Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Annual Review
Revised JULY 2005

     The official polices for Annual Review are contained in the Faculty Handbook, especially section IV.D.  These policies are themselves an application of the basic criteria for teaching, research, and service in the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement, especially article 4.5.  The purpose of the questions and answers below is to supplement these policies with practices that have developed in the College of Arts and Sciences as well as with advice from the current Dean. These questions and answers are subject to periodic revision, depending on changes in the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement and the Faculty Handbook as well as feedback from Chairs and other faculty. (A Microsoft Word version of this document is available here.)

Jim Buckley, Dean
College of Arts and Sciences

1. What is Annual Review, and why is it important?
2. Where can I find the current Annual Review (“Annual Update”) form? 
3. When does Annual Review take place?
4. How does Annual Review take place?
5. How does a first-year faculty member participate in Annual Review?
6. By what criteria should the faculty member, tenured members of the department (in the case of probationary faculty members), Chair, and Dean review annual performance?
7. By what criteria are teaching, research, and service described as “below, meeting, exceeding expectations, or outstanding”?
8. How should a faculty member fill out the Annual Update form?
9. Why does the Annual Update form ask for “complete citation for books, refereed journals, other journals . . .”?
10. Why does the current Annual Update form ask faculty to “attach reprints where applicable”?
11. How are sabbatical years reviewed?
12. How are part-time or full-time non-tenure track faculty reviewed?
13. How long should the Annual Update be?
14. What should a faculty member do who disagrees with the Chair’s evaluation?  
15. What should the Dean and Chair expect of each other in their conduct of Annual Review?
16. How are the Chairs and Dean who perform Annual Review themselves reviewed?
17. Where did the Annual Update form come from, and how can it be changed?

1.  What is Annual Review, and why is it important?

     “Annual Review” is the process of evaluating (analyzing, appraising, assessing, and examining) faculty teaching, research, and service on a yearly basis.  The central goal of this review is to develop (acquire, maintain, deepen) the habits needed to be a teacher, scholar, and colleague committed “to the philosophy, values, and objectives of the College” (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.4).   However, the Annual Review process also has more specific “summative” goals.  That is, Annual Reviews contribute cumulatively toward judgments of progress toward tenure (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.2) and rank.  They are also used to distribute salary increments (Faculty Handbook IV. F.). Annual Review is important for all these reasons.  But the review should always be conducted in a way that serves our primary goods as teachers, scholars, and colleagues.

return to top

2.  Where can I find the current Annual Review (“Annual Update”) form?

     The current form used for Annual Review (called the “Annual Update” form) is available at: http://www.loyola.edu/academics/academicaffairs/documents/casAnnual.doc

return to top

3.  When does Annual Review take place?

     Annual Review ordinarily begins at the beginning of the academic year in September and concludes by the end of the semester. Faculty turn in their Annual Updates to the Chair by the first Friday in September.  Annual Updates not submitted by this date may not receive the Chair's and department's full attention.  The Chair interviews faculty between early September and mid-October and makes an appointment with the Dean to discuss recommendations between late October and early December.   Once the Faculty Compensation Committee and administration representatives agree on salary distributions for the coming year, the Dean determines yearly increments and sends contracts (usually by 28 February).

     Chairs and departments may need to adjust this calendar to meet the College’s notification policy for non-tenured faculty, non-tenured faculty. “Notice of intention not to offer reappointment will be given no later than February 27th of the first academic year of service if appointment expires at the end of that year.  Notice of intention not to offer reappointment will be given in the second year by December 30, and in succeeding years at least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment except in unusual circumstances.” (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 2.4).

     Some departments may wish to review probationary faculty at the end of the Spring semester, giving faculty the feedback to make any necessary adjustments by the next academic year.  The Sellinger School of Business and Management is currently experimenting with this process.  Some departments may also begin the process of Annual Review over the summer, including the meeting with the Dean, in order to complete the process before the beginning of the academic year, thus freeing up time in the Fall semester.  Departments who wish to adjust their Annual Review schedules for probationary and/or all tenure/tenure track faculty should consult with the Dean about setting up a schedule.

return to top

4.  How should Annual Review take place?

     After each academic year (usually at the beginning of September), each faculty member fills out and turns into the Chair the current “Annual Update” form, along with teaching evaluations (student and peer) as well as reprints of scholarly work.  The Chair then meets with the faculty “for a mutual exchange on the faculty member’s performance” (Faculty Handbook IV.D.)  The “mutual exchange” should include candid conversation about both successes and concerns in the faculty member’s teaching and research and service as well as about plans for addressing any concerns. 

     In the case of probationary (non-tenured and tenure track faculty), the Chair “secures recommendations from each of the tenured members of the department", (Faculty Handbook IV.D.), usually at a meeting called for that explicit purpose.  Recommendations should indicate whether the candidate is making cumulative “progress toward tenure” (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.2); some departments have more explicit cumulative reviews half way through the probationary period.  Chair letters on probationary faculty should always include a recommendation for or against reappointment.

     Once conversations with probationary and tenured faculty have taken place, the Chair then sends the Annual Updates to the Dean, with whom the Chair meets to review the Chair’s evaluation of faculty.  The Chair writes an Annual Review letter that should be submitted to the faculty member for comment before being revised as needed and forwarded to the Dean by early December.  Departments have different practices on the timing of the Chair’s letter -- most draft a letter before meeting with the faculty member and discuss this draft at the meeting, although some draft letters after the meeting and send a draft to faculty, ordinarily “within two weeks” of the interview (Faculty Handbook IV. D.); some create the final letter before the meeting with the Dean, although most wait until after the meeting with the Dean.  The Dean can add any of his own comments not covered by the Chair’s letter to the contract letter the Dean sends the faculty member.

return to top

5.  How does a first-year faculty member participate in Annual Review?

     First year faculty ordinarily do not complete the Annual Update form, although the Department should provide appropriate mentoring in the process of Annual Review in preparation for full participation in the process after the first year.  However, the Chair and the tenured members of the Department must make a written recommendation to reappoint all non-tenured tenure-track faculty (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 2.1), including first-year faculty, no earlier than the end of the first semester or the beginning of the second semester of the first year.  This recommendation will be based on the Chair’s judgment (having secured the judgments of other tenured faculty) about teaching, research, and service as evidenced in the first semester.

return to top

6.  By what criteria should the faculty member, Chair, and Dean review annual performance?

     The Rank and Tenure Policy Statement summarizes the basic criteria for successful teaching, scholarship, and service in its description of criteria for tenure, where a tenured faculty member “must first and foremost have displayed commitment to the philosophy, values, and objectives of the College” (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.5).  These policies are complemented by the description of professional responsibilities in the Faculty Handbook on teaching, scholarship, and service (V.).  Finally, the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement stipulates that it “is the responsibility of each department to agree on instruments or criteria whereby the effectiveness of the members of that department can be judged” (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.5).  All departments have their particular ways of evaluating themselves, written down and periodically revised; the Dean regularly encourages Chairs to review their own standards in the light of their aspirations as well as the standards of other departments.

return to top

7.  By what criteria are teaching, research, and service described as “below or meeting or exceeding expectations or outstanding”?

     These descriptions were invented with the consent of the Faculty Compensation Committee to distribute salary in the 1990s.  In 1997 Departments were asked to determine criteria for these different rankings; departments have periodically revised their criteria, and the criteria are periodically discussed by the Council of Department Chairs in order to promote consistency across departments.  

     Most departments treat these “summative” rankings as holistic judgments rather than judgments to be inferred from a single piece of evidence.  Thus, there need to be multiple sources of evidence for any judgment.  The key evaluation is peer-evaluation of teaching and research and service, although self-evaluation is also crucial and (in the case of teaching) student evaluation.  

      “A customary weighting of teaching, scholarship, and service in the evaluation of faculty at the College has been 50% to teaching, 30% to scholarship, and 20% to service.” These weights can be adjusted, with the prior agreement of the Chair and the Dean (Faculty Handbook E.1.). 

     The current Dean thinks that an overall judgment of “outstanding” typically refers to someone who has an outstanding year of teaching, research, and service; some departments ask for an “outstanding” ranking in two out of three, as long as the third is “exceeding expectations”.  The Dean and Chairs discuss such differences when they meet each Fall.

     In the Spring 2003, the Dean asked departments to reflect on the relationship between these evaluative descriptions (from “below expectations” to “outstanding”) and the requirement of the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement that candidates for tenure “show evidence of success in all three areas—teaching, research, service—but show especial strength in two of the three”(article 4.5).

return to top

8.  How should a faculty member fill out the Annual Update form?

     Because of the importance of the Annual Update form for Annual Review as well as tenure and promotion, faculty members are expected complete the form carefully and thoughtfully .  It will be read by the Chair and (in the case of probationary faculty) colleagues in the department, the Dean and perhaps eventually even by the Board on Rank and Tenure. 
 
     In filling out the section on teaching and research and service, faculty should keep in mind the College-wide as well as departmental criteria (see above).  It is helpful for faculty and Chairs to engage in annual reviews in the light of the broader strategic plan - particularly the relationship between academic excellence and institutional identity which is the heart of our strategic mission to become a classic Jesuit Catholic university of national standing. 

     Keep in mind that the “mutual exchange” between you and your Chair will include candid conversation about both successes and concerns in the faculty member’s teaching and research and service as well as about plans for addressing any concerns.  In the Dean’s experience, the best Annual Updates are those that display this candor.

     The sections on teaching and research and service should use multiple quality indicators, particularly to make the case for an exceptional year.  Thus, the section on teaching should include not only student evaluations but also pertinent peer-evaluation, along with the faculty member’s personal reflection or self-evaluation.  Student evaluations “are taken into consideration as part of the overall evaluation of faculty performance” (Faculty Handbook IX.2.), so faculty should attach summaries of student evaluation for courses taught during the last academic year, while keeping in mind our ongoing concern to develop multiple instruments for assessing teaching (e.g., the list of quality indicators of teaching in the Faculty Handbook IV.J.).

     In the section on research, faculty should include complete citations for peer reviewed work that appeared between July 1 and June 30 of the previous academic year – the Chair will eventually gather these citations to include in the annual Arts and Sciences publications report.  Evidence of scholarly activities such as “copies of published papers and proceedings are submitted with the update form” (Faculty Handbook V.E.).  The section on research should, of course, provide evidence of the quality of the research. 

     The section on service should indicate the depth as well as the breadth of the service (e.g., what sort of time and work was involved in being on a particular committee?).  Recall that “the specific validity of any particular service undertaking is a matter of judgment by each faculty member in consultation with his or her department chair and dean” (Faculty Handbook IV.E.2).

 
     Faculty who spend all or part of the year on leave should provide a summary of their leave or sabbatical accomplishments which will enable Chair and Dean to evaluate the year or semester of the leave

Departments have their own practices for submitting Annual Updates to Chairs.  The Dean asks that Chairs submit faculty Annual Updates to him electronically (titled by faculty member’s last name) by the Friday prior to the meeting between Chair and Dean; the final form of the Chair’s Annual Review letter should also be submitted electronically.  This will help record-keeping in the Dean’s office.  Of course, supplementary materials such as student evaluations will still have to be submitted in hard-copy.

return to top

 9.Why does the Annual Update form ask for “complete citation for books, refereed journals, other journals . . .”?

A “complete citation” is the standard scholarly citation format used in the faculty member’s field, and there is more than one format in some fields.  Faculty should consult with Chairs about the format the Chair uses for her or his departmental report on publications.  These citations need to be “complete” for at least two reasons.

First, citations should be complete because the Department needs a clear record of peer-reviewed publications (particularly in the case of probationary faculty).  Tenured faculty need access to copies of the peer-reviewed publications of probationary faculty in order to engage in review of such faculty for annual renewal and mid-term review.  The Chair needs have access to the recent peer-reviewed publications of all faculty the better to take account of longer-term research and writing agenda.

Second, citations should be complete because these citations will be printed in the annual CAS Publications and Award booklet on the Arts and Sciences web site which the Dean asks Chairs to contribute to each year.  (See the CAS web site, Information for Faculty, Publication Records and Table.)

If there is some doubt about what it means to call a book or essay or creative performance “peer-reviewed” beyond the description in the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.5.b and the Faculty Handbook IV.C (Scholarship), faculty should use the standard the Department would use in making a case to the Board on Rank and Tenure.

return to top

10. Why does the current Annual Update form ask faculty to “attach reprints where applicable”?

Departments should have the recent peer-reviewed publications of all faculty on file, particularly non-tenured, tenure track faculty.  As mentioned in the previous question, tenured faculty should have ready access to peer-reviewed publications of non-tenured, tenure tack faculty; and the Chair should have access to the recent peer-reviewed publications of all faculty the better to take account of longer-term research and writing agenda.  Thus, attaching reprints of peer-reviewed publications is essential when Annual Updates are submitted to the Chair.

It is, however, not necessary for the Chair to forward these publications to the Dean, except for special reasons.  The Dean’s office does not have room to store such publications, except in special circumstances.  Such “special circumstances” include: the publication of a particularly prestigious publication to which the Chair’s letter calls special attention; a disagreement between the Chair and a faculty member over the quality of a publication; or the request of a faculty member that a particular reprint be attached.  If a faculty member wishes the Dean to return such materials, this should be clearly indicated on the materials themselves.

return to top

11.  How are sabbatical years reviewed?

     Faculty who spend all or part of the year on leave should attach a copy of the “leave report” they promised to do when they applied for their sabbatical.  The Dean currently thinks about sabbatical years in the following way.  First, it frequently takes a number of years to evaluate a sabbatical; the best time to evaluate a sabbatical year is probably in the year of the application for the next sabbatical rather than during Annual Review. 

     Second, in the year following a sabbatical, we are usually evaluating teaching and research and service for one semester and research for another semester. (For those interested in quantitative guidelines, a faculty member who usually weights teaching 50%, research 30%, and service 20% [Faculty Handbook IV.E.], will be evaluated for her or his sabbatical year as 25% teaching [one semester’s worth of teaching], 10% service [one semester’s service], and 65% research [15% of research one semester and 50% of another {i.e., 100% of the sabbatical semester =  50% of the entire year}] ).  The Chair’s evaluation of this scholarship should take account of (a) the scholarly productivity of the year in articles, books, and other publications and (b) the progress made on the sabbatical project as revealed in the sabbatical report and interview with the Chair.  This model can be adjusted to fit different circumstances (e.g., taking into account faculty who have a teaching rather than research sabbatical, or who participate in a department hiring while on sabbatical, or who have a year-long sabbatical).

return to top

12.  How are part-time or full-time non-tenure track faculty reviewed?

     Full-time, non-tenure track faculty should be reviewed yearly, if the Chair is recommending renewal of the contract; the calendar and process should follow that of tenure-track faculty (see above), except that most full-time, non-tenure track faculty are ordinarily evaluated only for teaching (80%) and service (20%).  There are a variety of part-time faculty at Loyola, and we are in the process of constructing a calendar and process for review of all these faculty.  Four-fifths faculty (sometimes called “core” faculty, usually teaching 6 courses/year and doing appropriate service) and half-time faculty (4 courses/year) are given yearly contracts and should be reviewed yearly, the review submitted to the Dean along with the request for renewal of the position; this request is ordinarily submitted early in the second semester of the contract year, although some Chairs review four-fifths and half-time in the Fall (at the same time as full-time faculty).   Departments currently have their own calendar and processes for reviewing other part-time faculty , although the Dean would like to see a process that asked for review of such faculty after they have taught 6 – 8 courses (with meritorious part-time faculty given appropriate stipend increments at that time).  This will be a topic for conversation in future meetings of the College of Arts and Sciences Council of Department Chairs.

return to top

13.  How long should the Annual Update be?

     Length varies from the brief (1000 words) to the lengthy (2000 words).  Quantity is not quality, although quantity can sometimes be a good quality.  Much depends on how reflective the author is about teaching, research, service, and his or her contribution to the College’s mission and vision and core values.  But length also depends on audience.  How much reflection does a Chair or tenured colleagues (for non-tenured faculty) or the Dean expect?   It could be that an Update will be longer is one year, shorter in others.

return to top

14.  What should a faculty member do who disagrees with the Chair’s evaluation?

     Faculty and Chairs are expected to engage in a “mutual exchange” during annual review, the Chair having consulted other tenured faculty in the case of non-tenured faculty; however, faculty “evaluations are ultimately the Chair’s decision” (Faculty Handbook VI.B.3.).  Faculty members and Chairs who disagree on the faculty member’s evaluation should clarify their disagreement during the “mutual exchange” required in the annual review.  Sometimes patient discussion dissipates disagreement at this stage.  If there continues to be a disagreement over the draft of the Chair’s letter, the faculty member and Chair should strive to arrive at a common formulation and resolution of the issue in the Chair’s letter.  If this does not succeed, the faculty member may turn in to the Chair and the Dean a rejoinder to the Chair’s letter; this will be attached to the Chair’s letter in the faculty member’s file.

return to top

15.  What should the Dean and Chair expect of each other in their conduct of Annual Review?

     The Dean and Chairs should expect each other to know and interpret in good faith the criteria of the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement, the Faculty Handbook , the Chair’s department and (where appropriate) other departments.  

     The Dean asks the Chairs to send him departmental Annual Updates at least one week before they meet and to submit their final letter no later than Friday of the first week of December.  The Dean expects the Chair to convey to the Dean the frank discussion of the faculty member’s successes as well as concerns over teaching and research and service.  The Dean also expects Chairs to consolidate the department’s refereed publications and faculty awards for a given year and send an e-copy to the Dean by the end of the first semester; these refereed publications will become part of the College’s book of faculty publications and awards for the year. 

     The Chair can expect that the Dean has studied the Annual Updates and (where appropriate) the Chair's letter when these have been sent to the Dean a week in advance.  The Chair can also expect that the Dean will respect the Chair’s concrete judgments as based on the criteria above; if Chair and Dean disagree, the Chair can expect a clear explanation that can be conveyed to the faculty member.    

return to top

16.  How are the Chairs and Dean who perform Annual Review themselves reviewed?

    Chairs have informal means of evaluation by faculty, from private conversations with colleagues to department meetings.  Chairs (particularly those in larger and more complex departments) are encouraged to develop, in consultation with the department, more formal means of self-evaluation for their own personal use (e.g., using the nationally normed evaluation instrument at IDEA [www.idea.ksu.edu/Chair]).

    Chairs are also evaluated yearly by the Dean in the context of the fall annual review.  Each summer the Dean also meets with Chairs and writes a letter assessing Chair and departmental and programmatic accomplishments for the previous year and plans for the subsequent year. 

     The Dean also asks departments to conduct a review of Chairs who seek reappointment after their three year term.  Ordinarily the Chair reminds the Dean to appoint a senior faculty member to run the election (Faculty Handbook VI.2.7.).  The Dean also asks this senior member to offer a cumulative review of the Chair's teaching and research and service as Chair, providing the detailed assessment of teaching and research which only a colleague in the same field can provide.  The evaluation of the Chair’s performance should also include a survey of the department using an evaluation form approved by department and Dean or a nationally normed Chair evaluation form.  Individual Chairs should discuss with the Dean and department how best to anticipate this evaluation;  this discussion should be done in timely fashion – for example, in a way that allow any evaluation instrument (e.g., a survey of the department) to be approved by Chair, department, and Dean.

     The Dean is reviewed annually by the Vice-President for Academic Affairs. In the Spring 2004, the Dean began a process of periodic review that provides Chairs an opportunity for periodic confidential evaluation of the Dean using a nationally normed evaluation instrument (www.idea.ksu.edu/DeanFeedback)

return to top

17.  Where did the Annual Update form come from, and how can it be changed?

     The College of Arts and Sciences Annual Update form was originally modeled on the forms used for tenure and promotion. (Annual Update forms are available at Loyola.edu, Academic Affairs, Information for Faculty.)  It is important that there is basic continuity between these forms so that it is clear that cumulative annual review feeds into tenure and promotion decisions.  Changes to the College of Arts and Sciences Annual Update form that break (or appear to break) this basic continuity should be approved by the Academic Senate, ordinarily as recommended by the Faculty Evaluation Committee.  However, the College of Arts and Sciences Council of Department Chairs has made minor changes to the Annual Update form consistent with the Deans' and Chairs' authority for the day-to-day running of their departments.  Minor changes to the form were last made at the Council of Department Chairs in spring 2003.  Even such "minor" changes can, of course, be appealed to the Academic Senate. 

return to top