For fair and equitable assessment of each faculty member’s impact and potential, evaluation decisions should be:
- Individual (as always)
- Holistic (as always)
- Forward-looking (a faculty member’s future potential)
- Discipline-specific, discipline-informed (they know best what has been possible)
- Conditioned on the workload assignments (as always) and any post-hoc adjustments (per the Policy Appendix)
According to the Faculty Evaluation Procedural Appendix, evaluators must
- Explicitly acknowledge in the evaluation document/instrument that the Faculty member’s work was conducted in an Affected Term and that (for Mixed-Workload Faculty) their workload percentages were subject to post-hoc adjustment in conformity with the process outlined herein.
- Apply evaluative criteria to the Faculty member’s performance and productivity conditioned on the adjusted workload assignments. (See §3.3 and §4.14 of Policy 4340.) It is possible, for example, that the Faculty member under evaluation has a revised Service workload assignment as low as 0%; in that case, any Service productivity should be rated as Exceeds Expectations.
- Acknowledge the COVID impact on specific activities and adjust evaluative criteria appropriately. For example, a conference paper that was accepted but never delivered, due to the cancellation of the conference, should be given special consideration such that the faculty member is held harmless for factors beyond their control.