Analytic Quality Glossary

Analytic Quality Glossary

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Home

Citation reference: Harvey, L., 2004-24, Analytic Quality Glossary, Quality Research International, http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/

This is a dynamic glossary and the author would welcome any e-mail suggestions for additions or amendments. Page updated 8 January, 2024 , © Lee Harvey 2004–2024.

Recipes

_________________________________________________________________

Faculty review

core definition

Faculty review has two different meanings, the first based on faculty as an organisational unit, the second based on faculty as a term for academic staff:

1. Faculty review is a process of reviewing the inputs, process or outputs of a faculty as an organisational unit; its structure, mode of operation, mission, aims and objectives.

2. Faculty review, (meaning review of academic staff) evaluates the performance of researchers and teachers. (See also assesment of teaching and learning)

explanatory context

Faculty review (1) may also directly review the efficiency and effectiveness of the faculty and its internal and external profile. Faculty review, in this sense, is a specific version of internal institutional subaudit.

Faculty review (2), review of academic performance, may be of individual academics, undertaken internally as part of an ongoing process of review and development (usually on an annual or biannual cycle). It may also be part of an external evaluation process, for example assessment of teaching quality or research output assessment (see assessment, research assessment). In this sense, faculty review is similar to assessment of teaching and learning or research assessment exercise.

analytical review

Faculty review (1) of the administrative unit:

The University of Salford (2004, pp. 28–29), for example, undertakes faculty review (1) on a five-year cycle. Its purpose is:

· To review overall Faculty performance and, in particular its management of teaching, research and academic enterprise in the context of the Faculty’s strategy and the University’s aims and objectives.

· To provide evidence of this performance for the University and its stakeholders.

The University goes on to outline its review process:

Nature of Faculty Review

· The review of a Faculty is held in the fifth year of a five-year cycle, its Schools and Research Institutes having been reviewed in the first four, according to an agreed schedule

· A Faculty Review, which draws on the output of the review of its Schools and Research Institutes, is undertaken by a panel whose members are all external to the Faculty and one of whom is external to the University.

· The key input to the Faculty Review process is the formal Faculty self-evaluation document. This self-evaluation should be based on a retrospective assessment of the Faculty’s effectiveness, on how this currently impacts on the evolution of the Faculty, and how this will shape the Faculty’s strategy for the future

· The Panel members will be sent some of the Faculty’s key documents, including the self-evaluation

· The Panel will visit the Faculty for one day when it will meet the Faculty Executive, additional members of the Faculty Board and Faculty support staff; observe the Faculty’s accommodation and facilities; and have an opportunity for further consultation of the Faculty’s key documents.

· The Panel will produce a report, which will be considered by the Senate, along with the Faculty’s response. The Senate will agree an action plan, intended to reinforce strengths and deal with areas that need attention.

The University of Essex (2011) describes its Faculty Administrative Review (2011) as follows:

This review provides an opportunity to build on the strengths of the University’s faculty structure which was established in August 2008. It aims to optimise the faculty structure by identifying ways we can work more efficiently; encouraging us to think afresh about the way we work in the ever-changing HE landscape. That means encouraging fresh, creative and critical thinking about way we work, what we do and why we do it. A key measure of the review’s success will be in identifying what we can stop doing. The review aims to make clear what we must do, as opposed to what appears to be helpful or what we do because we have always done it.

Objectives:

To ensure that administrative activities are carried out at the most appropriate location – department, faculty or centrally – and, where appropriate, that they operate effectively cross-campus.
To improve efficiency, remove duplication and reduce bureaucracy.
To clarify the role of departments in the new faculty structure.
To support staff in ensuring that they are able to do the important things well.
To enable people, and the University as a whole, to cope more effectively with the current workload and reduce the administrative burden on staff
To use staff time more effectively.
The review is overseen by a review group, established by Senate in April 2010, which is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor.

The main vehicle for undertaking the review will be the faculties, but the review group will provide a co-ordinating role and the professional services will be involved and consulted.

Faculty review (2) of the academic staff:

Herberger College of Fine Arts (1998) in Australia, explains its review process:

The ‘University Post-Tenure Review Process’ and ‘Post-Tenure Review Implementation Guidelines’ offer the framework to guide units in the development of fair, timely, and thorough evaluations of tenured faculty. In the College of Fine Arts, the post-tenure review process begins with the annual evaluation. Then, each year, 20% of the tenured faculty, determined randomly by individual unit, will also engage in the dean’s level review. The Academic Program Review which takes place every seven years, or in accordance with accreditation procedure, includes evaluation of the extent to which each faculty member is contributing to the success of programs within the unit.

Indiana College Network (ICN) defines it thus:

Faculty Review is concerned with the performance of individual staff. (Faculty itself is defined as ‘instructors of higher education course work; a group term: one college teacher is “a member of the faculty”’ (ICN, 2007)

The University of Iowa College of Liberal Arts (undated) refers to its Departmental, Collegiate, and University Review Procedures as follows:

Departments may formulate departmental procedures for appointment of faculty, annual review of probationary faculty, and review of tenured faculty. …, all faculty are also evaluated annually for merit salary increases. …Each faculty member must submit materials for use in his or her periodic reviews. For this purpose, the faculty member must maintain an updated curriculum vitae, keep student evaluations of teaching on file, and preserve copies of scholarly publications, records of creative work, and copies of teaching materials. …The College requires that evaluations of teaching be solicited from students in every course. Departments generally use standardized evaluation forms that are appropriate to the types of instruction in their courses. The faculty member is ordinarily responsible for keeping his or her student evaluations on file for use in faculty reviews. These evaluations are necessary evidence of teaching effectiveness in all reviews of tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty…. Each peer evaluation of teaching must include classroom observation. At a minimum, one class session must be observed and reported on as part of the review of teaching in each annual review of probationary (not-yet-tenured) faculty, each review for promotion and/or tenure, and each peer review of tenured faculty. The peer evaluation of teaching must also include a review of syllabi and other materials from a variety of levels of instruction, evidence of successful supervision of graduate students, and other evidence of teaching quality.

associated issues

To give some idea of the scope of faculty reviews (1), the specific focus of the University of Salford (2004, pp. 28–29) review of the faculty is listed as follows:

Faculty Review will principally consider:

a) the Faculty’s strategy and plans;

b) the Faculty’s scheme of management and its appropriateness for achieving the Faculty’s strategy;

c) the implementation of the University’s policies and strategies for Teaching and Learning, Research and Academic Enterprise;

d) the discharge by the Faculty of its quality assurance and enhancement remit, as delegated by Senate, and, in particular, the proper conduct of its responsibilities for:

· approving new taught programmes and amendments of existing programmes;

· monitoring the academic standards of the Faculty’s programmes;

· monitoring the operation of the Annual Programme Reviews by Schools;

· conducting the Periodic Programme Review of the Faculty’s programmes;

· responding in a satisfactory manner to reports of the Review of its Schools and Research Institute(s);

e) the effective management and deployment by the Faculty of its resources including staff, accommodation, facilities and equipment;

f) the Faculty’s overview of the promotion of Research within its Research Institute(s);

g) the Faculty’s overview of the promotion of academic enterprise within its Schools and Research Institute(s);

h) the Faculty’s role in effecting the transfer of good practice between its Schools and between the Faculty and other parts of the University;

i) the Faculty’s collaboration with other parts of the University, as appropriate;

j) the Faculty’s success as a vehicle by which a range of associated disciplines is fostered and its role in enhancing its image and standing and those of its Schools within the internal and external communities and its links with those communities

k) the quality and extent of the information available in the Faculty;

l) the Faculty’s compliance with University requirements.

related areas