Unit Procedure
Title
College of Arts and Sciences: Psychology and Neuroscience Procedures for Faculty Evaluation and Assignment of Salary Raises
Introduction
Purpose
These procedures outline the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience’s procedures for evaluating faculty performance every three years and determining merit-based salary raises. It defines the criteria, required materials, evaluation process, rating system, and how scores translate into advisory recommendations for raises.
Scope
These procedures apply to the faculty in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel HIll ("UNC-Chapel Hill").
Procedures for Faculty Evaluation and Assignment of Salary Raises
Overview
Faculty members of the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience are evaluated every three years. Evaluations are inclusive of up to three areas of scholarship, as defined in Section A and as applicable to the professional track of the faculty member:
- Research
- Teaching
- Service
The expected balance of activities across areas varies by track (appointment) as follows:
- Tenured and tenure track (TTR) faculty are expected to engage in all three areas. Teaching is understood to include mentoring of student research activities (research mentoring) and general course development activities.
- Teaching track faculty are expected to engage in teaching and service but not research. Teaching is defined to exclude research mentoring.
- Research track faculty are expected to engage solely in research or research-related activities (e.g., grant review panels). Indeed, their funding may specifically preclude teaching or service activities (e.g., if they have 100% FTE on grants).
- Clinical track faculty are expected to engage in teaching and service but not research. Teaching may include formal classroom teaching/seminars and clinical supervision but excludes research mentoring. Service includes formal administrative roles that define the position, as well as any other service activities.
When faculty engage in activities that are not expected for their career track, these activities may be regarded as service (e.g., a teaching track faculty member might conduct research on pedagogy or mentor instructional assistants, or a clinical track faculty member might engage in research mentoring).
Every third year, faculty members submit materials describing their activities within the relevant areas for their career track for evaluation as described in Section B. A Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) appointed by the Chair then assumes responsibility for rating faculty members, as described in Sections C and D. These ratings are weighted in accordance with the expectations for faculty of each track, as indicated in Section E, and are advisory to the Chair. Feedback provided to faculty members is described in Section F.
Based on the evaluations, the Chair will:
- advise faculty members about their performance,
- determine if TTR faculty qualify as research active (see Section D)
- determine merit pay raises given available funds
The rest of this document describes what is meant by each of these criterion areas, the sources of information used in the evaluation, the procedures by which the evaluation is carried out, and the procedures by which the evaluation ratings are translated into merit salary increases.
The Faculty Evaluation Process
A. The Criterion Areas
1. Research
Research generally refers to the generation, publication, and application of knowledge. The primary focus of this area is refereed, original research (e.g., papers, grants, presentations); however, it may also include other scientific and creative activities aimed at the dissemination or application of research findings or practices (e.g., books, chapters, online resources, software tools, blogs, podcasts, entrepreneurship, etc.). Work in progress or under review is considered, but work that is completed and final is emphasized. The DEC evaluates both the amount and quality of the work, focusing on scientific merit and overall impact. As indicators of merit and impact, the DEC may consider the form of the work (e.g., articles in refereed and prestigious journals versus unrefereed publications), markers of impact and dissemination (e.g., citations, downloads, views), and special recognitions received (e.g., honors or grants awarded for research contributions).
2. Teaching
Teaching refers primarily to classroom instruction. It may also include any course or curriculum development that directly impacts performance in one's own course(s), such as proposing and teaching a new class. For TTR faculty, teaching will typically also include graduate-level coursework, formal and informal research mentoring activities, and clinical supervision (if applicable). For clinical track faculty, teaching of classes or seminars will often be at the graduate level only and teaching is construed to also include supervision of clinical work. For teaching track faculty, the primary emphasis is on undergraduate classroom teaching and there is no expectation of research mentoring. Such activities, however, may be included as service. In rating this area, members of the DEC are concerned principally with evaluating markers of quality, including teaching evaluations, honors awarded for teaching effectiveness, and evidence of successful course development.
3. Service
Service includes both formal and informal service to the department, university, scientific or professional organizations, and community or general public (as applicable). Formal service is inclusive of activities associated with a specific appointment or role (e.g., directing a graduate program, serving on a departmental committee, administrating a clinic, acting as an advisor or board member to a community organization, serving on an editorial board, being a member of a grant review panel, etc.). Informal service is inclusive of all other activities (e.g., ad hoc reviewer of manuscripts, helping to organize a departmental event, etc.), including self-initiated service contributions conducted outside of any formal appointment. When faculty engage in scholarly activities beyond the expectations for their professional track, these may also be regarded as service. For instance, to the extent that teaching track faculty choose to engage in mentoring, general curriculum development, or faculty development activities, these would be viewed as service contributions. The DEC attends to the amount of service activities as well as the effectiveness and impact of these activities.
B. The Information Base
Every three years, each faculty member is asked to provide to the departmental chair a current progress report. The progress report may include the following information:
- Curriculum Vitae (CV)
- Research, Teaching and Service Statements
- Supporting Materials
Faculty are expected to follow several guidelines in the preparation of these materials.
1. Curriculum Vitae
A faculty member's CV is expected to be a cumulative record of all activities conducted within the areas of research, teaching, and service. In evaluating the CV, however, the DEC will attend primarily to activities completed within the three-year evaluation period, thus the dates when activities occurred should be clearly indicated on the CV.
Faculty are encouraged to construct their CVs with the standard elements and ordering established for TTR faculty for university-level reviews (e.g., promotion and tenure review). In listing publications, it is recommended that faculty clarify when co-authors were under their supervision at the time the work was conducted (e.g., graduate student co-authors). Additionally, it may be important to clarify when the faculty member served as the primary or senior author on the work. When referencing digital works, URLs should be provided when possible. When listing classes taught, for context, it is recommended that faculty bullet-list course(s) taught, size of each course, how many IAs or TAs were supervised (if any), and whether the class was newly developed by the faculty member (at least for classes taught during the 3-year evaluation period).
2. Research, Teaching and Service Statements
Each statement represents an opportunity to provide a narrative of the faculty member's activities and to present evidence of quality and effectiveness. Statements may reflect a career-long vision or program of work, but should emphasize activities conducted in the last three years. Each statement is typically three to five pages in length, and should be no more than five pages.
Statements should avoid simple enumeration of activities. Instead, faculty are encouraged to use their statements to provide context for their scholarly activities and to advocate for the importance and impact of these activities. Providing a narrative is useful for DEC members, who may not engage in similar activities to those they are evaluating, and may not otherwise appreciate the difficulty or meaning of the work. For instance, some research projects may be particularly time-intensive (e.g., longitudinal research, community-engaged research, or clinical trials). Clarifying when a line of research is particularly time-intensive provides the context needed for DEC members to appreciate why publications might be less frequent and take longer to generate. Additionally, faculty are encouraged to advocate for the importance and impact of their scholarly activities. For research, this may include but is not limited to the generation of new knowledge, methods or procedures, therapeutic or applied techniques, and/or contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) in science. For teaching, faculty are encouraged to emphasize how their teaching is demonstrative of current and/or a variety of pedagogical techniques; addresses current concerns which are particularly pertinent to students and/or society, including DEI perspectives; and/or addresses departmental or university pedagogical challenges (e.g., high seat demand, need for high-impact courses, etc.). Service activities should emphasize not only roles served, but how faculty see them as contributing to the greater good or operation of the department, university, scholarly community, or community at large.
Faculty are not expected to engage in all of the activities described above, nor are these examples exhaustive. The activities engaged in by faculty will naturally differ depending upon individual roles in the department, professional tracks, and scholarly expertise.
Note that the statements included in the progress report vary by track: TTR faculty submit all three statements, teaching track faculty submit teaching and service statements, research track faculty submit a research statement, and clinical track faculty submit teaching and service statements.
3. Supporting Materials
For most faculty, supporting materials will consist of teaching evaluation reports generated by the University for classes taught during the past three years. Faculty are permitted, however, to include additional supporting materials if these provide unique evidence of quality or effectiveness beyond that summarized in the CV or statements (e.g., letters of commendation for teaching effectiveness).
C. The Evaluation Process
1.
The Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) is appointed by the Chair and consists of six or more faculty, one from each of the six programs of the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and an additional member may be selected from the teaching track faculty at the Chair's option. The pool consists of all full professors.
2.
The Chair will assign three members of the DEC to evaluate each faculty member subject to the constraint that no DEC member is assigned him or herself to rate. Each DEC member will be provided the progress reports of the faculty members to which they have been assigned. Each committee member will read these reports in detail and then independently rate their assigned faculty member on the relevant criterion areas (scales). The ratings will be assigned relative to the standards of scholarship prevailing in our department.
3.
Some of the kinds of questions which may be considered by the raters are described below. Note that these questions are provided to guide raters but are not considered exhaustive, nor must the answer to all questions be "yes" for a faculty member to receive a high score. Different profiles of activities may be equally meritorious.
Research
NOTE: Ratings should be based on quality and quantity of research, as appropriate to rank and track.
a. Publications
- How many research articles has the faculty member published?
- Are the faculty member's published articles in top-tier journals for their field of study?
- Has the faculty member published any books? Any edited volumes?
- If applicable, has the faculty member worked to increase the inclusiveness of their research?
- If applicable, has the faculty member conducted community-engaged research or worked to increase the accessibility and generalizability of their research to the public?
b. Grants and Honors
- Has the faculty member made a significant effort to obtain external funding?
- How many grant applications has the faculty member submitted? Been funded?
- Has the faculty member engaged in any large-scale efforts to obtain funding, involving multiple departments, schools, universities, or sites?
- Has the faculty member received any significant honors for their research?
- Has the faculty member received grants/supplements to support diversity in research training?
c. Presentations
- How often has the faculty member presented at conferences or participated in research symposia?
- Has the faculty member delivered major addresses (e.g., keynote, plenary)?
- Has the faculty member presented their research at the primary conferences for their field of study?
d. Other Products of Engaged Scholarship
- Has the faculty member developed a new scale or produced a new software tool?
- Has the faculty member engaged in dissemination activities such as writing a blog or producing digital resources?
- Has the faculty member engaged in entrepreneurial activities related to their research?
- Has the faculty member engaged in other non-traditional or novel forms of scholarship?
Teaching
NOTE: Teaching should be evaluated with regard to quality, not quantity. For example, if a faculty member has a reduced teaching load to reflect additional research or service activities, this should not result in a lower rating. Rather, they should be evaluated on the quality of teaching for the courses to which they are assigned.
a. Teaching
- Has the faculty member shown high quality teaching through student ratings, peer observations (if available), or through other indicators of quality?
- For TTR faculty: has the faculty member made any contributions to courses, through curriculum development, or proposed any innovative approaches? Has the contribution been local or at the university level?
- For teaching-track faculty: Has the faculty member engaged in curriculum development which directly impacted performance in their course(s)?
- Does the faculty member foster an atmosphere of inclusiveness and respect, and promote the diversity of perspectives and backgrounds present within the field of study?
- Has the faculty member received any teaching awards or other accolades or recognitions for their teaching?
b. Mentoring (for TTR faculty only)
- How many students/trainees did the faculty member supervise? Students and trainees may include undergraduate students, undergraduate honors students, MA students, PhD students, postdoctoral and other graduate students.
- Does the faculty member hold regular laboratory meetings or reading groups beyond his or her formal teaching load?
- How many student committees was the faculty member on? Committees may include undergraduate honors, MA, PhD.
- Have students been involved in the faculty member's published or presented work?
- Has the faculty member made efforts to engage and involve students in research who are from traditionally under-represented backgrounds?
- Has the faculty member provided informal advising/consulting for students relating to professional development, research, or other topics that extend beyond the content of the specific classes they are teaching, beyond the content of their particular research, and beyond their primary lab members/trainees?
- Has the faculty member participated on early-career faculty mentoring committees or grants or provided career-development programming for early-career faculty?
- Has the faculty member received any mentoring awards?
c. Clinical Supervision (Clinical TTR and Clinical track faculty only)
- Does the faculty member supervise a formal clinical program practicum (for credit) which typically includes both didactic and supervised clinical experience with clinical program (and/or School of Social Work) students in either the department's clinics or a community setting?
- Does the faculty member informally (not for credit) supervise clinical students in the department's clinics or a community setting?
- Does the faculty member supervise one or more postdoctoral trainees working on hours toward licensure in the department's community clinics or a community setting?
- Does the faculty member supervise one or more junior clinical faculty members working on hours toward licensure in the department's clinics or a community setting?
Service
NOTE: Ratings based on quality and quantity, as appropriate to rank and track, for formal and informal service.
a. Department
- Has the faculty member significantly contributed to the department as:
- Department chair
- Program director
- Director of a center, training program, graduate studies, undergraduate studies and/or undergraduate extracurricular program, research services, diversity initiatives
- a member on a departmental committee
- For teaching track faculty: Has the faculty member served as an undergraduate student mentor (research or otherwise, informal or formal) or engaged in general curriculum development, faculty development or research activities (e.g. scholarship of teaching)?
b. University
- Has the faculty member significantly contributed at the university-level through:
- A major administrative role (dean, associate dean, other)
- Faculty Governance (elected or appointed)
- Membership on a university advisory board
- Membership on other major university committees (e.g., search committees, review committees, committees to forward the academic mission of the university)
c. Field
- Has the faculty member significantly contributed to their scholarly field leadership through:
- Membership on National Advisory Panels
- Journals
- As primary editor
- As associate editor
- As member of the editorial board
- Grant Review
- As regular members of study sections/grant review panel (e.g., National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation)
- As ad hoc grant reviewer/department reviewer (e.g., internationally, NIH, NSF, foundations, other U.S. Departments)
- Professional Organizations
- Board of Directors
- Conference Organizer
- American Psychological Association Divisional Executive Committees
- Other Associations Boards
- Community Engagement and Public Service
d. Other
- Has the faculty member received any significant honors for their service or leadership?
- Has the faculty member made positive contributions to the program's, department's, and university's climates?
- Has the faculty member engaged in service activities to enhance DEI within the department, university, or field?
D. Rating Scales
For each of the three criterion areas, each member of the DEC will use a five-category rating scale as follows:
| Rating |
Category |
| 1 |
Not Satisfactory |
| 2 |
Not Quite Satisfactory |
| 3 |
Satisfactory |
| 4 |
Highly Satisfactory |
| 5 |
Meritorious |
DEC members assign the scores 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 to these five categories for each area of relevance for the faculty member being rated according to the rubric below and with reference to the suggested questions given in Section C. Decimal values are not permitted. For TTR faculty, a yes/no rating will also be provided on whether the faculty member should be considered research-active (see below).
The categories, or levels of merit, are defined on each criterion area (research, teaching, and service) separately. Ratings are to be assigned relative to different expectations for faculty at different ranks (assistant, associate, full). In general, mid- and late-career faculty are expected to be more involved in service than early-career faculty, and more successful, on average, than early-career faculty in getting grants supporting programmatic and collaborative research.
Rubric for Assigning Level of Merit by Criterion Area
Research
Meritorious (5). Research of outstanding value produced during the period under review. Meritorious set of articles or major work making significant contribution. Unusually high national or international recognition.
Highly Satisfactory (4). Research activity considerably better than average for the rank. The work shows unusual merit.
Satisfactory (3). Research activity is what is expected for the rank. There is evidence of good research as well as efforts to publish results.
Not Quite Satisfactory (2). Research progress is somewhat less than expected for the rank.
Not Satisfactory (1). Research progress is definitely less than expected for the rank, and has continued to be so for more than a year. There are real grounds for concern.
Teaching
Meritorious (5). Evidence of outstandingly effective teaching coupled with (for TTR faculty) extended effort towards innovation and improvements of courses and/or curricula in general or (for teaching track faculty) extended efforts towards innovation and improvements which have directly impacted performance in one's course(s). May have received a teaching award. For TTR faculty: Director of several theses and dissertations, and member of many of such committees.
Highly Satisfactory (4). Some evidence of unusually good teaching. Fulfills teaching obligations effectively, and shows interest and effort in improvement of courses and curricula in general (TTR faculty only) or with regards to one's courses (teaching track faculty). For TTR faculty: Involved in much graduate student research.
Satisfactory (3). Fulfills teaching obligations and does a conscientious job. For TTR faculty: Involvement in graduate training, research, or supervision is at the level expected for the rank.
Not Quite Satisfactory (2). Teaching effectiveness is somewhat below expectation. For TTR faculty: Involvement in graduate training, research, or supervision is below the level expected for the rank.
Not Satisfactory (1). This faculty member is not performing adequately as a teacher. Class material is not covered adequately and preparation is inadequate. For TTR faculty: Has not attracted graduate students. Real basis for concern.
Service
Meritorious (5). Major departmental, university, and professional service. Makes important policy decisions and is very effective in administrative responsibility. Participates in university and professional affairs beyond the level expected of one at that faculty rank.
Highly Satisfactory (4). Participates in and makes a positive contribution to a significant number of departmental, university, or professional activities relative to rank.
Satisfactory (3). Serves on the usual number of committees and makes expected contributions to them.
Not Quite Satisfactory (2). Participation in departmental, university, and professional activities is below average for the rank.
Not Satisfactory (1). Has not served satisfactorily even on department committees. Avoids such responsibilities or does not follow through on assignments.
Research-Active Status (TTR Faculty Only)
According to the teaching load policy of the department, faculty members are designated as research-active if they meet the following criteria:
- All faculty members are expected to be involved in advising and mentoring of students (undergraduate and/or graduate students) in research-related activities.
- A faculty member is designated research-active if they additionally meet either of the following two criteria:
- Authorship or co-authorship of at least one article appearing in print in a peer-reviewed journal during the three-year period being evaluated.
- Serving as Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator on an active grant during any of the three years being evaluated.
- All Assistant Professors are automatically designated as research-active. All individuals hired as Associate or Full Professors are designated as research-active until their first review by the Merit Review Committee.
E. The Report, Calculation of Individual Merit Scores and Raises
A confidential report will be prepared for the Chair consisting of:
- For each applicable category (research, teaching, service), a table listing the individual ratings assigned to each faculty member by each of the assigned DEC members. The Chair will also have access to the same reports provided to the DEC.
- The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the ratings provided by each member of the DEC will be calculated and compared for consistency across raters. Given evidence of inconsistent use of the rating scale across DEC members (e.g., notably different means and/or SDs), the Chair may choose either to perform within-rater standardization or to exclude the ratings of an outlying DEC member.
- Ratings (raw or standardized, as determined above) will be averaged across raters for each faculty member to obtain final scores in each area.
- The DEC's yes/no ratings of research active status for each TTR faculty member.
Faculty members previously voted to rank the relative importance of the criteria in determining merit. For TTR faculty, research is weighted with a .5 weight; teaching is given .3; and service .2 weight. For teaching track faculty, research is not rated, teaching is weighted .7 and service is weighted .3. For research track faculty, teaching and service are not rated and research is weighted 1.0. For clinical track faculty research is not rated, teaching is .4 and service is .6
We recognize that factors other than merit are involved in the assignment of faculty raises. Included among these factors are non-merit considerations such as state-mandated cost-of-living increases. In addition, the department chair may need to use part of the department's salary increase funds to make structural adjustments resulting from such factors as low salary at the time of hiring, to alleviate salary compression resulting from years when there were no raises, to recognize promotions or unusual achievements or contributions that are not reflected in the computation of individual merit described above.
F. Feedback to Individual Faculty
Each faculty member will receive a letter indicating his or her mean score in each of the three areas (averaged across raters), along with the averages and ranges of these scores across all faculty in the department. Salary changes are based only in part on merit review ratings and any such changes will be conveyed through separate communications.
TTR faculty who do not qualify as research-active will be asked by the Chair to generate a plan for resuming research active status and/or to engage in additional teaching responsibilities.
The Chair may also, at their discretion, arrange meetings with specific faculty members to discuss their merit evaluation.
Contact Information
Primary Contact
Office: Dean's Office
Telephone: 919-962-1165
Email: artsandsciences@unc.edu