Approved by the School of Pharmacy Executive Committee on October 13, 2020
The Faculty Activities Review Committee is charged by the Executive Committee annually to be responsible for the annual and post-promotion periodic (5-year) review of all faculty (exclusive of probationary faculty who are reviewed by the Executive Committee directly) for performance and productivity as required by the University of Wisconsin System. This information is also useful for professional development and provides information that can be used in assessing faculty performance as one factor in the determination of salary increases when the budget allows. Faculty Activity Review also provides information vital to developing strategic planning for the school as well as providing data necessary for the strategic allocation of limited school resources.
The Faculty Activities Review Committee is chaired by the dean and consists of the four division chairs plus one representative from the Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pharmacy Practice, and Social and Administrative Sciences divisions. Every year the chairs of the Social and Administrative Sciences, Pharmacy Practice and Pharmaceutical Sciences divisions nominate an individual to serve on the committee; the Executive Committee then votes to endorse these individuals in addition to the division chairs. It is desirable that the members rotate so that every member of the Executive Committee participates in this process at some point.
Every year the School of Pharmacy carries out a process of annual reflection and evaluation of faculty. Each year the committee requests calendar year annual reports from every faculty to be entered into Digital Measures by January 31. Faculty scheduled for 5-year reviews are requested to report on their progress in the last 5 calendar years. The committee studies these reports and provides individual feedback to the faculty members.
- The criteria
Faculty are evaluated in terms of productivity, effort, and innovation in the areas of teaching, research, service, outreach and practice. The criteria are deliberately flexible to allow for the unique contribution s that different faculty make. It is anticipated that while this description may slowly evolve, it will be relatively constant from year to year.
- The report
Each faculty member’s report should include an introductory narrative of no more than two pages addressing how the faculty member has promoted the mission of the school. This narrative should place the activities of the faculty member in the context of the needs of the school (How did the activities fill a need at the UW School of Pharmacy?) The report also includes a professional goals section (In retrospect, what worked well? What efforts were made? What didn’t work out as planned? What are the goals for the coming year and future directions?) Once reports are submitted January 31, each faculty member will meet with his or her chair to review their report for completeness and accuracy and to discuss past progress, future goals and professional development.
- The review process
Each report is assigned to a primary and a secondary reviewer. The primary reviewer is from the faculty member’s division and the secondary reviewer from another division. Reviewer assignments are determined by the committee chair. Faculty are reviewed in blocks according to their division. The committee hears from these reviewers in order, and then the report is open for discussion. A summary of comments is created to reflect discussion and noteworthy aspects of activities in the report from the year (both positive and negative). Rating is as follows: Meets Expectations or Does Not Meet Expectations by consensus of all members (chair is non-voting). During the discussion any obvious obstacles to faculty progress should be noted. Committee members leave the room during the discussion of their own cases. The chair reviews the final reports as they are written to provide continuity.
- The outcome
The chair drafts letters containing the faculty member’s rating, reviewers’ comments and any relevant discussion, and distributes them each faculty member by the end of the spring semester. Each faculty member is given the opportunity to meet with their division chair prior to the end of the spring semester to discuss their review and the review process. The dean composes a letter for each faculty member informing them of their merit increases if any.
Any faculty member can request a meeting with the dean to discuss the review, and the Faculty Activities Review Committee may be reconvened at the dean’s discretion.