Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. in the Brown-Alley
Room, Weinstein Hall. She offered print
copies of the October 7 Academic Council meeting since they had not been posted
in time for review. Stephanie Cobb moved approval of the minutes of the Arts
and Sciences faculty meeting from September 18, 2014. Sydney Watts seconded the
motion and the faculty voted to approve. Bill Ross moved approval of Academic
Council Actions from September 16 and October 7. Abigail Cheever seconded the motion and the faculty voted to
approve.
A&S
Faculty Travel Budget
Dean Skerrett said that she is continuing to gather
information regarding concerns with the faculty travel budget. As a way of background and review, she shared
a 2006 report that an Ad Hoc Committee (including Kathy Hoke, Dan Palazzolo
and others) authored on similar concerns and issues. Dean Skerrett reported
that she also queried the controller's office regarding the per diem process.
The office replied that they are reviewing the policy, especially in
regard to international travel. The Dean’s Office is preparing an
analysis of travel budget allocations and expenditures by departments in the
past three years. We will continue to
move the travel budget issue forward.
Presentation and
Discussion of Annual Merit Review Process
Dean Skerrett announced that the focus of today's meeting is the
annual merit review process. She
provided a presentation from the perspective and analysis of the Dean's Office.
Through the use of “people icons,” via a PowerPoint slide, the dean presented
the distribution by quadripartite division of all merit
scores assigned to tenure-stream faculty 2013-2014. Other slides provided a divisional analysis of tenure-stream
faculty by rank and gender as well as average merit score by division and
gender. Merit scores of 1 or 2 were not included.
The majority of faculty are in the 3-4-5 ranking category.
Abigail Cheever asked if the icons represented
numbers. The Dean replied that they do not, only percentages. The people icons represent a pie chart distribution.
The Dean welcomed questions and said that her office will track data to assess
whether the award of merit or compensation is skewed in any way. They are
trying to see if there are biases that systematically affect outcome. Eric
Yellin asked if there is any data over time and the Dean replied that the
office has not captured that yet for analysis.
Peter Smallwood asked if the current data was one
year or three years? He commented that
it is difficult to assess the outcomes without multiple years data. Peter
noted that it is great that the Dean's Office is tracking this information, but
it may be more helpful in five years. Bill Ross also commented that the data
only reflects faculty who were evaluated this past year and that it may change
with different faculty next year. The
dean said that this analysis presents a snap-shot and agreed that it must form
the basis of multi-year analysis going forward.
Dean Skerrett then asked for discussion of the
current annual review process that has been practiced since 2012-2013. Two recommendations emerged, including
1) Transition to a three-year review for tenured
faculty where a faculty member would receive a score based on the prior three
years of accomplishments. The tenured
faculty members would carry the scores for three years, submitting only updated
c.v.’s in the interim years.
2) Report any divergent scores from the dean as
soon as they are assigned so that the faculty member and the department chair
have the information prior to the salary letters
The dean asked if she should meet with department
chairs to advise divergent scores so that the chair could tell the faculty
member. Sydney Watts asked if the
Dean-Department Chair meeting would include negotiating with the department
chair. The Dean replied that she would use the opportunity to explain a
divergent score so that the chair could convey the message. Dan Palazzolo
asked if the chair would be able to share a disagreement or counter opinion.
Is this possible or will the Dean just share the information? Can
the department chair state why they disagree? The Dean said that she recalls
the faculty members’ priority concern with transparency in the merit review
process so she is reluctant to create opportunities for private
negotiation. Dan Palazzolo also asked if
a statement should be included at the bottom of the form that alerts faculty
that scores are subject to change. The
dean noted that the Guideline clearly provides for this.
Dean Simpson referenced an earlier faculty
meeting discussion in 2012 or 2013 where faculty expressed concern that
department chairs were only meeting with an Associate Dean about annual merit
reviews. The primary concern of the faculty was that department chairs need to
meet with the Dean. He acknowledged that the proposed opportunity to meet with
the dean would improve the current process, but at the same time, it may not be
advisable to take a persuasive role away from the department chair. He
expressed concerned that Dean Skerrett may have mischaracterized the problem. The dean thanked him for the clarification.
Bill Ross asked the Dean if she had thought about a timeline for the revision process. Dean Skerrett replied that she is willing to
make some changes within this cycle and that she will begin discussions with
the new provost about the faculty recommendation for three-year review of
tenured faculty. She wants to continue gathering
suggestions to revise the guidelines this semester in order to bring a proposal
to the A & S faculty meeting at the end of next semester.
Sara Pappas shared that she likes the idea of the
three year review, but she has concerns about the transition to it,
particularly in the humanities when the gestation period for publications is
longer. It might be difficult if research is in progress. The
Dean is open to ways of how to capture the research progress in a way that
would be more accommodating to humanities faculty.
Tze Loo had further questions about the divergent
score and the meeting with the department chair about the calibration decision.
First, Tze would like to know what is the calibration reason and second,
she would like to remove the mysterious process of assigning a score and provide
further transparency. Tze does not have
a problem with the score, but she is not clear how the decisions are made. Is there a rubric or some type of standard? Dean
Skerrett replied that, after two associate deans independently review each
dossier, she identifies dossiers where the department chair or an associate
dean has assigned divergent scores. She
studies those dossiers from across the departments to try to identify features
they have in common. Then she calibrates
them as a cohort. Often the calibration has to do with the level of service
that faculty members in that cohort typically demonstrate. Sometimes the calibration identifies the
level of professionally reviewed scholarly activity recorded in the review period. The Dean would like to develop a rubric to better
evaluate teaching. She said that she
gives favorable consideration to faculty members who are designing and testing innovative
pedagogy, especially when it aligns with their research projects. Tze Loo said
it would be helpful for faculty to understand this decision-making process
better.
Bill Myers offered two observations. He
asked if there are times when divergences go up, rather than down. The Dean
said yes. He also asked if department
chairs are calibrating with one another?
Are the scores different among departments? The Dean replied that in the
first year there were more discrepant patterns among the departments. In the second year, the number of divergences
between the departments and the dean decreased.
Some departments have very clear annual review expectations. The dean wants to take these into account
while providing calibration across the departments.
Eugene Wu had further questions about the meeting
between the Dean and the Department Chair and observed that the meeting appears
to turn the department chair into an intermediary or “middle man.” The Dean
acknowledged that it is not her intention to place the department chair in this
role, but wants to make the process less harsh for faculty. She thinks
the current notification is harsh and untimely and she wants to improve the
exchange of information.
Eric Yellin commented that the chair is an
intermediary because the chair has a holistic view of the department. Eric
also asked if SACS allows for a three year review. The Dean replied that
she has investigated this question and there is not an objection at this time. Sandra Joireman and Bill Myers both supported
the recommendation for three-year review of tenured faculty.
Kathy Hoke asked if there is room in the process if
the Dean's Office has made a mistake. The Dean stated that she has made
changes when she believed she made a mistake.
The Dean’s office is also building models that allow the dean to see the
structural outcome of merit decisions.
Dean Skerrett noted that if the A & S faculty
endorses the idea of three-year review for tenured faculty, she will work
towards this proposal. She noted that
this change might be helpful in capturing humanities scholarship. Michelle Hamm asked if the faculty directors
could be included in a proposal for three-year review after they have served in
their positions for a specified length of time.
Dean Skerrett noted that the department chairs will
meet in October for a calibration meeting and she will bring these issues back
to faculty next semester.
Meeting
Conclusion
Dean Skerrett thanked the faculty for their presence and participation.
The meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m. The next Arts and Sciences faculty meeting
will be held on November 13, 2014, at 4:00 p.m. in the Brown
Alley Room, Weinstein Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley
