Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. in Keller Hall reception room. John Gupton moved approval of the minutes of the Arts and Sciences faculty meeting from February 14, 2013. Bill Ross seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve. John Gupton moved approval of Academic Council Actions from February 19, March 5 and March 19. Bill Ross seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.
Dean Skerrett introduced the primary agenda item for the meeting, an overview and discussion of the Annual Merit Review Process. The Dean announced that she recently made her recommendation for merit-based salary increases to the Provost who will discuss it with the President. If Dr. Ayers approves, it will be brought before the Board of Trustees for consideration. Dean Skerrett provided a PowerPoint slide review of the process and its outcomes.
The Arts and Sciences faculty approved revisions to the merit review process in April 2012. Two major goals of the revisions were to reduce the preparation time for dossiers for faculty and department chairs, and to increase transparency of the work in the dean’s office. The period under review this cycle was academic year 2011-2012. After department chairs submitted the faculty dossiers, two associate deans each independently read each dossier. The dean read all dossiers and gave particular attention to cases where there where discrepancies among the chairs’ evaluation, the associate deans’ evaluation and her own. The dean reported that in 77 percent of the cases there were no discrepancies. In the remaining 22 percent, the majority were cases where the department chair offered a half grade (like a B+). Except in two cases, the dean rounded half grades down.
Mari Tonn noted that the Dean’s scores seemed more discerning between the ratings of 4 and 5, but changed with the 3. The Dean replied that 3 was a more elastic category and than the 5.
Marion McCormick expressed a concern about the different expectations of publishing across disciplines and departments. The Dean replied that the publishing data does calibrate across disciplines and there are consistent patterns. She noted that over half of the tenure-line faculty were rated as excellent (4), which we would expect since that is the standard for tenure.
The Dean then returned to her presentation and reviewed the process for merit raises and tenure and promotion "bumps". After merit increments were applied according to an algorithm, recently tenured or promoted faculty members also received block amount “bumps”. The amounts were announced. Bill Ross asked about blocks and percentages used in the merit allocations. The Dean replied that they differed by rank and by merit category. The block amounts were used to ameliorate the effects of the percentage increases; however, the goal was to spend all the available money in a systematic way.
The dean reminded faculty that they will receive salary allocation letters for next year no later than May 13, and any notification of revisions that the dean made to the department chair’s evaluation will be included in that letter. The triennial schedule will then be updated.
Dean Skerrett also submitted a benchmarking proposal to the Provost and more than half of the request will apply to the directors with some small adjustments requested for a few professors in the Assistant and Associate ranks.
Julie Laskaris asked about the compressions within the different faculty ranks and how they were addressed. The Dean proposed bench-marking adjustments to address compression issues in the first three years of service at the University. The dean reiterated that her proposal continues to advance the average percentage for each rank towards the target.
Stephanie Cobb asked about the excellent rating (4) and if decisions are made based on smaller projects, rather than big projects. How should faculty interpret this? The Dean replied that if someone is working on a years-long project, it is important to continue to demonstrate engagement with professional peers who are in a position to assess the promise of the work. Marion McCormick asked if peer-reviewed publications are the goal? The answer is yes. Peer-reviewed publications are the standard way that faculty members demonstrate a scholarly program that makes contributions that are valued and validated by professional peers.
Dean Simpson asked if this approach to merit ratings and increases is a major change over past practice?
Is this approach too blunt? Will doors be shut? Will students suffer? Dean Skerrett replied that the process rewards those who exemplify the teacher/scholar model. The approach does not punish people who take other paths, but it gives highest rewards to excellent, innovative teachers who have consistent research programs, and who are actively involved in university citizenship. There are a great number of faculty members who really “do it all”.
Libby Gruner stated that it has not been the standard in some disciplines to publish a peer-reviewed article per year. This would be a change in expectations to state that you cannot achieve an excellent rating (4) without a peer-reviewed publication. A major concern is disciplinary differences and expectations. A peer-reviewed article per year is not the norm in several disciplines and that such expectations feel like a change. The dean reminded the faculty that they would carry their rating for a 3-year period so that this will tend to smooth the publication rates.
Julie Laskaris noted that she does not recall seeing a book and an article published each year while serving on the tenure and promotion committee. The dean noted that at tenure reviews, the committee looks for a trajectory and consistent scholarly progress rather than a quantity of outcomes. Prof. Laskaris asked, How do you manage the big project and the peer-reviewed articles? The Dean observed that nearly all of the faculty members who received an evaluation of excellent or above are indeed meeting regular publishing expectations.
Sara Pappas asked a question about salary pool increases and if the central administration is considering changing the percentage in light of an improved economy? The Dean does not believe the central administration is planning to change the salary pool; however, she wants to build simply salary models to demonstrate future needs as one consideration in determining the pool.
Mari Tonn asked further questions regarding quality versus quantity and noted that chairs are in the position to know the publishing trends in their field. She asked how are other merits (i.e., anthologies, professional service) counted? Brian Henry asked if Dean Skerrett has language comparable to "peer-reviewed journals" for disciplines (art, music, etc.) where the peer-reviewed journal is not the standard. The dean replied that the department chair provides crucial context for the faculty member’s scholarly achievements. The dean also noted that there are several disciplines where the highest level of scholarly engagement is not peer-reviewed publication, such as Computer Science or Theater and Dance.
Eugene Wu asked if a bar has been set for those pursuing tenure to publish at least one peer-review publication per year? The Dean replied that no one can achieve tenure without peer-review publications or other scholarly outcomes appropriate to the field. However, tenure-track faculty members do not have to achieve an excellent (4) rating each year to be awarded tenure.
April Hill agreed that we need to continue to evaluate scholarship at a higher level, but she also expressed a desire to improve the deep evaluation of teaching, especially in the liberal arts college setting. Dean Skerrett asked the faculty how they reflect on their teaching? How do we use teaching evaluations and evaluate mentorships? Brian Henry agreed that if we have peer-reviewed scholarship, we should have peer-reviewed teaching, and not allow anonymous SEI's to be the primary criterion by which our teaching is judged. The Dean reassured faculty that student comments, both formal and informal, are considered in the context of other means of evaluation.
Jennifer Nourse asked how are sole authors and multi-authors publications weighed, particularly with decisions about a 4 or 5 rating? The dean responded that that depends on the practice of the discipline and the intellectual leadership and contribution made by the faculty member. Some faculty expressed concern about the lack of conversation or interaction on the ratings. Dean Skerrett further explained that if the dean raises a score, she will call the chair. If the Dean lowers the score, the chair and the faculty member will be informed of her doing so. The dean reminded the faculty that transparency of process was one of the two goals of the revisions that the faculty approved last year. Transparency does not mean that everyone will be more satisfied with the outcomes; it means everyone will know how the outcomes were made and by whom.
The next Arts and Sciences meeting will be held on Thursday, April 25 at 4 p.m. in Keller Hall Reception Room. The president Dr. Ed Ayers will join the A & S faculty to discuss the Summer Experience Initiative and faculty-mentored undergraduate research.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley
