Faculty Evaluation Criteria:
Information and Guidance

This document attempts to indicate the sorts of items normally used as the basis of faculty evaluation under each required rubric; teaching, professional development, and service. The Department's official policy is spelled out in the Charter, By-Law I, which is available on the department's faculty help web page. Complex and divergent views exist on the interpretation of some of these items, but certain patterns have emerged over the years in the Executive Committee. The criteria as discussed below are intended to provide guidance for Executive Committee members and should not be construed as official requirements.

The general principle that the Department desires and Executive Committee has traditionally worked to apply is that evaluation criteria should be shared, explicit, and standards-driven, rather than ad hominem and sui generis. Discussion of the criteria before evaluations is intended to help the committee be systematic so that all evaluators treat similar topics similarly, and understand them to mean the same things.

Evaluation scoring is done on a 1-7 scale, with 7 being the highest score. This corresponds to the structure of the teaching evaluations.

The department always gives first year probationary faculty an average raise to protect them from the absence of a performance record and from the startup lag in research. They will usually be scored along with everyone else, and an above average (only) score reported in the case of exceptional performance.

TEACHING (It pays the bills!)

Positively valued

• Classroom performance as measured by student evaluation of instructors. This is factored into the final scores automatically by a formula based on student evaluation scores. It is not discussed in meetings to avoid double counting; or the committee's discounting the numbers (talking numerical scores up or down)
• Number of course preparations: The department benefits from a variety of courses being offered, so teaching a greater array of courses is positive. Repeated responsibility for teaching key service courses (1040/1050, 2300, etc.) may limit one's ability to teach a broad array, so that faculty with such assignments should not be penalized for teaching fewer preps.
• Preparation of new or revised courses: Updating one's courses as required by changing events and circumstances (e.g., end of Cold War) is expected as a matter of course. Major reorganizations of a course or wholly new preparations are usually evaluated positively. Multiple simultaneous preparations must also be taken into account.
• Quality of instructional materials: Syllabi and other course materials should be turned in and should be reviewed for signs of the quality of instruction—organization, nature of assignments, expected level of work, etc.
• Supervision of graduate students. Membership on graduate committees is expected of all faculty other than the most recently hired. Chairing masters and doctoral committees—especially if the students are writing a thesis/dissertation or doing the research practicum, is a positive for evaluation, especially as faculty gain experience. Supervising multiple graduate students is an important contribution.
• Supervision of independent studies and internships. Provision of this service to students and the department is useful and should be recognized for those who oversee many such courses.
• Teaching innovations and instructional activity outside the classroom. Innovation in teaching techniques and applications, extensive teaching involvement with students via supervision of moot courts, internet/electronic discussion group exchanges, and supervision are valued instructional activities.
• Teaching awards: Outside the university teaching awards (Piper) and university-wide awards ('Fessor Graham, President's teaching) are the most valued. Mortarboard Top Prof and local (departmental and Pi Sigma Alpha awards) have merit, but much less than the university or statewide awards.
• Pedagogical development and training. Especially for faculty in the teaching track, the department encourages and values participation in instructional development and training programs designed to improve teaching performance.

Minimal expectations for teaching performance:

• Meeting classes: Faculty are paid mainly to teach and are therefore expected to meet the classes faithfully and in person. Instructional material and assignments for students should be provided in a timely and orderly manner. Problems include failure to meet classes, failure to have them appropriately covered when one must be absent, excessive absences or substitutions except in the case of illness, etc.
• Presentation of material. Catalog descriptions of courses leave instructors much flexibility, but instructors should normally endeavor to cover the material promised in the catalog and syllabi in a reasonably systematic way. For example, in 1040/1050 material on Texas politics and government should be incorporated along with material on U.S. politics and government, not ignored or skipped over.
• Office hours and availability to students: Reasonable (as to length and times—usually 3 hrs per week) office hours and electronic availability for students are expected. Failure to consistently meet office hours or be available for student consultation are inappropriate and unprofessional.
• Appropriate classroom conduct/relationships with students. Faculty should conduct themselves in the classroom with decorum appropriate for a professional person. Faculty should conduct themselves with appropriate professionalism in relationship with all students and staff.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Tombstone: Published, but perished anyway!)

Positively valued

• Publication of original research. Research track faculty are expected to produce and publish original research. The department has tended to value most the publication of articles in the top general journals of the discipline (APSR, AJPS, JOP, PRQ), which are the most visible, and in top specialty journals of the discipline's subfields. Other valuable types of publication include scholarly monographs in the form of books (university presses or other scholarly outlets), editing of anthologies, and the writing of textbooks. Invited chapters in monographs and in special editions of scholarly journals also have value, as have shorter, specialized pieces such as encyclopedia entries. There is an expectation that scholarly publications will be reviewed: anonymous peer review for articles and external peer review for books. For probationary faculty, published research should be building appropriately toward a tenurable record. Tenured faculty are expected to demonstrate a consistent record of published research and the development of a national or international reputation. [Counting and credit for items: All publications explicitly reported in the evaluation forms should be listed according to the number of years on the evaluation form, with 3 years being the maximum number of years an item may be included (e.g., 1^st year on report, 2^nd year on report etc.). By department convention, articles are generally reported in the year they are accepted (with editor's letter), whereas books and anthology items are generally reported only in the year they are actually physically published.]
• Application for/securing research support. Faculty should seek support for research, especially outside the department and university, from foundation and government resources, etc. Intramural sources (RIG and ROP, Junior Faculty Summer Research, and Research Office small grants are preferable to intramural (Workbook Fund) grants. Securing grants is, of course, better than not, but unsuccessful efforts have positive value for evaluation purposes. Teaching track faculty should be encourage to apply for instructional grants.
• Conference presentation. Writing scholarly papers and presenting them at scholarly meetings is a useful and valuable activity, especially as it bespeaks a research agenda and may lead to publications.
• Editorships/Offices in associations. Evidence of scholarly accomplishment and recognition may include editorships of journals, holding offices in professional associations, membership on editorial boards, and editorship of special issues of scholarly journals.
• Scholarly reviews. Evidence of scholarly accomplishment includes evaluating candidates for tenure and promotion at other institutions, participation in review boards and visitorships to other programs, prepublication reviews of article and book manuscripts for scholarly journals and presses, reviews of research grant proposals, and the publication of book reviews in scholarly journals.
• Consulting and other scholarly activities. Paid extramural consulting, while not per se a criterion for evaluation, may generate data, research experience, and opportunities for students and colleagues, and may thus have value. Also of worth in evaluations may be giving expert testimony to legislative bodies or courts, invited conference participation, organizing conferences, and participation in service professionally related external activity (e.g., election observation).

Minimal expectations for professional development

• Research. Faculty are expected to conduct research for the purpose of producing new knowledge, and to publish the results of their research in appropriate scholarly venues.
• Research agenda. For faculty in the research track, evaluators should look for evidence of an agenda for a sustained multiyear research effort and for a coherent program of research and professional development.
• Professional conduct. Faculty are expected to conduct themselves according to the highest standards of scholastic and personal integrity in their research and in their reporting to the department and university about their activities and accomplishments.

SERVICE (There's no free lunch.)

The Department, College, and University have innumerable places where much service work has to be done, very little of it rewarding or entertaining, and only some of it truly useful. Although some service is required and expected of probationary faculty, Political Science makes an explicit effort to shield them from excessive service so that their research and teaching will prosper in order to improve their tenure chances. This strategy unfortunately devalues service in the minds of some while shifting more of the service burden to tenured faculty

Both the quality and quantity of service should be considered for the purposes of evaluation. Among the qualitative criteria for service are whether the Department;s mission and reputation are well served by the work done. Another is whether it is truly expeditious; that is, carried out in such a way that it does not require others to clean up afterward.

Positively valued:

• Departmental service. Administrative assignments usually bring a load reduction and sometimes other compensation, but also usually involve extensive work beyond such rewards; this should be considered. Service on committees ranges in time and labor intensity in usually obvious ways, with the Executive Committee and Graduate and Undergraduate Studies usually ranking at the top of the work load. Advising department student groups and guest lecturing to departmental student groups or colleagues classes constitutes departmental service.
• College and University service. Certain university and college committees are very important and time consuming and do very valuable work, e.g A&S Personnel Affairs, A&S and University Curriculum committees, Faculty Senate, and so on. Service on ad hoc appeals and policy advisory committees can be very time consuming and represent and protect faculty and department interests.
• Public (national, state, and community) service . Speaking to off campus groups, service on public service committees and boards, giving expert testimony, media commentary, and certain types of consulting may fall under the service rubric.

Minimum expectations:

• Attendance at meetings of the department and its committees, doing one's homework, and being reasonably available for necessary collaboration with colleagues are minimum standards of performance. Free riding is discouraged.
• Tenured faculty are expected to be service active in various venues. Probationary faculty traditionally do most of their service within the department, while tenured faculty should begin to look outside the department for service opportunities.

COLLEGIALITY (Not congeniality)

There are two sources of interpretation of collegiality—both are implicit in what is written above under other rubrics. These should be considered in evaluations:

• The department charter mentions collegiality in these terms: Willingness to bear one's share of departmental obligations is an essential part of properly collegial behavior. This does not refer to being pleasant, polite or respectful to one's colleagues, though such behaviors are helpful in maintaining a good interpersonal atmosphere in the department. Rather, collegiality refers, in part, to carrying an appropriate share of the collective workload and administrative-maintenance freight of running the department and its programs, whether these be pleasant and intellectually stimulating or not. This refers to all the department's endeavors, especially teaching and instruction, departmental service, and such things attendance at required department and university functions such as commencement.
• The University in tenure and promotion standards conceives of collegiality as practic[ing] professional integrity, adher[ing] to high standards of professional ethics, [and] understand[ing] the nature of membership in a community of scholars and [having] the ability to work as a member of a group while retaining all rights of individual expression, [and feeling] a sense of responsibility for the well-being of the University.