Skip to main content

Streamlining the Annual Review Process

Request for a Review by the Unit Committee (Fully-promoted faculty members only)

In 2015-16 the Provost's Office initiated a pilot project to test some possible modifications in the 2014-15 version of "West Virginia University Procedures for Faculty Appointment, Annual Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure." The intent of the modifications was to contribute to streamlining the evaluation process.  At that time there were two principal modifications, as well as a suggestion.

Modification 1: According to the Procedures document, the annual review of each faculty member is normally conducted both by a committee of peers (most often at the department level) and by the department chairperson (or the equivalent).  The pilot required that fully promoted faculty members (i.e., Professors or the equivalent) be evaluated annually only by the department chairperson. In recognition of the possibility that some faculty wished to also have a committee review, a process to allow them to make such a request was encouraged (see attached form). Associate Professors will continue to be reviewed both by the committee and the chair, in support of the career development of these individuals.

Modification 2: According to the Procedures document, activities that are identified in the faculty member's annual productivity report must be validated by evidence in the evaluation file. Regarding the validation of service activities within the institution, the pilot allowed for such activities to be validated by the department chairperson via their signature on the annual productivity report prior to its inclusion in the evaluation file (via Digital Measures), without further documentation. 

Regarding evidence to be provided for the files, units are encouraged to work further with faculty to determine whether there can be further reduction in documentation, although documentation of quality teaching and of research/scholarly products will continue to be necessary.

Suggestion: The suggestion referenced above in the first paragraph is to reduce the sheer length of many of the annual review documents. Some chairpersons have already begun, in essence, to agree with and endorse the department committee statement (perhaps with brief commentary), particularly when a faculty member's activity is strong. Excessively duplicative narrative should be avoided where possible.

Please relay this information to faculty members in your unit. This will extend through 2024-25; Additional modifications may occur prior to the 2025-26 evaluation cycle.