The Head of the Department is responsible for annually evaluating each faculty member’s accomplishments and professional activities, communicating such evaluation to each faculty member and counseling each faculty member with respect to improvements in the faculty member’s performance and the appropriateness of the faculty member’s future plans.
As part of the annual review of faculty, the Department Advisory Committee evaluates each faculty member’s accomplishments and professional activities (both past and planned) and communicates such evaluations to the Head.
The annual review is one of the considerations (along with market factors and centrality of contribution) in the Head’s annual pay raise recommendations, as well as annual teaching assignments.
The Head of the Department shall provide each faculty member with annual written feedback regarding how well the faculty member is meeting expectations. In appropriate circumstances, the Head shall meet with a faculty member to discuss the unit’s expectations and the faculty member’s performance.
The Department shall maintain in each faculty member’s personnel file copies of the faculty member’s annual statements and written feedback from the department, as well as any other elements considered essential to the annual review. The contents of official personnel files are open to examination by the individual concerned and that individual may append a written response to any document in the file.
Either the Department Head or a faculty member may broaden the annual review process to include additional elements, such as solicitation of information from selected external reviewers. The issues appropriate for such broader review include the faculty member’s research, teaching and service accomplishments and activities during the past five years. The person invoking a broader review shall provide, in writing, a statement that indicates the focus of, and reason for, a broader review, an explanation of why the reasons for the broader review have not and cannot be adequately addressed by the annual review process, as well as the information being sought that is not part of a normal annual review and how such information relates to the objectives of the broader review.
Invoking the broader review option should be grounded in the results of at least two immediately previous annual reviews (thus, reviewing at least a three-year period), and more typically in a longer pattern that reveals a need for deeper scrutiny of the record in order to more fully understand the faculty member’s performance.
The policies and procedures outlined in the Provost’s Communication No. 21, Annual Faculty Review, (viewable on the Provost’s Internet web site) shall apply to a broader review. The Provost’s Communication No. 9, Promotion & Tenure, together with the Department’s promotion and tenure policies and procedures shall apply to external reviewers, if any.
ANNUAL REVIEW GRIEVANCES
A faculty member who believes he or she has been aggrieved by the application of the Department’s annual review procedure may petition the College Faculty Grievance Committee for redress. Before filing a formal grievance, the faculty member should first try to resolve the problem informally with the individual(s) against whom the grievance is being made. In the event that informal resolution is not possible, the faculty member should next file a formal grievance, in writing, with the College Faculty Grievance Committee. This grievance should include the facts relating to the matter and the resolution being sought by the grievant (see the College by-laws for additional information on grievance procedures).
As provided by the University Statutes, a faculty member may always consult the University’s Faculty Advisory Committee.
GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL FACULTY REVIEW
The Department of Accountancy uses the University’s three primary dimensions – research, teaching and service – to evaluate annually its faculty members with rank-related variations in the weights assigned to those dimensions. The annual employment contract specifies the dimension weighting for lecturers and adjunct faculty. For assistant professors, the primary foci of annual evaluations are the extent and adequacy of progress toward a timely promotion to associate professor with tenure. To that end, the primary weights (approximately equal) are on research and teaching and little, if any, weight is on service. For associate professors, the primary foci of annual evaluations are the extent and adequacy of progress toward a timely promotion to professor. To that end, the primary weights (approximately equal) are on research and teaching and some (but not primary) weight is on service. The dimension weights for professor with tenure can reflect his/her relative interests. The professor and the Head of the Department, in consultation with the Department Advisory Committee, mutually agree to the dimension weights. For most professors with tenure, either the three dimension weights are equal or two of the dimension weights are primary and the third is secondary.
Guidelines for Annual Review of Research
One of the Department’s primary goals is to be a leader in the discovery and development of accountancy knowledge. Faculty publications in academic journals are critical for achieving this goal. Consistent with this mission, the Department distinguishes among categories of publications.
Each faculty member shall submit annually a statement of research goals that enumerates activities and accomplishments for the prior five-year period and indicates activities and accomplishments planned for the subsequent three-year period. The statement should tie together past research and indicate how it relates to future research plans. Faculty members can include any commentary about their research program and contributions as long as the statement of research goals, exclusive of the listing of research papers/projects.
To facilitate evaluation of the dynamics of their research programs, faculty members should categorize research papers into (1) published (including forthcoming), (2) unpublished papers under review (including revisions to review comments), and (3) working papers not under review. Each listed research paper should indicate the paper’s full review history including the present reviewing journal, review round and date submitted to such review round. If the paper has been rejected by previous journals, include those journals and dates of rejection. Further, if the paper metamorphosed from an earlier version with a different title, the earlier version title and date of metamorphosis shall be indicated. With respect to working papers not under review, faculty should indicate the targeted journal and targeted publication review submission date.
Some disclosure examples are:
Jaedicke, R. K. The Role of Audit Committees in Corporate Governance. Under first-round review (January 2002) at the Journal of Accounting and Public Policy.
Fastow, A. S. Accounting for Special Purpose Entities. Under first-round review (February 2002) at the Journal of Accountancy. Previously rejected at The CPA Journal (2001) and Strategic Finance (2000).
Fastow, A. S. Accounting for Partnership Asset Swaps. First submitted 2001 and under revision for a second-round review at Strategic Finance (resubmission target is March 2002). A previous version submitted to and rejected by The CPA Journal (2001) under the title Leveraged Buyouts Using Special Purpose Entities.
As a fourth category of their research listing, faculty members also should describe briefly research projects in process (i.e., those projects for which a first-draft working paper does not yet exist). Each listed project shall include a target date to complete the first-draft working paper along with the targeted journal and submission date.
Guidelines for Annual Review of Teaching
Each faculty member shall submit annually a statement of teaching goals that enumerates activities, accomplishments and innovations for the prior five-year period and planned activities, accomplishments and innovations for the subsequent three-year period. The Department includes both course instruction and curriculum development in the teaching dimension. Faculty members should relate accomplishments and innovations, both past and planned, to one or more of the primary objectives of the Department’s educational programs: the framework of value creation and the role of information in market and non-market settings (i.e., the integration of strategic management, economics of organization and systems theory as theoretical concepts underlying the role of information in organizations and society), the development of professional skills and attitudes, and the development and use of active learning methods. Faculty members can include any commentary about their teaching accomplishments and innovations as long as the statement of teaching goals, exclusive of the listing of courses taught and supporting documentation (see below), does not exceed one typewritten page (12 point, Times Roman font with 1” margins).
Faculty members should provide documentation supporting the listed activities, accomplish-mentsand innovations for the prior period. Suggested documentation includes:
- Course syllabi that specify course objectives, course policies & procedures (including grading policies), course reading assignments (complete bibliographic listings), and course activity assignments.
- Course examinations.
- Depending upon the indicated accomplishments and innovations:
a. Selected class notes and selected class projects/activities with teaching notes, including a brief discussion about those features related to the Department’s educational objectives.
b. References (URL) to selected web-based materials including a brief discussion about those features that related to Department’s educational objectives.
c. Curriculum development reports that include a brief discussion of the curriculum features that make such development innovative and plans/actions to implement such innovations.
Faculty members also should indicate their participation in activities that are intended to improve instructors’ teaching skills and abilities, and indicate planned participation in activities designed to improve teaching skills and abilities.
The Department is in the process of designing and implementing a peer review program to assess and improve faculty members’ teaching skills. Where appropriate, evaluative outcomes from this program should be used as evidence in annual faculty reviews as well as in broader faculty reviews such as third-year reviews of assistant professors, promotion and tenure reviews of both assistant and associate professors, and chair/professorship reviews of professors. Elements of this peer review program include: (1) establishing the criteria and expectations for peer reviews, (2) training selected accountancy faculty members in peer review techniques, and (3) establish-ing a peer review schedule that reflects the needs of the various broader faculty reviews.
Guidelines for Annual Review of Service
Faculty members shall submit annually a statement of service goals that enumerates activities and accomplishments for the prior five-year period and planned activities and accomplishments for the subsequent three-year period. Faculty members may include any commentary about their service activities and accomplishments as long as the statement of service goals, not including a listing of service activities and accomplishments and supporting documentation (see below), does not exceed one typewritten page (12 point, Times Roman font with 1” margins).
Faculty members should categorize service into public service, service to academic and professional accounting societies and associations, and service to units of the University. Public service involves assisting organizations such as agencies, schools, and businesses in which the activities (1) contribute to the public welfare or the common good, (2) call upon the faculty member’s academic or professional expertise, and (3) directly address or respond to real-world problems, issues, interests or concerns. Service to University units includes both administrative service and committee assignments.
For faculty members with significant annual review weight on the service dimension, the faculty member and the Head, in consultation with the Department Advisory Committee, shall mutually agree to the planned service activities and accomplishments. Such faculty members should provide evidence documenting the quality and impact on those served of their service activities and accomplishments. Such evidence may include recognitions and honors from those served and written assessments by those being served (such assessments should be sent directly to the Department and not given to the faculty member).