Tenured Survey Results 1996

Survey Concerning the Review of Tenured Faculty Members
Raw Frequencies
Total Respondents: 359                          
                             
  Evaluation Measure of Tenured Faculty Members
  Promotion Merit Increase Professional Development Contribution to plans Productivity check Performance followup Other
  Count % of total Count % of total Count % of total Count % of total Count % of total Count % of total Count % of total
Purpose of faculty evaluation?
  348 97% 355 99% 287 80% 287 80% 283 79% 262 73% 17 5%
                             
Frequency of evaluations occuring at regular intervals?
One year 102 28% 339 94% 246 69% 253 70% 226 63% 103 29% 11 3%
Two years 3 1%   0% 5 1% 4 1% 4 1% 1 0%   0%
Three years 22 6% 1 0% 8 2% 5 1% 7 2%   0% 1 0%
Four years   0%   0% 1 0%   0%   0%   0% 1 0%
Five or more years 14 4% 1 0% 1 0% 1 0% 6 2% 1 0% 1 0%
Variable schedule 186 52% 7 2% 20 6% 13 4% 26 7% 122 34% 4 1%
Does not apply 12 3% 1 0% 6 2% 5 1% 5 1% 15 4% 1 0%
                             
Is each type of evaluation mandatory or voluntary?
Mandatory 269 75% 332 92% 235 65% 245 68% 243 68% 190 53% 12 3%
Voluntary 72 20% 12 3% 36 10% 27 8% 24 7% 31 9% 4 1%
Both 6 2% 2 1% 2 1% 1 0% 1 0% 4 1% 1 0%
                             
Who takes initiative to trigger each type of evaluation?
Faculty Member 182 51% 32 9% 46 13% 29 8% 32 9% 23 6% 5 1%
Department head 183 51% 277 77% 218 61% 217 60% 215 60% 198 55% 6 2%
Other 49 14% 64 18% 47 13% 51 14% 54 15% 41 11% 5 1%
All of the above 6 2% 1 0%   0%   0%   0%   0% 1 0%
                             
Who conducts each type of evaluation?
Department head 256 71% 316 88% 247 69% 243 68% 241 67% 216 60% 6 2%
Peer group 178 50% 91 25% 78 22% 73 20% 74 21% 48 13% 8 2%
Other 83 23% 57 16% 44 12% 50 14% 49 14% 40 11% 5 1%
All of the above 45 13% 7 2% 6 2% 6 2% 8 2% 8 2%   0%
                             
How are the results communicated to the faculty member?
Conference w/dept. head 262 73% 268 75% 246 69% 240 67% 228 64% 207 58% 5 1%
Written report 241 67% 220 61% 146 41% 147 41% 141 39% 112 31% 8 2%
Conf w/peer review group 41 11% 4 1% 18 5% 8 2% 12 3% 13 4% 3 1%
Other 40 11% 43 12% 20 6% 18 5% 21 6% 21 6% 1 0%
All of the above 8 2% 1 0%   0% 1 0% 1 0% 1 0%   0%
                             
Consequences of negative post-tenure review   Consequences of positive post-tenure review
Ineligible for merit increases 218 61%   May nominate for awards 208 58%
Draw up development plan 150 42%   May receive additional support 175 49%
May have another review 98 27%   May use for merit increase 228 64%
May begin formal disciplinary process 90 25%   Other 22 6%
Other 22 6%   All of the above 14 4%
All of the above 3 1%                
UNC-GA Planning/Per.AT022/11-21-96
Note: Percentages are based on respondents for each cell divided by the total number of survey respondents.

 


 

Last Modified 2/14/97