve months.

      3. The dean evaluates in writing the performance of the faculty member by either:
        1. endorsing the evaluation of the chair; or

        2. indicating areas in which the dean's evaluation differs from that of the chair.

      4. After completing the evaluation of the faculty member's activities, the chair gives the faculty member a copy of the evaluation and discusses it with the faculty member. At this time, the faculty member and chair agree on a written set of goals for the coming year. If appropriate, the chair should make suggestions for improvement and give the faculty member a clear idea of ways in which the performance might be improved in future years.

      5. Where deficiencies are noted, the chair should work with the faculty member to develop a plan to address the deficiencies and either provide resources to implement the plan, if necessary, or if resources are not available in the department recommend to the dean and provost and vice president for academic affairs that such resources are needed. If a pattern of deficiency in the performance of a tenured faculty member is documented from the cumulative annual evaluations, for a period of at least two years, the chair or dean shall call for an in-depth evaluation of the faculty member and may conduct a post-tenure review, as described in the Policy and Procedures on Post-Tenure Review. The chair should take particular care in the counseling of non-tenured faculty members who are working toward the criteria for tenure.

      6. Copies of the faculty information sheets, the chair's evaluation, the faculty member's comments, and the dean's evaluation are retained for the record in the faculty member's personnel file maintained in the dean's office.

      7. An annual evaluation is not required in the year a candidate is evaluated for tenure or for promotion to the rank of professor.

    3. Appeal of Unfavorable Evaluations
      1. Any faculty member who is dissatisfied with the personal evaluation prepared by the chair may present in writing additional comments or evidence to the chair and to the dean.

      2. Any faculty member who is dissatisfied with the personal evaluation prepared by the dean may present in writing additional comments or evidence to the dean and to the provost and vice president for academic affairs.

    4. Criteria for Evaluation
      1. All faculty members will be evaluated on the basis of teaching, research, and service. The weighting of these three areas will vary from one faculty member to another depending upon the needs of the department and the particular accountability of the individual faculty member in contributing toward the fulfillment of these needs.
        1. Teaching - It is the responsibility of the chair to evaluate the information that is available concerning teaching. (For a detailed discussion on evaluation of teaching, see the University Policy on the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness.)

        2. Scholarly Activity and Research - It is the responsibility of the chair to evaluate the quality of the scholarly activity and research of the faculty member (a mere listing of publications or grants does not constitute evaluation). Each department should establish, with the approval of the dean and the provost and vice president for academic affairs, a clear statement of the criteria for evaluating scholarly activity and research in that department. These criteria should take into consideration both the mission of the department and the nature of the scholarly activity and research within the discipline or related disciplines and in appropriate interdisciplinary venues. The evaluation of scholarly activity and research in a department should be based on these criteria. In evaluation, emphasis should be placed on quality, not just quantity. See the Policy on Evaluation of Scholarly Activity and Research for more detailed information.

        3. Service - The category of professional service is more difficult to define than teaching or research, but deserves the same kind of rigorous evaluation and positive credit given to teaching and scholarly activities. The chair has the responsibility to seek out methods of evaluating quality of professional service, not merely to list the activities. The task is sometimes complicated by the fact that much professional service takes place outside the department. Ideally, each faculty member should exercise their professional expertise in all three areas of department, college and University service, community engagement, and service to the discipline. Where individual faculty members may be expected by the chair to play different roles, those specific roles should be defined and understood. In all cases, service should be judged on the basis of quality and effectiveness, not just quantity. When distance education technologies are used for providing service, evaluations should include items specific to these delivery formats. See the Policy on Evaluation of Service for detailed information.
          1. Departmental, college, and University service

          2. Community engagement is defined as the application of a faculty member's professional skills to engage with the external community in a manner that both assists the community and is consistent with fulfillment of the University's mission. Community engagement in religious, political, or social organizations (although meritorious in itself) is not relevant to the faculty member's professional area.

          3. Service to the discipline

- Approved by the Board of Visitors
June 12, 1980; Revised September 14, 1984; Revised November 19, 1987; Revised December 3, 1992; Revised April 8, 1993; Revised December 2, 1993; Revised April 6, 1995; Revised April 10, 1997; Revised April 12, 2001; Revised June 14, 2005; Revised April 6, 2007; Revised September 17, 2009; Revised December 10, 2009; Revised September 26, 2013; Revised December 4, 2014 (eff. 1/1/15); Revised June 17, 2021 (eff. 7/1/21)
Transitioned to University-Level Policy
December 10, 2021

   Compare with: