TO:
Sociology and Anthropology Roster Faculty
FROM:
Heath Hoffmann, Chair
DATE:
January 20, 2011
SUBJECT:
2010 Annual Evaluations and Merit Evaluations 2008-2010
As required by the College of Charleston, all roster faculty members will receive annual evaluations for
their professional activities with the exception of faculty who are undergoing a “major review” during
the current academic year (e.g., review for T&P, Post Tenure Review and review for promotion to
Professor). A separate merit evaluation is also required of roster faculty, covering the previous 3 years.
In the past you have been asked to submit two separate narratives: one for the annual evaluation
focusing on your work and accomplishments during a single calendar year and a second narrative
describing your work and accomplishments over the previous three years. I would like to only receive a
single narrative covering your accomplishments in 2010 (the Summary of Accomplishments form is
attached to this email). Since I have annual evaluations for all faculty going back three years (except for
Mike and Hector), I will consult your respective annual evaluations for 2008 and 2009 to create the 3
year window necessary for the merit evaluation. So, you will continue to have separate annual and merit
evaluations but I’ll use the data from the Annual Evaluations as the basis for those reviews. Below, I’ll
discuss the Annual and Merit reviews separately.
Annual Reviews
For the Annual Review, chairs are asked to rate faculty as to whether their accomplishments for the
preceding calendar year are “Excellent,” “Very Good,” “Good,” “Satisfactory,” or “Unsatisfactory.” These
categories have not been operationalized by HSS chairs so they remain vague concepts. However, the
consensus among HSS chairs is that ratings of “Excellent” and “Very Good” are actually rare and are
intended to reflect truly outstanding work in teaching, research and/or service. Thus, “satisfactory” and
“good” are ratings that describe most of us in any given year because our teaching innovations, research
productivity and service are not generally above and beyond the basic expectations of faculty. With that
said, given the poor specificity of these categories, I have asked each of you to self -assess your
accomplishments for 2010 in the Summary of Accomplishments form. This is a change over previous
years but your self-assessment will allow me to see how our faculty are thinking about these categories
to develop a normative consensus about what they mean. In the future, I would like to work with you all
to operationalize these categories so that we have a shared understanding of their meaning and so that
you have a better understanding of the chair’s evaluation of your work.
You will also notice on the Summary of Accomplishment form that there is a section beneath teaching,
research and service for you to spell out no more than three of your primary goals in each area for the
upcoming year. You do not have to offer a lot of detail about each goal. These goals will help in the
completion of the annual review next year.
Merit Reviews
To be eligible for raises or salary adjustments, faculty members must meet or exceed the “merit
threshold” of Professional Competence. This and the other merit categories as listed on the Academic
Affairs website as follows:
0. Unsatisfactory
--Merit Threshold-Eligibility for any salary increase requires satisfying the merit threshold. The merit threshold is defined
as demonstrating professional competence in all three evaluation areas: teaching, research and
professional development, and service
1. Professional Competence- defined as demonstrating professional competence in all three evaluation
areas (teaching, research and professional development, and service) according to criteria and standards
articulated by schools and departments.
2. High Professional Competence - this designation will normally exhibit evidence of consistently high
professional competence in all three areas of evaluation. In exceptional cases, very strong performance
in one or more areas may compensate for less strong performance in another.
3. Exceptional Professional Competence - this designation will normally exhibit high professional
competence in all three areas of evaluation and exceptional performance in either teaching, or research
and professional development, or service. This individual will be performing, in the area of exceptional
performance, at a level substantially beyond college-wide expectations for promotion to the next rank,
or, for a professor, at a level beyond the expectations for promotion to the rank of professor.
These merit categories remain pretty vague. In the spring of 2009, Maureen asked Tracy Burkett, Brad
Huber, Moore Quinn and Heath (referred to below as the Merit Sub-Committee) to put together a more
specific list of accomplishments that would qualify a faculty member for each ranking. We completed
our work in March of 2009 and presented the model to faculty in our re spective program meetings.
Based on the feedback we received from our faculty and Maureen, we produced a final set of guidelines
for the Merit Review and the criteria for the three merit categories (Heath has moved a few items
around in the criteria based upon discussions with other HSS chairs—those items that have been moved
are underlined). However, we never submitted these guidelines for approval by the Dean, Provost,
Faculty Welfare Committee and an ad hoc committee of past members of the Advisory Committee on
Tenure, Promotion and Third-Year Review as is required in the FAM. So, we have a set of unbinding
guidelines and criteria that we all have generally agreed make sense. I have posted that document on
our webpage under the Faculty Resources link (click on “Faculty Reviews). Looking at this document
when you complete the Summary of Accomplishments form should help in clarifying what these
different merit categories mean and give you guidance regarding the kinds of things you have done that
you should include in the Summary of Accomplishments form that you submit to me.
As noted in the FAM, “Newly hired faculty members will not be assigned a merit category. Instead,
normally each will receive an ‘average’ raise determined by the relevant dean and based on the
percentage of the salary pool allocated to the faculty member’s school for raises.”
Page 2 of the Summary Accomplishment Form includes a table for you to enter your self-assessment for
merit in each of the areas of teaching, research and professional development and service. This table
also includes a column for entering the numerical representation of how you would like your respective
efforts distributed for the three areas in which we are evaluated. The distribution efforts are different
for Senior Instructors/Instructors and Tenure-track faculty as is shown below:
Teaching
Research
Service
Discretionary
Instructors &
Senior Instructors
80%
5%
5%
10%
Tenured &
Tenure-Track
Faculty
50%
20%
10%
20%
Tenured
Faculty
40%
10%
10% (max 30%)
40%
The third column in red titled “Tenured Faculty” was proposed by the Department’s Merit SubCommittee (and supported by the Department’s faculty) in 2009 as a way to recognize that tenured
faculty members often embark on very different career trajectories and that the evaluation process
should reflect this reality. While the college no longer uses this distribution scheme, Maureen continued
to use it as chair to facilitate her calculations for allocating money for salary adjustments. I would like to
continue this tradition and invite tenured faculty to use the distribution options in the “red” column to
weight their accomplishments in the three areas of teaching, research and service. The Provost remains
optimistic that there will be another round of salary adjustments this year so the merit review process,
as we discovered this year, is not a wasted effort.
The Annual and Merit Reviews Process
The Department’s Merit Sub-Committee’s guidelines nicely spell out the process the chair goes through
in assessing faculty accomplishments and either concurring with the faculty member’s self-ranking or
changing that ranking to a higher or lower ranking. Also, FAM’s guidelines discuss the faculty member’s
rights with regard to appealing the chair’s evaluation. Of most importance is that your appeal begins
with the chair (me). If we are unable to sit together and resolve the issue, then we will go to the Dean.
Despite what has been said about me on some restroom walls across campus, I am a fairly reasonable
person and strive to be fair in this process. Also, I am humbled by this responsibility as I am well aware
of the fact that I was tenured not much more than a year ago and have not been at the college as long
as many of you.
What I need from you:
By Wednesday, February 9th, please complete and submit to me (via email) the Summary of
Accomplishments Form as a Word file, .rtf file or PDF file covering your accomplishments from
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. Please limit your summary to no more than 2
pages.
o I cannot reliably open Word Perfect files and sending these items to me in the
appropriate format will make my life a lot easier (If you are not able to convert your file
to PDF on your office or home computer, you can convert Word, Word Perfect and
other files to PDF at http://www.pdfonline.com/convert-pdf/.)
Instead of sending me a CV, please update your entries in the Faculty Activity System (by
February 9th) so that your work during the merit review window (January 1, 2008 through
December 31, 2010) is up-to-date.
Optional meeting with me. The FAM specifies that faculty should meet with the chair after the
chair has completed her/his evaluation of the faculty member. Whi le this will continue to be an
option for faculty who would like to discuss the evaluation, I would like to demystify the
evaluation process by meeting with you after I have reviewed your summary of
accomplishments but before I actually complete your evaluation. The Summary
Accomplishments Form asks you to indicate whether you would like to meet with me before I
complete your evaluation. If you type “yes” in that box, I will contact you to set up a meeting
between Monday, February 14th and Friday, February 25th. I will review your materials prior to
our meeting and we will have the opportunity to discuss concerns or questions that you or I
might have.
As noted several times in the Department’s Merit Sub-Committee’s guidelines, “The burden of providing
clear and convincing evidence for any merit category lies with the faculty member.” In your Summary of
Accomplishments, please overcome the resistance to not brag about yourself. Teaching is the most
difficult area to assess in my opinion so, especially in that area, please provide specific details outlining
the extent to which you have changed your classes, adopted technological innovations in your teaching
or have otherwise engaged in efforts to enhance your teaching. The Faculty Activity Sys tem will tell me
which classes you taught so I need more detail about what you have actually done in these classes to
assist in my evaluation of your work.