Topics Map > Administration & Governance > Faculty Affairs
Administration & Governance - Faculty Affairs -Peer-Faculty Annual Review (P-FAR)
This outlines the annual review process and criteria for faculty members. The faculty annual review process is designed to provide meaningful feedback on their performance, and where applicable assist in the assignment of merit ratings, and identify candidates for awards, special recognition at the school, campus and/or national level.
Approved by Faculty Committee: November 24, 2014
Revised: October 26, 2015
Revised per August 28, 2019 faculty meeting
Approved by Executive Faculty: October 21, 2019
Goals of Annual Performance Reviews
- To provide individual faculty members with feedback on their performance for the past calendar year and to set goals for the coming year
- To assist in the growth and development of the faculty member
- To encourage the promotion of excellence in scholarship, teaching, outreach and service
- To promote a greater sense of community and increase awareness of fellow faculty members’ work appreciation
- When applicable, to assist in the assignment of merit ratings and in the identification of potential nominees for awards and/or special recognitions at the school, campus, and/or national levels.
- Make the process consistent and uniform across units in the SoHE
- Create clear, objective criteria for performance review
- Provide individual faculty members with developmental and candid feedback
- Be more effective in achieving departmental and SoHE human capital goals
- Achieve a more efficient and fair process
Structure and Terms of the P-FAR Committee
The committee shall be composed of a faculty representative from each department; at least one member of the committee shall have an Extension appointment. Extension faculty shall be represented on the committee in one of two ways: if a department chooses to forward a faculty member to the committee who is an extension faculty, the committee will accept that faculty member as representing Extension OR a separate election amongst all Extension Faculty will be administered with support from the Dean’s office. The terms of elected members will be 3 years (an effort will be made to rotate members off such that they are staggered for continuity). The elected member can be reappointed for a second term subject to departmental approval. Each year, the P-FAR Committee will choose a Chair.
Annual Performance Review Process
1. Each faculty member completes the P-FAR form in Digital Measures. When completing the P-FAR it is imperative that the format adopted by the SoHE is used so that the committee has a standard set of inputs for their deliberations.
2. Each faculty member will ‘contextualize’ their P-FAR packet by providing a brief statement (350 words) reflecting on their annual performance in each of the three areas:
- Highlighting relevant information about the quantity, caliber, impact, quality of the past year’s work in each of the three areas. This is an opportunity for each faculty member to articulate the impact of their work in the framework of their particular field. (note: The P-FAR takes into account the fact that pre-tenure faculty are not expected to fulfill the same service obligations as post-tenure faculty)
- Noting extenuating circumstances if any (e.g., illness, delay in getting new project going, etc.) to provide a context for the committee’s deliberations. In cases where there were particular extenuating circumstances, not only the individual but also the Chair could provide this information to the P-FAR committee.
- In cases of jointly authored publications or works, a simple statement of the % of the total work contributed by the individual will assist the committee in its deliberations.
- URLs to articles or exhibitions and books published or presented in the past year can be embedded into the P-FAR so that committee members may click on them.
- Faculty with a joint appointment or administrative responsibilities in another campus unit may add feed-back from that campus unit as part of the P-FAR package
3. P-FAR Committee members read dossiers prior to meeting and record preliminary scores and comments. Following review of the case and discussion, committee members record their final scores and comments. The assessment will use a qualitative rating representing the performance evaluation in each of the three categories of scholarship, teaching and service. (D) Distinction (E+) Exceptional Plus (E) Exceptional (S+) Successful Plus (s) Successful (PME) Partially meeting expectations (NME) Not meeting expectations.
4. Final review will include:
- Single rating for each area of review (Scholarship, Teaching, Service) and an overall rating
- Comments for each review area
- If the P-FAR committee feels that their collective expertise is not sufficient to assess a particular dossier, the committee can solicit additional input from another faculty member.
5. The Department Chairs will meet with each of their department’s faculty and will incorporate a Chair’s assessment along with the P-FAR review as a feedback packet to each faculty member. The Chair’s job will be to identify strengths, talk about areas of improvement, offer problem solving in those areas that need improvement. This discussion also should be an opportunity for the faculty member to note areas where s/he, the department, and the SoHE could improve.
6. Chairs will meet with Soyeon [Dean Shim] to discuss their reflections on the P-FAR feedback. This discussion will focus on faculty professional development and growth in the SoHE – i.e., how to use P-FAR process to build capacities at the individual, department, and school level.
7. If an individual falls below satisfactory performance, the department chair and Associate Dean should follow through with specific professional development plan
Appeals Process: If an individual is dissatisfied with P-FAR’s review, they can write a letter to the P-FAR committee summarizing their concerns or objections. P-FAR Committee will read letter and write a response.
Policy Review: P-FAR committee will review process and recommend changes each year if they feel this is warranted. Any recommendations for change will be brought to the full faculty for approval.
- September Executive Faculty meeting - P-FAR committee recommended for approval
- December 15 - The committee meeting schedules confirmed (Generally within a 6-week time span, beginning in February)
- Mid-January (Tuesday after MLK holiday) - All faculty submit their P-FAR report using Digital Measures
- February 1 - Extension Director and Department Chair letters to the P-FAR Committee
- February 1-Early March (6 weeks) – The P-FAR Committee Deliberation
- Mid-March - Deadline for the P-FAR Report to All Faculty
- Late March/Early April - Individual meeting (highlights, feedback and developmental)
- Mid-April - Committee Chair’s Report to the Dean
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING FACULTY
The criteria are intended to support a holistic evaluation of effort and effectiveness across the three categories of scholarship, teaching, and service. The inclusion of multiple criteria in each category reflects the range of dimensions to be evaluated in each area. The assumption is that there can be multiple ways to demonstrate excellence in a category – sometimes by depth in one or few criteria, other times by breadth across criteria. At the same time, some criteria within a category are particularly important, and that is noted in the guidance for evaluation for each category.
Probationary, Promotion, and Post-Tenure Reviews
Although the P-FAR review criteria are and should be highly correlated with the criteria for tenure, promotion and post-tenure review, the University and the SoHE tenure criteria will be used for tenure-related reviews. The main difference between the P-FAR criteria and the aforementioned review criteria, is that the former is based on annual accomplishments, while the latter is based on cumulative accomplishments and national/international reputations that are expected to be attained for associate and full professors.
In the Scholarship category, 4 criteria should be considered in assigning a performance rating.
SCH1. Effort in peer-reviewed scholarship output including refereed journal articles, books, and/or book chapters, exhibitions, shows, catalogue essays, creative works. Include only those publications, exhibitions, or creative works that were published/presented or that are in press or accepted for exhibition during the past year. It’s incumbent upon each faculty to provide evidence of quality.
SCH2. Effort in other (non peer-reviewed) scholarly output including Extension publications, chapters in non-peer reviewed edited books, creative works, scholarship for public audiences, websites, any and all scholarship and creative work that does not meet the criterion of peer review.
SCH3. Effort and success in obtaining grants (particularly competitive grants) and commissions to support scholarship
SCH4. Effort in scholarship in progress
Examples include data collection, data analyses, manuscripts submitted or in revise and resubmit status, exhibition preparation, project reports, etc.
SCH6. Recognition by peers/juries/public of scholarly and professional contributions related to research through honors and awards (i.e., design project and competition awards, book awards, best article awards, honorary doctorates, early career awards, contribution to the field awards, delivering an invited plenary or keynote address, etc.).
*(SCH5 and SCH7 retired)
- Effort and effectiveness in scholarship is expected of all faculty.
- Effort and effectiveness in scholarship cannot be fully measured by output within a calendar year since it is based on work conducted over time. Scholarship output is, nonetheless, an important indicator of effort and effectiveness, and is recognized in SCH1, SCH2, SCH3 and SCH4. External recognition of one’s scholarly contributions is captured in SCH6.
- In order to give faculty full credit for scholarly work at all stages, while avoiding double counting, SCH1 and SCH2 should be only be used for work that is accepted, published, in press, or presented
- Exceeding expectations in scholarship can be achieved by substantial effort and effectiveness at various stages as per the criteria. While scholarship will be assessed holistically, the following general guidelines will be used to differentiate between meeting expectations, exceeds expectations and truly exceptional.
- Scholarship output (SCH1 and SCH2) and grants to support scholarship (SCH3) are generally more important than other criteria.
- High-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship (SCH1) is widely recognized as critical for faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and peer institutions, and as such, will be considered heavily. Nonetheless, it is possible to achieve a higher rating in scholarship by substantial evidence and effectiveness in other criteria. The assumption is that earlier-stage scholarship, while important in demonstrating effort and effectiveness, will ultimately lead to scholarship output.
- Formative work alone, while it can be important to demonstrating satisfactory scholarship performance, is generally not sufficient to achieve a scholarship rating higher than “meets expectations.”
- Examples to document effort and effectiveness in scholarship criteria are not meant to be exhaustive
In the Teaching category, 4 criteria should be considered in assigning a performance rating.
T1. Effort in “for credit” teaching (face-to-face and online) including courses taught, evaluations of teaching, recognition of teaching excellence, and other evidence of teaching performance.
T2. Effort in outreach and continuing education teaching, including educational talks, workshops or programs delivered, development and dissemination of teaching materials through electronic formats, participant or stakeholder evaluations of outreach teaching, recognition of teaching, and other evidence of outreach teaching performance. (Extension outreach evaluations when available must be included)
T3. Effort in mentoring undergraduate students and the mentoring and advising of graduate students, post-docs, county Extension educators, other educators, including resident and non-resident advising and mentoring; evidence of mentored student or others’ success, recognition for other evidence of excellence in mentoring.
T4. Effort in contributions to the development of “for credit” teaching excellence and/or enhancement of graduate or undergraduate programs, including development of new or innovative pedagogical methods or instructional materials; innovation in courses offered, new course, significant revisions to improve learning, evidence of teaching scholarship such as publication of educational materials (e.g, text book, website) or articles related to teaching, grants related to teaching, advisor to student organizations, recognition for contributions to teaching, teaching scholarship or innovation in teaching.
Effort and effectiveness in teaching is expected of all faculty, although the specifics may vary across appointments.
Teaching encompasses campus, online, outreach, credit and non-credit teaching. Effort and effectiveness in teaching is assessed on the basis of quantity (relative to one’s position requirements), quality and impact.
Extension/outreach teaching takes many forms and is not limited to classes and workshops.
Teaching is evaluated holistically. Student evaluations are one indicator of effectiveness, but are not, in and of themselves, either a sufficient means or the most important means of determining the performance evaluation rating.
Examples to document effort and effectiveness in teaching criteria are not meant to be exhaustive.
In the Service category, 4 criteria should be considered in assigning a performance rating.
S1. Effort in service to one’s primary unit(s) through membership, leadership, and accomplishments on committees, task forces, and other governance groups at the Department, School (SoHE), SoHE Centers, and (for Extension faculty) Extension level and in contributions to the unit’s strategic priorities, team efforts, mentoring junior & mid-career faculty members and/or assisting others for the greater good of the department, and professional collegiality to achieve the unit’s positive work climate.
S2. Effort in service to campus and the university through membership, leadership, and accomplishments on committees, task forces, and other governance groups outside of SoHE – such as non-SoHE departments, inter-departmental centers, university-level committees, etc.
S3. Effort in service to one’s discipline/profession, through such activities as serving on grant review panels, organizing/chairing professional conferences or conference sessions, serving on editorial boards, conducting journal reviews, serving as conference discussants or jurors for exhibitions, administering grants programs, serving as an officer in professional organizations, etc.
S4. Effort in public service on behalf of the broader community via sharing and application of professional expertise, through such efforts as serving on advisory boards, Commissions, task forces, and coalitions; media engagement including presentations and interviews; planning conferences for community members, professionals, or policymakers; testifying or providing policy briefings; consultations or other substantive engagement with public/private/nonprofit agencies. Clarification: public/community service must be connected to one’s professional/academic expertise, as distinct from service related to personal interests.
Service encompasses activities designed to further the effective functioning of the university; the development of one’s professional/disciplinary fields; and the sharing of professional expertise with the broader community. Service also encompasses one’s overall contributions to achieving the unit’s strategic goals, mentoring, and positive work environment.
Effort and effectiveness in service is expected of all faculty members, although the specifics may vary across appointments. Meeting Expectations or higher in the overall service category generally requires, at a minimum, satisfactory performance to one’s primary unit (department/SoHE/Ext.), regardless of one’s contributions in other services areas.
Service expectations are higher for tenured vs non-tenured faculty.
The distinction among performance ratings in all criteria depends on the amount/nature of commitment, the degree of leadership (vs participation), and the nature of the accomplishments achieved. Distinction in service can be achieved by substantial contribution across criteria or by over the top contributions within a criterion.
Examples to document effort and effectiveness in service criteria are not meant to be exhaustive.